Idle enquiry - when do PBers feel that "mid-term" is over and any substantial swingback should start to appear? My sense is May, after the local elections. IIRC Major started to recover at the corresponding time in 1992-97.
My gut view is that the May elections will be critical and will be a big blow for the Tories and see a boost for the LDs in the polling which could be critical for the GE.
However this is just a gut feeling and when I have said this before @HYUFD has pointed out the results from the equivalent previous elections where the LDs did very well against the Tories and he is correct, so I do fear my gut feeling may just be wishful thinking.
Indeed, the LDs got 19% in the 2019 local elections and the Tories just 28%, so the Tories may even pick up some LD seats where LD controlled councils are unpopular.
However I do expect Labour gains from the Tories given Labour also got 28% NEV in the 2019 locals, now Starmer has replaced Corbyn
Can we do a Rumsfeld analysis?
Known Knowns - Money going into NHS, strikes, disunited conservative party, Charles's coronation Knowns Unknowns - Economy improving? Ukraine war resolution? Unknown Unknowns - ? Events dear boy?
I don’t know why Rumsfeld was mocked for it. It explains risk management perfectly.
Presumably because of his demonstrable failure in managing risk ?
He actually got mocked about the quote before the failure became evident.
By the usual suspects in the press. Who failed to realise it is actually not new. And further failed to ask “what Known items has he failed to account for? What possible Unknowns are hiding out there?”
Perhaps. He was still an arrogant fool.
Yea. But the way to detect that is with knowledge.
Chris Giles has a piece in the FT arguing against taxing Boomer wealth to fix intergenerational inequality... Might be an interesting read given the debates on the issue on here (not linking because of pay wall).
Available via google. Headline "OK Boomer"
So basically saying younger generations should be split into
those grateful for inheritance and bank of mum and dad those who have to suck it up
I wonder which category the Cambridge educated economics editor of the FT is in.....
I of course am in the in some ways fortunate position that whatever happens my inheritance is going to be settled under existing tax laws.
Rather have had my dad for a few more years though.
Chris Giles has a piece in the FT arguing against taxing Boomer wealth to fix intergenerational inequality... Might be an interesting read given the debates on the issue on here (not linking because of pay wall).
Available via google. Headline "OK Boomer"
So basically saying younger generations should be split into
those grateful for inheritance and bank of mum and dad those who have to suck it up
I wonder which category the Cambridge educated economics editor of the FT is in.....
It is a good point. Personally the intra generational inequality issue has always seemed the more worrying one rather than the inter generational one. Millenials and Gen Zeds are going to be defined by their inherited wealth as much as by their earned income, which is a tricky situation for anyone who wants to sell the idea that society is in any way fair or meritocratic.
Mr. Driver, the American dating system is one that gets me.
The Chinese approach of large to small and the British approach of small to large both make intrinsic sense.
The US style of month, day, year is just daft.
I prefer to use the ISO standard format: 2023-02-03, but, once I worked out a logic for the US system I became more forgiving of it.
In my view the logic is that it makes paper-based filling and ordering by date simpler, on the basis that, (a) you're less likely to need to sort on year, because years change slowly, (b) the first sort you will be doing will be on month, (c), the final sort, in day order within a month, will involve a smaller subset of files/papers and is less important.
For most business purposes the month is the most important part of the date, so it comes first.
These are not the numbers of a Government that will be re-elected
How did they randomise the order of the questions to exclude bias? There are 5040 possible orderings. That's probably more than the number of respondents.
On those stats, the neitherists' best areas are as follows:
1. the environment (58%) ("they both talk sh*t") 2. immigration (43%) ("neither of them has the guts to sink more boats") 3. housing (40%) ("I'm in debt and no-one cares") 4. Ukraine (38%) ("who gives a f***?")
The big one here is 2. Most who "don't trust the Tories on immigration" will be suckers for the Tory campaign promise "we're gonna be absolute nails" and a sunk boat or two in the run-up.
Idle enquiry - when do PBers feel that "mid-term" is over and any substantial swingback should start to appear? My sense is May, after the local elections. IIRC Major started to recover at the corresponding time in 1992-97.
My gut view is that the May elections will be critical and will be a big blow for the Tories and see a boost for the LDs in the polling which could be critical for the GE.
However this is just a gut feeling and when I have said this before @HYUFD has pointed out the results from the equivalent previous elections where the LDs did very well against the Tories and he is correct, so I do fear my gut feeling may just be wishful thinking.
Indeed, the LDs got 19% in the 2019 local elections and the Tories just 28%, so the Tories may even pick up some LD seats where LD controlled councils are unpopular.
However I do expect Labour gains from the Tories given Labour also got 28% NEV in the 2019 locals, now Starmer has replaced Corbyn
Can we do a Rumsfeld analysis?
Known Knowns - Money going into NHS, strikes, disunited conservative party, Charles's coronation Knowns Unknowns - Economy improving? Ukraine war resolution? Unknown Unknowns - ? Events dear boy?
I don’t know why Rumsfeld was mocked for it. It explains risk management perfectly.
Presumably because of his demonstrable failure in managing risk ?
He actually got mocked about the quote before the failure became evident.
By the usual suspects in the press. Who failed to realise it is actually not new. And further failed to ask “what Known items has he failed to account for? What possible Unknowns are hiding out there?”
Rightly mocked for his patronising bullshit. This was in response to the challenge that there was no evidence of a connection between Saddam's regime and the terrorists carrying out the 9/11 attacks. At most it was a "known unknown" and if you are going to be evidence-led, as you always should be and as Donald Rumsfeld absolutely was not, it was a "known known". ie the evidence indicated no link (Saddam was a sworn enemy of Islamists)
Malmesbury does have a point, though, that journalists present might have put that precise point to him. For what was effectively a statement of the bleeding obvious, it was a successful piece of distraction.
Indeed. I wrote the Private Eye once - they’d done a piece mocking the idea of Queuing Theory and using it in the NHS.
They has no idea that Queuing Theory is a real thing. Or that it could really help the NHS.
Instead they reacted like 5 years old to a word that sounds rude…
The striking thing is how it took a single short event like Truss to cut through to those voters who had stuck with the Tories despite all the shambles and scandals of the Johnson years. Things seemed bad enough for the Tories through Partygate and the rest, but there were still people who needed the shock of Truss for the scales to fall from their eyes.
The excuses for Rishi Sunak in this thread, above and below the line, are hilarious.
Chris Giles has a piece in the FT arguing against taxing Boomer wealth to fix intergenerational inequality... Might be an interesting read given the debates on the issue on here (not linking because of pay wall).
Available via google. Headline "OK Boomer"
So basically saying younger generations should be split into
those grateful for inheritance and bank of mum and dad those who have to suck it up
I wonder which category the Cambridge educated economics editor of the FT is in.....
It is a good point. Personally the intra generational inequality issue has always seemed the more worrying one rather than the inter generational one. Millenials and Gen Zeds are going to be defined by their inherited wealth as much as by their earned income, which is a tricky situation for anyone who wants to sell the idea that society is in any way fair or meritocratic.
This is one the (many) things I find strange about the modern Tory party. Most claim alignment with Thatcherism. To me one of the central pillars of Thatcherism was aspiration and meritocracy. Almost importing the "American dream". Another pillar was challenging the status quo and being willing to take on vested interests.
Yet those now claiming to be Thatcherite want to protect a system that thwarts aspiration and meritocracy and protects the status quo.
Mr. Driver, the American dating system is one that gets me.
The Chinese approach of large to small and the British approach of small to large both make intrinsic sense.
The US style of month, day, year is just daft.
To be fair to our transatlantic cousins, their dating system just derives from how they say their dates, eg "July 4th 2023" becomes 07/04/2023. And how they say their dates has a certain verbal efficiency over how we say them ("the 4th of July" requires an extra two words). It is bloody confusing though, especially if you've lived in both countries and have had to adjust from European to American and back again!
Again, simple. X per chip class (processor, GP etc) actually produced at scale. X scaled to UK added value.
The advatanges of such schemes, are
1) that the risk is kept private. 2) politically, you are spending a future governments money. You won't be minister when the subsidy payments are actually required. Since building the factory will take a decade.
It's more than just subsidies.
It's about planning rules which allow facilities to be built without spending years in planning; attracting tech talent to the UK (multiple factors affect that, of course); even having adequate infrastructure (chip plants use a LOT of power) etc
We're just not really doing any of this stuff.
The other issue that I think is really important is that, for one reason or another, a lot of investment and savings capital has been poured into houses, and essentially the land that the houses sit on, and not enough private capital has gone into productive investment.
This should be something the government can influence with changes to the tax system, to make one type of investment more attractive than the other. There might be other regulatory changes that would help too, as would more direct government intervention in the housing market by building houses for social rent.
Housing is simple. Build more houses.
Prices will fall More people can move out long HMOs Less theoretical wealth in bricks and mortar.
People have said that for a long time and it hasn't happened. I think you need to reduce the amount of investment income going into but-to-let housing too, and have the state build houses directly so that the big housebuilders can't restrict supply, but have to compete on quality and price.
And there also need to be changes to make other investments more attractive. We should aim for a situation where, when two people who both own homes move in together, it makes most financial sense for them to sell one and invest the proceeds elsewhere, rather than to become amateur landlords.
We haven’t built anything like enough properties to meet the demand.
There aren’t enough places for people to live. London has 98%+ occupancy rates for example.
Shuffling properties between owned, private let, etc doesn’t fix the problem.
Getting rid of small private landlords charging a lot and they will be replaced by large corporate landlords charging the same.
Chris Giles has a piece in the FT arguing against taxing Boomer wealth to fix intergenerational inequality... Might be an interesting read given the debates on the issue on here (not linking because of pay wall).
Available via google. Headline "OK Boomer"
So basically saying younger generations should be split into
those grateful for inheritance and bank of mum and dad those who have to suck it up
I wonder which category the Cambridge educated economics editor of the FT is in.....
It is a good point. Personally the intra generational inequality issue has always seemed the more worrying one rather than the inter generational one. Millenials and Gen Zeds are going to be defined by their inherited wealth as much as by their earned income, which is a tricky situation for anyone who wants to sell the idea that society is in any way fair or meritocratic.
This is one the (many) things I find strange about the modern Tory party. Most claim alignment with Thatcherism. To me one of the central pillars of Thatcherism was aspiration and meritocracy. Almost importing the "American dream". Another pillar was challenging the status quo and being willing to take on vested interests.
Yet those now claiming to be Thatcherite want to protect a system that thwarts aspiration and meritocracy and protects the status quo.
Inheritance is a tricky one because it involves a tradeoff between two deep engrained and equally worthwhile human impulses - fairness, and providing for your offspring. It feels like the Tories are only interested in the latter but Labour can't go too far the other way.
Mr. Driver, the American dating system is one that gets me.
The Chinese approach of large to small and the British approach of small to large both make intrinsic sense.
The US style of month, day, year is just daft.
To be fair to our transatlantic cousins, their dating system just derives from how they say their dates, eg "July 4th 2023" becomes 07/04/2023. And how they say their dates has a certain verbal efficiency over how we say them ("the 4th of July" requires an extra two words). It is bloody confusing though, especially if you've lived in both countries and have had to adjust from European to American and back again!
When I worked for the US firm Arthur Young we all had to use the American date convention. Everyone hated it. It's illogical and sometimes cause real confusion.
@BloombergUK: The UK is yet to see any positive economic benefits from Brexit, Bank of England Chief Economist Huw Pill suggests https://t.co/ru7oT66uHi
We did increase our trade with North Korea by over 100% last year.
To $127m.
I'm amazed it's that high. What do we buy from or sell to North Korea?
Idle enquiry - when do PBers feel that "mid-term" is over and any substantial swingback should start to appear? My sense is May, after the local elections. IIRC Major started to recover at the corresponding time in 1992-97.
My gut view is that the May elections will be critical and will be a big blow for the Tories and see a boost for the LDs in the polling which could be critical for the GE.
However this is just a gut feeling and when I have said this before @HYUFD has pointed out the results from the equivalent previous elections where the LDs did very well against the Tories and he is correct, so I do fear my gut feeling may just be wishful thinking.
Indeed, the LDs got 19% in the 2019 local elections and the Tories just 28%. The LDs gained control of 10 councils from the Tories and were largest party in others which went NOC. So the Tories may even pick up some LD seats where LD controlled councils are unpopular.
However I do expect Labour gains from the Tories given Labour also got 28% NEV in the 2019 locals, now Starmer has replaced Corbyn
Would you like a £5 charity bet on the net Tory/LD gains. That is I am willing to bet the LDs win more seats off the Tories and you the Tories win more seats off the LDs. Ignoring any losses and gains to and from other parties.
You have the stats on your side. All I have is an unreliable gut feeling. When this was discussed last time I looked at a few Surrey Boroughs and I must admit although I could find some potential LD gains I found a lot that could go the other way so I am far from confident (hence only £5).
A warning to you both that the outcome of this bet will take a hell of a lot of working out for the local elections.
Reports don't normally show it - they show net change, and no net change on a particular Council, for example, could quite easily mean two Lib Dem gains from Labour, two Labour gains from Tory, and two Tory gains from Lib Dem. Also boundary changes in some council areas means it is unclear whether a win is a gain.
You'll really struggle to settle this one unless the net result is so clear that going into the detail on Lib Dem/Tory switches is unnecessary.
Yes I did think of that after offering the bet and then thought I can't be bothered to go into pages of clarification for a £5 bet. I expect to lose anyway (just a bit of fun) and if it is unclear, even if I think I might have won, I will honour the £5 bet as if I had lost.
Chris Giles has a piece in the FT arguing against taxing Boomer wealth to fix intergenerational inequality... Might be an interesting read given the debates on the issue on here (not linking because of pay wall).
Available via google. Headline "OK Boomer"
So basically saying younger generations should be split into
those grateful for inheritance and bank of mum and dad those who have to suck it up
I wonder which category the Cambridge educated economics editor of the FT is in.....
It is a good point. Personally the intra generational inequality issue has always seemed the more worrying one rather than the inter generational one. Millenials and Gen Zeds are going to be defined by their inherited wealth as much as by their earned income, which is a tricky situation for anyone who wants to sell the idea that society is in any way fair or meritocratic.
