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 is a joke , all these clowns wittering on and as you say they pay tax on it at some point so actually getting nothing. Also if invested they may well lose money into the bargain.
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.
I’ll go with option 3: neither. Reduce government borrowing or deploy into productive capital investment instead
@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."
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 agree with you about the LDs - its self-evident that so much of the good in the coalition was from us and so much of the bad was from the Tories. That policies turned seriously nasty post 2015 demonstrates what a 2010 Cameron majority would have been like.
On NIMBYism I am going to hold out an olive branch. I agree that we need to develop projects much faster - whether houses or transport or industry or even asylum centres. Nothing more stupid than a Tory Mince MP railing against the boats in favour of the new illegal illegal migration bill, yet is also campaigning loudly against building asylum detention centre in the constituency.
Your problem is that you are such an absolutist on this that you would have planners overrule everyone with no recourse, allowing them to build on your own back garden without you doing anything about it. You might say its an extreme example, but I have seen such developments where the end of people's gardens and the open space beyond get turned into high-density shitbox houses.
We need homes. But we need homes fit for purpose and so many new builds are shoddily built and crushed in with no thought about how they fit into an environment already overflowing with people.
So there HAS to be planning, but a new balance has to be found. Are you open to finding a balance?
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.
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.
The legislation is what it is. You're not addressing that point.
It is also aimed at everyone by definition, unless you think it applies to our swampy friends alone? You're not addressing that.
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.
I agree but Starmer was just depressing in the context he could be the next PM
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.
Tbf to JRM, that clip from the interview was hardly a car crash, at worst a car park ding.
better than this one...
@PeterStefanovi2 Wow. After introducing his guest as “a particularly distinguished professor of economics at Kings college London” Jacob Rees-Mogg squirms as he’s told some hard truths about the damage of Brexit. Watch in disbelief at what comes next
48% voted against Brexit, just 18% want a republic on that poll
We're talking about *support* for the monarchy. On something so fundamental as you keep claining it is, having only 55% of voters actually in favour doesn;t say a lot with HMtQ only recently no longer with us.
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.
I would wholeheartedly agree with stodge’s comment about political activism in general, it is full of idealists worthy of our admiration. But I think for most people it is impossible to square that with the actions of the government, at least since Johnson held the reins.
As a result I think anti-Tory rants are appropriate (if not very productive) as long as they are directed at those in power not the activists who got them there.
I would say the fact that an intelligent community like pb has got this ranty is an indication of how ideologically bankrupt the government is, rather than any inadequacies on the part of pb itself.
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.
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.
Precisely. Except that Jeremy Hunt had comprehensively trailed this budget over the weekend. You could call it the anti-Kwasi strategy to avoid spooking the markets.
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
Not sure I agree with much of this.
The reason for example the Truss/Kwarteng Government failed so dramatically is people are no longer prepared to accept economic policies which don't pass the "fairness" test. We can all see how the way changes to tax were proposed looked like the poor getting a little and the rich getting a lot (simplistically).
That isn't what the majority want any more - they want the poor to get the real benefits while the rich (who can afford to in their eyes) continue to pay - is that sustainable? That's a different question.
So much of the Budget was leaked in advance Starmer probably could have written his response beforehand - it's the ability to respond off the cuff to a Budget which marks a good LOTO from an average one or to have a strong Shadow Chancellor at your side to help prepare the response.
The "Stealth Tax" is the big story for me - the Conservatives may claim to be the Party which cuts taxes but that's a bare faced lie and been exposed as such. Not only has the Corporation Tax rise been maintained but thanks to high inflation, to paraphrase a famous comment, one's man wage increase is another man's additional tax receipt for the Chancellor. I presume the additional receipts now will be used as a desperate pre-election sweetener next spring - I hope I'm wrong but I'm now certain there will be a tax cut next spring.
Also - this is for the UK as a whole. Astonishingly low. And this is when QEII's memory has faded only slightly.
It isn't and we have to remember the late Queen was probably in the top 3 monarchs of the last 500 years, along with Queen Elizabeth I and Victoria (ironically all of them women). Nobody alive today will see as good a monarch as she was in their lifetimes.
Charles will be more of an average monarch, popular with his generation, less so with the youngest but still better than say George IV, Edward VIII or James II.
William and Kate though are popular across the generations and will secure the monarchy for George
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.
As a slogan for the next election -
Labour: we’re on your side
Positive (and implicitly negative) inclusive and suitably vague but as an umbrella slogan could work?
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.
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.
We could already stop saboteurs though. The laws were already there and people are already getting nicked and prosecuted and jailed.
Perhaps our problem is this - the politicisation and corruption of the justice system. Forces like the Met institutionalise every kind of prejudice you can name and weaponise things like rape and stop and search to suppress people they don't like (women, black men etc).
It isn't remotely that we are anything close to El Salvador. But our institutions are distrusted on an increasingly large scale as if we were like El Salvador. And the politicisation doesn't help - and I count both the targeting of the Countryside Alliance by Labour and environmentalism by the Tories as being the same issue.
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.
99% of people invested in cryptocurrencies aren’t self-custodians of their assets though, they’re keeping them in the unregulated banks that are exchanges like FTX.
We live in the 4th most pro monarchy constituency in the UK now, Brentwood and Ongar. Castle Point is 1st, Rayleigh and Wickford 2nd and Christchurch 3rd.
The most republican constituency is Glasgow Central, followed by Liverpool Riverside and Glasgow North and Bristol West
Also - this is for the UK as a whole. Astonishingly low. And this is when QEII's memory has faded only slightly.
It isn't and we have to remember the late Queen was probably in the top 3 monarchs of the last 500 years, along with Queen Elizabeth I and Victoria (ironically all of them women). Nobody alive today will see as good a monarch as she was in their lifetimes.
Charles will be more of an average monarch, popular with his generation, less so with the youngest but still better than say George IV, Edward VIII or James II.
William and Kate though are popular across the generations and will secure the monarchy for George
But that arsgument of yours is precisely the point I am making - that 55% is a high point, and it is downhill from here.
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.
That may be true but it's not something I want to vote for. The other measures on full expensing for investment and childcare are enough to just about win me over for now but I think removing the lifetime allowance for pensions is a misstep, they'd have been better off tackling the £100k cliff edge and child benefit taper as both of these are also barriers to full time work. They also need to make pension funds subject to IHT now there's no limit otherwise people can just funnel £60k per year into one and then pass it on tax free. I guarantee that estate planners are rubbing their hands with glee right now.
In the autumn statement the barriers to work need to be further removed and we need to add R&D and infrastructure as expensable categories. That will cost another £6bn per year for both but the economic multiplier will be somewhere around 2.5-3x so after a year or so it becomes revenue neutral.
I also think the £20bn fund should just be generalised and available as matched investment for green energy (including nuclear) having available for just carbon capture means it will either never be spent or just wasted.
We live in the 4th most pro monarchy constituency in the UK now, Brentwood and Ongar. Castle Point is 1st, Rayleigh and Wickford 2nd and Christchurch 3rd.
The most republican constituency is Glasgow Central, followed by Liverpool Riverside and Glasgow North and Bristol West
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?
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 agree with you about the LDs - its self-evident that so much of the good in the coalition was from us and so much of the bad was from the Tories. That policies turned seriously nasty post 2015 demonstrates what a 2010 Cameron majority would have been like.
On NIMBYism I am going to hold out an olive branch. I agree that we need to develop projects much faster - whether houses or transport or industry or even asylum centres. Nothing more stupid than a Tory Mince MP railing against the boats in favour of the new illegal illegal migration bill, yet is also campaigning loudly against building asylum detention centre in the constituency.
Your problem is that you are such an absolutist on this that you would have planners overrule everyone with no recourse, allowing them to build on your own back garden without you doing anything about it. You might say its an extreme example, but I have seen such developments where the end of people's gardens and the open space beyond get turned into high-density shitbox houses.
We need homes. But we need homes fit for purpose and so many new builds are shoddily built and crushed in with no thought about how they fit into an environment already overflowing with people.
