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.
Yup, work needs to pay properly and housing costs need to come down. We can do that by turning landlords into forced sellers and by busing 300-400k new houses per year for the next 10 years.
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%.
Part of that is is speculation in land that might one day be given planning permission.
There is a whole raft of quite dodgy companies selling shares in parcels of land - on the basis that one day, if it gets planning permission, it will be worth squillions.
While I haven't dug into it, the whole thing smells (to me) like those companies offering shares in piles of gold.
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.
No it isn't. Without that inheritance virtually nobody on an average salary in London and the Home counties could buy.
London is the biggest global city in Europe, property prices there and the commuter belt are not going to fall that much even if you concrete all over the greenbelt. Not to mention unless you slash immigration demand will still be high and falling prices now just means higher mortgage rate repayments alongside
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.
May be they like cherries.
Love cherries! 🍒 the fruit that is
It’s probably when polls hit such 50% levels, support survey to survey is a lot looser and not nailed down up there, hence such flapping around. Anything 44% or Below for Labour likely much more nailed down now. But getting higher than 44% at a GE is very rare isn’t it?
So it’s not the moon rabbit, but other PBers who anticipate or talk up a general election result and Tory wipe out and Labour majority on current polling, not on likely result of 44% or less, who are clearly in the wrong here.
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%.
Part of that is is speculation in land that might one day be given planning permission.
There is a whole raft of quite dodgy companies selling shares in parcels of land - on the basis that one day, if it gets planning permission, it will be worth squillions.
While I haven't dug into it, the whole thing smells (to me) like those companies offering shares in piles of gold.
Hence part of the attraction of my preference of abolishing planning permission, and replacing it with zoning instead with very limited areas of zoning for areas unsuitable for development (eg green patches, parks, AONB etc).
If everywhere has automatic planning permission, then the overwhelming majority of that land won't ever be built upon still but the mere act of getting or holding planning permission is no longer financially worthwhile. The only reason to hold land would be because you have something you want to do with it, which for most land would be farming rather than speculation or construction.
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.
Yup, work needs to pay properly and housing costs need to come down. We can do that by turning landlords into forced sellers and by busing 300-400k new houses per year for the next 10 years.
No all that means is more homelessness with fewer rental properties unless you build a lot more social homes too.
Classical liberals like you and Bart don't seem to realise the world is not some perfect meritocratic ideal
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.
No it isn't. Without that inheritance virtually nobody on an average salary in London and the Home counties could buy.
London is the biggest global city in Europe, property prices there and the commuter belt are not going to fall that much even if you concrete all over the greenbelt. Not to mention unless you slash immigration demand will still be high and falling prices now just means higher mortgage rate repayments alongside
The issue is house prices, HYFUD. It's a factor of not building enough houses, allowing foreign property ownership and landlords owning too many properties and councils owning too few.
If Labour fix these issues the Tories will be out of power for a generation as those who get onto the housing ladder under Labour become lifelong Labour voters.
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%.
How many want to get into farming for whom it is not already the family business? Less than 1% at most
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.
Yup, work needs to pay properly and housing costs need to come down. We can do that by turning landlords into forced sellers and by busing 300-400k new houses per year for the next 10 years.
No all that means is more homelessness with fewer rental properties unless you build a lot more social homes too.
Classical liberals like you and Bart don't seem to realise the world is not some perfect meritocratic ideal
Bullshit. More homes doesn't mean more homelessness, since people will not want homes to be left empty. It means the polar opposite in fact and if house prices come down then rents can come down 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.
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.
True.
It is of course a subsidy, and like most such measures it helps a certain group when introduced but then becomes financially neutral as the market adjusts to it through the price mechanism.
Its removal hurts in more or less equal measure to the benefit gained by those back in the halcyon days when it was first introduced but these are different people and of course nobody remembers the benefits of its introduction way back when. This is why subsidies tend to have a very long life span. In the long run, there is no net gain but nobody wants to take the flak for removing them.
The CG exemption on main residences will stay for a very long while yet.
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.
Slashing immigration would be needed too not just concreting all over the greenbelt and even that not enough
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.
Wouldnt that hurt stock market efficiency significantly?
Consider if someone owned £100k of Tesco shares but with a capital gain of £40k. If a 40% taxpayer that would mean they could sell their shares for £84k.
So even if they thought Sainsburys shares were actually 15% better value than Tesco shares, it would still not make sense for them to sell and switch into Sainsburys.
Capital would be allocated incorrectly benefitting older less efficient companies and hindring newer rivals.
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.
Yup, work needs to pay properly and housing costs need to come down. We can do that by turning landlords into forced sellers and by busing 300-400k new houses per year for the next 10 years.
No all that means is more homelessness with fewer rental properties unless you build a lot more social homes too.
Classical liberals like you and Bart don't seem to realise the world is not some perfect meritocratic ideal
Bullshit. More homes doesn't mean more homelessness, since people will not want homes to be left empty. It means the polar opposite in fact and if house prices come down then rents can come down too.
1. Nadhim Zahawi - was the Tory chair - landlord of properties in various places but let's just mention Brighton
2. Jack (Giacomo) Lopresti - still a Tory vice chair - background in his family's ice cream business and in estate agency and mortgage brokerage
JFC! If I were a Tory I might well be persuadable of the merits of bringing back Boris. That's assuming king Ludwig can let bygones be bygones.
(Boris in effect called Ludwig "condescending" over Rwanda. Within a short space of time, around 60 of his ministers had resigned - so many that he couldn't fill all their positions and had to resign himself.)
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.
Slashing immigration would be needed too not just concreting all over the greenbelt and even that not enough
You don't need to concrete all over the green belt, even building 300k-400k homes per annum would entail concreting over a tiny sliver of the green belt and would dramatically improve affordability.
It doesn't matter how global a city London is, families living there still only require one home, so build more homes than population grows and prices come down rather than going up. Supply and demand works in the Home Counties too.
@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.
Boris probably never gave much of a stuff about the EU, and only bashed it to serve his ambitions. Now he's just making the euro-phobes in his own party - many of whom were complicit in his downfall - squirm by doing a volte-face and singing its praises.
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.
May be they like cherries.
Love cherries! 🍒 the fruit that is
It’s probably when polls hit such 50% levels, support survey to survey is a lot looser and not nailed down up there, hence such flapping around. Anything 44% or Below for Labour likely much more nailed down now. But getting higher than 44% at a GE is very rare isn’t it?
So it’s not the moon rabbit, but other PBers who anticipate or talk up a general election result and Tory wipe out and Labour majority on current polling, not on likely result of 44% or less, who are clearly in the wrong here.
In 1997 Labour got 43% of the vote and won a landslide majority of over 100 seats.
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.
No it isn't. Without that inheritance virtually nobody on an average salary in London and the Home counties could buy.
London is the biggest global city in Europe, property prices there and the commuter belt are not going to fall that much even if you concrete all over the greenbelt. Not to mention unless you slash immigration demand will still be high and falling prices now just means higher mortgage rate repayments alongside
The issue is house prices, HYFUD. It's a factor of not building enough houses, allowing foreign property ownership and landlords owning too many properties and councils owning too few.
If Labour fix these issues the Tories will be out of power for a generation as those who get onto the housing ladder under Labour become lifelong Labour voters.
Home owners always become Tories as they have an asset to not be taxed and pass on to their children.
Labour would be better off everyone renting or in social homes if it wanted more Labour voters
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.
Yup, work needs to pay properly and housing costs need to come down. We can do that by turning landlords into forced sellers and by busing 300-400k new houses per year for the next 10 years.
No all that means is more homelessness with fewer rental properties unless you build a lot more social homes too.
Classical liberals like you and Bart don't seem to realise the world is not some perfect meritocratic ideal
Bullshit. More homes doesn't mean more homelessness, since people will not want homes to be left empty. It means the polar opposite in fact and if house prices come down then rents can come down too.
Fewer landlords and fewer rental properties does
No, it doesn't, since those who are landlords would be acquiring their homes for much cheaper if prices are down, so could let them out for less too. Currently with high prices and people buying to let, the rent needs to cover the high prices.
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)
I'm not too bothered. If it is not clear cut I am happy to make a donation to the charity of your choice anyway.
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.
First of all, calm down and stop exaggerating.
Secondly, what actually are your thoughts to the Bristols Question I raised. Since last election the greens have routed labour wards, and easily steal Lib Dem and Tory votes too. They now largest party. And their campaign to scrap a Labour mayor (looking like remaining labour for long while) succeeded so that their dominance of council seats gives that real power to them. Could this takeover impact the parliamentary seats?
@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.
Boris probably never gave much of a stuff about the EU, and only bashed it to serve his ambitions. Now he's just making the euro-phobes in his own party - many of whom were complicit in his downfall - squirm by doing a volte-face and singing its praises.
Boris loved the EU when he was Mayor.
If the situation was reversed and he'd been on the pro EU side he'd be sitting in London now telling us how London is an open and pro EU place. It's only because Labour is in power that he opposed it.
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.
IANAE, but I'd guess that's correct. Any such kit in the early Leopards and Challengers will be yonks out of date, and probably won't have been updated. Russians will have been able to get much newer kit.
There's a good question though: why the **** were the French selling Russians such kit?
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%.
Part of that is is speculation in land that might one day be given planning permission.
There is a whole raft of quite dodgy companies selling shares in parcels of land - on the basis that one day, if it gets planning permission, it will be worth squillions.
While I haven't dug into it, the whole thing smells (to me) like those companies offering shares in piles of gold.
