The paranoia engendered by many (but by no means all I hasten to add) in the SNP over electoral process (anyone remember the whole 'don't use a pencil' thing?) is coming back to haunt them, in an ironically similar manner to the Republican Party in the US.
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.
Labour have used ERS for their leadership elections, for exactly the reasons stated.
I wonder what the deficit is, and what debt interest payments have reached...
F1: a further problem for Ferrari is that the 10 place grid penalty coming so early means they probably don't want to throw in new elements and make it a back of the grid deal. And the electronics unit currently in Leclerc's car probably won't make it through the season.
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?
IIRC under Gordon Brown back gardens got classified as brown field for a while. Allowing some insane “build flats in your garden” stuff.
I wonder what the deficit is, and what debt interest payments have reached...
F1: a further problem for Ferrari is that the 10 place grid penalty coming so early means they probably don't want to throw in new elements and make it a back of the grid deal. And the electronics unit currently in Leclerc's car probably won't make it through the season.
What was it you said last season? 'Ferrari create fascinating new challenges for their drivers to overcome.'
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
McDoom was sunk from then on. Worst Prime Minister in living memory if you exclude Truss.
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
That may be the case, young HY. Or maybe not. It could be that the Conservatives are pushing for the detruction of the natural environment by pushing for the construction of masses of expensive mansions that only wealthy outsiders could afford. Everybody ought to be against that, except large housebuilders and speculative bankers, of course.
I have no idea what the Epping Conservatives are proposing, but that is what they are busy doing elsewhere.
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
McDoom was sunk from then on. Worst Prime Minister in living memory if you exclude Truss.
I'm sure we all wish we had a Sturgeon like facility to exclude her from our memories...
"Humza Yousaf's team said they would be happy for the SNP to provide whatever reassurances are required but added that the way in which the ballot is being questioned would be very upsetting for party members."
Really? I mean, really?? Isn't the greater risk that members see the next leader being a stitch up, shorne of democracy? Might they not find that "very upsetting".
I would have thought that Yousef being on the wrong side of this issue might hurt him badly. But hey, this is Scottish politics, so what do I know?
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
McDoom was sunk from then on. Worst Prime Minister in living memory if you exclude Truss.
It wasn't even scrapping the election that was his problem so much as then claiming he was never planning an election. Lost him all credibility.
Water cooled machine guns can fire continuously. Machine guns without water cooling literally become red hot. So modern guns only fire short bursts at intervals
There was a battle in WWI were Vickers guns were used to create a beaten zone for hours. Think it was 12 hours and a million rounds fired….
In Afghanistan, there were, IIRC, people on the front line suggesting that a water-cooled weapon would be useful against human wave attacks.
I wonder if they are using “the tap” - a technique from WWI against infantry assaults. The gunner would be firing continuously from the water cooled machine gun, and give it a nudge at regular intervals to traverse it.
I know the £100K+ is apparently a "niche" concern. However, the marginal rate of over 70% with 3 kids if one parent goes over £40K is most definitely not.
That's really bleak isn't it. Chairborne warriors going on about technology and planes and drones and missiles, it still boils down to humans murdering other humans up close in the mud.
The improvement in relations between Japan and S Korea is welcome.
Japan is lifting controls on exports of chip and display manufacturing materials to South Korea, while in return, Seoul is withdrawing a dispute settlement case brought before the World Trade Organization (WTO). https://twitter.com/dpa_intl/status/1636303542536531969
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
That may be the case, young HY. Or maybe not. It could be that the Conservatives are pushing for the detruction of the natural environment by pushing for the construction of masses of expensive mansions that only wealthy outsiders could afford. Everybody ought to be against that, except large housebuilders and speculative bankers, of course.
I have no idea what the Epping Conservatives are proposing, but that is what they are busy doing elsewhere.
Its amusing the cries of the NIMBYs and how we get both extremes simultaneously.
You object to new building as all that is built are "expensive mansions", while Rochdale bemoans that all is built are "shitboxes".
The reality is that what is built are "homes" and that is what the country needs.
If cheap "shitboxes" are built then that's affordable homes for people to live in. If "mansions" are built then that's new homes for people to live in, they can move out of the home they're currently in and people can move up the housing ladder.
Objecting to either is bad. Let people have houses of their own, and if there's enough homes built then people can move up and down the housing ladder depending upon their circumstances and any derelict or shit houses won't be occupied rather than having guaranteed tenants to sweat money from like at present as there's simply not enough houses.
I know the £100K+ is apparently a "niche" concern. However, the marginal rate of over 70% with 3 kids if one parent goes over £40K is most definitely not.
They won't. He will be a good King despite the fact that he has the ninky Son and daughter in law slagging off the Monarchy......and Charles in particular....
The pension changes were basically to protect and encourage wealthy consultants who were being driven out of work by the high marginal tax payable on their pension contributions either because they had reached their LTA or, in some cases, were suffering from the taper on allowable deposits.
The NHS was of course founded on the principle that consultants' faces were to be stuffed with gold but the need for this largesse has seriously distorted our entire tax system now in a way that greatly favours the wealthy. Labour have already committed to reversing it and they are right to do so.
Last year I sold a long term investment property and this allowed me to put an additional £30k into my modest pensions. This reduced my tax bill in January by £6k. Very welcome but bloody hell, this level of generosity so favours the rich who have the capital to make such additional contributions on a regular basis. Until yesterday these contributions were capped at £40k a year but that has now been increased to £60k. £12k off the tax bill of a 40% tax payer plus a top up of additional capital in the fund of the same amount. Its just not right. It really isn't.
Those dependent on income get absolutely battered in this country, especially if the earning is one of the couple rather than both. Those with capital can massively reduce their effective and marginal rate of tax. Osborne tried to at least narrow that window. Yesterday it was thrown wide open.
@DavidL This is the thing about people on 100k who are dependent on income, they are abandoning the Conservative party to vote for Labour. Hence they should not be politically disregarded. The people with the 'broadest shoulders' who should be paying more are wealthy people with capital and assets, not those are doing well in their careers.
Oh I agree. Capital is barely taxed in this country. Even where there is a gain Entrepreneur Relief and the like mean it might be taxed at 10%, even though that gain is basically undeclared income. Taxes are focused on earnings and spending (VAT). That really needs to change and such a change would allow plenty of money to remove cliff edges etc.
It’s harsh to say “entrepreneur relief” basically protects “undeclared income”
I have a friend who bought a shareholding in a small company about a decade ago. He’s worked very hard and built the company to 500+ employees.
Are you saying that kind of activity shouldn’t be encouraged?
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.
The UK Regulatory authorities understand banking. It helps.
That in itself is quite an improvement on 2008 then, when they clearly didn't.
Indeed. Who would have thought having the Bank of England in the lead was a good idea?
I know the £100K+ is apparently a "niche" concern. However, the marginal rate of over 70% with 3 kids if one parent goes over £40K is most definitely not.
Yes, but apparently people who want these marginal rates fixed are being "repulsive". We're the only country in the world which disincentivises top earners from working full time, we're also a country that has got significant productivity issues. The two go hand in hand.
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?
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
That may be the case, young HY. Or maybe not. It could be that the Conservatives are pushing for the detruction of the natural environment by pushing for the construction of masses of expensive mansions that only wealthy outsiders could afford. Everybody ought to be against that, except large housebuilders and speculative bankers, of course.
I have no idea what the Epping Conservatives are proposing, but that is what they are busy doing elsewhere.
Its amusing the cries of the NIMBYs and how we get both extremes simultaneously.
You object to new building as all that is built are "expensive mansions", while Rochdale bemoans that all is built are "shitboxes".
The reality is that what is built are "homes" and that is what the country needs.
If cheap "shitboxes" are built then that's affordable homes for people to live in. If "mansions" are built then that's new homes for people to live in, they can move out of the home they're currently in and people can move up the housing ladder.
Objecting to either is bad. Let people have houses of their own, and if there's enough homes built then people can move up and down the housing ladder depending upon their circumstances and any derelict or shit houses won't be occupied rather than having guaranteed tenants to sweat money from like at present as there's simply not enough houses.
It is, of course, about objecting to whatever is being built.
And for the “shit box” types - who advocated and voted for reductions in the minimum sizes of rooms in houses? In the name of increasing density?
It usually takes a little while for Budget reaction to get beyond the spin. The effect of fiscal drag for example is only being commented on today.
We spent all of yesterday talking about fiscal drag!
I would question just how many voters even know what it means
The key thing is this.
In a few months time, will people generally have money left at the end of the month, or month left at the end of the money? Everyone notices that, irrespective of how much or little attention they pay to the news.
Fiscal drag makes it more likely that the money runs out first, which is why it's less clever than it superficially looks.
(Yesterday's announcements mostly look fine, though the pension thing might turn out to be a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The government's problem, all our problem, is the stuff coming in that was announced when Rishi was still chancellor. That was a long time ago.)
The pension changes were basically to protect and encourage wealthy consultants who were being driven out of work by the high marginal tax payable on their pension contributions either because they had reached their LTA or, in some cases, were suffering from the taper on allowable deposits.
The NHS was of course founded on the principle that consultants' faces were to be stuffed with gold but the need for this largesse has seriously distorted our entire tax system now in a way that greatly favours the wealthy. Labour have already committed to reversing it and they are right to do so.
Last year I sold a long term investment property and this allowed me to put an additional £30k into my modest pensions. This reduced my tax bill in January by £6k. Very welcome but bloody hell, this level of generosity so favours the rich who have the capital to make such additional contributions on a regular basis. Until yesterday these contributions were capped at £40k a year but that has now been increased to £60k. £12k off the tax bill of a 40% tax payer plus a top up of additional capital in the fund of the same amount. Its just not right. It really isn't.
Those dependent on income get absolutely battered in this country, especially if the earning is one of the couple rather than both. Those with capital can massively reduce their effective and marginal rate of tax. Osborne tried to at least narrow that window. Yesterday it was thrown wide open.
@DavidL This is the thing about people on 100k who are dependent on income, they are abandoning the Conservative party to vote for Labour. Hence they should not be politically disregarded. The people with the 'broadest shoulders' who should be paying more are wealthy people with capital and assets, not those are doing well in their careers.
Oh I agree. Capital is barely taxed in this country. Even where there is a gain Entrepreneur Relief and the like mean it might be taxed at 10%, even though that gain is basically undeclared income. Taxes are focused on earnings and spending (VAT). That really needs to change and such a change would allow plenty of money to remove cliff edges etc.
It’s harsh to say “entrepreneur relief” basically protects “undeclared income”
I have a friend who bought a shareholding in a small company about a decade ago. He’s worked very hard and built the company to 500+ employees.