So there HAS to be planning, but a new balance has to be found. Are you open to finding a balance?
People's gardens are their own property. Nobody can ever build on your own property without your own consent.
The open space beyond is not. That is someone else's land.
If the open space beyond becomes a new property what's the problem with that? People who live in terraced houses don't even have a garden between their home and the next property.
My compromise is by having zoning for areas that aren't developed. If someone can up with a better compromise, then I would be OK to listen to that. But I don't see any issues at all with land that is not your property getting developed. If you want open space then have that within your perimeters, not outside it.
I think the obituaries for the Tory party at the next election are somewhat premature . I say this as someone desperate to see them ousted but have to accept that Sunak and Hunt do seem to be slowly repairing the damage of both Truss and Johnson .
It’s still going to need a miracle of sorts for them to win the next GE but talk of a Labour rout ignores the fact we’re still far out from a GE . The economy in the run up is likely to improve and voters might be more forgiving of the Truss Johnson era by then.
We can’t on the other hand ignore that the “ it’s time for a change “ will play a role in that election .
Labour need to put forward a safe offer with a few eye catching policies and not a huge manifesto. They’ll of course have to offer something even more wide ranging on child care now that the Tories have woken upto the issue .
Ironically the biggest issue to the Tories before then might be their own infighting rather than what Labour might do . The Johnson cult still seem unable to turn the page .
Sunak should really hope the privileges committee throw the book at him and end his political career .
The boat policy of course looms large and this of course is designed to put Labour in an uncomfortable position . Suggestions that the government could consider leaving the ECHR could cause more internal strife for the Tories.
I don’t think muting this is the great vote winner some Tories think given it would shatter relations with the EU , breach the GFA and the symbolism of the UK putting itself in the same category as Russia and Belarus at this time would be very poor optics .
They might think it could help hold the red wall but many of those seats have small majorities and are still in danger even with the “boats”.
And it would likely see an issue with the blue wall where you see that more historical soft Tory to Lib Dem shuffling .
Hey @stodge have you been racing this week. My Cheltenhams are the Tuesday and Weds each year so in slight recovery mode now.
Some cracking racing this year. I mean you are not supposed to win the Champion Chase by 10 lengths! Have you seen the screenshot going round on social media showing it entered up at the Larkhill pt-to-pt open maiden in 2018.
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
Not sure I agree with much of this.
The reason for example the Truss/Kwarteng Government failed so dramatically is people are no longer prepared to accept economic policies which don't pass the "fairness" test. We can all see how the way changes to tax were proposed looked like the poor getting a little and the rich getting a lot (simplistically).
That isn't what the majority want any more - they want the poor to get the real benefits while the rich (who can afford to in their eyes) continue to pay - is that sustainable? That's a different question.
So much of the Budget was leaked in advance Starmer probably could have written his response beforehand - it's the ability to respond off the cuff to a Budget which marks a good LOTO from an average one or to have a strong Shadow Chancellor at your side to help prepare the response.
The "Stealth Tax" is the big story for me - the Conservatives may claim to be the Party which cuts taxes but that's a bare faced lie and been exposed as such. Not only has the Corporation Tax rise been maintained but thanks to high inflation, to paraphrase a famous comment, one's man wage increase is another man's additional tax receipt for the Chancellor. I presume the additional receipts now will be used as a desperate pre-election sweetener next spring - I hope I'm wrong but I'm now certain there will be a tax cut next spring.
I think a tax cuts in 2024 is a certainty, but that may well be too late to prevent a Labour government
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.
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.
Part of the story here is that the oil rich Middle East countries are becoming more reluctant to pump their surplus cash into Europe when it doesn't show a return.
Also - this is for the UK as a whole. Astonishingly low. And this is when QEII's memory has faded only slightly.
It isn't and we have to remember the late Queen was probably in the top 3 monarchs of the last 500 years, along with Queen Elizabeth I and Victoria (ironically all of them women). Nobody alive today will see as good a monarch as she was in their lifetimes.
Charles will be more of an average monarch, popular with his generation, less so with the youngest but still better than say George IV, Edward VIII or James II.
William and Kate though are popular across the generations and will secure the monarchy for George
But that arsgument of yours is precisely the point I am making - that 55% is a high point, and it is downhill from here.
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.
I'm happy about it as after years of front page complaints about 'stealth taxes' which are actually just announced taxes, we actually have something that can be described that way.
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
Not sure I agree with much of this.
The reason for example the Truss/Kwarteng Government failed so dramatically is people are no longer prepared to accept economic policies which don't pass the "fairness" test. We can all see how the way changes to tax were proposed looked like the poor getting a little and the rich getting a lot (simplistically).
That isn't what the majority want any more - they want the poor to get the real benefits while the rich (who can afford to in their eyes) continue to pay - is that sustainable? That's a different question.
So much of the Budget was leaked in advance Starmer probably could have written his response beforehand - it's the ability to respond off the cuff to a Budget which marks a good LOTO from an average one or to have a strong Shadow Chancellor at your side to help prepare the response.
The "Stealth Tax" is the big story for me - the Conservatives may claim to be the Party which cuts taxes but that's a bare faced lie and been exposed as such. Not only has the Corporation Tax rise been maintained but thanks to high inflation, to paraphrase a famous comment, one's man wage increase is another man's additional tax receipt for the Chancellor. I presume the additional receipts now will be used as a desperate pre-election sweetener next spring - I hope I'm wrong but I'm now certain there will be a tax cut next spring.
Stealth tax rises recycled as headline rate reductions. "Jeremy tells Britain: 2p off!" and all that.
It wouldn't be the classy thing to do; like it or not, government spending had to be paid for, and nobody has identified cuts that make sense, but it's one of the few cards the government has left.
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.
It's a bit odd to complain that the LOTO can't provide an extempore response to something the Treasury team has spent weeks or months preparing.
Looks like Murrells mafia in trouble as people in uproar at Banana Republic election, clock is ticking
It is quite remarkable that the candidates for election to Party leader cannot even access the number of Party members. How are they supposed to communicate with them if they don't know who they are?
Suspect there are going to be some interesting revelations when the levers of power are finally prised from the current clique's cold, dead hands.
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.
That may be true but it's not something I want to vote for. The other measures on full expensing for investment and childcare are enough to just about win me over for now but I think removing the lifetime allowance for pensions is a misstep, they'd have been better off tackling the £100k cliff edge and child benefit taper as both of these are also barriers to full time work. They also need to make pension funds subject to IHT now there's no limit otherwise people can just funnel £60k per year into one and then pass it on tax free. I guarantee that estate planners are rubbing their hands with glee right now.
In the autumn statement the barriers to work need to be further removed and we need to add R&D and infrastructure as expensable categories. That will cost another £6bn per year for both but the economic multiplier will be somewhere around 2.5-3x so after a year or so it becomes revenue neutral.
I also think the £20bn fund should just be generalised and available as matched investment for green energy (including nuclear) having available for just carbon capture means it will either never be spent or just wasted.
If only it had been put into tidal lagoons and electrifying the railways. Sod carbon capture, let's just not generate the damn stuff.
But that would require strange accidents to happen to the many bed-blockers at the DfE and the Department for Energy Security.
Not exactly resounding support and, I’m sure, lower than it used to be an declining
Yet HYUD is right is still high, and its early days for Charles. Things could continue on that path but so often it's just lazy regurgitation of such being inevitable.
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
Not sure I agree with much of this.
The reason for example the Truss/Kwarteng Government failed so dramatically is people are no longer prepared to accept economic policies which don't pass the "fairness" test. We can all see how the way changes to tax were proposed looked like the poor getting a little and the rich getting a lot (simplistically).
That isn't what the majority want any more - they want the poor to get the real benefits while the rich (who can afford to in their eyes) continue to pay - is that sustainable? That's a different question.