Hence part of the attraction of my preference of abolishing planning permission, and replacing it with zoning instead with very limited areas of zoning for areas unsuitable for development (eg green patches, parks, AONB etc).
If everywhere has automatic planning permission, then the overwhelming majority of that land won't ever be built upon still but the mere act of getting or holding planning permission is no longer financially worthwhile. The only reason to hold land would be because you have something you want to do with it, which for most land would be farming rather than speculation or construction.
Yes. Consider - I was looking at houses in Marden in Kent, a while back. An old farmhouse came with an acre. The main farm (35 acres) was separate. £250K for the 35 acres.
I was seriously looking at the land. Nearly any activity - including renting to local farmers - would make money on the loan to buy. Planning permission for *one* house would turn it into a massive profit. Buy it and wait....
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.
Slashing immigration would be needed too not just concreting all over the greenbelt and even that not enough
You don't need to concrete all over the green belt, even building 300k-400k homes per annum would entail concreting over a tiny sliver of the green belt and would dramatically improve affordability.
It doesn't matter how global a city London is, families living there still only require one home, so build more homes than population grows and prices come down rather than going up. Supply and demand works in the Home Counties too.
No not unless population growth also comes down otherwise you just need even more homes longer term and there is no greenbelt left in the end
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.
No it isn't. Without that inheritance virtually nobody on an average salary in London and the Home counties could buy.
London is the biggest global city in Europe, property prices there and the commuter belt are not going to fall that much even if you concrete all over the greenbelt. Not to mention unless you slash immigration demand will still be high and falling prices now just means higher mortgage rate repayments alongside
The issue is house prices, HYFUD. It's a factor of not building enough houses, allowing foreign property ownership and landlords owning too many properties and councils owning too few.
If Labour fix these issues the Tories will be out of power for a generation as those who get onto the housing ladder under Labour become lifelong Labour voters.
And that's the trap the Conservatives have not only walked into, but constructed for themselves. The only way that the Conservatives can reach out to non-core voters (these days, basically anyone not yet retired) is to annoy their remaining core voters. Which there is not a chance of them doing.
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.
I think that "interesting" means "stupid" in this context. It would penalise someone with a family home and eg a small holiday let much more than someone with a portfolio of ten buy to lets for whom their family home would be a tiny share of their total wealth. It would also hinder mobility as the people affected wouldn't move house (eg downsize in retirement) until they'd sold their other properties.
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.
No it isn't. Without that inheritance virtually nobody on an average salary in London and the Home counties could buy.
London is the biggest global city in Europe, property prices there and the commuter belt are not going to fall that much even if you concrete all over the greenbelt. Not to mention unless you slash immigration demand will still be high and falling prices now just means higher mortgage rate repayments alongside
The issue is house prices, HYFUD. It's a factor of not building enough houses, allowing foreign property ownership and landlords owning too many properties and councils owning too few.
If Labour fix these issues the Tories will be out of power for a generation as those who get onto the housing ladder under Labour become lifelong Labour voters.
Home owners always become Tories as they have an asset to not be taxed and pass on to their children.
Labour would be better off everyone renting or in social homes if it wanted more Labour voters
No, in the past homeowners became Tories because the Tory government was the party of the home owner, now it's the party of the landlord. If Labour becomes the party of the homeowner then they will benefit long term and the Tories are done and dusted for a generation. The only hope they have is that Keir is as dull as he seems and just has 5 years of drift and not taking on the parasitical classes of our society.
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.
IANAE, but I'd guess that's correct. Any such kit in the early Leopards and Challengers will be yonks out of date, and probably won't have been updated. Russians will have been able to get much newer kit.
There's a good question though: why the **** were the French selling Russians such kit?
The Jordanians kept updating their Challengers till well past 2000, IIRC. So they would be in better nick than most Russian tanks we have seen.
Plus, they were all taken out of service at the same time. No other fleet to need bits from the stored tanks. And the climate of Jordan makes warehousing big machinery easier.
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%.
How many want to get into farming for whom it is not already the family business? Less than 1% at most
It is shameful to admit, Hyufd, but I confess that before I moved to Gloucestershire I had scarcely ever met a real working farmer. Now I know many and am stagggered to find that almost to a man and woman, they like money.
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.
Slashing immigration would be needed too not just concreting all over the greenbelt and even that not enough
You don't need to concrete all over the green belt, even building 300k-400k homes per annum would entail concreting over a tiny sliver of the green belt and would dramatically improve affordability.
It doesn't matter how global a city London is, families living there still only require one home, so build more homes than population grows and prices come down rather than going up. Supply and demand works in the Home Counties too.
No not unless population growth also comes down otherwise you just need even more homes longer term and there is no greenbelt left in the end
This is your problem, you take everything to extremes and don't understand nuances or small changes.
5% of this country is housing 70% of this country is farming.
If we continue with the same scale of developments per capita, then to have no green left in the end would require our population growing to a billion people. That isn't happening.
OTOH even if you increased our construction of housing by 20% and took all of it from green farmland you'd still leave 69% of the nation available for farming, not zero.
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.
I think that "interesting" means "stupid" in this context. It would penalise someone with a family home and eg a small holiday let much more than someone with a portfolio of ten buy to lets for whom their family home would be a tiny share of their total wealth. It would also hinder mobility as the people affected wouldn't move house (eg downsize in retirement) until they'd sold their other properties.
The point was to disincentivise multiple property ownership. Using the tax system to change market behaviour is one of the few levers the government has got and yes, there will be losers from any changes but there always are. I don't think the general public will be crying rivers because a few holiday home owners have to sell them to move house or if landlords have to pay CGT when they move house.
@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.
Boris probably never gave much of a stuff about the EU, and only bashed it to serve his ambitions. Now he's just making the euro-phobes in his own party - many of whom were complicit in his downfall - squirm by doing a volte-face and singing its praises.
Boris loved the EU when he was Mayor.
If the situation was reversed and he'd been on the pro EU side he'd be sitting in London now telling us how London is an open and pro EU place. It's only because Labour is in power that he opposed it.
Where does the idea come from that Boris was a great Europhile before the referendum? There's been a consistent theme of scepticism about the idea of bureaucratic integration in his writing throughout his career.
BUT one thing did not add up, how could there be the Russian man and his sons not mobilised?
Who is going to mobilise them? Mobilisation is a task for the civilian authorities and there is no functioning civilian government of any type in Bakhmut. There is just war and desperate people regressing to a medieval lifestyle trying to survive.
How come the Ukraine soldiers don’t shoot them or they shoot the Ukraine soldiers? How can they co exist in same battle ground?
The AFU don't go door to door like Jehovah's Witnesses asking if people are sympathetic to the Russian Federation then shooting all the positive respondees in the head. There isn't a line on the ground to the east of which everyone is a Russian Uruk-Hai and to the west everyone is a Ukrainian Hobbit. In places like Bakhmut it's much more complicated than that.
I note you used LOTR reference, just like in this film Ukraine Commander called Russians Orcs.
It’s not often I disagree with you. But putting myself in the thoughts of the Ukraine soldiers in trench they dug, peering out for sign of Russians slithering towards them, I would be concerned those Russian supporting locals behind me would be shooting me in the back. Arn’t they all fighting age men and boys supposed to be rounded up and put behind razor wire in camp a long way away? Or shot and buried in a pit? Isn’t that the correct and safest way of fighting war?
@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.
Boris probably never gave much of a stuff about the EU, and only bashed it to serve his ambitions. Now he's just making the euro-phobes in his own party - many of whom were complicit in his downfall - squirm by doing a volte-face and singing its praises.
Boris loved the EU when he was Mayor.
If the situation was reversed and he'd been on the pro EU side he'd be sitting in London now telling us how London is an open and pro EU place. It's only because Labour is in power that he opposed it.
Boris is an opportunist but perhaps not in the sense that you think. His attitude to the EU wasn't much defined by Labour or domestic politics. He is a classicist. Have you watched his two-part film, "The Dream of Rome"? He wants a Euro entity that's more streamlined - much more. Both he and Dominic Cummings have expressed admiration for Jean Monnet.
Add this classicism to the Silicon Valley idea of deserting what's there and building up an alternative next to it, with a big poster of Ayn Rand on the wall and no rules...
@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.
Boris probably never gave much of a stuff about the EU, and only bashed it to serve his ambitions. Now he's just making the euro-phobes in his own party - many of whom were complicit in his downfall - squirm by doing a volte-face and singing its praises.
Boris loved the EU when he was Mayor.
If the situation was reversed and he'd been on the pro EU side he'd be sitting in London now telling us how London is an open and pro EU place. It's only because Labour is in power that he opposed it.
Where does the idea come from that Boris was a great Europhile before the referendum? There's been a consistent theme of scepticism about the idea of bureaucratic integration in his writing throughout his career.
Boris has been quite consistently an internationalist who was sceptical about the bureaucracy of the EU.
To people who think internationalist = Europhile, or Eurosceptic = xenophobe, then that must seem hypocritical but its not. Plenty of Eurosceptics are internationalists, and many who voted Remain were xenophobes.
People are complex and not one dimensional caricatures.
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.
Slashing immigration would be needed too not just concreting all over the greenbelt and even that not enough
You don't need to concrete all over the green belt, even building 300k-400k homes per annum would entail concreting over a tiny sliver of the green belt and would dramatically improve affordability.
It doesn't matter how global a city London is, families living there still only require one home, so build more homes than population grows and prices come down rather than going up. Supply and demand works in the Home Counties too.
No not unless population growth also comes down otherwise you just need even more homes longer term and there is no greenbelt left in the end
This is your problem, you take everything to extremes and don't understand nuances or small changes.
5% of this country is housing 70% of this country is farming.
