Yay. We all know from experience Elections are won and lost on what happens on Twitter.
You're very attack dog this morning, have you been bitten by @BluestBlue? Because he had the gig when boris looked like an immortal God-Emperor and it was all plain sailing.
1997. don't know whether you were alive/dead/undead in those days. Now, Starmer is no Blair but then Johnson is no Major either, and I stand astonished at the relative innocence of what we thought of as tory sleaze then vs what we have now.
Yep - was alive in 1997 and it was actually my fist GE in which I could vote so I remember it well.
The dynamics are so very different, not only due to the characters involved. For one, the economy was on the up (in large part to Conservative economic policies which Labour vowed to maintain - spending at least). This allowed Blair to combine his astonishing political skill (and yes - charisma) with the knowledge that Labour were inheriting an economy which would allow them, in time, to promise the world. Which they did. All in the context of a huge global economic boom.
Yes there was Tory sleaze in '97, and yes the Tories had been in power for 18 years, but every Government has sleaze. Always. Including Labour from 1997 to 2010. Tory sleaze gets much more attention as, well, they're evil Tories innit. Labour do sleaze more on the quiet.
In 2010, which although global and largely out of the control of ANY government (like the situation today) - the causes of the GFC had been overseen by Labour for over 10 years. They were the regulators and they were the ones happy to turn a blind eye (no pun intended Mr Brown!) to all the lovely tax revenue generated by the astonishing banking profits. So when the GFC hit the government couldn't plausibly deny they "knew nothing". Of course they did. And people cottoned on to that.
Now - now we have had an un-paralleled economic hit due to a bug. Which is not even the evil Tories' fault - or even Johnson's. I didn't agree with the hysteria to save 100,000 people would would have mostly died soon anyway but there we are. But shutting down the economy for the best part of a year was always going to have consequences. And now we're seeing them. This is the result of satisfying all those screaming "Something must be done". It's ironic that a lot of commentators on here now bemoaning how Sunak can't do this or that, or give them free shit, were the same ones criticising the government for not locking down harder, faster and longer. (That's what she said).
Add the ongoing march to WW3 and an energy crisis which has been at least 40 years in the making and I'm struggling to see how any government could have done better.
It is bizzare where people think the money required for all the wished for increases in benefits and decreases in taxes are going to come from. The last 2 years have been unprecedented, millions of people were paid by the Government to stay at home for months and months. Yet people are thinking the Government still has a big pot of money to spray around.
Can Shell & BP pay for it all?
No, but the asset rich can and should pay much more than they do now.
You're confusing asset rich with cash rich. How can an "asset rich" person pay any more when the cash is locked in that asset? Unless you sell that asset, which is now less of value when crystallised because it'll be taxed more.
Just because someone lives in a property valued £1m doesn't make them "rich". They may earn £25k a year but it's just the house which has gone up in value since they've been there 15 years. Which is not their fault or in their control.
Have you heard of borrowing? Non asset rich people are quite familiar with it already.
Forcing people to take on debt to pay taxes? It's an interesting concept.
They can arrange their affairs as they wish. But for millionaires to bleat about cash flow problems when they can borrow at sub 2% I have absolutely zero sympathy.
1. Millionaire is a silly expression these days
2. You just asked "Have you heard of borrowing," but you yourself seem to have only the very vaguest grasp ofthe concept. Lenders in my experience like to see evidence of cash flow from which repayments can be made before hey put their hands in their pockets
Don't think I don't sympathise with your broad position, I am all for a one-off levy on financial assets, but I think your view is distorted by housing envy.
Seriously? There is a massive industry lending to home owners without any more income. Carol Vordermann seems to pop up on daytime tv relentlessly to explain how luvvly it is. They could even take a bit extra to treat the grandkids.
Just checking out some new sunglasses for no doubt theoretical holidays this year and the Britons among us will be glad to hear that one manufacturer has ranges called Boudica, Iceni and Prasutagas. Quite what they have to do with UV protection is yet to become clear to me.
Iceni much better with these on?
Those glasses might well be popular in Norfolk. Not so much in Colchester, though.
Yay. We all know from experience Elections are won and lost on what happens on Twitter.
You're very attack dog this morning, have you been bitten by @BluestBlue? Because he had the gig when boris looked like an immortal God-Emperor and it was all plain sailing.
1997. don't know whether you were alive/dead/undead in those days. Now, Starmer is no Blair but then Johnson is no Major either, and I stand astonished at the relative innocence of what we thought of as tory sleaze then vs what we have now.
Yep - was alive in 1997 and it was actually my fist GE in which I could vote so I remember it well.
The dynamics are so very different, not only due to the characters involved. For one, the economy was on the up (in large part to Conservative economic policies which Labour vowed to maintain - spending at least). This allowed Blair to combine his astonishing political skill (and yes - charisma) with the knowledge that Labour were inheriting an economy which would allow them, in time, to promise the world. Which they did. All in the context of a huge global economic boom.
Yes there was Tory sleaze in '97, and yes the Tories had been in power for 18 years, but every Government has sleaze. Always. Including Labour from 1997 to 2010. Tory sleaze gets much more attention as, well, they're evil Tories innit. Labour do sleaze more on the quiet.
In 2010, which although global and largely out of the control of ANY government (like the situation today) - the causes of the GFC had been overseen by Labour for over 10 years. They were the regulators and they were the ones happy to turn a blind eye (no pun intended Mr Brown!) to all the lovely tax revenue generated by the astonishing banking profits. So when the GFC hit the government couldn't plausibly deny they "knew nothing". Of course they did. And people cottoned on to that.
Now - now we have had an un-paralleled economic hit due to a bug. Which is not even the evil Tories' fault - or even Johnson's. I didn't agree with the hysteria to save 100,000 people would would have mostly died soon anyway but there we are. But shutting down the economy for the best part of a year was always going to have consequences. And now we're seeing them. This is the result of satisfying all those screaming "Something must be done". It's ironic that a lot of commentators on here now bemoaning how Sunak can't do this or that, or give them free shit, were the same ones criticising the government for not locking down harder, faster and longer. (That's what she said).
Add the ongoing march to WW3 and an energy crisis which has been at least 40 years in the making and I'm struggling to see how any government could have done better.
It is bizzare where people think the money required for all the wished for increases in benefits and decreases in taxes are going to come from. The last 2 years have been unprecedented, millions of people were paid by the Government to stay at home for months and months. Yet people are thinking the Government still has a big pot of money to spray around.
Can Shell & BP pay for it all?
No, but the asset rich can and should pay much more than they do now.
You're confusing asset rich with cash rich. How can an "asset rich" person pay any more when the cash is locked in that asset? Unless you sell that asset, which is now less of value when crystallised because it'll be taxed more.
Just because someone lives in a property valued £1m doesn't make them "rich". They may earn £25k a year but it's just the house which has gone up in value since they've been there 15 years. Which is not their fault or in their control.
Have you heard of borrowing? Non asset rich people are quite familiar with it already.
Naah, you'll crash the whole property market. The rich will be fine, because they always are, but have you heard of poor people with mortgages?
Yay. We all know from experience Elections are won and lost on what happens on Twitter.
You're very attack dog this morning, have you been bitten by @BluestBlue? Because he had the gig when boris looked like an immortal God-Emperor and it was all plain sailing.
1997. don't know whether you were alive/dead/undead in those days. Now, Starmer is no Blair but then Johnson is no Major either, and I stand astonished at the relative innocence of what we thought of as tory sleaze then vs what we have now.
Yep - was alive in 1997 and it was actually my fist GE in which I could vote so I remember it well.
The dynamics are so very different, not only due to the characters involved. For one, the economy was on the up (in large part to Conservative economic policies which Labour vowed to maintain - spending at least). This allowed Blair to combine his astonishing political skill (and yes - charisma) with the knowledge that Labour were inheriting an economy which would allow them, in time, to promise the world. Which they did. All in the context of a huge global economic boom.
Yes there was Tory sleaze in '97, and yes the Tories had been in power for 18 years, but every Government has sleaze. Always. Including Labour from 1997 to 2010. Tory sleaze gets much more attention as, well, they're evil Tories innit. Labour do sleaze more on the quiet.
In 2010, which although global and largely out of the control of ANY government (like the situation today) - the causes of the GFC had been overseen by Labour for over 10 years. They were the regulators and they were the ones happy to turn a blind eye (no pun intended Mr Brown!) to all the lovely tax revenue generated by the astonishing banking profits. So when the GFC hit the government couldn't plausibly deny they "knew nothing". Of course they did. And people cottoned on to that.
Now - now we have had an un-paralleled economic hit due to a bug. Which is not even the evil Tories' fault - or even Johnson's. I didn't agree with the hysteria to save 100,000 people would would have mostly died soon anyway but there we are. But shutting down the economy for the best part of a year was always going to have consequences. And now we're seeing them. This is the result of satisfying all those screaming "Something must be done". It's ironic that a lot of commentators on here now bemoaning how Sunak can't do this or that, or give them free shit, were the same ones criticising the government for not locking down harder, faster and longer. (That's what she said).
Add the ongoing march to WW3 and an energy crisis which has been at least 40 years in the making and I'm struggling to see how any government could have done better.
It is bizzare where people think the money required for all the wished for increases in benefits and decreases in taxes are going to come from. The last 2 years have been unprecedented, millions of people were paid by the Government to stay at home for months and months. Yet people are thinking the Government still has a big pot of money to spray around.
Can Shell & BP pay for it all?
No, but the asset rich can and should pay much more than they do now.
You're confusing asset rich with cash rich. How can an "asset rich" person pay any more when the cash is locked in that asset? Unless you sell that asset, which is now less of value when crystallised because it'll be taxed more.
Just because someone lives in a property valued £1m doesn't make them "rich". They may earn £25k a year but it's just the house which has gone up in value since they've been there 15 years. Which is not their fault or in their control.
Yay. We all know from experience Elections are won and lost on what happens on Twitter.
You're very attack dog this morning, have you been bitten by @BluestBlue? Because he had the gig when boris looked like an immortal God-Emperor and it was all plain sailing.
1997. don't know whether you were alive/dead/undead in those days. Now, Starmer is no Blair but then Johnson is no Major either, and I stand astonished at the relative innocence of what we thought of as tory sleaze then vs what we have now.
Yep - was alive in 1997 and it was actually my fist GE in which I could vote so I remember it well.
The dynamics are so very different, not only due to the characters involved. For one, the economy was on the up (in large part to Conservative economic policies which Labour vowed to maintain - spending at least). This allowed Blair to combine his astonishing political skill (and yes - charisma) with the knowledge that Labour were inheriting an economy which would allow them, in time, to promise the world. Which they did. All in the context of a huge global economic boom.
Yes there was Tory sleaze in '97, and yes the Tories had been in power for 18 years, but every Government has sleaze. Always. Including Labour from 1997 to 2010. Tory sleaze gets much more attention as, well, they're evil Tories innit. Labour do sleaze more on the quiet.
In 2010, which although global and largely out of the control of ANY government (like the situation today) - the causes of the GFC had been overseen by Labour for over 10 years. They were the regulators and they were the ones happy to turn a blind eye (no pun intended Mr Brown!) to all the lovely tax revenue generated by the astonishing banking profits. So when the GFC hit the government couldn't plausibly deny they "knew nothing". Of course they did. And people cottoned on to that.
Now - now we have had an un-paralleled economic hit due to a bug. Which is not even the evil Tories' fault - or even Johnson's. I didn't agree with the hysteria to save 100,000 people would would have mostly died soon anyway but there we are. But shutting down the economy for the best part of a year was always going to have consequences. And now we're seeing them. This is the result of satisfying all those screaming "Something must be done". It's ironic that a lot of commentators on here now bemoaning how Sunak can't do this or that, or give them free shit, were the same ones criticising the government for not locking down harder, faster and longer. (That's what she said).
Add the ongoing march to WW3 and an energy crisis which has been at least 40 years in the making and I'm struggling to see how any government could have done better.
It is bizzare where people think the money required for all the wished for increases in benefits and decreases in taxes are going to come from. The last 2 years have been unprecedented, millions of people were paid by the Government to stay at home for months and months. Yet people are thinking the Government still has a big pot of money to spray around.
Can Shell & BP pay for it all?
No, but the asset rich can and should pay much more than they do now.
You're confusing asset rich with cash rich. How can an "asset rich" person pay any more when the cash is locked in that asset? Unless you sell that asset, which is now less of value when crystallised because it'll be taxed more.
Just because someone lives in a property valued £1m doesn't make them "rich". They may earn £25k a year but it's just the house which has gone up in value since they've been there 15 years. Which is not their fault or in their control.
They are rich in that they could sell the property move into a 300 grand flat and be financially set...its only their greed that prevents them doing this
So, let's get this straight: you buy a house, the property market goes bonkers for reasons for which you are not, unless you are the Bank of England, responsible, and it suddenly becomes "greedy" not to move out? The expression "the politics of envy" is distasteful, but really...
Yay. We all know from experience Elections are won and lost on what happens on Twitter.
You're very attack dog this morning, have you been bitten by @BluestBlue? Because he had the gig when boris looked like an immortal God-Emperor and it was all plain sailing.
1997. don't know whether you were alive/dead/undead in those days. Now, Starmer is no Blair but then Johnson is no Major either, and I stand astonished at the relative innocence of what we thought of as tory sleaze then vs what we have now.
Yep - was alive in 1997 and it was actually my fist GE in which I could vote so I remember it well.
The dynamics are so very different, not only due to the characters involved. For one, the economy was on the up (in large part to Conservative economic policies which Labour vowed to maintain - spending at least). This allowed Blair to combine his astonishing political skill (and yes - charisma) with the knowledge that Labour were inheriting an economy which would allow them, in time, to promise the world. Which they did. All in the context of a huge global economic boom.
Yes there was Tory sleaze in '97, and yes the Tories had been in power for 18 years, but every Government has sleaze. Always. Including Labour from 1997 to 2010. Tory sleaze gets much more attention as, well, they're evil Tories innit. Labour do sleaze more on the quiet.
In 2010, which although global and largely out of the control of ANY government (like the situation today) - the causes of the GFC had been overseen by Labour for over 10 years. They were the regulators and they were the ones happy to turn a blind eye (no pun intended Mr Brown!) to all the lovely tax revenue generated by the astonishing banking profits. So when the GFC hit the government couldn't plausibly deny they "knew nothing". Of course they did. And people cottoned on to that.
Now - now we have had an un-paralleled economic hit due to a bug. Which is not even the evil Tories' fault - or even Johnson's. I didn't agree with the hysteria to save 100,000 people would would have mostly died soon anyway but there we are. But shutting down the economy for the best part of a year was always going to have consequences. And now we're seeing them. This is the result of satisfying all those screaming "Something must be done". It's ironic that a lot of commentators on here now bemoaning how Sunak can't do this or that, or give them free shit, were the same ones criticising the government for not locking down harder, faster and longer. (That's what she said).
Add the ongoing march to WW3 and an energy crisis which has been at least 40 years in the making and I'm struggling to see how any government could have done better.
It is bizzare where people think the money required for all the wished for increases in benefits and decreases in taxes are going to come from. The last 2 years have been unprecedented, millions of people were paid by the Government to stay at home for months and months. Yet people are thinking the Government still has a big pot of money to spray around.
Can Shell & BP pay for it all?
No, but the asset rich can and should pay much more than they do now.
You're confusing asset rich with cash rich. How can an "asset rich" person pay any more when the cash is locked in that asset? Unless you sell that asset, which is now less of value when crystallised because it'll be taxed more.
Just because someone lives in a property valued £1m doesn't make them "rich". They may earn £25k a year but it's just the house which has gone up in value since they've been there 15 years. Which is not their fault or in their control.
Have you heard of borrowing? Non asset rich people are quite familiar with it already.
Naah, you'll crash the whole property market. The rich will be fine, because they always are, but have you heard of poor people with mortgages?
And that wouldn't be the only benefit.
What, screwing poor people with mortgages? They being the eggs in the omelette?
No, I meant getting to a situation where property values and rents aren't such a dominant feature in our economy and finances. Course, what's preferable is a controlled downwards drift over many years not a crash.
Yay. We all know from experience Elections are won and lost on what happens on Twitter.
You're very attack dog this morning, have you been bitten by @BluestBlue? Because he had the gig when boris looked like an immortal God-Emperor and it was all plain sailing.
1997. don't know whether you were alive/dead/undead in those days. Now, Starmer is no Blair but then Johnson is no Major either, and I stand astonished at the relative innocence of what we thought of as tory sleaze then vs what we have now.
Yep - was alive in 1997 and it was actually my fist GE in which I could vote so I remember it well.
The dynamics are so very different, not only due to the characters involved. For one, the economy was on the up (in large part to Conservative economic policies which Labour vowed to maintain - spending at least). This allowed Blair to combine his astonishing political skill (and yes - charisma) with the knowledge that Labour were inheriting an economy which would allow them, in time, to promise the world. Which they did. All in the context of a huge global economic boom.