So much of the Budget was leaked in advance Starmer probably could have written his response beforehand - it's the ability to respond off the cuff to a Budget which marks a good LOTO from an average one or to have a strong Shadow Chancellor at your side to help prepare the response.
The "Stealth Tax" is the big story for me - the Conservatives may claim to be the Party which cuts taxes but that's a bare faced lie and been exposed as such. Not only has the Corporation Tax rise been maintained but thanks to high inflation, to paraphrase a famous comment, one's man wage increase is another man's additional tax receipt for the Chancellor. I presume the additional receipts now will be used as a desperate pre-election sweetener next spring - I hope I'm wrong but I'm now certain there will be a tax cut next spring.
I think a tax cuts in 2024 is a certainty, but that may well be too late to prevent a Labour government
A tad too cynical and obvious to work. People will presume they will just be raised again the year after an election.
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.
That may be true but it's not something I want to vote for. The other measures on full expensing for investment and childcare are enough to just about win me over for now but I think removing the lifetime allowance for pensions is a misstep, they'd have been better off tackling the £100k cliff edge and child benefit taper as both of these are also barriers to full time work. They also need to make pension funds subject to IHT now there's no limit otherwise people can just funnel £60k per year into one and then pass it on tax free. I guarantee that estate planners are rubbing their hands with glee right now.
In the autumn statement the barriers to work need to be further removed and we need to add R&D and infrastructure as expensable categories. That will cost another £6bn per year for both but the economic multiplier will be somewhere around 2.5-3x so after a year or so it becomes revenue neutral.
I also think the £20bn fund should just be generalised and available as matched investment for green energy (including nuclear) having available for just carbon capture means it will either never be spent or just wasted.
If only it had been put into tidal lagoons and electrifying the railways. Sod carbon capture, let's just not generate the damn stuff.
But that would require strange accidents to happen to the many bed-blockers at the DfE and the Department for Energy Security.
A big 'like' for the first sentence but blaming civil servants is too easy. HMG could have made tidal lagoons and rail electrification happen if they had so decided.
If they can push through Rwanda deportations they can push through anything. If they've a mind to.
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.
You can't win an election with just over 65s, you need over 50s even to win most seats in a hung parliament.
You also need over 40s to win a majority as Boris did in 2019 winning most voters over 39 and Cameron did in 2015 winning most voters over 35
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.
That may be true but it's not something I want to vote for. The other measures on full expensing for investment and childcare are enough to just about win me over for now but I think removing the lifetime allowance for pensions is a misstep, they'd have been better off tackling the £100k cliff edge and child benefit taper as both of these are also barriers to full time work. They also need to make pension funds subject to IHT now there's no limit otherwise people can just funnel £60k per year into one and then pass it on tax free. I guarantee that estate planners are rubbing their hands with glee right now.
In the autumn statement the barriers to work need to be further removed and we need to add R&D and infrastructure as expensable categories. That will cost another £6bn per year for both but the economic multiplier will be somewhere around 2.5-3x so after a year or so it becomes revenue neutral.
I also think the £20bn fund should just be generalised and available as matched investment for green energy (including nuclear) having available for just carbon capture means it will either never be spent or just wasted.
If only it had been put into tidal lagoons and electrifying the railways. Sod carbon capture, let's just not generate the damn stuff.
But that would require strange accidents to happen to the many bed-blockers at the DfE and the Department for Energy Security.
A big 'like' for the first sentence but blaming civil servants is too easy. HMG could have made tidal lagoons and rail electrification happen if they had so decided.
If they can push through Rwanda deportations they can push through anything. If they've a mind to.
They have pushed through the Rwanda deportations? I thought they'd buggered it up and only sent one person that they then had to bring back?
Or have I missed recent developments?
Edit - the more reasonable ground of attack is that once again my autocorrect has blamed the DfE not the DfT! AAAARGGGH!
I mean, the DfE are truly useless and awful but blaming them for the lack of electrified railways is a bit harsh.
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.
While I agree that capital should be taxed more, and income less, it’s worth noting that a lot of people have a lot of capital. That’s the real contrast with past eras, and explains why the Conservatives act as they do.
Median net household wealth is £280,000, and 15% of households are millionaires.
IHT is now a growing stealth tax (no bad thing) due to rises in asset prices. This month I have alone, I’ve paid out £400,000 in IHT on behalf of clients.
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.
As a 50-something, and to put the LTA in perspective, I have just had a tally up and as a professional in IT earning decent money I have paid in £147k over 23 years (I was in a final salary scheme for a few years prior to that and haven't included that in the total). To exceed the LTA by the time I might hope to retire would require me to pay in 100% of my gross salary for the rest of my career.
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
Not sure I agree with much of this.
The reason for example the Truss/Kwarteng Government failed so dramatically is people are no longer prepared to accept economic policies which don't pass the "fairness" test. We can all see how the way changes to tax were proposed looked like the poor getting a little and the rich getting a lot (simplistically).
That isn't what the majority want any more - they want the poor to get the real benefits while the rich (who can afford to in their eyes) continue to pay - is that sustainable? That's a different question.
So much of the Budget was leaked in advance Starmer probably could have written his response beforehand - it's the ability to respond off the cuff to a Budget which marks a good LOTO from an average one or to have a strong Shadow Chancellor at your side to help prepare the response.
The "Stealth Tax" is the big story for me - the Conservatives may claim to be the Party which cuts taxes but that's a bare faced lie and been exposed as such. Not only has the Corporation Tax rise been maintained but thanks to high inflation, to paraphrase a famous comment, one's man wage increase is another man's additional tax receipt for the Chancellor. I presume the additional receipts now will be used as a desperate pre-election sweetener next spring - I hope I'm wrong but I'm now certain there will be a tax cut next spring.
Stealth tax rises recycled as headline rate reductions. "Jeremy tells Britain: 2p off!" and all that.
It wouldn't be the classy thing to do; like it or not, government spending had to be paid for, and nobody has identified cuts that make sense, but it's one of the few cards the government has left.
As I mentioned on here yesterday I very much expect a 2% cut in basic rate income tax (possibly also to the higher rate) to be announced in Spring budget 2024.
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.
It was the Conservative and LD coalition who took the lowest earners out of tax and the Conservatives have increased the minimum wage by 10% this year
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
Not sure I agree with much of this.
The reason for example the Truss/Kwarteng Government failed so dramatically is people are no longer prepared to accept economic policies which don't pass the "fairness" test. We can all see how the way changes to tax were proposed looked like the poor getting a little and the rich getting a lot (simplistically).
That isn't what the majority want any more - they want the poor to get the real benefits while the rich (who can afford to in their eyes) continue to pay - is that sustainable? That's a different question.
So much of the Budget was leaked in advance Starmer probably could have written his response beforehand - it's the ability to respond off the cuff to a Budget which marks a good LOTO from an average one or to have a strong Shadow Chancellor at your side to help prepare the response.
The "Stealth Tax" is the big story for me - the Conservatives may claim to be the Party which cuts taxes but that's a bare faced lie and been exposed as such. Not only has the Corporation Tax rise been maintained but thanks to high inflation, to paraphrase a famous comment, one's man wage increase is another man's additional tax receipt for the Chancellor. I presume the additional receipts now will be used as a desperate pre-election sweetener next spring - I hope I'm wrong but I'm now certain there will be a tax cut next spring.
Stealth tax rises recycled as headline rate reductions. "Jeremy tells Britain: 2p off!" and all that.
It wouldn't be the classy thing to do; like it or not, government spending had to be paid for, and nobody has identified cuts that make sense, but it's one of the few cards the government has left.
At some point, there will have to be a genuine zero-based spending review, with close attention paid to the scope of government.
This is interesting for several reasons. Kılıçdaroğlu is in favour of unblocking Finland and Swedish accession to NATO, and he is apparently keen for EU accession talks to restart. He also says he'll release prominent opposition politicians who have been jailed.
Kılıçdaroğlu is the candidate of the National Party, an alliance of six parties set up to try to counter Erdogan and the AKP.