If we continue with the same scale of developments per capita, then to have no green left in the end would require our population growing to a billion people. That isn't happening.
OTOH even if you increased our construction of housing by 20% and took all of it from green farmland you'd still leave 69% of the nation available for farming, not zero.
England is already one of the most densely populated nations in the world.
That is also partly why are house prices are so high, especially in the South. Cutting immigration and shifting investment north of the Watford Gap is as much a requirement as building more affordable housing
@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.
Boris probably never gave much of a stuff about the EU, and only bashed it to serve his ambitions. Now he's just making the euro-phobes in his own party - many of whom were complicit in his downfall - squirm by doing a volte-face and singing its praises.
Boris loved the EU when he was Mayor.
If the situation was reversed and he'd been on the pro EU side he'd be sitting in London now telling us how London is an open and pro EU place. It's only because Labour is in power that he opposed it.
Where does the idea come from that Boris was a great Europhile before the referendum? There's been a consistent theme of scepticism about the idea of bureaucratic integration in his writing throughout his career.
He literally said he would vote to stay in the single market when he was London Mayor!
@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.
Boris probably never gave much of a stuff about the EU, and only bashed it to serve his ambitions. Now he's just making the euro-phobes in his own party - many of whom were complicit in his downfall - squirm by doing a volte-face and singing its praises.
This is arrant nonsense. Boris was and is a genuine eurosceptic. From the get go
The fact that this also assisted his career was, for him, a happy byproduct
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.
No it isn't. Without that inheritance virtually nobody on an average salary in London and the Home counties could buy.
London is the biggest global city in Europe, property prices there and the commuter belt are not going to fall that much even if you concrete all over the greenbelt. Not to mention unless you slash immigration demand will still be high and falling prices now just means higher mortgage rate repayments alongside
The issue is house prices, HYFUD. It's a factor of not building enough houses, allowing foreign property ownership and landlords owning too many properties and councils owning too few.
If Labour fix these issues the Tories will be out of power for a generation as those who get onto the housing ladder under Labour become lifelong Labour voters.
Home owners always become Tories as they have an asset to not be taxed and pass on to their children.
Labour would be better off everyone renting or in social homes if it wanted more Labour voters
No, in the past homeowners became Tories because the Tory government was the party of the home owner, now it's the party of the landlord. If Labour becomes the party of the homeowner then they will benefit long term and the Tories are done and dusted for a generation. The only hope they have is that Keir is as dull as he seems and just has 5 years of drift and not taking on the parasitical classes of our society.
No, they would just say 'thanks Labour but now we are homeowners we will vote Tory for no wealth tax and low inheritance tax and low council tax and to protect our new asset.'
There is little gratitude in politics. Indeed the biggest single shift of voters class wise was Labour voting Council tenants to Tory voting home owners when Thatcher sold off council homes
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%.
Part of that is is speculation in land that might one day be given planning permission.
There is a whole raft of quite dodgy companies selling shares in parcels of land - on the basis that one day, if it gets planning permission, it will be worth squillions.
While I haven't dug into it, the whole thing smells (to me) like those companies offering shares in piles of gold.
Hence part of the attraction of my preference of abolishing planning permission, and replacing it with zoning instead with very limited areas of zoning for areas unsuitable for development (eg green patches, parks, AONB etc).
If everywhere has automatic planning permission, then the overwhelming majority of that land won't ever be built upon still but the mere act of getting or holding planning permission is no longer financially worthwhile. The only reason to hold land would be because you have something you want to do with it, which for most land would be farming rather than speculation or construction.
Yes. Consider - I was looking at houses in Marden in Kent, a while back. An old farmhouse came with an acre. The main farm (35 acres) was separate. £250K for the 35 acres.
I was seriously looking at the land. Nearly any activity - including renting to local farmers - would make money on the loan to buy. Planning permission for *one* house would turn it into a massive profit. Buy it and wait....
Which takes us back to the Underlying British Disease of the 21st Century.
Why don't we invest in stuff that will make us a richer nation, whether that is expanding businesses, education or infrastructure? Part of the answer is that there is easier money to be made by buying land or property and waiting.
BUT one thing did not add up, how could there be the Russian man and his sons not mobilised?
Who is going to mobilise them? Mobilisation is a task for the civilian authorities and there is no functioning civilian government of any type in Bakhmut. There is just war and desperate people regressing to a medieval lifestyle trying to survive.
How come the Ukraine soldiers don’t shoot them or they shoot the Ukraine soldiers? How can they co exist in same battle ground?
The AFU don't go door to door like Jehovah's Witnesses asking if people are sympathetic to the Russian Federation then shooting all the positive respondees in the head. There isn't a line on the ground to the east of which everyone is a Russian Uruk-Hai and to the west everyone is a Ukrainian Hobbit. In places like Bakhmut it's much more complicated than that.
I note you used LOTR reference, just like in this film Ukraine Commander called Russians Orcs.
It’s not often I disagree with you. But putting myself in the thoughts of the Ukraine soldiers in trench they dug, peering out for sign of Russians slithering towards them, I would be concerned those Russian supporting locals behind me would be shooting me in the back. Arn’t they all fighting age men and boys supposed to be rounded up and put behind razor wire in camp a long way away? Or shot and buried in a pit? Isn’t that the correct and safest way of fighting war?
Please stop channelling Arkan, the Serbian war criminal.
That is exactly what he did, and why his name has joined rum blossoms like Oskar Dirlewanger as a swear word among decent people.
@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.
Boris probably never gave much of a stuff about the EU, and only bashed it to serve his ambitions. Now he's just making the euro-phobes in his own party - many of whom were complicit in his downfall - squirm by doing a volte-face and singing its praises.
Boris loved the EU when he was Mayor.
If the situation was reversed and he'd been on the pro EU side he'd be sitting in London now telling us how London is an open and pro EU place. It's only because Labour is in power that he opposed it.
Where does the idea come from that Boris was a great Europhile before the referendum? There's been a consistent theme of scepticism about the idea of bureaucratic integration in his writing throughout his career.
He literally said he would vote to stay in the single market when he was London Mayor!
He said it after he wasn't too, up until David Cameron's failed negotiations to reform the EU. So did I, I was pro-Remain until then.
Once the EU became clear it was unreformable, then the choice became crystalised into Leave or Remain, rather than a third option of a reformed EU.
@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.
Boris probably never gave much of a stuff about the EU, and only bashed it to serve his ambitions. Now he's just making the euro-phobes in his own party - many of whom were complicit in his downfall - squirm by doing a volte-face and singing its praises.
Boris loved the EU when he was Mayor.
If the situation was reversed and he'd been on the pro EU side he'd be sitting in London now telling us how London is an open and pro EU place. It's only because Labour is in power that he opposed it.
Where does the idea come from that Boris was a great Europhile before the referendum? There's been a consistent theme of scepticism about the idea of bureaucratic integration in his writing throughout his career.
He literally said he would vote to stay in the single market when he was London Mayor!
I think you'll find that the context of that statement was being supportive of Cameron's renegotiation efforts. To answer, "I'd vote to stay in the single market," when asked whether he would vote to stay in the EU is to dodge the question.
BUT one thing did not add up, how could there be the Russian man and his sons not mobilised?
Who is going to mobilise them? Mobilisation is a task for the civilian authorities and there is no functioning civilian government of any type in Bakhmut. There is just war and desperate people regressing to a medieval lifestyle trying to survive.
How come the Ukraine soldiers don’t shoot them or they shoot the Ukraine soldiers? How can they co exist in same battle ground?
The AFU don't go door to door like Jehovah's Witnesses asking if people are sympathetic to the Russian Federation then shooting all the positive respondees in the head. There isn't a line on the ground to the east of which everyone is a Russian Uruk-Hai and to the west everyone is a Ukrainian Hobbit. In places like Bakhmut it's much more complicated than that.
I note you used LOTR reference, just like in this film Ukraine Commander called Russians Orcs.
It’s not often I disagree with you. But putting myself in the thoughts of the Ukraine soldiers in trench they dug, peering out for sign of Russians slithering towards them, I would be concerned those Russian supporting locals behind me would be shooting me in the back. Arn’t they all fighting age men and boys supposed to be rounded up and put behind razor wire in camp a long way away? Or shot and buried in a pit? Isn’t that the correct and safest way of fighting war?
No, that describes Russian war crimes.
Which is not to say that won't have happened on both sides. On only one is it systematic and officially tolerated/encouraged.
@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.
Boris probably never gave much of a stuff about the EU, and only bashed it to serve his ambitions. Now he's just making the euro-phobes in his own party - many of whom were complicit in his downfall - squirm by doing a volte-face and singing its praises.
Boris loved the EU when he was Mayor.
If the situation was reversed and he'd been on the pro EU side he'd be sitting in London now telling us how London is an open and pro EU place. It's only because Labour is in power that he opposed it.
Where does the idea come from that Boris was a great Europhile before the referendum? There's been a consistent theme of scepticism about the idea of bureaucratic integration in his writing throughout his career.
He literally said he would vote to stay in the single market when he was London Mayor!
And if he had been Mayor of Hartlepool he would have said he would vote to leave.
Imo, the truth is that he cares little about remain or leave either way beyond as a tool for his game of being Churchill.
@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.
Boris probably never gave much of a stuff about the EU, and only bashed it to serve his ambitions. Now he's just making the euro-phobes in his own party - many of whom were complicit in his downfall - squirm by doing a volte-face and singing its praises.
Boris loved the EU when he was Mayor.
If the situation was reversed and he'd been on the pro EU side he'd be sitting in London now telling us how London is an open and pro EU place. It's only because Labour is in power that he opposed it.
