The front pages the morning after – politicalbetting.com

System

The front pages the morning after – politicalbetting.com

Given that the general election has to take place before January 2025 what happened yesterday could have a big impact on the overall result. The chancellor has made some very big decisions the question is whether he will be proved right.

Read the full story here

DecrepiterJohnL

Jacob Rees-Mogg claims Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng have been vindicated, so there's that.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/15/liz-truss-kwasi-kwarteng-have-vindicated/ (£££)

DecrepiterJohnL

And where's the Cheltenham day three header?

BartholomewRoberts

The i and the Times sum it up well.

One of the best things the Tories have done over the past 13 years with George Osborne onwards was raising tax thresholds to make work pay.

Under Sunak and Hunt that progress is being reversed, taxes are rising and they're fiddling at the edges while taking tax and spend to record levels.

If this is meant to fuel aspiration or be a Conservative budget, its no Conservativism I recognise or would vote for.

DecrepiterJohnL

Alastair Campbell and Rory Stewart continue their discussion of the Iraq War, 20 years since, on The Rest is Politics.

Iraq: The Legacy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Nqn1K0-ZpY

Yesterday's episode was: The Iraq War
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7xQ8PnybcM

Other podcast platforms are available.

rcs1000

Here's what Sam Bankman-FriedHisCompany paid himself/withdrew from FTX/Almeda:



A mere $2.2bn.

Sandpit

Not the headlines that the Chancellor was expecting.

Meanwhile, one senior Tory MP agrees with my brief analysis from yesterday:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/15/liz-truss-kwasi-kwarteng-have-vindicated/

Sandpit

rcs1000 said:

Here's what Sam Bankman-FriedHisCompany paid himself/withdrew from FTX/Almeda:



A mere $2.2bn.

Well, if anyone who’s lost money in Crypto wants to know where it ended up, now you have the answer.

Coinbase and Binance also both in the news, stuggling to find banking services in many countries.

Sandpit

Brent Crude down to $74, from $83 only three days ago. A record low since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. If that holds, it will help a lot with inflation.

DougSeal

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Jacob Rees-Mogg claims Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng have been vindicated, so there's that.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/15/liz-truss-kwasi-kwarteng-have-vindicated/ (£££)

Told you she was on her way back. Next PM. Nailed on.

DougSeal

BartholomewRoberts said:

The i and the Times sum it up well.

One of the best things the Tories have done over the past 13 years with George Osborne onwards was raising tax thresholds to make work pay.

Under Sunak and Hunt that progress is being reversed, taxes are rising and they're fiddling at the edges while taking tax and spend to record levels.

If this is meant to fuel aspiration or be a Conservative budget, its no Conservativism I recognise or would vote for.

Hate to be all HYUFD about this but you’ve nailed the problem with the Conservative Party. You’re a classical liberal/libertarian. That is an agenda that does not sit easily with a cultural, social, and political philosophy that seeks to promote and to preserve traditional institutions, practices, and values. They do not sit well together.

sbjme19

We seem to have had much more of Mogg on the media since the budget, rather than faceless cabinet ministers. And if you miss him, there's the egregious Simon Clarke to fill in. Are this mob planning a coup if the local election results are really bad?

noneoftheabove

BartholomewRoberts said:

The i and the Times sum it up well.

One of the best things the Tories have done over the past 13 years with George Osborne onwards was raising tax thresholds to make work pay.

Under Sunak and Hunt that progress is being reversed, taxes are rising and they're fiddling at the edges while taking tax and spend to record levels.

If this is meant to fuel aspiration or be a Conservative budget, its no Conservativism I recognise or would vote for.

Seeing as he gets the blame for some really random crap on here, only fair to point out that was a Clegg LD policy, subsequently adopted by the coalition. A good one, I concur.

noneoftheabove

The budget seems to create a massive IHT loophole where the wealthy can pass down unlimited pension wrapped assets down the generations, where even the income never gets taxed?

Or am I missing something?

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

F1: Leclerc's already onto his third electronics set. You're meant to have two for the whole season so he has a minimum of a 10 place grid penalty in Saudi Arabia.

darkage

noneoftheabove said:

The budget seems to create a massive IHT loophole where the wealthy can pass down unlimited pension wrapped assets down the generations, where even the income never gets taxed?

Or am I missing something?

It is deferred taxation. If you die after age 75 then any withdrawals made by beneficiaries from the pension fund will be taxed as income. So it gets taxed eventually, and obviously these rules are subject to change over time.

noneoftheabove

darkage said:

noneoftheabove said:

The budget seems to create a massive IHT loophole where the wealthy can pass down unlimited pension wrapped assets down the generations, where even the income never gets taxed?

Or am I missing something?

It is deferred taxation. If you die after age 75 then any withdrawals made by beneficiaries from the pension fund will be taxed as income. So it gets taxed eventually, and obviously these rules are subject to change over time.

Yes but if you are in a very wealthy family and don't need the income you can pass down many millions from generation to generation without the money ever being taxed, and on top enjoy the investment gains from the money that would have gone as tax receipts from the vast majority of the population.

It is hugely unfair.

pigeon

noneoftheabove said:

The budget seems to create a massive IHT loophole where the wealthy can pass down unlimited pension wrapped assets down the generations, where even the income never gets taxed?

Or am I missing something?

I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised.

The Conservative Party exists to further the interest of two groups: it's extremely rich friends, from whom it derives its funding; and minted elderly people, in outright possession of expensive houses and with more disposable income than most workers, and their expectant heirs, whom together account for the bulk of the party membership and the core vote.

These are the people who are indulged; the rest of us get half-arsed measures like the childcare reforms (badly underfunded, will take years to bring in, done to make it look as if they care when they don't,) and a shit sandwich (fiscal drag to extract the money to pay for massive tax breaks for the wealthy, and endless inflation-busting hikes in pensions - all paid for out of the ever-diminishing wages of low and middle income workers, rather than from the immense asset wealth of their supporters, which must never be touched.)

This entire Government and the Tory Party itself are both little more than vehicles for a process of managed national decline, in which a shrinking pool of wealth is steadily transferred upwards from the young and the struggling to the old and the rich. It's all they really care about and it's all they're any good at doing.

IanB2

DougSeal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

The i and the Times sum it up well.

One of the best things the Tories have done over the past 13 years with George Osborne onwards was raising tax thresholds to make work pay.

Under Sunak and Hunt that progress is being reversed, taxes are rising and they're fiddling at the edges while taking tax and spend to record levels.

If this is meant to fuel aspiration or be a Conservative budget, its no Conservativism I recognise or would vote for.

Hate to be all HYUFD about this but you’ve nailed the problem with the Conservative Party. You’re a classical liberal/libertarian. That is an agenda that does not sit easily with a cultural, social, and political philosophy that seeks to promote and to preserve traditional institutions, practices, and values. They do not sit well together.

That must be why the government isn’t doing either of them?

TheScreamingEagles

Credit Suisse will borrow up to 50 billion Swiss francs (£44.5 billion) from the country’s central bank in a bid to quell anxiety over its financial health.

The Zurich-based lender said it was taking “decisive action to pre-emptively strengthen liquidity” in a statement issued in the early this morning.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/credit-suisse-borrows-44-5bn-from-central-bank-to-stem-crisis-vwkn2hqf3

Foxy

noneoftheabove said:

The budget seems to create a massive IHT loophole where the wealthy can pass down unlimited pension wrapped assets down the generations, where even the income never gets taxed?

Or am I missing something?

Uncrystalised pension pots can only be inherited if you die before your 75th anniversary, I understood.

Theuniondivvie

Communiqué from the meat grinder. Both sides using 100+ year old (design anyway) machine guns.

https://twitter.com/ProducerKathy/status/1636253909961396224?s=20

Jonathan

TheScreamingEagles said:

Credit Suisse will borrow up to 50 billion Swiss francs (£44.5 billion) from the country’s central bank in a bid to quell anxiety over its financial health.

The Zurich-based lender said it was taking “decisive action to pre-emptively strengthen liquidity” in a statement issued in the early this morning.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/credit-suisse-borrows-44-5bn-from-central-bank-to-stem-crisis-vwkn2hqf3

Is it worth everyone starting a small merchant bank? Pay yourself millions for ten years, lend others billions and then when you go bankrupt get the state to bail you out. Start all over again.

occasionalranter

Foxy said:

noneoftheabove said:

The budget seems to create a massive IHT loophole where the wealthy can pass down unlimited pension wrapped assets down the generations, where even the income never gets taxed?

Or am I missing something?

Uncrystalised pension pots can only be inherited if you die before your 75th anniversary, I understood.

They cease to be "uncrystallised" at 75, but can still be inherited on death after that age as undrawn "drawdown funds", still free of IHT and still rolling up free of taxes, just taxed on the way out.

TheScreamingEagles

Take a bow.

The UK has been ranked among the worst nations in western Europe in which to participate in a peaceful protest, according to a report that warns of a “rapid decline in civic freedoms”.

Civicus, a global alliance of civil society groups, assessed the extent to which civil liberties were deemed at risk in almost 200 countries, placing them into five categories: open, narrowed, obstructed, repressed or closed.

For the first time the report has downgraded the UK to “obstructed”, making it one of the few democracies in the same tier as El Salvador, Guinea-Bissau, Timor-Leste and Liberia.

Citizens in most other western European nations were deemed to have better protected rights to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression than in the UK, which was described as a “country of concern”.

The People Power Under Attack 2022 report says that the downgrading is the result of changes to legislation under recent Conservative governments. In particular, it highlights the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act, which came into effect in April last year. The legislation gave police new powers to restrict public assemblies, such as imposing start and finish times.

The report’s authors also expressed concern over the Public Order Bill, which is going through parliament and proposes giving police power to shut down protests if it is thought they will lead to widespread disruption.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/uk-downgraded-report-civic-freedoms-protest-block-2023-mj7c20khf

Taz

BartholomewRoberts said:

The i and the Times sum it up well.

One of the best things the Tories have done over the past 13 years with George Osborne onwards was raising tax thresholds to make work pay.

Under Sunak and Hunt that progress is being reversed, taxes are rising and they're fiddling at the edges while taking tax and spend to record levels.

If this is meant to fuel aspiration or be a Conservative budget, its no Conservativism I recognise or would vote for.

It’s. It all bad news on the tax front. The very wealthiest will be getting an 8K tax cut thanks to the raise of the annual allowance.

Nothing at all for the majority of working britains.

I don’t vote Tory. I’m glad I don’t. Fuck them. They have made our lives immeasurably poorer and when they had a chance to do something they reward the wealthiest.

Foxy

occasionalranter said:

Foxy said:

noneoftheabove said:

The budget seems to create a massive IHT loophole where the wealthy can pass down unlimited pension wrapped assets down the generations, where even the income never gets taxed?

Or am I missing something?

