He's a French speaking Belgian, it explains everything.
Ray: Don't know any Belgium jokes, and if I did I think I'd have the good sense not to... hang on. Is Belgium with all those child abuse murders lately? I do know a Belgium joke. What's Belgium famous for? Chocolates and child abuse, and they only invented the chocolates to get to the kids.
Isn't that a studenty area? Abeit with some twee Victorian and some Georgian terraces.
In fact we could extrapolate your thinking and say the whole green take over is down to students, they go there on mass like Snooks did and stay there and don’t go home or live elsewhere. I don’t know why, I found it dirty and smelly place when I been there.
Sorry Mr Bristols if you are lurking, but I can only be honest 😌
He's a French speaking Belgian, it explains everything.
Ray: Don't know any Belgium jokes, and if I did I think I'd have the good sense not to... hang on. Is Belgium with all those child abuse murders lately? I do know a Belgium joke. What's Belgium famous for? Chocolates and child abuse, and they only invented the chocolates to get to the kids.
Love that film.
I actually love Belgium because it was created to annoy the French.
Plus, any Hitchhiker's fan will tell you what the rudest word in the universe is.
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.
That's - astonishing. That must be well over 1% of households. My initial guess is that most of the remaining 460,000 are Air BnBs or something, so just not registered. Can that be right? The only person I know who has a second home Air BnBs it out much more than he's actually there (or did - he's sold it now). I know the odd person who has 'a place in the Lakes' or some such - but without exception this is a caravan or a lodge on a holiday park, and even then they will try to let it out when they aren't in it.
@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 is quite possible to think the EU is not for the UK but might be an advance for, say, Ukraine.
If the Russians were in Manchester, shelling Liverpool, we might have a different take. They aren't. So we don't.
He's a French speaking Belgian, it explains everything.
Ray: Don't know any Belgium jokes, and if I did I think I'd have the good sense not to... hang on. Is Belgium with all those child abuse murders lately? I do know a Belgium joke. What's Belgium famous for? Chocolates and child abuse, and they only invented the chocolates to get to the kids.
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.
Which is effectively theft, taking private property and converting into social/housing association properties, certainly without compensation rather than building new social homes.
Plenty of renters like renting in the private sector anyway, especially if younger in the cities when they like the flexibility. They don't want to or need to be in social or housing association properties either
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.
The most important top rate transport links to build is a circle from Manchester to Birmingham to Leicester to Leeds back to Manchester. It would create a whole new alternative to London across a broad area with lots of housing availability.
He's a French speaking Belgian, it explains everything.
Ray: Don't know any Belgium jokes, and if I did I think I'd have the good sense not to... hang on. Is Belgium with all those child abuse murders lately? I do know a Belgium joke. What's Belgium famous for? Chocolates and child abuse, and they only invented the chocolates to get to the kids.
Bad. No one should give that a like.
Chloë: There's never been a classic movie made in Bruges until now. Ray: Of course there hasn't. It's a shithole. Chloë: Bruges is my home town, Ray. Ray: Well, it's still a shithole. Chloë: It's not a shithole! Ray: What? Even midgets have to take drugs to stick it.
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.
Turns out HYUFD is becoming one of the most reasonable and sensible posters on the site.
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.
That makes no logical sense whatsoever.
So if I say I do not want to be in a gym, as I have no intention of using its facilities and I'd rather exercise either at home or outside instead . . . does that mean that I think that nobody else should be using the gym, including those who are interested in weightlifting or other things and use the facilities regularly?
In my view the EU should be reformed to be more democratic, but its perfectly legitimate to either be in a federation or not, so long as its democratic, there's no reason why you either should or should not.
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
Depends how quickly inflation falls. If it starts a steep decline this year, the Government can get a win against the strikers - whose pay demands will look increasingly grasping.
@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 is quite possible to think the EU is not for the UK but might be an advance for, say, Ukraine.
If the Russians were in Manchester, shelling Liverpool, we might have a different take. They aren't. So we don't.
True.
But if they were shelling Slough, who would be liable for the CGT on the improvements?
@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 is quite possible to think the EU is not for the UK but might be an advance for, say, Ukraine.
If the Russians were in Manchester, shelling Liverpool, we might have a different take. They aren't. So we don't.
True.
But if they were shelling Slough, who would be liable for the CGT on the improvements?
@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.
No it doesn't at all.
You can believe in being independent and sovereign as a European, with a European nation, or as a Brit with a British nation, or a Scot with a Scottish nation.
How important you place independence and what you want to be independent, are two completely different questions.
I have more respect for people like Guy Verhofstadt who openly desire and seek a sovereign Europe, than those who pretend that sovereignty doesn't matter.
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.
Turns out HYUFD is becoming one of the most reasonable and sensible posters on the site.
Some rare common ground Malc amongst us on this certainly
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.
You are not playing fair with me Nigel. How would you actually do it yourself? Allow the local pro Russian militia to roam free under cover of civilians whilst you in a trench facing Russian lines with your back to them?
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.
You are not playing fair with me Nigel. How would you actually do it yourself? Allow the local pro Russian militia to roam free under cover of civilians whilst you in a trench facing Russian lines with your back to them?
Very simple - civilians are civilians *until* they pick up arms against you.
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
Depends how quickly inflation falls. If it starts a steep decline this year, the Government can get a win against the strikers - whose pay demands will look increasingly grasping.
Underlying inflation is already around 4.8% a year.
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.
There was quite a stark picture of England during the heatwave last summer - the south (and parts of Yorkshire and the NE) were parched a most unEnglish shade of yellowy brown. Deathly and eerie. The Northwest looked like a pleasant summer's day. Yes, it got unpleasantly hot here too, but the landscape remained a healthy summery green colour. It takes a long, long time to dry out the Northwest of England.
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.
How would you actually do it yourself? Allow the local pro Russian militia to roam free under cover of civilians whilst you in a trench facing Russian lines with your back to them?
Okay not shoot like horrible war crime then - though in heat of war and not PB general emotions obviously different. But exporting them away to a prison camp for a while both humane, and surely absolutely sensible and understandable?
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.
How would you actually do it yourself? Allow the local pro Russian militia to roam free under cover of civilians whilst you in a trench facing Russian lines with your back to them?
Okay not shoot like horrible war crime then - though in heat of war and not PB general emotions obviously different. But exporting them away to a prison camp for a while both humane, and surely absolutely sensible and understandable?
Now you are channeling General Kitchener. That's still a war crime in the modern world.
EDIT: and one that the Russians are committing, fairly openly, in Ukraine.
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
Depends how quickly inflation falls. If it starts a steep decline this year, the Government can get a win against the strikers - whose pay demands will look increasingly grasping.
No good, I'd suggest. The last year is baked in and everyone will be aware of that. You need *deflation* of 10-15% for your argument to work.
That Chris Giles article is total crap. The argument amounts to “let’s not tax boomers because it’s unpopular”. That’s a minute of my life I’m not getting back.
Btw, I've been told not to send out our research to anyone, but I'll message you an exec summary over the weekend.
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...
If Leopard 1 tanks are worth sending then we could also buy back the similar vintage Chieftain tanks that Jordan has nearly 400 of in storage.
I thought that the 1's were junk
Nope - out of date, to a modern military. There's a reason the base Challenger design has stayed around so long.
EDIT: in the first Gulf war, the Challenger 1s hammered the fuck out of the T-72s they encountered. Which is about what they would be fighting in Ukraine.
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.
There was quite a stark picture of England during the heatwave last summer - the south (and parts of Yorkshire and the NE) were parched a most unEnglish shade of yellowy brown. Deathly and eerie. The Northwest looked like a pleasant summer's day. Yes, it got unpleasantly hot here too, but the landscape remained a healthy summery green colour. It takes a long, long time to dry out the Northwest of England.
Reminded me of 1976 (yes, that long ago). But still green up here in both summers.
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.
There was quite a stark picture of England during the heatwave last summer - the south (and parts of Yorkshire and the NE) were parched a most unEnglish shade of yellowy brown. Deathly and eerie. The Northwest looked like a pleasant summer's day. Yes, it got unpleasantly hot here too, but the landscape remained a healthy summery green colour. It takes a long, long time to dry out the Northwest of England.
Yes. This part of Yorkshire is nearly as dry as Essex and a lot of our water comes from boreholes.
There's a hard limit on what they can pump out and in any case they have to dilute it to get the nitrate content below legal limits.
Even the Pennine reservoirs got very very low. We really aren't far from the maximum that could be consumed without running into problems every summer.
Do we need a national grid? I fear the big benefit from that would go to London, though.
Chris Giles has a piece in the FT arguing against taxing Boomer wealth to fix intergenerational inequality... Might be an interesting read given the debates on the issue on here (not linking because of pay wall).