Where does the idea come from that Boris was a great Europhile before the referendum? There's been a consistent theme of scepticism about the idea of bureaucratic integration in his writing throughout his career.
He literally said he would vote to stay in the single market when he was London Mayor!
Confirmed.
I actually voted for him in that election. I certainly wouldn't have done if he had so much as hinted otherwise. London was Remain Central, so he wouldn't have had a snowball's if he hadn't appeared pro-EU 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
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%.
Part of that is is speculation in land that might one day be given planning permission.
There is a whole raft of quite dodgy companies selling shares in parcels of land - on the basis that one day, if it gets planning permission, it will be worth squillions.
While I haven't dug into it, the whole thing smells (to me) like those companies offering shares in piles of gold.
Hence part of the attraction of my preference of abolishing planning permission, and replacing it with zoning instead with very limited areas of zoning for areas unsuitable for development (eg green patches, parks, AONB etc).
If everywhere has automatic planning permission, then the overwhelming majority of that land won't ever be built upon still but the mere act of getting or holding planning permission is no longer financially worthwhile. The only reason to hold land would be because you have something you want to do with it, which for most land would be farming rather than speculation or construction.
Yes. Consider - I was looking at houses in Marden in Kent, a while back. An old farmhouse came with an acre. The main farm (35 acres) was separate. £250K for the 35 acres.
I was seriously looking at the land. Nearly any activity - including renting to local farmers - would make money on the loan to buy. Planning permission for *one* house would turn it into a massive profit. Buy it and wait....
Which takes us back to the Underlying British Disease of the 21st Century.
Why don't we invest in stuff that will make us a richer nation, whether that is expanding businesses, education or infrastructure? Part of the answer is that there is easier money to be made by buying land or property and waiting.
Because, within living memory, those 35 acres would have been built on. Like tramps and a pile of chips.
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%.
How many want to get into farming for whom it is not already the family business? Less than 1% at most
It is shameful to admit, Hyufd, but I confess that before I moved to Gloucestershire I had scarcely ever met a real working farmer. Now I know many and am stagggered to find that almost to a man and woman, they like money.
@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.
Boris probably never gave much of a stuff about the EU, and only bashed it to serve his ambitions. Now he's just making the euro-phobes in his own party - many of whom were complicit in his downfall - squirm by doing a volte-face and singing its praises.
This is arrant nonsense. Boris was and is a genuine eurosceptic. From the get go
The fact that this also assisted his career was, for him, a happy byproduct
So eurosceptic that he's now prancing around the continent drumming up new membership.
@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.
Boris probably never gave much of a stuff about the EU, and only bashed it to serve his ambitions. Now he's just making the euro-phobes in his own party - many of whom were complicit in his downfall - squirm by doing a volte-face and singing its praises.
Boris loved the EU when he was Mayor.
If the situation was reversed and he'd been on the pro EU side he'd be sitting in London now telling us how London is an open and pro EU place. It's only because Labour is in power that he opposed it.
Where does the idea come from that Boris was a great Europhile before the referendum? There's been a consistent theme of scepticism about the idea of bureaucratic integration in his writing throughout his career.
He literally said he would vote to stay in the single market when he was London Mayor!
And if he had been Mayor of Hartlepool he would have said he would vote to leave.
Imo, the truth is that he cares little about remain or leave either way beyond as a tool for his game of being Churchill. fame, power and money
@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.
Boris probably never gave much of a stuff about the EU, and only bashed it to serve his ambitions. Now he's just making the euro-phobes in his own party - many of whom were complicit in his downfall - squirm by doing a volte-face and singing its praises.
Boris loved the EU when he was Mayor.
If the situation was reversed and he'd been on the pro EU side he'd be sitting in London now telling us how London is an open and pro EU place. It's only because Labour is in power that he opposed it.
Where does the idea come from that Boris was a great Europhile before the referendum? There's been a consistent theme of scepticism about the idea of bureaucratic integration in his writing throughout his career.
He literally said he would vote to stay in the single market when he was London Mayor!
And if he had been Mayor of Hartlepool he would have said he would vote to leave.
Imo, the truth is that he cares little about remain or leave either way beyond as a tool for his game of being Churchill.
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.
Slashing immigration would be needed too not just concreting all over the greenbelt and even that not enough
You don't need to concrete all over the green belt, even building 300k-400k homes per annum would entail concreting over a tiny sliver of the green belt and would dramatically improve affordability.
It doesn't matter how global a city London is, families living there still only require one home, so build more homes than population grows and prices come down rather than going up. Supply and demand works in the Home Counties too.
No not unless population growth also comes down otherwise you just need even more homes longer term and there is no greenbelt left in the end
This is your problem, you take everything to extremes and don't understand nuances or small changes.
5% of this country is housing 70% of this country is farming.
If we continue with the same scale of developments per capita, then to have no green left in the end would require our population growing to a billion people. That isn't happening.
OTOH even if you increased our construction of housing by 20% and took all of it from green farmland you'd still leave 69% of the nation available for farming, not zero.
Whilst I understand your point to some extent, it is somewhat disingenuous. Whilst 75% may be farming, neither you nor anyone else seem to be suggesting building these new homes anywhere other than a part of the south and east of England. And here there is pressure on land. Moreover, in those areas there is also pressure on resources - particularly water. To my mind the obvious answer along the lines of what you are suggesting but with a twist is to stop the creeping expansion of existing settlements - towns and cities - and build complete new towns. The ideal place for these would be in the large open field agricultural areas of East Anglia and South East Lincolnshire but here again the problem you run into is water supply. Having friends working at Anglian Water I am aware of just how acute these issues are. They have a statutory responsibility to effectively provide unlimited water to supply all the new building that is happening but it is something that verges on the impossible in the medium to long term.
This is one reason amongst many why we need to realign our economy towards the north and west away from London.
@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.
Boris probably never gave much of a stuff about the EU, and only bashed it to serve his ambitions. Now he's just making the euro-phobes in his own party - many of whom were complicit in his downfall - squirm by doing a volte-face and singing its praises.
This is arrant nonsense. Boris was and is a genuine eurosceptic. From the get go
The fact that this also assisted his career was, for him, a happy byproduct
So eurosceptic that he's now prancing around the continent drumming up new membership.
Not remotely hypocritical. EU membership can be both logical for Ukraine and illogical for Britain.
We don't need to join a club to have freedom and democracy and peace, we fought for those over the past thousand years and have them on our own. For other nations though, the club can be useful in a way it isn't for us.
Many Remainers love to make Gym Membership analogies. Well quite frankly gym membership can be extremely useful for some people, while a complete waste of time and money for others. It doesn't have to be one sizer fits all.
The Security Service of Ukraine and the Bureau of Economic Security have served a notice of suspicion to one of the defendants in the criminal case of misappropriation of $1.1 billion by the former management of Ukrnafta and Ukrtatnafta, @ServiceSsu and ESBU report. https://twitter.com/Hromadske/status/1621470303904845827
@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.
Boris probably never gave much of a stuff about the EU, and only bashed it to serve his ambitions. Now he's just making the euro-phobes in his own party - many of whom were complicit in his downfall - squirm by doing a volte-face and singing its praises.
Boris loved the EU when he was Mayor.
If the situation was reversed and he'd been on the pro EU side he'd be sitting in London now telling us how London is an open and pro EU place. It's only because Labour is in power that he opposed it.
Where does the idea come from that Boris was a great Europhile before the referendum? There's been a consistent theme of scepticism about the idea of bureaucratic integration in his writing throughout his career.
He literally said he would vote to stay in the single market when he was London Mayor!
And if he had been Mayor of Hartlepool he would have said he would vote to leave.
Imo, the truth is that he cares little about remain or leave either way beyond as a tool for his game of being Churchill.
Exactly. Johnson only cares about Johnson.
'Johnson cares about his Johnson' would also work...
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.
May be they like cherries.
Love cherries! 🍒 the fruit that is
It’s probably when polls hit such 50% levels, support survey to survey is a lot looser and not nailed down up there, hence such flapping around. Anything 44% or Below for Labour likely much more nailed down now. But getting higher than 44% at a GE is very rare isn’t it?
So it’s not the moon rabbit, but other PBers who anticipate or talk up a general election result and Tory wipe out and Labour majority on current polling, not on likely result of 44% or less, who are clearly in the wrong here.
In 1997 Labour got 43% of the vote and won a landslide majority of over 100 seats.
Right. So absent black swans the current position - Tories mid-to-high 20s and Labour mid-to-high 40s - has the Tories at the floor of reasonable GE results and Labour at, or above, the ceiling.
Since Moon loves graphs and apparently the Wikipedia graph was showing the polls narrowing, it's now showing them widening.
Oddly she's stopped claiming the graph is useful. I wonder why?
She can be a bit of a silly Ramping Rabbit sometimes.
Nope. More than happy to share todays graph. And share a new insight into this graph. The down bits on the end shape like sad face, upward tick on end shape like happy face.
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.
Slashing immigration would be needed too not just concreting all over the greenbelt and even that not enough
You don't need to concrete all over the green belt, even building 300k-400k homes per annum would entail concreting over a tiny sliver of the green belt and would dramatically improve affordability.
It doesn't matter how global a city London is, families living there still only require one home, so build more homes than population grows and prices come down rather than going up. Supply and demand works in the Home Counties too.
No not unless population growth also comes down otherwise you just need even more homes longer term and there is no greenbelt left in the end
This is your problem, you take everything to extremes and don't understand nuances or small changes.
5% of this country is housing 70% of this country is farming.