Are you saying that kind of activity shouldn’t be encouraged?
Sadly it seems DavidL has become completely anti-aspiration over the last year or so, taking that job in the public sector seems to have made a big difference to his outlook.
I know the £100K+ is apparently a "niche" concern. However, the marginal rate of over 70% with 3 kids if one parent goes over £40K is most definitely not.
But this is 3 kids needing childcare (i.e., 3 very young children).
So, how many families is that? Have you estimated?
I'd say that was quite niche as well.
Cliff edges are not good -- but they are difficult to avoid unless everything is made universal.
And as soon as you make some things mean-tested or income-dependent, you will create some inadvertent cliff edges.
The pension changes were basically to protect and encourage wealthy consultants who were being driven out of work by the high marginal tax payable on their pension contributions either because they had reached their LTA or, in some cases, were suffering from the taper on allowable deposits.
The NHS was of course founded on the principle that consultants' faces were to be stuffed with gold but the need for this largesse has seriously distorted our entire tax system now in a way that greatly favours the wealthy. Labour have already committed to reversing it and they are right to do so.
Last year I sold a long term investment property and this allowed me to put an additional £30k into my modest pensions. This reduced my tax bill in January by £6k. Very welcome but bloody hell, this level of generosity so favours the rich who have the capital to make such additional contributions on a regular basis. Until yesterday these contributions were capped at £40k a year but that has now been increased to £60k. £12k off the tax bill of a 40% tax payer plus a top up of additional capital in the fund of the same amount. Its just not right. It really isn't.
Those dependent on income get absolutely battered in this country, especially if the earning is one of the couple rather than both. Those with capital can massively reduce their effective and marginal rate of tax. Osborne tried to at least narrow that window. Yesterday it was thrown wide open.
@DavidL This is the thing about people on 100k who are dependent on income, they are abandoning the Conservative party to vote for Labour. Hence they should not be politically disregarded. The people with the 'broadest shoulders' who should be paying more are wealthy people with capital and assets, not those are doing well in their careers.
Oh I agree. Capital is barely taxed in this country. Even where there is a gain Entrepreneur Relief and the like mean it might be taxed at 10%, even though that gain is basically undeclared income. Taxes are focused on earnings and spending (VAT). That really needs to change and such a change would allow plenty of money to remove cliff edges etc.
It’s harsh to say “entrepreneur relief” basically protects “undeclared income”
I have a friend who bought a shareholding in a small company about a decade ago. He’s worked very hard and built the company to 500+ employees.
Are you saying that kind of activity shouldn’t be encouraged?
Sadly it seems DavidL has become completely anti-aspiration over the last year or so, taking that job in the public sector seems to have made a big difference to his outlook.
It would be great if we had a pro-aspiration Government that was reducing taxes on earned income and tackling cliff edges etc that discourage work.
Instead we have the polar opposite. Yesterday's Budget saw tax rises waved through on earned income via stealth fiscal drag, while the cliff edge problem was made worse not better.
Its unforgiveable. Especially from the Party that is supposed to be pro-aspiration.
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.
Wasn’t it Lucien Napoleon who did the vote counting for his brother?
I think the urge to try and build up 'dynastic' wealth is flawed. There are many other more productive things you can do with your life and leave a legacy on the world through your career etc.
Tell that to Esme Fairborn, Garfield Weston, Rockefeller or Wellcome.
John D. or Nelson?
The charitable trust. I think it’s about 80% of the family’s dynastic wealth
I know the £100K+ is apparently a "niche" concern. However, the marginal rate of over 70% with 3 kids if one parent goes over £40K is most definitely not.
But this is 3 kids needing childcare (i.e., 3 very young children).
So, how many families is that? Have you estimated?
I'd say that was quite niche as well.
Cliff edges are not good -- but they are difficult to avoid unless everything is made universal.
And as soon as you make some things mean-tested or income-dependent, you will create some inadvertent cliff edges.
The solution is to stop introducing means-tested or income-dependent policies, make things universal and tax income via income tax.
Not rocket science, and then you can have flatter real terms tax rates without the cliff edges. It works as a policy, its just more politically easy to do the wrong thing.
The pension changes were basically to protect and encourage wealthy consultants who were being driven out of work by the high marginal tax payable on their pension contributions either because they had reached their LTA or, in some cases, were suffering from the taper on allowable deposits.
The NHS was of course founded on the principle that consultants' faces were to be stuffed with gold but the need for this largesse has seriously distorted our entire tax system now in a way that greatly favours the wealthy. Labour have already committed to reversing it and they are right to do so.
Last year I sold a long term investment property and this allowed me to put an additional £30k into my modest pensions. This reduced my tax bill in January by £6k. Very welcome but bloody hell, this level of generosity so favours the rich who have the capital to make such additional contributions on a regular basis. Until yesterday these contributions were capped at £40k a year but that has now been increased to £60k. £12k off the tax bill of a 40% tax payer plus a top up of additional capital in the fund of the same amount. Its just not right. It really isn't.
Those dependent on income get absolutely battered in this country, especially if the earning is one of the couple rather than both. Those with capital can massively reduce their effective and marginal rate of tax. Osborne tried to at least narrow that window. Yesterday it was thrown wide open.
@DavidL This is the thing about people on 100k who are dependent on income, they are abandoning the Conservative party to vote for Labour. Hence they should not be politically disregarded. The people with the 'broadest shoulders' who should be paying more are wealthy people with capital and assets, not those are doing well in their careers.
Oh I agree. Capital is barely taxed in this country. Even where there is a gain Entrepreneur Relief and the like mean it might be taxed at 10%, even though that gain is basically undeclared income. Taxes are focused on earnings and spending (VAT). That really needs to change and such a change would allow plenty of money to remove cliff edges etc.
It’s harsh to say “entrepreneur relief” basically protects “undeclared income”
I have a friend who bought a shareholding in a small company about a decade ago. He’s worked very hard and built the company to 500+ employees.
Are you saying that kind of activity shouldn’t be encouraged?
Yes, it is more a protection for undeclared capital gains than income. Limited to 10 million, but there are rules around Entrepreneurs relief that need to be observed.
I am looking to wind up my private practice, so have been looking around this.
I know the £100K+ is apparently a "niche" concern. However, the marginal rate of over 70% with 3 kids if one parent goes over £40K is most definitely not.
But this is 3 kids needing childcare (i.e., 3 very young children).
So, how many families is that? Have you estimated?
I'd say that was quite niche as well.
Cliff edges are not good -- but they are difficult to avoid unless everything is made universal.
And as soon as you make some things mean-tested or income-dependent, you will create some inadvertent cliff edges.
The solution is to stop introducing means-tested or income-dependent policies, make things universal and tax income via income tax.
Not rocket science, and then you can have flatter real terms tax rates without the cliff edges. It works as a policy, its just more politically easy to do the wrong thing.
It usually takes a little while for Budget reaction to get beyond the spin. The effect of fiscal drag for example is only being commented on today.
We spent all of yesterday talking about fiscal drag!
I would question just how many voters even know what it means
The key thing is this.
In a few months time, will people generally have money left at the end of the month, or month left at the end of the money? Everyone notices that, irrespective of how much or little attention they pay to the news.
Fiscal drag makes it more likely that the money runs out first, which is why it's less clever than it superficially looks.
(Yesterday's announcements mostly look fine, though the pension thing might turn out to be a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The government's problem, all our problem, is the stuff coming in that was announced when Rishi was still chancellor. That was a long time ago.)
I am not sure that’s right. Most people won’t ever notice fiscal drag unless they sit around the margins of a tax band and “slip” over it with inflation. Even then to join the dots on the impact won’t be obvious.
No one really thinks about counter factuals, to your point they just think “do I have a bit more cash sloshing around than I did last year”.
Water cooled machine guns can fire continuously. Machine guns without water cooling literally become red hot. So modern guns only fire short bursts at intervals
There was a battle in WWI were Vickers guns were used to create a beaten zone for hours. Think it was 12 hours and a million rounds fired….
In Afghanistan, there were, IIRC, people on the front line suggesting that a water-cooled weapon would be useful against human wave attacks.
I wonder if they are using “the tap” - a technique from WWI against infantry assaults. The gunner would be firing continuously from the water cooled machine gun, and give it a nudge at regular intervals to traverse it.
I'm sure. You didn't bother to aim individually in such circs - jus\t kept firing, loading and tapping to create a beaten dead zone. And refilling the barrel, now and then. Certainly for the Vickers sister design.
That is the 1930s-ish Soviet model of Maxim, btw, with the wide water filler to allow snow to be crammed in in lieu of water. Simple genius of practical design.
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?
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
That may be the case, young HY. Or maybe not. It could be that the Conservatives are pushing for the detruction of the natural environment by pushing for the construction of masses of expensive mansions that only wealthy outsiders could afford. Everybody ought to be against that, except large housebuilders and speculative bankers, of course.
I have no idea what the Epping Conservatives are proposing, but that is what they are busy doing elsewhere.
Its amusing the cries of the NIMBYs and how we get both extremes simultaneously.
You object to new building as all that is built are "expensive mansions", while Rochdale bemoans that all is built are "shitboxes".
The reality is that what is built are "homes" and that is what the country needs.
If cheap "shitboxes" are built then that's affordable homes for people to live in. If "mansions" are built then that's new homes for people to live in, they can move out of the home they're currently in and people can move up the housing ladder.
Objecting to either is bad. Let people have houses of their own, and if there's enough homes built then people can move up and down the housing ladder depending upon their circumstances and any derelict or shit houses won't be occupied rather than having guaranteed tenants to sweat money from like at present as there's simply not enough houses.
It is, of course, about objecting to whatever is being built.
And for the “shit box” types - who advocated and voted for reductions in the minimum sizes of rooms in houses? In the name of increasing density?
The central mystery is why is it the UK only seems to be able to build McMansions or tower blocks of shoddy rabbit hutches? The street I live on is perfectly unobjectionable 1930s suburbia. It could probably do with being 3-4 stories rather than two, but it's fine to raise a family in and dense enough to be viable. But in general it's exactly what doesn't get built now.
I know the £100K+ is apparently a "niche" concern. However, the marginal rate of over 70% with 3 kids if one parent goes over £40K is most definitely not.
But this is 3 kids needing childcare (i.e., 3 very young children).
So, how many families is that? Have you estimated?
I'd say that was quite niche as well.
Cliff edges are not good -- but they are difficult to avoid unless everything is made universal.
And as soon as you make some things mean-tested or income-dependent, you will create some inadvertent cliff edges.
The solution is to stop introducing means-tested or income-dependent policies, make things universal and tax income via income tax.
Not rocket science, and then you can have flatter real terms tax rates without the cliff edges. It works as a policy, its just more politically easy to do the wrong thing.