Uncrystalised pension pots can only be inherited if you die before your 75th anniversary, I understood.

They cease to be "uncrystallised" at 75, but can still be inherited on death after that age as undrawn "drawdown funds", still free of IHT and still rolling up free of taxes, just taxed on the way out.

So taxed as income whenever it is taken? Doesn't sound much of a tax dodge if you only dodge the tax by paying nothing out.

occasionalranter

Foxy said:

occasionalranter said:

Foxy said:

noneoftheabove said:

The budget seems to create a massive IHT loophole where the wealthy can pass down unlimited pension wrapped assets down the generations, where even the income never gets taxed?

Or am I missing something?

Uncrystalised pension pots can only be inherited if you die before your 75th anniversary, I understood.

They cease to be "uncrystallised" at 75, but can still be inherited on death after that age as undrawn "drawdown funds", still free of IHT and still rolling up free of taxes, just taxed on the way out.

So taxed as income whenever it is taken? Doesn't sound much of a tax dodge if you only dodge the tax by paying nothing out.

Well, you still permanently dodge IHT. You may also reduce/avoid income tax depending on the tax residency of the recipient at the point the money eventually comes out...

Basically, with the right drafting, you can turn a rich dead member's pension arrangement into a very efficient form of private discretionary family trust.

I don't think it will last much longer. No-one in the industry thinks it is justifiable.

Also, plenty of us in the industry have long argued for the abolition of the LTA. But this year ? Against this background of so little being done for younger less generously pensioned workers ? No way.

Foxy

Taz said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

The i and the Times sum it up well.

One of the best things the Tories have done over the past 13 years with George Osborne onwards was raising tax thresholds to make work pay.

Under Sunak and Hunt that progress is being reversed, taxes are rising and they're fiddling at the edges while taking tax and spend to record levels.

If this is meant to fuel aspiration or be a Conservative budget, its no Conservativism I recognise or would vote for.

It’s. It all bad news on the tax front. The very wealthiest will be getting an 8K tax cut thanks to the raise of the annual allowance.

Nothing at all for the majority of working britains.

I don’t vote Tory. I’m glad I don’t. Fuck them. They have made our lives immeasurably poorer and when they had a chance to do something they reward the wealthiest.

The problem with pension taxation is that it is tax paid on money that you cannot access. This will be really quite good for some of my colleagues, who have been clobbered by tax bills these last few years, and had to reduce hours etc.

I don't think it makes much difference to me, as I was planning to "Retire and Return" next year anyway, having a pension pot just below the old limit. The only difference is that I may now rejoin the pension scheme after restarting work.

ClippP

Taz said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

The i and the Times sum it up well.

One of the best things the Tories have done over the past 13 years with George Osborne onwards was raising tax thresholds to make work pay.

Under Sunak and Hunt that progress is being reversed, taxes are rising and they're fiddling at the edges while taking tax and spend to record levels.

If this is meant to fuel aspiration or be a Conservative budget, its no Conservativism I recognise or would vote for.

It’s. It all bad news on the tax front. The very wealthiest will be getting an 8K tax cut thanks to the raise of the annual allowance.

Nothing at all for the majority of working britains.

I don’t vote Tory. I’m glad I don’t. Fuck them. They have made our lives immeasurably poorer and when they had a chance to do something they reward the wealthiest.

That is what the Conservative Party is for, Mr Taz. You should not be surprised.

Foxy

occasionalranter said:

Foxy said:

occasionalranter said:

Foxy said:

noneoftheabove said:

The budget seems to create a massive IHT loophole where the wealthy can pass down unlimited pension wrapped assets down the generations, where even the income never gets taxed?

Or am I missing something?

Uncrystalised pension pots can only be inherited if you die before your 75th anniversary, I understood.

They cease to be "uncrystallised" at 75, but can still be inherited on death after that age as undrawn "drawdown funds", still free of IHT and still rolling up free of taxes, just taxed on the way out.

So taxed as income whenever it is taken? Doesn't sound much of a tax dodge if you only dodge the tax by paying nothing out.

Well, you still permanently dodge IHT. You may also reduce/avoid income tax depending on the tax residency of the recipient at the point the money eventually comes out...

Basically, with the right drafting, you can turn a rich dead member's pension arrangement into a very efficient form of private discretionary family trust.

I don't think it will last much longer. No-one in the industry thinks it is justifiable.

Also, plenty of us in the industry have long argued for the abolition of the LTA. But this year ? Against this background of so little being done for younger less generously pensioned workers ? No way.

I see what you mean on the IHT aspect.

So, If I were to have £1 000 000 in a SIPP, crystallise it to take 25% as a tax free lump sum, then let the other 75% stay as drawdown funds, but not touch them, then that £750 000 fund could be inherited by a heirs without IHT.

Nigelb

BartholomewRoberts said:

The i and the Times sum it up well.

One of the best things the Tories have done over the past 13 years with George Osborne onwards was raising tax thresholds to make work pay.

Under Sunak and Hunt that progress is being reversed, taxes are rising and they're fiddling at the edges while taking tax and spend to record levels.

If this is meant to fuel aspiration or be a Conservative budget, its no Conservativism I recognise or would vote for.

Fiscal drag equates to a bit over a £29 billion tax rise this year.
Those better off will be working parents who require childcare, and the very wealthy who can take advantage of the pension bung.
The rest of us are paying.

No_Offence_Alan

Nigelb said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

The i and the Times sum it up well.

One of the best things the Tories have done over the past 13 years with George Osborne onwards was raising tax thresholds to make work pay.

Under Sunak and Hunt that progress is being reversed, taxes are rising and they're fiddling at the edges while taking tax and spend to record levels.

If this is meant to fuel aspiration or be a Conservative budget, its no Conservativism I recognise or would vote for.

Fiscal drag equates to a bit over a £29 billion tax rise this year.
Those better off will be working parents who require childcare, and the very wealthy who can take advantage of the pension bung.
The rest of us are paying.

Only if the "rest of us" have had a pay rise.

Foxy

Nigelb said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

The i and the Times sum it up well.

One of the best things the Tories have done over the past 13 years with George Osborne onwards was raising tax thresholds to make work pay.

Under Sunak and Hunt that progress is being reversed, taxes are rising and they're fiddling at the edges while taking tax and spend to record levels.

If this is meant to fuel aspiration or be a Conservative budget, its no Conservativism I recognise or would vote for.

Fiscal drag equates to a bit over a £29 billion tax rise this year.
Those better off will be working parents who require childcare, and the very wealthy who can take advantage of the pension bung.
The rest of us are paying.

The fixing of thresholds was set for 5 years by Sunak in one of his budget, meaning fiscal drag. Rather more inflation than I think he expected, but very much his plan. Hunt hasn't changed it.

Peter_the_Punter

DecrepiterJohnL said:

And where's the Cheltenham day three header?

The racing correspondents have been sacked?

Fishing

rcs1000 said:

Here's what Sam Bankman-FriedHisCompany paid himself/withdrew from FTX/Almeda:



A mere $2.2bn.

Crypto has two uses: for money laundering and outright gambling. As such, SBF was a perfect symbol.

The only mystery is how he got away with it for so long.

No_Offence_Alan

DecrepiterJohnL said:

And where's the Cheltenham day three header?

Our tipsters are away trying to borrow shirts, to make up for the ones they have lost?

Nigelb

.

Foxy said:

Nigelb said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

The i and the Times sum it up well.

One of the best things the Tories have done over the past 13 years with George Osborne onwards was raising tax thresholds to make work pay.

Under Sunak and Hunt that progress is being reversed, taxes are rising and they're fiddling at the edges while taking tax and spend to record levels.

If this is meant to fuel aspiration or be a Conservative budget, its no Conservativism I recognise or would vote for.

Fiscal drag equates to a bit over a £29 billion tax rise this year.
Those better off will be working parents who require childcare, and the very wealthy who can take advantage of the pension bung.
The rest of us are paying.

The fixing of thresholds was set for 5 years by Sunak in one of his budget, meaning fiscal drag. Rather more inflation than I think he expected, but very much his plan. Hunt hasn't changed it.

We still have to pay.

The point of fiscal drag is that the Chancellor raises taxes by doing nothing, and mostly escapes blame.
Hunt is as aware of that as you are - and expects the credit for his bungs, without the responsibility for the - unremarked in his budget speech - very large tax rise.

It needs pointing out, repeatedly.

DavidL

TheScreamingEagles said:

Credit Suisse will borrow up to 50 billion Swiss francs (£44.5 billion) from the country’s central bank in a bid to quell anxiety over its financial health.

The Zurich-based lender said it was taking “decisive action to pre-emptively strengthen liquidity” in a statement issued in the early this morning.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/credit-suisse-borrows-44-5bn-from-central-bank-to-stem-crisis-vwkn2hqf3

Sounds remarkably similar to what RBS did in 2008. The contrast between the quiet, seamless takeover of SVB UK by HSBC and the chaos on the continent is marked, although the FTSE is taking collateral damage. It is a bit of a triumph for the BoE, so far at least.

darkage

occasionalranter said:

Foxy said:

occasionalranter said:

Foxy said:

noneoftheabove said:

The budget seems to create a massive IHT loophole where the wealthy can pass down unlimited pension wrapped assets down the generations, where even the income never gets taxed?

Or am I missing something?

Uncrystalised pension pots can only be inherited if you die before your 75th anniversary, I understood.

They cease to be "uncrystallised" at 75, but can still be inherited on death after that age as undrawn "drawdown funds", still free of IHT and still rolling up free of taxes, just taxed on the way out.

So taxed as income whenever it is taken? Doesn't sound much of a tax dodge if you only dodge the tax by paying nothing out.

Well, you still permanently dodge IHT. You may also reduce/avoid income tax depending on the tax residency of the recipient at the point the money eventually comes out...

Basically, with the right drafting, you can turn a rich dead member's pension arrangement into a very efficient form of private discretionary family trust.

I don't think it will last much longer. No-one in the industry thinks it is justifiable.

Also, plenty of us in the industry have long argued for the abolition of the LTA. But this year ? Against this background of so little being done for younger less generously pensioned workers ? No way.

My own assessment of this situation is that it would be unwise to assume it will be a long term state of affairs; obviously politics eventually intervenes.

After getting annoyed for a long time at the injustice of the tax system, particularly the inequalities associated with National Insurance; my conclusion was that I will not go down the intellectual rabbit hole of trying to pay the least amount of tax possible, I will just pay a decent amount of tax, see it as my civic duty, and focus my energy and time on other things.

Nigelb

Peter_the_Punter said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

And where's the Cheltenham day three header?

The racing correspondents have been sacked?

Sleeping off celebrating their winnings ?

OnlyLivingBoy

pigeon said:

noneoftheabove said:

The budget seems to create a massive IHT loophole where the wealthy can pass down unlimited pension wrapped assets down the generations, where even the income never gets taxed?