If we continue with the same scale of developments per capita, then to have no green left in the end would require our population growing to a billion people. That isn't happening.
OTOH even if you increased our construction of housing by 20% and took all of it from green farmland you'd still leave 69% of the nation available for farming, not zero.
Whilst I understand your point to some extent, it is somewhat disingenuous. Whilst 75% may be farming, neither you nor anyone else seem to be suggesting building these new homes anywhere other than a part of the south and east of England. And here there is pressure on land. Moreover, in those areas there is also pressure on resources - particularly water. To my mind the obvious answer along the lines of what you are suggesting but with a twist is to stop the creeping expansion of existing settlements - towns and cities - and build complete new towns. The ideal place for these would be in the large open field agricultural areas of East Anglia and South East Lincolnshire but here again the problem you run into is water supply. Having friends working at Anglian Water I am aware of just how acute these issues are. They have a statutory responsibility to effectively provide unlimited water to supply all the new building that is happening but it is something that verges on the impossible in the medium to long term.
This is one reason amongst many why we need to realign our economy towards the north and west away from London.
The religious opposition to reservoirs needs the chop as well.
The areas of land required are not vast and who can object to a nice lake, really?
I mean, FFS, thy figured out in the Stone Age, that if you stockpile enough food for the winter, then you can eat to make it to the next summer.
@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.
Boris probably never gave much of a stuff about the EU, and only bashed it to serve his ambitions. Now he's just making the euro-phobes in his own party - many of whom were complicit in his downfall - squirm by doing a volte-face and singing its praises.
Boris loved the EU when he was Mayor.
If the situation was reversed and he'd been on the pro EU side he'd be sitting in London now telling us how London is an open and pro EU place. It's only because Labour is in power that he opposed it.
Where does the idea come from that Boris was a great Europhile before the referendum? There's been a consistent theme of scepticism about the idea of bureaucratic integration in his writing throughout his career.
He literally said he would vote to stay in the single market when he was London Mayor!
And if he had been Mayor of Hartlepool he would have said he would vote to leave.
Imo, the truth is that he cares little about remain or leave either way beyond as a tool for his game of being Churchill.
Exactly. Johnson only cares about Johnson.
He's the current favourite to succeed Sunak as Tory leader:
He's also the favourite among Tory possibles to succeed Sunak as prime minister:
@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.
Boris probably never gave much of a stuff about the EU, and only bashed it to serve his ambitions. Now he's just making the euro-phobes in his own party - many of whom were complicit in his downfall - squirm by doing a volte-face and singing its praises.
This is arrant nonsense. Boris was and is a genuine eurosceptic. From the get go
The fact that this also assisted his career was, for him, a happy byproduct
So eurosceptic that he's now prancing around the continent drumming up new membership.
It's quite endearing that anyone actually thinks that Boris Johnson believes in anything. Bless!
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
Not round here. You're ignoring the non-Tories, but then you don't pay any attention to any non-Tory voters.
Andf 46% of English farmers partly or wholly depend on renting their farmland.
In any case wider Tory party polucy to farming is so crap that the farmers are disproportionately OAPs and that'#s why they vote Tory anyway. It'll be a miracle if most of them have farming children to hand their farms over to. ,
Since Moon loves graphs and apparently the Wikipedia graph was showing the polls narrowing, it's now showing them widening.
Oddly she's stopped claiming the graph is useful. I wonder why?
She can be a bit of a silly Ramping Rabbit sometimes.
Nope. More than happy to share todays graph. And share a new insight into this graph. The down bits on the end shape like sad face, upward tick on end shape like happy face.
Why do the axes represent, and how is the squiggly line calculated ? It's not a very informative graphic.
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.
Slashing immigration would be needed too not just concreting all over the greenbelt and even that not enough
You don't need to concrete all over the green belt, even building 300k-400k homes per annum would entail concreting over a tiny sliver of the green belt and would dramatically improve affordability.
It doesn't matter how global a city London is, families living there still only require one home, so build more homes than population grows and prices come down rather than going up. Supply and demand works in the Home Counties too.
No not unless population growth also comes down otherwise you just need even more homes longer term and there is no greenbelt left in the end
This is your problem, you take everything to extremes and don't understand nuances or small changes.
5% of this country is housing 70% of this country is farming.
If we continue with the same scale of developments per capita, then to have no green left in the end would require our population growing to a billion people. That isn't happening.
OTOH even if you increased our construction of housing by 20% and took all of it from green farmland you'd still leave 69% of the nation available for farming, not zero.
Whilst I understand your point to some extent, it is somewhat disingenuous. Whilst 75% may be farming, neither you nor anyone else seem to be suggesting building these new homes anywhere other than a part of the south and east of England. And here there is pressure on land. Moreover, in those areas there is also pressure on resources - particularly water. To my mind the obvious answer along the lines of what you are suggesting but with a twist is to stop the creeping expansion of existing settlements - towns and cities - and build complete new towns. The ideal place for these would be in the large open field agricultural areas of East Anglia and South East Lincolnshire but here again the problem you run into is water supply. Having friends working at Anglian Water I am aware of just how acute these issues are. They have a statutory responsibility to effectively provide unlimited water to supply all the new building that is happening but it is something that verges on the impossible in the medium to long term.
This is one reason amongst many why we need to realign our economy towards the north and west away from London.
Without wanting to speak for Bart, I think he has always been keen for housebuilding (and economic growth) in the NW too. He is, I think, keen to see development on what is currently the Manchester Green Belt. I disagree about the extent of this (I am largely supportive of the principle of GB though I can see many opportunities to redraw its extent in the favour of development) but there is, at least, plenty of water here.
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%.
Part of that is is speculation in land that might one day be given planning permission.
There is a whole raft of quite dodgy companies selling shares in parcels of land - on the basis that one day, if it gets planning permission, it will be worth squillions.
While I haven't dug into it, the whole thing smells (to me) like those companies offering shares in piles of gold.
Hence part of the attraction of my preference of abolishing planning permission, and replacing it with zoning instead with very limited areas of zoning for areas unsuitable for development (eg green patches, parks, AONB etc).
If everywhere has automatic planning permission, then the overwhelming majority of that land won't ever be built upon still but the mere act of getting or holding planning permission is no longer financially worthwhile. The only reason to hold land would be because you have something you want to do with it, which for most land would be farming rather than speculation or construction.
And yet again we return to your fundamental misunderstanding of planning permission and what it is for.
It is not there to stop houses being built. It is there to make sure that when developments occur they meet the necessary standards to comply with a whole raft of laws that make life something other than just squalid. It is there to ensure that the right sorts of houses are built and that they have the right infrastructure associated with them. To ensure that sites of natural or historical value are not destroyed in the process - as was the case to a large extent prior to the Thatcher reforms of planning in the late 80s. It is there to ensure that flood plains are not built on. It is also there to ensure that you are not piling on the costs to the authorities and tax payers a few years down the line - having built new developments in areas with poor road links and which then require vast expenditure to upgrade existing roads or build new ones.
Councils do not set out to turn down planning permission. They want lots of new council tax payers to swell their coffers. But they are also responsible for providing the services and infrastructure to go along with those new developments and so have to have control over where and how they occur and in what quantities.
@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.
Boris probably never gave much of a stuff about the EU, and only bashed it to serve his ambitions. Now he's just making the euro-phobes in his own party - many of whom were complicit in his downfall - squirm by doing a volte-face and singing its praises.
This is arrant nonsense. Boris was and is a genuine eurosceptic. From the get go
The fact that this also assisted his career was, for him, a happy byproduct
So eurosceptic that he's now prancing around the continent drumming up new membership.
Not remotely hypocritical. EU membership can be both logical for Ukraine and illogical for Britain.
We don't need to join a club to have freedom and democracy and peace, we fought for those over the past thousand years and have them on our own. For other nations though, the club can be useful in a way it isn't for us.
Many Remainers love to make Gym Membership analogies. Well quite frankly gym membership can be extremely useful for some people, while a complete waste of time and money for others. It doesn't have to be one sizer fits all.
That still pretty much undercuts the leaver argument that 'independence and sovereignty' are priceless, and it's worth leaving the EU even if it makes us poorer.
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.
I think that "interesting" means "stupid" in this context. It would penalise someone with a family home and eg a small holiday let much more than someone with a portfolio of ten buy to lets for whom their family home would be a tiny share of their total wealth. It would also hinder mobility as the people affected wouldn't move house (eg downsize in retirement) until they'd sold their other properties.
The point was to disincentivise multiple property ownership. Using the tax system to change market behaviour is one of the few levers the government has got and yes, there will be losers from any changes but there always are. I don't think the general public will be crying rivers because a few holiday home owners have to sell them to move house or if landlords have to pay CGT when they move house.
This is just populist gesture politics. There will always be demand for regular rental properties and for holiday lets, the ownership will simply be wrapped up in a corporate structure and the rents paid as dividends.
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.
Slashing immigration would be needed too not just concreting all over the greenbelt and even that not enough
You don't need to concrete all over the green belt, even building 300k-400k homes per annum would entail concreting over a tiny sliver of the green belt and would dramatically improve affordability.
It doesn't matter how global a city London is, families living there still only require one home, so build more homes than population grows and prices come down rather than going up. Supply and demand works in the Home Counties too.
No not unless population growth also comes down otherwise you just need even more homes longer term and there is no greenbelt left in the end
This is your problem, you take everything to extremes and don't understand nuances or small changes.
5% of this country is housing 70% of this country is farming.
If we continue with the same scale of developments per capita, then to have no green left in the end would require our population growing to a billion people. That isn't happening.