Available via google. Headline "OK Boomer"
So basically saying younger generations should be split into
those grateful for inheritance and bank of mum and dad those who have to suck it up
I wonder which category the Cambridge educated economics editor of the FT is in.....
It is a good point. Personally the intra generational inequality issue has always seemed the more worrying one rather than the inter generational one. Millenials and Gen Zeds are going to be defined by their inherited wealth as much as by their earned income, which is a tricky situation for anyone who wants to sell the idea that society is in any way fair or meritocratic.
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.
That's - astonishing. That must be well over 1% of households. My initial guess is that most of the remaining 460,000 are Air BnBs or something, so just not registered. Can that be right? The only person I know who has a second home Air BnBs it out much more than he's actually there (or did - he's sold it now). I know the odd person who has 'a place in the Lakes' or some such - but without exception this is a caravan or a lodge on a holiday park, and even then they will try to let it out when they aren't in it.
There are towns and villages in Devon and Cornwall which see a massive population drop in winter. They are full of second homes which are only used for certain extended periods of the spring and summer. The irony is that in some of these villages the local facilities like pubs, which originally drew people to them, are now shutting down because they can't survive without local trade through the winter months and can't get the staff for the summer months. According to Cornwall County some of the towns in the county now have over 40% second homes.
@IvanCNN Beijing confirms the surveillance balloon over Montana is Chinese.
China's Foreign Ministry: "the airship is from China....used for research...the airship deviated far from its planned course. The Chinese side regrets the unintended entry of the airship into US airspace"
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.
That's - astonishing. That must be well over 1% of households. My initial guess is that most of the remaining 460,000 are Air BnBs or something, so just not registered. Can that be right? The only person I know who has a second home Air BnBs it out much more than he's actually there (or did - he's sold it now). I know the odd person who has 'a place in the Lakes' or some such - but without exception this is a caravan or a lodge on a holiday park, and even then they will try to let it out when they aren't in it.
There are towns and villages in Devon and Cornwall which see a massive population drop in winter. They are full of second homes which are only used for certain extended periods of the spring and summer. The irony is that in some of these villages the local facilities like pubs, which originally drew people to them, are now shutting down because they can't survive without local trade through the winter months and can't get the staff for the summer months. According to Cornwall County some of the towns in the county now have over 40% second homes.
Hence some councils are now imposing extra council tax on second home owners
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.
That makes no logical sense whatsoever.
So if I say I do not want to be in a gym, as I have no intention of using its facilities and I'd rather exercise either at home or outside instead . . . does that mean that I think that nobody else should be using the gym, including those who are interested in weightlifting or other things and use the facilities regularly?
In my view the EU should be reformed to be more democratic, but its perfectly legitimate to either be in a federation or not, so long as its democratic, there's no reason why you either should or should not.
But that's not the same argument. Saying you shouldn't have the gym membership because it's a waste of time and doesn't suit you is not an argument analogous to an argument about sovereignty. I've seen arguments from leavers (including Lord Frost, for instance) which state that we should not be part of the EU even if we were demonstrably poorer as a result because being an independent nation is priceless. But then that raises the exact same question about France, Germany, Spain, and indeed Ukraine as a prospective member. None of these countries think they aren't independent or sovereign.
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.
That makes no logical sense whatsoever.
So if I say I do not want to be in a gym, as I have no intention of using its facilities and I'd rather exercise either at home or outside instead . . . does that mean that I think that nobody else should be using the gym, including those who are interested in weightlifting or other things and use the facilities regularly?
In my view the EU should be reformed to be more democratic, but its perfectly legitimate to either be in a federation or not, so long as its democratic, there's no reason why you either should or should not.
But that's not the same argument. Saying you shouldn't have the gym membership because it's a waste of time and doesn't suit you is not an argument analogous to an argument about sovereignty. I've seen arguments from leavers (including Lord Frost, for instance) that we should not be part of the EU even if we were demonstrably poorer as a result because being an independent nation is priceless. But then raises the exact same question about France, Germany, Spain, and indeed Ukraine as a prospective member. None of these countries think they aren't independent or sovereign.
That's not true, they're not sovereign but they're voluntarily pooling their sovereignty into a nascent federation. Many people in those nations quite openly and positively endorse the federal nature of the EU. Macron has very positively and openly endorsed federal elements of the EU in a way that no British politician has done since possibly the 1970s.
There is nothing wrong with having a sovereign Europe if that's what you want. What is wrong is throwing away British sovereignty without democracy or desire for European sovereignty.
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.
That makes no logical sense whatsoever.
So if I say I do not want to be in a gym, as I have no intention of using its facilities and I'd rather exercise either at home or outside instead . . . does that mean that I think that nobody else should be using the gym, including those who are interested in weightlifting or other things and use the facilities regularly?
In my view the EU should be reformed to be more democratic, but its perfectly legitimate to either be in a federation or not, so long as its democratic, there's no reason why you either should or should not.
But that's not the same argument. Saying you shouldn't have the gym membership because it's a waste of time and doesn't suit you is not an argument analogous to an argument about sovereignty. I've seen arguments from leavers (including Lord Frost, for instance) which state that we should not be part of the EU even if we were demonstrably poorer as a result because being an independent nation is priceless. But then that raises the exact same question about France, Germany, Spain, and indeed Ukraine as a prospective member. None of these countries think they aren't independent or sovereign.
Undo no legal definition was the UK ever not sovereign when a member of the EU.
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.
That makes no logical sense whatsoever.
So if I say I do not want to be in a gym, as I have no intention of using its facilities and I'd rather exercise either at home or outside instead . . . does that mean that I think that nobody else should be using the gym, including those who are interested in weightlifting or other things and use the facilities regularly?
In my view the EU should be reformed to be more democratic, but its perfectly legitimate to either be in a federation or not, so long as its democratic, there's no reason why you either should or should not.
But that's not the same argument. Saying you shouldn't have the gym membership because it's a waste of time and doesn't suit you is not an argument analogous to an argument about sovereignty. I've seen arguments from leavers (including Lord Frost, for instance) which state that we should not be part of the EU even if we were demonstrably poorer as a result because being an independent nation is priceless. But then that raises the exact same question about France, Germany, Spain, and indeed Ukraine as a prospective member. None of these countries think they aren't independent or sovereign.
Undo no legal definition was the UK ever not sovereign when a member of the EU.
We were sovereign enough to leave
If you can only exercise your sovereignty by leaving, then you're not really sovereign until you do.
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.
How would you actually do it yourself? Allow the local pro Russian militia to roam free under cover of civilians whilst you in a trench facing Russian lines with your back to them?
Okay not shoot like horrible war crime then - though in heat of war and not PB general emotions obviously different. But exporting them away to a prison camp for a while both humane, and surely absolutely sensible and understandable?
Now you are channeling General Kitchener. That's still a war crime in the modern world.
EDIT: and one that the Russians are committing, fairly openly, in Ukraine.
Still don’t make any sense to me, leaving local pro Russian to roam around you. “civilian till bear arms against you”? But how do you know what the local pro Russia militia up to They could be telling them exactly where you are, that’s as bad as shooting you?
If moving them to a camp is illegal then it’s like abortion - just encourage bumping them off and disposing of bodies instead if legal right to no bus them out way to a faraway camp Till after war.
You speak against me here, you speaking against UK government position doing internment during two world wars? Same thing isn’t it? Same sensible thing I’m flagging up, those Ukraine soldiers in trench in this video with their backs to what - spy’s?
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.
That's - astonishing. That must be well over 1% of households. My initial guess is that most of the remaining 460,000 are Air BnBs or something, so just not registered. Can that be right? The only person I know who has a second home Air BnBs it out much more than he's actually there (or did - he's sold it now). I know the odd person who has 'a place in the Lakes' or some such - but without exception this is a caravan or a lodge on a holiday park, and even then they will try to let it out when they aren't in it.
There are towns and villages in Devon and Cornwall which see a massive population drop in winter. They are full of second homes which are only used for certain extended periods of the spring and summer. The irony is that in some of these villages the local facilities like pubs, which originally drew people to them, are now shutting down because they can't survive without local trade through the winter months and can't get the staff for the summer months. According to Cornwall County some of the towns in the county now have over 40% second homes.
But do they not let them out when they're not in them? Do they just leave them empty? That's madness. Granted you can't get the same money from a holiday let in winter and spring, but you can get *something*
One of my favourite holidays was a week in North Devon in late November with my then girlfriend (now wife). Young and starry eyed, we were, with seemingly the whole county to ourselves - wide, empty beaches; secluded country pubs down narrow lanes, windswept clifftops... Cold, but just as beautiful, and a storm you're hunkering indoors from in November is much more fun than a storm that's stopping you get to the beach in August. *drifts off into reverie...I may be some time...*
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
Depends how quickly inflation falls. If it starts a steep decline this year, the Government can get a win against the strikers - whose pay demands will look increasingly grasping.