Yes there was Tory sleaze in '97, and yes the Tories had been in power for 18 years, but every Government has sleaze. Always. Including Labour from 1997 to 2010. Tory sleaze gets much more attention as, well, they're evil Tories innit. Labour do sleaze more on the quiet.
In 2010, which although global and largely out of the control of ANY government (like the situation today) - the causes of the GFC had been overseen by Labour for over 10 years. They were the regulators and they were the ones happy to turn a blind eye (no pun intended Mr Brown!) to all the lovely tax revenue generated by the astonishing banking profits. So when the GFC hit the government couldn't plausibly deny they "knew nothing". Of course they did. And people cottoned on to that.
Now - now we have had an un-paralleled economic hit due to a bug. Which is not even the evil Tories' fault - or even Johnson's. I didn't agree with the hysteria to save 100,000 people would would have mostly died soon anyway but there we are. But shutting down the economy for the best part of a year was always going to have consequences. And now we're seeing them. This is the result of satisfying all those screaming "Something must be done". It's ironic that a lot of commentators on here now bemoaning how Sunak can't do this or that, or give them free shit, were the same ones criticising the government for not locking down harder, faster and longer. (That's what she said).
Add the ongoing march to WW3 and an energy crisis which has been at least 40 years in the making and I'm struggling to see how any government could have done better.
It is bizzare where people think the money required for all the wished for increases in benefits and decreases in taxes are going to come from. The last 2 years have been unprecedented, millions of people were paid by the Government to stay at home for months and months. Yet people are thinking the Government still has a big pot of money to spray around.
Can Shell & BP pay for it all?
No, but the asset rich can and should pay much more than they do now.
You're confusing asset rich with cash rich. How can an "asset rich" person pay any more when the cash is locked in that asset? Unless you sell that asset, which is now less of value when crystallised because it'll be taxed more.
Just because someone lives in a property valued £1m doesn't make them "rich". They may earn £25k a year but it's just the house which has gone up in value since they've been there 15 years. Which is not their fault or in their control.
Yay. We all know from experience Elections are won and lost on what happens on Twitter.
You're very attack dog this morning, have you been bitten by @BluestBlue? Because he had the gig when boris looked like an immortal God-Emperor and it was all plain sailing.
1997. don't know whether you were alive/dead/undead in those days. Now, Starmer is no Blair but then Johnson is no Major either, and I stand astonished at the relative innocence of what we thought of as tory sleaze then vs what we have now.
Yep - was alive in 1997 and it was actually my fist GE in which I could vote so I remember it well.
The dynamics are so very different, not only due to the characters involved. For one, the economy was on the up (in large part to Conservative economic policies which Labour vowed to maintain - spending at least). This allowed Blair to combine his astonishing political skill (and yes - charisma) with the knowledge that Labour were inheriting an economy which would allow them, in time, to promise the world. Which they did. All in the context of a huge global economic boom.
Yes there was Tory sleaze in '97, and yes the Tories had been in power for 18 years, but every Government has sleaze. Always. Including Labour from 1997 to 2010. Tory sleaze gets much more attention as, well, they're evil Tories innit. Labour do sleaze more on the quiet.
In 2010, which although global and largely out of the control of ANY government (like the situation today) - the causes of the GFC had been overseen by Labour for over 10 years. They were the regulators and they were the ones happy to turn a blind eye (no pun intended Mr Brown!) to all the lovely tax revenue generated by the astonishing banking profits. So when the GFC hit the government couldn't plausibly deny they "knew nothing". Of course they did. And people cottoned on to that.
Now - now we have had an un-paralleled economic hit due to a bug. Which is not even the evil Tories' fault - or even Johnson's. I didn't agree with the hysteria to save 100,000 people would would have mostly died soon anyway but there we are. But shutting down the economy for the best part of a year was always going to have consequences. And now we're seeing them. This is the result of satisfying all those screaming "Something must be done". It's ironic that a lot of commentators on here now bemoaning how Sunak can't do this or that, or give them free shit, were the same ones criticising the government for not locking down harder, faster and longer. (That's what she said).
Add the ongoing march to WW3 and an energy crisis which has been at least 40 years in the making and I'm struggling to see how any government could have done better.
It is bizzare where people think the money required for all the wished for increases in benefits and decreases in taxes are going to come from. The last 2 years have been unprecedented, millions of people were paid by the Government to stay at home for months and months. Yet people are thinking the Government still has a big pot of money to spray around.
Can Shell & BP pay for it all?
No, but the asset rich can and should pay much more than they do now.
You're confusing asset rich with cash rich. How can an "asset rich" person pay any more when the cash is locked in that asset? Unless you sell that asset, which is now less of value when crystallised because it'll be taxed more.
Just because someone lives in a property valued £1m doesn't make them "rich". They may earn £25k a year but it's just the house which has gone up in value since they've been there 15 years. Which is not their fault or in their control.
They are rich in that they could sell the property move into a 300 grand flat and be financially set...its only their greed that prevents them doing this
Idiotic comment. "Greed" for wanting to live in their own home which has increased in value outside of their control? What happens when that £300k flat increases to £500k within couple of years. Should they move again? the government chasing you and chasing you until you end up on a housing waiting list?
Keep saying that to yourself and convince yourself of it, fervently - the Tories' chances are getting better all the time.
I guess this may have already been commented on this, it is utterly staggering. That there are people who are still apologists for this idiot being our PM is also staggering.
Yes, I remarked on this at the start of Rishi's speech. Presumably Boris was laughing at something else entirely but it is not a good look, and would have been inappropriate even if Rishi had launched straight into the financial statement.
Yay. We all know from experience Elections are won and lost on what happens on Twitter.
You're very attack dog this morning, have you been bitten by @BluestBlue? Because he had the gig when boris looked like an immortal God-Emperor and it was all plain sailing.
1997. don't know whether you were alive/dead/undead in those days. Now, Starmer is no Blair but then Johnson is no Major either, and I stand astonished at the relative innocence of what we thought of as tory sleaze then vs what we have now.
Yep - was alive in 1997 and it was actually my fist GE in which I could vote so I remember it well.
The dynamics are so very different, not only due to the characters involved. For one, the economy was on the up (in large part to Conservative economic policies which Labour vowed to maintain - spending at least). This allowed Blair to combine his astonishing political skill (and yes - charisma) with the knowledge that Labour were inheriting an economy which would allow them, in time, to promise the world. Which they did. All in the context of a huge global economic boom.
Yes there was Tory sleaze in '97, and yes the Tories had been in power for 18 years, but every Government has sleaze. Always. Including Labour from 1997 to 2010. Tory sleaze gets much more attention as, well, they're evil Tories innit. Labour do sleaze more on the quiet.
In 2010, which although global and largely out of the control of ANY government (like the situation today) - the causes of the GFC had been overseen by Labour for over 10 years. They were the regulators and they were the ones happy to turn a blind eye (no pun intended Mr Brown!) to all the lovely tax revenue generated by the astonishing banking profits. So when the GFC hit the government couldn't plausibly deny they "knew nothing". Of course they did. And people cottoned on to that.
Now - now we have had an un-paralleled economic hit due to a bug. Which is not even the evil Tories' fault - or even Johnson's. I didn't agree with the hysteria to save 100,000 people would would have mostly died soon anyway but there we are. But shutting down the economy for the best part of a year was always going to have consequences. And now we're seeing them. This is the result of satisfying all those screaming "Something must be done". It's ironic that a lot of commentators on here now bemoaning how Sunak can't do this or that, or give them free shit, were the same ones criticising the government for not locking down harder, faster and longer. (That's what she said).
Add the ongoing march to WW3 and an energy crisis which has been at least 40 years in the making and I'm struggling to see how any government could have done better.
It is bizzare where people think the money required for all the wished for increases in benefits and decreases in taxes are going to come from. The last 2 years have been unprecedented, millions of people were paid by the Government to stay at home for months and months. Yet people are thinking the Government still has a big pot of money to spray around.
Can Shell & BP pay for it all?
No, but the asset rich can and should pay much more than they do now.
You're confusing asset rich with cash rich. How can an "asset rich" person pay any more when the cash is locked in that asset? Unless you sell that asset, which is now less of value when crystallised because it'll be taxed more.
Just because someone lives in a property valued £1m doesn't make them "rich". They may earn £25k a year but it's just the house which has gone up in value since they've been there 15 years. Which is not their fault or in their control.
Have you heard of borrowing? Non asset rich people are quite familiar with it already.
Forcing people to take on debt to pay taxes? It's an interesting concept.
They can arrange their affairs as they wish. But for millionaires to bleat about cash flow problems when they can borrow at sub 2% I have absolutely zero sympathy.
1. Millionaire is a silly expression these days
2. You just asked "Have you heard of borrowing," but you yourself seem to have only the very vaguest grasp ofthe concept. Lenders in my experience like to see evidence of cash flow from which repayments can be made before hey put their hands in their pockets
Don't think I don't sympathise with your broad position, I am all for a one-off levy on financial assets, but I think your view is distorted by housing envy.
Seriously? There is a massive industry lending to home owners without any more income. Carol Vordermann seems to pop up on daytime tv relentlessly to explain how luvvly it is. They could even take a bit extra to treat the grandkids.
I know a couple of financially savvy people who are convinced that this the PPI de nos jours.
Yay. We all know from experience Elections are won and lost on what happens on Twitter.
You're very attack dog this morning, have you been bitten by @BluestBlue? Because he had the gig when boris looked like an immortal God-Emperor and it was all plain sailing.
1997. don't know whether you were alive/dead/undead in those days. Now, Starmer is no Blair but then Johnson is no Major either, and I stand astonished at the relative innocence of what we thought of as tory sleaze then vs what we have now.
Yep - was alive in 1997 and it was actually my fist GE in which I could vote so I remember it well.
The dynamics are so very different, not only due to the characters involved. For one, the economy was on the up (in large part to Conservative economic policies which Labour vowed to maintain - spending at least). This allowed Blair to combine his astonishing political skill (and yes - charisma) with the knowledge that Labour were inheriting an economy which would allow them, in time, to promise the world. Which they did. All in the context of a huge global economic boom.
Yes there was Tory sleaze in '97, and yes the Tories had been in power for 18 years, but every Government has sleaze. Always. Including Labour from 1997 to 2010. Tory sleaze gets much more attention as, well, they're evil Tories innit. Labour do sleaze more on the quiet.
In 2010, which although global and largely out of the control of ANY government (like the situation today) - the causes of the GFC had been overseen by Labour for over 10 years. They were the regulators and they were the ones happy to turn a blind eye (no pun intended Mr Brown!) to all the lovely tax revenue generated by the astonishing banking profits. So when the GFC hit the government couldn't plausibly deny they "knew nothing". Of course they did. And people cottoned on to that.
Now - now we have had an un-paralleled economic hit due to a bug. Which is not even the evil Tories' fault - or even Johnson's. I didn't agree with the hysteria to save 100,000 people would would have mostly died soon anyway but there we are. But shutting down the economy for the best part of a year was always going to have consequences. And now we're seeing them. This is the result of satisfying all those screaming "Something must be done". It's ironic that a lot of commentators on here now bemoaning how Sunak can't do this or that, or give them free shit, were the same ones criticising the government for not locking down harder, faster and longer. (That's what she said).
Add the ongoing march to WW3 and an energy crisis which has been at least 40 years in the making and I'm struggling to see how any government could have done better.
It is bizzare where people think the money required for all the wished for increases in benefits and decreases in taxes are going to come from. The last 2 years have been unprecedented, millions of people were paid by the Government to stay at home for months and months. Yet people are thinking the Government still has a big pot of money to spray around.
Can Shell & BP pay for it all?
No, but the asset rich can and should pay much more than they do now.
You're confusing asset rich with cash rich. How can an "asset rich" person pay any more when the cash is locked in that asset? Unless you sell that asset, which is now less of value when crystallised because it'll be taxed more.
Just because someone lives in a property valued £1m doesn't make them "rich". They may earn £25k a year but it's just the house which has gone up in value since they've been there 15 years. Which is not their fault or in their control.
Have you heard of borrowing? Non asset rich people are quite familiar with it already.
Forcing people to take on debt to pay taxes? It's an interesting concept.
They can arrange their affairs as they wish. But for millionaires to bleat about cash flow problems when they can borrow at sub 2% I have absolutely zero sympathy.
1. Millionaire is a silly expression these days
2. You just asked "Have you heard of borrowing," but you yourself seem to have only the very vaguest grasp ofthe concept. Lenders in my experience like to see evidence of cash flow from which repayments can be made before hey put their hands in their pockets
Don't think I don't sympathise with your broad position, I am all for a one-off levy on financial assets, but I think your view is distorted by housing envy.
Seriously? There is a massive industry lending to home owners without any more income. Carol Vordermann seems to pop up on daytime tv relentlessly to explain how luvvly it is. They could even take a bit extra to treat the grandkids.
Do you realise what an absolute con these schemes are?
Try borrowing £20,000 from the Nationwide on a mortgage free £300,000 house when you are on a state pension only. They really are not keen to lend the money.
In what way is not being given more help (to be paid for by someone else) being treated as being expendable ?
The whiny self-pitying self-entitlement on display does not earn sympathy from those who do work.
Golly, is there a supporting clip indicating that people who do not work were being referred to? Though I suppose immediately defining anyone at the bottom of the pile depending on benefits (despite in many cases working their arses off) as workshy is pretty much a reflex for you chaps.
Yay. We all know from experience Elections are won and lost on what happens on Twitter.
You're very attack dog this morning, have you been bitten by @BluestBlue? Because he had the gig when boris looked like an immortal God-Emperor and it was all plain sailing.
1997. don't know whether you were alive/dead/undead in those days. Now, Starmer is no Blair but then Johnson is no Major either, and I stand astonished at the relative innocence of what we thought of as tory sleaze then vs what we have now.
Yep - was alive in 1997 and it was actually my fist GE in which I could vote so I remember it well.
The dynamics are so very different, not only due to the characters involved. For one, the economy was on the up (in large part to Conservative economic policies which Labour vowed to maintain - spending at least). This allowed Blair to combine his astonishing political skill (and yes - charisma) with the knowledge that Labour were inheriting an economy which would allow them, in time, to promise the world. Which they did. All in the context of a huge global economic boom.
Yes there was Tory sleaze in '97, and yes the Tories had been in power for 18 years, but every Government has sleaze. Always. Including Labour from 1997 to 2010. Tory sleaze gets much more attention as, well, they're evil Tories innit. Labour do sleaze more on the quiet.
In 2010, which although global and largely out of the control of ANY government (like the situation today) - the causes of the GFC had been overseen by Labour for over 10 years. They were the regulators and they were the ones happy to turn a blind eye (no pun intended Mr Brown!) to all the lovely tax revenue generated by the astonishing banking profits. So when the GFC hit the government couldn't plausibly deny they "knew nothing". Of course they did. And people cottoned on to that.
Now - now we have had an un-paralleled economic hit due to a bug. Which is not even the evil Tories' fault - or even Johnson's. I didn't agree with the hysteria to save 100,000 people would would have mostly died soon anyway but there we are. But shutting down the economy for the best part of a year was always going to have consequences. And now we're seeing them. This is the result of satisfying all those screaming "Something must be done". It's ironic that a lot of commentators on here now bemoaning how Sunak can't do this or that, or give them free shit, were the same ones criticising the government for not locking down harder, faster and longer. (That's what she said).
Add the ongoing march to WW3 and an energy crisis which has been at least 40 years in the making and I'm struggling to see how any government could have done better.
It is bizzare where people think the money required for all the wished for increases in benefits and decreases in taxes are going to come from. The last 2 years have been unprecedented, millions of people were paid by the Government to stay at home for months and months. Yet people are thinking the Government still has a big pot of money to spray around.
Can Shell & BP pay for it all?
No, but the asset rich can and should pay much more than they do now.
You realise that we are being taxed more than at any point since 1945?
Yay. We all know from experience Elections are won and lost on what happens on Twitter.
You're very attack dog this morning, have you been bitten by @BluestBlue? Because he had the gig when boris looked like an immortal God-Emperor and it was all plain sailing.
1997. don't know whether you were alive/dead/undead in those days. Now, Starmer is no Blair but then Johnson is no Major either, and I stand astonished at the relative innocence of what we thought of as tory sleaze then vs what we have now.
Yep - was alive in 1997 and it was actually my fist GE in which I could vote so I remember it well.
The dynamics are so very different, not only due to the characters involved. For one, the economy was on the up (in large part to Conservative economic policies which Labour vowed to maintain - spending at least). This allowed Blair to combine his astonishing political skill (and yes - charisma) with the knowledge that Labour were inheriting an economy which would allow them, in time, to promise the world. Which they did. All in the context of a huge global economic boom.
Yes there was Tory sleaze in '97, and yes the Tories had been in power for 18 years, but every Government has sleaze. Always. Including Labour from 1997 to 2010. Tory sleaze gets much more attention as, well, they're evil Tories innit. Labour do sleaze more on the quiet.