This is one the (many) things I find strange about the modern Tory party. Most claim alignment with Thatcherism. To me one of the central pillars of Thatcherism was aspiration and meritocracy. Almost importing the "American dream". Another pillar was challenging the status quo and being willing to take on vested interests.
Yet those now claiming to be Thatcherite want to protect a system that thwarts aspiration and meritocracy and protects the status quo.
Inheritance is a tricky one because it involves a tradeoff between two deep engrained and equally worthwhile human impulses - fairness, and providing for your offspring. It feels like the Tories are only interested in the latter but Labour can't go too far the other way.
I don't think its just the Tories. As the article points out most people in the UK think inheritance is indeed fair as it has already been taxed once.
They are wrong, it is unfair (at least at present levels of inequality) and all money is taxed not just once, but endlessly and in multiple ways as it gets recycled through the economy. If it was just the Tories it could be fixed by a Labour govt but it is the near settled position of the electorate, especially the older part of the electorate.
Chris Giles has a piece in the FT arguing against taxing Boomer wealth to fix intergenerational inequality... Might be an interesting read given the debates on the issue on here (not linking because of pay wall).
Available via google. Headline "OK Boomer"
So basically saying younger generations should be split into
those grateful for inheritance and bank of mum and dad those who have to suck it up
I wonder which category the Cambridge educated economics editor of the FT is in.....
It is a good point. Personally the intra generational inequality issue has always seemed the more worrying one rather than the inter generational one. Millenials and Gen Zeds are going to be defined by their inherited wealth as much as by their earned income, which is a tricky situation for anyone who wants to sell the idea that society is in any way fair or meritocratic.
Probably around 50% will inherit substantial amounts, but one's lot in life really should not depend upon how much one inherits.
Chris Giles has a piece in the FT arguing against taxing Boomer wealth to fix intergenerational inequality... Might be an interesting read given the debates on the issue on here (not linking because of pay wall).
Available via google. Headline "OK Boomer"
So basically saying younger generations should be split into
those grateful for inheritance and bank of mum and dad those who have to suck it up
I wonder which category the Cambridge educated economics editor of the FT is in.....
It is a good point. Personally the intra generational inequality issue has always seemed the more worrying one rather than the inter generational one. Millenials and Gen Zeds are going to be defined by their inherited wealth as much as by their earned income, which is a tricky situation for anyone who wants to sell the idea that society is in any way fair or meritocratic.
This is one the (many) things I find strange about the modern Tory party. Most claim alignment with Thatcherism. To me one of the central pillars of Thatcherism was aspiration and meritocracy. Almost importing the "American dream". Another pillar was challenging the status quo and being willing to take on vested interests.
Yet those now claiming to be Thatcherite want to protect a system that thwarts aspiration and meritocracy and protects the status quo.
Inheritance is a tricky one because it involves a tradeoff between two deep engrained and equally worthwhile human impulses - fairness, and providing for your offspring. It feels like the Tories are only interested in the latter but Labour can't go too far the other way.
I don't think its just the Tories. As the article points out most people in the UK think inheritance is indeed fair as it has already been taxed once.
They are wrong, it is unfair (at least at present levels of inequality) and all money is taxed not just once, but endlessly and in multiple ways as it gets recycled through the economy. If it was just the Tories it could be fixed by a Labour govt but it is the near settled position of the electorate, especially the older part of the electorate.
IHT is by far the most unpopular tax. Reforming it should be based upon cutting the rate, but removing the vast majority of exemptions and reliefs (which overwhelmingly favour the very rich, as opposed to the comfortably off).
Chris Giles has a piece in the FT arguing against taxing Boomer wealth to fix intergenerational inequality... Might be an interesting read given the debates on the issue on here (not linking because of pay wall).
Available via google. Headline "OK Boomer"
So basically saying younger generations should be split into
those grateful for inheritance and bank of mum and dad those who have to suck it up
I wonder which category the Cambridge educated economics editor of the FT is in.....
It is a good point. Personally the intra generational inequality issue has always seemed the more worrying one rather than the inter generational one. Millenials and Gen Zeds are going to be defined by their inherited wealth as much as by their earned income, which is a tricky situation for anyone who wants to sell the idea that society is in any way fair or meritocratic.
This is one the (many) things I find strange about the modern Tory party. Most claim alignment with Thatcherism. To me one of the central pillars of Thatcherism was aspiration and meritocracy. Almost importing the "American dream". Another pillar was challenging the status quo and being willing to take on vested interests.
Yet those now claiming to be Thatcherite want to protect a system that thwarts aspiration and meritocracy and protects the status quo.
Inheritance is a tricky one because it involves a tradeoff between two deep engrained and equally worthwhile human impulses - fairness, and providing for your offspring. It feels like the Tories are only interested in the latter but Labour can't go too far the other way.
I don't think its just the Tories. As the article points out most people in the UK think inheritance is indeed fair as it has already been taxed once.
They are wrong, it is unfair (at least at present levels of inequality) and all money is taxed not just once, but endlessly and in multiple ways as it gets recycled through the economy. If it was just the Tories it could be fixed by a Labour govt but it is the near settled position of the electorate, especially the older part of the electorate.
I think inheritance is a classic example of where the interests of the individual and the interests of society diverge. As a parent I want to help my kids succeed and so of course I'm putting aside money for them. And paradoxically the more unequal the society they're going to be operating in, the more money I will need to give them - it becomes an arms race. But ultimately I want them to be living in a less unequal society since I think that will benefit them whether they are rich or poor.
Idle enquiry - when do PBers feel that "mid-term" is over and any substantial swingback should start to appear? My sense is May, after the local elections. IIRC Major started to recover at the corresponding time in 1992-97.
My gut view is that the May elections will be critical and will be a big blow for the Tories and see a boost for the LDs in the polling which could be critical for the GE.
However this is just a gut feeling and when I have said this before @HYUFD has pointed out the results from the equivalent previous elections where the LDs did very well against the Tories and he is correct, so I do fear my gut feeling may just be wishful thinking.
Indeed, the LDs got 19% in the 2019 local elections and the Tories just 28%, so the Tories may even pick up some LD seats where LD controlled councils are unpopular.
However I do expect Labour gains from the Tories given Labour also got 28% NEV in the 2019 locals, now Starmer has replaced Corbyn
Can we do a Rumsfeld analysis?
Known Knowns - Money going into NHS, strikes, disunited conservative party, Charles's coronation Knowns Unknowns - Economy improving? Ukraine war resolution? Unknown Unknowns - ? Events dear boy?
I don’t know why Rumsfeld was mocked for it. It explains risk management perfectly.
Presumably because of his demonstrable failure in managing risk ?
He actually got mocked about the quote before the failure became evident.
By the usual suspects in the press. Who failed to realise it is actually not new. And further failed to ask “what Known items has he failed to account for? What possible Unknowns are hiding out there?”
Rightly mocked for his patronising bullshit. This was in response to the challenge that there was no evidence of a connection between Saddam's regime and the terrorists carrying out the 9/11 attacks. At most it was a "known unknown" and if you are going to be evidence-led, as you always should be and as Donald Rumsfeld absolutely was not, it was a "known known". ie the evidence indicated no link (Saddam was a sworn enemy of Islamists)
Malmesbury does have a point, though, that journalists present might have put that precise point to him. For what was effectively a statement of the bleeding obvious, it was a successful piece of distraction.
Indeed. I wrote the Private Eye once - they’d done a piece mocking the idea of Queuing Theory and using it in the NHS.
They has no idea that Queuing Theory is a real thing. Or that it could really help the NHS.
Instead they reacted like 5 years old to a word that sounds rude…
Speaking of queues, I am currently on the phone to the Future Pensions Centre to try to make some extra NI payments as per MikeL's advice from a few days ago. 30 mins so far but average wait times are 75 mins apparently :-(
Still, yesterday they were just cutting calls off before they entered the queue.
I know MoonRabbit is convinced the polls are narrowing again, just like they were convinced they were narrowing a week ago, then two weeks ago, then three weeks ago...
But everything I can see, it's a 20 point lead and has been for some time
It's still a bit far out from an election to draw firm conclusions but we do seem to have settled into a period of steady 20 points leads. There is little to suggest how and when the Tories can move the dial.
Hyufd does a great job of putting the best possible gloss on some dire numbers but the fact remains that there is no reason why they should not worsen rather than improve. The Tories are standing on the edge of a precipice. Their next step had better be in the right direction.
These are not the numbers of a Government that will be re-elected
The Ukraine numbers are impressive because that's the type of shit that the tories kid themselves they own.
Has SKS even done the umrah to Kiev yet?
The Tories should own it. I don't know why they don't. It doesn't make sense unless it is just people who are so anti the Tories they are going to rubbish them regardless of the topic.
Because no one seriously doubts that Labour would continue the policy of supporting Ukraine - and it's just possible they might run things slightly more effectively.
Not convinced. The Tories haven't put a step wrong (I think) other than the initial awful slowness of the refugees which I think is pretty well forgotten now by most people, and we have nothing on Labour to look at, although I agree I doubt it will be any different. I'm convinced it is just the general feeling of the Tories being rubbish on stuff and this is stuff.
Do you remember all those people back in 2014 wishing 'if only Ed Balls were Labour leader' or 'I hope Ed Balls succeeds Ed Miliband'? No, me neither.
True dat. But Ed Balls AS (After Strictly) is a national treasure.
I wouldn't go that far!
But I would say Ed Balls after 2015 is a human. (I wouldn't even put it down to SCD - his transformation from furiously partisan angry troll to recognisable human occurred in his concession speech at Morley and Outwood. Rather made you regret that he hadn't allowed this side of himself to come through earlier. You could say the same about many other politicians and half of twitter. They get so addicted to impressing their own side that they forget the need to, or pleasure of, engaging with the wider world.)
Chris Giles has a piece in the FT arguing against taxing Boomer wealth to fix intergenerational inequality... Might be an interesting read given the debates on the issue on here (not linking because of pay wall).
Available via google. Headline "OK Boomer"
So basically saying younger generations should be split into
those grateful for inheritance and bank of mum and dad those who have to suck it up
I wonder which category the Cambridge educated economics editor of the FT is in.....
It is a good point. Personally the intra generational inequality issue has always seemed the more worrying one rather than the inter generational one. Millenials and Gen Zeds are going to be defined by their inherited wealth as much as by their earned income, which is a tricky situation for anyone who wants to sell the idea that society is in any way fair or meritocratic.
Most people have parents and grandparents who own property they will inherit from, only a minority have parents of high IQ.
It is therefore more likely more will inherit than move from a low or average earning family to be high earners themselves
Chris Giles has a piece in the FT arguing against taxing Boomer wealth to fix intergenerational inequality... Might be an interesting read given the debates on the issue on here (not linking because of pay wall).
Available via google. Headline "OK Boomer"
So basically saying younger generations should be split into
those grateful for inheritance and bank of mum and dad those who have to suck it up
I wonder which category the Cambridge educated economics editor of the FT is in.....
It is a good point. Personally the intra generational inequality issue has always seemed the more worrying one rather than the inter generational one. Millenials and Gen Zeds are going to be defined by their inherited wealth as much as by their earned income, which is a tricky situation for anyone who wants to sell the idea that society is in any way fair or meritocratic.
This is one the (many) things I find strange about the modern Tory party. Most claim alignment with Thatcherism. To me one of the central pillars of Thatcherism was aspiration and meritocracy. Almost importing the "American dream". Another pillar was challenging the status quo and being willing to take on vested interests.
Yet those now claiming to be Thatcherite want to protect a system that thwarts aspiration and meritocracy and protects the status quo.
Inheritance is a tricky one because it involves a tradeoff between two deep engrained and equally worthwhile human impulses - fairness, and providing for your offspring. It feels like the Tories are only interested in the latter but Labour can't go too far the other way.
I don't think its just the Tories. As the article points out most people in the UK think inheritance is indeed fair as it has already been taxed once.
They are wrong, it is unfair (at least at present levels of inequality) and all money is taxed not just once, but endlessly and in multiple ways as it gets recycled through the economy. If it was just the Tories it could be fixed by a Labour govt but it is the near settled position of the electorate, especially the older part of the electorate.
IHT is by far the most unpopular tax. Reforming it should be based upon cutting the rate, but removing the vast majority of exemptions and reliefs (which overwhelmingly favour the very rich, as opposed to the comfortably off).
I know it won't happen or win significant support but I'd favour switching it to a tax on the recipient rather than the estate. Maybe something like 150k tax free, next 250k @ 20%, next 500k @ 25%, rest @ 40%.
@BloombergUK: The UK is yet to see any positive economic benefits from Brexit, Bank of England Chief Economist Huw Pill suggests https://t.co/ru7oT66uHi
We did increase our trade with North Korea by over 100% last year.
To $127m.
I'm amazed it's that high. What do we buy from or sell to North Korea?
Idle enquiry - when do PBers feel that "mid-term" is over and any substantial swingback should start to appear? My sense is May, after the local elections. IIRC Major started to recover at the corresponding time in 1992-97.
My gut view is that the May elections will be critical and will be a big blow for the Tories and see a boost for the LDs in the polling which could be critical for the GE.
However this is just a gut feeling and when I have said this before @HYUFD has pointed out the results from the equivalent previous elections where the LDs did very well against the Tories and he is correct, so I do fear my gut feeling may just be wishful thinking.
Indeed, the LDs got 19% in the 2019 local elections and the Tories just 28%. The LDs gained control of 10 councils from the Tories and were largest party in others which went NOC. So the Tories may even pick up some LD seats where LD controlled councils are unpopular.
However I do expect Labour gains from the Tories given Labour also got 28% NEV in the 2019 locals, now Starmer has replaced Corbyn
Would you like a £5 charity bet on the net Tory/LD gains. That is I am willing to bet the LDs win more seats off the Tories and you the Tories win more seats off the LDs. Ignoring any losses and gains to and from other parties.
You have the stats on your side. All I have is an unreliable gut feeling. When this was discussed last time I looked at a few Surrey Boroughs and I must admit although I could find some potential LD gains I found a lot that could go the other way so I am far from confident (hence only £5).
A warning to you both that the outcome of this bet will take a hell of a lot of working out for the local elections.