Yeah, grasping nurses, paramedics and teachers. You wouldn't leave the house for a pin money public sector salary, and who would blame you?
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.
That makes no logical sense whatsoever.
So if I say I do not want to be in a gym, as I have no intention of using its facilities and I'd rather exercise either at home or outside instead . . . does that mean that I think that nobody else should be using the gym, including those who are interested in weightlifting or other things and use the facilities regularly?
In my view the EU should be reformed to be more democratic, but its perfectly legitimate to either be in a federation or not, so long as its democratic, there's no reason why you either should or should not.
But that's not the same argument. Saying you shouldn't have the gym membership because it's a waste of time and doesn't suit you is not an argument analogous to an argument about sovereignty. I've seen arguments from leavers (including Lord Frost, for instance) which state that we should not be part of the EU even if we were demonstrably poorer as a result because being an independent nation is priceless. But then that raises the exact same question about France, Germany, Spain, and indeed Ukraine as a prospective member. None of these countries think they aren't independent or sovereign.
Undo no legal definition was the UK ever not sovereign when a member of the EU.
We were sovereign enough to leave
The logic of that argument could be used to claim that Southern slaves weren't really slaves because they could buy themselves out of slavery. And no, I am not equating membership of the EU with slavery, just pointing out the logic flaw in your argument.
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.
That makes no logical sense whatsoever.
So if I say I do not want to be in a gym, as I have no intention of using its facilities and I'd rather exercise either at home or outside instead . . . does that mean that I think that nobody else should be using the gym, including those who are interested in weightlifting or other things and use the facilities regularly?
In my view the EU should be reformed to be more democratic, but its perfectly legitimate to either be in a federation or not, so long as its democratic, there's no reason why you either should or should not.
But that's not the same argument. Saying you shouldn't have the gym membership because it's a waste of time and doesn't suit you is not an argument analogous to an argument about sovereignty. I've seen arguments from leavers (including Lord Frost, for instance) which state that we should not be part of the EU even if we were demonstrably poorer as a result because being an independent nation is priceless. But then that raises the exact same question about France, Germany, Spain, and indeed Ukraine as a prospective member. None of these countries think they aren't independent or sovereign.
Undo no legal definition was the UK ever not sovereign when a member of the EU.
We were sovereign enough to leave
The logic of that argument could be used to claim that Southern slaves weren't really slaves because they could buy themselves out of slavery. And no, I am not equating membership of the EU with slavery, just pointing out the logic flaw in your argument.
Or that someone in a controlling relationship isn't really in a controlling relationship as they can terminate the relationship.
Also not equating membership of the EU with domestic abuse, just pointing out the logic flaw.
@IvanCNN Beijing confirms the surveillance balloon over Montana is Chinese.
China's Foreign Ministry: "the airship is from China....used for research...the airship deviated far from its planned course. The Chinese side regrets the unintended entry of the airship into US airspace"
Response to communique - thank you dear friends for owning up to ownership and explaining its malfunction. Off course probably explains why it collided with our UAV in test flight. Would you like what’s left of it back?
Sunak blames Case. But he still has confidence in him, mind. Great leadership, there. Sunak may well be thinking OMFC, how long have I got to do this job?
@IvanCNN Beijing confirms the surveillance balloon over Montana is Chinese.
China's Foreign Ministry: "the airship is from China....used for research...the airship deviated far from its planned course. The Chinese side regrets the unintended entry of the airship into US airspace"
Greens have been working hard for decades to entrench in Bristol, and they were up against the LDs. I don't think this is particularly a reflection on Starmer.
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.
That's - astonishing. That must be well over 1% of households. My initial guess is that most of the remaining 460,000 are Air BnBs or something, so just not registered. Can that be right? The only person I know who has a second home Air BnBs it out much more than he's actually there (or did - he's sold it now). I know the odd person who has 'a place in the Lakes' or some such - but without exception this is a caravan or a lodge on a holiday park, and even then they will try to let it out when they aren't in it.
There are towns and villages in Devon and Cornwall which see a massive population drop in winter. They are full of second homes which are only used for certain extended periods of the spring and summer. The irony is that in some of these villages the local facilities like pubs, which originally drew people to them, are now shutting down because they can't survive without local trade through the winter months and can't get the staff for the summer months. According to Cornwall County some of the towns in the county now have over 40% second homes.
But do they not let them out when they're not in them? Do they just leave them empty? That's madness. Granted you can't get the same money from a holiday let in winter and spring, but you can get *something*
One of my favourite holidays was a week in North Devon in late November with my then girlfriend (now wife). Young and starry eyed, we were, with seemingly the whole county to ourselves - wide, empty beaches; secluded country pubs down narrow lanes, windswept clifftops... Cold, but just as beautiful, and a storm you're hunkering indoors from in November is much more fun than a storm that's stopping you get to the beach in August. *drifts off into reverie...I may be some time...*
No. Most of them remain empty outside of holiday periods. This is the problem. Many of these towns in Devon and Cornwall are now referred to as ghost towns. I would be with you all the way about the joys of the Southwest in winter but most seemingly don't agree with us.
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.
How would you actually do it yourself? Allow the local pro Russian militia to roam free under cover of civilians whilst you in a trench facing Russian lines with your back to them?
Okay not shoot like horrible war crime then - though in heat of war and not PB general emotions obviously different. But exporting them away to a prison camp for a while both humane, and surely absolutely sensible and understandable?
Now you are channeling General Kitchener. That's still a war crime in the modern world.
EDIT: and one that the Russians are committing, fairly openly, in Ukraine.
Still don’t make any sense to me, leaving local pro Russian to roam around you. “civilian till bear arms against you”? But how do you know what the local pro Russia militia up to They could be telling them exactly where you are, that’s as bad as shooting you?
If moving them to a camp is illegal then it’s like abortion - just encourage bumping them off and disposing of bodies instead if legal right to no bus them out way to a faraway camp Till after war.
You speak against me here, you speaking against UK government position doing internment during two world wars? Same thing isn’t it? Same sensible thing I’m flagging up, those Ukraine soldiers in trench in this video with their backs to what - spy’s?
Interning civilians on the grounds of nationality alone would be illegal in the modern world, I believe.
Times change.
For example, I came a cross a diary of a very young midshipman in the Royal Navy years ago - more an exchange of letters between him and his sisters. Mid 19th cent. It ended with his death at the hands of slavers - he was on anti-slavery patrol. The last letter was from the coxswain of the boats crew he commanded, in which he states that because the crew was upset with the killing of their commander, they gave no quarter. They killed everyone. War crime today - back then, that was the convention. Surrender had to be accepted first, and could be denied.
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.
Which is effectively theft, taking private property and converting into social/housing association properties, certainly without compensation rather than building new social homes.
Plenty of renters like renting in the private sector anyway, especially if younger in the cities when they like the flexibility. They don't want to or need to be in social or housing association properties either
No, it's the cost of doing business. These are the regulations, if you don't like them then your option is to put your money elsewhere. No doubt lots of people will, but it isn't theft.
Also, do you actually know or speak to anyone under the age of 30? "Plenty of renters like renting in the private sector anyway" suggests you haven't got a grip on reality.
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.
I think quite frankly you're at best naïve to suggest that Councils do not set out to turn down planning permission. Councillors very frequently flaunt how much they're opposing new developments in order to appeal to NIMBY voters.
Zoning can ensure that sites of natural or historic value are not destroyed, without giving NIMBY voters a say in what other people do with their own land in areas that don't meet that criteria.
Standards similarly can be set by building standards outside of the planning system.
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.
I think quite frankly you're at best naïve to suggest that Councils do not set out to turn down planning permission. Councillors very frequently flaunt how much they're opposing new developments in order to appeal to NIMBY voters.
Zoning can ensure that sites of natural or historic value are not destroyed, without giving NIMBY voters a say in what other people do with their own land in areas that don't meet that criteria.
Standards similarly can be set by building standards outside of the planning system.
As I said, you really don't seem to understand the scope or purpose of planning permission.
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.
That makes no logical sense whatsoever.
So if I say I do not want to be in a gym, as I have no intention of using its facilities and I'd rather exercise either at home or outside instead . . . does that mean that I think that nobody else should be using the gym, including those who are interested in weightlifting or other things and use the facilities regularly?
In my view the EU should be reformed to be more democratic, but its perfectly legitimate to either be in a federation or not, so long as its democratic, there's no reason why you either should or should not.