Or am I missing something?

I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised.

The Conservative Party exists to further the interest of two groups: it's extremely rich friends, from whom it derives its funding; and minted elderly people, in outright possession of expensive houses and with more disposable income than most workers, and their expectant heirs, whom together account for the bulk of the party membership and the core vote.

These are the people who are indulged; the rest of us get half-arsed measures like the childcare reforms (badly underfunded, will take years to bring in, done to make it look as if they care when they don't,) and a shit sandwich (fiscal drag to extract the money to pay for massive tax breaks for the wealthy, and endless inflation-busting hikes in pensions - all paid for out of the ever-diminishing wages of low and middle income workers, rather than from the immense asset wealth of their supporters, which must never be touched.)

This entire Government and the Tory Party itself are both little more than vehicles for a process of managed national decline, in which a shrinking pool of wealth is steadily transferred upwards from the young and the struggling to the old and the rich. It's all they really care about and it's all they're any good at doing.

We might as well all stop commenting now - this post says everything that needs to be said.

Nigelb

No_Offence_Alan said:

Nigelb said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

The i and the Times sum it up well.

One of the best things the Tories have done over the past 13 years with George Osborne onwards was raising tax thresholds to make work pay.

Under Sunak and Hunt that progress is being reversed, taxes are rising and they're fiddling at the edges while taking tax and spend to record levels.

If this is meant to fuel aspiration or be a Conservative budget, its no Conservativism I recognise or would vote for.

Fiscal drag equates to a bit over a £29 billion tax rise this year.
Those better off will be working parents who require childcare, and the very wealthy who can take advantage of the pension bung.
The rest of us are paying.

Only if the "rest of us" have had a pay rise.

That's true, of course.
Bur those unfortunates (including me this year, FWIW) are in the minority.

Fishing

pigeon said:

noneoftheabove said:

The budget seems to create a massive IHT loophole where the wealthy can pass down unlimited pension wrapped assets down the generations, where even the income never gets taxed?

Or am I missing something?

I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised.

The Conservative Party exists to further the interest of two groups: it's extremely rich friends, from whom it derives its funding; and minted elderly people, in outright possession of expensive houses and with more disposable income than most workers, and their expectant heirs, whom together account for the bulk of the party membership and the core vote.

These are the people who are indulged; the rest of us get half-arsed measures like the childcare reforms (badly underfunded, will take years to bring in, done to make it look as if they care when they don't,) and a shit sandwich (fiscal drag to extract the money to pay for massive tax breaks for the wealthy, and endless inflation-busting hikes in pensions - all paid for out of the ever-diminishing wages of low and middle income workers, rather than from the immense asset wealth of their supporters, which must never be touched.)

This entire Government and the Tory Party itself are both little more than vehicles for a process of managed national decline, in which a shrinking pool of wealth is steadily transferred upwards from the young and the struggling to the old and the rich. It's all they really care about and it's all they're any good at doing.

Our whole useless political class is a vehicle for managed national decline. Labour are as barren of ideas as to how to stop it as the Conservatives are, and the Lib Dems...

kyf_100

Fishing said:

rcs1000 said:

Here's what Sam Bankman-FriedHisCompany paid himself/withdrew from FTX/Almeda:



A mere $2.2bn.

Crypto has two uses: for money laundering and outright gambling. As such, SBF was a perfect symbol.

The only mystery is how he got away with it for so long.

I cannot possibly imagine a use for full self custody of your assets, in a week where banks are blowing up left, right and centre.

stodge

No_Offence_Alan said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

And where's the Cheltenham day three header?

Our tipsters are away trying to borrow shirts, to make up for the ones they have lost?

And a cheery good morning to you, as well.

My selections for Day 3 as follows:

1.30: APPRECIATE IT
2.50: BLUE LORD (each way)
3.30: GOLD TWEET (each way)

JosiasJessop

Theuniondivvie said:

Communiqué from the meat grinder. Both sides using 100+ year old (design anyway) machine guns.

https://twitter.com/ProducerKathy/status/1636253909961396224?s=20

I would comment on this, but I fear it would set off @TOPPING and @Anabobazina ...

darkage

I think the urge to try and build up 'dynastic' wealth is flawed. There are many other more productive things you can do with your life and leave a legacy on the world through your career etc.

Fishing

kyf_100 said:

Fishing said:

rcs1000 said:

Here's what Sam Bankman-FriedHisCompany paid himself/withdrew from FTX/Almeda:



A mere $2.2bn.

Crypto has two uses: for money laundering and outright gambling. As such, SBF was a perfect symbol.

The only mystery is how he got away with it for so long.

I cannot possibly imagine a use for full self custody of your assets, in a week where banks are blowing up left, right and centre.

... after a year in which cryptocurrencies have crashed left, right and centre.

At least bank deposits are mostly insured.

Nigelb

Interesting.
2023 Cumhurbaşkanlığı Seçim Anketi:

%47 Kılıçdaroğlu
%42 Erdoğan
%3 Diğer
%8 Kararsız (Çoğunluğu HDP’li Seçmen)

— MAK Danışmanlık | 2023 Mart Anketi
https://mobile.twitter.com/haskologlu/status/1636148694289399808

noneoftheabove

Foxy said:

occasionalranter said:

Foxy said:

noneoftheabove said:

The budget seems to create a massive IHT loophole where the wealthy can pass down unlimited pension wrapped assets down the generations, where even the income never gets taxed?

Or am I missing something?

Uncrystalised pension pots can only be inherited if you die before your 75th anniversary, I understood.

They cease to be "uncrystallised" at 75, but can still be inherited on death after that age as undrawn "drawdown funds", still free of IHT and still rolling up free of taxes, just taxed on the way out.

So taxed as income whenever it is taken? Doesn't sound much of a tax dodge if you only dodge the tax by paying nothing out.

£60k earnt next year and invested for 80 years down two or three generations, getting a 4% real annual return.

Taxed now at 45% = £761k (before future income taxes on dividends, capital gains etc, so actually much less)
In Pension wrapper = £1.38m (no taxes on the journey)

Remember also children have annual tax free personal allowances so the money out can be taken far more tax efficiently, and people can borrow against pension wealth as an alternative to ever taking it out.

CarlottaVance

Latest @UnHerd Britain MRP results investigate support for the monarchy across 632 constituencies.

55% of Britons think “it’s a good thing Britain has a monarchy.” Only 18% disagree and 30% are not sure.

Every single constituency is net in favour. 1/

https://twitter.com/freddiesayers/status/1636269639960231937

DavidL

The pension changes were basically to protect and encourage wealthy consultants who were being driven out of work by the high marginal tax payable on their pension contributions either because they had reached their LTA or, in some cases, were suffering from the taper on allowable deposits.

The NHS was of course founded on the principle that consultants' faces were to be stuffed with gold but the need for this largesse has seriously distorted our entire tax system now in a way that greatly favours the wealthy. Labour have already committed to reversing it and they are right to do so.

Last year I sold a long term investment property and this allowed me to put an additional £30k into my modest pensions. This reduced my tax bill in January by £6k. Very welcome but bloody hell, this level of generosity so favours the rich who have the capital to make such additional contributions on a regular basis. Until yesterday these contributions were capped at £40k a year but that has now been increased to £60k. £12k off the tax bill of a 40% tax payer plus a top up of additional capital in the fund of the same amount. Its just not right. It really isn't.

Those dependent on income get absolutely battered in this country, especially if the earning is one of the couple rather than both. Those with capital can massively reduce their effective and marginal rate of tax. Osborne tried to at least narrow that window. Yesterday it was thrown wide open.

StillWaters

noneoftheabove said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

The i and the Times sum it up well.

One of the best things the Tories have done over the past 13 years with George Osborne onwards was raising tax thresholds to make work pay.

Under Sunak and Hunt that progress is being reversed, taxes are rising and they're fiddling at the edges while taking tax and spend to record levels.

If this is meant to fuel aspiration or be a Conservative budget, its no Conservativism I recognise or would vote for.

Seeing as he gets the blame for some really random crap on here, only fair to point out that was a Clegg LD policy, subsequently adopted by the coalition. A good one, I concur.

Up to a point

While I know that everyone pays VAT etc, there is value in people making - and knowing they are making - a contribution to running the country. I don’t believe most people think about VAT but they do notice the difference between gross and net salary.

Part of the issue with Osborne’s approach is that you have a large number of people who have an incentive to vote for more spending because they don’t have to pay for it

ydoethur

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Credit Suisse will borrow up to 50 billion Swiss francs (£44.5 billion) from the country’s central bank in a bid to quell anxiety over its financial health.

The Zurich-based lender said it was taking “decisive action to pre-emptively strengthen liquidity” in a statement issued in the early this morning.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/credit-suisse-borrows-44-5bn-from-central-bank-to-stem-crisis-vwkn2hqf3

Sounds remarkably similar to what RBS did in 2008. The contrast between the quiet, seamless takeover of SVB UK by HSBC and the chaos on the continent is marked, although the FTSE is taking collateral damage. It is a bit of a triumph for the BoE, so far at least.

That’s unfair to the Swiss. SVB uk was an absolute minnow compared to Credit Suisse.

BartholomewRoberts

noneoftheabove said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

The i and the Times sum it up well.

One of the best things the Tories have done over the past 13 years with George Osborne onwards was raising tax thresholds to make work pay.

Under Sunak and Hunt that progress is being reversed, taxes are rising and they're fiddling at the edges while taking tax and spend to record levels.

If this is meant to fuel aspiration or be a Conservative budget, its no Conservativism I recognise or would vote for.

Seeing as he gets the blame for some really random crap on here, only fair to point out that was a Clegg LD policy, subsequently adopted by the coalition. A good one, I concur.

Indeed it was, and it was a policy that Cameron and Osborne embraced wholeheartedly during the Coalition and essentially adopted as their own and continued with even post-2015 under successive Chancellors until Sunak abandoned it.

Part of the problem with the Lib Dems in 2015 in my view is they were far too apologetic about their record, rather than standing up tall and proud about what had been achieved like the tax thresholds, allowing Cameron and Osborne to take credit while all they got associated with was student fees etc.

I'm politically homeless, if the Lib Dems were to turn their backs on NIMBYism I'd quite happily support them. Unfortunately they're the worst of the NIMBYs and that's another thing I care passionately about.

StillWaters

noneoftheabove said:

darkage said:

noneoftheabove said:

The budget seems to create a massive IHT loophole where the wealthy can pass down unlimited pension wrapped assets down the generations, where even the income never gets taxed?

Or am I missing something?

It is deferred taxation. If you die after age 75 then any withdrawals made by beneficiaries from the pension fund will be taxed as income. So it gets taxed eventually, and obviously these rules are subject to change over time.