The alternative is to accept that a tax and benefit system cannot be completely fair all the time. It may be that for a few years you end up getting a poor deal (as with the 100k-ers with young children), But that is balanced by other things.
I am sure most 100k-ers own nice big houses. Property taxes in this country are skewed to benefit people with nice, big houses. So, there is an instance in which they are benefitting.
But, I am not too bothered myself as long as -- integrated over a lifetime -- the tax system is reasonably fair.
It isn't fair, but it is people at the bottom who are getting the rough deal, not the 100 k-ers.
I know the £100K+ is apparently a "niche" concern. However, the marginal rate of over 70% with 3 kids if one parent goes over £40K is most definitely not.
But this is 3 kids needing childcare (i.e., 3 very young children).
So, how many families is that? Have you estimated?
I'd say that was quite niche as well.
Cliff edges are not good -- but they are difficult to avoid unless everything is made universal.
And as soon as you make some things mean-tested or income-dependent, you will create some inadvertent cliff edges.
The solution is to stop introducing means-tested or income-dependent policies, make things universal and tax income via income tax.
Not rocket science, and then you can have flatter real terms tax rates without the cliff edges. It works as a policy, its just more politically easy to do the wrong thing.
The alternative is to accept that a tax and benefit system cannot be completely fair all the time. It may be that for a few years you end up getting a poor deal (as with the 100k-ers with young children), But that is balanced by other things.
I am sure most 100k-ers own nice big houses. Property taxes in this country are skewed to benefit people with nice, big houses. So, there is an instance in which they are benefitting.
But, I am not too bothered myself as long as -- integrated over a lifetime -- the tax system is reasonably fair.
It isn't fair, but it is people at the bottom who are getting the rough deal, not the 100 k-ers.
As it stands its both.
People at the bottom are absolutely shafted with high marginal tax rates, and so too are the 100k-ers. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Those who get off easily are the 200-300k and above who have a marginal tax rate massively less than those on 100k, or those on 20-30k.
The others who get off easily are those living off unearned incomes who don't have to declare their income for a large proportion of modern income tax (ie graduate tax and national insurance).
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.
Because of externalities. Part of the value of your property is view, light etc.
You don’t have an absolute right to build on your property because you need to consider the impact on others rights
I know the £100K+ is apparently a "niche" concern. However, the marginal rate of over 70% with 3 kids if one parent goes over £40K is most definitely not.
But this is 3 kids needing childcare (i.e., 3 very young children).
So, how many families is that? Have you estimated?
I'd say that was quite niche as well.
Cliff edges are not good -- but they are difficult to avoid unless everything is made universal.
And as soon as you make some things mean-tested or income-dependent, you will create some inadvertent cliff edges.
The solution is to stop introducing means-tested or income-dependent policies, make things universal and tax income via income tax.
Not rocket science, and then you can have flatter real terms tax rates without the cliff edges. It works as a policy, its just more politically easy to do the wrong thing.
It's certainly the case for higher taxes and more universal benefits. The downside is that it requires higher headline rates of tax and (gasp) A Bigger State, both anathema to the kind of people doing thinking on the British right.
We'll make a Euroweenie Christian Democrat of you yet...
Water cooled machine guns can fire continuously. Machine guns without water cooling literally become red hot. So modern guns only fire short bursts at intervals
There was a battle in WWI were Vickers guns were used to create a beaten zone for hours. Think it was 12 hours and a million rounds fired….
In Afghanistan, there were, IIRC, people on the front line suggesting that a water-cooled weapon would be useful against human wave attacks.
I wonder if they are using “the tap” - a technique from WWI against infantry assaults. The gunner would be firing continuously from the water cooled machine gun, and give it a nudge at regular intervals to traverse it.
I'm sure. You didn't bother to aim individually in such circs - jus\t kept firing, loading and tapping to create a beaten dead zone. And refilling the barrel, now and then. Certainly for the Vickers sister design.
That is the 1930s-ish Soviet model of Maxim, btw, with the wide water filler to allow snow to be crammed in in lieu of water. Simple genius of practical design.
I know the £100K+ is apparently a "niche" concern. However, the marginal rate of over 70% with 3 kids if one parent goes over £40K is most definitely not.
But this is 3 kids needing childcare (i.e., 3 very young children).
So, how many families is that? Have you estimated?
I'd say that was quite niche as well.
Cliff edges are not good -- but they are difficult to avoid unless everything is made universal.
And as soon as you make some things mean-tested or income-dependent, you will create some inadvertent cliff edges.
The solution is to stop introducing means-tested or income-dependent policies, make things universal and tax income via income tax.
Not rocket science, and then you can have flatter real terms tax rates without the cliff edges. It works as a policy, its just more politically easy to do the wrong thing.
The alternative is to accept that a tax and benefit system cannot be completely fair all the time. It may be that for a few years you end up getting a poor deal (as with the 100k-ers with young children), But that is balanced by other things.
I am sure most 100k-ers own nice big houses. Property taxes in this country are skewed to benefit people with nice, big houses. So, there is an instance in which they are benefitting.
But, I am not too bothered myself as long as -- integrated over a lifetime -- the tax system is reasonably fair.
It isn't fair, but it is people at the bottom who are getting the rough deal, not the 100 k-ers.
As it stands its both.
People at the bottom are absolutely shafted with high marginal tax rates, and so too are the 100k-ers. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Those who get off easily are the 200-300k and above who have a marginal tax rate massively less than those on 100k, or those on 20-30k. The others who get off easily are those living off unearned incomes who don't have to declare their income for a large proportion of modern income tax (ie graduate tax and national insurance).
Those on 100k with children of a very specific age. While I agree it’s a problem, it isn’t as widespread as this implies.
The curve of take home pay as a function of salary made by the IFS was actually quite smooth, only distorted by the childcare component.
I know the £100K+ is apparently a "niche" concern. However, the marginal rate of over 70% with 3 kids if one parent goes over £40K is most definitely not.
But this is 3 kids needing childcare (i.e., 3 very young children).
So, how many families is that? Have you estimated?
I'd say that was quite niche as well.
Cliff edges are not good -- but they are difficult to avoid unless everything is made universal.
And as soon as you make some things mean-tested or income-dependent, you will create some inadvertent cliff edges.
The solution is to stop introducing means-tested or income-dependent policies, make things universal and tax income via income tax.
Not rocket science, and then you can have flatter real terms tax rates without the cliff edges. It works as a policy, its just more politically easy to do the wrong thing.
The alternative is to accept that a tax and benefit system cannot be completely fair all the time. It may be that for a few years you end up getting a poor deal (as with the 100k-ers with young children), But that is balanced by other things.
I am sure most 100k-ers own nice big houses. Property taxes in this country are skewed to benefit people with nice, big houses. So, there is an instance in which they are benefitting.
But, I am not too bothered myself as long as -- integrated over a lifetime -- the tax system is reasonably fair.
It isn't fair, but it is people at the bottom who are getting the rough deal, not the 100 k-ers.
As it stands its both.
People at the bottom are absolutely shafted with high marginal tax rates, and so too are the 100k-ers. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Those who get off easily are the 200-300k and above who have a marginal tax rate massively less than those on 100k, or those on 20-30k.
All right -- let's fix it.
Let's change this glitch in the tax system for the 100k-ers *AND* change the Council tax bands so that people with properties over 500k pay more and those with properties over 1 million much, much more. Let's follow the US where property taxes are much more substantial for the wealthy.
My guess is that will provoke even louder squeals from the same people.
Because childcare is for a few years but Council Tax is for life.
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?
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
That may be the case, young HY. Or maybe not. It could be that the Conservatives are pushing for the detruction of the natural environment by pushing for the construction of masses of expensive mansions that only wealthy outsiders could afford. Everybody ought to be against that, except large housebuilders and speculative bankers, of course.
I have no idea what the Epping Conservatives are proposing, but that is what they are busy doing elsewhere.
Its amusing the cries of the NIMBYs and how we get both extremes simultaneously.
You object to new building as all that is built are "expensive mansions", while Rochdale bemoans that all is built are "shitboxes".
The reality is that what is built are "homes" and that is what the country needs.
If cheap "shitboxes" are built then that's affordable homes for people to live in. If "mansions" are built then that's new homes for people to live in, they can move out of the home they're currently in and people can move up the housing ladder.
Objecting to either is bad. Let people have houses of their own, and if there's enough homes built then people can move up and down the housing ladder depending upon their circumstances and any derelict or shit houses won't be occupied rather than having guaranteed tenants to sweat money from like at present as there's simply not enough houses.
It is, of course, about objecting to whatever is being built.
And for the “shit box” types - who advocated and voted for reductions in the minimum sizes of rooms in houses? In the name of increasing density?
The central mystery is why is it the UK only seems to be able to build McMansions or tower blocks of shoddy rabbit hutches? The street I live on is perfectly unobjectionable 1930s suburbia. It could probably do with being 3-4 stories rather than two, but it's fine to raise a family in and dense enough to be viable. But in general it's exactly what doesn't get built now.
Every pressure is to build more on less ground, for most house building. The environmentalists like it. The cost of land pushes builders in that direction. The planners have density guidelines…
So much is built as rabbit hutches.
The other end is custom built - you buy an acre or 2 and put a house on it. Strangely, people doing that don’t want 2m x 2m bedrooms. One chap I knew specified that all the bedrooms needed to be 6m on minimum dimension, not including cupboards or en-suites.
The budget seems to create a massive IHT loophole where the wealthy can pass down unlimited pension wrapped assets down the generations, where even the income never gets taxed?
Or am I missing something?
I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised.
The Conservative Party exists to further the interest of two groups: it's extremely rich friends, from whom it derives its funding; and minted elderly people, in outright possession of expensive houses and with more disposable income than most workers, and their expectant heirs, whom together account for the bulk of the party membership and the core vote.
These are the people who are indulged; the rest of us get half-arsed measures like the childcare reforms (badly underfunded, will take years to bring in, done to make it look as if they care when they don't,) and a shit sandwich (fiscal drag to extract the money to pay for massive tax breaks for the wealthy, and endless inflation-busting hikes in pensions - all paid for out of the ever-diminishing wages of low and middle income workers, rather than from the immense asset wealth of their supporters, which must never be touched.)
This entire Government and the Tory Party itself are both little more than vehicles for a process of managed national decline, in which a shrinking pool of wealth is steadily transferred upwards from the young and the struggling to the old and the rich. It's all they really care about and it's all they're any good at doing.
Yeah this articulates my own thoughts on the Conservative party. The thing is though, that their support is being increasingly concentrated in the over 65 category, and putting in these massive bungs will not really assist their position with younger voters.