But that's not the same argument. Saying you shouldn't have the gym membership because it's a waste of time and doesn't suit you is not an argument analogous to an argument about sovereignty. I've seen arguments from leavers (including Lord Frost, for instance) which state that we should not be part of the EU even if we were demonstrably poorer as a result because being an independent nation is priceless. But then that raises the exact same question about France, Germany, Spain, and indeed Ukraine as a prospective member. None of these countries think they aren't independent or sovereign.
Undo no legal definition was the UK ever not sovereign when a member of the EU.
We were sovereign enough to leave
The logic of that argument could be used to claim that Southern slaves weren't really slaves because they could buy themselves out of slavery. And no, I am not equating membership of the EU with slavery, just pointing out the logic flaw in your argument.
Or that someone in a controlling relationship isn't really in a controlling relationship as they can terminate the relationship.
Also not equating membership of the EU with domestic abuse, just pointing out the logic flaw.
Leaving the EU was less like leaving a controlling relationship and more like walking out on your wife and kids in the hope of playing the field and dating a series of younger women - but ending up saddled with alimony payments and living in a bedsit, eating baked beans out of a tin and w**king half-heartedly into a sock.
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.
That makes no logical sense whatsoever.
So if I say I do not want to be in a gym, as I have no intention of using its facilities and I'd rather exercise either at home or outside instead . . . does that mean that I think that nobody else should be using the gym, including those who are interested in weightlifting or other things and use the facilities regularly?
In my view the EU should be reformed to be more democratic, but its perfectly legitimate to either be in a federation or not, so long as its democratic, there's no reason why you either should or should not.
But that's not the same argument. Saying you shouldn't have the gym membership because it's a waste of time and doesn't suit you is not an argument analogous to an argument about sovereignty. I've seen arguments from leavers (including Lord Frost, for instance) which state that we should not be part of the EU even if we were demonstrably poorer as a result because being an independent nation is priceless. But then that raises the exact same question about France, Germany, Spain, and indeed Ukraine as a prospective member. None of these countries think they aren't independent or sovereign.
Undo no legal definition was the UK ever not sovereign when a member of the EU.
We were sovereign enough to leave
The logic of that argument could be used to claim that Southern slaves weren't really slaves because they could buy themselves out of slavery. And no, I am not equating membership of the EU with slavery, just pointing out the logic flaw in your argument.
No country is properly sovereign in the way defined by some Brexit supporters, because all accept some limits on their independent action with membership of international bodies like the WTO, or the ICAO, etc.
So in all cases, whether a member of the EU or not, we are dealing with degrees of sovereignty, rather than absolutes of being sovereign or not, though of course we would seek to find a dividing line between the category of a sovereign independent country and a non-sovereign member of a Federation.
In the case of EU membership, Britain was able to go to war in Iraq in 2003, despite substantial opposition across most of the EU. I think that the ability to go to war is one of the main ones I would use to define whether a country is sovereign and independent.
If you were to define the dividing line on complete freedom to determine taxation, say, which we certainly didn't have as a member of the EU, then the UK is still not a sovereign country, because of our obligation not to tax aviation fuel. So that definition wouldn't be very useful.
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.
That's - astonishing. That must be well over 1% of households. My initial guess is that most of the remaining 460,000 are Air BnBs or something, so just not registered. Can that be right? The only person I know who has a second home Air BnBs it out much more than he's actually there (or did - he's sold it now). I know the odd person who has 'a place in the Lakes' or some such - but without exception this is a caravan or a lodge on a holiday park, and even then they will try to let it out when they aren't in it.
There are towns and villages in Devon and Cornwall which see a massive population drop in winter. They are full of second homes which are only used for certain extended periods of the spring and summer. The irony is that in some of these villages the local facilities like pubs, which originally drew people to them, are now shutting down because they can't survive without local trade through the winter months and can't get the staff for the summer months. According to Cornwall County some of the towns in the county now have over 40% second homes.
As a Cornishman I find that last statement quite hard to believe
Over 40%?! Entire towns?
St Ives maybe, but even that I doubt. St Mawes maybe, Rock, but again I’d doubt 40%
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.
Which is effectively theft, taking private property and converting into social/housing association properties, certainly without compensation rather than building new social homes.
Plenty of renters like renting in the private sector anyway, especially if younger in the cities when they like the flexibility. They don't want to or need to be in social or housing association properties either
No, it's the cost of doing business. These are the regulations, if you don't like them then your option is to put your money elsewhere. No doubt lots of people will, but it isn't theft.
Also, do you actually know or speak to anyone under the age of 30? "Plenty of renters like renting in the private sector anyway" suggests you haven't got a grip on reality.
Squeezing all landlords simply reduces the rented sector - without dealing with the real problem. A housing shortage.
I have calculated an average for the polls over the past few months.
My methodology is to calculate the average poll for each polling company for each month, and then to average these.
A simple average of the polls in each month would give additional weight to those companies which poll weekly, compared with those with only one poll per month.
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.
That's - astonishing. That must be well over 1% of households. My initial guess is that most of the remaining 460,000 are Air BnBs or something, so just not registered. Can that be right? The only person I know who has a second home Air BnBs it out much more than he's actually there (or did - he's sold it now). I know the odd person who has 'a place in the Lakes' or some such - but without exception this is a caravan or a lodge on a holiday park, and even then they will try to let it out when they aren't in it.
There are towns and villages in Devon and Cornwall which see a massive population drop in winter. They are full of second homes which are only used for certain extended periods of the spring and summer. The irony is that in some of these villages the local facilities like pubs, which originally drew people to them, are now shutting down because they can't survive without local trade through the winter months and can't get the staff for the summer months. According to Cornwall County some of the towns in the county now have over 40% second homes.
As a Cornishman I find that last statement quite hard to believe
Over 40%?! Entire towns?
St Ives maybe, but even that I doubt. St Mawes maybe, Rock, but again I’d doubt 40%
I am happy to be schooled by an actual citation
There are 250K properties in Cornwall.
"13,292 properties in Cornwall are classed as second homes, according to new research by Action on Empty Homes."
The idea the Government can win against the strikers is for the birds. That ship has sailed.
I'm not sure that is necessarily true Horse, but some of those hoping the striking nurses crash and burn have a higher number on the tax section of their P60 than those they are criticising have in their earnings box.
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.
That makes no logical sense whatsoever.
So if I say I do not want to be in a gym, as I have no intention of using its facilities and I'd rather exercise either at home or outside instead . . . does that mean that I think that nobody else should be using the gym, including those who are interested in weightlifting or other things and use the facilities regularly?
In my view the EU should be reformed to be more democratic, but its perfectly legitimate to either be in a federation or not, so long as its democratic, there's no reason why you either should or should not.
But that's not the same argument. Saying you shouldn't have the gym membership because it's a waste of time and doesn't suit you is not an argument analogous to an argument about sovereignty. I've seen arguments from leavers (including Lord Frost, for instance) which state that we should not be part of the EU even if we were demonstrably poorer as a result because being an independent nation is priceless. But then that raises the exact same question about France, Germany, Spain, and indeed Ukraine as a prospective member. None of these countries think they aren't independent or sovereign.
Undo no legal definition was the UK ever not sovereign when a member of the EU.
We were sovereign enough to leave
The logic of that argument could be used to claim that Southern slaves weren't really slaves because they could buy themselves out of slavery. And no, I am not equating membership of the EU with slavery, just pointing out the logic flaw in your argument.
No country is properly sovereign in the way defined by some Brexit supporters, because all accept some limits on their independent action with membership of international bodies like the WTO, or the ICAO, etc.
So in all cases, whether a member of the EU or not, we are dealing with degrees of sovereignty, rather than absolutes of being sovereign or not, though of course we would seek to find a dividing line between the category of a sovereign independent country and a non-sovereign member of a Federation.
In the case of EU membership, Britain was able to go to war in Iraq in 2003, despite substantial opposition across most of the EU. I think that the ability to go to war is one of the main ones I would use to define whether a country is sovereign and independent.
If you were to define the dividing line on complete freedom to determine taxation, say, which we certainly didn't have as a member of the EU, then the UK is still not a sovereign country, because of our obligation not to tax aviation fuel. So that definition wouldn't be very useful.
Not a valid comparison.
Which of the EU, ICAO, WTO etc have a Parliament of their own that can organically create vast swathes of its own laws without agreement of the UK Parliament? Similarly which of those levy and create their own taxes?
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.
That's - astonishing. That must be well over 1% of households. My initial guess is that most of the remaining 460,000 are Air BnBs or something, so just not registered. Can that be right? The only person I know who has a second home Air BnBs it out much more than he's actually there (or did - he's sold it now). I know the odd person who has 'a place in the Lakes' or some such - but without exception this is a caravan or a lodge on a holiday park, and even then they will try to let it out when they aren't in it.