Yes but if you are in a very wealthy family and don't need the income you can pass down many millions from generation to generation without the money ever being taxed, and on top enjoy the investment gains from the money that would have gone as tax receipts from the vast majority of the population.

It is hugely unfair.

How do you “enjoy the investment gains” if you can’t withdraw the money without being taxed?

There are rules (I assume) to prevent pension funds buying assets that are for the benefit of the recipients - as with companies. So it would just build up as a “rainy day” fund. That might give some relief from worry but it’s not the image you are painting

noneoftheabove

StillWaters said:

noneoftheabove said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

The i and the Times sum it up well.

One of the best things the Tories have done over the past 13 years with George Osborne onwards was raising tax thresholds to make work pay.

Under Sunak and Hunt that progress is being reversed, taxes are rising and they're fiddling at the edges while taking tax and spend to record levels.

If this is meant to fuel aspiration or be a Conservative budget, its no Conservativism I recognise or would vote for.

Seeing as he gets the blame for some really random crap on here, only fair to point out that was a Clegg LD policy, subsequently adopted by the coalition. A good one, I concur.

Up to a point

While I know that everyone pays VAT etc, there is value in people making - and knowing they are making - a contribution to running the country. I don’t believe most people think about VAT but they do notice the difference between gross and net salary.

Part of the issue with Osborne’s approach is that you have a large number of people who have an incentive to vote for more spending because they don’t have to pay for it

If its a choice between the ultra rich being able to not pay tax on £60k per year and pass it down IHT free thru the generations, or Joe/Jane Average getting an extra £500 tax free earnings from their minimum wage job, that will be quickly recycled through the economy, I know which will lead to the better outcome. And I also know which the Conservative party prefer.

OnlyLivingBoy

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/mar/16/the-stupidity-of-ai-artificial-intelligence-dall-e-chatgpt

Interesting long read on AI.

stodge

Fishing said:

pigeon said:

noneoftheabove said:

The budget seems to create a massive IHT loophole where the wealthy can pass down unlimited pension wrapped assets down the generations, where even the income never gets taxed?

Or am I missing something?

I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised.

The Conservative Party exists to further the interest of two groups: it's extremely rich friends, from whom it derives its funding; and minted elderly people, in outright possession of expensive houses and with more disposable income than most workers, and their expectant heirs, whom together account for the bulk of the party membership and the core vote.

These are the people who are indulged; the rest of us get half-arsed measures like the childcare reforms (badly underfunded, will take years to bring in, done to make it look as if they care when they don't,) and a shit sandwich (fiscal drag to extract the money to pay for massive tax breaks for the wealthy, and endless inflation-busting hikes in pensions - all paid for out of the ever-diminishing wages of low and middle income workers, rather than from the immense asset wealth of their supporters, which must never be touched.)

This entire Government and the Tory Party itself are both little more than vehicles for a process of managed national decline, in which a shrinking pool of wealth is steadily transferred upwards from the young and the struggling to the old and the rich. It's all they really care about and it's all they're any good at doing.

Our whole useless political class is a vehicle for managed national decline. Labour are as barren of ideas as to how to stop it as the Conservatives are, and the Lib Dems...

That's a trite and useless comment and it sometimes pops up on here and I hear it out and about.

Having dabbled in political activism myself many moons ago it's my experience almost all politically-minded individuals, of whatever political stripe or none, are genuine about wanting to improve the lot of their community and country.

We may differ on the means but not on the ends.

The other side of it is simpler - if you think you can do better, why not step up and help us all? What are your ideas for housing, transport, crime and all the other big areas? How would you make my and everyone else's life better?

As for the daft notion of "decline" - we have never lived better - put someone from 1950 let alone earlier in today's world and they'd think it was a world of miracles and marvels. Can we improve? Yes and we must always be striving to that end but this isn't the worst time in human history to be alive. Nor is Britain "in decline" - we may not have vast areas of land under our control but we matter and are important in so many other ways.

Foxy

kyf_100 said:

Fishing said:

rcs1000 said:

Here's what Sam Bankman-FriedHisCompany paid himself/withdrew from FTX/Almeda:



A mere $2.2bn.

Crypto has two uses: for money laundering and outright gambling. As such, SBF was a perfect symbol.

The only mystery is how he got away with it for so long.

I cannot possibly imagine a use for full self custody of your assets, in a week where banks are blowing up left, right and centre.

Yes, gold under the bed is a good plan.

Crypto however can disappear in an electronic moment, or at least your access to it.

StillWaters

Jonathan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Credit Suisse will borrow up to 50 billion Swiss francs (£44.5 billion) from the country’s central bank in a bid to quell anxiety over its financial health.

The Zurich-based lender said it was taking “decisive action to pre-emptively strengthen liquidity” in a statement issued in the early this morning.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/credit-suisse-borrows-44-5bn-from-central-bank-to-stem-crisis-vwkn2hqf3

Is it worth everyone starting a small merchant bank? Pay yourself millions for ten years, lend others billions and then when you go bankrupt get the state to bail you out. Start all over again.

Try getting a license with that business model…

DavidL

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Credit Suisse will borrow up to 50 billion Swiss francs (£44.5 billion) from the country’s central bank in a bid to quell anxiety over its financial health.

The Zurich-based lender said it was taking “decisive action to pre-emptively strengthen liquidity” in a statement issued in the early this morning.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/credit-suisse-borrows-44-5bn-from-central-bank-to-stem-crisis-vwkn2hqf3

Sounds remarkably similar to what RBS did in 2008. The contrast between the quiet, seamless takeover of SVB UK by HSBC and the chaos on the continent is marked, although the FTSE is taking collateral damage. It is a bit of a triumph for the BoE, so far at least.

That’s unfair to the Swiss. SVB uk was an absolute minnow compared to Credit Suisse.

You want to be fair to the Swiss? The people who are insisting that the Matterhorn comes off my Toblerone? Why?

And in any event its not. The point is that the current losses being sustained on supposedly safe as houses tier 1 capital (because the value of longer term bonds has fallen as interest rates rise) has exposed that several continental banks remain under capitalised. The larger UK banks are not.

darkage

pigeon said:

noneoftheabove said:

The budget seems to create a massive IHT loophole where the wealthy can pass down unlimited pension wrapped assets down the generations, where even the income never gets taxed?

Or am I missing something?

I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised.

The Conservative Party exists to further the interest of two groups: it's extremely rich friends, from whom it derives its funding; and minted elderly people, in outright possession of expensive houses and with more disposable income than most workers, and their expectant heirs, whom together account for the bulk of the party membership and the core vote.

These are the people who are indulged; the rest of us get half-arsed measures like the childcare reforms (badly underfunded, will take years to bring in, done to make it look as if they care when they don't,) and a shit sandwich (fiscal drag to extract the money to pay for massive tax breaks for the wealthy, and endless inflation-busting hikes in pensions - all paid for out of the ever-diminishing wages of low and middle income workers, rather than from the immense asset wealth of their supporters, which must never be touched.)

This entire Government and the Tory Party itself are both little more than vehicles for a process of managed national decline, in which a shrinking pool of wealth is steadily transferred upwards from the young and the struggling to the old and the rich. It's all they really care about and it's all they're any good at doing.

Yeah this articulates my own thoughts on the Conservative party. The thing is though, that their support is being increasingly concentrated in the over 65 category, and putting in these massive bungs will not really assist their position with younger voters.

This is why people get the wrong end of the stick when the '100k' debate comes up. What the Conservative party is doing is giving massive tax breaks to its asset owning supporters, whilst disproportionately taxing people who work, including those who have high salaries, particularly younger people. The latter group are increasingly seeing that they are getting a bad deal and not voting Conservative, voting Labour instead. The Labour party could ultimately take advantage of a political division between people who work and people who don't.

noneoftheabove

BartholomewRoberts said:

noneoftheabove said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

The i and the Times sum it up well.

One of the best things the Tories have done over the past 13 years with George Osborne onwards was raising tax thresholds to make work pay.

Under Sunak and Hunt that progress is being reversed, taxes are rising and they're fiddling at the edges while taking tax and spend to record levels.

If this is meant to fuel aspiration or be a Conservative budget, its no Conservativism I recognise or would vote for.

Seeing as he gets the blame for some really random crap on here, only fair to point out that was a Clegg LD policy, subsequently adopted by the coalition. A good one, I concur.

Indeed it was, and it was a policy that Cameron and Osborne embraced wholeheartedly during the Coalition and essentially adopted as their own and continued with even post-2015 under successive Chancellors until Sunak abandoned it.

Part of the problem with the Lib Dems in 2015 in my view is they were far too apologetic about their record, rather than standing up tall and proud about what had been achieved like the tax thresholds, allowing Cameron and Osborne to take credit while all they got associated with was student fees etc.

I'm politically homeless, if the Lib Dems were to turn their backs on NIMBYism I'd quite happily support them. Unfortunately they're the worst of the NIMBYs and that's another thing I care passionately about.

I don't really follow much local politics so don't know about NIMBYism either way. I find the current version of the LDs uninspiring and tepid though. A lack of passion, leadership and imagination. Might still be the best available but can't get enthused by them.

kyf_100

Fishing said:

kyf_100 said:

Fishing said:

rcs1000 said:

Here's what Sam Bankman-FriedHisCompany paid himself/withdrew from FTX/Almeda:



A mere $2.2bn.

Crypto has two uses: for money laundering and outright gambling. As such, SBF was a perfect symbol.

The only mystery is how he got away with it for so long.

I cannot possibly imagine a use for full self custody of your assets, in a week where banks are blowing up left, right and centre.

... after a year in which cryptocurrencies have crashed left, right and centre.

At least bank deposits are mostly insured.

"Mostly" = up to 85k. And it'll take you time to get that back if your bank fails. Not much use if you're a HNWI or a company with a multi-million dollar treasury.

https://twitter.com/jackmallers/status/1635111543116529665

There are layers of scam upon layers of scam in companies that service the crypto industry, but that no more makes the concept of bitcoin (self custody of an immutable digital asset) any more a scam than Pablo Escobar hiding his wealth in bricks of dollars makes the dollar a narco currency.

Bitcoin was designed for conditions where banks fail - it's literally written into the genesis block ("chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks").

The trouble with self custodied assets is that they invite layers of scams from people offering to custody your assets for you. Nobody who fully self custodies can be scammed. Not your keys, not your coins, etc.

Foxy

stodge said:

Fishing said:

pigeon said:

noneoftheabove said:

The budget seems to create a massive IHT loophole where the wealthy can pass down unlimited pension wrapped assets down the generations, where even the income never gets taxed?

Or am I missing something?

I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised.

The Conservative Party exists to further the interest of two groups: it's extremely rich friends, from whom it derives its funding; and minted elderly people, in outright possession of expensive houses and with more disposable income than most workers, and their expectant heirs, whom together account for the bulk of the party membership and the core vote.