Reports don't normally show it - they show net change, and no net change on a particular Council, for example, could quite easily mean two Lib Dem gains from Labour, two Labour gains from Tory, and two Tory gains from Lib Dem. Also boundary changes in some council areas means it is unclear whether a win is a gain.
You'll really struggle to settle this one unless the net result is so clear that going into the detail on Lib Dem/Tory switches is unnecessary.
Yes I did think of that after offering the bet and then thought I can't be bothered to go into pages of clarification for a £5 bet. I expect to lose anyway (just a bit of fun) and if it is unclear, even if I think I might have won, I will honour the £5 bet as if I had lost.
I think we can do it by looking at Labour net gains and Tory net losses.
If the Tory net losses are lower than the Labour net gains and the LDs have seen a net loss of councillors that should roughly correlate (we can subtract any Labour gains from the LDs in Northern urban councils too)
Chris Giles has a piece in the FT arguing against taxing Boomer wealth to fix intergenerational inequality... Might be an interesting read given the debates on the issue on here (not linking because of pay wall).
Available via google. Headline "OK Boomer"
So basically saying younger generations should be split into
those grateful for inheritance and bank of mum and dad those who have to suck it up
I wonder which category the Cambridge educated economics editor of the FT is in.....
It is a good point. Personally the intra generational inequality issue has always seemed the more worrying one rather than the inter generational one. Millenials and Gen Zeds are going to be defined by their inherited wealth as much as by their earned income, which is a tricky situation for anyone who wants to sell the idea that society is in any way fair or meritocratic.
This is one the (many) things I find strange about the modern Tory party. Most claim alignment with Thatcherism. To me one of the central pillars of Thatcherism was aspiration and meritocracy. Almost importing the "American dream". Another pillar was challenging the status quo and being willing to take on vested interests.
Yet those now claiming to be Thatcherite want to protect a system that thwarts aspiration and meritocracy and protects the status quo.
Inheritance is a tricky one because it involves a tradeoff between two deep engrained and equally worthwhile human impulses - fairness, and providing for your offspring. It feels like the Tories are only interested in the latter but Labour can't go too far the other way.
I don't think its just the Tories. As the article points out most people in the UK think inheritance is indeed fair as it has already been taxed once.
They are wrong, it is unfair (at least at present levels of inequality) and all money is taxed not just once, but endlessly and in multiple ways as it gets recycled through the economy. If it was just the Tories it could be fixed by a Labour govt but it is the near settled position of the electorate, especially the older part of the electorate.
I think inheritance is a classic example of where the interests of the individual and the interests of society diverge. As a parent I want to help my kids succeed and so of course I'm putting aside money for them. And paradoxically the more unequal the society they're going to be operating in, the more money I will need to give them - it becomes an arms race. But ultimately I want them to be living in a less unequal society since I think that will benefit them whether they are rich or poor.
Taxing capital more, and income less, is the way forward IMHO.
I would scrap the IHT exemptions for business property, farmland, woodland, country houses, and works of art. I'd also abolish main residence relief (currently up to £1m).
I'd keep the £325,000 relief, and then set the rate at 25% on everything above that (rather than 40%).
One excellent consequence would be a sharp drop in the price of farmland, which is used a tax shelter. It is virtually impossible now to buy farmland, and get a decent return based upon farming income.
@BloombergUK: The UK is yet to see any positive economic benefits from Brexit, Bank of England Chief Economist Huw Pill suggests https://t.co/ru7oT66uHi
We did increase our trade with North Korea by over 100% last year.
To $127m.
I'm amazed it's that high. What do we buy from or sell to North Korea?
Have you seen the price of kimchi in Waitrose?
Forget the kimchi. How come we can get more than 100% increase? Was Mr Gove in charge at the time?
Idle enquiry - when do PBers feel that "mid-term" is over and any substantial swingback should start to appear? My sense is May, after the local elections. IIRC Major started to recover at the corresponding time in 1992-97.
My gut view is that the May elections will be critical and will be a big blow for the Tories and see a boost for the LDs in the polling which could be critical for the GE.
However this is just a gut feeling and when I have said this before @HYUFD has pointed out the results from the equivalent previous elections where the LDs did very well against the Tories and he is correct, so I do fear my gut feeling may just be wishful thinking.
Indeed, the LDs got 19% in the 2019 local elections and the Tories just 28%, so the Tories may even pick up some LD seats where LD controlled councils are unpopular.
However I do expect Labour gains from the Tories given Labour also got 28% NEV in the 2019 locals, now Starmer has replaced Corbyn
Can we do a Rumsfeld analysis?
Known Knowns - Money going into NHS, strikes, disunited conservative party, Charles's coronation Knowns Unknowns - Economy improving? Ukraine war resolution? Unknown Unknowns - ? Events dear boy?
I don’t know why Rumsfeld was mocked for it. It explains risk management perfectly.
Presumably because of his demonstrable failure in managing risk ?
He actually got mocked about the quote before the failure became evident.
By the usual suspects in the press. Who failed to realise it is actually not new. And further failed to ask “what Known items has he failed to account for? What possible Unknowns are hiding out there?”
Rightly mocked for his patronising bullshit. This was in response to the challenge that there was no evidence of a connection between Saddam's regime and the terrorists carrying out the 9/11 attacks. At most it was a "known unknown" and if you are going to be evidence-led, as you always should be and as Donald Rumsfeld absolutely was not, it was a "known known". ie the evidence indicated no link (Saddam was a sworn enemy of Islamists)
Malmesbury does have a point, though, that journalists present might have put that precise point to him. For what was effectively a statement of the bleeding obvious, it was a successful piece of distraction.
Indeed. I wrote the Private Eye once - they’d done a piece mocking the idea of Queuing Theory and using it in the NHS.
They has no idea that Queuing Theory is a real thing. Or that it could really help the NHS.
Instead they reacted like 5 years old to a word that sounds rude…
Speaking of queues, I am currently on the phone to the Future Pensions Centre to try to make some extra NI payments as per MikeL's advice from a few days ago. 30 mins so far but average wait times are 75 mins apparently :-(
Still, yesterday they were just cutting calls off before they entered the queue.
(First world problem)
What is ridiculous is to make a payment for this you need a code you can only get by entering the phone queue. Lots of web pages around, that send you in circles and give 90% of the info but never the code.
Completely unnecessary and a real example of bureaucratic red tape.
@BloombergUK: The UK is yet to see any positive economic benefits from Brexit, Bank of England Chief Economist Huw Pill suggests https://t.co/ru7oT66uHi
We did increase our trade with North Korea by over 100% last year.
To $127m.
I'm amazed it's that high. What do we buy from or sell to North Korea?
Have you seen the price of kimchi in Waitrose?
Forget the kimchi. How come we can get more than 100% increase? Was Mr Gove in charge at the time?
Chris Giles has a piece in the FT arguing against taxing Boomer wealth to fix intergenerational inequality... Might be an interesting read given the debates on the issue on here (not linking because of pay wall).
Available via google. Headline "OK Boomer"
So basically saying younger generations should be split into
those grateful for inheritance and bank of mum and dad those who have to suck it up
I wonder which category the Cambridge educated economics editor of the FT is in.....
It is a good point. Personally the intra generational inequality issue has always seemed the more worrying one rather than the inter generational one. Millenials and Gen Zeds are going to be defined by their inherited wealth as much as by their earned income, which is a tricky situation for anyone who wants to sell the idea that society is in any way fair or meritocratic.
This is one the (many) things I find strange about the modern Tory party. Most claim alignment with Thatcherism. To me one of the central pillars of Thatcherism was aspiration and meritocracy. Almost importing the "American dream". Another pillar was challenging the status quo and being willing to take on vested interests.
Yet those now claiming to be Thatcherite want to protect a system that thwarts aspiration and meritocracy and protects the status quo.
Inheritance is a tricky one because it involves a tradeoff between two deep engrained and equally worthwhile human impulses - fairness, and providing for your offspring. It feels like the Tories are only interested in the latter but Labour can't go too far the other way.
I don't think its just the Tories. As the article points out most people in the UK think inheritance is indeed fair as it has already been taxed once.
They are wrong, it is unfair (at least at present levels of inequality) and all money is taxed not just once, but endlessly and in multiple ways as it gets recycled through the economy. If it was just the Tories it could be fixed by a Labour govt but it is the near settled position of the electorate, especially the older part of the electorate.
I think inheritance is a classic example of where the interests of the individual and the interests of society diverge. As a parent I want to help my kids succeed and so of course I'm putting aside money for them. And paradoxically the more unequal the society they're going to be operating in, the more money I will need to give them - it becomes an arms race. But ultimately I want them to be living in a less unequal society since I think that will benefit them whether they are rich or poor.
Taxing capital more, and income less, is the way forward IMHO.
I would scrap the IHT exemptions for business property, farmland, woodland, country houses, and works of art. I'd also abolish main residence relief (currently up to £1m).
I'd keep the £325,000 relief, and then set the rate at 25% on everything above that (rather than 40%).
One excellent consequence would be a sharp drop in the price of farmland, which is used a tax shelter. It is virtually impossible now to buy farmland, and get a decent return based upon farming income.
Main residence relief from IHT was the single most popular Tory policy this century.
It would be electoral suicide for any party to scrap it now, especially the Tories. As would scrapping the farmland exemption which would hit farmers whose farms have been in their families for generations and who are a key part of the Tory core vote
Green gain in Bristol. They become the largest party on the council.
Thank you. My friend Snookie made this happen. I keep saying Labour will lose all their Bristols parliamentary seats to or thanks to greens at the next election, and no one on PB listens. Snookie reckons where they are strongest and seat they will take most easiest is Thaghams Debonairre.
It’s the Labour vote going green in the city, in their supposed safe areas. Last time I pointed out Labour being wiped out in their own Bristol territories, Nick Palmer took a look and said temporary blip, nothing to worry about 🤷♀️
I don't bother debating with you as you're too monotonously anti-Labour, Moon. But it's a Green gain from LibDems in a Green-LD marginal. The Labour vote was squeezed and went more to the Greens - which won't apply in a GE.
That’s a very weak response Nick. I’m not monotonously anti Labour in general, I’m one of the more balanced posters - pointing out in one funny speaking red enclave it’s quickly going green, they are the plurality and their votes have scrapped the Labour mayor and so asking, could this impact the parliament constituency’s at some point - is definitely not “monotonously anti-Labour” you have massively bigged that up Nick Palmer.
Despite single digit polling and even single digit general election pv nationwide, there could form enclaves of Green power that turn red seats green in my opinion.
Out of the two of us it’s your statement “The Labour vote was squeezed and went more to the Greens - which won't apply in a GE” that has the most bias in it. Yes, yesterday was a Lib Dem seat falling, truth is Green built largest party status by sweeping through Labour areas - that Lib Dem and Tory seats and votes also fall to the greens in this peculiar city actually strengthens my question of what could happen to Labour MPs, doesn’t actually strengthen your mid term blip won’t happen in GE insistence.
This is a betting site. If we can be ahead of the game in Labour losing MPs to the greens, we can get better odds.
So I don’t see myself doing monotonously anti Labour at all, I think I flagged up something interesting, like a green fungi growing on a red wall, that you haven’t responded to very well have you? Unless you made the sharp thinking the talking this up actually makes it more likely to happen, so the Labour position is to shut down all discussion on this - I would concede that as quick and clever thinking on behalf of your monotonous pro Labour bias. 😀
@BloombergUK: The UK is yet to see any positive economic benefits from Brexit, Bank of England Chief Economist Huw Pill suggests https://t.co/ru7oT66uHi
We did increase our trade with North Korea by over 100% last year.
To $127m.
I'm amazed it's that high. What do we buy from or sell to North Korea?
Have you seen the price of kimchi in Waitrose?
Forget the kimchi. How come we can get more than 100% increase? Was Mr Gove in charge at the time?
If it was $60m before (say), a 100% increase would take it to $120m - the increase to $127m would be a more than 100% increase.
@BloombergUK: The UK is yet to see any positive economic benefits from Brexit, Bank of England Chief Economist Huw Pill suggests https://t.co/ru7oT66uHi
We did increase our trade with North Korea by over 100% last year.
To $127m.
I'm amazed it's that high. What do we buy from or sell to North Korea?
Have you seen the price of kimchi in Waitrose?
Forget the kimchi. How come we can get more than 100% increase? Was Mr Gove in charge at the time?
You can always get more than a 100% increase.
You can't have more than a 100% decrease.
What if they sent back the goods from 2021 and got a refund.....
That’s a very weak response Nick. I’m not monotonously anti Labour in general, I’m one of the more balanced posters - pointing out in one funny speaking red enclave it’s quickly going green, they are the plurality and their votes have scrapped the Labour mayor and so asking, could this impact the parliament constituency’s at some point - is definitely not “monotonously anti-Labour” you have massively bigged that up Nick Palmer.
Despite single digit polling and even single digit general election pv nationwide, there could form enclaves of Green power that turn red seats green in my opinion.
Out of the two of us it’s your statement “The Labour vote was squeezed and went more to the Greens - which won't apply in a GE” that has the most bias in it. Yes, yesterday was a Lib Dem seat falling, truth is Green built largest party status by sweeping through Labour areas - that Lib Dem and Tory seats and votes also fall to the greens in this peculiar city actually strengthens my question of what could happen to Labour MPs, doesn’t actually strengthen your mid term blip won’t happen in GE insistence.
This is a betting site. If we can be ahead of the game in Labour losing MPs to the greens, we can get better odds.
So I don’t see myself doing monotonously anti Labour at all, I think I flagged up something interesting, like a green fungi growing on a red wall, that you haven’t responded to very well have you? Unless you made the sharp thinking the talking this up actually makes it more likely to happen, so the Labour position is to shut down all discussion on this - I would concede that as quick and clever thinking on behalf of your monotonous pro Labour bias. 😀
Oh ffs no you aren't lol.
You come on here every day and tell us how Labour is screwed, it doesn't matter what the polls actually say, you just say Labour is finished.
Remember when you insisted the polls were narrowing two weeks ago and then they widened again?
What you are seeing is changes which aren't changes just reversion to the mean. This has been explained to you at length yet you continue posting this rubbish.
HYUFD analyses the polls and posts objectively on them despite how pro-Tory he is. You don't.