There are towns and villages in Devon and Cornwall which see a massive population drop in winter. They are full of second homes which are only used for certain extended periods of the spring and summer. The irony is that in some of these villages the local facilities like pubs, which originally drew people to them, are now shutting down because they can't survive without local trade through the winter months and can't get the staff for the summer months. According to Cornwall County some of the towns in the county now have over 40% second homes.
As a Cornishman I find that last statement quite hard to believe
Over 40%?! Entire towns?
St Ives maybe, but even that I doubt. St Mawes maybe, Rock, but again I’d doubt 40%
I have calculated an average for the polls over the past few months.
My methodology is to calculate the average poll for each polling company for each month, and then to average these.
A simple average of the polls in each month would give additional weight to those companies which poll weekly, compared with those with only one poll per month.
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.
I think quite frankly you're at best naïve to suggest that Councils do not set out to turn down planning permission. Councillors very frequently flaunt how much they're opposing new developments in order to appeal to NIMBY voters.
Zoning can ensure that sites of natural or historic value are not destroyed, without giving NIMBY voters a say in what other people do with their own land in areas that don't meet that criteria.
Standards similarly can be set by building standards outside of the planning system.
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.
That's - astonishing. That must be well over 1% of households. My initial guess is that most of the remaining 460,000 are Air BnBs or something, so just not registered. Can that be right? The only person I know who has a second home Air BnBs it out much more than he's actually there (or did - he's sold it now). I know the odd person who has 'a place in the Lakes' or some such - but without exception this is a caravan or a lodge on a holiday park, and even then they will try to let it out when they aren't in it.
There are towns and villages in Devon and Cornwall which see a massive population drop in winter. They are full of second homes which are only used for certain extended periods of the spring and summer. The irony is that in some of these villages the local facilities like pubs, which originally drew people to them, are now shutting down because they can't survive without local trade through the winter months and can't get the staff for the summer months. According to Cornwall County some of the towns in the county now have over 40% second homes.
As a Cornishman I find that last statement quite hard to believe
Over 40%?! Entire towns?
St Ives maybe, but even that I doubt. St Mawes maybe, Rock, but again I’d doubt 40%
I am happy to be schooled by an actual citation
Classic bit of something being somewhat exaggerated in the retelling. This article has 40% in one parish. St Ives is at 15%. Towns generally lower than rural parishes.
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.
How would you actually do it yourself? Allow the local pro Russian militia to roam free under cover of civilians whilst you in a trench facing Russian lines with your back to them?
Okay not shoot like horrible war crime then - though in heat of war and not PB general emotions obviously different. But exporting them away to a prison camp for a while both humane, and surely absolutely sensible and understandable?
Now you are channeling General Kitchener. That's still a war crime in the modern world.
EDIT: and one that the Russians are committing, fairly openly, in Ukraine.
Still don’t make any sense to me, leaving local pro Russian to roam around you. “civilian till bear arms against you”? But how do you know what the local pro Russia militia up to They could be telling them exactly where you are, that’s as bad as shooting you?
If moving them to a camp is illegal then it’s like abortion - just encourage bumping them off and disposing of bodies instead if legal right to no bus them out way to a faraway camp Till after war.
You speak against me here, you speaking against UK government position doing internment during two world wars? Same thing isn’t it? Same sensible thing I’m flagging up, those Ukraine soldiers in trench in this video with their backs to what - spy’s?
Interning civilians on the grounds of nationality alone would be illegal in the modern world, I believe.
Times change.
For example, I came a cross a diary of a very young midshipman in the Royal Navy years ago - more an exchange of letters between him and his sisters. Mid 19th cent. It ended with his death at the hands of slavers - he was on anti-slavery patrol. The last letter was from the coxswain of the boats crew he commanded, in which he states that because the crew was upset with the killing of their commander, they gave no quarter. They killed everyone. War crime today - back then, that was the convention. Surrender had to be accepted first, and could be denied.
Exactly. We have our Afghan veterans court-martialed because top brass insist on discipline, but they found their mates chopped up and in bits hanging from trees so shot the enemy who did it - can’t expect rule book to 100% to over ride massive emotion in theatre of war can we?
But my point is different, more akin to internment UK done in world wars - for all the chatter of sending equipment, the most valuable asset Ukraine have out there is it’s fighting force? Got to de risk threat to it and treat it as valuable.
The video disappeared from thread. Maybe you see what I mean. The Ukraine men dug a trench to help them, but are surrounded by Pro Russia militia and spies in their territory 🤷♀️
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.
That's - astonishing. That must be well over 1% of households. My initial guess is that most of the remaining 460,000 are Air BnBs or something, so just not registered. Can that be right? The only person I know who has a second home Air BnBs it out much more than he's actually there (or did - he's sold it now). I know the odd person who has 'a place in the Lakes' or some such - but without exception this is a caravan or a lodge on a holiday park, and even then they will try to let it out when they aren't in it.
There are towns and villages in Devon and Cornwall which see a massive population drop in winter. They are full of second homes which are only used for certain extended periods of the spring and summer. The irony is that in some of these villages the local facilities like pubs, which originally drew people to them, are now shutting down because they can't survive without local trade through the winter months and can't get the staff for the summer months. According to Cornwall County some of the towns in the county now have over 40% second homes.
As a Cornishman I find that last statement quite hard to believe
Over 40%?! Entire towns?
St Ives maybe, but even that I doubt. St Mawes maybe, Rock, but again I’d doubt 40%
I am happy to be schooled by an actual citation
There are 250K properties in Cornwall.
"13,292 properties in Cornwall are classed as second homes, according to new research by Action on Empty Homes."
In my experience most Cornish TOWNS are notably lively in winter, compared to much of the country. Because it is milder, maybe. And there are holidayers through the year
Some villages do go entirely dormant. But then that’s village life for you
I have calculated an average for the polls over the past few months.
My methodology is to calculate the average poll for each polling company for each month, and then to average these.
A simple average of the polls in each month would give additional weight to those companies which poll weekly, compared with those with only one poll per month.
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
Depends how quickly inflation falls. If it starts a steep decline this year, the Government can get a win against the strikers - whose pay demands will look increasingly grasping.
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.
That's - astonishing. That must be well over 1% of households. My initial guess is that most of the remaining 460,000 are Air BnBs or something, so just not registered. Can that be right? The only person I know who has a second home Air BnBs it out much more than he's actually there (or did - he's sold it now). I know the odd person who has 'a place in the Lakes' or some such - but without exception this is a caravan or a lodge on a holiday park, and even then they will try to let it out when they aren't in it.
There are towns and villages in Devon and Cornwall which see a massive population drop in winter. They are full of second homes which are only used for certain extended periods of the spring and summer. The irony is that in some of these villages the local facilities like pubs, which originally drew people to them, are now shutting down because they can't survive without local trade through the winter months and can't get the staff for the summer months. According to Cornwall County some of the towns in the county now have over 40% second homes.
As a Cornishman I find that last statement quite hard to believe
Over 40%?! Entire towns?
St Ives maybe, but even that I doubt. St Mawes maybe, Rock, but again I’d doubt 40%
I am happy to be schooled by an actual citation
Classic bit of something being somewhat exaggerated in the retelling. This article has 40% in one parish. St Ives is at 15%. Towns generally lower than rural parishes.
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.
That makes no logical sense whatsoever.
So if I say I do not want to be in a gym, as I have no intention of using its facilities and I'd rather exercise either at home or outside instead . . . does that mean that I think that nobody else should be using the gym, including those who are interested in weightlifting or other things and use the facilities regularly?
In my view the EU should be reformed to be more democratic, but its perfectly legitimate to either be in a federation or not, so long as its democratic, there's no reason why you either should or should not.
But that's not the same argument. Saying you shouldn't have the gym membership because it's a waste of time and doesn't suit you is not an argument analogous to an argument about sovereignty. I've seen arguments from leavers (including Lord Frost, for instance) which state that we should not be part of the EU even if we were demonstrably poorer as a result because being an independent nation is priceless. But then that raises the exact same question about France, Germany, Spain, and indeed Ukraine as a prospective member. None of these countries think they aren't independent or sovereign.
Undo no legal definition was the UK ever not sovereign when a member of the EU.
We were sovereign enough to leave
If you can only exercise your sovereignty by leaving, then you're not really sovereign until you do.
Not at all.
You don’t need to prove you can take your own life by actually doing it.
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.
That's - astonishing. That must be well over 1% of households. My initial guess is that most of the remaining 460,000 are Air BnBs or something, so just not registered. Can that be right? The only person I know who has a second home Air BnBs it out much more than he's actually there (or did - he's sold it now). I know the odd person who has 'a place in the Lakes' or some such - but without exception this is a caravan or a lodge on a holiday park, and even then they will try to let it out when they aren't in it.