These are the people who are indulged; the rest of us get half-arsed measures like the childcare reforms (badly underfunded, will take years to bring in, done to make it look as if they care when they don't,) and a shit sandwich (fiscal drag to extract the money to pay for massive tax breaks for the wealthy, and endless inflation-busting hikes in pensions - all paid for out of the ever-diminishing wages of low and middle income workers, rather than from the immense asset wealth of their supporters, which must never be touched.)

This entire Government and the Tory Party itself are both little more than vehicles for a process of managed national decline, in which a shrinking pool of wealth is steadily transferred upwards from the young and the struggling to the old and the rich. It's all they really care about and it's all they're any good at doing.

Our whole useless political class is a vehicle for managed national decline. Labour are as barren of ideas as to how to stop it as the Conservatives are, and the Lib Dems...

That's a trite and useless comment and it sometimes pops up on here and I hear it out and about.

Having dabbled in political activism myself many moons ago it's my experience almost all politically-minded individuals, of whatever political stripe or none, are genuine about wanting to improve the lot of their community and country.

We may differ on the means but not on the ends.

The other side of it is simpler - if you think you can do better, why not step up and help us all? What are your ideas for housing, transport, crime and all the other big areas? How would you make my and everyone else's life better?

As for the daft notion of "decline" - we have never lived better - put someone from 1950 let alone earlier in today's world and they'd think it was a world of miracles and marvels. Can we improve? Yes and we must always be striving to that end but this isn't the worst time in human history to be alive. Nor is Britain "in decline" - we may not have vast areas of land under our control but we matter and are important in so many other ways.

I think stagnation rather than decline is the challenge of the moment. Clearly we are materially better off than previous generations, indeed part of our housing problems are driven by having too many possessions to downsize!

Overall though recent governments haven't done much to grow incomes, and pretty similar across the developed world. This was from the Resolution Foundation yesterday:

BartholomewRoberts

No_Offence_Alan said:

Nigelb said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

The i and the Times sum it up well.

One of the best things the Tories have done over the past 13 years with George Osborne onwards was raising tax thresholds to make work pay.

Under Sunak and Hunt that progress is being reversed, taxes are rising and they're fiddling at the edges while taking tax and spend to record levels.

If this is meant to fuel aspiration or be a Conservative budget, its no Conservativism I recognise or would vote for.

Fiscal drag equates to a bit over a £29 billion tax rise this year.
Those better off will be working parents who require childcare, and the very wealthy who can take advantage of the pension bung.
The rest of us are paying.

Only if the "rest of us" have had a pay rise.

No, even if you've had a real terms pay cut.

10% inflation change
5% pay change
0% tax threshold change

Equals a 5% pay cut in real terms, and a tax hike to add insult to injury.

FF43

lol. Yesterday:

Silicon Valley Bank's collapse a 'warning signal' to the banking system, according to Axel Lehmann [chairman] of Credit Suisse

https://mobile.twitter.com/CNBCi/status/1636011875988312066

noneoftheabove

darkage said:

pigeon said:

noneoftheabove said:

The budget seems to create a massive IHT loophole where the wealthy can pass down unlimited pension wrapped assets down the generations, where even the income never gets taxed?

Or am I missing something?

I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised.

The Conservative Party exists to further the interest of two groups: it's extremely rich friends, from whom it derives its funding; and minted elderly people, in outright possession of expensive houses and with more disposable income than most workers, and their expectant heirs, whom together account for the bulk of the party membership and the core vote.

These are the people who are indulged; the rest of us get half-arsed measures like the childcare reforms (badly underfunded, will take years to bring in, done to make it look as if they care when they don't,) and a shit sandwich (fiscal drag to extract the money to pay for massive tax breaks for the wealthy, and endless inflation-busting hikes in pensions - all paid for out of the ever-diminishing wages of low and middle income workers, rather than from the immense asset wealth of their supporters, which must never be touched.)

This entire Government and the Tory Party itself are both little more than vehicles for a process of managed national decline, in which a shrinking pool of wealth is steadily transferred upwards from the young and the struggling to the old and the rich. It's all they really care about and it's all they're any good at doing.

Yeah this articulates my own thoughts on the Conservative party. The thing is though, that their support is being increasingly concentrated in the over 65 category, and putting in these massive bungs will not really assist their position with younger voters.

This is why people get the wrong end of the stick when the '100k' debate comes up. What the Conservative party is doing is giving massive tax breaks to its asset owning supporters, whilst disproportionately taxing people who work, including those who have high salaries, particularly younger people. The latter group are increasingly seeing that they are getting a bad deal and not voting Conservative, voting Labour instead. The Labour party could ultimately take advantage of a political division between people who work and people who don't.

Wouldnt it be wonderful if Labour could become the party of err, labour, and the Conservatives could become err, conservative. Instead both are the opposite of Ronseal.

DavidL

FF43 said:

lol. Yesterday:

Silicon Valley Bank's collapse a 'warning signal' to the banking system, according to Axel Lehmann [chairman] of Credit Suisse

https://mobile.twitter.com/CNBCi/status/1636011875988312066

The hubris of a bank choosing to have someone called Lehmann as their chairman....

StillWaters

Foxy said:

occasionalranter said:

Foxy said:

noneoftheabove said:

The budget seems to create a massive IHT loophole where the wealthy can pass down unlimited pension wrapped assets down the generations, where even the income never gets taxed?

Or am I missing something?

Uncrystalised pension pots can only be inherited if you die before your 75th anniversary, I understood.

They cease to be "uncrystallised" at 75, but can still be inherited on death after that age as undrawn "drawdown funds", still free of IHT and still rolling up free of taxes, just taxed on the way out.

So taxed as income whenever it is taken? Doesn't sound much of a tax dodge if you only dodge the tax by paying nothing out.

It’s like the old gross roll up strategy with limited companies.

Investment funds roll up paying 20-25% on gains. When you pay out as a dividend it becomes the same as paying income tax but you get to Invest the gross capital. Just simplistically

Personal:

Start 100. Gain 20 (20% return) = 120.
Pay 10 tax (50%) = 110
Invest 110. Gain 22 = 132
Pay 11 tax = 121
Invest 121 etc

Company
Start 100. Gain 20 = 120
Pay 5 tax (25%) = 115
Invest 115. Gain 23 = 138
Pay 6 tax = 132
Invest 132 etc

At the point the gains are paid out as income it all balances from the individual’s perspective but you can easily see the benefit of rolling up gross investment capital

darkage

DavidL said:

The pension changes were basically to protect and encourage wealthy consultants who were being driven out of work by the high marginal tax payable on their pension contributions either because they had reached their LTA or, in some cases, were suffering from the taper on allowable deposits.

The NHS was of course founded on the principle that consultants' faces were to be stuffed with gold but the need for this largesse has seriously distorted our entire tax system now in a way that greatly favours the wealthy. Labour have already committed to reversing it and they are right to do so.

Last year I sold a long term investment property and this allowed me to put an additional £30k into my modest pensions. This reduced my tax bill in January by £6k. Very welcome but bloody hell, this level of generosity so favours the rich who have the capital to make such additional contributions on a regular basis. Until yesterday these contributions were capped at £40k a year but that has now been increased to £60k. £12k off the tax bill of a 40% tax payer plus a top up of additional capital in the fund of the same amount. Its just not right. It really isn't.

Those dependent on income get absolutely battered in this country, especially if the earning is one of the couple rather than both. Those with capital can massively reduce their effective and marginal rate of tax. Osborne tried to at least narrow that window. Yesterday it was thrown wide open.

@DavidL
This is the thing about people on 100k who are dependent on income, they are abandoning the Conservative party to vote for Labour. Hence they should not be politically disregarded. The people with the 'broadest shoulders' who should be paying more are wealthy people with capital and assets, not those are doing well in their careers.

TheScreamingEagles

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Credit Suisse will borrow up to 50 billion Swiss francs (£44.5 billion) from the country’s central bank in a bid to quell anxiety over its financial health.

The Zurich-based lender said it was taking “decisive action to pre-emptively strengthen liquidity” in a statement issued in the early this morning.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/credit-suisse-borrows-44-5bn-from-central-bank-to-stem-crisis-vwkn2hqf3

Sounds remarkably similar to what RBS did in 2008. The contrast between the quiet, seamless takeover of SVB UK by HSBC and the chaos on the continent is marked, although the FTSE is taking collateral damage. It is a bit of a triumph for the BoE, so far at least.

A big hurrah for George Osborne and Sir John Vickers.

Their farsightedness on ring fencing has saved us all.

Stuartinromford

stodge said:

Fishing said:

pigeon said:

noneoftheabove said:

The budget seems to create a massive IHT loophole where the wealthy can pass down unlimited pension wrapped assets down the generations, where even the income never gets taxed?

Or am I missing something?

I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised.

The Conservative Party exists to further the interest of two groups: it's extremely rich friends, from whom it derives its funding; and minted elderly people, in outright possession of expensive houses and with more disposable income than most workers, and their expectant heirs, whom together account for the bulk of the party membership and the core vote.

These are the people who are indulged; the rest of us get half-arsed measures like the childcare reforms (badly underfunded, will take years to bring in, done to make it look as if they care when they don't,) and a shit sandwich (fiscal drag to extract the money to pay for massive tax breaks for the wealthy, and endless inflation-busting hikes in pensions - all paid for out of the ever-diminishing wages of low and middle income workers, rather than from the immense asset wealth of their supporters, which must never be touched.)

This entire Government and the Tory Party itself are both little more than vehicles for a process of managed national decline, in which a shrinking pool of wealth is steadily transferred upwards from the young and the struggling to the old and the rich. It's all they really care about and it's all they're any good at doing.

Our whole useless political class is a vehicle for managed national decline. Labour are as barren of ideas as to how to stop it as the Conservatives
are, and the Lib Dems...

That's a trite and useless comment and it sometimes pops up on here and I hear it out and about.

Having dabbled in political activism myself many moons ago it's my experience almost all politically-minded individuals, of whatever political stripe or none, are genuine about wanting to improve the lot of their community and country.

We may differ on the means but not on the ends.

The other side of it is simpler - if you think you can do better, why not step up and help us all? What are your ideas for housing, transport, crime and all the other big areas? How would you make my and everyone else's life better?

As for the daft notion of "decline" - we have never lived better - put someone from 1950 let alone earlier in today's world and they'd think it was a world of miracles and marvels. Can we improve? Yes and we must always be striving to that end but this isn't the worst time in human history to be alive. Nor is Britain "in decline" - we may not have vast areas of land under our control but we matter and are important in so many other ways.

Part of the problem is that we do get the politicians we deserve.

On one level, we know the things that would improve the state of the nation; more creation of assets, less consumption and speculation on existing assets, making it easier to build things, doing Brexit (if we must) in a less dickish way.