In 2010, which although global and largely out of the control of ANY government (like the situation today) - the causes of the GFC had been overseen by Labour for over 10 years. They were the regulators and they were the ones happy to turn a blind eye (no pun intended Mr Brown!) to all the lovely tax revenue generated by the astonishing banking profits. So when the GFC hit the government couldn't plausibly deny they "knew nothing". Of course they did. And people cottoned on to that.
Now - now we have had an un-paralleled economic hit due to a bug. Which is not even the evil Tories' fault - or even Johnson's. I didn't agree with the hysteria to save 100,000 people would would have mostly died soon anyway but there we are. But shutting down the economy for the best part of a year was always going to have consequences. And now we're seeing them. This is the result of satisfying all those screaming "Something must be done". It's ironic that a lot of commentators on here now bemoaning how Sunak can't do this or that, or give them free shit, were the same ones criticising the government for not locking down harder, faster and longer. (That's what she said).
Add the ongoing march to WW3 and an energy crisis which has been at least 40 years in the making and I'm struggling to see how any government could have done better.
It is bizzare where people think the money required for all the wished for increases in benefits and decreases in taxes are going to come from. The last 2 years have been unprecedented, millions of people were paid by the Government to stay at home for months and months. Yet people are thinking the Government still has a big pot of money to spray around.
Can Shell & BP pay for it all?
No, but the asset rich can and should pay much more than they do now.
You realise that we are being taxed more than at any point since 1945?
I would reduce taxes on earnings and increase them on assets. It is that ratio that I think is more wrong than the total amount raised.
So you are advocating people selling their houses to pay tax on the value of the house?
It doesn't have to apply to first home, of course. I'm not against an asset tax. It encourages making assets work (and then also paying tax on the resultant earnings) rather than just taking capital out of the economy.
Are you going to apply that to pension values (DB as well as DC). How do they pay it or are you going to tax the fund which will become income and therefore taxed twice? If not how about people who made alternative pension arrangements. Why should they be treated differently.
‘Partygate’ hangover hits Treasury, as staff cancel traditional mini-Budget drinking session Rishi Sunak's employees abstained from consuming alcohol this year while he delivered his Spring Statement
Sources at the Treasury denied reports that alcohol was banned by senior officials, saying that “no formal instruction” was given to staff but rather they decided not to indulge of their own accord
Yay. We all know from experience Elections are won and lost on what happens on Twitter.
You're very attack dog this morning, have you been bitten by @BluestBlue? Because he had the gig when boris looked like an immortal God-Emperor and it was all plain sailing.
1997. don't know whether you were alive/dead/undead in those days. Now, Starmer is no Blair but then Johnson is no Major either, and I stand astonished at the relative innocence of what we thought of as tory sleaze then vs what we have now.
Yep - was alive in 1997 and it was actually my fist GE in which I could vote so I remember it well.
The dynamics are so very different, not only due to the characters involved. For one, the economy was on the up (in large part to Conservative economic policies which Labour vowed to maintain - spending at least). This allowed Blair to combine his astonishing political skill (and yes - charisma) with the knowledge that Labour were inheriting an economy which would allow them, in time, to promise the world. Which they did. All in the context of a huge global economic boom.
Yes there was Tory sleaze in '97, and yes the Tories had been in power for 18 years, but every Government has sleaze. Always. Including Labour from 1997 to 2010. Tory sleaze gets much more attention as, well, they're evil Tories innit. Labour do sleaze more on the quiet.
In 2010, which although global and largely out of the control of ANY government (like the situation today) - the causes of the GFC had been overseen by Labour for over 10 years. They were the regulators and they were the ones happy to turn a blind eye (no pun intended Mr Brown!) to all the lovely tax revenue generated by the astonishing banking profits. So when the GFC hit the government couldn't plausibly deny they "knew nothing". Of course they did. And people cottoned on to that.
Now - now we have had an un-paralleled economic hit due to a bug. Which is not even the evil Tories' fault - or even Johnson's. I didn't agree with the hysteria to save 100,000 people would would have mostly died soon anyway but there we are. But shutting down the economy for the best part of a year was always going to have consequences. And now we're seeing them. This is the result of satisfying all those screaming "Something must be done". It's ironic that a lot of commentators on here now bemoaning how Sunak can't do this or that, or give them free shit, were the same ones criticising the government for not locking down harder, faster and longer. (That's what she said).
Add the ongoing march to WW3 and an energy crisis which has been at least 40 years in the making and I'm struggling to see how any government could have done better.
It is bizzare where people think the money required for all the wished for increases in benefits and decreases in taxes are going to come from. The last 2 years have been unprecedented, millions of people were paid by the Government to stay at home for months and months. Yet people are thinking the Government still has a big pot of money to spray around.
Can Shell & BP pay for it all?
No, but the asset rich can and should pay much more than they do now.
You're confusing asset rich with cash rich. How can an "asset rich" person pay any more when the cash is locked in that asset? Unless you sell that asset, which is now less of value when crystallised because it'll be taxed more.
Just because someone lives in a property valued £1m doesn't make them "rich". They may earn £25k a year but it's just the house which has gone up in value since they've been there 15 years. Which is not their fault or in their control.
Have you heard of borrowing? Non asset rich people are quite familiar with it already.
Forcing people to take on debt to pay taxes? It's an interesting concept.
They can arrange their affairs as they wish. But for millionaires to bleat about cash flow problems when they can borrow at sub 2% I have absolutely zero sympathy.
1. Millionaire is a silly expression these days
2. You just asked "Have you heard of borrowing," but you yourself seem to have only the very vaguest grasp ofthe concept. Lenders in my experience like to see evidence of cash flow from which repayments can be made before hey put their hands in their pockets
Don't think I don't sympathise with your broad position, I am all for a one-off levy on financial assets, but I think your view is distorted by housing envy.
Seriously? There is a massive industry lending to home owners without any more income. Carol Vordermann seems to pop up on daytime tv relentlessly to explain how luvvly it is. They could even take a bit extra to treat the grandkids.
Do you realise what an absolute con these schemes are?
Try borrowing £20,000 from the Nationwide on a mortgage free £300,000 house when you are on a state pension only. They really are not keen to lend the money.
Yes it is poorly regulated and expensive. But it is available. And if you have a £5m property you can get much better deals than someone with a £300k house.
I have said I would be taxing second home owners (incl landlords, needs to be said as they seem to forget they own multiple homes) and those with £5m+ assets. So Joe Average in a house that has risen in value, even in Chelsea or Fulham is not impacted, let alone someone with a £300k house and state pension.
Yay. We all know from experience Elections are won and lost on what happens on Twitter.
You're very attack dog this morning, have you been bitten by @BluestBlue? Because he had the gig when boris looked like an immortal God-Emperor and it was all plain sailing.
1997. don't know whether you were alive/dead/undead in those days. Now, Starmer is no Blair but then Johnson is no Major either, and I stand astonished at the relative innocence of what we thought of as tory sleaze then vs what we have now.
Yep - was alive in 1997 and it was actually my fist GE in which I could vote so I remember it well.
The dynamics are so very different, not only due to the characters involved. For one, the economy was on the up (in large part to Conservative economic policies which Labour vowed to maintain - spending at least). This allowed Blair to combine his astonishing political skill (and yes - charisma) with the knowledge that Labour were inheriting an economy which would allow them, in time, to promise the world. Which they did. All in the context of a huge global economic boom.
Yes there was Tory sleaze in '97, and yes the Tories had been in power for 18 years, but every Government has sleaze. Always. Including Labour from 1997 to 2010. Tory sleaze gets much more attention as, well, they're evil Tories innit. Labour do sleaze more on the quiet.
In 2010, which although global and largely out of the control of ANY government (like the situation today) - the causes of the GFC had been overseen by Labour for over 10 years. They were the regulators and they were the ones happy to turn a blind eye (no pun intended Mr Brown!) to all the lovely tax revenue generated by the astonishing banking profits. So when the GFC hit the government couldn't plausibly deny they "knew nothing". Of course they did. And people cottoned on to that.
Now - now we have had an un-paralleled economic hit due to a bug. Which is not even the evil Tories' fault - or even Johnson's. I didn't agree with the hysteria to save 100,000 people would would have mostly died soon anyway but there we are. But shutting down the economy for the best part of a year was always going to have consequences. And now we're seeing them. This is the result of satisfying all those screaming "Something must be done". It's ironic that a lot of commentators on here now bemoaning how Sunak can't do this or that, or give them free shit, were the same ones criticising the government for not locking down harder, faster and longer. (That's what she said).
Add the ongoing march to WW3 and an energy crisis which has been at least 40 years in the making and I'm struggling to see how any government could have done better.
It is bizzare where people think the money required for all the wished for increases in benefits and decreases in taxes are going to come from. The last 2 years have been unprecedented, millions of people were paid by the Government to stay at home for months and months. Yet people are thinking the Government still has a big pot of money to spray around.
Can Shell & BP pay for it all?
No, but the asset rich can and should pay much more than they do now.
You're confusing asset rich with cash rich. How can an "asset rich" person pay any more when the cash is locked in that asset? Unless you sell that asset, which is now less of value when crystallised because it'll be taxed more.
Just because someone lives in a property valued £1m doesn't make them "rich". They may earn £25k a year but it's just the house which has gone up in value since they've been there 15 years. Which is not their fault or in their control.
It has always been a mystery to me how you tax the value of a house when the person who lives in it may be on a low income. Are we suggesting that they be forced to sale their house to pay tax on it?
There are plenty of ways to avoid forced sale. Also you'd set the % at a modest level.
But fret not - it won't be happening. Vote loser. "They're coming for your house!" will say the party not advocating it.
There's a couple of things about this fantasy of evil old Mr Burns types cackling away in their 20 bed houses at the plight of the poor
1. A lot of them are prisoners of their own fear. The problem is, at 60 you still just about feel you can carry on indefinitely, at 70 you probably realise that the writing is on the wall. But moving house is the most stressful thing you can do short of divorce or bereavement. You are up to it at 60 but don't want to do it, you get to 70 and it is just too overfacing
2 Trading down is not as easy as it sounds because nice but smaller houses are in 2 sets of sights: both elderly downtraders and upwardly mobile young families
Yay. We all know from experience Elections are won and lost on what happens on Twitter.
You're very attack dog this morning, have you been bitten by @BluestBlue? Because he had the gig when boris looked like an immortal God-Emperor and it was all plain sailing.
1997. don't know whether you were alive/dead/undead in those days. Now, Starmer is no Blair but then Johnson is no Major either, and I stand astonished at the relative innocence of what we thought of as tory sleaze then vs what we have now.
Yep - was alive in 1997 and it was actually my fist GE in which I could vote so I remember it well.
The dynamics are so very different, not only due to the characters involved. For one, the economy was on the up (in large part to Conservative economic policies which Labour vowed to maintain - spending at least). This allowed Blair to combine his astonishing political skill (and yes - charisma) with the knowledge that Labour were inheriting an economy which would allow them, in time, to promise the world. Which they did. All in the context of a huge global economic boom.
Yes there was Tory sleaze in '97, and yes the Tories had been in power for 18 years, but every Government has sleaze. Always. Including Labour from 1997 to 2010. Tory sleaze gets much more attention as, well, they're evil Tories innit. Labour do sleaze more on the quiet.
In 2010, which although global and largely out of the control of ANY government (like the situation today) - the causes of the GFC had been overseen by Labour for over 10 years. They were the regulators and they were the ones happy to turn a blind eye (no pun intended Mr Brown!) to all the lovely tax revenue generated by the astonishing banking profits. So when the GFC hit the government couldn't plausibly deny they "knew nothing". Of course they did. And people cottoned on to that.
Now - now we have had an un-paralleled economic hit due to a bug. Which is not even the evil Tories' fault - or even Johnson's. I didn't agree with the hysteria to save 100,000 people would would have mostly died soon anyway but there we are. But shutting down the economy for the best part of a year was always going to have consequences. And now we're seeing them. This is the result of satisfying all those screaming "Something must be done". It's ironic that a lot of commentators on here now bemoaning how Sunak can't do this or that, or give them free shit, were the same ones criticising the government for not locking down harder, faster and longer. (That's what she said).
Add the ongoing march to WW3 and an energy crisis which has been at least 40 years in the making and I'm struggling to see how any government could have done better.
It is bizzare where people think the money required for all the wished for increases in benefits and decreases in taxes are going to come from. The last 2 years have been unprecedented, millions of people were paid by the Government to stay at home for months and months. Yet people are thinking the Government still has a big pot of money to spray around.
Can Shell & BP pay for it all?
No, but the asset rich can and should pay much more than they do now.
You realise that we are being taxed more than at any point since 1945?
Yay. We all know from experience Elections are won and lost on what happens on Twitter.
You're very attack dog this morning, have you been bitten by @BluestBlue? Because he had the gig when boris looked like an immortal God-Emperor and it was all plain sailing.
1997. don't know whether you were alive/dead/undead in those days. Now, Starmer is no Blair but then Johnson is no Major either, and I stand astonished at the relative innocence of what we thought of as tory sleaze then vs what we have now.
Yep - was alive in 1997 and it was actually my fist GE in which I could vote so I remember it well.
The dynamics are so very different, not only due to the characters involved. For one, the economy was on the up (in large part to Conservative economic policies which Labour vowed to maintain - spending at least). This allowed Blair to combine his astonishing political skill (and yes - charisma) with the knowledge that Labour were inheriting an economy which would allow them, in time, to promise the world. Which they did. All in the context of a huge global economic boom.
Yes there was Tory sleaze in '97, and yes the Tories had been in power for 18 years, but every Government has sleaze. Always. Including Labour from 1997 to 2010. Tory sleaze gets much more attention as, well, they're evil Tories innit. Labour do sleaze more on the quiet.
In 2010, which although global and largely out of the control of ANY government (like the situation today) - the causes of the GFC had been overseen by Labour for over 10 years. They were the regulators and they were the ones happy to turn a blind eye (no pun intended Mr Brown!) to all the lovely tax revenue generated by the astonishing banking profits. So when the GFC hit the government couldn't plausibly deny they "knew nothing". Of course they did. And people cottoned on to that.
Now - now we have had an un-paralleled economic hit due to a bug. Which is not even the evil Tories' fault - or even Johnson's. I didn't agree with the hysteria to save 100,000 people would would have mostly died soon anyway but there we are. But shutting down the economy for the best part of a year was always going to have consequences. And now we're seeing them. This is the result of satisfying all those screaming "Something must be done". It's ironic that a lot of commentators on here now bemoaning how Sunak can't do this or that, or give them free shit, were the same ones criticising the government for not locking down harder, faster and longer. (That's what she said).
Add the ongoing march to WW3 and an energy crisis which has been at least 40 years in the making and I'm struggling to see how any government could have done better.
It is bizzare where people think the money required for all the wished for increases in benefits and decreases in taxes are going to come from. The last 2 years have been unprecedented, millions of people were paid by the Government to stay at home for months and months. Yet people are thinking the Government still has a big pot of money to spray around.
Can Shell & BP pay for it all?
No, but the asset rich can and should pay much more than they do now.
You realise that we are being taxed more than at any point since 1945?
I would reduce taxes on earnings and increase them on assets. It is that ratio that I think is more wrong than the total amount raised.
You'd have to really stress that first bit to have a chance of selling it, I think.
Should I have put REDUCE in capitals?
At the very least. And have a good title eg a Fair Tax Deal. Strapline - "Tax cuts for toilers".
If we assume that the Health and Social Care Levy will be increased to cover the cost of the DHSC budget, then it would need to rise by a factor of 14 to 17.5% (for each of employees and employers, so 29.8% in total).
If each 1.25 pp increase in the Levy is matched by a 1 pp decrease in the basic rate of income tax, then the basic rate of income tax would be 6%.
The government of the day would be within touching distance of being able to abolish the basic rate of income tax. Imagine the political benefit of being able to remove the median earner from income tax? (Albeit they'd be paying ~30% in NICs and HSCL plus the employer contributions)
I know that, for various reasons often discussed on here, that would be a suboptimal thing to do - except politically.
It's certain that the Tories will want to continue to head in this direction and, now that the NHS tax is created, the chances of Labour resisting the temptation to do the same are zero.
Yay. We all know from experience Elections are won and lost on what happens on Twitter.
You're very attack dog this morning, have you been bitten by @BluestBlue? Because he had the gig when boris looked like an immortal God-Emperor and it was all plain sailing.
1997. don't know whether you were alive/dead/undead in those days. Now, Starmer is no Blair but then Johnson is no Major either, and I stand astonished at the relative innocence of what we thought of as tory sleaze then vs what we have now.
Yep - was alive in 1997 and it was actually my fist GE in which I could vote so I remember it well.
The dynamics are so very different, not only due to the characters involved. For one, the economy was on the up (in large part to Conservative economic policies which Labour vowed to maintain - spending at least). This allowed Blair to combine his astonishing political skill (and yes - charisma) with the knowledge that Labour were inheriting an economy which would allow them, in time, to promise the world. Which they did. All in the context of a huge global economic boom.