There are towns and villages in Devon and Cornwall which see a massive population drop in winter. They are full of second homes which are only used for certain extended periods of the spring and summer. The irony is that in some of these villages the local facilities like pubs, which originally drew people to them, are now shutting down because they can't survive without local trade through the winter months and can't get the staff for the summer months. According to Cornwall County some of the towns in the county now have over 40% second homes.
Hence some councils are now imposing extra council tax on second home owners
The difficulty heretofore has been in sharing records between councils to establish when people have second homes. But I believe this obstacle is now being overcome?
Greens have been working hard for decades to entrench in Bristol, and they were up against the LDs. I don't think this is particularly a reflection on Starmer.
It's a great result for the Greens though.
And how many places are there where Greens and LibDems could fight it out, capturing 84% of the vote, leaving Labour and Tories to fight for the remaining small minority?
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.
How would you actually do it yourself? Allow the local pro Russian militia to roam free under cover of civilians whilst you in a trench facing Russian lines with your back to them?
Okay not shoot like horrible war crime then - though in heat of war and not PB general emotions obviously different. But exporting them away to a prison camp for a while both humane, and surely absolutely sensible and understandable?
Now you are channeling General Kitchener. That's still a war crime in the modern world.
EDIT: and one that the Russians are committing, fairly openly, in Ukraine.
Still don’t make any sense to me, leaving local pro Russian to roam around you. “civilian till bear arms against you”? But how do you know what the local pro Russia militia up to They could be telling them exactly where you are, that’s as bad as shooting you?
If moving them to a camp is illegal then it’s like abortion - just encourage bumping them off and disposing of bodies instead if legal right to no bus them out way to a faraway camp Till after war.
You speak against me here, you speaking against UK government position doing internment during two world wars? Same thing isn’t it? Same sensible thing I’m flagging up, those Ukraine soldiers in trench in this video with their backs to what - spy’s?
Interning civilians on the grounds of nationality alone would be illegal in the modern world, I believe.
Times change.
For example, I came a cross a diary of a very young midshipman in the Royal Navy years ago - more an exchange of letters between him and his sisters. Mid 19th cent. It ended with his death at the hands of slavers - he was on anti-slavery patrol. The last letter was from the coxswain of the boats crew he commanded, in which he states that because the crew was upset with the killing of their commander, they gave no quarter. They killed everyone. War crime today - back then, that was the convention. Surrender had to be accepted first, and could be denied.
Exactly. We have our Afghan veterans court-martialed because top brass insist on discipline, but they found their mates chopped up and in bits hanging from trees so shot the enemy who did it - can’t expect rule book to 100% to over ride massive emotion in theatre of war can we?
But my point is different, more akin to internment UK done in world wars - for all the chatter of sending equipment, the most valuable asset Ukraine have out there is it’s fighting force? Got to de risk threat to it and treat it as valuable.
The video disappeared from thread. Maybe you see what I mean. The Ukraine men dug a trench to help them, but are surrounded by Pro Russia militia and spies in their territory 🤷♀️
"but they found their mates chopped up and in bits hanging from trees so shot the enemy who did it"
That is the exact claim that Breaker Morrant made, to justify his murdering people.
That is nearly always the effect of modern explosives on people. There is some horrible stuff in poetry from the first world war about advancing through a forest of death, shiny tree...
I have calculated an average for the polls over the past few months.
My methodology is to calculate the average poll for each polling company for each month, and then to average these.
A simple average of the polls in each month would give additional weight to those companies which poll weekly, compared with those with only one poll per month.
This gives the following
Thanks. I think that's a great methodology, with the only weakness being that one has to wait a whole month for an update.
The other hotspot areas, however, are rural coastal parishes. Not towns
Why are you surprised that SteinWorld is a bit touristy?
I know it’s touristy but I reject the ‘ghost town’ description. I’ve been to Padstow in winter several times - for a small town it stays pretty bubbly throughout the year
And Rick Stein has - on the whole - been great for Padstow, however much the locals moan. Tho property prices are an issue, to be sure
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.
Which is effectively theft, taking private property and converting into social/housing association properties, certainly without compensation rather than building new social homes.
Plenty of renters like renting in the private sector anyway, especially if younger in the cities when they like the flexibility. They don't want to or need to be in social or housing association properties either
No, it's the cost of doing business. These are the regulations, if you don't like them then your option is to put your money elsewhere. No doubt lots of people will, but it isn't theft.
Also, do you actually know or speak to anyone under the age of 30? "Plenty of renters like renting in the private sector anyway" suggests you haven't got a grip on reality.
In London and Manchester the vast majority under 30 happily rent in the private sector, they certainly wouldn't want to be in social housing and most won't have a family yet and want to buy either.
Taking a property and confiscating it using retrospective law with no compensation is certainly theft
I have calculated an average for the polls over the past few months.
My methodology is to calculate the average poll for each polling company for each month, and then to average these.
A simple average of the polls in each month would give additional weight to those companies which poll weekly, compared with those with only one poll per month.
This gives the following
Nice work.
Wot? No smiley face for Moon Rabbit.
The first thing that leaps out from this methodology is how little movement there has been month to month. At times during week or fortnight periods it looks like there’s bigger movement going on - so anyone who gets excited by weekly or fortnight movements needs to think about that in my opinion.
The second thing that leaps out is the Tory share going backwards across these three months.
Interesting.
As I have played it so straight YET AGAIN This one’s for you Mex. 😁
I have calculated an average for the polls over the past few months.
My methodology is to calculate the average poll for each polling company for each month, and then to average these.
A simple average of the polls in each month would give additional weight to those companies which poll weekly, compared with those with only one poll per month.
This gives the following
Nice work.
Wot? No smiley face for Moon Rabbit.
Sunak seems to be taking his party down.
Starmer seems to be holding firm.
MoonRabbit is in denial.
From three points of data?
To me, all that you can say is that the situation appears to be quite stable over the period.
Greens have been working hard for decades to entrench in Bristol, and they were up against the LDs. I don't think this is particularly a reflection on Starmer.
It's a great result for the Greens though.
And (like the pundit used to say) a Terrible Night For the Tories. 34 votes, against 537 for the Greens. Yes, it's a funky trendy bit of a funky trendy city, but still a spectacular degree of irrelevance.
I have calculated an average for the polls over the past few months.
My methodology is to calculate the average poll for each polling company for each month, and then to average these.
A simple average of the polls in each month would give additional weight to those companies which poll weekly, compared with those with only one poll per month.
This gives the following
Nice work.
Wot? No smiley face for Moon Rabbit.
The first thing that leaps out from this methodology is how little movement there has been month to month. At times during week or fortnight periods it looks like there’s bigger movement going on - so anyone who gets excited by weekly or fortnight movements needs to think about that in my opinion.
The second thing that leaps out is the Tory share going backwards across these three months.
Interesting.
As I have played it so straight YET AGAIN This one’s for you Mex. 😁
Councils should not be able to reject phone masts yet they do all the time. People come along and say they cause cancer etc.
This power should be removed from them. If you want to build a phone mast then build.
They don’t really have the power to refuse - and certainly not on the grounds that they cause cancer. The exposure to mobile telephony radiation that you get by holding one to the side of your head is way greater than from living hundreds of yards away from a mobile phone mast, in any case, so if this radiation causes cancer, in twenty years time we’re all going to be in a pretty bad way.
I have calculated an average for the polls over the past few months.
My methodology is to calculate the average poll for each polling company for each month, and then to average these.
A simple average of the polls in each month would give additional weight to those companies which poll weekly, compared with those with only one poll per month.
This gives the following
Three months of effectively stable, then - given the margin of error a 0.6% shift C>R and 0.5% L>G is negligible.
I have calculated an average for the polls over the past few months.
My methodology is to calculate the average poll for each polling company for each month, and then to average these.
A simple average of the polls in each month would give additional weight to those companies which poll weekly, compared with those with only one poll per month.
This gives the following
Nice work.
Wot? No smiley face for Moon Rabbit.
Sunak seems to be taking his party down.
Starmer seems to be holding firm.
MoonRabbit is in denial.
Be careful what you wish for. I would caution your enthusiasm for Sunak's pain-ridden travails. What comes next is an emboldened, cleansed of his sins Johnson.
Greens have been working hard for decades to entrench in Bristol, and they were up against the LDs. I don't think this is particularly a reflection on Starmer.
It's a great result for the Greens though.
And how many places are there where Greens and LibDems could fight it out, capturing 84% of the vote, leaving Labour and Tories to fight for the remaining small minority?
They've been canny and devoted resources sensibly in areas that have the right profile - doing the same here in Stockport and South Manchester, picking up solid council seats in places like Reddish and Wythenshawe.
Doing a better job of selecting decent candidates 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.
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.
Which is effectively theft, taking private property and converting into social/housing association properties, certainly without compensation rather than building new social homes.