Trouble is that they are things that cost us money, pleasant lifestyle or face now, for benefits down the line. So they're not easy sells on the doorstep.

StillWaters

Nigelb said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

The i and the Times sum it up well.

One of the best things the Tories have done over the past 13 years with George Osborne onwards was raising tax thresholds to make work pay.

Under Sunak and Hunt that progress is being reversed, taxes are rising and they're fiddling at the edges while taking tax and spend to record levels.

If this is meant to fuel aspiration or be a Conservative budget, its no Conservativism I recognise or would vote for.

Fiscal drag equates to a bit over a £29 billion tax rise this year.
Those better off will be working parents who require childcare, and the very wealthy who can take advantage of the pension bung.
The rest of us are paying.

Don’t forget the “very wealthy” can only contribute £10k to their pension pot in a year. There are people I know who had stopped contributing to their pension for fear they would hit the life time allowance

Carnyx

CarlottaVance said:

Latest @UnHerd Britain MRP results investigate support for the monarchy across 632 constituencies.

55% of Britons think “it’s a good thing Britain has a monarchy.” Only 18% disagree and 30% are not sure.

Every single constituency is net in favour. 1/

https://twitter.com/freddiesayers/status/1636269639960231937

Only 55%? Little better than Brexit.

noneoftheabove

DavidL said:

The pension changes were basically to protect and encourage wealthy consultants who were being driven out of work by the high marginal tax payable on their pension contributions either because they had reached their LTA or, in some cases, were suffering from the taper on allowable deposits.

The NHS was of course founded on the principle that consultants' faces were to be stuffed with gold but the need for this largesse has seriously distorted our entire tax system now in a way that greatly favours the wealthy. Labour have already committed to reversing it and they are right to do so.

Last year I sold a long term investment property and this allowed me to put an additional £30k into my modest pensions. This reduced my tax bill in January by £6k. Very welcome but bloody hell, this level of generosity so favours the rich who have the capital to make such additional contributions on a regular basis. Until yesterday these contributions were capped at £40k a year but that has now been increased to £60k. £12k off the tax bill of a 40% tax payer plus a top up of additional capital in the fund of the same amount. Its just not right. It really isn't.

Those dependent on income get absolutely battered in this country, especially if the earning is one of the couple rather than both. Those with capital can massively reduce their effective and marginal rate of tax. Osborne tried to at least narrow that window. Yesterday it was thrown wide open.

It is probably technical enough that they get away with it, and the voting public won't realise how much average workers are getting shafted with this change. Also puts the onus on the next Labour govt to move pensions into IHT, which will crazily enough be a vote loser.

StillWaters

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Credit Suisse will borrow up to 50 billion Swiss francs (£44.5 billion) from the country’s central bank in a bid to quell anxiety over its financial health.

The Zurich-based lender said it was taking “decisive action to pre-emptively strengthen liquidity” in a statement issued in the early this morning.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/credit-suisse-borrows-44-5bn-from-central-bank-to-stem-crisis-vwkn2hqf3

Sounds remarkably similar to what RBS did in 2008. The contrast between the quiet, seamless takeover of SVB UK by HSBC and the chaos on the continent is marked, although the FTSE is taking collateral damage. It is a bit of a triumph for the BoE, so far at least.

The UK Regulatory authorities understand banking. It helps.

turbotubbs

stodge said:

Fishing said:

pigeon said:

noneoftheabove said:

The budget seems to create a massive IHT loophole where the wealthy can pass down unlimited pension wrapped assets down the generations, where even the income never gets taxed?

Or am I missing something?

I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised.

The Conservative Party exists to further the interest of two groups: it's extremely rich friends, from whom it derives its funding; and minted elderly people, in outright possession of expensive houses and with more disposable income than most workers, and their expectant heirs, whom together account for the bulk of the party membership and the core vote.

These are the people who are indulged; the rest of us get half-arsed measures like the childcare reforms (badly underfunded, will take years to bring in, done to make it look as if they care when they don't,) and a shit sandwich (fiscal drag to extract the money to pay for massive tax breaks for the wealthy, and endless inflation-busting hikes in pensions - all paid for out of the ever-diminishing wages of low and middle income workers, rather than from the immense asset wealth of their supporters, which must never be touched.)

This entire Government and the Tory Party itself are both little more than vehicles for a process of managed national decline, in which a shrinking pool of wealth is steadily transferred upwards from the young and the struggling to the old and the rich. It's all they really care about and it's all they're any good at doing.

Our whole useless political class is a vehicle for managed national decline. Labour are as barren of ideas as to how to stop it as the Conservatives are, and the Lib Dems...

That's a trite and useless comment and it sometimes pops up on here and I hear it out and about.

Having dabbled in political activism myself many moons ago it's my experience almost all politically-minded individuals, of whatever political stripe or none, are genuine about wanting to improve the lot of their community and country.

We may differ on the means but not on the ends.

The other side of it is simpler - if you think you can do better, why not step up and help us all? What are your ideas for housing, transport, crime and all the other big areas? How would you make my and everyone else's life better?

As for the daft notion of "decline" - we have never lived better - put someone from 1950 let alone earlier in today's world and they'd think it was a world of miracles and marvels. Can we improve? Yes and we must always be striving to that end but this isn't the worst time in human history to be alive. Nor is Britain "in decline" - we may not have vast areas of land under our control but we matter and are important in so many other ways.

Well said Stodge. I read with frustration the anti-Tory rants and huge numbers of likes. It’s classic hate the Tory scum stuff. I genuinely believe most in politics want to make the country a better place. Yes, even Brexiteers.
PB is turning into an echo chamber right now. Maybe that’s inevitable given the length of the Tory government, but I believe PB is populated with intelligent posters, who can be a bit better than that.

BartholomewRoberts

darkage said:

pigeon said:

noneoftheabove said:

The budget seems to create a massive IHT loophole where the wealthy can pass down unlimited pension wrapped assets down the generations, where even the income never gets taxed?

Or am I missing something?

I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised.

The Conservative Party exists to further the interest of two groups: it's extremely rich friends, from whom it derives its funding; and minted elderly people, in outright possession of expensive houses and with more disposable income than most workers, and their expectant heirs, whom together account for the bulk of the party membership and the core vote.

These are the people who are indulged; the rest of us get half-arsed measures like the childcare reforms (badly underfunded, will take years to bring in, done to make it look as if they care when they don't,) and a shit sandwich (fiscal drag to extract the money to pay for massive tax breaks for the wealthy, and endless inflation-busting hikes in pensions - all paid for out of the ever-diminishing wages of low and middle income workers, rather than from the immense asset wealth of their supporters, which must never be touched.)

This entire Government and the Tory Party itself are both little more than vehicles for a process of managed national decline, in which a shrinking pool of wealth is steadily transferred upwards from the young and the struggling to the old and the rich. It's all they really care about and it's all they're any good at doing.

Yeah this articulates my own thoughts on the Conservative party. The thing is though, that their support is being increasingly concentrated in the over 65 category, and putting in these massive bungs will not really assist their position with younger voters.

This is why people get the wrong end of the stick when the '100k' debate comes up. What the Conservative party is doing is giving massive tax breaks to its asset owning supporters, whilst disproportionately taxing people who work, including those who have high salaries, particularly younger people. The latter group are increasingly seeing that they are getting a bad deal and not voting Conservative, voting Labour instead. The Labour party could ultimately take advantage of a political division between people who work and people who don't.

If the Labour Party did stand up for less taxation on people who work, they would earn my vote.

Not holding my breath though.

DavidL

darkage said:

DavidL said:

The pension changes were basically to protect and encourage wealthy consultants who were being driven out of work by the high marginal tax payable on their pension contributions either because they had reached their LTA or, in some cases, were suffering from the taper on allowable deposits.

The NHS was of course founded on the principle that consultants' faces were to be stuffed with gold but the need for this largesse has seriously distorted our entire tax system now in a way that greatly favours the wealthy. Labour have already committed to reversing it and they are right to do so.

Last year I sold a long term investment property and this allowed me to put an additional £30k into my modest pensions. This reduced my tax bill in January by £6k. Very welcome but bloody hell, this level of generosity so favours the rich who have the capital to make such additional contributions on a regular basis. Until yesterday these contributions were capped at £40k a year but that has now been increased to £60k. £12k off the tax bill of a 40% tax payer plus a top up of additional capital in the fund of the same amount. Its just not right. It really isn't.

Those dependent on income get absolutely battered in this country, especially if the earning is one of the couple rather than both. Those with capital can massively reduce their effective and marginal rate of tax. Osborne tried to at least narrow that window. Yesterday it was thrown wide open.

@DavidL
This is the thing about people on 100k who are dependent on income, they are abandoning the Conservative party to vote for Labour. Hence they should not be politically disregarded. The people with the 'broadest shoulders' who should be paying more are wealthy people with capital and assets, not those are doing well in their careers.

Oh I agree. Capital is barely taxed in this country. Even where there is a gain Entrepreneur Relief and the like mean it might be taxed at 10%, even though that gain is basically undeclared income. Taxes are focused on earnings and spending (VAT). That really needs to change and such a change would allow plenty of money to remove cliff edges etc.

ydoethur

TheScreamingEagles said:

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Credit Suisse will borrow up to 50 billion Swiss francs (£44.5 billion) from the country’s central bank in a bid to quell anxiety over its financial health.

The Zurich-based lender said it was taking “decisive action to pre-emptively strengthen liquidity” in a statement issued in the early this morning.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/credit-suisse-borrows-44-5bn-from-central-bank-to-stem-crisis-vwkn2hqf3

Sounds remarkably similar to what RBS did in 2008. The contrast between the quiet, seamless takeover of SVB UK by HSBC and the chaos on the continent is marked, although the FTSE is taking collateral damage. It is a bit of a triumph for the BoE, so far at least.

A big hurrah for George Osborne and Sir John Vickers.

Their farsightedness on ring fencing has saved us all.

If due to their changes our banks do an Australia 2008 and ride out the storm as America and Europe struggle they will certainly deserve plaudits.

StillWaters

stodge said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

And where's the Cheltenham day three header?

Our tipsters are away trying to borrow shirts, to make up for the ones they have lost?

And a cheery good morning to you, as well.

My selections for Day 3 as follows:

1.30: APPRECIATE IT
2.50: BLUE LORD (each way)
3.30: GOLD TWEET (each way)

Is a gold tweet one where you pay extra for preferential tweetment?

ydoethur

StillWaters said:

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Credit Suisse will borrow up to 50 billion Swiss francs (£44.5 billion) from the country’s central bank in a bid to quell anxiety over its financial health.

The Zurich-based lender said it was taking “decisive action to pre-emptively strengthen liquidity” in a statement issued in the early this morning.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/credit-suisse-borrows-44-5bn-from-central-bank-to-stem-crisis-vwkn2hqf3

Sounds remarkably similar to what RBS did in 2008. The contrast between the quiet, seamless takeover of SVB UK by HSBC and the chaos on the continent is marked, although the FTSE is taking collateral damage. It is a bit of a triumph for the BoE, so far at least.