There is no evidence whatsoever that the polls are tightening.
MoonRabbit seems to think a poll which shows Labour 24 points ahead is a narrowing. Presumably because the poll they commented on shows Labour going down 4, yet the other one from YouGov shows Labour up 3.
I wonder why they chose the one with Labour going down despite the fact both polls show the same lead. Is it because one makes Labour look worse than the other? Surely not.
@BloombergUK: The UK is yet to see any positive economic benefits from Brexit, Bank of England Chief Economist Huw Pill suggests https://t.co/ru7oT66uHi
We did increase our trade with North Korea by over 100% last year.
To $127m.
I'm amazed it's that high. What do we buy from or sell to North Korea?
Have you seen the price of kimchi in Waitrose?
Forget the kimchi. How come we can get more than 100% increase? Was Mr Gove in charge at the time?
You can always get more than a 100% increase.
You can't have more than a 100% decrease.
What if they sent back the goods from 2021 and got a refund.....
I knew as soon as I wrote that someone would try to find a way to make the number negative to prove me wrong. 😂
Do you remember all those people back in 2014 wishing 'if only Ed Balls were Labour leader' or 'I hope Ed Balls succeeds Ed Miliband'? No, me neither.
True dat. But Ed Balls AS (After Strictly) is a national treasure.
I wouldn't go that far!
But I would say Ed Balls after 2015 is a human. (I wouldn't even put it down to SCD - his transformation from furiously partisan angry troll to recognisable human occurred in his concession speech at Morley and Outwood. Rather made you regret that he hadn't allowed this side of himself to come through earlier. You could say the same about many other politicians and half of twitter. They get so addicted to impressing their own side that they forget the need to, or pleasure of, engaging with the wider world.)
Much the same for Portillo.
Their defeats were a good start in humanising them both (let's be honest, they shared a bumptious attitude which did neither of them any good). But they also responded in a classy way, and it showed, and the public responded.
There is no evidence whatsoever that the polls are tightening.
MoonRabbit seems to think a poll which shows Labour 24 points ahead is a narrowing. Presumably because the poll they commented on shows Labour going down 4, yet the other one from YouGov shows Labour up 3.
I wonder why they chose the one with Labour going down despite the fact both polls show the same lead. Is it because one makes Labour look worse than the other? Surely not.
Chris Giles has a piece in the FT arguing against taxing Boomer wealth to fix intergenerational inequality... Might be an interesting read given the debates on the issue on here (not linking because of pay wall).
Available via google. Headline "OK Boomer"
So basically saying younger generations should be split into
those grateful for inheritance and bank of mum and dad those who have to suck it up
I wonder which category the Cambridge educated economics editor of the FT is in.....
It is a good point. Personally the intra generational inequality issue has always seemed the more worrying one rather than the inter generational one. Millenials and Gen Zeds are going to be defined by their inherited wealth as much as by their earned income, which is a tricky situation for anyone who wants to sell the idea that society is in any way fair or meritocratic.
You can't know what 'fairness' is until you have decided what it looks like from no particular point of view - from behind a veil of ignorance. By definition the real article can't have a point of view. What is 'fair' once it is a given that the questioner may be born as any person within the domain you are discussing?
Chris Giles has a piece in the FT arguing against taxing Boomer wealth to fix intergenerational inequality... Might be an interesting read given the debates on the issue on here (not linking because of pay wall).
Available via google. Headline "OK Boomer"
So basically saying younger generations should be split into
those grateful for inheritance and bank of mum and dad those who have to suck it up
I wonder which category the Cambridge educated economics editor of the FT is in.....
It is a good point. Personally the intra generational inequality issue has always seemed the more worrying one rather than the inter generational one. Millenials and Gen Zeds are going to be defined by their inherited wealth as much as by their earned income, which is a tricky situation for anyone who wants to sell the idea that society is in any way fair or meritocratic.
This is one the (many) things I find strange about the modern Tory party. Most claim alignment with Thatcherism. To me one of the central pillars of Thatcherism was aspiration and meritocracy. Almost importing the "American dream". Another pillar was challenging the status quo and being willing to take on vested interests.
Yet those now claiming to be Thatcherite want to protect a system that thwarts aspiration and meritocracy and protects the status quo.
Inheritance is a tricky one because it involves a tradeoff between two deep engrained and equally worthwhile human impulses - fairness, and providing for your offspring. It feels like the Tories are only interested in the latter but Labour can't go too far the other way.
I don't think its just the Tories. As the article points out most people in the UK think inheritance is indeed fair as it has already been taxed once.
They are wrong, it is unfair (at least at present levels of inequality) and all money is taxed not just once, but endlessly and in multiple ways as it gets recycled through the economy. If it was just the Tories it could be fixed by a Labour govt but it is the near settled position of the electorate, especially the older part of the electorate.
I think inheritance is a classic example of where the interests of the individual and the interests of society diverge. As a parent I want to help my kids succeed and so of course I'm putting aside money for them. And paradoxically the more unequal the society they're going to be operating in, the more money I will need to give them - it becomes an arms race. But ultimately I want them to be living in a less unequal society since I think that will benefit them whether they are rich or poor.
Taxing capital more, and income less, is the way forward IMHO.
I would scrap the IHT exemptions for business property, farmland, woodland, country houses, and works of art. I'd also abolish main residence relief (currently up to £1m).
I'd keep the £325,000 relief, and then set the rate at 25% on everything above that (rather than 40%).
One excellent consequence would be a sharp drop in the price of farmland, which is used a tax shelter. It is virtually impossible now to buy farmland, and get a decent return based upon farming income.
Main residence relief from IHT was the single most popular Tory policy this century.
It would be electoral suicide for any party to scrap it now, especially the Tories. As would scrapping the farmland exemption which would hit farmers whose farms have been in their families for generations and who are a key part of the Tory core vote
That's the problem. Farmland should be used for farming, or development, not as a tax shelter.
WRT housing, my parents' house is worth about £1.1m. If it were taxed at 40% over £650,000 that would be £180,000. Main residence relief cuts it to £40,000. That extra £140,000 will be nice for me and my siblings to have, but in no way essential. It would be far preferable for younger workers to be paying less in income tax and NI.
Society becomes ossified, when inheritance pays far more than hard work does.
Chris Giles has a piece in the FT arguing against taxing Boomer wealth to fix intergenerational inequality... Might be an interesting read given the debates on the issue on here (not linking because of pay wall).
Available via google. Headline "OK Boomer"
So basically saying younger generations should be split into
those grateful for inheritance and bank of mum and dad those who have to suck it up
I wonder which category the Cambridge educated economics editor of the FT is in.....
It is a good point. Personally the intra generational inequality issue has always seemed the more worrying one rather than the inter generational one. Millenials and Gen Zeds are going to be defined by their inherited wealth as much as by their earned income, which is a tricky situation for anyone who wants to sell the idea that society is in any way fair or meritocratic.
This is one the (many) things I find strange about the modern Tory party. Most claim alignment with Thatcherism. To me one of the central pillars of Thatcherism was aspiration and meritocracy. Almost importing the "American dream". Another pillar was challenging the status quo and being willing to take on vested interests.
Yet those now claiming to be Thatcherite want to protect a system that thwarts aspiration and meritocracy and protects the status quo.
Inheritance is a tricky one because it involves a tradeoff between two deep engrained and equally worthwhile human impulses - fairness, and providing for your offspring. It feels like the Tories are only interested in the latter but Labour can't go too far the other way.
I don't think its just the Tories. As the article points out most people in the UK think inheritance is indeed fair as it has already been taxed once.
They are wrong, it is unfair (at least at present levels of inequality) and all money is taxed not just once, but endlessly and in multiple ways as it gets recycled through the economy. If it was just the Tories it could be fixed by a Labour govt but it is the near settled position of the electorate, especially the older part of the electorate.
IHT is by far the most unpopular tax. Reforming it should be based upon cutting the rate, but removing the vast majority of exemptions and reliefs (which overwhelmingly favour the very rich, as opposed to the comfortably off).
I know it won't happen or win significant support but I'd favour switching it to a tax on the recipient rather than the estate. Maybe something like 150k tax free, next 250k @ 20%, next 500k @ 25%, rest @ 40%.
IHT is an issue on which I've completely changed my mind, since 2010.
@BloombergUK: The UK is yet to see any positive economic benefits from Brexit, Bank of England Chief Economist Huw Pill suggests https://t.co/ru7oT66uHi
We did increase our trade with North Korea by over 100% last year.
To $127m.
I'm amazed it's that high. What do we buy from or sell to North Korea?
I'd assumed they'd hacked a bank or something. But it turn out we showed a surplus, so that seems unlikely.
Chris Giles has a piece in the FT arguing against taxing Boomer wealth to fix intergenerational inequality... Might be an interesting read given the debates on the issue on here (not linking because of pay wall).
Available via google. Headline "OK Boomer"
So basically saying younger generations should be split into
those grateful for inheritance and bank of mum and dad those who have to suck it up
I wonder which category the Cambridge educated economics editor of the FT is in.....
It is a good point. Personally the intra generational inequality issue has always seemed the more worrying one rather than the inter generational one. Millenials and Gen Zeds are going to be defined by their inherited wealth as much as by their earned income, which is a tricky situation for anyone who wants to sell the idea that society is in any way fair or meritocratic.
This is one the (many) things I find strange about the modern Tory party. Most claim alignment with Thatcherism. To me one of the central pillars of Thatcherism was aspiration and meritocracy. Almost importing the "American dream". Another pillar was challenging the status quo and being willing to take on vested interests.
Yet those now claiming to be Thatcherite want to protect a system that thwarts aspiration and meritocracy and protects the status quo.
Inheritance is a tricky one because it involves a tradeoff between two deep engrained and equally worthwhile human impulses - fairness, and providing for your offspring. It feels like the Tories are only interested in the latter but Labour can't go too far the other way.
I don't think its just the Tories. As the article points out most people in the UK think inheritance is indeed fair as it has already been taxed once.
They are wrong, it is unfair (at least at present levels of inequality) and all money is taxed not just once, but endlessly and in multiple ways as it gets recycled through the economy. If it was just the Tories it could be fixed by a Labour govt but it is the near settled position of the electorate, especially the older part of the electorate.
I think inheritance is a classic example of where the interests of the individual and the interests of society diverge. As a parent I want to help my kids succeed and so of course I'm putting aside money for them. And paradoxically the more unequal the society they're going to be operating in, the more money I will need to give them - it becomes an arms race. But ultimately I want them to be living in a less unequal society since I think that will benefit them whether they are rich or poor.
Taxing capital more, and income less, is the way forward IMHO.
I would scrap the IHT exemptions for business property, farmland, woodland, country houses, and works of art. I'd also abolish main residence relief (currently up to £1m).
I'd keep the £325,000 relief, and then set the rate at 25% on everything above that (rather than 40%).
One excellent consequence would be a sharp drop in the price of farmland, which is used a tax shelter. It is virtually impossible now to buy farmland, and get a decent return based upon farming income.
But have you the cojones to suggest the real big one?
The capital gains exemption on main residences is devoid of social and financial logic, yet to withdraw it would be electoral suicide.
Chris Giles has a piece in the FT arguing against taxing Boomer wealth to fix intergenerational inequality... Might be an interesting read given the debates on the issue on here (not linking because of pay wall).
Available via google. Headline "OK Boomer"
So basically saying younger generations should be split into
those grateful for inheritance and bank of mum and dad those who have to suck it up
I wonder which category the Cambridge educated economics editor of the FT is in.....
It is a good point. Personally the intra generational inequality issue has always seemed the more worrying one rather than the inter generational one. Millenials and Gen Zeds are going to be defined by their inherited wealth as much as by their earned income, which is a tricky situation for anyone who wants to sell the idea that society is in any way fair or meritocratic.
This is one the (many) things I find strange about the modern Tory party. Most claim alignment with Thatcherism. To me one of the central pillars of Thatcherism was aspiration and meritocracy. Almost importing the "American dream". Another pillar was challenging the status quo and being willing to take on vested interests.
Yet those now claiming to be Thatcherite want to protect a system that thwarts aspiration and meritocracy and protects the status quo.
Inheritance is a tricky one because it involves a tradeoff between two deep engrained and equally worthwhile human impulses - fairness, and providing for your offspring. It feels like the Tories are only interested in the latter but Labour can't go too far the other way.
I don't think its just the Tories. As the article points out most people in the UK think inheritance is indeed fair as it has already been taxed once.
They are wrong, it is unfair (at least at present levels of inequality) and all money is taxed not just once, but endlessly and in multiple ways as it gets recycled through the economy. If it was just the Tories it could be fixed by a Labour govt but it is the near settled position of the electorate, especially the older part of the electorate.
IHT is by far the most unpopular tax. Reforming it should be based upon cutting the rate, but removing the vast majority of exemptions and reliefs (which overwhelmingly favour the very rich, as opposed to the comfortably off).
I know it won't happen or win significant support but I'd favour switching it to a tax on the recipient rather than the estate. Maybe something like 150k tax free, next 250k @ 20%, next 500k @ 25%, rest @ 40%.
IHT is an issue on which I've completely changed my mind, since 2010.
I think it was genuinely less of an issue back then. Ultra low interest rates have completely changed the economy, and inequality is a far bigger problem and drag on the economy than it was pre GFC.
Chris Giles has a piece in the FT arguing against taxing Boomer wealth to fix intergenerational inequality... Might be an interesting read given the debates on the issue on here (not linking because of pay wall).
Available via google. Headline "OK Boomer"
So basically saying younger generations should be split into
those grateful for inheritance and bank of mum and dad those who have to suck it up
I wonder which category the Cambridge educated economics editor of the FT is in.....
It is a good point. Personally the intra generational inequality issue has always seemed the more worrying one rather than the inter generational one. Millenials and Gen Zeds are going to be defined by their inherited wealth as much as by their earned income, which is a tricky situation for anyone who wants to sell the idea that society is in any way fair or meritocratic.
This is one the (many) things I find strange about the modern Tory party. Most claim alignment with Thatcherism. To me one of the central pillars of Thatcherism was aspiration and meritocracy. Almost importing the "American dream". Another pillar was challenging the status quo and being willing to take on vested interests.