This is why people get the wrong end of the stick when the '100k' debate comes up. What the Conservative party is doing is giving massive tax breaks to its asset owning supporters, whilst disproportionately taxing people who work, including those who have high salaries, particularly younger people. The latter group are increasingly seeing that they are getting a bad deal and not voting Conservative, voting Labour instead. The Labour party could ultimately take advantage of a political division between people who work and people who don't.
The politics of this is interesting.
What's actually going on here is electoral coalition building: the Conservatives are trying to bolster their support amongst the 55-64 age group and doing so by making generous pension reforms for the last 10 years of their working lives before they pivot into becoming pensioners themselves. In the 12-18 months before a general election virtually everything is political.
I think Labour fell into a trap by pledging to reverse this today.
Shafting people who work for a living by protecting those who don't, or aspire not to, may make good electoral politics but if they win an election it will be without my vote.
Why should we vote for that Casino? I joined the Tories because they were a party as I grew up that supported aspiration and believed in lower taxes on those who work, rather than draining workers to featherbed a client welfare state.
I don't make a comment on what I personally think of it, I have my own views; I am simply laying out the electoral strategy that I think is being followed because it might have betting implications.
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.
Because of externalities. Part of the value of your property is view, light etc.
You don’t have an absolute right to build on your property because you need to consider the impact on others rights
For light there should be regulations, nobody should be able to build a skyscraper in an area of of 2 story homes blocking the light out. But building a new 2 bed home subject to the same conditions as pre-existing ones . . . well that should be perfectly reasonable.
As for view, I'm sorry but views are subject to change. If a voyeur likes the view of his nubile young neighbour getting changed in her bedroom should he get to object to her putting a curtain rail up and closing the curtains? Of course not, what people do with their own property is up to them, not up to you, even if affects your view. If you want something to view, put it in your own property.
Behind our new house just over the fence is undeveloped land with some trees immediately behind our fence that our girls can see from their rooms. Living in the trees are squirrels that the girls have named Bob and Fluffy. I've seen more than 2 squirrels running around, but to the girls they're all Bob or Fluffy. If that land gets developed and the trees get cut down and a new house put in its place then that would worsen our view and our girls would be disappointed but they're not our trees. They're not in our border, they're not our property. I do not feel I would have any right whatsoever to object to what other people do with their land and nor should anyone else. If it affects your view, then suck it up. View what's in your property, or buy the view if you want it that much.
I know the £100K+ is apparently a "niche" concern. However, the marginal rate of over 70% with 3 kids if one parent goes over £40K is most definitely not.
Hopefully, the usual suspects will stop saying this is "not a priority" now and recognise this is a serious problem.
As @NickPalmer said yesterday, you can (for example) support higher taxation rates overall whilst recognising this cliff edge approach is absolute madness.
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.
Part of the skillset for a PM is to be able to adapt. Most LOTOs have a budget response that is 95% pre-written, but add a bit of topical sprinkle.
I haven’t heard Starmer’s response (I tried but fell asleep) but @Big_G_NorthWales is complaining that he didn’t have the sprinkle
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 police and courts don't use their existing powers to deal with such groups - we should question this before giving them more.
I know the £100K+ is apparently a "niche" concern. However, the marginal rate of over 70% with 3 kids if one parent goes over £40K is most definitely not.
But this is 3 kids needing childcare (i.e., 3 very young children).
So, how many families is that? Have you estimated?
I'd say that was quite niche as well.
Cliff edges are not good -- but they are difficult to avoid unless everything is made universal.
And as soon as you make some things mean-tested or income-dependent, you will create some inadvertent cliff edges.
The solution is to stop introducing means-tested or income-dependent policies, make things universal and tax income via income tax.
Not rocket science, and then you can have flatter real terms tax rates without the cliff edges. It works as a policy, its just more politically easy to do the wrong thing.
The alternative is to accept that a tax and benefit system cannot be completely fair all the time. It may be that for a few years you end up getting a poor deal (as with the 100k-ers with young children), But that is balanced by other things.
I am sure most 100k-ers own nice big houses. Property taxes in this country are skewed to benefit people with nice, big houses. So, there is an instance in which they are benefitting.
But, I am not too bothered myself as long as -- integrated over a lifetime -- the tax system is reasonably fair.
It isn't fair, but it is people at the bottom who are getting the rough deal, not the 100 k-ers.
As it stands its both.
People at the bottom are absolutely shafted with high marginal tax rates, and so too are the 100k-ers. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Those who get off easily are the 200-300k and above who have a marginal tax rate massively less than those on 100k, or those on 20-30k. The others who get off easily are those living off unearned incomes who don't have to declare their income for a large proportion of modern income tax (ie graduate tax and national insurance).
Those on 100k with children of a very specific age. While I agree it’s a problem, it isn’t as widespread as this implies.
@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."
I know the £100K+ is apparently a "niche" concern. However, the marginal rate of over 70% with 3 kids if one parent goes over £40K is most definitely not.
But this is 3 kids needing childcare (i.e., 3 very young children).
So, how many families is that? Have you estimated?
I'd say that was quite niche as well.
Cliff edges are not good -- but they are difficult to avoid unless everything is made universal.
And as soon as you make some things mean-tested or income-dependent, you will create some inadvertent cliff edges.
The solution is to stop introducing means-tested or income-dependent policies, make things universal and tax income via income tax.
Not rocket science, and then you can have flatter real terms tax rates without the cliff edges. It works as a policy, its just more politically easy to do the wrong thing.
The alternative is to accept that a tax and benefit system cannot be completely fair all the time. It may be that for a few years you end up getting a poor deal (as with the 100k-ers with young children), But that is balanced by other things.
I am sure most 100k-ers own nice big houses. Property taxes in this country are skewed to benefit people with nice, big houses. So, there is an instance in which they are benefitting.
But, I am not too bothered myself as long as -- integrated over a lifetime -- the tax system is reasonably fair.
It isn't fair, but it is people at the bottom who are getting the rough deal, not the 100 k-ers.
As it stands its both.
People at the bottom are absolutely shafted with high marginal tax rates, and so too are the 100k-ers. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Those who get off easily are the 200-300k and above who have a marginal tax rate massively less than those on 100k, or those on 20-30k.
All right -- let's fix it.
Let's change this glitch in the tax system for the 100k-ers *AND* change the Council tax bands so that people with properties over 500k pay more and those with properties over 1 million much, much more. Let's follow the US where property taxes are much more substantial for the wealthy.
My guess is that will provoke even louder squeals from the same people.
Because childcare is for a few years but Council Tax is for life.
The problem with the council tax proposal is simple.
Many of the people living in million pound semis didn’t buy them at that price. Or have the incomes to buy them.
If you look down many expensive roads in London, you can see the rich incomers by the cars. In many places 50%+ are people who bought there years before the comic house prices.
I know the £100K+ is apparently a "niche" concern. However, the marginal rate of over 70% with 3 kids if one parent goes over £40K is most definitely not.
But this is 3 kids needing childcare (i.e., 3 very young children).
So, how many families is that? Have you estimated?
I'd say that was quite niche as well.
Cliff edges are not good -- but they are difficult to avoid unless everything is made universal.
And as soon as you make some things mean-tested or income-dependent, you will create some inadvertent cliff edges.
The solution is to stop introducing means-tested or income-dependent policies, make things universal and tax income via income tax.
Not rocket science, and then you can have flatter real terms tax rates without the cliff edges. It works as a policy, its just more politically easy to do the wrong thing.
The alternative is to accept that a tax and benefit system cannot be completely fair all the time. It may be that for a few years you end up getting a poor deal (as with the 100k-ers with young children), But that is balanced by other things.
I am sure most 100k-ers own nice big houses. Property taxes in this country are skewed to benefit people with nice, big houses. So, there is an instance in which they are benefitting.
But, I am not too bothered myself as long as -- integrated over a lifetime -- the tax system is reasonably fair.
It isn't fair, but it is people at the bottom who are getting the rough deal, not the 100 k-ers.
As it stands its both.
People at the bottom are absolutely shafted with high marginal tax rates, and so too are the 100k-ers. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Those who get off easily are the 200-300k and above who have a marginal tax rate massively less than those on 100k, or those on 20-30k.
All right -- let's fix it.
Let's change this glitch in the tax system for the 100k-ers *AND* change the Council tax bands so that people with properties over 500k pay more and those with properties over 1 million much, much more. Let's follow the US where property taxes are much more substantial for the wealthy.
My guess is that will provoke even louder squeals from the same people.
Because childcare is for a few years but Council Tax is for life.
I would 100% support that policy. In fact I've long advocated for that.
So this squealer would not squeal more loudly.
Indeed I've said I'd go further, I'd abolish Council Tax altogether and replace with a new Property Tax like the Americans have which charges a percentage of a home's value per annum. I would also put the burden of paying that tax on the owner of the property, not the tenant.
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.
Because of externalities. Part of the value of your property is view, light etc.
You don’t have an absolute right to build on your property because you need to consider the impact on others rights
For light there should be regulations, nobody should be able to build a skyscraper in an area of of 2 story homes blocking the light out. But building a new 2 bed home subject to the same conditions as pre-existing ones . . . well that should be perfectly reasonable.
As for view, I'm sorry but views are subject to change. If a voyeur likes the view of his nubile young neighbour getting changed in her bedroom should he get to object to her putting a curtain rail up and closing the curtains? Of course not, what people do with their own property is up to them, not up to you, even if affects your view. If you want something to view, put it in your own property.
Behind our new house just over the fence is undeveloped land with some trees immediately behind our fence that our girls can see from their rooms. Living in the trees are squirrels that the girls have named Bob and Fluffy. I've seen more than 2 squirrels running around, but to the girls they're all Bob or Fluffy. If that land gets developed and the trees get cut down and a new house put in its place then that would worsen our view and our girls would be disappointed but they're not our trees. They're not in our border, they're not our property. I do not feel I would have any right whatsoever to object to what other people do with their land and nor should anyone else. If it affects your view, then suck it up. View what's in your property, or buy the view if you want it that much.
Hopefully Bob and Fluffy don't decide to move to Plymouth
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.
Because of externalities. Part of the value of your property is view, light etc.
You don’t have an absolute right to build on your property because you need to consider the impact on others rights
But part of the principle of the planning system is that no-one owns a view (I'm simplifying, but only slightly).
Light is a different matter, but the rights to light are not as clear cut as people often imagine.
The real reason there's that cliff edge at 100k (and elsewhere) is because it raises an awful lot of revenue whilst being politically easy to explain. Fairness and the fact far wealthier people pay much much less on their assets and income doesn't come into it.
Economic common sense probably won't be applied until the retention/ recruitment problem for workers becomes so severe that it forces HMG to act.