The UK Regulatory authorities understand banking. It helps.

That in itself is quite an improvement on 2008 then, when they clearly didn't.

Casino_Royale

darkage said:

pigeon said:

noneoftheabove said:

The budget seems to create a massive IHT loophole where the wealthy can pass down unlimited pension wrapped assets down the generations, where even the income never gets taxed?

Or am I missing something?

I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised.

The Conservative Party exists to further the interest of two groups: it's extremely rich friends, from whom it derives its funding; and minted elderly people, in outright possession of expensive houses and with more disposable income than most workers, and their expectant heirs, whom together account for the bulk of the party membership and the core vote.

These are the people who are indulged; the rest of us get half-arsed measures like the childcare reforms (badly underfunded, will take years to bring in, done to make it look as if they care when they don't,) and a shit sandwich (fiscal drag to extract the money to pay for massive tax breaks for the wealthy, and endless inflation-busting hikes in pensions - all paid for out of the ever-diminishing wages of low and middle income workers, rather than from the immense asset wealth of their supporters, which must never be touched.)

This entire Government and the Tory Party itself are both little more than vehicles for a process of managed national decline, in which a shrinking pool of wealth is steadily transferred upwards from the young and the struggling to the old and the rich. It's all they really care about and it's all they're any good at doing.

Yeah this articulates my own thoughts on the Conservative party. The thing is though, that their support is being increasingly concentrated in the over 65 category, and putting in these massive bungs will not really assist their position with younger voters.

This is why people get the wrong end of the stick when the '100k' debate comes up. What the Conservative party is doing is giving massive tax breaks to its asset owning supporters, whilst disproportionately taxing people who work, including those who have high salaries, particularly younger people. The latter group are increasingly seeing that they are getting a bad deal and not voting Conservative, voting Labour instead. The Labour party could ultimately take advantage of a political division between people who work and people who don't.

The politics of this is interesting.

What's actually going on here is electoral coalition building: the Conservatives are trying to bolster their support amongst the 55-64 age group and doing so by making generous pension reforms for the last 10 years of their working lives before they pivot into becoming pensioners themselves. In the 12-18 months before a general election virtually everything is political.

I think Labour fell into a trap by pledging to reverse this today.

stodge

noneoftheabove said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

noneoftheabove said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

The i and the Times sum it up well.

One of the best things the Tories have done over the past 13 years with George Osborne onwards was raising tax thresholds to make work pay.

Under Sunak and Hunt that progress is being reversed, taxes are rising and they're fiddling at the edges while taking tax and spend to record levels.

If this is meant to fuel aspiration or be a Conservative budget, its no Conservativism I recognise or would vote for.

Seeing as he gets the blame for some really random crap on here, only fair to point out that was a Clegg LD policy, subsequently adopted by the coalition. A good one, I concur.

Indeed it was, and it was a policy that Cameron and Osborne embraced wholeheartedly during the Coalition and essentially adopted as their own and continued with even post-2015 under successive Chancellors until Sunak abandoned it.

Part of the problem with the Lib Dems in 2015 in my view is they were far too apologetic about their record, rather than standing up tall and proud about what had been achieved like the tax thresholds, allowing Cameron and Osborne to take credit while all they got associated with was student fees etc.

I'm politically homeless, if the Lib Dems were to turn their backs on NIMBYism I'd quite happily support them. Unfortunately they're the worst of the NIMBYs and that's another thing I care passionately about.

I don't really follow much local politics so don't know about NIMBYism either way. I find the current version of the LDs uninspiring and tepid though. A lack of passion, leadership and imagination. Might still be the best available but can't get enthused by them.

There are clear signs the Party has re-discovered its "community politics" ethos after the Coalition and the EU Referendum. Ed Davey knows, because this is how he got elected, getting a strong local base of members and councillors is the only way to win constituencies and you have to keep at it all the time because the LD vote isn't ingrained and has to be won every time.

The seats won in 1997 were all in areas of strong local Government representation. The seats held in 2015 were the same.

StillWaters

darkage said:

I think the urge to try and build up 'dynastic' wealth is flawed. There are many other more productive things you can do with your life and leave a legacy on the world through your career etc.

Tell that to Esme Fairborn, Garfield Weston, Rockefeller or Wellcome.

BartholomewRoberts

DavidL said:

FF43 said:

lol. Yesterday:

Silicon Valley Bank's collapse a 'warning signal' to the banking system, according to Axel Lehmann [chairman] of Credit Suisse

https://mobile.twitter.com/CNBCi/status/1636011875988312066

The hubris of a bank choosing to have someone called Lehmann as their chairman....

Better hope his brother isn't second in command ...

noneoftheabove

turbotubbs said:

stodge said:

Fishing said:

pigeon said:

noneoftheabove said:

The budget seems to create a massive IHT loophole where the wealthy can pass down unlimited pension wrapped assets down the generations, where even the income never gets taxed?

Or am I missing something?

I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised.

The Conservative Party exists to further the interest of two groups: it's extremely rich friends, from whom it derives its funding; and minted elderly people, in outright possession of expensive houses and with more disposable income than most workers, and their expectant heirs, whom together account for the bulk of the party membership and the core vote.

These are the people who are indulged; the rest of us get half-arsed measures like the childcare reforms (badly underfunded, will take years to bring in, done to make it look as if they care when they don't,) and a shit sandwich (fiscal drag to extract the money to pay for massive tax breaks for the wealthy, and endless inflation-busting hikes in pensions - all paid for out of the ever-diminishing wages of low and middle income workers, rather than from the immense asset wealth of their supporters, which must never be touched.)

This entire Government and the Tory Party itself are both little more than vehicles for a process of managed national decline, in which a shrinking pool of wealth is steadily transferred upwards from the young and the struggling to the old and the rich. It's all they really care about and it's all they're any good at doing.

Our whole useless political class is a vehicle for managed national decline. Labour are as barren of ideas as to how to stop it as the Conservatives are, and the Lib Dems...

That's a trite and useless comment and it sometimes pops up on here and I hear it out and about.

Having dabbled in political activism myself many moons ago it's my experience almost all politically-minded individuals, of whatever political stripe or none, are genuine about wanting to improve the lot of their community and country.

We may differ on the means but not on the ends.

The other side of it is simpler - if you think you can do better, why not step up and help us all? What are your ideas for housing, transport, crime and all the other big areas? How would you make my and everyone else's life better?

As for the daft notion of "decline" - we have never lived better - put someone from 1950 let alone earlier in today's world and they'd think it was a world of miracles and marvels. Can we improve? Yes and we must always be striving to that end but this isn't the worst time in human history to be alive. Nor is Britain "in decline" - we may not have vast areas of land under our control but we matter and are important in so many other ways.

Well said Stodge. I read with frustration the anti-Tory rants and huge numbers of likes. It’s classic hate the Tory scum stuff. I genuinely believe most in politics want to make the country a better place. Yes, even Brexiteers.
PB is turning into an echo chamber right now. Maybe that’s inevitable given the length of the Tory government, but I believe PB is populated with intelligent posters, who can be a bit better than that.

The Tory party have divided the country between young and old, workers vs the rest, getting by vs the rich. A deliberate and cynical choice to win elections. This is the result, as the losers become more numerous and start to notice who is to blame.

Big_G_NorthWales

Good morning

I haven't commented on the budget so far but I have read the threads and it seems to me we are witnessing, and have been for quite a while, a move to the left and demonising entrepreneurs and seemingly those earning in the region of £100,000 plus who received short shift when they pointed out that the tax system actually disincentives them from earning more

I do believe that because of covid the public have acquired a mindset that the government must provide support and assistance to maintain their cost of living at anyprice without any comprehension how it is to be paid for

On the budget it is clear parents with young children will benefit from the provision of early years childcare but even that is delayed to April 24 and not completed until 25 and the removal of lifetime pension savings is clearly directed at doctors but it is also an attraction to wealth creators but then they are persona non grata in our economy

I do not see this budget as a game changer for the conservatives who are looking at defeat in 2024 but again I say I am thankful that Sunak and Hunt are protecting the economy and with the business announcements hopefully encouraging growth, but ironically at a time when Labour will be the benefactors, not them

On Labour I thought Starmer's response was predictable and he could have written his speech before the budget

Yesterday's budget announcements while generally sensible, did lack a pleasant surprise and if Hunt had wanted to he could have provided a substantial increase in the personal allowance to standard rate taxpayers, but he seems set on stealth taxes no doubt as they are integral to his strategy

I expect a Labour win in 24, it is just the margin that is uncertain

YBarddCwsc

BartholomewRoberts said:

darkage said:

pigeon said:

noneoftheabove said:

The budget seems to create a massive IHT loophole where the wealthy can pass down unlimited pension wrapped assets down the generations, where even the income never gets taxed?

Or am I missing something?

I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised.

The Conservative Party exists to further the interest of two groups: it's extremely rich friends, from whom it derives its funding; and minted elderly people, in outright possession of expensive houses and with more disposable income than most workers, and their expectant heirs, whom together account for the bulk of the party membership and the core vote.

These are the people who are indulged; the rest of us get half-arsed measures like the childcare reforms (badly underfunded, will take years to bring in, done to make it look as if they care when they don't,) and a shit sandwich (fiscal drag to extract the money to pay for massive tax breaks for the wealthy, and endless inflation-busting hikes in pensions - all paid for out of the ever-diminishing wages of low and middle income workers, rather than from the immense asset wealth of their supporters, which must never be touched.)

This entire Government and the Tory Party itself are both little more than vehicles for a process of managed national decline, in which a shrinking pool of wealth is steadily transferred upwards from the young and the struggling to the old and the rich. It's all they really care about and it's all they're any good at doing.

Yeah this articulates my own thoughts on the Conservative party. The thing is though, that their support is being increasingly concentrated in the over 65 category, and putting in these massive bungs will not really assist their position with younger voters.

This is why people get the wrong end of the stick when the '100k' debate comes up. What the Conservative party is doing is giving massive tax breaks to its asset owning supporters, whilst disproportionately taxing people who work, including those who have high salaries, particularly younger people. The latter group are increasingly seeing that they are getting a bad deal and not voting Conservative, voting Labour instead. The Labour party could ultimately take advantage of a political division between people who work and people who don't.

If the Labour Party did stand up for less taxation on people who work, they would earn my vote.

Not holding my breath though.

Labour's reaction to the pensions changes is "Labour will force a vote on this, and [Reeves] would reverse the policy - though she says that it should be kept in place for doctors."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-64831837

That seems, if possible, even stupider.

Casino_Royale

TheScreamingEagles said:

Take a bow.