OTOH even if you increased our construction of housing by 20% and took all of it from green farmland you'd still leave 69% of the nation available for farming, not zero.
Whilst I understand your point to some extent, it is somewhat disingenuous. Whilst 75% may be farming, neither you nor anyone else seem to be suggesting building these new homes anywhere other than a part of the south and east of England. And here there is pressure on land. Moreover, in those areas there is also pressure on resources - particularly water. To my mind the obvious answer along the lines of what you are suggesting but with a twist is to stop the creeping expansion of existing settlements - towns and cities - and build complete new towns. The ideal place for these would be in the large open field agricultural areas of East Anglia and South East Lincolnshire but here again the problem you run into is water supply. Having friends working at Anglian Water I am aware of just how acute these issues are. They have a statutory responsibility to effectively provide unlimited water to supply all the new building that is happening but it is something that verges on the impossible in the medium to long term.
This is one reason amongst many why we need to realign our economy towards the north and west away from London.
Without wanting to speak for Bart, I think he has always been keen for housebuilding (and economic growth) in the NW too. He is, I think, keen to see development on what is currently the Manchester Green Belt. I disagree about the extent of this (I am largely supportive of the principle of GB though I can see many opportunities to redraw its extent in the favour of development) but there is, at least, plenty of water here.
Hmm, a bit more climate change and a bit more of a Med climate in the SE could make that last argument all the stronger.
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.
I think that "interesting" means "stupid" in this context. It would penalise someone with a family home and eg a small holiday let much more than someone with a portfolio of ten buy to lets for whom their family home would be a tiny share of their total wealth. It would also hinder mobility as the people affected wouldn't move house (eg downsize in retirement) until they'd sold their other properties.
The point was to disincentivise multiple property ownership. Using the tax system to change market behaviour is one of the few levers the government has got and yes, there will be losers from any changes but there always are. I don't think the general public will be crying rivers because a few holiday home owners have to sell them to move house or if landlords have to pay CGT when they move house.
This is just populist gesture politics. There will always be demand for regular rental properties and for holiday lets, the ownership will simply be wrapped up in a corporate structure and the rents paid as dividends.
But you just extend that to majority shareholders in companies that are property holding companies, it's not difficult and it's not gesture politics. The aim is to reverse the trend of multiple property ownership by older people using young people as a pension fund. It will turn landlords into forced sellers.
No we don't like that poll because it shows Labour going up.
I was commenting on previous very recent yougov with Labour going down.
What’s most interesting about 31-01 is the drop in Tory support. Truss, post Truss they had some lower than this, but it’s gone up to 26 and stuck on 26 till this one.
The labour increase merely bounce back on previous poll - when you at top end of support maybe we should expect sizeable flapping around in the wind - the main take out here is Tories back to 24%.
I’m nothing but fair and consistent. You are the drama queen. 😇
I'll at least give Farage some credit in that he accepts that if you believe 'Britain shouldn't be part of the EU because you should never give up your sovereignty' then it logically follows that 'no country should ever give its up sovereignty and therefore the EU should not exist.' If you believe that the EU had no right making legislation for the UK, you should not believe the same for any other EU member state.
An employment judge has been been given a formal warning by the tribunal president, after she was caught boozing during a hearing.
On 30 September 2021, employment judge Pauline Hughes was part of a three-member panel tribunal hearing a case.
The other panel members noticed a change in Hughes' behaviour during the day, and were concerned that she might be elevated with the juice of the grape.
At a break in the hearing, "evidence indicated" that the judge had "consumed alcohol in her chambers", according to a statement from the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office. As a result, the hearing had to be stopped that day.
Judge Hughes had a meeting with the tribunal president in August 2022, and said she had little recollection of the incident, but she did not dispute that she must have drunk alcohol on the day in question. She has has not sat since the incident.
A spokesperson for the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office said: "The Senior President of Tribunals, on behalf of the Lord Chief Justice and with the Lord Chancellor’s agreement, has issued Employment Judge Pauline Hughes with a formal warning for misconduct".
In making the finding of misconduct, and recommending a formal warning, the tribunal president took into account that Judge Hughes, who has served the tribunal for many years, had not sought to deny drinking alcohol, had expressed remorse for her actions and gave assurances as to her future conduct, including in relation to alcohol use.
No we don't like that poll because it shows Labour going up.
What are your expectations for Lab % at a GE
I think 40% is about the maximum on a much lower turnout than 2017/ 219 what do you think CHB?
It will be a Hung Parliament I think
I'm assuming Labour still struggling in Scotland (at least compared to post-2014) is your main reason for thinking this? I think Labour will do better in the next GE in 'England and Wales' than it did in 2005.
No we don't like that poll because it shows Labour going up.
What are your expectations for Lab % at a GE
I think 40% is about the maximum on a much lower turnout than 2017/ 219 what do you think CHB?
It will be a Hung Parliament I think
Maybe we should start talking about 2026 election?
1964 Wilson got single digit win. 1966 was opportunity to turn that into comfortable majority. Maybe the same will repeat here, Starmer gets opportunity for comfortable majority with two reasonably close bites of the cherry?
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.
I think that "interesting" means "stupid" in this context. It would penalise someone with a family home and eg a small holiday let much more than someone with a portfolio of ten buy to lets for whom their family home would be a tiny share of their total wealth. It would also hinder mobility as the people affected wouldn't move house (eg downsize in retirement) until they'd sold their other properties.
The point was to disincentivise multiple property ownership. Using the tax system to change market behaviour is one of the few levers the government has got and yes, there will be losers from any changes but there always are. I don't think the general public will be crying rivers because a few holiday home owners have to sell them to move house or if landlords have to pay CGT when they move house.
This is just populist gesture politics. There will always be demand for regular rental properties and for holiday lets, the ownership will simply be wrapped up in a corporate structure and the rents paid as dividends.
According to the latest figures from last June there are 495,000 second homes in the UK. Of these only 28,000 are registered as holiday lets. These numbers do not include full time rental properties which are counted separately.
So that is just over 460,000 second homes which are not being used for another purpose. I think there is certainly scope there to use the tax system to change market behaviour.
@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.
Boris probably never gave much of a stuff about the EU, and only bashed it to serve his ambitions. Now he's just making the euro-phobes in his own party - many of whom were complicit in his downfall - squirm by doing a volte-face and singing its praises.
This is arrant nonsense. Boris was and is a genuine eurosceptic. From the get go
The fact that this also assisted his career was, for him, a happy byproduct
So eurosceptic that he's now prancing around the continent drumming up new membership.
It’s simply a dumb statement, which is blatantly untrue. Right now Remoaners have plenty of good arguments to advance, I don’t know why they bother with obvious bullshit like this
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.
I think that "interesting" means "stupid" in this context. It would penalise someone with a family home and eg a small holiday let much more than someone with a portfolio of ten buy to lets for whom their family home would be a tiny share of their total wealth. It would also hinder mobility as the people affected wouldn't move house (eg downsize in retirement) until they'd sold their other properties.
The point was to disincentivise multiple property ownership. Using the tax system to change market behaviour is one of the few levers the government has got and yes, there will be losers from any changes but there always are. I don't think the general public will be crying rivers because a few holiday home owners have to sell them to move house or if landlords have to pay CGT when they move house.
This is just populist gesture politics. There will always be demand for regular rental properties and for holiday lets, the ownership will simply be wrapped up in a corporate structure and the rents paid as dividends.
But you just extend that to majority shareholders in companies that are property holding companies, it's not difficult and it's not gesture politics. The aim is to reverse the trend of multiple property ownership by older people using young people as a pension fund. It will turn landlords into forced sellers.
So you end up with all rental properties being owned by rental companies. Which make a fortune because of the housing shortage.
Since Moon loves graphs and apparently the Wikipedia graph was showing the polls narrowing, it's now showing them widening.
Oddly she's stopped claiming the graph is useful. I wonder why?
She can be a bit of a silly Ramping Rabbit sometimes.
Nope. More than happy to share todays graph. And share a new insight into this graph. The down bits on the end shape like sad face, upward tick on end shape like happy face.
Why do the axes represent, and how is the squiggly line calculated ? It's not a very informative graphic.
Yet sad face happy face sums up current polling perfectly, could you argue against?
An employment judge has been been given a formal warning by the tribunal president, after she was caught boozing during a hearing.
On 30 September 2021, employment judge Pauline Hughes was part of a three-member panel tribunal hearing a case.
The other panel members noticed a change in Hughes' behaviour during the day, and were concerned that she might be elevated with the juice of the grape.
At a break in the hearing, "evidence indicated" that the judge had "consumed alcohol in her chambers", according to a statement from the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office. As a result, the hearing had to be stopped that day.
Judge Hughes had a meeting with the tribunal president in August 2022, and said she had little recollection of the incident, but she did not dispute that she must have drunk alcohol on the day in question. She has has not sat since the incident.
A spokesperson for the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office said: "The Senior President of Tribunals, on behalf of the Lord Chief Justice and with the Lord Chancellor’s agreement, has issued Employment Judge Pauline Hughes with a formal warning for misconduct".
In making the finding of misconduct, and recommending a formal warning, the tribunal president took into account that Judge Hughes, who has served the tribunal for many years, had not sought to deny drinking alcohol, had expressed remorse for her actions and gave assurances as to her future conduct, including in relation to alcohol use.
An employment judge has been been given a formal warning by the tribunal president, after she was caught boozing during a hearing.
On 30 September 2021, employment judge Pauline Hughes was part of a three-member panel tribunal hearing a case.
The other panel members noticed a change in Hughes' behaviour during the day, and were concerned that she might be elevated with the juice of the grape.