Yes there was Tory sleaze in '97, and yes the Tories had been in power for 18 years, but every Government has sleaze. Always. Including Labour from 1997 to 2010. Tory sleaze gets much more attention as, well, they're evil Tories innit. Labour do sleaze more on the quiet.
In 2010, which although global and largely out of the control of ANY government (like the situation today) - the causes of the GFC had been overseen by Labour for over 10 years. They were the regulators and they were the ones happy to turn a blind eye (no pun intended Mr Brown!) to all the lovely tax revenue generated by the astonishing banking profits. So when the GFC hit the government couldn't plausibly deny they "knew nothing". Of course they did. And people cottoned on to that.
Now - now we have had an un-paralleled economic hit due to a bug. Which is not even the evil Tories' fault - or even Johnson's. I didn't agree with the hysteria to save 100,000 people would would have mostly died soon anyway but there we are. But shutting down the economy for the best part of a year was always going to have consequences. And now we're seeing them. This is the result of satisfying all those screaming "Something must be done". It's ironic that a lot of commentators on here now bemoaning how Sunak can't do this or that, or give them free shit, were the same ones criticising the government for not locking down harder, faster and longer. (That's what she said).
Add the ongoing march to WW3 and an energy crisis which has been at least 40 years in the making and I'm struggling to see how any government could have done better.
It is bizzare where people think the money required for all the wished for increases in benefits and decreases in taxes are going to come from. The last 2 years have been unprecedented, millions of people were paid by the Government to stay at home for months and months. Yet people are thinking the Government still has a big pot of money to spray around.
Can Shell & BP pay for it all?
No, but the asset rich can and should pay much more than they do now.
You're confusing asset rich with cash rich. How can an "asset rich" person pay any more when the cash is locked in that asset? Unless you sell that asset, which is now less of value when crystallised because it'll be taxed more.
Just because someone lives in a property valued £1m doesn't make them "rich". They may earn £25k a year but it's just the house which has gone up in value since they've been there 15 years. Which is not their fault or in their control.
Have you heard of borrowing? Non asset rich people are quite familiar with it already.
Forcing people to take on debt to pay taxes? It's an interesting concept.
They can arrange their affairs as they wish. But for millionaires to bleat about cash flow problems when they can borrow at sub 2% I have absolutely zero sympathy.
1. Millionaire is a silly expression these days
2. You just asked "Have you heard of borrowing," but you yourself seem to have only the very vaguest grasp ofthe concept. Lenders in my experience like to see evidence of cash flow from which repayments can be made before hey put their hands in their pockets
Don't think I don't sympathise with your broad position, I am all for a one-off levy on financial assets, but I think your view is distorted by housing envy.
Seriously? There is a massive industry lending to home owners without any more income. Carol Vordermann seems to pop up on daytime tv relentlessly to explain how luvvly it is. They could even take a bit extra to treat the grandkids.
Do you realise what an absolute con these schemes are?
Try borrowing £20,000 from the Nationwide on a mortgage free £300,000 house when you are on a state pension only. They really are not keen to lend the money.
The idea that you should "treat the grandkids" in order to be conned out of their inheritance is delightful. There's a reason they have to pay Vordermann's rates to sucker people in. Also what's all this daytime telly watching, I thought that was only for old rich people?
Yay. We all know from experience Elections are won and lost on what happens on Twitter.
You're very attack dog this morning, have you been bitten by @BluestBlue? Because he had the gig when boris looked like an immortal God-Emperor and it was all plain sailing.
1997. don't know whether you were alive/dead/undead in those days. Now, Starmer is no Blair but then Johnson is no Major either, and I stand astonished at the relative innocence of what we thought of as tory sleaze then vs what we have now.
Yep - was alive in 1997 and it was actually my fist GE in which I could vote so I remember it well.
The dynamics are so very different, not only due to the characters involved. For one, the economy was on the up (in large part to Conservative economic policies which Labour vowed to maintain - spending at least). This allowed Blair to combine his astonishing political skill (and yes - charisma) with the knowledge that Labour were inheriting an economy which would allow them, in time, to promise the world. Which they did. All in the context of a huge global economic boom.
Yes there was Tory sleaze in '97, and yes the Tories had been in power for 18 years, but every Government has sleaze. Always. Including Labour from 1997 to 2010. Tory sleaze gets much more attention as, well, they're evil Tories innit. Labour do sleaze more on the quiet.
In 2010, which although global and largely out of the control of ANY government (like the situation today) - the causes of the GFC had been overseen by Labour for over 10 years. They were the regulators and they were the ones happy to turn a blind eye (no pun intended Mr Brown!) to all the lovely tax revenue generated by the astonishing banking profits. So when the GFC hit the government couldn't plausibly deny they "knew nothing". Of course they did. And people cottoned on to that.
Now - now we have had an un-paralleled economic hit due to a bug. Which is not even the evil Tories' fault - or even Johnson's. I didn't agree with the hysteria to save 100,000 people would would have mostly died soon anyway but there we are. But shutting down the economy for the best part of a year was always going to have consequences. And now we're seeing them. This is the result of satisfying all those screaming "Something must be done". It's ironic that a lot of commentators on here now bemoaning how Sunak can't do this or that, or give them free shit, were the same ones criticising the government for not locking down harder, faster and longer. (That's what she said).
Add the ongoing march to WW3 and an energy crisis which has been at least 40 years in the making and I'm struggling to see how any government could have done better.
It is bizzare where people think the money required for all the wished for increases in benefits and decreases in taxes are going to come from. The last 2 years have been unprecedented, millions of people were paid by the Government to stay at home for months and months. Yet people are thinking the Government still has a big pot of money to spray around.
Can Shell & BP pay for it all?
No, but the asset rich can and should pay much more than they do now.
You realise that we are being taxed more than at any point since 1945?
Yay. We all know from experience Elections are won and lost on what happens on Twitter.
You're very attack dog this morning, have you been bitten by @BluestBlue? Because he had the gig when boris looked like an immortal God-Emperor and it was all plain sailing.
1997. don't know whether you were alive/dead/undead in those days. Now, Starmer is no Blair but then Johnson is no Major either, and I stand astonished at the relative innocence of what we thought of as tory sleaze then vs what we have now.
Yep - was alive in 1997 and it was actually my fist GE in which I could vote so I remember it well.
The dynamics are so very different, not only due to the characters involved. For one, the economy was on the up (in large part to Conservative economic policies which Labour vowed to maintain - spending at least). This allowed Blair to combine his astonishing political skill (and yes - charisma) with the knowledge that Labour were inheriting an economy which would allow them, in time, to promise the world. Which they did. All in the context of a huge global economic boom.
Yes there was Tory sleaze in '97, and yes the Tories had been in power for 18 years, but every Government has sleaze. Always. Including Labour from 1997 to 2010. Tory sleaze gets much more attention as, well, they're evil Tories innit. Labour do sleaze more on the quiet.
In 2010, which although global and largely out of the control of ANY government (like the situation today) - the causes of the GFC had been overseen by Labour for over 10 years. They were the regulators and they were the ones happy to turn a blind eye (no pun intended Mr Brown!) to all the lovely tax revenue generated by the astonishing banking profits. So when the GFC hit the government couldn't plausibly deny they "knew nothing". Of course they did. And people cottoned on to that.
Now - now we have had an un-paralleled economic hit due to a bug. Which is not even the evil Tories' fault - or even Johnson's. I didn't agree with the hysteria to save 100,000 people would would have mostly died soon anyway but there we are. But shutting down the economy for the best part of a year was always going to have consequences. And now we're seeing them. This is the result of satisfying all those screaming "Something must be done". It's ironic that a lot of commentators on here now bemoaning how Sunak can't do this or that, or give them free shit, were the same ones criticising the government for not locking down harder, faster and longer. (That's what she said).
Add the ongoing march to WW3 and an energy crisis which has been at least 40 years in the making and I'm struggling to see how any government could have done better.
It is bizzare where people think the money required for all the wished for increases in benefits and decreases in taxes are going to come from. The last 2 years have been unprecedented, millions of people were paid by the Government to stay at home for months and months. Yet people are thinking the Government still has a big pot of money to spray around.
Can Shell & BP pay for it all?
No, but the asset rich can and should pay much more than they do now.
You realise that we are being taxed more than at any point since 1945?
I would reduce taxes on earnings and increase them on assets. It is that ratio that I think is more wrong than the total amount raised.
So you are advocating people selling their houses to pay tax on the value of the house?
It doesn't have to apply to first home, of course. I'm not against an asset tax. It encourages making assets work (and then also paying tax on the resultant earnings) rather than just taking capital out of the economy.
Are you going to apply that to pension values (DB as well as DC). How do they pay it or are you going to tax the fund which will become income and therefore taxed twice? If not how about people who made alternative pension arrangements. Why should they be treated differently.
It is a mine field.
Pensions are a well-defined field with their own tax regime anyway, so that doesn't have to be a problem either.
However, I agree that it all smacks of "tinkering around the edges" in "clever" Gordon Brown style, rather than the structural reform and simplification that will never happen because it will always negatively impact too many interested parties.
As of yesterday, I think Rishi’s chances of winning an election are similar to Johnson’s.
So with the Tory secret weapon dead, who do they have now?
Their gameplan is Brexit Woke Corbyn Brexit if I recall correctly. I predict an edifying and dignified Tory election campaign.
Pretty much seems to be. ‘We blew the economy but look, cross dressers who fetishise being a woman in womens changin rooms. Labour supports that. Vote Tory.’
It won’t work.
You missed out 'Labours old leader, supported by the current one, doesn't like Israel'.
I have always been sceptical that this "the old leader did this" is effective.
The Tories tried that in 1997 when they tried to say Blair had supported all sorts of extreme policies and it fell flat on its face.
To me it indicates a party totally out of ideas.
The weird thing about it is that, as an attack, it surely helps Starmer.
By not being able to make attacks directly on things that Starmer has said and done, but by having to go back to the previous leader, it makes the point that Starmer isn't Corbyn.
The Tories would do better to attack Starmer for Starmer's weaknesses and failings. Otherwise they will give the voters the impression he doesn't have any.
Yay. We all know from experience Elections are won and lost on what happens on Twitter.
You're very attack dog this morning, have you been bitten by @BluestBlue? Because he had the gig when boris looked like an immortal God-Emperor and it was all plain sailing.
1997. don't know whether you were alive/dead/undead in those days. Now, Starmer is no Blair but then Johnson is no Major either, and I stand astonished at the relative innocence of what we thought of as tory sleaze then vs what we have now.
Yep - was alive in 1997 and it was actually my fist GE in which I could vote so I remember it well.
The dynamics are so very different, not only due to the characters involved. For one, the economy was on the up (in large part to Conservative economic policies which Labour vowed to maintain - spending at least). This allowed Blair to combine his astonishing political skill (and yes - charisma) with the knowledge that Labour were inheriting an economy which would allow them, in time, to promise the world. Which they did. All in the context of a huge global economic boom.
Yes there was Tory sleaze in '97, and yes the Tories had been in power for 18 years, but every Government has sleaze. Always. Including Labour from 1997 to 2010. Tory sleaze gets much more attention as, well, they're evil Tories innit. Labour do sleaze more on the quiet.
In 2010, which although global and largely out of the control of ANY government (like the situation today) - the causes of the GFC had been overseen by Labour for over 10 years. They were the regulators and they were the ones happy to turn a blind eye (no pun intended Mr Brown!) to all the lovely tax revenue generated by the astonishing banking profits. So when the GFC hit the government couldn't plausibly deny they "knew nothing". Of course they did. And people cottoned on to that.
Now - now we have had an un-paralleled economic hit due to a bug. Which is not even the evil Tories' fault - or even Johnson's. I didn't agree with the hysteria to save 100,000 people would would have mostly died soon anyway but there we are. But shutting down the economy for the best part of a year was always going to have consequences. And now we're seeing them. This is the result of satisfying all those screaming "Something must be done". It's ironic that a lot of commentators on here now bemoaning how Sunak can't do this or that, or give them free shit, were the same ones criticising the government for not locking down harder, faster and longer. (That's what she said).
Add the ongoing march to WW3 and an energy crisis which has been at least 40 years in the making and I'm struggling to see how any government could have done better.
It is bizzare where people think the money required for all the wished for increases in benefits and decreases in taxes are going to come from. The last 2 years have been unprecedented, millions of people were paid by the Government to stay at home for months and months. Yet people are thinking the Government still has a big pot of money to spray around.
Can Shell & BP pay for it all?
No, but the asset rich can and should pay much more than they do now.
You're confusing asset rich with cash rich. How can an "asset rich" person pay any more when the cash is locked in that asset? Unless you sell that asset, which is now less of value when crystallised because it'll be taxed more.
Just because someone lives in a property valued £1m doesn't make them "rich". They may earn £25k a year but it's just the house which has gone up in value since they've been there 15 years. Which is not their fault or in their control.
Have you heard of borrowing? Non asset rich people are quite familiar with it already.
Forcing people to take on debt to pay taxes? It's an interesting concept.
They can arrange their affairs as they wish. But for millionaires to bleat about cash flow problems when they can borrow at sub 2% I have absolutely zero sympathy.
1. Millionaire is a silly expression these days
2. You just asked "Have you heard of borrowing," but you yourself seem to have only the very vaguest grasp ofthe concept. Lenders in my experience like to see evidence of cash flow from which repayments can be made before hey put their hands in their pockets
Don't think I don't sympathise with your broad position, I am all for a one-off levy on financial assets, but I think your view is distorted by housing envy.
Seriously? There is a massive industry lending to home owners without any more income. Carol Vordermann seems to pop up on daytime tv relentlessly to explain how luvvly it is. They could even take a bit extra to treat the grandkids.
Do you realise what an absolute con these schemes are?
Try borrowing £20,000 from the Nationwide on a mortgage free £300,000 house when you are on a state pension only. They really are not keen to lend the money.
The idea that you should "treat the grandkids" in order to be conned out of their inheritance is delightful. There's a reason they have to pay Vordermann's rates to sucker people in. Also what's all this daytime telly watching, I thought that was only for old rich people?
I am closer to old and rich than young and poor. Not quite there yet but too close for my liking.
Yay. We all know from experience Elections are won and lost on what happens on Twitter.
You're very attack dog this morning, have you been bitten by @BluestBlue? Because he had the gig when boris looked like an immortal God-Emperor and it was all plain sailing.
1997. don't know whether you were alive/dead/undead in those days. Now, Starmer is no Blair but then Johnson is no Major either, and I stand astonished at the relative innocence of what we thought of as tory sleaze then vs what we have now.
Yep - was alive in 1997 and it was actually my fist GE in which I could vote so I remember it well.
The dynamics are so very different, not only due to the characters involved. For one, the economy was on the up (in large part to Conservative economic policies which Labour vowed to maintain - spending at least). This allowed Blair to combine his astonishing political skill (and yes - charisma) with the knowledge that Labour were inheriting an economy which would allow them, in time, to promise the world. Which they did. All in the context of a huge global economic boom.
Yes there was Tory sleaze in '97, and yes the Tories had been in power for 18 years, but every Government has sleaze. Always. Including Labour from 1997 to 2010. Tory sleaze gets much more attention as, well, they're evil Tories innit. Labour do sleaze more on the quiet.
In 2010, which although global and largely out of the control of ANY government (like the situation today) - the causes of the GFC had been overseen by Labour for over 10 years. They were the regulators and they were the ones happy to turn a blind eye (no pun intended Mr Brown!) to all the lovely tax revenue generated by the astonishing banking profits. So when the GFC hit the government couldn't plausibly deny they "knew nothing". Of course they did. And people cottoned on to that.
Now - now we have had an un-paralleled economic hit due to a bug. Which is not even the evil Tories' fault - or even Johnson's. I didn't agree with the hysteria to save 100,000 people would would have mostly died soon anyway but there we are. But shutting down the economy for the best part of a year was always going to have consequences. And now we're seeing them. This is the result of satisfying all those screaming "Something must be done". It's ironic that a lot of commentators on here now bemoaning how Sunak can't do this or that, or give them free shit, were the same ones criticising the government for not locking down harder, faster and longer. (That's what she said).
Add the ongoing march to WW3 and an energy crisis which has been at least 40 years in the making and I'm struggling to see how any government could have done better.
It is bizzare where people think the money required for all the wished for increases in benefits and decreases in taxes are going to come from. The last 2 years have been unprecedented, millions of people were paid by the Government to stay at home for months and months. Yet people are thinking the Government still has a big pot of money to spray around.
Can Shell & BP pay for it all?
No, but the asset rich can and should pay much more than they do now.
You realise that we are being taxed more than at any point since 1945?
Yay. We all know from experience Elections are won and lost on what happens on Twitter.
You're very attack dog this morning, have you been bitten by @BluestBlue? Because he had the gig when boris looked like an immortal God-Emperor and it was all plain sailing.
1997. don't know whether you were alive/dead/undead in those days. Now, Starmer is no Blair but then Johnson is no Major either, and I stand astonished at the relative innocence of what we thought of as tory sleaze then vs what we have now.
Yep - was alive in 1997 and it was actually my fist GE in which I could vote so I remember it well.