How Erdoğan reacts to the polling, or even a loss, at the elections in May might be interesting. There are presidential elections, and a general election. In the latter, the opposition CHP is getting closer to the ruling AKP. He might find himself president to a non-AKP dominated parliament, or Kılıçdaroğlu might find himself president with an ALP-dominated parliament. Neither options promise stability.
It is included but is much less pro monarchy than England on average - along with London, big cities and South Wales. Looks a lot like a map of Tory party support!
Looks like Murrells mafia in trouble as people in uproar at Banana Republic election, clock is ticking
Genuinely bizarre occurrence. The disagreements over policy and factional attacks have been fun but pretty standard stuff, but this?
Shoudl be fun, Regan has given them deadline of 3pm or else she will have press conference. No doubt to announce it is going to the courts. We may be close to them having to get the helicopters in as it comes tumbling down and then it will be every gender for themselves when the shit hits the fan. Shredders will be burnt out by now.
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.
In Epping Forest the LDs have joined up with some Residents' Association councillors and Independents and voted against the Local Plan and the Conservative controlled council's plan for new housing in the area.
The LDs are indeed the most NIMBY of the main parties, more so than the Tories and much more so than Labour. In London the LDs oppose Labour councils local plans and in the Home counties they oppose Conservative councils local plans
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.
That may be true but it's not something I want to vote for. The other measures on full expensing for investment and childcare are enough to just about win me over for now but I think removing the lifetime allowance for pensions is a misstep, they'd have been better off tackling the £100k cliff edge and child benefit taper as both of these are also barriers to full time work. They also need to make pension funds subject to IHT now there's no limit otherwise people can just funnel £60k per year into one and then pass it on tax free. I guarantee that estate planners are rubbing their hands with glee right now.
In the autumn statement the barriers to work need to be further removed and we need to add R&D and infrastructure as expensable categories. That will cost another £6bn per year for both but the economic multiplier will be somewhere around 2.5-3x so after a year or so it becomes revenue neutral.
I also think the £20bn fund should just be generalised and available as matched investment for green energy (including nuclear) having available for just carbon capture means it will either never be spent or just wasted.
If only it had been put into tidal lagoons and electrifying the railways. Sod carbon capture, let's just not generate the damn stuff.
But that would require strange accidents to happen to the many bed-blockers at the DfE and the Department for Energy Security.
A big 'like' for the first sentence but blaming civil servants is too easy. HMG could have made tidal lagoons and rail electrification happen if they had so decided.
If they can push through Rwanda deportations they can push through anything. If they've a mind to.
They have pushed through the Rwanda deportations? I thought they'd buggered it up and only sent one person that they then had to bring back?
Or have I missed recent developments?
Edit - the more reasonable ground of attack is that once again my autocorrect has blamed the DfE not the DfT! AAAARGGGH!
I mean, the DfE are truly useless and awful but blaming them for the lack of electrified railways is a bit harsh.
Yes fair point, I realised I was using very dodgy evidence there, and tbf I was struggling to think of something this inept Government has managed to push through (should have used Br---- you know what).
I did wonder about the DfE but just put it down to your, er, focus in that area.
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
Not sure I agree with much of this.
The reason for example the Truss/Kwarteng Government failed so dramatically is people are no longer prepared to accept economic policies which don't pass the "fairness" test. We can all see how the way changes to tax were proposed looked like the poor getting a little and the rich getting a lot (simplistically).
That isn't what the majority want any more - they want the poor to get the real benefits while the rich (who can afford to in their eyes) continue to pay - is that sustainable? That's a different question.
So much of the Budget was leaked in advance Starmer probably could have written his response beforehand - it's the ability to respond off the cuff to a Budget which marks a good LOTO from an average one or to have a strong Shadow Chancellor at your side to help prepare the response.
The "Stealth Tax" is the big story for me - the Conservatives may claim to be the Party which cuts taxes but that's a bare faced lie and been exposed as such. Not only has the Corporation Tax rise been maintained but thanks to high inflation, to paraphrase a famous comment, one's man wage increase is another man's additional tax receipt for the Chancellor. I presume the additional receipts now will be used as a desperate pre-election sweetener next spring - I hope I'm wrong but I'm now certain there will be a tax cut next spring.
I think a tax cuts in 2024 is a certainty, but that may well be too late to prevent a Labour government
A tad too cynical and obvious to work. People will presume they will just be raised again the year after an election.
There's a Bird and Fortune "George Parr" sketch that nails this. Something like
If we cut the basic rate by 1p, voters will think it's a cynical bribe and I'm not voting for anything so shameless. If we cut it by 2p, voters will think it's a cynical bribe... but it's a bloody good one...
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.
That may be true but it's not something I want to vote for. The other measures on full expensing for investment and childcare are enough to just about win me over for now but I think removing the lifetime allowance for pensions is a misstep, they'd have been better off tackling the £100k cliff edge and child benefit taper as both of these are also barriers to full time work. They also need to make pension funds subject to IHT now there's no limit otherwise people can just funnel £60k per year into one and then pass it on tax free. I guarantee that estate planners are rubbing their hands with glee right now.
In the autumn statement the barriers to work need to be further removed and we need to add R&D and infrastructure as expensable categories. That will cost another £6bn per year for both but the economic multiplier will be somewhere around 2.5-3x so after a year or so it becomes revenue neutral.
I also think the £20bn fund should just be generalised and available as matched investment for green energy (including nuclear) having available for just carbon capture means it will either never be spent or just wasted.
If only it had been put into tidal lagoons and electrifying the railways. Sod carbon capture, let's just not generate the damn stuff.
But that would require strange accidents to happen to the many bed-blockers at the DfE and the Department for Energy Security.
A big 'like' for the first sentence but blaming civil servants is too easy. HMG could have made tidal lagoons and rail electrification happen if they had so decided.
If they can push through Rwanda deportations they can push through anything. If they've a mind to.
They have pushed through the Rwanda deportations? I thought they'd buggered it up and only sent one person that they then had to bring back?
Or have I missed recent developments?
Edit - the more reasonable ground of attack is that once again my autocorrect has blamed the DfE not the DfT! AAAARGGGH!
I mean, the DfE are truly useless and awful but blaming them for the lack of electrified railways is a bit harsh.
Yes fair point, I realised I was using very dodgy evidence there, and tbf I was struggling to think of something this inept Government has managed to push through (should have used Br---- you know what).
I did wonder about the DfE but just put it down to your, er, focus in that area.
My autocorrect appears to be even more obsessed with them than I am. And even more cynical.
It is included but is much less pro monarchy than England on average - along with London, big cities and South Wales. Looks a lot like a map of Tory party support!
The Scottish Borders and North East Scotland though are more in favour of the monarchy than some parts of England however like Liverpool and Bristol and parts of inner London
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.
In Epping Forest the LDs have joined up with some Residents' Association councillors and Independents and voted against the Local Plan and the Conservative controlled council's plan for new housing in the area.
The LDs are indeed the most NIMBY of the main parties, more so than the Tories and much more so than Labour. In London the LDs oppose Labour councils local plans and in the Home counties they oppose Conservative councils local plans
They're the most nimby as they are not usually in control. Those in control are also very nimby but legal requirements constrain them more.
Looks like Murrells mafia in trouble as people in uproar at Banana Republic election, clock is ticking
It is quite remarkable that the candidates for election to Party leader cannot even access the number of Party members. How are they supposed to communicate with them if they don't know who they are?
Suspect there are going to be some interesting revelations when the levers of power are finally prised from the current clique's cold, dead hands.
Yesterday Humza's twitter account went silent , Sturgeon's fixer Lloyd was brought into his campaign team and @Msm_Monitor , an SNP staffer account, has just done a runner & closed their account after a 5 minute warning.
Panic at the Murrell’s? #SNPLeadership #SNPLeadershipElection #TroughersforHumza
Former members have been sent ballot papers , mistake as they are reserved It is all piling up.