At a break in the hearing, "evidence indicated" that the judge had "consumed alcohol in her chambers", according to a statement from the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office. As a result, the hearing had to be stopped that day.
Judge Hughes had a meeting with the tribunal president in August 2022, and said she had little recollection of the incident, but she did not dispute that she must have drunk alcohol on the day in question. She has has not sat since the incident.
A spokesperson for the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office said: "The Senior President of Tribunals, on behalf of the Lord Chief Justice and with the Lord Chancellor’s agreement, has issued Employment Judge Pauline Hughes with a formal warning for misconduct".
In making the finding of misconduct, and recommending a formal warning, the tribunal president took into account that Judge Hughes, who has served the tribunal for many years, had not sought to deny drinking alcohol, had expressed remorse for her actions and gave assurances as to her future conduct, including in relation to alcohol use.
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
Not round here. You're ignoring the non-Tories, but then you don't pay any attention to any non-Tory voters.
Andf 46% of English farmers partly or wholly depend on renting their farmland.
In any case wider Tory party polucy to farming is so crap that the farmers are disproportionately OAPs and that'#s why they vote Tory anyway. It'll be a miracle if most of them have farming children to hand their farms over to. ,
Well they certainly won't if their children can't inherit the family farm!
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.
I think that "interesting" means "stupid" in this context. It would penalise someone with a family home and eg a small holiday let much more than someone with a portfolio of ten buy to lets for whom their family home would be a tiny share of their total wealth. It would also hinder mobility as the people affected wouldn't move house (eg downsize in retirement) until they'd sold their other properties.
The point was to disincentivise multiple property ownership. Using the tax system to change market behaviour is one of the few levers the government has got and yes, there will be losers from any changes but there always are. I don't think the general public will be crying rivers because a few holiday home owners have to sell them to move house or if landlords have to pay CGT when they move house.
This is just populist gesture politics. There will always be demand for regular rental properties and for holiday lets, the ownership will simply be wrapped up in a corporate structure and the rents paid as dividends.
But you just extend that to majority shareholders in companies that are property holding companies, it's not difficult and it's not gesture politics. The aim is to reverse the trend of multiple property ownership by older people using young people as a pension fund. It will turn landlords into forced sellers.
So you end up with all rental properties being owned by rental companies. Which make a fortune because of the housing shortage.
If that happens you tax them out of existence too, or force them into becoming housing associations with rent offered at lower than market rate. The government has significant regulatory power, it chooses not to use it because its donors and voters are all multiple property owners.
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.
Slashing immigration would be needed too not just concreting all over the greenbelt and even that not enough
You don't need to concrete all over the green belt, even building 300k-400k homes per annum would entail concreting over a tiny sliver of the green belt and would dramatically improve affordability.
It doesn't matter how global a city London is, families living there still only require one home, so build more homes than population grows and prices come down rather than going up. Supply and demand works in the Home Counties too.
No not unless population growth also comes down otherwise you just need even more homes longer term and there is no greenbelt left in the end
This is your problem, you take everything to extremes and don't understand nuances or small changes.
5% of this country is housing 70% of this country is farming.
If we continue with the same scale of developments per capita, then to have no green left in the end would require our population growing to a billion people. That isn't happening.
OTOH even if you increased our construction of housing by 20% and took all of it from green farmland you'd still leave 69% of the nation available for farming, not zero.
Whilst I understand your point to some extent, it is somewhat disingenuous. Whilst 75% may be farming, neither you nor anyone else seem to be suggesting building these new homes anywhere other than a part of the south and east of England. And here there is pressure on land. Moreover, in those areas there is also pressure on resources - particularly water. To my mind the obvious answer along the lines of what you are suggesting but with a twist is to stop the creeping expansion of existing settlements - towns and cities - and build complete new towns. The ideal place for these would be in the large open field agricultural areas of East Anglia and South East Lincolnshire but here again the problem you run into is water supply. Having friends working at Anglian Water I am aware of just how acute these issues are. They have a statutory responsibility to effectively provide unlimited water to supply all the new building that is happening but it is something that verges on the impossible in the medium to long term.
This is one reason amongst many why we need to realign our economy towards the north and west away from London.
In case there's been any misunderstand, you have me completely and wholeheartedly wrong. I am not that fussed about the South and East of England, the only reason I was referring to there was the person I was responding to was talking about there. I don't live in the South, I live in the North West, and I absolutely want and support a vast amount of construction and development up here.
Indeed I am practicing what I preach, I have just bought a home that is in a major new development on what used to be farmland beyond the outskirts of town but is now the town is essentially 'creeping' or 'sprawling' into. Though this construction isn't happening in isolation, quite significantly there is a new motorway junction that is being constructed that when it opens my estate will lead onto the link road to get to that new junction - we won't have to go through town to get to the motorway and indeed it will relieve the pressure of people who currently are will now have a new egress point to access the motorway. Between the new homes, businesses, industry, shops and motorway junction ours is essentially almost a new town that is appendaged onto an existing one.
The best way to develop land for new homes in my view would be along these lines, whether it be sprawling existing settlements but developing new infrastructure, or newly developed settlements, we need a vast improvement to the motorway network. The motorway network has been left stagnant for far too long, I would build major new motorways across the country which would provide access for new settlements like you suggest while relieving the pressure on existing ones.
The problem at the minute is that eg in the North if you want to go a particular route there are very few motorway options to get there. You are pretty much forced onto the M6 for many routes, or the M62 if travelling the other direction, without alternatives so if there is an incident on the motorway then what are supposed to be roads for the towns end up clogged by what should be motorway traffic. The other problem is we have all roads leading to the same places at the minute, whether that be eg Manchester in the NW or London in the SE.
If it were up to me I would want to expand the motorway network to the point it resembles something like the Tube map in London, giving multiple options to link towns and cities together, and major new junctions all over the place to allow new developments both residential and commercial.
My starting suggestions I've made before, for the North West would be what I've called the M580 (roughly following the route of the A580), and for the South East I would suggest a motorway linking Cambridge to Oxford and continuing either direction past those to the coasts, which would completely avoid London.
Comments
One day soon the polls will narrow, this time TM
There is a whole raft of quite dodgy companies selling shares in parcels of land - on the basis that one day, if it gets planning permission, it will be worth squillions.
While I haven't dug into it, the whole thing smells (to me) like those companies offering shares in piles of gold.
London is the biggest global city in Europe, property prices there and the commuter belt are not going to fall that much even if you concrete all over the greenbelt. Not to mention unless you slash immigration demand will still be high and falling prices now just means higher mortgage rate repayments alongside
It’s probably when polls hit such 50% levels, support survey to survey is a lot looser and not nailed down up there, hence such flapping around. Anything 44% or Below for Labour likely much more nailed down now. But getting higher than 44% at a GE is very rare isn’t it?
So it’s not the moon rabbit, but other PBers who anticipate or talk up a general election result and Tory wipe out and Labour majority on current polling, not on likely result of 44% or less, who are clearly in the wrong here.
If everywhere has automatic planning permission, then the overwhelming majority of that land won't ever be built upon still but the mere act of getting or holding planning permission is no longer financially worthwhile. The only reason to hold land would be because you have something you want to do with it, which for most land would be farming rather than speculation or construction.
Classical liberals like you and Bart don't seem to realise the world is not some perfect meritocratic ideal
If Labour fix these issues the Tories will be out of power for a generation as those who get onto the housing ladder under Labour become lifelong Labour voters.
It is of course a subsidy, and like most such measures it helps a certain group when introduced but then becomes financially neutral as the market adjusts to it through the price mechanism.
Its removal hurts in more or less equal measure to the benefit gained by those back in the halcyon days when it was first introduced but these are different people and of course nobody remembers the benefits of its introduction way back when. This is why subsidies tend to have a very long life span. In the long run, there is no net gain but nobody wants to take the flak for removing them.
The CG exemption on main residences will stay for a very long while yet.
Consider if someone owned £100k of Tesco shares but with a capital gain of £40k. If a 40% taxpayer that would mean they could sell their shares for £84k.
So even if they thought Sainsburys shares were actually 15% better value than Tesco shares, it would still not make sense for them to sell and switch into Sainsburys.
Capital would be allocated incorrectly benefitting older less efficient companies and hindring newer rivals.
1. Nadhim Zahawi - was the Tory chair - landlord of properties in various places but let's just mention Brighton
2. Jack (Giacomo) Lopresti - still a Tory vice chair - background in his family's ice cream business and in estate agency and mortgage brokerage
JFC! If I were a Tory I might well be persuadable of the merits of bringing back Boris. That's assuming king Ludwig can let bygones be bygones.
(Boris in effect called Ludwig "condescending" over Rwanda. Within a short space of time, around 60 of his ministers had resigned - so many that he couldn't fill all their positions and had to resign himself.)
It doesn't matter how global a city London is, families living there still only require one home, so build more homes than population grows and prices come down rather than going up. Supply and demand works in the Home Counties too.
Labour would be better off everyone renting or in social homes if it wanted more Labour voters
Secondly, what actually are your thoughts to the Bristols Question I raised. Since last election the greens have routed labour wards, and easily steal Lib Dem and Tory votes too. They now largest party. And their campaign to scrap a Labour mayor (looking like remaining labour for long while) succeeded so that their dominance of council seats gives that real power to them. Could this takeover impact the parliamentary seats?
If the situation was reversed and he'd been on the pro EU side he'd be sitting in London now telling us how London is an open and pro EU place. It's only because Labour is in power that he opposed it.
There's a good question though: why the **** were the French selling Russians such kit?