Plenty of renters like renting in the private sector anyway, especially if younger in the cities when they like the flexibility. They don't want to or need to be in social or housing association properties either
No, it's the cost of doing business. These are the regulations, if you don't like them then your option is to put your money elsewhere. No doubt lots of people will, but it isn't theft.
Also, do you actually know or speak to anyone under the age of 30? "Plenty of renters like renting in the private sector anyway" suggests you haven't got a grip on reality.
In London and Manchester the vast majority under 30 happily rent in the private sector, they certainly wouldn't want to be in social housing and most won't have a family yet and want to buy either.
Taking a property and confiscating it using retrospective law with no compensation is certainly theft
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.
I have shared the EU memo that insists that new water infrastructure is to be a last resort and that people are to be made to use less water instead (despite the population growing) - a disgusting policy that the ideologically-crazed within our Government and civil service have retained.
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.
That's - astonishing. That must be well over 1% of households. My initial guess is that most of the remaining 460,000 are Air BnBs or something, so just not registered. Can that be right? The only person I know who has a second home Air BnBs it out much more than he's actually there (or did - he's sold it now). I know the odd person who has 'a place in the Lakes' or some such - but without exception this is a caravan or a lodge on a holiday park, and even then they will try to let it out when they aren't in it.
There are towns and villages in Devon and Cornwall which see a massive population drop in winter. They are full of second homes which are only used for certain extended periods of the spring and summer. The irony is that in some of these villages the local facilities like pubs, which originally drew people to them, are now shutting down because they can't survive without local trade through the winter months and can't get the staff for the summer months. According to Cornwall County some of the towns in the county now have over 40% second homes.
As a Cornishman I find that last statement quite hard to believe
Over 40%?! Entire towns?
St Ives maybe, but even that I doubt. St Mawes maybe, Rock, but again I’d doubt 40%
I am happy to be schooled by an actual citation
Classic bit of something being somewhat exaggerated in the retelling. This article has 40% in one parish. St Ives is at 15%. Towns generally lower than rural parishes.
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.
Which is effectively theft, taking private property and converting into social/housing association properties, certainly without compensation rather than building new social homes.
Plenty of renters like renting in the private sector anyway, especially if younger in the cities when they like the flexibility. They don't want to or need to be in social or housing association properties either
No, it's the cost of doing business. These are the regulations, if you don't like them then your option is to put your money elsewhere. No doubt lots of people will, but it isn't theft.
Also, do you actually know or speak to anyone under the age of 30? "Plenty of renters like renting in the private sector anyway" suggests you haven't got a grip on reality.
In London and Manchester the vast majority under 30 happily rent in the private sector, they certainly wouldn't want to be in social housing and most won't have a family yet and want to buy either.
Taking a property and confiscating it using retrospective law with no compensation is certainly theft
What are you basing that on?
And who's saying it would be retrospective? From this day this is how the sector operates, any new leases will be subject to this legislation. If people want out then nothing is forcing them to stay in the sector, they are free to sell.
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.
That makes no logical sense whatsoever.
So if I say I do not want to be in a gym, as I have no intention of using its facilities and I'd rather exercise either at home or outside instead . . . does that mean that I think that nobody else should be using the gym, including those who are interested in weightlifting or other things and use the facilities regularly?
In my view the EU should be reformed to be more democratic, but its perfectly legitimate to either be in a federation or not, so long as its democratic, there's no reason why you either should or should not.
But that's not the same argument. Saying you shouldn't have the gym membership because it's a waste of time and doesn't suit you is not an argument analogous to an argument about sovereignty. I've seen arguments from leavers (including Lord Frost, for instance) which state that we should not be part of the EU even if we were demonstrably poorer as a result because being an independent nation is priceless. But then that raises the exact same question about France, Germany, Spain, and indeed Ukraine as a prospective member. None of these countries think they aren't independent or sovereign.
Undo no legal definition was the UK ever not sovereign when a member of the EU.
We were sovereign enough to leave
The logic of that argument could be used to claim that Southern slaves weren't really slaves because they could buy themselves out of slavery. And no, I am not equating membership of the EU with slavery, just pointing out the logic flaw in your argument.
No country is properly sovereign in the way defined by some Brexit supporters, because all accept some limits on their independent action with membership of international bodies like the WTO, or the ICAO, etc.
So in all cases, whether a member of the EU or not, we are dealing with degrees of sovereignty, rather than absolutes of being sovereign or not, though of course we would seek to find a dividing line between the category of a sovereign independent country and a non-sovereign member of a Federation.
In the case of EU membership, Britain was able to go to war in Iraq in 2003, despite substantial opposition across most of the EU. I think that the ability to go to war is one of the main ones I would use to define whether a country is sovereign and independent.
If you were to define the dividing line on complete freedom to determine taxation, say, which we certainly didn't have as a member of the EU, then the UK is still not a sovereign country, because of our obligation not to tax aviation fuel. So that definition wouldn't be very useful.
Not a valid comparison.
Which of the EU, ICAO, WTO etc have a Parliament of their own that can organically create vast swathes of its own laws without agreement of the UK Parliament? Similarly which of those levy and create their own taxes?
Those are interesting bases for a discussion over what constitutes the dividing line between sovereign and non-sovereign, but I don't think they're a clincher, since there's no particular reason why the existence of a Parliament defines sovereignty, but being able to wage war does not.
In the case of the EU Parliament I would argue that Westminster had selectively delegated authority to the European Parliament, in a similar way that it had delegated authority to the Holyrood Parliament, and so Westminster remained sovereign in both cases.
Ultimately the EU budget was agreed by the EU Council, on which the British representative was required to have the confidence of the House of Commons.
Arguments on sovereignty would be stronger if they accepted that it exists on a sliding scale, rather than tried to pretend that EU member states are not sovereign as a categorical statement.
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.
I have shared the EU memo that insists that new water infrastructure is to be a last resort and that people are to be made to use less water instead (despite the population growing) - a disgusting policy that the ideologically-crazed within our Government and civil service have retained.
Attack the policy as racist. Since it means less water for newer communities which are more mixed in ethnicity, it is provable that this mean less water for people from ethnic minorities.
Councils should not be able to reject phone masts yet they do all the time. People come along and say they cause cancer etc.
This power should be removed from them. If you want to build a phone mast then build.
They don’t really have the power to refuse - and certainly not on the grounds that they cause cancer. The exposure to mobile telephony radiation that you get by holding one to the side of your head is way greater than from living hundreds of yards away from a mobile phone mast, in any case, so if this radiation causes cancer, in twenty years time we’re all going to be in a pretty bad way.
See the comments that go on any planning application. They always say it's due to health concerns.
Another Clifford Gardens resident said: "The creation of a "no man's land" with additional cabinets is highly likely to create hiding places for people to loiter unseen, and opportunities for crime, especially given their proposed positioning. This location already encourages fly-tipping, which is frequently reported to the council.”
However, Brent Council disagreed and rejected the plan. In the decision notice, the planning officer said: “[The] height, bulk, appearance and siting would be overly prominent and visually intrusive within the street scene adding additional clutter to a prominent location. This would cause unacceptable harm to the visual amenity of the area.”
It's in a city and it's Brent for goodness sake, visual amenity? There isn't any.
It is utterly insane they can reject masts for this reason. Looks are irrelevant.
Comments
Ray: Don't know any Belgium jokes, and if I did I think I'd have the good sense not to... hang on. Is Belgium with all those child abuse murders lately? I do know a Belgium joke. What's Belgium famous for? Chocolates and child abuse, and they only invented the chocolates to get to the kids.
Sorry Mr Bristols if you are lurking, but I can only be honest 😌
I actually love Belgium because it was created to annoy the French.
Plus, any Hitchhiker's fan will tell you what the rudest word in the universe is.
My initial guess is that most of the remaining 460,000 are Air BnBs or something, so just not registered. Can that be right?
The only person I know who has a second home Air BnBs it out much more than he's actually there (or did - he's sold it now).
I know the odd person who has 'a place in the Lakes' or some such - but without exception this is a caravan or a lodge on a holiday park, and even then they will try to let it out when they aren't in it.
If the Russians were in Manchester, shelling Liverpool, we might have a different take. They aren't. So we don't.
Plenty of renters like renting in the private sector anyway, especially if younger in the cities when they like the flexibility. They don't want to or need to be in social or housing association properties either
Chloë: There's never been a classic movie made in Bruges until now.
Ray: Of course there hasn't. It's a shithole.
Chloë: Bruges is my home town, Ray.
Ray: Well, it's still a shithole.
Chloë: It's not a shithole!
Ray: What? Even midgets have to take drugs to stick it.
So if I say I do not want to be in a gym, as I have no intention of using its facilities and I'd rather exercise either at home or outside instead . . . does that mean that I think that nobody else should be using the gym, including those who are interested in weightlifting or other things and use the facilities regularly?