This is interesting for several reasons. Kılıçdaroğlu is in favour of unblocking Finland and Swedish accession to NATO, and he is apparently keen for EU accession talks to restart. He also says he'll release prominent opposition politicians who have been jailed.
Kılıçdaroğlu is the candidate of the National Party, an alliance of six parties set up to try to counter Erdogan and the AKP.
How Erdoğan reacts to the polling, or even a loss, at the elections in May might be interesting. There are presidential elections, and a general election. In the latter, the opposition CHP is getting closer to the ruling AKP. He might find himself president to a non-AKP dominated parliament, or Kılıçdaroğlu might find himself president with an ALP-dominated parliament. Neither options promise stability.
Looks like Murrells mafia in trouble as people in uproar at Banana Republic election, clock is ticking
Genuinely bizarre occurrence. The disagreements over policy and factional attacks have been fun but pretty standard stuff, but this?
There are two Scotlands (like most places). One is the progressive, open, friendly and compassionate small country. This Scotland looks the future in the eye, it's young and it's dynamic.
The other Scotland is sectarian, parochial and sclerotic. What happens here is no one else's business, so fuck off, mind your own business and let us stitch things up as we like.
It's not a unique observation that one of the magic tricks of the SNP has been to talk like the first Scotland but act like the second. The leadership election has exposed this, I think, and a lot of people living in the first Scotland are now discovering the existence of the second.
For the sake of balance, of course the real Scotland is somewhere in between and, if I may be controversial to some of my independence-supporting friends, much like England in that respect.
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.
While I agree that capital should be taxed more, and income less, it’s worth noting that a lot of people have a lot of capital. That’s the real contrast with past eras, and explains why the Conservatives act as they do.
Median net household wealth is £280,000, and 15% of households are millionaires.
IHT is now a growing stealth tax (no bad thing) due to rises in asset prices. This month I have alone, I’ve paid out £400,000 in IHT on behalf of clients.
Indeed far more voters live in houses worth over £500,000 than earn over £100,000 now
Also - this is for the UK as a whole. Astonishingly low. And this is when QEII's memory has faded only slightly.
It isn't and we have to remember the late Queen was probably in the top 3 monarchs of the last 500 years, along with Queen Elizabeth I and Victoria (ironically all of them women). Nobody alive today will see as good a monarch as she was in their lifetimes.
Charles will be more of an average monarch, popular with his generation, less so with the youngest but still better than say George IV, Edward VIII or James II.
William and Kate though are popular across the generations and will secure the monarchy for George
But that arsgument of yours is precisely the point I am making - that 55% is a high point, and it is downhill from here.
You are also wrong. William and Kate are more popular than Charles and Camilla so this should be the high point for republicans not monarchists
There are two big reasons why the discussion of Monarchy Yes or No is a waste of time.
Firstly it will for the foreseeable future be better than the actual alternatives. The monarchy doesn't have to run faster than the tiger of the general public. It has to run faster than the idea of President Blair. And it will.
Secondly, who bells the cat? Lots of people will prefer a republic. But. It will never ever be the right time to undertake the massive rows and changes involved. The political capital and risk involved is gigantic Even Jezza would have left it to his successor. So would his successor.
The important debate is how the monarchy is shaped and how it works.
It is included but is much less pro monarchy than England on average - along with London, big cities and South Wales. Looks a lot like a map of Tory party support!
The Scottish Borders and North East Scotland though are more in favour of the monarchy than some parts of England however like Liverpool and Bristol and parts of inner London
This is interesting for several reasons. Kılıçdaroğlu is in favour of unblocking Finland and Swedish accession to NATO, and he is apparently keen for EU accession talks to restart. He also says he'll release prominent opposition politicians who have been jailed.
Kılıçdaroğlu is the candidate of the National Party, an alliance of six parties set up to try to counter Erdogan and the AKP.
How Erdoğan reacts to the polling, or even a loss, at the elections in May might be interesting. There are presidential elections, and a general election. In the latter, the opposition CHP is getting closer to the ruling AKP. He might find himself president to a non-AKP dominated parliament, or Kılıçdaroğlu might find himself president with an ALP-dominated parliament. Neither options promise stability.
I thought the door to EU accession was pretty much closed, albeit not formally. That would be a dramatic shift.
The door is closed under Erdogan, for a number of reasons. And even if accession talks were reopened, joining in the anything less than the long term is really, really unlikely. But being closer could well bring substantial benefits to both the EU and Turkey.
In other news, it has been *rumoured* that Turkey might let NATO warships into the Black Sea. And it looks likely that Erdogan will allow Finland into NATO - without Sweden, when Finland and Sweden wanted to enter at the same time. Whether this is a genuine act on Erdogan's part, or just some pre-election fruit to the electorate, is anyone's guess.
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.
It was the Conservative and LD coalition who took the lowest earners out of tax and the Conservatives have increased the minimum wage by 10% this year
Id be quite happy to consider voting for a Cameron/Clegg type coalition, it went too far with austerity but otherwise was above average. Just because there is a blue badge on most of the coalition and Sunaks mob, does not make them the same thing at all, and voters are going to judge the Tories on their recent crazy years not what happened over 10 years ago when constrained by a centrist party.
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 challeng
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.
The Labour pledge to reverse it does give the perverse incentive to retire before the next GE., which rather conveniently suits my own plans.
Not going to help that NHS and Medical School expansion!
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.
While I agree that capital should be taxed more, and income less, it’s worth noting that a lot of people have a lot of capital. That’s the real contrast with past eras, and explains why the Conservatives act as they do.
Median net household wealth is £280,000, and 15% of households are millionaires.
IHT is now a growing stealth tax (no bad thing) due to rises in asset prices. This month I have alone, I’ve paid out £400,000 in IHT on behalf of clients.
IHT is an iniquitous and unnecessary tax to.pay. Clients should have set up trusts to avoid this surely....
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.
While I agree that capital should be taxed more, and income less, it’s worth noting that a lot of people have a lot of capital. That’s the real contrast with past eras, and explains why the Conservatives act as they do.
Median net household wealth is £280,000, and 15% of households are millionaires.
IHT is now a growing stealth tax (no bad thing) due to rises in asset prices. This month I have alone, I’ve paid out £400,000 in IHT on behalf of clients.
Indeed far more voters live in houses worth over £500,000 than earn over £100,000 now
IHT is less than 1% of the UK tax take. Avoidance is a major industry.
Also - this is for the UK as a whole. Astonishingly low. And this is when QEII's memory has faded only slightly.
It isn't and we have to remember the late Queen was probably in the top 3 monarchs of the last 500 years, along with Queen Elizabeth I and Victoria (ironically all of them women). Nobody alive today will see as good a monarch as she was in their lifetimes.
Charles will be more of an average monarch, popular with his generation, less so with the youngest but still better than say George IV, Edward VIII or James II.
William and Kate though are popular across the generations and will secure the monarchy for George
But that arsgument of yours is precisely the point I am making - that 55% is a high point, and it is downhill from here.
You are also wrong. William and Kate are more popular than Charles and Camilla so this should be the high point for republicans not monarchists
There are two big reasons why the discussion of Monarchy Yes or No is a waste of time.
Firstly it will for the foreseeable future be better than the actual alternatives. The monarchy doesn't have to run faster than the tiger of the general public. It has to run faster than the idea of President Blair. And it will.
Secondly, who bells the cat? Lots of people will prefer a republic. But. It will never ever be the right time to undertake the massive rows and changes involved. The political capital and risk involved is gigantic Even Jezza would have left it to his successor. So would his successor.
The important debate is how the monarchy is shaped and how it works.
Quite. I think thay is the immediate issue. Yet we are seeing Charles III do things like demand that the royal corporations turn up and give loyal addresses, and hand out Dukedoms here and there while not cancelling them for, er, you know whom. Not exactly modern.
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.
While I agree that capital should be taxed more, and income less, it’s worth noting that a lot of people have a lot of capital. That’s the real contrast with past eras, and explains why the Conservatives act as they do.
Median net household wealth is £280,000, and 15% of households are millionaires.