The dynamics are so very different, not only due to the characters involved. For one, the economy was on the up (in large part to Conservative economic policies which Labour vowed to maintain - spending at least). This allowed Blair to combine his astonishing political skill (and yes - charisma) with the knowledge that Labour were inheriting an economy which would allow them, in time, to promise the world. Which they did. All in the context of a huge global economic boom.
Yes there was Tory sleaze in '97, and yes the Tories had been in power for 18 years, but every Government has sleaze. Always. Including Labour from 1997 to 2010. Tory sleaze gets much more attention as, well, they're evil Tories innit. Labour do sleaze more on the quiet.
In 2010, which although global and largely out of the control of ANY government (like the situation today) - the causes of the GFC had been overseen by Labour for over 10 years. They were the regulators and they were the ones happy to turn a blind eye (no pun intended Mr Brown!) to all the lovely tax revenue generated by the astonishing banking profits. So when the GFC hit the government couldn't plausibly deny they "knew nothing". Of course they did. And people cottoned on to that.
Now - now we have had an un-paralleled economic hit due to a bug. Which is not even the evil Tories' fault - or even Johnson's. I didn't agree with the hysteria to save 100,000 people would would have mostly died soon anyway but there we are. But shutting down the economy for the best part of a year was always going to have consequences. And now we're seeing them. This is the result of satisfying all those screaming "Something must be done". It's ironic that a lot of commentators on here now bemoaning how Sunak can't do this or that, or give them free shit, were the same ones criticising the government for not locking down harder, faster and longer. (That's what she said).
Add the ongoing march to WW3 and an energy crisis which has been at least 40 years in the making and I'm struggling to see how any government could have done better.
It is bizzare where people think the money required for all the wished for increases in benefits and decreases in taxes are going to come from. The last 2 years have been unprecedented, millions of people were paid by the Government to stay at home for months and months. Yet people are thinking the Government still has a big pot of money to spray around.
Can Shell & BP pay for it all?
No, but the asset rich can and should pay much more than they do now.
You realise that we are being taxed more than at any point since 1945?
I would reduce taxes on earnings and increase them on assets. It is that ratio that I think is more wrong than the total amount raised.
So you are advocating people selling their houses to pay tax on the value of the house?
It doesn't have to apply to first home, of course. I'm not against an asset tax. It encourages making assets work (and then also paying tax on the resultant earnings) rather than just taking capital out of the economy.
Are you going to apply that to pension values (DB as well as DC). How do they pay it or are you going to tax the fund which will become income and therefore taxed twice? If not how about people who made alternative pension arrangements. Why should they be treated differently.
It is a mine field.
The whole point is this taxing the asset rich policy is that it will completely discourage people from acting responsibly with money and preparing for retirement durung their working life.
To raise any real money from this policy its not just going to be taxing the very asset rich, it will be taxing average pensioners whose value of their house (which they have probably lived in for decades and spent those decades working to pay off their mortgage) has gone up in value.
In what way is not being given more help (to be paid for by someone else) being treated as being expendable ?
The whiny self-pitying self-entitlement on display does not earn sympathy from those who do work.
Golly, is there a supporting clip indicating that people who do not work were being referred to? Though I suppose immediately defining anyone at the bottom of the pile depending on benefits (despite in many cases working their arses off) as workshy is pretty much a reflex for you chaps.
Yet you don't have such doubts about someone who thinks not being given another handout is the equivalent of being denied a place in the Titanic's lifeboats.
Deal with reality - people cannot have all the spending increases, benefit increases, tax cuts and price cuts they think they're entitled to.
Just checking out some new sunglasses for no doubt theoretical holidays this year and the Britons among us will be glad to hear that one manufacturer has ranges called Boudica, Iceni and Prasutagas. Quite what they have to do with UV protection is yet to become clear to me.
Iceni much better with these on?
Those glasses might well be popular in Norfolk. Not so much in Colchester, though.
I had a thriving sunglasses outlet on EBay. I used to sell loads of the Iceni and Prasutagas with absolutely no problem, no complaints at all, but you flog one Boudicca…..
I don't dispute that Sunak is now most likely sunk, but I would repeat my question about what could realistically be done given the situation?
Aside from easing the finances today of individuals by borrowing, increasing costs for everyone tomorrow, it just seems like a shitstorm with no time to hand out umbrellas.
From a political point of view I think it would help to have been honest about the situation, rather than claiming that he could make it all better and then failing to do so.
Yay. We all know from experience Elections are won and lost on what happens on Twitter.
You're very attack dog this morning, have you been bitten by @BluestBlue? Because he had the gig when boris looked like an immortal God-Emperor and it was all plain sailing.
1997. don't know whether you were alive/dead/undead in those days. Now, Starmer is no Blair but then Johnson is no Major either, and I stand astonished at the relative innocence of what we thought of as tory sleaze then vs what we have now.
Yep - was alive in 1997 and it was actually my fist GE in which I could vote so I remember it well.
The dynamics are so very different, not only due to the characters involved. For one, the economy was on the up (in large part to Conservative economic policies which Labour vowed to maintain - spending at least). This allowed Blair to combine his astonishing political skill (and yes - charisma) with the knowledge that Labour were inheriting an economy which would allow them, in time, to promise the world. Which they did. All in the context of a huge global economic boom.
Yes there was Tory sleaze in '97, and yes the Tories had been in power for 18 years, but every Government has sleaze. Always. Including Labour from 1997 to 2010. Tory sleaze gets much more attention as, well, they're evil Tories innit. Labour do sleaze more on the quiet.
In 2010, which although global and largely out of the control of ANY government (like the situation today) - the causes of the GFC had been overseen by Labour for over 10 years. They were the regulators and they were the ones happy to turn a blind eye (no pun intended Mr Brown!) to all the lovely tax revenue generated by the astonishing banking profits. So when the GFC hit the government couldn't plausibly deny they "knew nothing". Of course they did. And people cottoned on to that.
Now - now we have had an un-paralleled economic hit due to a bug. Which is not even the evil Tories' fault - or even Johnson's. I didn't agree with the hysteria to save 100,000 people would would have mostly died soon anyway but there we are. But shutting down the economy for the best part of a year was always going to have consequences. And now we're seeing them. This is the result of satisfying all those screaming "Something must be done". It's ironic that a lot of commentators on here now bemoaning how Sunak can't do this or that, or give them free shit, were the same ones criticising the government for not locking down harder, faster and longer. (That's what she said).
Add the ongoing march to WW3 and an energy crisis which has been at least 40 years in the making and I'm struggling to see how any government could have done better.
It is bizzare where people think the money required for all the wished for increases in benefits and decreases in taxes are going to come from. The last 2 years have been unprecedented, millions of people were paid by the Government to stay at home for months and months. Yet people are thinking the Government still has a big pot of money to spray around.
Can Shell & BP pay for it all?
No, but the asset rich can and should pay much more than they do now.
You're confusing asset rich with cash rich. How can an "asset rich" person pay any more when the cash is locked in that asset? Unless you sell that asset, which is now less of value when crystallised because it'll be taxed more.
Just because someone lives in a property valued £1m doesn't make them "rich". They may earn £25k a year but it's just the house which has gone up in value since they've been there 15 years. Which is not their fault or in their control.
It has always been a mystery to me how you tax the value of a house when the person who lives in it may be on a low income. Are we suggesting that they be forced to sale their house to pay tax on it?
There are plenty of ways to avoid forced sale. Also you'd set the % at a modest level.
But fret not - it won't be happening. Vote loser. "They're coming for your house!" will say the party not advocating it.
There's a couple of things about this fantasy of evil old Mr Burns types cackling away in their 20 bed houses at the plight of the poor
1. A lot of them are prisoners of their own fear. The problem is, at 60 you still just about feel you can carry on indefinitely, at 70 you probably realise that the writing is on the wall. But moving house is the most stressful thing you can do short of divorce or bereavement. You are up to it at 60 but don't want to do it, you get to 70 and it is just too overfacing
2 Trading down is not as easy as it sounds because nice but smaller houses are in 2 sets of sights: both elderly downtraders and upwardly mobile young families
We downsized in our early 60's and over the next few years made some improvements to our 'new' home and spent quite a lot on travelling etc. Now in our 80's we need to 'get someone in' to do fairly basic gardening. We'll try to do some travelling, but our time is constrained by hospital etc appointments.
Yay. We all know from experience Elections are won and lost on what happens on Twitter.
You're very attack dog this morning, have you been bitten by @BluestBlue? Because he had the gig when boris looked like an immortal God-Emperor and it was all plain sailing.
1997. don't know whether you were alive/dead/undead in those days. Now, Starmer is no Blair but then Johnson is no Major either, and I stand astonished at the relative innocence of what we thought of as tory sleaze then vs what we have now.
Yep - was alive in 1997 and it was actually my fist GE in which I could vote so I remember it well.
The dynamics are so very different, not only due to the characters involved. For one, the economy was on the up (in large part to Conservative economic policies which Labour vowed to maintain - spending at least). This allowed Blair to combine his astonishing political skill (and yes - charisma) with the knowledge that Labour were inheriting an economy which would allow them, in time, to promise the world. Which they did. All in the context of a huge global economic boom.
Yes there was Tory sleaze in '97, and yes the Tories had been in power for 18 years, but every Government has sleaze. Always. Including Labour from 1997 to 2010. Tory sleaze gets much more attention as, well, they're evil Tories innit. Labour do sleaze more on the quiet.
In 2010, which although global and largely out of the control of ANY government (like the situation today) - the causes of the GFC had been overseen by Labour for over 10 years. They were the regulators and they were the ones happy to turn a blind eye (no pun intended Mr Brown!) to all the lovely tax revenue generated by the astonishing banking profits. So when the GFC hit the government couldn't plausibly deny they "knew nothing". Of course they did. And people cottoned on to that.
Now - now we have had an un-paralleled economic hit due to a bug. Which is not even the evil Tories' fault - or even Johnson's. I didn't agree with the hysteria to save 100,000 people would would have mostly died soon anyway but there we are. But shutting down the economy for the best part of a year was always going to have consequences. And now we're seeing them. This is the result of satisfying all those screaming "Something must be done". It's ironic that a lot of commentators on here now bemoaning how Sunak can't do this or that, or give them free shit, were the same ones criticising the government for not locking down harder, faster and longer. (That's what she said).
Add the ongoing march to WW3 and an energy crisis which has been at least 40 years in the making and I'm struggling to see how any government could have done better.
It is bizzare where people think the money required for all the wished for increases in benefits and decreases in taxes are going to come from. The last 2 years have been unprecedented, millions of people were paid by the Government to stay at home for months and months. Yet people are thinking the Government still has a big pot of money to spray around.
Can Shell & BP pay for it all?
No, but the asset rich can and should pay much more than they do now.
You're confusing asset rich with cash rich. How can an "asset rich" person pay any more when the cash is locked in that asset? Unless you sell that asset, which is now less of value when crystallised because it'll be taxed more.
Just because someone lives in a property valued £1m doesn't make them "rich". They may earn £25k a year but it's just the house which has gone up in value since they've been there 15 years. Which is not their fault or in their control.
It has always been a mystery to me how you tax the value of a house when the person who lives in it may be on a low income. Are we suggesting that they be forced to sale their house to pay tax on it?
There are plenty of ways to avoid forced sale. Also you'd set the % at a modest level.
But fret not - it won't be happening. Vote loser. "They're coming for your house!" will say the party not advocating it.
There's a couple of things about this fantasy of evil old Mr Burns types cackling away in their 20 bed houses at the plight of the poor
1. A lot of them are prisoners of their own fear. The problem is, at 60 you still just about feel you can carry on indefinitely, at 70 you probably realise that the writing is on the wall. But moving house is the most stressful thing you can do short of divorce or bereavement. You are up to it at 60 but don't want to do it, you get to 70 and it is just too overfacing
2 Trading down is not as easy as it sounds because nice but smaller houses are in 2 sets of sights: both elderly downtraders and upwardly mobile young families
There are also very substantial costs in moving. Stamp duty etc.
Just checking out some new sunglasses for no doubt theoretical holidays this year and the Britons among us will be glad to hear that one manufacturer has ranges called Boudica, Iceni and Prasutagas. Quite what they have to do with UV protection is yet to become clear to me.
Iceni much better with these on?
Those glasses might well be popular in Norfolk. Not so much in Colchester, though.
I had a thriving sunglasses outlet on EBay. I used to sell loads of the Iceni and Prasutagas with absolutely no problem, no complaints at all, but you flog one Boudicca…..
Just as well you didn't have any named 'Boudicca's Daughter'. Flogging was bad enough.
Amazing moment as Boris Johnson ambles up to Joe Biden after the leaders' photo at Nato, but as they begin to chat, Macron heads straight for the middle of the pair and splits them up. Whole international press room laughing. https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1506937514820517888
Yay. We all know from experience Elections are won and lost on what happens on Twitter.
You're very attack dog this morning, have you been bitten by @BluestBlue? Because he had the gig when boris looked like an immortal God-Emperor and it was all plain sailing.
1997. don't know whether you were alive/dead/undead in those days. Now, Starmer is no Blair but then Johnson is no Major either, and I stand astonished at the relative innocence of what we thought of as tory sleaze then vs what we have now.
Yep - was alive in 1997 and it was actually my fist GE in which I could vote so I remember it well.
The dynamics are so very different, not only due to the characters involved. For one, the economy was on the up (in large part to Conservative economic policies which Labour vowed to maintain - spending at least). This allowed Blair to combine his astonishing political skill (and yes - charisma) with the knowledge that Labour were inheriting an economy which would allow them, in time, to promise the world. Which they did. All in the context of a huge global economic boom.
Yes there was Tory sleaze in '97, and yes the Tories had been in power for 18 years, but every Government has sleaze. Always. Including Labour from 1997 to 2010. Tory sleaze gets much more attention as, well, they're evil Tories innit. Labour do sleaze more on the quiet.
In 2010, which although global and largely out of the control of ANY government (like the situation today) - the causes of the GFC had been overseen by Labour for over 10 years. They were the regulators and they were the ones happy to turn a blind eye (no pun intended Mr Brown!) to all the lovely tax revenue generated by the astonishing banking profits. So when the GFC hit the government couldn't plausibly deny they "knew nothing". Of course they did. And people cottoned on to that.
Now - now we have had an un-paralleled economic hit due to a bug. Which is not even the evil Tories' fault - or even Johnson's. I didn't agree with the hysteria to save 100,000 people would would have mostly died soon anyway but there we are. But shutting down the economy for the best part of a year was always going to have consequences. And now we're seeing them. This is the result of satisfying all those screaming "Something must be done". It's ironic that a lot of commentators on here now bemoaning how Sunak can't do this or that, or give them free shit, were the same ones criticising the government for not locking down harder, faster and longer. (That's what she said).
Add the ongoing march to WW3 and an energy crisis which has been at least 40 years in the making and I'm struggling to see how any government could have done better.
It is bizzare where people think the money required for all the wished for increases in benefits and decreases in taxes are going to come from. The last 2 years have been unprecedented, millions of people were paid by the Government to stay at home for months and months. Yet people are thinking the Government still has a big pot of money to spray around.
Can Shell & BP pay for it all?
No, but the asset rich can and should pay much more than they do now.
You realise that we are being taxed more than at any point since 1945?
Yay. We all know from experience Elections are won and lost on what happens on Twitter.
You're very attack dog this morning, have you been bitten by @BluestBlue? Because he had the gig when boris looked like an immortal God-Emperor and it was all plain sailing.
1997. don't know whether you were alive/dead/undead in those days. Now, Starmer is no Blair but then Johnson is no Major either, and I stand astonished at the relative innocence of what we thought of as tory sleaze then vs what we have now.
Yep - was alive in 1997 and it was actually my fist GE in which I could vote so I remember it well.
The dynamics are so very different, not only due to the characters involved. For one, the economy was on the up (in large part to Conservative economic policies which Labour vowed to maintain - spending at least). This allowed Blair to combine his astonishing political skill (and yes - charisma) with the knowledge that Labour were inheriting an economy which would allow them, in time, to promise the world. Which they did. All in the context of a huge global economic boom.
Yes there was Tory sleaze in '97, and yes the Tories had been in power for 18 years, but every Government has sleaze. Always. Including Labour from 1997 to 2010. Tory sleaze gets much more attention as, well, they're evil Tories innit. Labour do sleaze more on the quiet.
In 2010, which although global and largely out of the control of ANY government (like the situation today) - the causes of the GFC had been overseen by Labour for over 10 years. They were the regulators and they were the ones happy to turn a blind eye (no pun intended Mr Brown!) to all the lovely tax revenue generated by the astonishing banking profits. So when the GFC hit the government couldn't plausibly deny they "knew nothing". Of course they did. And people cottoned on to that.