I know the £100K+ is apparently a "niche" concern. However, the marginal rate of over 70% with 3 kids if one parent goes over £40K is most definitely not.
But this is 3 kids needing childcare (i.e., 3 very young children).
So, how many families is that? Have you estimated?
I'd say that was quite niche as well.
Cliff edges are not good -- but they are difficult to avoid unless everything is made universal.
And as soon as you make some things mean-tested or income-dependent, you will create some inadvertent cliff edges.
The solution is to stop introducing means-tested or income-dependent policies, make things universal and tax income via income tax.
Not rocket science, and then you can have flatter real terms tax rates without the cliff edges. It works as a policy, its just more politically easy to do the wrong thing.
The alternative is to accept that a tax and benefit system cannot be completely fair all the time. It may be that for a few years you end up getting a poor deal (as with the 100k-ers with young children), But that is balanced by other things.
I am sure most 100k-ers own nice big houses. Property taxes in this country are skewed to benefit people with nice, big houses. So, there is an instance in which they are benefitting.
But, I am not too bothered myself as long as -- integrated over a lifetime -- the tax system is reasonably fair.
It isn't fair, but it is people at the bottom who are getting the rough deal, not the 100 k-ers.
As it stands its both.
People at the bottom are absolutely shafted with high marginal tax rates, and so too are the 100k-ers. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Those who get off easily are the 200-300k and above who have a marginal tax rate massively less than those on 100k, or those on 20-30k. The others who get off easily are those living off unearned incomes who don't have to declare their income for a large proportion of modern income tax (ie graduate tax and national insurance).
Those on 100k with children of a very specific age. While I agree it’s a problem, it isn’t as widespread as this implies.
That's me mate.
Would you describe yourself as 'widespread'? Or are you whatever the trim male equivalent of a yummy mummy is?
I know the £100K+ is apparently a "niche" concern. However, the marginal rate of over 70% with 3 kids if one parent goes over £40K is most definitely not.
But this is 3 kids needing childcare (i.e., 3 very young children).
So, how many families is that? Have you estimated?
I'd say that was quite niche as well.
Cliff edges are not good -- but they are difficult to avoid unless everything is made universal.
And as soon as you make some things mean-tested or income-dependent, you will create some inadvertent cliff edges.
The solution is to stop introducing means-tested or income-dependent policies, make things universal and tax income via income tax.
Not rocket science, and then you can have flatter real terms tax rates without the cliff edges. It works as a policy, its just more politically easy to do the wrong thing.
The alternative is to accept that a tax and benefit system cannot be completely fair all the time. It may be that for a few years you end up getting a poor deal (as with the 100k-ers with young children), But that is balanced by other things.
I am sure most 100k-ers own nice big houses. Property taxes in this country are skewed to benefit people with nice, big houses. So, there is an instance in which they are benefitting.
But, I am not too bothered myself as long as -- integrated over a lifetime -- the tax system is reasonably fair.
It isn't fair, but it is people at the bottom who are getting the rough deal, not the 100 k-ers.
As it stands its both.
People at the bottom are absolutely shafted with high marginal tax rates, and so too are the 100k-ers. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Those who get off easily are the 200-300k and above who have a marginal tax rate massively less than those on 100k, or those on 20-30k.
All right -- let's fix it.
Let's change this glitch in the tax system for the 100k-ers *AND* change the Council tax bands so that people with properties over 500k pay more and those with properties over 1 million much, much more. Let's follow the US where property taxes are much more substantial for the wealthy.
My guess is that will provoke even louder squeals from the same people.
Because childcare is for a few years but Council Tax is for life.
I would 100% support that policy. In fact I've long advocated for that.
So this squealer would not squeal more loudly.
Indeed I've said I'd go further, I'd abolish Council Tax altogether and replace with a new Property Tax like the Americans have which charges a percentage of a home's value per annum. I would also put the burden of paying that tax on the owner of the property, not the tenant.
There is no way to tax the owner of a property so that the tax isn’t incident on a tenant.
I know the £100K+ is apparently a "niche" concern. However, the marginal rate of over 70% with 3 kids if one parent goes over £40K is most definitely not.
But this is 3 kids needing childcare (i.e., 3 very young children).
So, how many families is that? Have you estimated?
I'd say that was quite niche as well.
Cliff edges are not good -- but they are difficult to avoid unless everything is made universal.
And as soon as you make some things mean-tested or income-dependent, you will create some inadvertent cliff edges.
The solution is to stop introducing means-tested or income-dependent policies, make things universal and tax income via income tax.
Not rocket science, and then you can have flatter real terms tax rates without the cliff edges. It works as a policy, its just more politically easy to do the wrong thing.
The alternative is to accept that a tax and benefit system cannot be completely fair all the time. It may be that for a few years you end up getting a poor deal (as with the 100k-ers with young children), But that is balanced by other things.
I am sure most 100k-ers own nice big houses. Property taxes in this country are skewed to benefit people with nice, big houses. So, there is an instance in which they are benefitting.
But, I am not too bothered myself as long as -- integrated over a lifetime -- the tax system is reasonably fair.
It isn't fair, but it is people at the bottom who are getting the rough deal, not the 100 k-ers.
As it stands its both.
People at the bottom are absolutely shafted with high marginal tax rates, and so too are the 100k-ers. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Those who get off easily are the 200-300k and above who have a marginal tax rate massively less than those on 100k, or those on 20-30k.
All right -- let's fix it.
Let's change this glitch in the tax system for the 100k-ers *AND* change the Council tax bands so that people with properties over 500k pay more and those with properties over 1 million much, much more. Let's follow the US where property taxes are much more substantial for the wealthy.
My guess is that will provoke even louder squeals from the same people.
Because childcare is for a few years but Council Tax is for life.
I would 100% support that policy. In fact I've long advocated for that.
So this squealer would not squeal more loudly.
Indeed I've said I'd go further, I'd abolish Council Tax altogether and replace with a new Property Tax like the Americans have which charges a percentage of a home's value per annum. I would also put the burden of paying that tax on the owner of the property, not the tenant.
I got my Council Tax bill yesterday, so a double-whammy. £3,000.
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
That may be the case, young HY. Or maybe not. It could be that the Conservatives are pushing for the detruction of the natural environment by pushing for the construction of masses of expensive mansions that only wealthy outsiders could afford. Everybody ought to be against that, except large housebuilders and speculative bankers, of course.
I have no idea what the Epping Conservatives are proposing, but that is what they are busy doing elsewhere.
It includes 40% new affordable housing and some new social homes have been built too
I know the £100K+ is apparently a "niche" concern. However, the marginal rate of over 70% with 3 kids if one parent goes over £40K is most definitely not.
But this is 3 kids needing childcare (i.e., 3 very young children).
So, how many families is that? Have you estimated?
I'd say that was quite niche as well.
Cliff edges are not good -- but they are difficult to avoid unless everything is made universal.
And as soon as you make some things mean-tested or income-dependent, you will create some inadvertent cliff edges.
The solution is to stop introducing means-tested or income-dependent policies, make things universal and tax income via income tax.
Not rocket science, and then you can have flatter real terms tax rates without the cliff edges. It works as a policy, its just more politically easy to do the wrong thing.
The alternative is to accept that a tax and benefit system cannot be completely fair all the time. It may be that for a few years you end up getting a poor deal (as with the 100k-ers with young children), But that is balanced by other things.
I am sure most 100k-ers own nice big houses. Property taxes in this country are skewed to benefit people with nice, big houses. So, there is an instance in which they are benefitting.
But, I am not too bothered myself as long as -- integrated over a lifetime -- the tax system is reasonably fair.
It isn't fair, but it is people at the bottom who are getting the rough deal, not the 100 k-ers.
As it stands its both.
People at the bottom are absolutely shafted with high marginal tax rates, and so too are the 100k-ers. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Those who get off easily are the 200-300k and above who have a marginal tax rate massively less than those on 100k, or those on 20-30k.
All right -- let's fix it.
Let's change this glitch in the tax system for the 100k-ers *AND* change the Council tax bands so that people with properties over 500k pay more and those with properties over 1 million much, much more. Let's follow the US where property taxes are much more substantial for the wealthy.
My guess is that will provoke even louder squeals from the same people.
Because childcare is for a few years but Council Tax is for life.
The problem with the council tax proposal is simple.
Many of the people living in million pound semis didn’t buy them at that price. Or have the incomes to buy them.
If you look down many expensive roads in London, you can see the rich incomers by the cars. In many places 50%+ are people who bought there years before the comic house prices.
If someone doesn't have the income to maintain their home, including taxes due on it, then they always have the option of selling and moving somewhere else. Or encouraging policies that keep their property value, and thus their taxes, down.
My proposal is a 3% per annum tax on all owned property, paid by the owner, with an 80% discount for owner-occupied property. Council Tax and Stamp Duty to be abolished when this is introduced. Numbers to be tweaked to make it work.
I know the £100K+ is apparently a "niche" concern. However, the marginal rate of over 70% with 3 kids if one parent goes over £40K is most definitely not.
Hopefully, the usual suspects will stop saying this is "not a priority" now and recognise this is a serious problem.
As @NickPalmer said yesterday, you can (for example) support higher taxation rates overall whilst recognising this cliff edge approach is absolute madness.
Don't dispute the madness angle, at all.
For those with salary sacrifice pension and AVC options, is eligibility on taxable income so one could for a few years simply up pre-tax AVCs to bring post-tax income down below £100k and then, once childcare needs had passed or earning over £134k, revert?
I have a colleague doing something similar for the £50k child benefit cliff edge.* Didn't occur to me when I was at that point.
*that ones less extreme as you're not actually worse off for earning more unless you have a very large number of children, but it's still an eyewatering marginal rate of tax.
I know the £100K+ is apparently a "niche" concern. However, the marginal rate of over 70% with 3 kids if one parent goes over £40K is most definitely not.
But this is 3 kids needing childcare (i.e., 3 very young children).
So, how many families is that? Have you estimated?
I'd say that was quite niche as well.
Cliff edges are not good -- but they are difficult to avoid unless everything is made universal.
And as soon as you make some things mean-tested or income-dependent, you will create some inadvertent cliff edges.
The solution is to stop introducing means-tested or income-dependent policies, make things universal and tax income via income tax.
Not rocket science, and then you can have flatter real terms tax rates without the cliff edges. It works as a policy, its just more politically easy to do the wrong thing.
The alternative is to accept that a tax and benefit system cannot be completely fair all the time. It may be that for a few years you end up getting a poor deal (as with the 100k-ers with young children), But that is balanced by other things.
I am sure most 100k-ers own nice big houses. Property taxes in this country are skewed to benefit people with nice, big houses. So, there is an instance in which they are benefitting.