Yet those now claiming to be Thatcherite want to protect a system that thwarts aspiration and meritocracy and protects the status quo.
Inheritance is a tricky one because it involves a tradeoff between two deep engrained and equally worthwhile human impulses - fairness, and providing for your offspring. It feels like the Tories are only interested in the latter but Labour can't go too far the other way.
I don't think its just the Tories. As the article points out most people in the UK think inheritance is indeed fair as it has already been taxed once.
They are wrong, it is unfair (at least at present levels of inequality) and all money is taxed not just once, but endlessly and in multiple ways as it gets recycled through the economy. If it was just the Tories it could be fixed by a Labour govt but it is the near settled position of the electorate, especially the older part of the electorate.
I think inheritance is a classic example of where the interests of the individual and the interests of society diverge. As a parent I want to help my kids succeed and so of course I'm putting aside money for them. And paradoxically the more unequal the society they're going to be operating in, the more money I will need to give them - it becomes an arms race. But ultimately I want them to be living in a less unequal society since I think that will benefit them whether they are rich or poor.
Taxing capital more, and income less, is the way forward IMHO.
I would scrap the IHT exemptions for business property, farmland, woodland, country houses, and works of art. I'd also abolish main residence relief (currently up to £1m).
I'd keep the £325,000 relief, and then set the rate at 25% on everything above that (rather than 40%).
One excellent consequence would be a sharp drop in the price of farmland, which is used a tax shelter. It is virtually impossible now to buy farmland, and get a decent return based upon farming income.
Main residence relief from IHT was the single most popular Tory policy this century.
It would be electoral suicide for any party to scrap it now, especially the Tories. As would scrapping the farmland exemption which would hit farmers whose farms have been in their families for generations and who are a key part of the Tory core vote
That's the problem. Farmland should be used for farming, or development, not as a tax shelter.
WRT housing, my parents' house is worth about £1.1m. If it were taxed at 40% over £650,000 that would be £180,000. Main residence relief cuts it to £40,000. That extra £140,000 will be nice for me and my siblings to have, but in no way essential. It would be far preferable for younger workers to be paying less in income tax and NI.
Society becomes ossified, when inheritance pays far more than hard work does.
Virtually all farmers who have inherited their farms do use them for farming.
Scrapping that and reversing main residence relief would see most of the remaining Tory voters move en masse to RefUK. Heck, even I would consider going RefUK if they tried that. Virtually no young voters would move from Labour to Tory either, even if you cut NI and income tax.
Do you want to turn a mere heavy Tory defeat into a complete wipe out?
Chris Giles has a piece in the FT arguing against taxing Boomer wealth to fix intergenerational inequality... Might be an interesting read given the debates on the issue on here (not linking because of pay wall).
Available via google. Headline "OK Boomer"
So basically saying younger generations should be split into
those grateful for inheritance and bank of mum and dad those who have to suck it up
I wonder which category the Cambridge educated economics editor of the FT is in.....
It is a good point. Personally the intra generational inequality issue has always seemed the more worrying one rather than the inter generational one. Millenials and Gen Zeds are going to be defined by their inherited wealth as much as by their earned income, which is a tricky situation for anyone who wants to sell the idea that society is in any way fair or meritocratic.
This is one the (many) things I find strange about the modern Tory party. Most claim alignment with Thatcherism. To me one of the central pillars of Thatcherism was aspiration and meritocracy. Almost importing the "American dream". Another pillar was challenging the status quo and being willing to take on vested interests.
Yet those now claiming to be Thatcherite want to protect a system that thwarts aspiration and meritocracy and protects the status quo.
Inheritance is a tricky one because it involves a tradeoff between two deep engrained and equally worthwhile human impulses - fairness, and providing for your offspring. It feels like the Tories are only interested in the latter but Labour can't go too far the other way.
I don't think its just the Tories. As the article points out most people in the UK think inheritance is indeed fair as it has already been taxed once.
They are wrong, it is unfair (at least at present levels of inequality) and all money is taxed not just once, but endlessly and in multiple ways as it gets recycled through the economy. If it was just the Tories it could be fixed by a Labour govt but it is the near settled position of the electorate, especially the older part of the electorate.
I think inheritance is a classic example of where the interests of the individual and the interests of society diverge. As a parent I want to help my kids succeed and so of course I'm putting aside money for them. And paradoxically the more unequal the society they're going to be operating in, the more money I will need to give them - it becomes an arms race. But ultimately I want them to be living in a less unequal society since I think that will benefit them whether they are rich or poor.
Taxing capital more, and income less, is the way forward IMHO.
I would scrap the IHT exemptions for business property, farmland, woodland, country houses, and works of art. I'd also abolish main residence relief (currently up to £1m).
I'd keep the £325,000 relief, and then set the rate at 25% on everything above that (rather than 40%).
One excellent consequence would be a sharp drop in the price of farmland, which is used a tax shelter. It is virtually impossible now to buy farmland, and get a decent return based upon farming income.
Main residence relief from IHT was the single most popular Tory policy this century.
It would be electoral suicide for any party to scrap it now, especially the Tories. As would scrapping the farmland exemption which would hit farmers whose farms have been in their families for generations and who are a key part of the Tory core vote
Youy think Conservative policies are helping farmers?
It's the wealthy landlords and aristos who benefit. The tax exemption is on land being used for farming - doesn't matter if it is being worked by the owner.
I know MoonRabbit is convinced the polls are narrowing again, just like they were convinced they were narrowing a week ago, then two weeks ago, then three weeks ago...
But everything I can see, it's a 20 point lead and has been for some time
It's still a bit far out from an election to draw firm conclusions but we do seem to have settled into a period of steady 20 points leads. There is little to suggest how and when the Tories can move the dial.
Hyufd does a great job of putting the best possible gloss on some dire numbers but the fact remains that there is no reason why they should not worsen rather than improve. The Tories are standing on the edge of a precipice. Their next step had better be in the right direction.
I would go further. We could be witnessing the last two years of the Tory Party in power ever.
2 things. if it’s Brexit, Tory’s Own Brexit and the voters come to hate Brexit on mass, if because of Brexit they have lost swathes of Tory voters for the rest of those voters lives, that’s going to make it very difficult to get swingback into power. It’s easier to imagine large enclaves of Lib Dem power building decade after decade in what used to be the blue wall.
Secondly, why shouldn’t the UK Conservatives actually change from what they stood for for a century or more, and become unelectable for that? Like the US republicans have changed, and are less a shoe in than they were, and look at France, why is it inevitable that this party under this name bounce back eventually ten years or so, especially if their positions on things no longer match that name, are so different than when they used to be winners in 20th century?
Chris Giles has a piece in the FT arguing against taxing Boomer wealth to fix intergenerational inequality... Might be an interesting read given the debates on the issue on here (not linking because of pay wall).
It's a complete one sided look at it because it doesn't take into account housing costs and rental costs being inflated due to the older generations owning more residential property than they need. The flow of wealth trickles upwards from everyone to them and a select few get a small trickle down from the generation above. His argument is not convincing at all and reads more like special pleading.
Chris Giles has a piece in the FT arguing against taxing Boomer wealth to fix intergenerational inequality... Might be an interesting read given the debates on the issue on here (not linking because of pay wall).
Available via google. Headline "OK Boomer"
So basically saying younger generations should be split into
those grateful for inheritance and bank of mum and dad those who have to suck it up
I wonder which category the Cambridge educated economics editor of the FT is in.....
It is a good point. Personally the intra generational inequality issue has always seemed the more worrying one rather than the inter generational one. Millenials and Gen Zeds are going to be defined by their inherited wealth as much as by their earned income, which is a tricky situation for anyone who wants to sell the idea that society is in any way fair or meritocratic.
This is one the (many) things I find strange about the modern Tory party. Most claim alignment with Thatcherism. To me one of the central pillars of Thatcherism was aspiration and meritocracy. Almost importing the "American dream". Another pillar was challenging the status quo and being willing to take on vested interests.
Yet those now claiming to be Thatcherite want to protect a system that thwarts aspiration and meritocracy and protects the status quo.
Inheritance is a tricky one because it involves a tradeoff between two deep engrained and equally worthwhile human impulses - fairness, and providing for your offspring. It feels like the Tories are only interested in the latter but Labour can't go too far the other way.
I don't think its just the Tories. As the article points out most people in the UK think inheritance is indeed fair as it has already been taxed once.
They are wrong, it is unfair (at least at present levels of inequality) and all money is taxed not just once, but endlessly and in multiple ways as it gets recycled through the economy. If it was just the Tories it could be fixed by a Labour govt but it is the near settled position of the electorate, especially the older part of the electorate.
I think inheritance is a classic example of where the interests of the individual and the interests of society diverge. As a parent I want to help my kids succeed and so of course I'm putting aside money for them. And paradoxically the more unequal the society they're going to be operating in, the more money I will need to give them - it becomes an arms race. But ultimately I want them to be living in a less unequal society since I think that will benefit them whether they are rich or poor.
Taxing capital more, and income less, is the way forward IMHO.
I would scrap the IHT exemptions for business property, farmland, woodland, country houses, and works of art. I'd also abolish main residence relief (currently up to £1m).
I'd keep the £325,000 relief, and then set the rate at 25% on everything above that (rather than 40%).
One excellent consequence would be a sharp drop in the price of farmland, which is used a tax shelter. It is virtually impossible now to buy farmland, and get a decent return based upon farming income.
Main residence relief from IHT was the single most popular Tory policy this century.
It would be electoral suicide for any party to scrap it now, especially the Tories. As would scrapping the farmland exemption which would hit farmers whose farms have been in their families for generations and who are a key part of the Tory core vote
That's the problem. Farmland should be used for farming, or development, not as a tax shelter.
WRT housing, my parents' house is worth about £1.1m. If it were taxed at 40% over £650,000 that would be £180,000. Main residence relief cuts it to £40,000. That extra £140,000 will be nice for me and my siblings to have, but in no way essential. It would be far preferable for younger workers to be paying less in income tax and NI.
Society becomes ossified, when inheritance pays far more than hard work does.
Virtually all farmers who have inherited their farms do use them for farming.
Scrapping that and reversing main residence relief would see the remaining Tory voters move en masse to RefUK. Heck, even I would consider going RefUK if they tried that.
Do you want to turn a mere heavy Tory defeat into a complete wipe out?
Irrelevant, as the exemption pertains to ownership not owner occupation.
Chris Giles has a piece in the FT arguing against taxing Boomer wealth to fix intergenerational inequality... Might be an interesting read given the debates on the issue on here (not linking because of pay wall).
Available via google. Headline "OK Boomer"
So basically saying younger generations should be split into
those grateful for inheritance and bank of mum and dad those who have to suck it up
I wonder which category the Cambridge educated economics editor of the FT is in.....
It is a good point. Personally the intra generational inequality issue has always seemed the more worrying one rather than the inter generational one. Millenials and Gen Zeds are going to be defined by their inherited wealth as much as by their earned income, which is a tricky situation for anyone who wants to sell the idea that society is in any way fair or meritocratic.
This is one the (many) things I find strange about the modern Tory party. Most claim alignment with Thatcherism. To me one of the central pillars of Thatcherism was aspiration and meritocracy. Almost importing the "American dream". Another pillar was challenging the status quo and being willing to take on vested interests.
Yet those now claiming to be Thatcherite want to protect a system that thwarts aspiration and meritocracy and protects the status quo.
Inheritance is a tricky one because it involves a tradeoff between two deep engrained and equally worthwhile human impulses - fairness, and providing for your offspring. It feels like the Tories are only interested in the latter but Labour can't go too far the other way.
I don't think its just the Tories. As the article points out most people in the UK think inheritance is indeed fair as it has already been taxed once.
They are wrong, it is unfair (at least at present levels of inequality) and all money is taxed not just once, but endlessly and in multiple ways as it gets recycled through the economy. If it was just the Tories it could be fixed by a Labour govt but it is the near settled position of the electorate, especially the older part of the electorate.
I think inheritance is a classic example of where the interests of the individual and the interests of society diverge. As a parent I want to help my kids succeed and so of course I'm putting aside money for them. And paradoxically the more unequal the society they're going to be operating in, the more money I will need to give them - it becomes an arms race. But ultimately I want them to be living in a less unequal society since I think that will benefit them whether they are rich or poor.
Taxing capital more, and income less, is the way forward IMHO.
I would scrap the IHT exemptions for business property, farmland, woodland, country houses, and works of art. I'd also abolish main residence relief (currently up to £1m).
I'd keep the £325,000 relief, and then set the rate at 25% on everything above that (rather than 40%).
One excellent consequence would be a sharp drop in the price of farmland, which is used a tax shelter. It is virtually impossible now to buy farmland, and get a decent return based upon farming income.
But have you the cojones to suggest the real big one?
The capital gains exemption on main residences is devoid of social and financial logic, yet to withdraw it would be electoral suicide.
Do you dare? Thought not.
The problem with that is that no-one would ever be able to move house. Which is a bad thing.
https://twitter.com/Hromadske/status/1621480871953055751 Detectives have completed the investigation into the case of the former head of the State Fiscal Service Roman Nasirov and his advisor in the case of taking bribes totaling $19.5 million in 2015-2016, @nab_ukr and SAPO report.
The case file was opened to the defense for review.,/i>
Chris Giles has a piece in the FT arguing against taxing Boomer wealth to fix intergenerational inequality... Might be an interesting read given the debates on the issue on here (not linking because of pay wall).
Available via google. Headline "OK Boomer"
So basically saying younger generations should be split into
those grateful for inheritance and bank of mum and dad those who have to suck it up
I wonder which category the Cambridge educated economics editor of the FT is in.....
It is a good point. Personally the intra generational inequality issue has always seemed the more worrying one rather than the inter generational one. Millenials and Gen Zeds are going to be defined by their inherited wealth as much as by their earned income, which is a tricky situation for anyone who wants to sell the idea that society is in any way fair or meritocratic.
Probably around 50% will inherit substantial amounts, but one's lot in life really should not depend upon how much one inherits.
And the age at which inheritance is received for thar half of the population who do has been getting higher, to a point where inheritance is no longer life changing for them as they are already independently wealthy.