IHT is now a growing stealth tax (no bad thing) due to rises in asset prices. This month I have alone, I’ve paid out £400,000 in IHT on behalf of clients.
Indeed far more voters live in houses worth over £500,000 than earn over £100,000 now
IHT is less than 1% of the UK tax take. Avoidance is a major industry.
Recent experience would suggest that for a married couple leaving an estate including a house to direct descendants the threshold is in effect around a million pounds. That's without any tax planning at all (or rather, tax planning that wouldn't have worked).
Not surprising it's not taking in much money, even allowing for the distorting effect of the housing market in the SE.
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.
Energy prices have only a transient effect on inflation. If I don’t spend so much on fuel, I spend more on something else.
Crude has been smashed because of legitimate fears of a global financial crunch. If so, it’s going to be very tricky for central banks to pull on the string in one direction by raising rates, while simultaneously pulling the other way with more QE.
As such, it feels a lot to me like we’re in an era of sustained above target core inflation. Have a read of Russell Napier, he’s been saying similar for quite a while.
Also - this is for the UK as a whole. Astonishingly low. And this is when QEII's memory has faded only slightly.
It isn't and we have to remember the late Queen was probably in the top 3 monarchs of the last 500 years, along with Queen Elizabeth I and Victoria (ironically all of them women). Nobody alive today will see as good a monarch as she was in their lifetimes.
Charles will be more of an average monarch, popular with his generation, less so with the youngest but still better than say George IV, Edward VIII or James II.
William and Kate though are popular across the generations and will secure the monarchy for George
But that arsgument of yours is precisely the point I am making - that 55% is a high point, and it is downhill from here.
You are also wrong. William and Kate are more popular than Charles and Camilla so this should be the high point for republicans not monarchists
There are two big reasons why the discussion of Monarchy Yes or No is a waste of time.
Firstly it will for the foreseeable future be better than the actual alternatives. The monarchy doesn't have to run faster than the tiger of the general public. It has to run faster than the idea of President Blair. And it will.
Secondly, who bells the cat? Lots of people will prefer a republic. But. It will never ever be the right time to undertake the massive rows and changes involved. The political capital and risk involved is gigantic Even Jezza would have left it to his successor. So would his successor.
The important debate is how the monarchy is shaped and how it works.
Quite. I think thay is the immediate issue. Yet we are seeing Charles III do things like demand that the royal corporations turn up and give loyal addresses, and hand out Dukedoms here and there while not cancelling them for, er, you know whom. Not exactly modern.
He has simply passed one Dukedom from his deceased father to the Earl of Wessex, who has taken on a lot of extra royal duties after the Sussexes and Duke of York became non working royals.
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.
While I agree that capital should be taxed more, and income less, it’s worth noting that a lot of people have a lot of capital. That’s the real contrast with past eras, and explains why the Conservatives act as they do.
Median net household wealth is £280,000, and 15% of households are millionaires.
IHT is now a growing stealth tax (no bad thing) due to rises in asset prices. This month I have alone, I’ve paid out £400,000 in IHT on behalf of clients.
Indeed far more voters live in houses worth over £500,000 than earn over £100,000 now
IHT is less than 1% of the UK tax take. Avoidance is a major industry.
Recent experience would suggest that for a married couple leaving an estate including a house to direct descendants the threshold is in effect around a million pounds. That's without any tax planning at all (or rather, tax planning that wouldn't have worked).
Not surprising it's not taking in much money, even allowing for the distorting effect of the housing market in the SE.
That's correct. For couples with children and a house of value the threshold is about £1m. From memory this is made up of £325k each in any event and £350k from the value of the home if left to children. But DYOR, I haven't time to look it up.
In large parts of the country (many PBers will be astonished to learn) including where I live in WWC land this is considered a lot of money.
Looks like Murrells mafia in trouble as people in uproar at Banana Republic election, clock is ticking
Genuinely bizarre occurrence. The disagreements over policy and factional attacks have been fun but pretty standard stuff, but this?
Shoudl be fun, Regan has given them deadline of 3pm or else she will have press conference. No doubt to announce it is going to the courts. We may be close to them having to get the helicopters in as it comes tumbling down and then it will be every gender for themselves when the shit hits the fan. Shredders will be burnt out by now.
Even if all manner of stuff comes out, Sturgeon will, of course, have no recollection of whether she was told, nor by whom, or when.
Boris the Liar has nothing on her. She has been utterly shameless. Whether she has any reputation left within the year will be interesting to watch.
Looks like Murrells mafia in trouble as people in uproar at Banana Republic election, clock is ticking
It is quite remarkable that the candidates for election to Party leader cannot even access the number of Party members. How are they supposed to communicate with them if they don't know who they are?
Suspect there are going to be some interesting revelations when the levers of power are finally prised from the current clique's cold, dead hands.
It seems Peter Murrell's view of democracy is rather akin to that of the Patrician in Ankh-Morpork.
“Ankh-Morpork had dallied with many forms of government and had ended up with that form of democracy known as One Man, One Vote. The Patrician was the Man; he had the Vote.”
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.
Energy prices have only a transient effect on inflation. If I don’t spend so much on fuel, I spend more on something else.
Crude has been smashed because of legitimate fears of a global financial crunch. If so, it’s going to be very tricky for central banks to pull on the string in one direction by raising rates, while simultaneously pulling the other way with more QE.
As such, it feels a lot to me like we’re in an era of sustained above target core inflation. Have a read of Russell Napier, he’s been saying similar for quite a while.
The fuel price feeds into general inflation, more than any other single commodity. High fuel prices lead to higher food prices, and higher prices for material goods that need transporting.
I think the Fed are now re-evaluating how quickly rates will continue to rise as inflation falls. They don’t want to end up with stagnation requiring rates to actually be cut in the near term.
The easiest way to get inflation out of the world economy at the moment, is to put Vladimir Putin firmly back in his box by whatever means necessary.
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.
While I agree that capital should be taxed more, and income less, it’s worth noting that a lot of people have a lot of capital. That’s the real contrast with past eras, and explains why the Conservatives act as they do.
Median net household wealth is £280,000, and 15% of households are millionaires.
IHT is now a growing stealth tax (no bad thing) due to rises in asset prices. This month I have alone, I’ve paid out £400,000 in IHT on behalf of clients.
Indeed far more voters live in houses worth over £500,000 than earn over £100,000 now
IHT is less than 1% of the UK tax take. Avoidance is a major industry.
Recent experience would suggest that for a married couple leaving an estate including a house to direct descendants the threshold is in effect around a million pounds. That's without any tax planning at all (or rather, tax planning that wouldn't have worked).
Not surprising it's not taking in much money, even allowing for the distorting effect of the housing market in the SE.
That's correct. For couples with children and a house of value the threshold is about £1m. From memory this is made up of £325k each in any event and £350k from the value of the home if left to children. But DYOR, I haven't time to look it up.
In large parts of the country (many PBers will be astonished to learn) including where I live in WWC land this is considered a lot of money.
Yet Osborne proposing raising the IHT threshold to £1 million for married couples and their heirs was the single biggest vote gainer for the Tories in polls this century, more so even than Brexit.
So much that Brown had to scrap his proposed 2007 election
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.
While I agree that capital should be taxed more, and income less, it’s worth noting that a lot of people have a lot of capital. That’s the real contrast with past eras, and explains why the Conservatives act as they do.
Median net household wealth is £280,000, and 15% of households are millionaires.
IHT is now a growing stealth tax (no bad thing) due to rises in asset prices. This month I have alone, I’ve paid out £400,000 in IHT on behalf of clients.
Indeed far more voters live in houses worth over £500,000 than earn over £100,000 now
IHT is less than 1% of the UK tax take. Avoidance is a major industry.
Recent experience would suggest that for a married couple leaving an estate including a house to direct descendants the threshold is in effect around a million pounds. That's without any tax planning at all (or rather, tax planning that wouldn't have worked).
Not surprising it's not taking in much money, even allowing for the distorting effect of the housing market in the SE.