Now - now we have had an un-paralleled economic hit due to a bug. Which is not even the evil Tories' fault - or even Johnson's. I didn't agree with the hysteria to save 100,000 people would would have mostly died soon anyway but there we are. But shutting down the economy for the best part of a year was always going to have consequences. And now we're seeing them. This is the result of satisfying all those screaming "Something must be done". It's ironic that a lot of commentators on here now bemoaning how Sunak can't do this or that, or give them free shit, were the same ones criticising the government for not locking down harder, faster and longer. (That's what she said).
Add the ongoing march to WW3 and an energy crisis which has been at least 40 years in the making and I'm struggling to see how any government could have done better.
It is bizzare where people think the money required for all the wished for increases in benefits and decreases in taxes are going to come from. The last 2 years have been unprecedented, millions of people were paid by the Government to stay at home for months and months. Yet people are thinking the Government still has a big pot of money to spray around.
Can Shell & BP pay for it all?
No, but the asset rich can and should pay much more than they do now.
You realise that we are being taxed more than at any point since 1945?
I would reduce taxes on earnings and increase them on assets. It is that ratio that I think is more wrong than the total amount raised.
So you are advocating people selling their houses to pay tax on the value of the house?
It doesn't have to apply to first home, of course. I'm not against an asset tax. It encourages making assets work (and then also paying tax on the resultant earnings) rather than just taking capital out of the economy.
Are you going to apply that to pension values (DB as well as DC). How do they pay it or are you going to tax the fund which will become income and therefore taxed twice? If not how about people who made alternative pension arrangements. Why should they be treated differently.
It is a mine field.
Pensions are a well-defined field with their own tax regime anyway, so that doesn't have to be a problem either.
However, I agree that it all smacks of "tinkering around the edges" in "clever" Gordon Brown style, rather than the structural reform and simplification that will never happen because it will always negatively impact too many interested parties.
Re your 2nd para agree 100%.
If you are excluding main residence and pensions there is not a lot left. It also discriminates against those who made other arrangements for retirement. I'm not opposed to a wealth tax, but it is difficult.
Yay. We all know from experience Elections are won and lost on what happens on Twitter.
You're very attack dog this morning, have you been bitten by @BluestBlue? Because he had the gig when boris looked like an immortal God-Emperor and it was all plain sailing.
1997. don't know whether you were alive/dead/undead in those days. Now, Starmer is no Blair but then Johnson is no Major either, and I stand astonished at the relative innocence of what we thought of as tory sleaze then vs what we have now.
Yep - was alive in 1997 and it was actually my fist GE in which I could vote so I remember it well.
The dynamics are so very different, not only due to the characters involved. For one, the economy was on the up (in large part to Conservative economic policies which Labour vowed to maintain - spending at least). This allowed Blair to combine his astonishing political skill (and yes - charisma) with the knowledge that Labour were inheriting an economy which would allow them, in time, to promise the world. Which they did. All in the context of a huge global economic boom.
Yes there was Tory sleaze in '97, and yes the Tories had been in power for 18 years, but every Government has sleaze. Always. Including Labour from 1997 to 2010. Tory sleaze gets much more attention as, well, they're evil Tories innit. Labour do sleaze more on the quiet.
In 2010, which although global and largely out of the control of ANY government (like the situation today) - the causes of the GFC had been overseen by Labour for over 10 years. They were the regulators and they were the ones happy to turn a blind eye (no pun intended Mr Brown!) to all the lovely tax revenue generated by the astonishing banking profits. So when the GFC hit the government couldn't plausibly deny they "knew nothing". Of course they did. And people cottoned on to that.
Now - now we have had an un-paralleled economic hit due to a bug. Which is not even the evil Tories' fault - or even Johnson's. I didn't agree with the hysteria to save 100,000 people would would have mostly died soon anyway but there we are. But shutting down the economy for the best part of a year was always going to have consequences. And now we're seeing them. This is the result of satisfying all those screaming "Something must be done". It's ironic that a lot of commentators on here now bemoaning how Sunak can't do this or that, or give them free shit, were the same ones criticising the government for not locking down harder, faster and longer. (That's what she said).
Add the ongoing march to WW3 and an energy crisis which has been at least 40 years in the making and I'm struggling to see how any government could have done better.
It is bizzare where people think the money required for all the wished for increases in benefits and decreases in taxes are going to come from. The last 2 years have been unprecedented, millions of people were paid by the Government to stay at home for months and months. Yet people are thinking the Government still has a big pot of money to spray around.
Can Shell & BP pay for it all?
No, but the asset rich can and should pay much more than they do now.
You realise that we are being taxed more than at any point since 1945?
Yay. We all know from experience Elections are won and lost on what happens on Twitter.
You're very attack dog this morning, have you been bitten by @BluestBlue? Because he had the gig when boris looked like an immortal God-Emperor and it was all plain sailing.
1997. don't know whether you were alive/dead/undead in those days. Now, Starmer is no Blair but then Johnson is no Major either, and I stand astonished at the relative innocence of what we thought of as tory sleaze then vs what we have now.
Yep - was alive in 1997 and it was actually my fist GE in which I could vote so I remember it well.
The dynamics are so very different, not only due to the characters involved. For one, the economy was on the up (in large part to Conservative economic policies which Labour vowed to maintain - spending at least). This allowed Blair to combine his astonishing political skill (and yes - charisma) with the knowledge that Labour were inheriting an economy which would allow them, in time, to promise the world. Which they did. All in the context of a huge global economic boom.
Yes there was Tory sleaze in '97, and yes the Tories had been in power for 18 years, but every Government has sleaze. Always. Including Labour from 1997 to 2010. Tory sleaze gets much more attention as, well, they're evil Tories innit. Labour do sleaze more on the quiet.
In 2010, which although global and largely out of the control of ANY government (like the situation today) - the causes of the GFC had been overseen by Labour for over 10 years. They were the regulators and they were the ones happy to turn a blind eye (no pun intended Mr Brown!) to all the lovely tax revenue generated by the astonishing banking profits. So when the GFC hit the government couldn't plausibly deny they "knew nothing". Of course they did. And people cottoned on to that.
Now - now we have had an un-paralleled economic hit due to a bug. Which is not even the evil Tories' fault - or even Johnson's. I didn't agree with the hysteria to save 100,000 people would would have mostly died soon anyway but there we are. But shutting down the economy for the best part of a year was always going to have consequences. And now we're seeing them. This is the result of satisfying all those screaming "Something must be done". It's ironic that a lot of commentators on here now bemoaning how Sunak can't do this or that, or give them free shit, were the same ones criticising the government for not locking down harder, faster and longer. (That's what she said).
Add the ongoing march to WW3 and an energy crisis which has been at least 40 years in the making and I'm struggling to see how any government could have done better.
It is bizzare where people think the money required for all the wished for increases in benefits and decreases in taxes are going to come from. The last 2 years have been unprecedented, millions of people were paid by the Government to stay at home for months and months. Yet people are thinking the Government still has a big pot of money to spray around.
Can Shell & BP pay for it all?
No, but the asset rich can and should pay much more than they do now.
You realise that we are being taxed more than at any point since 1945?
I would reduce taxes on earnings and increase them on assets. It is that ratio that I think is more wrong than the total amount raised.
So you are advocating people selling their houses to pay tax on the value of the house?
It doesn't have to apply to first home, of course. I'm not against an asset tax. It encourages making assets work (and then also paying tax on the resultant earnings) rather than just taking capital out of the economy.
Are you going to apply that to pension values (DB as well as DC). How do they pay it or are you going to tax the fund which will become income and therefore taxed twice? If not how about people who made alternative pension arrangements. Why should they be treated differently.
It is a mine field.
Pensions are a well-defined field with their own tax regime anyway, so that doesn't have to be a problem either.
However, I agree that it all smacks of "tinkering around the edges" in "clever" Gordon Brown style, rather than the structural reform and simplification that will never happen because it will always negatively impact too many interested parties.
Re your 2nd para agree 100%.
If you are excluding main residence and pensions there is not a lot left. It also discriminates against those who made other arrangements for retirement. I'm not opposed to a wealth tax, but it is difficult.
Its not difficult its impossible and a pipe dream of those who think there are millions of rich pensioners living in mansions in the UK.
Yay. We all know from experience Elections are won and lost on what happens on Twitter.
You're very attack dog this morning, have you been bitten by @BluestBlue? Because he had the gig when boris looked like an immortal God-Emperor and it was all plain sailing.
1997. don't know whether you were alive/dead/undead in those days. Now, Starmer is no Blair but then Johnson is no Major either, and I stand astonished at the relative innocence of what we thought of as tory sleaze then vs what we have now.
Yep - was alive in 1997 and it was actually my fist GE in which I could vote so I remember it well.
The dynamics are so very different, not only due to the characters involved. For one, the economy was on the up (in large part to Conservative economic policies which Labour vowed to maintain - spending at least). This allowed Blair to combine his astonishing political skill (and yes - charisma) with the knowledge that Labour were inheriting an economy which would allow them, in time, to promise the world. Which they did. All in the context of a huge global economic boom.
Yes there was Tory sleaze in '97, and yes the Tories had been in power for 18 years, but every Government has sleaze. Always. Including Labour from 1997 to 2010. Tory sleaze gets much more attention as, well, they're evil Tories innit. Labour do sleaze more on the quiet.
In 2010, which although global and largely out of the control of ANY government (like the situation today) - the causes of the GFC had been overseen by Labour for over 10 years. They were the regulators and they were the ones happy to turn a blind eye (no pun intended Mr Brown!) to all the lovely tax revenue generated by the astonishing banking profits. So when the GFC hit the government couldn't plausibly deny they "knew nothing". Of course they did. And people cottoned on to that.
Now - now we have had an un-paralleled economic hit due to a bug. Which is not even the evil Tories' fault - or even Johnson's. I didn't agree with the hysteria to save 100,000 people would would have mostly died soon anyway but there we are. But shutting down the economy for the best part of a year was always going to have consequences. And now we're seeing them. This is the result of satisfying all those screaming "Something must be done". It's ironic that a lot of commentators on here now bemoaning how Sunak can't do this or that, or give them free shit, were the same ones criticising the government for not locking down harder, faster and longer. (That's what she said).
Add the ongoing march to WW3 and an energy crisis which has been at least 40 years in the making and I'm struggling to see how any government could have done better.
It is bizzare where people think the money required for all the wished for increases in benefits and decreases in taxes are going to come from. The last 2 years have been unprecedented, millions of people were paid by the Government to stay at home for months and months. Yet people are thinking the Government still has a big pot of money to spray around.
Can Shell & BP pay for it all?
No, but the asset rich can and should pay much more than they do now.
You're confusing asset rich with cash rich. How can an "asset rich" person pay any more when the cash is locked in that asset? Unless you sell that asset, which is now less of value when crystallised because it'll be taxed more.
Just because someone lives in a property valued £1m doesn't make them "rich". They may earn £25k a year but it's just the house which has gone up in value since they've been there 15 years. Which is not their fault or in their control.
Yay. We all know from experience Elections are won and lost on what happens on Twitter.
You're very attack dog this morning, have you been bitten by @BluestBlue? Because he had the gig when boris looked like an immortal God-Emperor and it was all plain sailing.
1997. don't know whether you were alive/dead/undead in those days. Now, Starmer is no Blair but then Johnson is no Major either, and I stand astonished at the relative innocence of what we thought of as tory sleaze then vs what we have now.
Yep - was alive in 1997 and it was actually my fist GE in which I could vote so I remember it well.
The dynamics are so very different, not only due to the characters involved. For one, the economy was on the up (in large part to Conservative economic policies which Labour vowed to maintain - spending at least). This allowed Blair to combine his astonishing political skill (and yes - charisma) with the knowledge that Labour were inheriting an economy which would allow them, in time, to promise the world. Which they did. All in the context of a huge global economic boom.
Yes there was Tory sleaze in '97, and yes the Tories had been in power for 18 years, but every Government has sleaze. Always. Including Labour from 1997 to 2010. Tory sleaze gets much more attention as, well, they're evil Tories innit. Labour do sleaze more on the quiet.
In 2010, which although global and largely out of the control of ANY government (like the situation today) - the causes of the GFC had been overseen by Labour for over 10 years. They were the regulators and they were the ones happy to turn a blind eye (no pun intended Mr Brown!) to all the lovely tax revenue generated by the astonishing banking profits. So when the GFC hit the government couldn't plausibly deny they "knew nothing". Of course they did. And people cottoned on to that.
Now - now we have had an un-paralleled economic hit due to a bug. Which is not even the evil Tories' fault - or even Johnson's. I didn't agree with the hysteria to save 100,000 people would would have mostly died soon anyway but there we are. But shutting down the economy for the best part of a year was always going to have consequences. And now we're seeing them. This is the result of satisfying all those screaming "Something must be done". It's ironic that a lot of commentators on here now bemoaning how Sunak can't do this or that, or give them free shit, were the same ones criticising the government for not locking down harder, faster and longer. (That's what she said).
Add the ongoing march to WW3 and an energy crisis which has been at least 40 years in the making and I'm struggling to see how any government could have done better.
It is bizzare where people think the money required for all the wished for increases in benefits and decreases in taxes are going to come from. The last 2 years have been unprecedented, millions of people were paid by the Government to stay at home for months and months. Yet people are thinking the Government still has a big pot of money to spray around.
Can Shell & BP pay for it all?
No, but the asset rich can and should pay much more than they do now.
You're confusing asset rich with cash rich. How can an "asset rich" person pay any more when the cash is locked in that asset? Unless you sell that asset, which is now less of value when crystallised because it'll be taxed more.
Just because someone lives in a property valued £1m doesn't make them "rich". They may earn £25k a year but it's just the house which has gone up in value since they've been there 15 years. Which is not their fault or in their control.
They are rich in that they could sell the property move into a 300 grand flat and be financially set...its only their greed that prevents them doing this
Idiotic comment. "Greed" for wanting to live in their own home which has increased in value outside of their control? What happens when that £300k flat increases to £500k within couple of years. Should they move again? the government chasing you and chasing you until you end up on a housing waiting list?
Keep saying that to yourself and convince yourself of it, fervently - the Tories' chances are getting better all the time.
We bought our home in 1976 for £15,000 and it is the family home loved by our three children and their spouses plus our grandchildren and full of memories which our children cherish
We are not going anywhere despite it now being worth about £450,000
Yay. We all know from experience Elections are won and lost on what happens on Twitter.
You're very attack dog this morning, have you been bitten by @BluestBlue? Because he had the gig when boris looked like an immortal God-Emperor and it was all plain sailing.
1997. don't know whether you were alive/dead/undead in those days. Now, Starmer is no Blair but then Johnson is no Major either, and I stand astonished at the relative innocence of what we thought of as tory sleaze then vs what we have now.
Yep - was alive in 1997 and it was actually my fist GE in which I could vote so I remember it well.
The dynamics are so very different, not only due to the characters involved. For one, the economy was on the up (in large part to Conservative economic policies which Labour vowed to maintain - spending at least). This allowed Blair to combine his astonishing political skill (and yes - charisma) with the knowledge that Labour were inheriting an economy which would allow them, in time, to promise the world. Which they did. All in the context of a huge global economic boom.
Yes there was Tory sleaze in '97, and yes the Tories had been in power for 18 years, but every Government has sleaze. Always. Including Labour from 1997 to 2010. Tory sleaze gets much more attention as, well, they're evil Tories innit. Labour do sleaze more on the quiet.
In 2010, which although global and largely out of the control of ANY government (like the situation today) - the causes of the GFC had been overseen by Labour for over 10 years. They were the regulators and they were the ones happy to turn a blind eye (no pun intended Mr Brown!) to all the lovely tax revenue generated by the astonishing banking profits. So when the GFC hit the government couldn't plausibly deny they "knew nothing". Of course they did. And people cottoned on to that.
Now - now we have had an un-paralleled economic hit due to a bug. Which is not even the evil Tories' fault - or even Johnson's. I didn't agree with the hysteria to save 100,000 people would would have mostly died soon anyway but there we are. But shutting down the economy for the best part of a year was always going to have consequences. And now we're seeing them. This is the result of satisfying all those screaming "Something must be done". It's ironic that a lot of commentators on here now bemoaning how Sunak can't do this or that, or give them free shit, were the same ones criticising the government for not locking down harder, faster and longer. (That's what she said).
Add the ongoing march to WW3 and an energy crisis which has been at least 40 years in the making and I'm struggling to see how any government could have done better.
It is bizzare where people think the money required for all the wished for increases in benefits and decreases in taxes are going to come from. The last 2 years have been unprecedented, millions of people were paid by the Government to stay at home for months and months. Yet people are thinking the Government still has a big pot of money to spray around.
Can Shell & BP pay for it all?
No, but the asset rich can and should pay much more than they do now.
You're confusing asset rich with cash rich. How can an "asset rich" person pay any more when the cash is locked in that asset? Unless you sell that asset, which is now less of value when crystallised because it'll be taxed more.
Just because someone lives in a property valued £1m doesn't make them "rich". They may earn £25k a year but it's just the house which has gone up in value since they've been there 15 years. Which is not their fault or in their control.
Yay. We all know from experience Elections are won and lost on what happens on Twitter.