But, I am not too bothered myself as long as -- integrated over a lifetime -- the tax system is reasonably fair.
It isn't fair, but it is people at the bottom who are getting the rough deal, not the 100 k-ers.
As it stands its both.
People at the bottom are absolutely shafted with high marginal tax rates, and so too are the 100k-ers. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Those who get off easily are the 200-300k and above who have a marginal tax rate massively less than those on 100k, or those on 20-30k.
All right -- let's fix it.
Let's change this glitch in the tax system for the 100k-ers *AND* change the Council tax bands so that people with properties over 500k pay more and those with properties over 1 million much, much more. Let's follow the US where property taxes are much more substantial for the wealthy.
My guess is that will provoke even louder squeals from the same people.
Because childcare is for a few years but Council Tax is for life.
I would 100% support that policy. In fact I've long advocated for that.
So this squealer would not squeal more loudly.
Indeed I've said I'd go further, I'd abolish Council Tax altogether and replace with a new Property Tax like the Americans have which charges a percentage of a home's value per annum. I would also put the burden of paying that tax on the owner of the property, not the tenant.
I appreciate you would not squeal.
You and I have been the most persistent advocates on here on much higher property taxes.
My point is that there are unfairnesses everywhere in the tax system. And the same people may be benefitting from one unfairness while being penalised by another.
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.
I’ve not studied myself but have been told by someone who has that salt water is very hard on the turbines - it’s the maintenance/ replacement costs (I think he said 7 years) that are the killer for tidal
Water cooled machine guns can fire continuously. Machine guns without water cooling literally become red hot. So modern guns only fire short bursts at intervals
There was a battle in WWI were Vickers guns were used to create a beaten zone for hours. Think it was 12 hours and a million rounds fired….
In Afghanistan, there were, IIRC, people on the front line suggesting that a water-cooled weapon would be useful against human wave attacks.
I wonder if they are using “the tap” - a technique from WWI against infantry assaults. The gunner would be firing continuously from the water cooled machine gun, and give it a nudge at regular intervals to traverse it.
I'm sure. You didn't bother to aim individually in such circs - jus\t kept firing, loading and tapping to create a beaten dead zone. And refilling the barrel, now and then. Certainly for the Vickers sister design.
That is the 1930s-ish Soviet model of Maxim, btw, with the wide water filler to allow snow to be crammed in in lieu of water. Simple genius of practical design.
Not forgetting the barrel changes…
(Remembers CCF Bren)
Don't think a Vickers needed barrel changes nearly so often, once an hour of continuous fire, as a LMG? And that was due to wear? Bren (which IIRC had an asbestos glove as part of the standard field kit) or MG34/MG42 did need a barrel change over far more frequently to cool down.
I know the £100K+ is apparently a "niche" concern. However, the marginal rate of over 70% with 3 kids if one parent goes over £40K is most definitely not.
But this is 3 kids needing childcare (i.e., 3 very young children).
So, how many families is that? Have you estimated?
I'd say that was quite niche as well.
Cliff edges are not good -- but they are difficult to avoid unless everything is made universal.
And as soon as you make some things mean-tested or income-dependent, you will create some inadvertent cliff edges.
The solution is to stop introducing means-tested or income-dependent policies, make things universal and tax income via income tax.
Not rocket science, and then you can have flatter real terms tax rates without the cliff edges. It works as a policy, its just more politically easy to do the wrong thing.
The alternative is to accept that a tax and benefit system cannot be completely fair all the time. It may be that for a few years you end up getting a poor deal (as with the 100k-ers with young children), But that is balanced by other things.
I am sure most 100k-ers own nice big houses. Property taxes in this country are skewed to benefit people with nice, big houses. So, there is an instance in which they are benefitting.
But, I am not too bothered myself as long as -- integrated over a lifetime -- the tax system is reasonably fair.
It isn't fair, but it is people at the bottom who are getting the rough deal, not the 100 k-ers.
As it stands its both.
People at the bottom are absolutely shafted with high marginal tax rates, and so too are the 100k-ers. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Those who get off easily are the 200-300k and above who have a marginal tax rate massively less than those on 100k, or those on 20-30k.
All right -- let's fix it.
Let's change this glitch in the tax system for the 100k-ers *AND* change the Council tax bands so that people with properties over 500k pay more and those with properties over 1 million much, much more. Let's follow the US where property taxes are much more substantial for the wealthy.
My guess is that will provoke even louder squeals from the same people.
Because childcare is for a few years but Council Tax is for life.
The problem with the council tax proposal is simple.
Many of the people living in million pound semis didn’t buy them at that price. Or have the incomes to buy them.
If you look down many expensive roads in London, you can see the rich incomers by the cars. In many places 50%+ are people who bought there years before the comic house prices.
If someone doesn't have the income to maintain their home, including taxes due on it, then they always have the option of selling and moving somewhere else. Or encouraging policies that keep their property value, and thus their taxes, down.
My proposal is a 3% per annum tax on all owned property, paid by the owner, with an 80% discount for owner-occupied property. Council Tax and Stamp Duty to be abolished when this is introduced. Numbers to be tweaked to make it work.
That's still £6k pa on a £1m house for owner-occupiers.
Good luck on saving your deposit with that policy, when forced sales are predicted to crash the housing market.
I know the £100K+ is apparently a "niche" concern. However, the marginal rate of over 70% with 3 kids if one parent goes over £40K is most definitely not.
But this is 3 kids needing childcare (i.e., 3 very young children).
So, how many families is that? Have you estimated?
I'd say that was quite niche as well.
Cliff edges are not good -- but they are difficult to avoid unless everything is made universal.
And as soon as you make some things mean-tested or income-dependent, you will create some inadvertent cliff edges.
The solution is to stop introducing means-tested or income-dependent policies, make things universal and tax income via income tax.
Not rocket science, and then you can have flatter real terms tax rates without the cliff edges. It works as a policy, its just more politically easy to do the wrong thing.
The alternative is to accept that a tax and benefit system cannot be completely fair all the time. It may be that for a few years you end up getting a poor deal (as with the 100k-ers with young children), But that is balanced by other things.
I am sure most 100k-ers own nice big houses. Property taxes in this country are skewed to benefit people with nice, big houses. So, there is an instance in which they are benefitting.
But, I am not too bothered myself as long as -- integrated over a lifetime -- the tax system is reasonably fair.
It isn't fair, but it is people at the bottom who are getting the rough deal, not the 100 k-ers.
As it stands its both.
People at the bottom are absolutely shafted with high marginal tax rates, and so too are the 100k-ers. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Those who get off easily are the 200-300k and above who have a marginal tax rate massively less than those on 100k, or those on 20-30k.
All right -- let's fix it.
Let's change this glitch in the tax system for the 100k-ers *AND* change the Council tax bands so that people with properties over 500k pay more and those with properties over 1 million much, much more. Let's follow the US where property taxes are much more substantial for the wealthy.
My guess is that will provoke even louder squeals from the same people.
Because childcare is for a few years but Council Tax is for life.
I would 100% support that policy. In fact I've long advocated for that.
So this squealer would not squeal more loudly.
Indeed I've said I'd go further, I'd abolish Council Tax altogether and replace with a new Property Tax like the Americans have which charges a percentage of a home's value per annum. I would also put the burden of paying that tax on the owner of the property, not the tenant.
There is no way to tax the owner of a property so that the tax isn’t incident on a tenant.
The tax will get passed on.
That's fine, but that's a cost the landlord has to absorb and pass on according to the market, which might not enable passing all of it on, and it also deals with the issue where the Council currently has massive admin fees and Court fees seeking reclamation of non-payment of Council Tax from tenants in arrears on their taxes.
If the landlord has to pay all such taxes then a vast swathe of admin and Court fees and cases are then abolished in one go. If tenants are in arrears to their landlord for non-payment of rent, which now would include a contribution towards taxes, then that can be handled the normal way it would anyway.
I know the £100K+ is apparently a "niche" concern. However, the marginal rate of over 70% with 3 kids if one parent goes over £40K is most definitely not.
Hopefully, the usual suspects will stop saying this is "not a priority" now and recognise this is a serious problem.
As @NickPalmer said yesterday, you can (for example) support higher taxation rates overall whilst recognising this cliff edge approach is absolute madness.
Don't dispute the madness angle, at all.
For those with salary sacrifice pension and AVC options, is eligibility on taxable income so one could for a few years simply up pre-tax AVCs to bring post-tax income down below £100k and then, once childcare needs had passed or earning over £134k, revert?
I have a colleague doing something similar for the £50k child benefit cliff edge.* Didn't occur to me when I was at that point.
*that ones less extreme as you're not actually worse off for earning more unless you have a very large number of children, but it's still an eyewatering marginal rate of tax.
In theory, yes, the trouble is that with heavy mortgage, energy and childcare costs - I need the money now. It's not like I have a big surplus to shove into a pension.
So, in reality, I have to suck up a massive tax hit on it and hope I can drive my career through to crawl out the hole the other side.
But, several of my co-directors are simply doing a 4-day week to go <£100k and 'staying at grade' for the next few years whilst their kids are young. Or looking at Australia, Saudi or the UAE.
I know the £100K+ is apparently a "niche" concern. However, the marginal rate of over 70% with 3 kids if one parent goes over £40K is most definitely not.
But this is 3 kids needing childcare (i.e., 3 very young children).
So, how many families is that? Have you estimated?
I'd say that was quite niche as well.
Cliff edges are not good -- but they are difficult to avoid unless everything is made universal.
And as soon as you make some things mean-tested or income-dependent, you will create some inadvertent cliff edges.
The solution is to stop introducing means-tested or income-dependent policies, make things universal and tax income via income tax.
Not rocket science, and then you can have flatter real terms tax rates without the cliff edges. It works as a policy, its just more politically easy to do the wrong thing.
The alternative is to accept that a tax and benefit system cannot be completely fair all the time. It may be that for a few years you end up getting a poor deal (as with the 100k-ers with young children), But that is balanced by other things.
I am sure most 100k-ers own nice big houses. Property taxes in this country are skewed to benefit people with nice, big houses. So, there is an instance in which they are benefitting.
But, I am not too bothered myself as long as -- integrated over a lifetime -- the tax system is reasonably fair.
It isn't fair, but it is people at the bottom who are getting the rough deal, not the 100 k-ers.
As it stands its both.
People at the bottom are absolutely shafted with high marginal tax rates, and so too are the 100k-ers. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Those who get off easily are the 200-300k and above who have a marginal tax rate massively less than those on 100k, or those on 20-30k. The others who get off easily are those living off unearned incomes who don't have to declare their income for a large proportion of modern income tax (ie graduate tax and national insurance).