Chris Giles has a piece in the FT arguing against taxing Boomer wealth to fix intergenerational inequality... Might be an interesting read given the debates on the issue on here (not linking because of pay wall).
Available via google. Headline "OK Boomer"
So basically saying younger generations should be split into
those grateful for inheritance and bank of mum and dad those who have to suck it up
I wonder which category the Cambridge educated economics editor of the FT is in.....
It is a good point. Personally the intra generational inequality issue has always seemed the more worrying one rather than the inter generational one. Millenials and Gen Zeds are going to be defined by their inherited wealth as much as by their earned income, which is a tricky situation for anyone who wants to sell the idea that society is in any way fair or meritocratic.
This is one the (many) things I find strange about the modern Tory party. Most claim alignment with Thatcherism. To me one of the central pillars of Thatcherism was aspiration and meritocracy. Almost importing the "American dream". Another pillar was challenging the status quo and being willing to take on vested interests.
Yet those now claiming to be Thatcherite want to protect a system that thwarts aspiration and meritocracy and protects the status quo.
Inheritance is a tricky one because it involves a tradeoff between two deep engrained and equally worthwhile human impulses - fairness, and providing for your offspring. It feels like the Tories are only interested in the latter but Labour can't go too far the other way.
I don't think its just the Tories. As the article points out most people in the UK think inheritance is indeed fair as it has already been taxed once.
They are wrong, it is unfair (at least at present levels of inequality) and all money is taxed not just once, but endlessly and in multiple ways as it gets recycled through the economy. If it was just the Tories it could be fixed by a Labour govt but it is the near settled position of the electorate, especially the older part of the electorate.
I think inheritance is a classic example of where the interests of the individual and the interests of society diverge. As a parent I want to help my kids succeed and so of course I'm putting aside money for them. And paradoxically the more unequal the society they're going to be operating in, the more money I will need to give them - it becomes an arms race. But ultimately I want them to be living in a less unequal society since I think that will benefit them whether they are rich or poor.
Taxing capital more, and income less, is the way forward IMHO.
I would scrap the IHT exemptions for business property, farmland, woodland, country houses, and works of art. I'd also abolish main residence relief (currently up to £1m).
I'd keep the £325,000 relief, and then set the rate at 25% on everything above that (rather than 40%).
One excellent consequence would be a sharp drop in the price of farmland, which is used a tax shelter. It is virtually impossible now to buy farmland, and get a decent return based upon farming income.
But have you the cojones to suggest the real big one?
The capital gains exemption on main residences is devoid of social and financial logic, yet to withdraw it would be electoral suicide.
Do you dare? Thought not.
The capital gains exemption on main residences makes perfect social and financial sense. If you're moving from one home to another then the so-called capital gain isn't real, what you've gained in your sale you lose in your purchase. Whereas someone who stays in their property and potentially remortgages etc to release money from what they've gained but doesn't officially realise the equity will evade the tax completely.
So all you get with your proposal is a tax on mobility. Mobility isn't the problem and shouldn't be discouraged via the taxation.
If you want to tax the value of main homes then that can and should be done via a land tax that is paid annually by everyone who owns a property whether they're moving or not. If the value of your property goes up, your tax goes up, and vice-versa even if you're not moving which would discourage people from acting as NIMBYs etc to inflate their property prices.
Chris Giles has a piece in the FT arguing against taxing Boomer wealth to fix intergenerational inequality... Might be an interesting read given the debates on the issue on here (not linking because of pay wall).
It's a complete one sided look at it because it doesn't take into account housing costs and rental costs being inflated due to the older generations owning more residential property than they need. The flow of wealth trickles upwards from everyone to them and a select few get a small trickle down from the generation above. His argument is not convincing at all and reads more like special pleading.
Chris Giles has a piece in the FT arguing against taxing Boomer wealth to fix intergenerational inequality... Might be an interesting read given the debates on the issue on here (not linking because of pay wall).
Available via google. Headline "OK Boomer"
So basically saying younger generations should be split into
those grateful for inheritance and bank of mum and dad those who have to suck it up
I wonder which category the Cambridge educated economics editor of the FT is in.....
It is a good point. Personally the intra generational inequality issue has always seemed the more worrying one rather than the inter generational one. Millenials and Gen Zeds are going to be defined by their inherited wealth as much as by their earned income, which is a tricky situation for anyone who wants to sell the idea that society is in any way fair or meritocratic.
This is one the (many) things I find strange about the modern Tory party. Most claim alignment with Thatcherism. To me one of the central pillars of Thatcherism was aspiration and meritocracy. Almost importing the "American dream". Another pillar was challenging the status quo and being willing to take on vested interests.
Yet those now claiming to be Thatcherite want to protect a system that thwarts aspiration and meritocracy and protects the status quo.
Inheritance is a tricky one because it involves a tradeoff between two deep engrained and equally worthwhile human impulses - fairness, and providing for your offspring. It feels like the Tories are only interested in the latter but Labour can't go too far the other way.
I don't think its just the Tories. As the article points out most people in the UK think inheritance is indeed fair as it has already been taxed once.
They are wrong, it is unfair (at least at present levels of inequality) and all money is taxed not just once, but endlessly and in multiple ways as it gets recycled through the economy. If it was just the Tories it could be fixed by a Labour govt but it is the near settled position of the electorate, especially the older part of the electorate.
I think inheritance is a classic example of where the interests of the individual and the interests of society diverge. As a parent I want to help my kids succeed and so of course I'm putting aside money for them. And paradoxically the more unequal the society they're going to be operating in, the more money I will need to give them - it becomes an arms race. But ultimately I want them to be living in a less unequal society since I think that will benefit them whether they are rich or poor.
Taxing capital more, and income less, is the way forward IMHO.
I would scrap the IHT exemptions for business property, farmland, woodland, country houses, and works of art. I'd also abolish main residence relief (currently up to £1m).
I'd keep the £325,000 relief, and then set the rate at 25% on everything above that (rather than 40%).
One excellent consequence would be a sharp drop in the price of farmland, which is used a tax shelter. It is virtually impossible now to buy farmland, and get a decent return based upon farming income.
But have you the cojones to suggest the real big one?
The capital gains exemption on main residences is devoid of social and financial logic, yet to withdraw it would be electoral suicide.
Do you dare? Thought not.
It would indeed be electoral suicide. Prior to 1962, I think, people were deemed to derive an income from the property they owned, which was taxed, but it would likewise be electoral suicide to reintroduce it. Back then, income tax allowances were far higher, relative to incomes, than they are now, which was another aid to social mobility.
That Chris Giles article is total crap. The argument amounts to “let’s not tax boomers because it’s unpopular”. That’s a minute of my life I’m not getting back.
Chris Giles has a piece in the FT arguing against taxing Boomer wealth to fix intergenerational inequality... Might be an interesting read given the debates on the issue on here (not linking because of pay wall).
Available via google. Headline "OK Boomer"
So basically saying younger generations should be split into
those grateful for inheritance and bank of mum and dad those who have to suck it up
I wonder which category the Cambridge educated economics editor of the FT is in.....
It is a good point. Personally the intra generational inequality issue has always seemed the more worrying one rather than the inter generational one. Millenials and Gen Zeds are going to be defined by their inherited wealth as much as by their earned income, which is a tricky situation for anyone who wants to sell the idea that society is in any way fair or meritocratic.
Probably around 50% will inherit substantial amounts, but one's lot in life really should not depend upon how much one inherits.
And the age at which inheritance is received for thar half of the population who do has been getting higher, to a point where inheritance is no longer life changing for them as they are already independently wealthy.
Many 30 to 40 year olds also get help with deposits from inheritances from grandparents or gifts from parents.
Several polls this week with notable outside moe Labour collapse. Interesting.
MoonRabbit it's odd you chose to reply to this one and not the other which shows Labour going UP.
It's odd for you of all people to be criticising someone else for selective posting and bias.
For those towards the left-hand edge of the numeric ability spectrum (or dumb f*ckers, as they are sometimes known) the Wikipedia Polling entry has a convenient, simple colored chart showing graphically that for a while now the lead has been a fairly steady 20%.
No bullshit, no cherry-picking, no sophistry necessary. Just look at the bleeding picture:
Chris Giles has a piece in the FT arguing against taxing Boomer wealth to fix intergenerational inequality... Might be an interesting read given the debates on the issue on here (not linking because of pay wall).
Available via google. Headline "OK Boomer"
So basically saying younger generations should be split into
those grateful for inheritance and bank of mum and dad those who have to suck it up
I wonder which category the Cambridge educated economics editor of the FT is in.....
It is a good point. Personally the intra generational inequality issue has always seemed the more worrying one rather than the inter generational one. Millenials and Gen Zeds are going to be defined by their inherited wealth as much as by their earned income, which is a tricky situation for anyone who wants to sell the idea that society is in any way fair or meritocratic.
This is one the (many) things I find strange about the modern Tory party. Most claim alignment with Thatcherism. To me one of the central pillars of Thatcherism was aspiration and meritocracy. Almost importing the "American dream". Another pillar was challenging the status quo and being willing to take on vested interests.
Yet those now claiming to be Thatcherite want to protect a system that thwarts aspiration and meritocracy and protects the status quo.
Inheritance is a tricky one because it involves a tradeoff between two deep engrained and equally worthwhile human impulses - fairness, and providing for your offspring. It feels like the Tories are only interested in the latter but Labour can't go too far the other way.
I don't think its just the Tories. As the article points out most people in the UK think inheritance is indeed fair as it has already been taxed once.
They are wrong, it is unfair (at least at present levels of inequality) and all money is taxed not just once, but endlessly and in multiple ways as it gets recycled through the economy. If it was just the Tories it could be fixed by a Labour govt but it is the near settled position of the electorate, especially the older part of the electorate.
I think inheritance is a classic example of where the interests of the individual and the interests of society diverge. As a parent I want to help my kids succeed and so of course I'm putting aside money for them. And paradoxically the more unequal the society they're going to be operating in, the more money I will need to give them - it becomes an arms race. But ultimately I want them to be living in a less unequal society since I think that will benefit them whether they are rich or poor.
Taxing capital more, and income less, is the way forward IMHO.
I would scrap the IHT exemptions for business property, farmland, woodland, country houses, and works of art. I'd also abolish main residence relief (currently up to £1m).
I'd keep the £325,000 relief, and then set the rate at 25% on everything above that (rather than 40%).
One excellent consequence would be a sharp drop in the price of farmland, which is used a tax shelter. It is virtually impossible now to buy farmland, and get a decent return based upon farming income.
Main residence relief from IHT was the single most popular Tory policy this century.
It would be electoral suicide for any party to scrap it now, especially the Tories. As would scrapping the farmland exemption which would hit farmers whose farms have been in their families for generations and who are a key part of the Tory core vote
That's the problem. Farmland should be used for farming, or development, not as a tax shelter.
WRT housing, my parents' house is worth about £1.1m. If it were taxed at 40% over £650,000 that would be £180,000. Main residence relief cuts it to £40,000. That extra £140,000 will be nice for me and my siblings to have, but in no way essential. It would be far preferable for younger workers to be paying less in income tax and NI.
Society becomes ossified, when inheritance pays far more than hard work does.
Virtually all farmers who have inherited their farms do use them for farming.
Scrapping that and reversing main residence relief would see the remaining Tory voters move en masse to RefUK. Heck, even I would consider going RefUK if they tried that.
Do you want to turn a mere heavy Tory defeat into a complete wipe out?
Irrelevant, as the exemption pertains to ownership not owner occupation.
Most Tory farmers own their own farms, certainly round here and their families have for generations
Chris Giles has a piece in the FT arguing against taxing Boomer wealth to fix intergenerational inequality... Might be an interesting read given the debates on the issue on here (not linking because of pay wall).
Available via google. Headline "OK Boomer"
So basically saying younger generations should be split into
those grateful for inheritance and bank of mum and dad those who have to suck it up
I wonder which category the Cambridge educated economics editor of the FT is in.....
It is a good point. Personally the intra generational inequality issue has always seemed the more worrying one rather than the inter generational one. Millenials and Gen Zeds are going to be defined by their inherited wealth as much as by their earned income, which is a tricky situation for anyone who wants to sell the idea that society is in any way fair or meritocratic.
Probably around 50% will inherit substantial amounts, but one's lot in life really should not depend upon how much one inherits.
And the age at which inheritance is received for thar half of the population who do has been getting higher, to a point where inheritance is no longer life changing for them as they are already independently wealthy.
Many 30 to 40 year olds also get help with deposits from inheritances from grandparents or gifts from parents.
And many don't.
Anyone working full time ought to be able to save a deposit from their own efforts without special pleading or "help" from others.
Chris Giles has a piece in the FT arguing against taxing Boomer wealth to fix intergenerational inequality... Might be an interesting read given the debates on the issue on here (not linking because of pay wall).
It's a complete one sided look at it because it doesn't take into account housing costs and rental costs being inflated due to the older generations owning more residential property than they need. The flow of wealth trickles upwards from everyone to them and a select few get a small trickle down from the generation above. His argument is not convincing at all and reads more like special pleading.
I didn't think you'd like it!
Indeed. But I just don't understand how anyone can just gloss over housing ownership in any analysis of intergenerational wealth distribution and the annual redistribution within them. Rent and capital gain from property is probably the single largest factor in the older generation being wealthier than the generations below them, it gets about two lines in that article and is painted as a positive because people inherit property and wealth.
I've not done any maths on it but I'd be shocked if the annual wealth transfer in the form of rent and capital gain is at least 3-4x the inheritance factor in the other direction.
Chris Giles has a piece in the FT arguing against taxing Boomer wealth to fix intergenerational inequality... Might be an interesting read given the debates on the issue on here (not linking because of pay wall).
Available via google. Headline "OK Boomer"
So basically saying younger generations should be split into
those grateful for inheritance and bank of mum and dad those who have to suck it up
I wonder which category the Cambridge educated economics editor of the FT is in.....
It is a good point. Personally the intra generational inequality issue has always seemed the more worrying one rather than the inter generational one. Millenials and Gen Zeds are going to be defined by their inherited wealth as much as by their earned income, which is a tricky situation for anyone who wants to sell the idea that society is in any way fair or meritocratic.