You're very attack dog this morning, have you been bitten by @BluestBlue? Because he had the gig when boris looked like an immortal God-Emperor and it was all plain sailing.
1997. don't know whether you were alive/dead/undead in those days. Now, Starmer is no Blair but then Johnson is no Major either, and I stand astonished at the relative innocence of what we thought of as tory sleaze then vs what we have now.
Yep - was alive in 1997 and it was actually my fist GE in which I could vote so I remember it well.
The dynamics are so very different, not only due to the characters involved. For one, the economy was on the up (in large part to Conservative economic policies which Labour vowed to maintain - spending at least). This allowed Blair to combine his astonishing political skill (and yes - charisma) with the knowledge that Labour were inheriting an economy which would allow them, in time, to promise the world. Which they did. All in the context of a huge global economic boom.
Yes there was Tory sleaze in '97, and yes the Tories had been in power for 18 years, but every Government has sleaze. Always. Including Labour from 1997 to 2010. Tory sleaze gets much more attention as, well, they're evil Tories innit. Labour do sleaze more on the quiet.
In 2010, which although global and largely out of the control of ANY government (like the situation today) - the causes of the GFC had been overseen by Labour for over 10 years. They were the regulators and they were the ones happy to turn a blind eye (no pun intended Mr Brown!) to all the lovely tax revenue generated by the astonishing banking profits. So when the GFC hit the government couldn't plausibly deny they "knew nothing". Of course they did. And people cottoned on to that.
Now - now we have had an un-paralleled economic hit due to a bug. Which is not even the evil Tories' fault - or even Johnson's. I didn't agree with the hysteria to save 100,000 people would would have mostly died soon anyway but there we are. But shutting down the economy for the best part of a year was always going to have consequences. And now we're seeing them. This is the result of satisfying all those screaming "Something must be done". It's ironic that a lot of commentators on here now bemoaning how Sunak can't do this or that, or give them free shit, were the same ones criticising the government for not locking down harder, faster and longer. (That's what she said).
Add the ongoing march to WW3 and an energy crisis which has been at least 40 years in the making and I'm struggling to see how any government could have done better.
It is bizzare where people think the money required for all the wished for increases in benefits and decreases in taxes are going to come from. The last 2 years have been unprecedented, millions of people were paid by the Government to stay at home for months and months. Yet people are thinking the Government still has a big pot of money to spray around.
Can Shell & BP pay for it all?
No, but the asset rich can and should pay much more than they do now.
You're confusing asset rich with cash rich. How can an "asset rich" person pay any more when the cash is locked in that asset? Unless you sell that asset, which is now less of value when crystallised because it'll be taxed more.
Just because someone lives in a property valued £1m doesn't make them "rich". They may earn £25k a year but it's just the house which has gone up in value since they've been there 15 years. Which is not their fault or in their control.
They are rich in that they could sell the property move into a 300 grand flat and be financially set...its only their greed that prevents them doing this
Idiotic comment. "Greed" for wanting to live in their own home which has increased in value outside of their control? What happens when that £300k flat increases to £500k within couple of years. Should they move again? the government chasing you and chasing you until you end up on a housing waiting list?
Keep saying that to yourself and convince yourself of it, fervently - the Tories' chances are getting better all the time.
We bought our home in 1976 for £15,000 and it is the family home loved by our three children and their spouses plus our grandchildren and full of memories which our children cherish
We are not going anywhere despite it now being worth about £450,000
There are serious issues with house prices. My parents bought their 4 bed house in 1981 for £40K. Their parents thought it was very expensive at the time. It is in the home counties in a town regularly near the top of the best places to live in the country. They extended it to a 5 bed. Someone down their road has recently listed their smaller house for £2M. These are what I would consider decent family homes but pricing is clearly crazy. Yet they still seem to keep selling. I am not sure how.
Amazing moment as Boris Johnson ambles up to Joe Biden after the leaders' photo at Nato, but as they begin to chat, Macron heads straight for the middle of the pair and splits them up. Whole international press room laughing. https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1506937514820517888
Yay. We all know from experience Elections are won and lost on what happens on Twitter.
You're very attack dog this morning, have you been bitten by @BluestBlue? Because he had the gig when boris looked like an immortal God-Emperor and it was all plain sailing.
1997. don't know whether you were alive/dead/undead in those days. Now, Starmer is no Blair but then Johnson is no Major either, and I stand astonished at the relative innocence of what we thought of as tory sleaze then vs what we have now.
Yep - was alive in 1997 and it was actually my fist GE in which I could vote so I remember it well.
The dynamics are so very different, not only due to the characters involved. For one, the economy was on the up (in large part to Conservative economic policies which Labour vowed to maintain - spending at least). This allowed Blair to combine his astonishing political skill (and yes - charisma) with the knowledge that Labour were inheriting an economy which would allow them, in time, to promise the world. Which they did. All in the context of a huge global economic boom.
Yes there was Tory sleaze in '97, and yes the Tories had been in power for 18 years, but every Government has sleaze. Always. Including Labour from 1997 to 2010. Tory sleaze gets much more attention as, well, they're evil Tories innit. Labour do sleaze more on the quiet.
In 2010, which although global and largely out of the control of ANY government (like the situation today) - the causes of the GFC had been overseen by Labour for over 10 years. They were the regulators and they were the ones happy to turn a blind eye (no pun intended Mr Brown!) to all the lovely tax revenue generated by the astonishing banking profits. So when the GFC hit the government couldn't plausibly deny they "knew nothing". Of course they did. And people cottoned on to that.
Now - now we have had an un-paralleled economic hit due to a bug. Which is not even the evil Tories' fault - or even Johnson's. I didn't agree with the hysteria to save 100,000 people would would have mostly died soon anyway but there we are. But shutting down the economy for the best part of a year was always going to have consequences. And now we're seeing them. This is the result of satisfying all those screaming "Something must be done". It's ironic that a lot of commentators on here now bemoaning how Sunak can't do this or that, or give them free shit, were the same ones criticising the government for not locking down harder, faster and longer. (That's what she said).
Add the ongoing march to WW3 and an energy crisis which has been at least 40 years in the making and I'm struggling to see how any government could have done better.
It is bizzare where people think the money required for all the wished for increases in benefits and decreases in taxes are going to come from. The last 2 years have been unprecedented, millions of people were paid by the Government to stay at home for months and months. Yet people are thinking the Government still has a big pot of money to spray around.
Can Shell & BP pay for it all?
No, but the asset rich can and should pay much more than they do now.
You're confusing asset rich with cash rich. How can an "asset rich" person pay any more when the cash is locked in that asset? Unless you sell that asset, which is now less of value when crystallised because it'll be taxed more.
Just because someone lives in a property valued £1m doesn't make them "rich". They may earn £25k a year but it's just the house which has gone up in value since they've been there 15 years. Which is not their fault or in their control.
It has always been a mystery to me how you tax the value of a house when the person who lives in it may be on a low income. Are we suggesting that they be forced to sale their house to pay tax on it?
There are plenty of ways to avoid forced sale. Also you'd set the % at a modest level.
But fret not - it won't be happening. Vote loser. "They're coming for your house!" will say the party not advocating it.
There's a couple of things about this fantasy of evil old Mr Burns types cackling away in their 20 bed houses at the plight of the poor
1. A lot of them are prisoners of their own fear. The problem is, at 60 you still just about feel you can carry on indefinitely, at 70 you probably realise that the writing is on the wall. But moving house is the most stressful thing you can do short of divorce or bereavement. You are up to it at 60 but don't want to do it, you get to 70 and it is just too overfacing
2 Trading down is not as easy as it sounds because nice but smaller houses are in 2 sets of sights: both elderly downtraders and upwardly mobile young families
Yes, that is a fantasy. And "downsizing" is easier to recommend to people than to do. I've seen that in practice, eg with my parents. What I'm talking about is not that, it's this situation we've evolved whereby residential property has become the main engine for personal wealth accumulation and at the same time lots of people are locked out of it.
Capital values and rents are sky high compared to income levels. You have a very large % of people's assets and budgets consumed by property matters. It's iniquitous and inefficient and a problem we have to a greater extent than most other countries.
So I'd like to see policies which go against the grain of this rather than reinforce it - eg that depress house prices rather than support them. But it's politically difficult because our attitude to housing - eg that it's as much an investment as a home - runs deep. Also you don't want a crash because people can get badly hurt with that.
P&O bosses in front of parliamentary committee on BBC Two.
IMO it's fair to say they're not coping well.
Another question for P&O CEO on sacking of employees:
"There is absolutely no doubt we were required to consult with the unions. We chose not to do that..." "You chose to break the law" "... we chose not to consult and we are and will compensate everybody in full for that" https://twitter.com/LiseMcNally/status/1506951785172320262
Amazing moment as Boris Johnson ambles up to Joe Biden after the leaders' photo at Nato, but as they begin to chat, Macron heads straight for the middle of the pair and splits them up. Whole international press room laughing. https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1506937514820517888
Amazing moment as Boris Johnson ambles up to Joe Biden after the leaders' photo at Nato, but as they begin to chat, Macron heads straight for the middle of the pair and splits them up. Whole international press room laughing. https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1506937514820517888
This has become a game now, trying to show johnson and Truss being dissed at these things. Biden talks to BJ, Biden then talks to someone else. Whoopee.
Amazing moment as Boris Johnson ambles up to Joe Biden after the leaders' photo at Nato, but as they begin to chat, Macron heads straight for the middle of the pair and splits them up. Whole international press room laughing. https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1506937514820517888
Utter childish nonsense from the leaders
Macron and his country are the ones making blood money in Russia. The fact Remoaners take his side just shows how morally bankrupt they are.
A wealth tax is difficult to implement and will cause all sorts of headaches. Simpler to have an effective inheritance tax if you want to go down a similar route - but there is big opposition to that in the electorate.
Any wealth tax must include pension funds, ISAs and all property including primary residence otherwise it is totally immoral and will distort the economy horribly.
P&O bosses in front of parliamentary committee on BBC Two.
IMO it's fair to say they're not coping well.
Another question for P&O CEO on sacking of employees:
"There is absolutely no doubt we were required to consult with the unions. We chose not to do that..." "You chose to break the law" "... we chose not to consult and we are and will compensate everybody in full for that" https://twitter.com/LiseMcNally/status/1506951785172320262
#Ukraine: In #Chernihiv Oblast the Ukrainian forces destroyed a Russian cargo truck, transporting МО.1.01.04М thermobaric rockets for the very potent TOS-1A "Solntsepyok" multiple rocket launcher. https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1506955462096343042
Amazing moment as Boris Johnson ambles up to Joe Biden after the leaders' photo at Nato, but as they begin to chat, Macron heads straight for the middle of the pair and splits them up. Whole international press room laughing. https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1506937514820517888
This has become a game now, trying to show johnson and Truss being dissed at these things. Biden talks to BJ, Biden then talks to someone else. Whoopee.
BJ looks like he needs the nursery teacher to step in to tell the other sprogs to make an effort with him despite him smelling of wee and eating his own bogies.
A wealth tax is difficult to implement and will cause all sorts of headaches. Simpler to have an effective inheritance tax if you want to go down a similar route - but there is big opposition to that in the electorate.
Any wealth tax must include pension funds, ISAs and all property including primary residence otherwise it is totally immoral and will distort the economy horribly.
While I can see the merit of a wealth tax as I mentioned earlier but it does need to be explained and detailed and looks very complex
P&O bosses in front of parliamentary committee on BBC Two.
IMO it's fair to say they're not coping well.
Another question for P&O CEO on sacking of employees:
"There is absolutely no doubt we were required to consult with the unions. We chose not to do that..." "You chose to break the law" "... we chose not to consult and we are and will compensate everybody in full for that" https://twitter.com/LiseMcNally/status/1506951785172320262
Ouch.
Do any on either side know what the law is?
Were they not a Dubai Company employing workers on a Jersey contract to work on a ship registered in Cyprus ?
The discovery shows the particles can travel around the body and may lodge in organs. The impact on health is as yet unknown. But researchers are concerned as microplastics cause damage to human cells in the laboratory and air pollution particles are already known to enter the body and cause millions of early deaths a year...,/i>
It was very revealing that HMT's distributional analysis chart didn't show the effect of yesterday's decisions on their own, I assumed that that was because that would have looked something like this, but even so this is a horrific hit for the disabled and other vulnerable people. Spare a thought for the top decile though, some of them may only be able to afford one type of bread now.
We tend to have two types of bread in our house. My wife and I have seeded bread as that is best for our health and diet, but our children don't like the bits so they have white.
The key is ensuring that you don't waste the bread.
Yay. We all know from experience Elections are won and lost on what happens on Twitter.
You're very attack dog this morning, have you been bitten by @BluestBlue? Because he had the gig when boris looked like an immortal God-Emperor and it was all plain sailing.
1997. don't know whether you were alive/dead/undead in those days. Now, Starmer is no Blair but then Johnson is no Major either, and I stand astonished at the relative innocence of what we thought of as tory sleaze then vs what we have now.
Yep - was alive in 1997 and it was actually my fist GE in which I could vote so I remember it well.
The dynamics are so very different, not only due to the characters involved. For one, the economy was on the up (in large part to Conservative economic policies which Labour vowed to maintain - spending at least). This allowed Blair to combine his astonishing political skill (and yes - charisma) with the knowledge that Labour were inheriting an economy which would allow them, in time, to promise the world. Which they did. All in the context of a huge global economic boom.
Yes there was Tory sleaze in '97, and yes the Tories had been in power for 18 years, but every Government has sleaze. Always. Including Labour from 1997 to 2010. Tory sleaze gets much more attention as, well, they're evil Tories innit. Labour do sleaze more on the quiet.
In 2010, which although global and largely out of the control of ANY government (like the situation today) - the causes of the GFC had been overseen by Labour for over 10 years. They were the regulators and they were the ones happy to turn a blind eye (no pun intended Mr Brown!) to all the lovely tax revenue generated by the astonishing banking profits. So when the GFC hit the government couldn't plausibly deny they "knew nothing". Of course they did. And people cottoned on to that.
Now - now we have had an un-paralleled economic hit due to a bug. Which is not even the evil Tories' fault - or even Johnson's. I didn't agree with the hysteria to save 100,000 people would would have mostly died soon anyway but there we are. But shutting down the economy for the best part of a year was always going to have consequences. And now we're seeing them. This is the result of satisfying all those screaming "Something must be done". It's ironic that a lot of commentators on here now bemoaning how Sunak can't do this or that, or give them free shit, were the same ones criticising the government for not locking down harder, faster and longer. (That's what she said).
Add the ongoing march to WW3 and an energy crisis which has been at least 40 years in the making and I'm struggling to see how any government could have done better.
It is bizzare where people think the money required for all the wished for increases in benefits and decreases in taxes are going to come from. The last 2 years have been unprecedented, millions of people were paid by the Government to stay at home for months and months. Yet people are thinking the Government still has a big pot of money to spray around.
Can Shell & BP pay for it all?
No, but the asset rich can and should pay much more than they do now.
You're confusing asset rich with cash rich. How can an "asset rich" person pay any more when the cash is locked in that asset? Unless you sell that asset, which is now less of value when crystallised because it'll be taxed more.
Just because someone lives in a property valued £1m doesn't make them "rich". They may earn £25k a year but it's just the house which has gone up in value since they've been there 15 years. Which is not their fault or in their control.
It has always been a mystery to me how you tax the value of a house when the person who lives in it may be on a low income. Are we suggesting that they be forced to sale their house to pay tax on it?
There are plenty of ways to avoid forced sale. Also you'd set the % at a modest level.
But fret not - it won't be happening. Vote loser. "They're coming for your house!" will say the party not advocating it.
There's a couple of things about this fantasy of evil old Mr Burns types cackling away in their 20 bed houses at the plight of the poor
1. A lot of them are prisoners of their own fear. The problem is, at 60 you still just about feel you can carry on indefinitely, at 70 you probably realise that the writing is on the wall. But moving house is the most stressful thing you can do short of divorce or bereavement. You are up to it at 60 but don't want to do it, you get to 70 and it is just too overfacing
2 Trading down is not as easy as it sounds because nice but smaller houses are in 2 sets of sights: both elderly downtraders and upwardly mobile young families
There's a third factor, I think. We have two spare rooms now the four young ones have left home. But one of the reasons we don't want to trade down is because we wouldn't be surprised if at least one of the four has to move back in with us at some stage, if they find themselves without a reasonable job and struggling to pay rent.
Yay. We all know from experience Elections are won and lost on what happens on Twitter.
You're very attack dog this morning, have you been bitten by @BluestBlue? Because he had the gig when boris looked like an immortal God-Emperor and it was all plain sailing.
1997. don't know whether you were alive/dead/undead in those days. Now, Starmer is no Blair but then Johnson is no Major either, and I stand astonished at the relative innocence of what we thought of as tory sleaze then vs what we have now.
Yep - was alive in 1997 and it was actually my fist GE in which I could vote so I remember it well.