Those on 100k with children of a very specific age. While I agree it’s a problem, it isn’t as widespread as this implies.
That's me mate.
Would you describe yourself as 'widespread'? Or are you whatever the trim male equivalent of a yummy mummy is?
I know the £100K+ is apparently a "niche" concern. However, the marginal rate of over 70% with 3 kids if one parent goes over £40K is most definitely not.
But this is 3 kids needing childcare (i.e., 3 very young children).
So, how many families is that? Have you estimated?
I'd say that was quite niche as well.
Cliff edges are not good -- but they are difficult to avoid unless everything is made universal.
And as soon as you make some things mean-tested or income-dependent, you will create some inadvertent cliff edges.
The solution is to stop introducing means-tested or income-dependent policies, make things universal and tax income via income tax.
Not rocket science, and then you can have flatter real terms tax rates without the cliff edges. It works as a policy, its just more politically easy to do the wrong thing.
The alternative is to accept that a tax and benefit system cannot be completely fair all the time. It may be that for a few years you end up getting a poor deal (as with the 100k-ers with young children), But that is balanced by other things.
I am sure most 100k-ers own nice big houses. Property taxes in this country are skewed to benefit people with nice, big houses. So, there is an instance in which they are benefitting.
But, I am not too bothered myself as long as -- integrated over a lifetime -- the tax system is reasonably fair.
It isn't fair, but it is people at the bottom who are getting the rough deal, not the 100 k-ers.
As it stands its both.
People at the bottom are absolutely shafted with high marginal tax rates, and so too are the 100k-ers. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Those who get off easily are the 200-300k and above who have a marginal tax rate massively less than those on 100k, or those on 20-30k.
All right -- let's fix it.
Let's change this glitch in the tax system for the 100k-ers *AND* change the Council tax bands so that people with properties over 500k pay more and those with properties over 1 million much, much more. Let's follow the US where property taxes are much more substantial for the wealthy.
My guess is that will provoke even louder squeals from the same people.
Because childcare is for a few years but Council Tax is for life.
The problem with the council tax proposal is simple.
Many of the people living in million pound semis didn’t buy them at that price. Or have the incomes to buy them.
If you look down many expensive roads in London, you can see the rich incomers by the cars. In many places 50%+ are people who bought there years before the comic house prices.
We know a lot of people in our neighbourhood - it's a remarkably friendly place - and there is a clear divide between those in their 50s/60s (public sector, the arts) and those in their 30s/40s (private sector, legal/finance, probably a bit of bank of mum and dad in the background). Starting to see more kids peeling away to private school for secondary, which is a shame, as the character of the neighbourhood is changed by house prices. The older residents have *much* better parties. And why not, the wealthier incomers are paying for their retirement!
I know the £100K+ is apparently a "niche" concern. However, the marginal rate of over 70% with 3 kids if one parent goes over £40K is most definitely not.
But this is 3 kids needing childcare (i.e., 3 very young children).
So, how many families is that? Have you estimated?
I'd say that was quite niche as well.
Cliff edges are not good -- but they are difficult to avoid unless everything is made universal.
And as soon as you make some things mean-tested or income-dependent, you will create some inadvertent cliff edges.
The solution is to stop introducing means-tested or income-dependent policies, make things universal and tax income via income tax.
Not rocket science, and then you can have flatter real terms tax rates without the cliff edges. It works as a policy, its just more politically easy to do the wrong thing.
The alternative is to accept that a tax and benefit system cannot be completely fair all the time. It may be that for a few years you end up getting a poor deal (as with the 100k-ers with young children), But that is balanced by other things.
I am sure most 100k-ers own nice big houses. Property taxes in this country are skewed to benefit people with nice, big houses. So, there is an instance in which they are benefitting.
But, I am not too bothered myself as long as -- integrated over a lifetime -- the tax system is reasonably fair.
It isn't fair, but it is people at the bottom who are getting the rough deal, not the 100 k-ers.
As it stands its both.
People at the bottom are absolutely shafted with high marginal tax rates, and so too are the 100k-ers. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Those who get off easily are the 200-300k and above who have a marginal tax rate massively less than those on 100k, or those on 20-30k.
All right -- let's fix it.
Let's change this glitch in the tax system for the 100k-ers *AND* change the Council tax bands so that people with properties over 500k pay more and those with properties over 1 million much, much more. Let's follow the US where property taxes are much more substantial for the wealthy.
My guess is that will provoke even louder squeals from the same people.
Because childcare is for a few years but Council Tax is for life.
I would 100% support that policy. In fact I've long advocated for that.
So this squealer would not squeal more loudly.
Indeed I've said I'd go further, I'd abolish Council Tax altogether and replace with a new Property Tax like the Americans have which charges a percentage of a home's value per annum. I would also put the burden of paying that tax on the owner of the property, not the tenant.
I got my Council Tax bill yesterday, so a double-whammy. £3,000.
FFS.
In the US state of New Jersey, property taxes are 2.26 per cent.
I know the £100K+ is apparently a "niche" concern. However, the marginal rate of over 70% with 3 kids if one parent goes over £40K is most definitely not.
But this is 3 kids needing childcare (i.e., 3 very young children).
So, how many families is that? Have you estimated?
I'd say that was quite niche as well.
Cliff edges are not good -- but they are difficult to avoid unless everything is made universal.
And as soon as you make some things mean-tested or income-dependent, you will create some inadvertent cliff edges.
The solution is to stop introducing means-tested or income-dependent policies, make things universal and tax income via income tax.
Not rocket science, and then you can have flatter real terms tax rates without the cliff edges. It works as a policy, its just more politically easy to do the wrong thing.
The alternative is to accept that a tax and benefit system cannot be completely fair all the time. It may be that for a few years you end up getting a poor deal (as with the 100k-ers with young children), But that is balanced by other things.
I am sure most 100k-ers own nice big houses. Property taxes in this country are skewed to benefit people with nice, big houses. So, there is an instance in which they are benefitting.
But, I am not too bothered myself as long as -- integrated over a lifetime -- the tax system is reasonably fair.
It isn't fair, but it is people at the bottom who are getting the rough deal, not the 100 k-ers.
As it stands its both.
People at the bottom are absolutely shafted with high marginal tax rates, and so too are the 100k-ers. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Those who get off easily are the 200-300k and above who have a marginal tax rate massively less than those on 100k, or those on 20-30k.
All right -- let's fix it.
Let's change this glitch in the tax system for the 100k-ers *AND* change the Council tax bands so that people with properties over 500k pay more and those with properties over 1 million much, much more. Let's follow the US where property taxes are much more substantial for the wealthy.
My guess is that will provoke even louder squeals from the same people.
Because childcare is for a few years but Council Tax is for life.
The problem with the council tax proposal is simple.
Many of the people living in million pound semis didn’t buy them at that price. Or have the incomes to buy them.
If you look down many expensive roads in London, you can see the rich incomers by the cars. In many places 50%+ are people who bought there years before the comic house prices.
If someone doesn't have the income to maintain their home, including taxes due on it, then they always have the option of selling and moving somewhere else. Or encouraging policies that keep their property value, and thus their taxes, down.
My proposal is a 3% per annum tax on all owned property, paid by the owner, with an 80% discount for owner-occupied property. Council Tax and Stamp Duty to be abolished when this is introduced. Numbers to be tweaked to make it work.
That's still £6k pa on a £1m house for owner-occupiers.
Good luck on saving your deposit with that policy, when forced sales are predicted to crash the housing market.
£6k pa on a million pound house is a bargain proportionately. Good luck finding a £150k house that only attracts £900 in Council Tax.
If forced sales crash the housing market then the tax would go down proportionately under my proposal. If your million pound house is now only a 500k property, then your tax bill is halved.
King Charles needs to work on his confidence and his frame. Every monarch has to win respect anew. He just seems to self-pity himself and be wholly defensive about himself and his role, which invites attack, that he then wants to accommodate, and so on.
He needs to own the role and live the role.
The other issue is that he doesn't take advice, like QEII, and doesn't like to be challenged. He needs to get over that - fast.
Turnout was quite low though - 45% compared to 88% in Turkey.
About half of those 3 million live in Germany. I would say the Erdoğan supporters are better organised here. I think there is polling showing that he isn't that popular among those eligible to vote, but most don't bother voting, which is partly why he gets a big lead with those who do. Which suggests there could be votes for the opposition here if they can motivate people. The other thing is that part of the Erdoğan enthusiasm here is an act of defiance by people who feel sometimes rejected and alienated by a country that has done a generally poor job of integrating those with a Turkish 'migration background'.
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.
I’ve not studied myself but have been told by someone who has that salt water is very hard on the turbines - it’s the maintenance/ replacement costs (I think he said 7 years) that are the killer for tidal
No, the latest generation last much better than that. And the La Rance tidal barrage in France recently upgraded its turbines. They should last 60 years, I was told.
There was a world-leader turbine manufacturer wanting to build a new factory south Wales, if the lagoons got the go ahead.
They received a letter from BEIS which basically said "Fuck off, and take your green jobs with you."
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....
Not every asset is suitable for placing in a trust.
King Charles needs to work on his confidence and his frame. Every monarch has to win respect anew. He just seems to self-pity himself and be wholly defensive about himself and his role, which invites attack, that he then wants to accommodate, and so on.
He needs to own the role and live the role.
The other issue is that he doesn't take advice, like QEII, and doesn't like to be challenged. He needs to get over that - fast.
Being confident in oneself is the surest defence against attacks by those who mean one ill.
@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."
I know the £100K+ is apparently a "niche" concern. However, the marginal rate of over 70% with 3 kids if one parent goes over £40K is most definitely not.
But this is 3 kids needing childcare (i.e., 3 very young children).
So, how many families is that? Have you estimated?
I'd say that was quite niche as well.
Cliff edges are not good -- but they are difficult to avoid unless everything is made universal.
And as soon as you make some things mean-tested or income-dependent, you will create some inadvertent cliff edges.
The solution is to stop introducing means-tested or income-dependent policies, make things universal and tax income via income tax.
Not rocket science, and then you can have flatter real terms tax rates without the cliff edges. It works as a policy, its just more politically easy to do the wrong thing.
The alternative is to accept that a tax and benefit system cannot be completely fair all the time. It may be that for a few years you end up getting a poor deal (as with the 100k-ers with young children), But that is balanced by other things.
I am sure most 100k-ers own nice big houses. Property taxes in this country are skewed to benefit people with nice, big houses. So, there is an instance in which they are benefitting.
But, I am not too bothered myself as long as -- integrated over a lifetime -- the tax system is reasonably fair.
It isn't fair, but it is people at the bottom who are getting the rough deal, not the 100 k-ers.