I was seriously looking at the land. Nearly any activity - including renting to local farmers - would make money on the loan to buy. Planning permission for *one* house would turn it into a massive profit. Buy it and wait....
Plus, they were all taken out of service at the same time. No other fleet to need bits from the stored tanks. And the climate of Jordan makes warehousing big machinery easier.
5% of this country is housing
70% of this country is farming.
If we continue with the same scale of developments per capita, then to have no green left in the end would require our population growing to a billion people. That isn't happening.
OTOH even if you increased our construction of housing by 20% and took all of it from green farmland you'd still leave 69% of the nation available for farming, not zero.
It’s not often I disagree with you. But putting myself in the thoughts of the Ukraine soldiers in trench they dug, peering out for sign of Russians slithering towards them, I would be concerned those Russian supporting locals behind me would be shooting me in the back. Arn’t they all fighting age men and boys supposed to be rounded up and put behind razor wire in camp a long way away? Or shot and buried in a pit? Isn’t that the correct and safest way of fighting war?
His attitude to the EU wasn't much defined by Labour or domestic politics. He is a classicist. Have you watched his two-part film, "The Dream of Rome"? He wants a Euro entity that's more streamlined - much more. Both he and Dominic Cummings have expressed admiration for Jean Monnet.
Add this classicism to the Silicon Valley idea of deserting what's there and building up an alternative next to it, with a big poster of Ayn Rand on the wall and no rules...
To people who think internationalist = Europhile, or Eurosceptic = xenophobe, then that must seem hypocritical but its not. Plenty of Eurosceptics are internationalists, and many who voted Remain were xenophobes.
People are complex and not one dimensional caricatures.
That is also partly why are house prices are so high, especially in the South. Cutting immigration and shifting investment north of the Watford Gap is as much a requirement as building more affordable housing
The fact that this also assisted his career was, for him, a happy byproduct
There is little gratitude in politics. Indeed the biggest single shift of voters class wise was Labour voting Council tenants to Tory voting home owners when Thatcher sold off council homes
Why don't we invest in stuff that will make us a richer nation, whether that is expanding businesses, education or infrastructure? Part of the answer is that there is easier money to be made by buying land or property and waiting.
That is exactly what he did, and why his name has joined rum blossoms like Oskar Dirlewanger as a swear word among decent people.
Once the EU became clear it was unreformable, then the choice became crystalised into Leave or Remain, rather than a third option of a reformed EU.
Which is not to say that won't have happened on both sides. On only one is it systematic and officially tolerated/encouraged.
Imo, the truth is that he cares little about remain or leave either way beyond as a tool for his game of being Churchill.
I actually voted for him in that election. I certainly wouldn't have done if he had so much as hinted otherwise. London was Remain Central, so he wouldn't have had a snowball's if he hadn't appeared pro-EU at the time.
This is one reason amongst many why we need to realign our economy towards the north and west away from London.
Cities like this are there for the taking now right wing Labour is barely indistinguishable from the Tories no progressive alternatives
Hotwells and Harbourside (Bristol) council by-election result:
GRN: 43.0% (+11.0)
LDEM: 40.9% (+7.6)
LAB: 12.2% (-13.1)
CON: 2.7% (-6.6)
IND: 1.1% (+1.1)
Votes cast: 1,249
Green GAIN from Liberal Democrat.
We don't need to join a club to have freedom and democracy and peace, we fought for those over the past thousand years and have them on our own. For other nations though, the club can be useful in a way it isn't for us.
Many Remainers love to make Gym Membership analogies. Well quite frankly gym membership can be extremely useful for some people, while a complete waste of time and money for others. It doesn't have to be one sizer fits all.
https://twitter.com/Hromadske/status/1621470303904845827
Westminster voting intention:
LAB: 48% (+3)
CON: 24% (-2)
LDEM: 9% (-1)
GRN: 6% (-1)
REF: 6% (-)
via @YouGov, 31 Jan - 01 Feb
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1621485380351451141
(edit) I see it was discussed upthread.
TBH the minutiae of polling is a bit tedious currently.
Let me know when the lead is 30%.
The areas of land required are not vast and who can object to a nice lake, really?
I mean, FFS, thy figured out in the Stone Age, that if you stockpile enough food for the winter, then you can eat to make it to the next summer.
He's also the favourite among Tory possibles to succeed Sunak as prime minister:
Andf 46% of English farmers partly or wholly depend on renting their farmland.
In any case wider Tory party polucy to farming is so crap that the farmers are disproportionately OAPs and that'#s why they vote Tory anyway. It'll be a miracle if most of them have farming children to hand their farms over to. ,
It's not a very informative graphic.
I disagree about the extent of this (I am largely supportive of the principle of GB though I can see many opportunities to redraw its extent in the favour of development) but there is, at least, plenty of water here.
It is not there to stop houses being built. It is there to make sure that when developments occur they meet the necessary standards to comply with a whole raft of laws that make life something other than just squalid. It is there to ensure that the right sorts of houses are built and that they have the right infrastructure associated with them. To ensure that sites of natural or historical value are not destroyed in the process - as was the case to a large extent prior to the Thatcher reforms of planning in the late 80s. It is there to ensure that flood plains are not built on. It is also there to ensure that you are not piling on the costs to the authorities and tax payers a few years down the line - having built new developments in areas with poor road links and which then require vast expenditure to upgrade existing roads or build new ones.
Councils do not set out to turn down planning permission. They want lots of new council tax payers to swell their coffers. But they are also responsible for providing the services and infrastructure to go along with those new developments and so have to have control over where and how they occur and in what quantities.
I think 40% is about the maximum on a much lower turnout than 2017/ 219 what do you think CHB?
As the imprisoned former Georgian president’s health worsens, so do prospects for democracy in his country.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/02/mikheil-saakashvili-georgia-president-democracy-russia/672931/
What’s most interesting about 31-01 is the drop in Tory support. Truss, post Truss they had some lower than this, but it’s gone up to 26 and stuck on 26 till this one.
The labour increase merely bounce back on previous poll - when you at top end of support maybe we should expect sizeable flapping around in the wind - the main take out here is Tories back to 24%.
I’m nothing but fair and consistent. You are the drama queen. 😇
An employment judge has been been given a formal warning by the tribunal president, after she was caught boozing during a hearing.
On 30 September 2021, employment judge Pauline Hughes was part of a three-member panel tribunal hearing a case.
The other panel members noticed a change in Hughes' behaviour during the day, and were concerned that she might be elevated with the juice of the grape.
At a break in the hearing, "evidence indicated" that the judge had "consumed alcohol in her chambers", according to a statement from the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office. As a result, the hearing had to be stopped that day.
Judge Hughes had a meeting with the tribunal president in August 2022, and said she had little recollection of the incident, but she did not dispute that she must have drunk alcohol on the day in question. She has has not sat since the incident.
A spokesperson for the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office said:
"The Senior President of Tribunals, on behalf of the Lord Chief Justice and with the Lord Chancellor’s agreement, has issued Employment Judge Pauline Hughes with a formal warning for misconduct".
In making the finding of misconduct, and recommending a formal warning, the tribunal president took into account that Judge Hughes, who has served the tribunal for many years, had not sought to deny drinking alcohol, had expressed remorse for her actions and gave assurances as to her future conduct, including in relation to alcohol use.
https://www.rollonfriday.com/news-content/judge-boozy-caught-chucking-it-back-halfway-through-hearing
Baker McKenzie Belgium Managing Partner steps down as racism investigation intensifies
https://www.rollonfriday.com/news-content/exclusive-your-family-or-rap-group-baker-mckenzie-belgium-managing-partner-steps-down
1964 Wilson got single digit win. 1966 was opportunity to turn that into comfortable majority. Maybe the same will repeat here, Starmer gets opportunity for comfortable majority with two reasonably close bites of the cherry?
So that is just over 460,000 second homes which are not being used for another purpose. I think there is certainly scope there to use the tax system to change market behaviour.
"Yes, m'Lord...."
Indeed I am practicing what I preach, I have just bought a home that is in a major new development on what used to be farmland beyond the outskirts of town but is now the town is essentially 'creeping' or 'sprawling' into. Though this construction isn't happening in isolation, quite significantly there is a new motorway junction that is being constructed that when it opens my estate will lead onto the link road to get to that new junction - we won't have to go through town to get to the motorway and indeed it will relieve the pressure of people who currently are will now have a new egress point to access the motorway. Between the new homes, businesses, industry, shops and motorway junction ours is essentially almost a new town that is appendaged onto an existing one.
The best way to develop land for new homes in my view would be along these lines, whether it be sprawling existing settlements but developing new infrastructure, or newly developed settlements, we need a vast improvement to the motorway network. The motorway network has been left stagnant for far too long, I would build major new motorways across the country which would provide access for new settlements like you suggest while relieving the pressure on existing ones.
The problem at the minute is that eg in the North if you want to go a particular route there are very few motorway options to get there. You are pretty much forced onto the M6 for many routes, or the M62 if travelling the other direction, without alternatives so if there is an incident on the motorway then what are supposed to be roads for the towns end up clogged by what should be motorway traffic. The other problem is we have all roads leading to the same places at the minute, whether that be eg Manchester in the NW or London in the SE.
If it were up to me I would want to expand the motorway network to the point it resembles something like the Tube map in London, giving multiple options to link towns and cities together, and major new junctions all over the place to allow new developments both residential and commercial.
My starting suggestions I've made before, for the North West would be what I've called the M580 (roughly following the route of the A580), and for the South East I would suggest a motorway linking Cambridge to Oxford and continuing either direction past those to the coasts, which would completely avoid London.