This is one the (many) things I find strange about the modern Tory party. Most claim alignment with Thatcherism. To me one of the central pillars of Thatcherism was aspiration and meritocracy. Almost importing the "American dream". Another pillar was challenging the status quo and being willing to take on vested interests.
Yet those now claiming to be Thatcherite want to protect a system that thwarts aspiration and meritocracy and protects the status quo.
Inheritance is a tricky one because it involves a tradeoff between two deep engrained and equally worthwhile human impulses - fairness, and providing for your offspring. It feels like the Tories are only interested in the latter but Labour can't go too far the other way.
I don't think its just the Tories. As the article points out most people in the UK think inheritance is indeed fair as it has already been taxed once.
They are wrong, it is unfair (at least at present levels of inequality) and all money is taxed not just once, but endlessly and in multiple ways as it gets recycled through the economy. If it was just the Tories it could be fixed by a Labour govt but it is the near settled position of the electorate, especially the older part of the electorate.
I think inheritance is a classic example of where the interests of the individual and the interests of society diverge. As a parent I want to help my kids succeed and so of course I'm putting aside money for them. And paradoxically the more unequal the society they're going to be operating in, the more money I will need to give them - it becomes an arms race. But ultimately I want them to be living in a less unequal society since I think that will benefit them whether they are rich or poor.
Taxing capital more, and income less, is the way forward IMHO.
I would scrap the IHT exemptions for business property, farmland, woodland, country houses, and works of art. I'd also abolish main residence relief (currently up to £1m).
I'd keep the £325,000 relief, and then set the rate at 25% on everything above that (rather than 40%).
One excellent consequence would be a sharp drop in the price of farmland, which is used a tax shelter. It is virtually impossible now to buy farmland, and get a decent return based upon farming income.
But have you the cojones to suggest the real big one?
The capital gains exemption on main residences is devoid of social and financial logic, yet to withdraw it would be electoral suicide.
Do you dare? Thought not.
The capital gains exemption on main residences makes perfect social and financial sense. If you're moving from one home to another then the so-called capital gain isn't real, what you've gained in your sale you lose in your purchase. Whereas someone who stays in their property and potentially remortgages etc to release money from what they've gained but doesn't officially realise the equity will evade the tax completely.
So all you get with your proposal is a tax on mobility. Mobility isn't the problem and shouldn't be discouraged via the taxation.
If you want to tax the value of main homes then that can and should be done via a land tax that is paid annually by everyone who owns a property whether they're moving or not. If the value of your property goes up, your tax goes up, and vice-versa even if you're not moving which would discourage people from acting as NIMBYs etc to inflate their property prices.
A land tax is long overdue. I agree it makes more sense than CGT on primary residences. But for other CGs I don't understand why they are taxed at a lower rate than income.
Chris Giles has a piece in the FT arguing against taxing Boomer wealth to fix intergenerational inequality... Might be an interesting read given the debates on the issue on here (not linking because of pay wall).
Available via google. Headline "OK Boomer"
So basically saying younger generations should be split into
those grateful for inheritance and bank of mum and dad those who have to suck it up
I wonder which category the Cambridge educated economics editor of the FT is in.....
It is a good point. Personally the intra generational inequality issue has always seemed the more worrying one rather than the inter generational one. Millenials and Gen Zeds are going to be defined by their inherited wealth as much as by their earned income, which is a tricky situation for anyone who wants to sell the idea that society is in any way fair or meritocratic.
Probably around 50% will inherit substantial amounts, but one's lot in life really should not depend upon how much one inherits.
And the age at which inheritance is received for thar half of the population who do has been getting higher, to a point where inheritance is no longer life changing for them as they are already independently wealthy.
Many 30 to 40 year olds also get help with deposits from inheritances from grandparents or gifts from parents.
And many don't.
Anyone working full time ought to be able to save a deposit from their own efforts without special pleading or "help" from others.
You could work 24/7 in London and the Home counties on an average salary and still not be able to get a big enough deposit for the average house price there without assistance
Several polls this week with notable outside moe Labour collapse. Interesting.
Wut?
What on Earth are you talking about?
Facts, Horse. Facts. -4 drop in one poll, -3 drop in another, in short period of time. Just pointing out facts. It’s what I do.
But Labour is up 3 in YouGov, why do you ignore it? Is it because it says the opposite of what you're claiming?
If two polls show a 24 point lead it's a 24 point lead, that's bad - doesn't matter really if Labour is up in one or down in another, it's still 24 points. This is why people don't take you seriously.
That Chris Giles article is total crap. The argument amounts to “let’s not tax boomers because it’s unpopular”. That’s a minute of my life I’m not getting back.
Btw, I've been told not to send out our research to anyone, but I'll message you an exec summary over the weekend.
Chris Giles has a piece in the FT arguing against taxing Boomer wealth to fix intergenerational inequality... Might be an interesting read given the debates on the issue on here (not linking because of pay wall).
It's a complete one sided look at it because it doesn't take into account housing costs and rental costs being inflated due to the older generations owning more residential property than they need. The flow of wealth trickles upwards from everyone to them and a select few get a small trickle down from the generation above. His argument is not convincing at all and reads more like special pleading.
I didn't think you'd like it!
Indeed. But I just don't understand how anyone can just gloss over housing ownership in any analysis of intergenerational wealth distribution and the annual redistribution within them. Rent and capital gain from property is probably the single largest factor in the older generation being wealthier than the generations below them, it gets about two lines in that article and is painted as a positive because people inherit property and wealth.
I've not done any maths on it but I'd be shocked if the annual wealth transfer in the form of rent and capital gain is at least 3-4x the inheritance factor in the other direction.
If anyone ever names "inheritance" as a positive for younger generations then that's a big massive red flag that they're either not talking in good faith, or don't understand the subject.
Chris Giles really ought to understand the subject . . .
Several polls this week with notable outside moe Labour collapse. Interesting.
I'm happy that you are happy that Labour have a 24 %-point lead.
The average overall would be somewhat lower than that, merely around 20% mark.
The Labour lead is only half the story though. The weakness and unlikability of the current PM and his government is the other half of the equation. How do they eat into any lead using that?
Several polls this week with notable outside moe Labour collapse. Interesting.
MoonRabbit it's odd you chose to reply to this one and not the other which shows Labour going UP.
It's odd for you of all people to be criticising someone else for selective posting and bias.
For those towards the left-hand edge of the numeric ability spectrum (or dumb f*ckers, as they are sometimes known) the Wikipedia Polling entry has a convenient, simple colored chart showing graphically that for a while now the lead has been a fairly steady 20%.
No bullshit, no cherry-picking, no sophistry necessary. Just look at the bleeding picture:
Chris Giles has a piece in the FT arguing against taxing Boomer wealth to fix intergenerational inequality... Might be an interesting read given the debates on the issue on here (not linking because of pay wall).
Available via google. Headline "OK Boomer"
So basically saying younger generations should be split into
those grateful for inheritance and bank of mum and dad those who have to suck it up
I wonder which category the Cambridge educated economics editor of the FT is in.....
It is a good point. Personally the intra generational inequality issue has always seemed the more worrying one rather than the inter generational one. Millenials and Gen Zeds are going to be defined by their inherited wealth as much as by their earned income, which is a tricky situation for anyone who wants to sell the idea that society is in any way fair or meritocratic.
Probably around 50% will inherit substantial amounts, but one's lot in life really should not depend upon how much one inherits.
And the age at which inheritance is received for thar half of the population who do has been getting higher, to a point where inheritance is no longer life changing for them as they are already independently wealthy.
Many 30 to 40 year olds also get help with deposits from inheritances from grandparents or gifts from parents.
And many don't.
Anyone working full time ought to be able to save a deposit from their own efforts without special pleading or "help" from others.
You could work 24/7 in London and the Home counties on an average salary and still not be able to get a big enough deposit for the average house price there without assistance
Because the housing market is borked. It needs to be fixed.
Much, much more construction in London and the Home Counties especially needs to happen to match the population growth that has happened over the past generation. Then people on average salaries will be able to afford a home without assistance.
People should be able to aspire to be self-sufficient through their own hard work. If they can't, something is wrong and it needs fixing.
Chris Giles has a piece in the FT arguing against taxing Boomer wealth to fix intergenerational inequality... Might be an interesting read given the debates on the issue on here (not linking because of pay wall).
Available via google. Headline "OK Boomer"
So basically saying younger generations should be split into
those grateful for inheritance and bank of mum and dad those who have to suck it up
I wonder which category the Cambridge educated economics editor of the FT is in.....
It is a good point. Personally the intra generational inequality issue has always seemed the more worrying one rather than the inter generational one. Millenials and Gen Zeds are going to be defined by their inherited wealth as much as by their earned income, which is a tricky situation for anyone who wants to sell the idea that society is in any way fair or meritocratic.
This is one the (many) things I find strange about the modern Tory party. Most claim alignment with Thatcherism. To me one of the central pillars of Thatcherism was aspiration and meritocracy. Almost importing the "American dream". Another pillar was challenging the status quo and being willing to take on vested interests.
Yet those now claiming to be Thatcherite want to protect a system that thwarts aspiration and meritocracy and protects the status quo.
Inheritance is a tricky one because it involves a tradeoff between two deep engrained and equally worthwhile human impulses - fairness, and providing for your offspring. It feels like the Tories are only interested in the latter but Labour can't go too far the other way.
I don't think its just the Tories. As the article points out most people in the UK think inheritance is indeed fair as it has already been taxed once.
They are wrong, it is unfair (at least at present levels of inequality) and all money is taxed not just once, but endlessly and in multiple ways as it gets recycled through the economy. If it was just the Tories it could be fixed by a Labour govt but it is the near settled position of the electorate, especially the older part of the electorate.
I think inheritance is a classic example of where the interests of the individual and the interests of society diverge. As a parent I want to help my kids succeed and so of course I'm putting aside money for them. And paradoxically the more unequal the society they're going to be operating in, the more money I will need to give them - it becomes an arms race. But ultimately I want them to be living in a less unequal society since I think that will benefit them whether they are rich or poor.
Taxing capital more, and income less, is the way forward IMHO.
I would scrap the IHT exemptions for business property, farmland, woodland, country houses, and works of art. I'd also abolish main residence relief (currently up to £1m).
I'd keep the £325,000 relief, and then set the rate at 25% on everything above that (rather than 40%).
One excellent consequence would be a sharp drop in the price of farmland, which is used a tax shelter. It is virtually impossible now to buy farmland, and get a decent return based upon farming income.
Main residence relief from IHT was the single most popular Tory policy this century.
It would be electoral suicide for any party to scrap it now, especially the Tories. As would scrapping the farmland exemption which would hit farmers whose farms have been in their families for generations and who are a key part of the Tory core vote
That's the problem. Farmland should be used for farming, or development, not as a tax shelter.
WRT housing, my parents' house is worth about £1.1m. If it were taxed at 40% over £650,000 that would be £180,000. Main residence relief cuts it to £40,000. That extra £140,000 will be nice for me and my siblings to have, but in no way essential. It would be far preferable for younger workers to be paying less in income tax and NI.
Society becomes ossified, when inheritance pays far more than hard work does.
Virtually all farmers who have inherited their farms do use them for farming.
Scrapping that and reversing main residence relief would see the remaining Tory voters move en masse to RefUK. Heck, even I would consider going RefUK if they tried that.
Do you want to turn a mere heavy Tory defeat into a complete wipe out?
Irrelevant, as the exemption pertains to ownership not owner occupation.
Most Tory farmers own their own farms, certainly round here and their families have for generations
And, how many people could actually get into farming now, if they did not inherit a farm?
Tax exemptions have so inflated the price of farmland that it generates a return of 1-1.5%.
Chris Giles has a piece in the FT arguing against taxing Boomer wealth to fix intergenerational inequality... Might be an interesting read given the debates on the issue on here (not linking because of pay wall).
Available via google. Headline "OK Boomer"
So basically saying younger generations should be split into
those grateful for inheritance and bank of mum and dad those who have to suck it up
I wonder which category the Cambridge educated economics editor of the FT is in.....
It is a good point. Personally the intra generational inequality issue has always seemed the more worrying one rather than the inter generational one. Millenials and Gen Zeds are going to be defined by their inherited wealth as much as by their earned income, which is a tricky situation for anyone who wants to sell the idea that society is in any way fair or meritocratic.
Probably around 50% will inherit substantial amounts, but one's lot in life really should not depend upon how much one inherits.
And the age at which inheritance is received for thar half of the population who do has been getting higher, to a point where inheritance is no longer life changing for them as they are already independently wealthy.
Many 30 to 40 year olds also get help with deposits from inheritances from grandparents or gifts from parents.
And many don't.
Anyone working full time ought to be able to save a deposit from their own efforts without special pleading or "help" from others.
You could work 24/7 in London and the Home counties on an average salary and still not be able to get a big enough deposit for the average house price there
I think that's Bart's point. A system where you can only get a house if you have an inheritance is a bit f*cked-up.
To repeat (ad nauseum) my test of a working housing market: can someone in a normal job (benchmark: teacher, full time) afford a normal house to raise a normal family in a normal suburb (post-war three-bed semi, Timperley)? If not, the system is not working. I don't think it's really been working since the late 90s.
Several polls this week with notable outside moe Labour collapse. Interesting.
MoonRabbit it's odd you chose to reply to this one and not the other which shows Labour going UP.
It's odd for you of all people to be criticising someone else for selective posting and bias.
For those towards the left-hand edge of the numeric ability spectrum (or dumb f*ckers, as they are sometimes known) the Wikipedia Polling entry has a convenient, simple colored chart showing graphically that for a while now the lead has been a fairly steady 20%.
No bullshit, no cherry-picking, no sophistry necessary. Just look at the bleeding picture:
@BloombergUK: The UK is yet to see any positive economic benefits from Brexit, Bank of England Chief Economist Huw Pill suggests https://t.co/ru7oT66uHi
James O' Brien's discussion this morning was Johnson's demand that Ukraine is fast-tracked into the EU (as well as NATO) and how this confounds his 2016 declaration that the EU was responsible for the invasion of Crimea, oh, and Brexit.
Chris Giles has a piece in the FT arguing against taxing Boomer wealth to fix intergenerational inequality... Might be an interesting read given the debates on the issue on here (not linking because of pay wall).