The dynamics are so very different, not only due to the characters involved. For one, the economy was on the up (in large part to Conservative economic policies which Labour vowed to maintain - spending at least). This allowed Blair to combine his astonishing political skill (and yes - charisma) with the knowledge that Labour were inheriting an economy which would allow them, in time, to promise the world. Which they did. All in the context of a huge global economic boom.
Yes there was Tory sleaze in '97, and yes the Tories had been in power for 18 years, but every Government has sleaze. Always. Including Labour from 1997 to 2010. Tory sleaze gets much more attention as, well, they're evil Tories innit. Labour do sleaze more on the quiet.
In 2010, which although global and largely out of the control of ANY government (like the situation today) - the causes of the GFC had been overseen by Labour for over 10 years. They were the regulators and they were the ones happy to turn a blind eye (no pun intended Mr Brown!) to all the lovely tax revenue generated by the astonishing banking profits. So when the GFC hit the government couldn't plausibly deny they "knew nothing". Of course they did. And people cottoned on to that.
Now - now we have had an un-paralleled economic hit due to a bug. Which is not even the evil Tories' fault - or even Johnson's. I didn't agree with the hysteria to save 100,000 people would would have mostly died soon anyway but there we are. But shutting down the economy for the best part of a year was always going to have consequences. And now we're seeing them. This is the result of satisfying all those screaming "Something must be done". It's ironic that a lot of commentators on here now bemoaning how Sunak can't do this or that, or give them free shit, were the same ones criticising the government for not locking down harder, faster and longer. (That's what she said).
Add the ongoing march to WW3 and an energy crisis which has been at least 40 years in the making and I'm struggling to see how any government could have done better.
It is bizzare where people think the money required for all the wished for increases in benefits and decreases in taxes are going to come from. The last 2 years have been unprecedented, millions of people were paid by the Government to stay at home for months and months. Yet people are thinking the Government still has a big pot of money to spray around.
Can Shell & BP pay for it all?
No, but the asset rich can and should pay much more than they do now.
You're confusing asset rich with cash rich. How can an "asset rich" person pay any more when the cash is locked in that asset? Unless you sell that asset, which is now less of value when crystallised because it'll be taxed more.
Just because someone lives in a property valued £1m doesn't make them "rich". They may earn £25k a year but it's just the house which has gone up in value since they've been there 15 years. Which is not their fault or in their control.
Have you heard of borrowing? Non asset rich people are quite familiar with it already.
Forcing people to take on debt to pay taxes? It's an interesting concept.
They can arrange their affairs as they wish. But for millionaires to bleat about cash flow problems when they can borrow at sub 2% I have absolutely zero sympathy.
1. Millionaire is a silly expression these days
2. You just asked "Have you heard of borrowing," but you yourself seem to have only the very vaguest grasp ofthe concept. Lenders in my experience like to see evidence of cash flow from which repayments can be made before hey put their hands in their pockets
Don't think I don't sympathise with your broad position, I am all for a one-off levy on financial assets, but I think your view is distorted by housing envy.
Seriously? There is a massive industry lending to home owners without any more income. Carol Vordermann seems to pop up on daytime tv relentlessly to explain how luvvly it is. They could even take a bit extra to treat the grandkids.
I know a couple of financially savvy people who are convinced that this the PPI de nos jours.
When I was still working, as an IFA, several clients asked me about equity release. After I explained it to them, with some sample calculations, not one still wanted to go ahead. Thankfully!
P&O bosses in front of parliamentary committee on BBC Two.
IMO it's fair to say they're not coping well.
Another question for P&O CEO on sacking of employees:
"There is absolutely no doubt we were required to consult with the unions. We chose not to do that..." "You chose to break the law" "... we chose not to consult and we are and will compensate everybody in full for that" https://twitter.com/LiseMcNally/status/1506951785172320262
Ouch.
Do any on either side know what the law is?
Were they not a Dubai Company employing workers on a Jersey contract to work on a ship registered in Cyprus ?
I don't know.
I'm wondering whether or not the employees could be in line for exemplary damages? My understanding is that such a situation is rare in the UK but that a court can look at the conduct of the defendant in awarding such damages. I think there was a libel case where the defendants calculated they could get more in profit than any settlement and decided to go ahead with the libel. The court took a dim view and awarded the claimant extra money as a result. Surely P&O are in a similar position?
A wealth tax is difficult to implement and will cause all sorts of headaches. Simpler to have an effective inheritance tax if you want to go down a similar route - but there is big opposition to that in the electorate.
Any wealth tax must include pension funds, ISAs and all property including primary residence otherwise it is totally immoral and will distort the economy horribly.
I don't think so. There are plenty of models. Tm me the key is lowish tiered rates and wide application.
The Swiss model seems a good one, described here with a few dodges
A wealth tax is difficult to implement and will cause all sorts of headaches. Simpler to have an effective inheritance tax if you want to go down a similar route - but there is big opposition to that in the electorate.
Any wealth tax must include pension funds, ISAs and all property including primary residence otherwise it is totally immoral and will distort the economy horribly.
We've already distorted the economy by not taxing some things, and heavily taxing others. It's a bit mad that primary residence gain in value is untaxed... that's quite unusual I think vs. other countries.
I reckon a wealth tax should be introduced and set with a very high threshold initially to apply to only a small number of very wealthy people. Over time, we can figure out the kinks in the system, and as a society we can decide the balance between taxing income and wealth.
Mr. Stoke, the whole points of ISAs is to be tax free. They're also the only form of savings that many people have.
Taxing them would not necessarily be conducive to electoral success.
Taxing ISAs would be breaking a specific promise. It is also encouraging people to invest for the their future - and not to do so by pouring more money into property.
Taxing pensions - to raise significant amounts of money, you would need to tax some people who will not be getting 100K out of their pension. Perhaps we should consider the State Pension as the equivalent in wealth of a lump sum of X and tax people on that?
A wealth tax is difficult to implement and will cause all sorts of headaches. Simpler to have an effective inheritance tax if you want to go down a similar route - but there is big opposition to that in the electorate.
Any wealth tax must include pension funds, ISAs and all property including primary residence otherwise it is totally immoral and will distort the economy horribly.
I don't think so. There are plenty of models. Tm me the key is lowish tiered rates and wide application.
The Swiss model seems a good one, described here with a few dodges
Interesting - thanks for sharing. I would have assumed catching very few people was a better starting point... but maybe you're right... having lots of people pay it, but also realize it's not that big of an amount, might be better to encourage support for the tax.
Mr. Stoke, the whole points of ISAs is to be tax free. They're also the only form of savings that many people have.
Taxing them would not necessarily be conducive to electoral success.
Martin Lewis blog this week was advising most people should ditch ISAs as the £1,000 interest tax free rule means better products with better interest rates are effectively tax free
The Ukrainian Armed Forces pushed Russian troops back another 25-35 kilometers east of Kyiv. Currently, Russian troops are about 55 kilometers to the east from the center of Kyiv, — the Pentagon https://twitter.com/Hromadske/status/1506953249206714381
Mr. Stoke, the whole points of ISAs is to be tax free. They're also the only form of savings that many people have.
Taxing them would not necessarily be conducive to electoral success.
Taxing ISAs would be breaking a specific promise. It is also encouraging people to invest for the their future - and not to do so by pouring more money into property.
Taxing pensions - to raise significant amounts of money, you would need to tax some people who will not be getting 100K out of their pension. Perhaps we should consider the State Pension as the equivalent in wealth of a lump sum of X and tax people on that?
The UK government might never have defaulted on its debts, but it has done so with disturbing frequency on its promises.
Mr. Stoke, the whole points of ISAs is to be tax free. They're also the only form of savings that many people have.
Taxing them would not necessarily be conducive to electoral success.
Martin Lewis blog this week was advising most people should ditch ISAs as the £1,000 interest tax free rule means better products with better interest rates are effectively tax free
I don't support a wealth tax, but I see no reason why Band H properties pay only 3 times Band A, more properties should be shifted from G to H, and the creation of a band I in England, so as to improve Council tax as a progressive means of wealth taxation.
If people shift their wealth from real property to something else, also sounds like an improvement for the housing market.
Can someone from a private security firm arrest Peter Hebblethwaite please?
Nah, when they're arrested we want to ensure they're arrested legally. They're the ones who do things illegally. But when he's sacked, all his belongings should be dumped on quayside in Dover and Hull in black binbags.
That was an absolute car crash. Or should that be ferry crash?
Mr. Stoke, the whole points of ISAs is to be tax free. They're also the only form of savings that many people have.
Taxing them would not necessarily be conducive to electoral success.
Taxing ISAs would be breaking a specific promise. It is also encouraging people to invest for the their future - and not to do so by pouring more money into property.
Taxing pensions - to raise significant amounts of money, you would need to tax some people who will not be getting 100K out of their pension. Perhaps we should consider the State Pension as the equivalent in wealth of a lump sum of X and tax people on that?
The UK government might never have defaulted on its debts, but it has done so with disturbing frequency on its promises.
It'd be odd to tax pensions, including SP, and not tax ISAs. The whole point of a wealth tax is to tax assets.
One other thought: it will bring the tax haven issue into glaring highlight, not necessarily to the advantage of the Conservative and Unionist Party, HMtQ, etc. etc.
A wealth tax is difficult to implement and will cause all sorts of headaches. Simpler to have an effective inheritance tax if you want to go down a similar route - but there is big opposition to that in the electorate.
Any wealth tax must include pension funds, ISAs and all property including primary residence otherwise it is totally immoral and will distort the economy horribly.
I don't think so. There are plenty of models. Tm me the key is lowish tiered rates and wide application.
The Swiss model seems a good one, described here with a few dodges
Interesting - thanks for sharing. I would have assumed catching very few people was a better starting point... but maybe you're right... having lots of people pay it, but also realize it's not that big of an amount, might be better to encourage support for the tax.
In 15 years working there, I never heard anyone suggest it was problematic - it was just a minor part of the fiscal scenery and people paid it without grumbling.
Plenty of support for a wealth tax so long as it remains a theoretical proposition. This is my sense of things.
The golden rule of taxes is that 95% are in favour of any tax they don't think will apply to them. The reality is that if we want good public services we need a higher basic rate of income tax and to tax things like capital gains on homes. Good luck anyone who proposes that though, so instead we get stealth taxes and gimmicky taxes on assorted bogeymen, combined with a decaying public sector. Yay!
Mr. Stoke, the whole points of ISAs is to be tax free. They're also the only form of savings that many people have.
Taxing them would not necessarily be conducive to electoral success.
Martin Lewis blog this week was advising most people should ditch ISAs as the £1,000 interest tax free rule means better products with better interest rates are effectively tax free
Hmm.
What about the capital gain element with shares?
i think ML means cash ISAs which is good advice because of what he says - stock and shares ISAS different
Comments
The whiny self-pitying self-entitlement on display does not earn sympathy from those who do work.
Keep saying that to yourself and convince yourself of it, fervently - the Tories' chances are getting better all the time.
Try borrowing £20,000 from the Nationwide on a mortgage free £300,000 house when you are on a state pension only. They really are not keen to lend the money.
It is a mine field.
Rishi Sunak's employees abstained from consuming alcohol this year while he delivered his Spring Statement
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/03/23/partygate-hangover-hits-treasury-staff-cancel-traditional-mini/
Sources at the Treasury denied reports that alcohol was banned by senior officials, saying that “no formal instruction” was given to staff but rather they decided not to indulge of their own accord
I have said I would be taxing second home owners (incl landlords, needs to be said as they seem to forget they own multiple homes) and those with £5m+ assets. So Joe Average in a house that has risen in value, even in Chelsea or Fulham is not impacted, let alone someone with a £300k house and state pension.
1. A lot of them are prisoners of their own fear. The problem is, at 60 you still just about feel you can carry on indefinitely, at 70 you probably realise that the writing is on the wall. But moving house is the most stressful thing you can do short of divorce or bereavement. You are up to it at 60 but don't want to do it, you get to 70 and it is just too overfacing
2 Trading down is not as easy as it sounds because nice but smaller houses are in 2 sets of sights: both elderly downtraders and upwardly mobile young families
If each 1.25 pp increase in the Levy is matched by a 1 pp decrease in the basic rate of income tax, then the basic rate of income tax would be 6%.
The government of the day would be within touching distance of being able to abolish the basic rate of income tax. Imagine the political benefit of being able to remove the median earner from income tax? (Albeit they'd be paying ~30% in NICs and HSCL plus the employer contributions)
I know that, for various reasons often discussed on here, that would be a suboptimal thing to do - except politically.
It's certain that the Tories will want to continue to head in this direction and, now that the NHS tax is created, the chances of Labour resisting the temptation to do the same are zero.
However, I agree that it all smacks of "tinkering around the edges" in "clever" Gordon Brown style, rather than the structural reform and simplification that will never happen because it will always negatively impact too many interested parties.
By not being able to make attacks directly on things that Starmer has said and done, but by having to go back to the previous leader, it makes the point that Starmer isn't Corbyn.
The Tories would do better to attack Starmer for Starmer's weaknesses and failings. Otherwise they will give the voters the impression he doesn't have any.
To raise any real money from this policy its not just going to be taxing the very asset rich, it will be taxing average pensioners whose value of their house (which they have probably lived in for decades and spent those decades working to pay off their mortgage) has gone up in value.
Deal with reality - people cannot have all the spending increases, benefit increases, tax cuts and price cuts they think they're entitled to.
If you are excluding main residence and pensions there is not a lot left. It also discriminates against those who made other arrangements for retirement. I'm not opposed to a wealth tax, but it is difficult.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/breaking-spring-statement-leaves-27k-26544812
https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1506951006768218112
We are not going anywhere despite it now being worth about £450,000
IMO it's fair to say they're not coping well.
Capital values and rents are sky high compared to income levels. You have a very large % of people's assets and budgets consumed by property matters. It's iniquitous and inefficient and a problem we have to a greater extent than most other countries.
So I'd like to see policies which go against the grain of this rather than reinforce it - eg that depress house prices rather than support them. But it's politically difficult because our attitude to housing - eg that it's as much an investment as a home - runs deep. Also you don't want a crash because people can get badly hurt with that.
"There is absolutely no doubt we were required to consult with the unions. We chose not to do that..."
"You chose to break the law"
"... we chose not to consult and we are and will compensate everybody in full for that"
https://twitter.com/LiseMcNally/status/1506951785172320262
https://twitter.com/tradasro/status/1506923395765653510
Although probably not the details.
Any wealth tax must include pension funds, ISAs and all property including primary residence otherwise it is totally immoral and will distort the economy horribly.
LAB: 36% (-3)
CON: 36% (+2)
LDM: 12% (=)
GRN: 6% (=)
REF: 3% (+1)
via @KantarPublic, 17-21 Mar
(Changes with 21 Feb)
Woah woah woah!
Johnson seemed to forget the UK and Ireland are favourites for 2028, in what would be the biggest sporting event in the UK since London 2012
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2022/03/24/boris-johnson-makes-embarrassing-euro-2028-gaffe-backs-ukraine/
https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1506955462096343042
In fairness after Rishis shit show yesterday a 10% Lab lead is possible
Were they not a Dubai Company employing workers on a Jersey contract to work on a ship registered in Cyprus ?
I don't know.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/mar/24/microplastics-found-in-human-blood-for-first-time
...with scientists finding the tiny particles in almost 80% of the people tested.
The discovery shows the particles can travel around the body and may lodge in organs. The impact on health is as yet unknown. But researchers are concerned as microplastics cause damage to human cells in the laboratory and air pollution particles are already known to enter the body and cause millions of early deaths a year...,/i>
The key is ensuring that you don't waste the bread.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/mar/24/michael-gove-private-emails-ppe-deals-tory-linked-firms
Taxing them would not necessarily be conducive to electoral success.
Any PB legal eagles care to weigh in?
We needed to change our operating model, but no union would accept such a change. Any consultation would have been a sham, so we did not consult.
Well, that's fair enough then...
(not)
The Swiss model seems a good one, described here with a few dodges
https://www.vischer.com/en/knowledge/blog/wealth-tax-and-how-it-can-be-reduced-part-1-39333/
It's a bit mad that primary residence gain in value is untaxed... that's quite unusual I think vs. other countries.
I reckon a wealth tax should be introduced and set with a very high threshold initially to apply to only a small number of very wealthy people. Over time, we can figure out the kinks in the system, and as a society we can decide the balance between taxing income and wealth.
Taxing pensions - to raise significant amounts of money, you would need to tax some people who will not be getting 100K out of their pension. Perhaps we should consider the State Pension as the equivalent in wealth of a lump sum of X and tax people on that?
https://twitter.com/Hromadske/status/1506953249206714381
https://twitter.com/Capt_Navy/status/1506951642976964613
What about the capital gain element with shares?
If people shift their wealth from real property to something else, also sounds like an improvement for the housing market.
That was an absolute car crash. Or should that be ferry crash?
One other thought: it will bring the tax haven issue into glaring highlight, not necessarily to the advantage of the Conservative and Unionist Party, HMtQ, etc. etc.
However, imagine if this poll had landed Tuesday night / Wendesday morning... the effect on both big parties' morale might have been interesting.