That's correct. For couples with children and a house of value the threshold is about £1m. From memory this is made up of £325k each in any event and £350k from the value of the home if left to children. But DYOR, I haven't time to look it up.
In large parts of the country (many PBers will be astonished to learn) including where I live in WWC land this is considered a lot of money.
Agreed. On this and on the £100k childcare cliff edge I think pb’s skewed readership really shows.
I am definitely wealthier than average and won’t come anywhere near either of these thresholds. I naively assumed the £100k childcare cliff edge was combined income. Given it’s not it is an even more niche concern (though I acknowledge the cliff edge issue should be sorted)
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.
While I agree that capital should be taxed more, and income less, it’s worth noting that a lot of people have a lot of capital. That’s the real contrast with past eras, and explains why the Conservatives act as they do.
Median net household wealth is £280,000, and 15% of households are millionaires.
IHT is now a growing stealth tax (no bad thing) due to rises in asset prices. This month I have alone, I’ve paid out £400,000 in IHT on behalf of clients.
Indeed far more voters live in houses worth over £500,000 than earn over £100,000 now
IHT is less than 1% of the UK tax take. Avoidance is a major industry.
Recent experience would suggest that for a married couple leaving an estate including a house to direct descendants the threshold is in effect around a million pounds. That's without any tax planning at all (or rather, tax planning that wouldn't have worked).
Not surprising it's not taking in much money, even allowing for the distorting effect of the housing market in the SE.
£4.1bn is still a much bigger number than a decade ago, and it will be a lot bigger than £4.1bn a decade on from now.
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.
While I agree that capital should be taxed more, and income less, it’s worth noting that a lot of people have a lot of capital. That’s the real contrast with past eras, and explains why the Conservatives act as they do.
Median net household wealth is £280,000, and 15% of households are millionaires.
IHT is now a growing stealth tax (no bad thing) due to rises in asset prices. This month I have alone, I’ve paid out £400,000 in IHT on behalf of clients.
Indeed far more voters live in houses worth over £500,000 than earn over £100,000 now
IHT is less than 1% of the UK tax take. Avoidance is a major industry.
Recent experience would suggest that for a married couple leaving an estate including a house to direct descendants the threshold is in effect around a million pounds. That's without any tax planning at all (or rather, tax planning that wouldn't have worked).
Not surprising it's not taking in much money, even allowing for the distorting effect of the housing market in the SE.
That's correct. For couples with children and a house of value the threshold is about £1m. From memory this is made up of £325k each in any event and £350k from the value of the home if left to children. But DYOR, I haven't time to look it up.
In large parts of the country (many PBers will be astonished to learn) including where I live in WWC land this is considered a lot of money.
Yet Osborne proposing raising the IHT threshold to £1 million for married couples and their heirs was the single biggest vote gainer for the Tories in polls this century, more so even than Brexit.
So much that Brown had to scrap his proposed 2007 election
That's a rewriting of history, there was far more going on at that stage in 2007 than merely the IHT threshold change.
The IHT change was one noticeable, but just one, element of what was happening.
Looks like Murrells mafia in trouble as people in uproar at Banana Republic election, clock is ticking
It is quite remarkable that the candidates for election to Party leader cannot even access the number of Party members. How are they supposed to communicate with them if they don't know who they are?
Suspect there are going to be some interesting revelations when the levers of power are finally prised from the current clique's cold, dead hands.
It seems Peter Murrell's view of democracy is rather akin to that of the Patrician in Ankh-Morpork.
“Ankh-Morpork had dallied with many forms of government and had ended up with that form of democracy known as One Man, One Vote. The Patrician was the Man; he had the Vote.”
It's surprising they don't just put this in the hands of a third party such as ERS (or Civica is it now?) particularly where there may be whispers shouts of bias.
Seems basic common sense. Even in a small society (staff group) when we had issues with one of the co-chairs apparently hating some members, I insisted (as another co-chair) that we made voting management for committee positions an independent process (overseen by one of the research group administrators not linked with the society in any way) as otherwise it was clearly going to cause upset, whatever the outcome.
Comments
Also - this is for the UK as a whole. Astonishingly low. And this is when QEII's memory has faded only slightly.
On NIMBYism I am going to hold out an olive branch. I agree that we need to develop projects much faster - whether houses or transport or industry or even asylum centres. Nothing more stupid than a Tory Mince MP railing against the boats in favour of the new illegal illegal migration bill, yet is also campaigning loudly against building asylum detention centre in the constituency.
Your problem is that you are such an absolutist on this that you would have planners overrule everyone with no recourse, allowing them to build on your own back garden without you doing anything about it. You might say its an extreme example, but I have seen such developments where the end of people's gardens and the open space beyond get turned into high-density shitbox houses.
We need homes. But we need homes fit for purpose and so many new builds are shoddily built and crushed in with no thought about how they fit into an environment already overflowing with people.
So there HAS to be planning, but a new balance has to be found. Are you open to finding a balance?
It is also aimed at everyone by definition, unless you think it applies to our swampy friends alone? You're not addressing that.
@PeterStefanovi2
Wow. After introducing his guest as “a particularly distinguished professor of economics at Kings college London” Jacob Rees-Mogg squirms as he’s told some hard truths about the damage of Brexit. Watch in disbelief at what comes next
https://twitter.com/PeterStefanovi2/status/1636145020980822020
As a result I think anti-Tory rants are appropriate (if not very productive) as long as they are directed at those in power not the activists who got them there.
I would say the fact that an intelligent community like pb has got this ranty is an indication of how ideologically bankrupt the government is, rather than any inadequacies on the part of pb itself.
The reason for example the Truss/Kwarteng Government failed so dramatically is people are no longer prepared to accept economic policies which don't pass the "fairness" test. We can all see how the way changes to tax were proposed looked like the poor getting a little and the rich getting a lot (simplistically).
That isn't what the majority want any more - they want the poor to get the real benefits while the rich (who can afford to in their eyes) continue to pay - is that sustainable? That's a different question.
So much of the Budget was leaked in advance Starmer probably could have written his response beforehand - it's the ability to respond off the cuff to a Budget which marks a good LOTO from an average one or to have a strong Shadow Chancellor at your side to help prepare the response.
The "Stealth Tax" is the big story for me - the Conservatives may claim to be the Party which cuts taxes but that's a bare faced lie and been exposed as such. Not only has the Corporation Tax rise been maintained but thanks to high inflation, to paraphrase a famous comment, one's man wage increase is another man's additional tax receipt for the Chancellor. I presume the additional receipts now will be used as a desperate pre-election sweetener next spring - I hope I'm wrong but I'm now certain there will be a tax cut next spring.
Charles will be more of an average monarch, popular with his generation, less so with the youngest but still better than say George IV, Edward VIII or James II.
William and Kate though are popular across the generations and will secure the monarchy for George
Labour: we’re on your side
Positive (and implicitly negative) inclusive and suitably vague but as an umbrella slogan could work?
Perhaps our problem is this - the politicisation and corruption of the justice system. Forces like the Met institutionalise every kind of prejudice you can name and weaponise things like rape and stop and search to suppress people they don't like (women, black men etc).
It isn't remotely that we are anything close to El Salvador. But our institutions are distrusted on an increasingly large scale as if we were like El Salvador. And the politicisation doesn't help - and I count both the targeting of the Countryside Alliance by Labour and environmentalism by the Tories as being the same issue.
The most republican constituency is Glasgow Central, followed by Liverpool Riverside and Glasgow North and Bristol West
https://twitter.com/freddiesayers/status/1636271029302575104?t=qODgsuNYE6veuQvG4hfQmw&s=19
"Virgin Orbit to pause all operations from Thursday"
I wonder if Dickie got all his money out in time?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-64973383
In the autumn statement the barriers to work need to be further removed and we need to add R&D and infrastructure as expensable categories. That will cost another £6bn per year for both but the economic multiplier will be somewhere around 2.5-3x so after a year or so it becomes revenue neutral.