Available via google. Headline "OK Boomer"
So basically saying younger generations should be split into
those grateful for inheritance and bank of mum and dad those who have to suck it up
I wonder which category the Cambridge educated economics editor of the FT is in.....
It is a good point. Personally the intra generational inequality issue has always seemed the more worrying one rather than the inter generational one. Millenials and Gen Zeds are going to be defined by their inherited wealth as much as by their earned income, which is a tricky situation for anyone who wants to sell the idea that society is in any way fair or meritocratic.
This is one the (many) things I find strange about the modern Tory party. Most claim alignment with Thatcherism. To me one of the central pillars of Thatcherism was aspiration and meritocracy. Almost importing the "American dream". Another pillar was challenging the status quo and being willing to take on vested interests.
Yet those now claiming to be Thatcherite want to protect a system that thwarts aspiration and meritocracy and protects the status quo.
Inheritance is a tricky one because it involves a tradeoff between two deep engrained and equally worthwhile human impulses - fairness, and providing for your offspring. It feels like the Tories are only interested in the latter but Labour can't go too far the other way.
I don't think its just the Tories. As the article points out most people in the UK think inheritance is indeed fair as it has already been taxed once.
They are wrong, it is unfair (at least at present levels of inequality) and all money is taxed not just once, but endlessly and in multiple ways as it gets recycled through the economy. If it was just the Tories it could be fixed by a Labour govt but it is the near settled position of the electorate, especially the older part of the electorate.
I think inheritance is a classic example of where the interests of the individual and the interests of society diverge. As a parent I want to help my kids succeed and so of course I'm putting aside money for them. And paradoxically the more unequal the society they're going to be operating in, the more money I will need to give them - it becomes an arms race. But ultimately I want them to be living in a less unequal society since I think that will benefit them whether they are rich or poor.
Taxing capital more, and income less, is the way forward IMHO.
I would scrap the IHT exemptions for business property, farmland, woodland, country houses, and works of art. I'd also abolish main residence relief (currently up to £1m).
I'd keep the £325,000 relief, and then set the rate at 25% on everything above that (rather than 40%).
One excellent consequence would be a sharp drop in the price of farmland, which is used a tax shelter. It is virtually impossible now to buy farmland, and get a decent return based upon farming income.
But have you the cojones to suggest the real big one?
The capital gains exemption on main residences is devoid of social and financial logic, yet to withdraw it would be electoral suicide.
Do you dare? Thought not.
The capital gains exemption on main residences makes perfect social and financial sense. If you're moving from one home to another then the so-called capital gain isn't real, what you've gained in your sale you lose in your purchase. Whereas someone who stays in their property and potentially remortgages etc to release money from what they've gained but doesn't officially realise the equity will evade the tax completely.
So all you get with your proposal is a tax on mobility. Mobility isn't the problem and shouldn't be discouraged via the taxation.
If you want to tax the value of main homes then that can and should be done via a land tax that is paid annually by everyone who owns a property whether they're moving or not. If the value of your property goes up, your tax goes up, and vice-versa even if you're not moving which would discourage people from acting as NIMBYs etc to inflate their property prices.
A land tax is long overdue. I agree it makes more sense than CGT on primary residences. But for other CGs I don't understand why they are taxed at a lower rate than income.
An interesting idea I saw recently was that multiple property owners would have all of their property subject to CGT and the CGT exemption would be reserved for people who own their home and no others.
Germany to send up to 88 Leopard 1 tanks to Ukraine, after they've been renovated.
Thanks, Scholz.
We ought to see what sort of nick the Jordanian Challenger 1's are in...
They certainly have a fuckton more armour than Leopard 1.
The Leopard 1 is armoured like the old America tank destroyers from WWII.
The Challengers were on the heavy end of NATO tanks.
So that's 2024, then. Maybe. :
There are another lot of approx 40 Leopard 1s in a warehouse in Belgium, sold off by the BE Govt back in 2015 when they got out of tanks. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlprbqLyAq4
I've also seen a suggesting that the French night vision Gen 2 on some Russian tanks is superior to the Gen 1 night vision kit on early Leopards and Challengers. Not sure about the truth of that one.
Comments
Real men use Julian dates. Today is 2459978.5 ..
Rather have had my dad for a few more years though.
In my view the logic is that it makes paper-based filling and ordering by date simpler, on the basis that, (a) you're less likely to need to sort on year, because years change slowly, (b) the first sort you will be doing will be on month, (c), the final sort, in day order within a month, will involve a smaller subset of files/papers and is less important.
For most business purposes the month is the most important part of the date, so it comes first.
On those stats, the neitherists' best areas are as follows:
1. the environment (58%) ("they both talk sh*t")
2. immigration (43%) ("neither of them has the guts to sink more boats")
3. housing (40%) ("I'm in debt and no-one cares")
4. Ukraine (38%) ("who gives a f***?")
The big one here is 2. Most who "don't trust the Tories on immigration" will be suckers for the Tory campaign promise "we're gonna be absolute nails" and a sunk boat or two in the run-up.
They has no idea that Queuing Theory is a real thing. Or that it could really help the NHS.
Instead they reacted like 5 years old to a word that sounds rude…
https://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2011/11/07/comment-the-left-must-abandon-the-eu/
I wonder which way he would have gone if the referendum had been held under Labour.
Yet those now claiming to be Thatcherite want to protect a system that thwarts aspiration and meritocracy and protects the status quo.
There aren’t enough places for people to live. London has 98%+ occupancy rates for example.
Shuffling properties between owned, private let, etc doesn’t fix the problem.
Getting rid of small private landlords charging a lot and they will be replaced by large corporate landlords charging the same.
What on Earth are you talking about?
Reminds me of Darth Putin's twitter feed
https://twitter.com/DarthPutinKGB
They are wrong, it is unfair (at least at present levels of inequality) and all money is taxed not just once, but endlessly and in multiple ways as it gets recycled through the economy. If it was just the Tories it could be fixed by a Labour govt but it is the near settled position of the electorate, especially the older part of the electorate.
Still, yesterday they were just cutting calls off before they entered the queue.
(First world problem)
Hyufd does a great job of putting the best possible gloss on some dire numbers but the fact remains that there is no reason why they should not worsen rather than improve. The Tories are standing on the edge of a precipice. Their next step had better be in the right direction.
But I would say Ed Balls after 2015 is a human. (I wouldn't even put it down to SCD - his transformation from furiously partisan angry troll to recognisable human occurred in his concession speech at Morley and Outwood. Rather made you regret that he hadn't allowed this side of himself to come through earlier. You could say the same about many other politicians and half of twitter. They get so addicted to impressing their own side that they forget the need to, or pleasure of, engaging with the wider world.)
It is therefore more likely more will inherit than move from a low or average earning family to be high earners themselves
If the Tory net losses are lower than the Labour net gains and the LDs have seen a net loss of councillors that should roughly correlate (we can subtract any Labour gains from the LDs in Northern urban councils too)
Chinese spy balloon: US tracks suspected surveillance device
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-64507225
I would scrap the IHT exemptions for business property, farmland, woodland, country houses, and works of art. I'd also abolish main residence relief (currently up to £1m).
I'd keep the £325,000 relief, and then set the rate at 25% on everything above that (rather than 40%).
One excellent consequence would be a sharp drop in the price of farmland, which is used a tax shelter. It is virtually impossible now to buy farmland, and get a decent return based upon farming income.
I wonder what happened to him?
Completely unnecessary and a real example of bureaucratic red tape.
You can't have more than a 100% decrease.
It would be electoral suicide for any party to scrap it now, especially the Tories. As would scrapping the farmland exemption which would hit farmers whose farms have been in their families for generations and who are a key part of the Tory core vote
Despite single digit polling and even single digit general election pv nationwide, there could form enclaves of Green power that turn red seats green in my opinion.
Out of the two of us it’s your statement “The Labour vote was squeezed and went more to the Greens - which won't apply in a GE” that has the most bias in it. Yes, yesterday was a Lib Dem seat falling, truth is Green built largest party status by sweeping through Labour areas - that Lib Dem and Tory seats and votes also fall to the greens in this peculiar city actually strengthens my question of what could happen to Labour MPs, doesn’t actually strengthen your mid term blip won’t happen in GE insistence.
This is a betting site. If we can be ahead of the game in Labour losing MPs to the greens, we can get better odds.
So I don’t see myself doing monotonously anti Labour at all, I think I flagged up something interesting, like a green fungi growing on a red wall, that you haven’t responded to very well have you? Unless you made the sharp thinking the talking this up actually makes it more likely to happen, so the Labour position is to shut down all discussion on this - I would concede that as quick and clever thinking on behalf of your monotonous pro Labour bias. 😀
You come on here every day and tell us how Labour is screwed, it doesn't matter what the polls actually say, you just say Labour is finished.
Remember when you insisted the polls were narrowing two weeks ago and then they widened again?
What you are seeing is changes which aren't changes just reversion to the mean. This has been explained to you at length yet you continue posting this rubbish.
HYUFD analyses the polls and posts objectively on them despite how pro-Tory he is. You don't.
MoonRabbit seems to think a poll which shows Labour 24 points ahead is a narrowing. Presumably because the poll they commented on shows Labour going down 4, yet the other one from YouGov shows Labour up 3.
I wonder why they chose the one with Labour going down despite the fact both polls show the same lead. Is it because one makes Labour look worse than the other? Surely not.
Their defeats were a good start in humanising them both (let's be honest, they shared a bumptious attitude which did neither of them any good). But they also responded in a classy way, and it showed, and the public responded.
WRT housing, my parents' house is worth about £1.1m. If it were taxed at 40% over £650,000 that would be £180,000. Main residence relief cuts it to £40,000. That extra £140,000 will be nice for me and my siblings to have, but in no way essential. It would be far preferable for younger workers to be paying less in income tax and NI.
Society becomes ossified, when inheritance pays far more than hard work does.
But it turn out we showed a surplus, so that seems unlikely.
Large number of Kims enrolled at Eton, perhaps ?
The capital gains exemption on main residences is devoid of social and financial logic, yet to withdraw it would be electoral suicide.
Do you dare? Thought not.
Scrapping that and reversing main residence relief would see most of the remaining Tory voters move en masse to RefUK. Heck, even I would consider going RefUK if they tried that. Virtually no young voters would move from Labour to Tory either, even if you cut NI and income tax.
Do you want to turn a mere heavy Tory defeat into a complete wipe out?
It's the wealthy landlords and aristos who benefit. The tax exemption is on land being used for farming - doesn't matter if it is being worked by the owner.
2 things. if it’s Brexit, Tory’s Own Brexit and the voters come to hate Brexit on mass, if because of Brexit they have lost swathes of Tory voters for the rest of those voters lives, that’s going to make it very difficult to get swingback into power. It’s easier to imagine large enclaves of Lib Dem power building decade after decade in what used to be the blue wall.
Secondly, why shouldn’t the UK Conservatives actually change from what they stood for for a century or more, and become unelectable for that? Like the US republicans have changed, and are less a shoe in than they were, and look at France, why is it inevitable that this party under this name bounce back eventually ten years or so, especially if their positions on things no longer match that name, are so different than when they used to be winners in 20th century?
https://twitter.com/Hromadske/status/1621480871953055751
Detectives have completed the investigation into the case of the former head of the State Fiscal Service Roman Nasirov and his advisor in the case of taking bribes totaling $19.5 million in 2015-2016,
@nab_ukr and SAPO report.
The case file was opened to the defense for review.,/i>
Thanks, Scholz.
We ought to see what sort of nick the Jordanian Challenger 1's are in...
So all you get with your proposal is a tax on mobility. Mobility isn't the problem and shouldn't be discouraged via the taxation.
If you want to tax the value of main homes then that can and should be done via a land tax that is paid annually by everyone who owns a property whether they're moving or not. If the value of your property goes up, your tax goes up, and vice-versa even if you're not moving which would discourage people from acting as NIMBYs etc to inflate their property prices.
Rail strikes to last until 2026......quite fitting given our trains and railway infrastructure are always delayed.
The Leopard 1 is armoured like the old America tank destroyers from WWII.
The Challengers were on the heavy end of NATO tanks.
The argument amounts to “let’s not tax boomers because it’s unpopular”. That’s a minute of my life I’m not getting back.
No bullshit, no cherry-picking, no sophistry necessary. Just look at the bleeding picture:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election
Anyone working full time ought to be able to save a deposit from their own efforts without special pleading or "help" from others.
I've not done any maths on it but I'd be shocked if the annual wealth transfer in the form of rent and capital gain is at least 3-4x the inheritance factor in the other direction.
If two polls show a 24 point lead it's a 24 point lead, that's bad - doesn't matter really if Labour is up in one or down in another, it's still 24 points. This is why people don't take you seriously.
Chris Giles really ought to understand the subject . . .
The Labour lead is only half the story though. The weakness and unlikability of the current PM and his government is the other half of the equation. How do they eat into any lead using that?
When it was pointed out that this isn't kept up to date she had to a rapid about turn. Clearly she's back on the special sauce again.
Oddly she's stopped claiming the graph is useful. I wonder why?
Much, much more construction in London and the Home Counties especially needs to happen to match the population growth that has happened over the past generation. Then people on average salaries will be able to afford a home without assistance.
People should be able to aspire to be self-sufficient through their own hard work. If they can't, something is wrong and it needs fixing.
Tax exemptions have so inflated the price of farmland that it generates a return of 1-1.5%.
A system where you can only get a house if you have an inheritance is a bit f*cked-up.
To repeat (ad nauseum) my test of a working housing market: can someone in a normal job (benchmark: teacher, full time) afford a normal house to raise a normal family in a normal suburb (post-war three-bed semi, Timperley)? If not, the system is not working. I don't think it's really been working since the late 90s.
There are another lot of approx 40 Leopard 1s in a warehouse in Belgium, sold off by the BE Govt back in 2015 when they got out of tanks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlprbqLyAq4
At the moment they are doing what they did with the 20 x M109 howitzers we stepped in and sent last June - arguing about price.
https://www.army-technology.com/news/uk-acquires-m109-howitzers-ukrainian/
I've also seen a suggesting that the French night vision Gen 2 on some Russian tanks is superior to the Gen 1 night vision kit on early Leopards and Challengers. Not sure about the truth of that one.