The UK has been ranked among the worst nations in western Europe in which to participate in a peaceful protest, according to a report that warns of a “rapid decline in civic freedoms”.

Civicus, a global alliance of civil society groups, assessed the extent to which civil liberties were deemed at risk in almost 200 countries, placing them into five categories: open, narrowed, obstructed, repressed or closed.

For the first time the report has downgraded the UK to “obstructed”, making it one of the few democracies in the same tier as El Salvador, Guinea-Bissau, Timor-Leste and Liberia.

Citizens in most other western European nations were deemed to have better protected rights to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression than in the UK, which was described as a “country of concern”.

The People Power Under Attack 2022 report says that the downgrading is the result of changes to legislation under recent Conservative governments. In particular, it highlights the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act, which came into effect in April last year. The legislation gave police new powers to restrict public assemblies, such as imposing start and finish times.

The report’s authors also expressed concern over the Public Order Bill, which is going through parliament and proposes giving police power to shut down protests if it is thought they will lead to widespread disruption.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/uk-downgraded-report-civic-freedoms-protest-block-2023-mj7c20khf

I think that's nonsense.

This legislation was brought in to stop saboteurs like Insulate Britain and Extinction Rebellion disrupting traffic so they can no longer pretend to be peaceful protestors. One wonders what the overlap between this alliance and those campaigning groups is.

It's nothing like how people and prisoners are treated in El Salvador, as the article illustrates.

Scott_xP

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Jacob Rees-Mogg claims Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng have been vindicated, so there's that.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/15/liz-truss-kwasi-kwarteng-have-vindicated/ (£££)

@implausibleblog
VD, "One of the reasons the Conservative party can't do what you want them to do, is because of the damage caused by Truss and Kwarteng."

JRM, "That was marginal."

VD, "But you accept that?"

JRM, "It was not a success."

Rees-Mogg's car crash interview #Newsnight

https://twitter.com/implausibleblog/status/1636145087842230272

noneoftheabove

stodge said:

noneoftheabove said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

noneoftheabove said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

The i and the Times sum it up well.

One of the best things the Tories have done over the past 13 years with George Osborne onwards was raising tax thresholds to make work pay.

Under Sunak and Hunt that progress is being reversed, taxes are rising and they're fiddling at the edges while taking tax and spend to record levels.

If this is meant to fuel aspiration or be a Conservative budget, its no Conservativism I recognise or would vote for.

Seeing as he gets the blame for some really random crap on here, only fair to point out that was a Clegg LD policy, subsequently adopted by the coalition. A good one, I concur.

Indeed it was, and it was a policy that Cameron and Osborne embraced wholeheartedly during the Coalition and essentially adopted as their own and continued with even post-2015 under successive Chancellors until Sunak abandoned it.

Part of the problem with the Lib Dems in 2015 in my view is they were far too apologetic about their record, rather than standing up tall and proud about what had been achieved like the tax thresholds, allowing Cameron and Osborne to take credit while all they got associated with was student fees etc.

I'm politically homeless, if the Lib Dems were to turn their backs on NIMBYism I'd quite happily support them. Unfortunately they're the worst of the NIMBYs and that's another thing I care passionately about.

I don't really follow much local politics so don't know about NIMBYism either way. I find the current version of the LDs uninspiring and tepid though. A lack of passion, leadership and imagination. Might still be the best available but can't get enthused by them.

There are clear signs the Party has re-discovered its "community politics" ethos after the Coalition and the EU Referendum. Ed Davey knows, because this is how he got elected, getting a strong local base of members and councillors is the only way to win constituencies and you have to keep at it all the time because the LD vote isn't ingrained and has to be won every time.

The seats won in 1997 were all in areas of strong local Government representation. The seats held in 2015 were the same.

I wish them well, but they could really do with someone of the calibre of Paddy Ashdown at the moment. He would have been really good at cutting through in the current climate. They should get Martin Lewis!

Stuartinromford

Casino_Royale said:

darkage said:

pigeon said:

noneoftheabove said:

The budget seems to create a massive IHT loophole where the wealthy can pass down unlimited pension wrapped assets down the generations, where even the income never gets taxed?

Or am I missing something?

I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised.

The Conservative Party exists to further the interest of two groups: it's extremely rich friends, from whom it derives its funding; and minted elderly people, in outright possession of expensive houses and with more disposable income than most workers, and their expectant heirs, whom together account for the bulk of the party membership and the core vote.

These are the people who are indulged; the rest of us get half-arsed measures like the childcare reforms (badly underfunded, will take years to bring in, done to make it look as if they care when they don't,) and a shit sandwich (fiscal drag to extract the money to pay for massive tax breaks for the wealthy, and endless inflation-busting hikes in pensions - all paid for out of the ever-diminishing wages of low and middle income workers, rather than from the immense asset wealth of their supporters, which must never be touched.)

This entire Government and the Tory Party itself are both little more than vehicles for a process of managed national decline, in which a shrinking pool of wealth is steadily transferred upwards from the young and the struggling to the old and the rich. It's all they really care about and it's all they're any good at doing.

Yeah this articulates my own thoughts on the Conservative party. The thing is though, that their support is being increasingly concentrated in the over 65 category, and putting in these massive bungs will not really assist their position with younger voters.

This is why people get the wrong end of the stick when the '100k' debate comes up. What the Conservative party is doing is giving massive tax breaks to its asset owning supporters, whilst disproportionately taxing people who work, including those who have high salaries, particularly younger people. The latter group are increasingly seeing that they are getting a bad deal and not voting Conservative, voting Labour instead. The Labour party could ultimately take advantage of a political division between people who work and people who don't.

The politics of this is interesting.

What's actually going on here is electoral coalition building: the Conservatives are trying to bolster their support amongst the 55-64 age group and doing so by making generous pension reforms for the last 10 years of their working lives before they pivot into becoming pensioners themselves. In the 12-18 months before a general election virtually everything is political.

I think Labour fell into a trap by pledging to reverse this today.

Not really- for most people, even most fifty somethings, the current pension limits are already high enough as to be a dead letter.

The political benefit of this is keeping consultants in the NHS at work.

ydoethur

StillWaters said:

darkage said:

I think the urge to try and build up 'dynastic' wealth is flawed. There are many other more productive things you can do with your life and leave a legacy on the world through your career etc.

Tell that to Esme Fairborn, Garfield Weston, Rockefeller or Wellcome.

John D. or Nelson?

Scott_xP

Peter_the_Punter said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

And where's the Cheltenham day three header?

The racing correspondents have been sacked?

Morning Peter. Sorry we didn't see you yesterday.

Best result of the day?

Bronn, 3rd at 66/1, tipped by some guy in commentary before the start of racing.

MaxPB

Fishing said:

rcs1000 said:

Here's what Sam Bankman-FriedHisCompany paid himself/withdrew from FTX/Almeda:



A mere $2.2bn.

Crypto has two uses: for money laundering and outright gambling. As such, SBF was a perfect symbol.

The only mystery is how he got away with it for so long.

Because he said the right things and made friends with the right people. Even now he has defenders amongst woke liberal Americans.

BartholomewRoberts

Casino_Royale said:

darkage said:

pigeon said:

noneoftheabove said:

The budget seems to create a massive IHT loophole where the wealthy can pass down unlimited pension wrapped assets down the generations, where even the income never gets taxed?

Or am I missing something?

I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised.

The Conservative Party exists to further the interest of two groups: it's extremely rich friends, from whom it derives its funding; and minted elderly people, in outright possession of expensive houses and with more disposable income than most workers, and their expectant heirs, whom together account for the bulk of the party membership and the core vote.

These are the people who are indulged; the rest of us get half-arsed measures like the childcare reforms (badly underfunded, will take years to bring in, done to make it look as if they care when they don't,) and a shit sandwich (fiscal drag to extract the money to pay for massive tax breaks for the wealthy, and endless inflation-busting hikes in pensions - all paid for out of the ever-diminishing wages of low and middle income workers, rather than from the immense asset wealth of their supporters, which must never be touched.)

This entire Government and the Tory Party itself are both little more than vehicles for a process of managed national decline, in which a shrinking pool of wealth is steadily transferred upwards from the young and the struggling to the old and the rich. It's all they really care about and it's all they're any good at doing.

Yeah this articulates my own thoughts on the Conservative party. The thing is though, that their support is being increasingly concentrated in the over 65 category, and putting in these massive bungs will not really assist their position with younger voters.

This is why people get the wrong end of the stick when the '100k' debate comes up. What the Conservative party is doing is giving massive tax breaks to its asset owning supporters, whilst disproportionately taxing people who work, including those who have high salaries, particularly younger people. The latter group are increasingly seeing that they are getting a bad deal and not voting Conservative, voting Labour instead. The Labour party could ultimately take advantage of a political division between people who work and people who don't.

The politics of this is interesting.

What's actually going on here is electoral coalition building: the Conservatives are trying to bolster their support amongst the 55-64 age group and doing so by making generous pension reforms for the last 10 years of their working lives before they pivot into becoming pensioners themselves. In the 12-18 months before a general election virtually everything is political.

I think Labour fell into a trap by pledging to reverse this today.

Shafting people who work for a living by protecting those who don't, or aspire not to, may make good electoral politics but if they win an election it will be without my vote.

Why should we vote for that Casino? I joined the Tories because they were a party as I grew up that supported aspiration and believed in lower taxes on those who work, rather than draining workers to featherbed a client welfare state.

Stuartinromford

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Good morning

I haven't commented on the budget so far but I have read the threads and it seems to me we are witnessing, and have been for quite a while, a move to the left and demonising entrepreneurs and seemingly those earning in the region of £100,000 plus who received short shift when they pointed out that the tax system actually disincentives them from earning more

I do believe that because of covid the public have acquired a mindset that the government must provide support and assistance to maintain their cost of living at anyprice without any comprehension how it is to be paid for

On the budget it is clear parents with young children will benefit from the provision of early years childcare but even that is delayed to April 24 and not completed until 25 and the removal of lifetime pension savings is clearly directed at doctors but it is also an attraction to wealth creators but then they are persona non grata in our economy

I do not see this budget as a game changer for the conservatives who are looking at defeat in 2024 but again I say I am thankful that Sunak and Hunt are protecting the economy and with the business announcements hopefully encouraging growth, but ironically at a time when Labour will be the benefactors, not them

On Labour I thought Starmer's response was predictable and he could have written his speech before the budget

Yesterday's budget announcements while generally sensible, did lack a pleasant surprise and if Hunt had wanted to he could have provided a substantial increase in the personal allowance to standard rate taxpayers, but he seems set on stealth taxes no doubt as they are integral to his strategy

I expect a Labour win in 24, it is just the margin that is uncertain

That's the case for every budget response, isn't it? The LotO is replying to something they haven't seen so their reply has to be essentially pre-packed and generic.