In my view the EU should be reformed to be more democratic, but its perfectly legitimate to either be in a federation or not, so long as its democratic, there's no reason why you either should or should not.
But if they were shelling Slough, who would be liable for the CGT on the improvements?
You can believe in being independent and sovereign as a European, with a European nation, or as a Brit with a British nation, or a Scot with a Scottish nation.
How important you place independence and what you want to be independent, are two completely different questions.
I have more respect for people like Guy Verhofstadt who openly desire and seek a sovereign Europe, than those who pretend that sovereignty doesn't matter.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/CoF2ICsPUeR/
This is why civil wars aren't.
Inflation forecasts don’t look too bad.
It takes a long, long time to dry out the Northwest of England.
Okay not shoot like horrible war crime then - though in heat of war and not PB general emotions obviously different. But exporting them away to a prison camp for a while both humane, and surely absolutely sensible and understandable?
EDIT: and one that the Russians are committing, fairly openly, in Ukraine.
EDIT: in the first Gulf war, the Challenger 1s hammered the fuck out of the T-72s they encountered. Which is about what they would be fighting in Ukraine.
There's a hard limit on what they can pump out and in any case they have to dilute it to get the nitrate content below legal limits.
Even the Pennine reservoirs got very very low. We really aren't far from the maximum that could be consumed without running into problems every summer.
Do we need a national grid? I fear the big benefit from that would go to London, though.
Beijing confirms the surveillance balloon over Montana is Chinese.
China's Foreign Ministry: "the airship is from China....used for research...the airship deviated far from its planned course. The Chinese side regrets the unintended entry of the airship into US airspace"
https://twitter.com/IvanCNN/status/1621505908705755139
campaigned against Queer Theory
https://anglican.ink/2023/02/01/bishop-of-coventry-reports-member-of-general-synod-to-the-police-for-the-hate-crime-of-promoting-biblical-sexual-teachings/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/11/18/tourist-hotspots-set-double-council-tax-second-home-owners/
There is nothing wrong with having a sovereign Europe if that's what you want. What is wrong is throwing away British sovereignty without democracy or desire for European sovereignty.
We were sovereign enough to leave
If moving them to a camp is illegal then it’s like abortion - just encourage bumping them off and disposing of bodies instead if legal right to no bus them out way to a faraway camp Till after war.
You speak against me here, you speaking against UK government position doing internment during two world wars? Same thing isn’t it? Same sensible thing I’m flagging up, those Ukraine soldiers in trench in this video with their backs to what - spy’s?
One of my favourite holidays was a week in North Devon in late November with my then girlfriend (now wife). Young and starry eyed, we were, with seemingly the whole county to ourselves - wide, empty beaches; secluded country pubs down narrow lanes, windswept clifftops... Cold, but just as beautiful, and a storm you're hunkering indoors from in November is much more fun than a storm that's stopping you get to the beach in August. *drifts off into reverie...I may be some time...*
Also not equating membership of the EU with domestic abuse, just pointing out the logic flaw.
Response to communique - thank you dear friends for owning up to ownership and explaining its malfunction. Off course probably explains why it collided with our UAV in test flight. Would you like what’s left of it back?
Great leadership, there.
Sunak may well be thinking OMFC, how long have I got to do this job?
It's a great result for the Greens though.
Times change.
For example, I came a cross a diary of a very young midshipman in the Royal Navy years ago - more an exchange of letters between him and his sisters. Mid 19th cent. It ended with his death at the hands of slavers - he was on anti-slavery patrol. The last letter was from the coxswain of the boats crew he commanded, in which he states that because the crew was upset with the killing of their commander, they gave no quarter. They killed everyone. War crime today - back then, that was the convention. Surrender had to be accepted first, and could be denied.
Also, do you actually know or speak to anyone under the age of 30? "Plenty of renters like renting in the private sector anyway" suggests you haven't got a grip on reality.
Zoning can ensure that sites of natural or historic value are not destroyed, without giving NIMBY voters a say in what other people do with their own land in areas that don't meet that criteria.
Standards similarly can be set by building standards outside of the planning system.
So in all cases, whether a member of the EU or not, we are dealing with degrees of sovereignty, rather than absolutes of being sovereign or not, though of course we would seek to find a dividing line between the category of a sovereign independent country and a non-sovereign member of a Federation.
In the case of EU membership, Britain was able to go to war in Iraq in 2003, despite substantial opposition across most of the EU. I think that the ability to go to war is one of the main ones I would use to define whether a country is sovereign and independent.
If you were to define the dividing line on complete freedom to determine taxation, say, which we certainly didn't have as a member of the EU, then the UK is still not a sovereign country, because of our obligation not to tax aviation fuel. So that definition wouldn't be very useful.
Over 40%?! Entire towns?
St Ives maybe, but even that I doubt. St Mawes maybe, Rock, but again I’d doubt 40%
I am happy to be schooled by an actual citation
My methodology is to calculate the average poll for each polling company for each month, and then to average these.
A simple average of the polls in each month would give additional weight to those companies which poll weekly, compared with those with only one poll per month.
This gives the following
"13,292 properties in Cornwall are classed as second homes, according to new research by Action on Empty Homes."
https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/cornwalls-number-second-homes-empty-7842205
Which of the EU, ICAO, WTO etc have a Parliament of their own that can organically create vast swathes of its own laws without agreement of the UK Parliament? Similarly which of those levy and create their own taxes?
I confess a little surprise
https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/heatmap-shows-cornwall-areas-most-6216562
The other hotspot areas, however, are rural coastal parishes. Not towns
Short version: some small places have become holiday towns.
Wot? No smiley face for Moon Rabbit.
https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/places-cornwall-up-40-properties-7046746.amp
But my point is different, more akin to internment UK done in world wars - for all the chatter of sending equipment, the most valuable asset Ukraine have out there is it’s fighting force? Got to de risk threat to it and treat it as valuable.
The video disappeared from thread. Maybe you see what I mean. The Ukraine men dug a trench to help them, but are surrounded by Pro Russia militia and spies in their territory 🤷♀️
https://www.france24.com/en/tv-shows/reporters/20230111-bakhmut-inside-the-frontline-city
Councils should not be able to reject phone masts yet they do all the time. People come along and say they cause cancer etc.
This power should be removed from them. If you want to build a phone mast then build.
Some villages do go entirely dormant. But then that’s village life for you
Starmer seems to be holding firm.
MoonRabbit is in denial.
https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/heatmap-shows-cornwall-areas-most-6216562.amp
You don’t need to prove you can take your own life by actually doing it.
As I posted the other day, my parents will be voting Lib Dem for the first time ever. The Blue Wall is fed up and wants a change.
That is the exact claim that Breaker Morrant made, to justify his murdering people.
That is nearly always the effect of modern explosives on people. There is some horrible stuff in poetry from the first world war about advancing through a forest of death, shiny tree...
And Rick Stein has - on the whole - been great for Padstow, however much the locals moan. Tho property prices are an issue, to be sure
Taking a property and confiscating it using retrospective law with no compensation is certainly theft
The second thing that leaps out is the Tory share going backwards across these three months.
Interesting.
As I have played it so straight YET AGAIN This one’s for you Mex. 😁
To me, all that you can say is that the situation appears to be quite stable over the period.
Doing a better job of selecting decent candidates too.
You need to get out more.
And who's saying it would be retrospective? From this day this is how the sector operates, any new leases will be subject to this legislation. If people want out then nothing is forcing them to stay in the sector, they are free to sell.
In the case of the EU Parliament I would argue that Westminster had selectively delegated authority to the European Parliament, in a similar way that it had delegated authority to the Holyrood Parliament, and so Westminster remained sovereign in both cases.
Ultimately the EU budget was agreed by the EU Council, on which the British representative was required to have the confidence of the House of Commons.
Arguments on sovereignty would be stronger if they accepted that it exists on a sliding scale, rather than tried to pretend that EU member states are not sovereign as a categorical statement.
Here's an example:
https://www.mylondon.news/news/north-london-news/5g-mast-next-london-school-26081147
Another Clifford Gardens resident said: "The creation of a "no man's land" with additional cabinets is highly likely to create hiding places for people to loiter unseen, and opportunities for crime, especially given their proposed positioning. This location already encourages fly-tipping, which is frequently reported to the council.”
However, Brent Council disagreed and rejected the plan. In the decision notice, the planning officer said: “[The] height, bulk, appearance and siting would be overly prominent and visually intrusive within the street scene adding additional clutter to a prominent location. This would cause unacceptable harm to the visual amenity of the area.”
It's in a city and it's Brent for goodness sake, visual amenity? There isn't any.
It is utterly insane they can reject masts for this reason. Looks are irrelevant.