I also think the £20bn fund should just be generalised and available as matched investment for green energy (including nuclear) having available for just carbon capture means it will either never be spent or just wasted.
The open space beyond is not. That is someone else's land.
If the open space beyond becomes a new property what's the problem with that? People who live in terraced houses don't even have a garden between their home and the next property.
My compromise is by having zoning for areas that aren't developed. If someone can up with a better compromise, then I would be OK to listen to that. But I don't see any issues at all with land that is not your property getting developed. If you want open space then have that within your perimeters, not outside it.
It’s still going to need a miracle of sorts for them to win the next GE but talk of a Labour rout ignores the fact we’re still far out from a GE . The economy in the run up is likely to improve and voters might be more forgiving of the Truss Johnson era by then.
We can’t on the other hand ignore that the “ it’s time for a change “ will play a role in that election .
Labour need to put forward a safe offer with a few eye catching policies and not a huge manifesto. They’ll of course have to offer something even more wide ranging on child care now that the Tories have woken upto the issue .
Ironically the biggest issue to the Tories before then might be their own infighting rather than what Labour might do . The Johnson cult still seem unable to turn the page .
Sunak should really hope the privileges committee throw the book at him and end his political career .
The boat policy of course looms large and this of course is designed to put Labour in an uncomfortable position . Suggestions that the government could consider leaving the ECHR could cause more internal strife for the Tories.
I don’t think muting this is the great vote winner some Tories think given it would shatter relations with the EU , breach the GFA and the symbolism of the UK putting itself in the same category as Russia and Belarus at this time would be very poor optics .
They might think it could help hold the red wall but many of those seats have small majorities and are still in danger even with the “boats”.
And it would likely see an issue with the blue wall where you see that more historical soft Tory to Lib Dem shuffling .
Some cracking racing this year. I mean you are not supposed to win the Champion Chase by 10 lengths! Have you seen the screenshot going round on social media showing it entered up at the Larkhill pt-to-pt open maiden in 2018.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2023/01/12/prince-harrys-popularity-falls-further-spare-hits-
You are also wrong. William and Kate are more popular than Charles and Camilla so this should be the high point for republicans not monarchists
Then I saw Erdogan and realised a) it is interesting and b) the rest of it is all Turkish to me.
It wouldn't be the classy thing to do; like it or not, government spending had to be paid for, and nobody has identified cuts that make sense, but it's one of the few cards the government has left.
Suspect there are going to be some interesting revelations when the levers of power are finally prised from the current clique's cold, dead hands.
But that would require strange accidents to happen to the many bed-blockers at the DfE and the Department for Energy Security.
Then the report won't be Turkish, it will be all Otto, man.
BRACE FOR CHATGPT...
If they can push through Rwanda deportations they can push through anything. If they've a mind to.
You also need over 40s to win a majority as Boris did in 2019 winning most voters over 39 and Cameron did in 2015 winning most voters over 35
Or have I missed recent developments?
Edit - the more reasonable ground of attack is that once again my autocorrect has blamed the DfE not the DfT! AAAARGGGH!
I mean, the DfE are truly useless and awful but blaming them for the lack of electrified railways is a bit harsh.
Median net household wealth is £280,000, and 15% of households are millionaires.
IHT is now a growing stealth tax (no bad thing) due to rises in asset prices. This month I have alone, I’ve paid out £400,000 in IHT on behalf of clients.
Essentially Erdogan is trailing behind the social democrat challenger. The election is May 14.
This is going to be a terrific year for Virgin Orbital.
How likely is it that the election will be relative free and fair, or is Erdogan going to arrange a stitch up?
Kılıçdaroğlu is the candidate of the National Party, an alliance of six parties set up to try to counter Erdogan and the AKP.
How Erdoğan reacts to the polling, or even a loss, at the elections in May might be interesting. There are presidential elections, and a general election. In the latter, the opposition CHP is getting closer to the ruling AKP. He might find himself president to a non-AKP dominated parliament, or Kılıçdaroğlu might find himself president with an ALP-dominated parliament. Neither options promise stability.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2023_Turkish_parliamentary_election
We may be close to them having to get the helicopters in as it comes tumbling down and then it will be every gender for themselves when the shit hits the fan. Shredders will be burnt out by now.
The LDs are indeed the most NIMBY of the main parties, more so than the Tories and much more so than Labour.
In London the LDs oppose Labour councils local plans and in the Home counties they oppose Conservative councils local plans
I did wonder about the DfE but just put it down to your, er, focus in that area.
If we cut the basic rate by 1p, voters will think it's a cynical bribe and I'm not voting for anything so shameless. If we cut it by 2p, voters will think it's a cynical bribe... but it's a bloody good one...
@Msm_Monitor
, an SNP staffer account, has just done a runner & closed their account after a 5 minute warning.
Panic at the Murrell’s? #SNPLeadership #SNPLeadershipElection #TroughersforHumza
Former members have been sent ballot papers , mistake as they are reserved
It is all piling up.
The other Scotland is sectarian, parochial and sclerotic. What happens here is no one else's business, so fuck off, mind your own business and let us stitch things up as we like.
It's not a unique observation that one of the magic tricks of the SNP has been to talk like the first Scotland but act like the second. The leadership election has exposed this, I think, and a lot of people living in the first Scotland are now discovering the existence of the second.
For the sake of balance, of course the real Scotland is somewhere in between and, if I may be controversial to some of my independence-supporting friends, much like England in that respect.
Firstly it will for the foreseeable future be better than the actual alternatives. The monarchy doesn't have to run faster than the tiger of the general public. It has to run faster than the idea of President Blair. And it will.
Secondly, who bells the cat? Lots of people will prefer a republic. But. It will never ever be the right time to undertake the massive rows and changes involved. The political capital and risk involved is gigantic Even Jezza would have left it to his successor. So would his successor.
The important debate is how the monarchy is shaped and how it works.
In other news, it has been *rumoured* that Turkey might let NATO warships into the Black Sea. And it looks likely that Erdogan will allow Finland into NATO - without Sweden, when Finland and Sweden wanted to enter at the same time. Whether this is a genuine act on Erdogan's part, or just some pre-election fruit to the electorate, is anyone's guess.
Not going to help that NHS and Medical School expansion!
Not surprising it's not taking in much money, even allowing for the distorting effect of the housing market in the SE.
Crude has been smashed because of legitimate fears of a global financial crunch. If so, it’s going to be very tricky for central banks to pull on the string in one direction by raising rates, while simultaneously pulling the other way with more QE.
As such, it feels a lot to me like we’re in an era of sustained above target core inflation. Have a read of Russell Napier, he’s been saying similar for quite a while.
He has not created a new Dukedom
In large parts of the country (many PBers will be astonished to learn) including where I live in WWC land this is considered a lot of money.
Boris the Liar has nothing on her. She has been utterly shameless. Whether she has any reputation left within the year will be interesting to watch.
“Ankh-Morpork had dallied with many forms of government and had ended up with that form of democracy known as One Man, One Vote. The Patrician was the Man; he had the Vote.”
I think the Fed are now re-evaluating how quickly rates will continue to rise as inflation falls. They don’t want to end up with stagnation requiring rates to actually be cut in the near term.
The easiest way to get inflation out of the world economy at the moment, is to put Vladimir Putin firmly back in his box by whatever means necessary.
R
U
S
S
So much that Brown had to scrap his proposed 2007 election
I am definitely wealthier than average and won’t come anywhere near either of these thresholds. I naively assumed the £100k childcare cliff edge was combined income. Given it’s not it is an even more niche concern (though I acknowledge the cliff edge issue should be sorted)
The IHT change was one noticeable, but just one, element of what was happening.
Seems basic common sense. Even in a small society (staff group) when we had issues with one of the co-chairs apparently hating some members, I insisted (as another co-chair) that we made voting management for committee positions an independent process (overseen by one of the research group administrators not linked with the society in any way) as otherwise it was clearly going to cause upset, whatever the outcome.