As it stands its both.
People at the bottom are absolutely shafted with high marginal tax rates, and so too are the 100k-ers. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Those who get off easily are the 200-300k and above who have a marginal tax rate massively less than those on 100k, or those on 20-30k.
All right -- let's fix it.
Let's change this glitch in the tax system for the 100k-ers *AND* change the Council tax bands so that people with properties over 500k pay more and those with properties over 1 million much, much more. Let's follow the US where property taxes are much more substantial for the wealthy.
My guess is that will provoke even louder squeals from the same people.
Because childcare is for a few years but Council Tax is for life.
I would 100% support that policy. In fact I've long advocated for that.
So this squealer would not squeal more loudly.
Indeed I've said I'd go further, I'd abolish Council Tax altogether and replace with a new Property Tax like the Americans have which charges a percentage of a home's value per annum. I would also put the burden of paying that tax on the owner of the property, not the tenant.
I got my Council Tax bill yesterday, so a double-whammy. £3,000.
FFS.
In the US state of New Jersey, property taxes are 2.26 per cent.
So on a 750 k house, you are paying £16,950.
I don't know why our PB age warriors aren't all over it like, erm, bears on honey. Because the oldies would have to pay up.
I know the £100K+ is apparently a "niche" concern. However, the marginal rate of over 70% with 3 kids if one parent goes over £40K is most definitely not.
But this is 3 kids needing childcare (i.e., 3 very young children).
So, how many families is that? Have you estimated?
I'd say that was quite niche as well.
Cliff edges are not good -- but they are difficult to avoid unless everything is made universal.
And as soon as you make some things mean-tested or income-dependent, you will create some inadvertent cliff edges.
The solution is to stop introducing means-tested or income-dependent policies, make things universal and tax income via income tax.
Not rocket science, and then you can have flatter real terms tax rates without the cliff edges. It works as a policy, its just more politically easy to do the wrong thing.
The alternative is to accept that a tax and benefit system cannot be completely fair all the time. It may be that for a few years you end up getting a poor deal (as with the 100k-ers with young children), But that is balanced by other things.
I am sure most 100k-ers own nice big houses. Property taxes in this country are skewed to benefit people with nice, big houses. So, there is an instance in which they are benefitting.
But, I am not too bothered myself as long as -- integrated over a lifetime -- the tax system is reasonably fair.
It isn't fair, but it is people at the bottom who are getting the rough deal, not the 100 k-ers.
As it stands its both.
People at the bottom are absolutely shafted with high marginal tax rates, and so too are the 100k-ers. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Those who get off easily are the 200-300k and above who have a marginal tax rate massively less than those on 100k, or those on 20-30k.
All right -- let's fix it.
Let's change this glitch in the tax system for the 100k-ers *AND* change the Council tax bands so that people with properties over 500k pay more and those with properties over 1 million much, much more. Let's follow the US where property taxes are much more substantial for the wealthy.
My guess is that will provoke even louder squeals from the same people.
Because childcare is for a few years but Council Tax is for life.
The problem with the council tax proposal is simple.
Water cooled machine guns can fire continuously. Machine guns without water cooling literally become red hot. So modern guns only fire short bursts at intervals
There was a battle in WWI were Vickers guns were used to create a beaten zone for hours. Think it was 12 hours and a million rounds fired….
In Afghanistan, there were, IIRC, people on the front line suggesting that a water-cooled weapon would be useful against human wave attacks.
I wonder if they are using “the tap” - a technique from WWI against infantry assaults. The gunner would be firing continuously from the water cooled machine gun, and give it a nudge at regular intervals to traverse it.
I'm sure. You didn't bother to aim individually in such circs - jus\t kept firing, loading and tapping to create a beaten dead zone. And refilling the barrel, now and then. Certainly for the Vickers sister design.
That is the 1930s-ish Soviet model of Maxim, btw, with the wide water filler to allow snow to be crammed in in lieu of water. Simple genius of practical design.
Not forgetting the barrel changes…
(Remembers CCF Bren)
Don't think a Vickers needed barrel changes nearly so often, once an hour of continuous fire, as a LMG? And that was due to wear? Bren (which IIRC had an asbestos glove as part of the standard field kit) or MG34/MG42 did need a barrel change over far more frequently to cool down.
I know the £100K+ is apparently a "niche" concern. However, the marginal rate of over 70% with 3 kids if one parent goes over £40K is most definitely not.
But this is 3 kids needing childcare (i.e., 3 very young children).
So, how many families is that? Have you estimated?
I'd say that was quite niche as well.
Cliff edges are not good -- but they are difficult to avoid unless everything is made universal.
And as soon as you make some things mean-tested or income-dependent, you will create some inadvertent cliff edges.
Yes, but what percentage of parents are actually affected by the cap - 5% perhaps? So the Chancellor is introducing means-testing that costs money but only saves say 5% of the expenditure, for no reason other than to stop a headline about universal childcare also being available to rich people? It’s the Child Benefit argument all over again, but with a smaller niche.
Meanwhile, the 70% marginal tax rates created by the means testing lead to well-paid employees choosing to work part time or not at all.
There’s a need to make these things much simpler, rather than every scheme adding complexity and perverse incentives.
I know the £100K+ is apparently a "niche" concern. However, the marginal rate of over 70% with 3 kids if one parent goes over £40K is most definitely not.
But this is 3 kids needing childcare (i.e., 3 very young children).
So, how many families is that? Have you estimated?
I'd say that was quite niche as well.
Cliff edges are not good -- but they are difficult to avoid unless everything is made universal.
And as soon as you make some things mean-tested or income-dependent, you will create some inadvertent cliff edges.
The solution is to stop introducing means-tested or income-dependent policies, make things universal and tax income via income tax.
Not rocket science, and then you can have flatter real terms tax rates without the cliff edges. It works as a policy, its just more politically easy to do the wrong thing.
The alternative is to accept that a tax and benefit system cannot be completely fair all the time. It may be that for a few years you end up getting a poor deal (as with the 100k-ers with young children), But that is balanced by other things.
I am sure most 100k-ers own nice big houses. Property taxes in this country are skewed to benefit people with nice, big houses. So, there is an instance in which they are benefitting.
But, I am not too bothered myself as long as -- integrated over a lifetime -- the tax system is reasonably fair.
It isn't fair, but it is people at the bottom who are getting the rough deal, not the 100 k-ers.
As it stands its both.
People at the bottom are absolutely shafted with high marginal tax rates, and so too are the 100k-ers. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Those who get off easily are the 200-300k and above who have a marginal tax rate massively less than those on 100k, or those on 20-30k.
All right -- let's fix it.
Let's change this glitch in the tax system for the 100k-ers *AND* change the Council tax bands so that people with properties over 500k pay more and those with properties over 1 million much, much more. Let's follow the US where property taxes are much more substantial for the wealthy.
My guess is that will provoke even louder squeals from the same people.
Because childcare is for a few years but Council Tax is for life.
The problem with the council tax proposal is simple.
Water cooled machine guns can fire continuously. Machine guns without water cooling literally become red hot. So modern guns only fire short bursts at intervals
There was a battle in WWI were Vickers guns were used to create a beaten zone for hours. Think it was 12 hours and a million rounds fired….
In Afghanistan, there were, IIRC, people on the front line suggesting that a water-cooled weapon would be useful against human wave attacks.
I wonder if they are using “the tap” - a technique from WWI against infantry assaults. The gunner would be firing continuously from the water cooled machine gun, and give it a nudge at regular intervals to traverse it.
I'm sure. You didn't bother to aim individually in such circs - jus\t kept firing, loading and tapping to create a beaten dead zone. And refilling the barrel, now and then. Certainly for the Vickers sister design.
That is the 1930s-ish Soviet model of Maxim, btw, with the wide water filler to allow snow to be crammed in in lieu of water. Simple genius of practical design.
Not forgetting the barrel changes…
(Remembers CCF Bren)
Don't think a Vickers needed barrel changes nearly so often, once an hour of continuous fire, as a LMG? And that was due to wear? Bren (which IIRC had an asbestos glove as part of the standard field kit) or MG34/MG42 did need a barrel change over far more frequently to cool down.
That was the story I was thinking of. Interesting.
They did also have a long firing period as part of the original trials for the Army, but I forget the details. I have just acquired the Haynes "manual". (Granddad was a MG gunner in the Great War from 1915, bnut in an infantry division so probably the Lewis and possibly Hotchkiss as well.)
@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."
I know the £100K+ is apparently a "niche" concern. However, the marginal rate of over 70% with 3 kids if one parent goes over £40K is most definitely not.
But this is 3 kids needing childcare (i.e., 3 very young children).
So, how many families is that? Have you estimated?
I'd say that was quite niche as well.
Cliff edges are not good -- but they are difficult to avoid unless everything is made universal.
And as soon as you make some things mean-tested or income-dependent, you will create some inadvertent cliff edges.
The solution is to stop introducing means-tested or income-dependent policies, make things universal and tax income via income tax.
Not rocket science, and then you can have flatter real terms tax rates without the cliff edges. It works as a policy, its just more politically easy to do the wrong thing.
The alternative is to accept that a tax and benefit system cannot be completely fair all the time. It may be that for a few years you end up getting a poor deal (as with the 100k-ers with young children), But that is balanced by other things.
I am sure most 100k-ers own nice big houses. Property taxes in this country are skewed to benefit people with nice, big houses. So, there is an instance in which they are benefitting.
But, I am not too bothered myself as long as -- integrated over a lifetime -- the tax system is reasonably fair.
It isn't fair, but it is people at the bottom who are getting the rough deal, not the 100 k-ers.
As it stands its both.
People at the bottom are absolutely shafted with high marginal tax rates, and so too are the 100k-ers. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Those who get off easily are the 200-300k and above who have a marginal tax rate massively less than those on 100k, or those on 20-30k.
All right -- let's fix it.
Let's change this glitch in the tax system for the 100k-ers *AND* change the Council tax bands so that people with properties over 500k pay more and those with properties over 1 million much, much more. Let's follow the US where property taxes are much more substantial for the wealthy.
My guess is that will provoke even louder squeals from the same people.
Because childcare is for a few years but Council Tax is for life.
I would 100% support that policy. In fact I've long advocated for that.
So this squealer would not squeal more loudly.
Indeed I've said I'd go further, I'd abolish Council Tax altogether and replace with a new Property Tax like the Americans have which charges a percentage of a home's value per annum. I would also put the burden of paying that tax on the owner of the property, not the tenant.
I got my Council Tax bill yesterday, so a double-whammy. £3,000.
FFS.
In the US state of New Jersey, property taxes are 2.26 per cent.
So on a 750 k house, you are paying £16,950.
I don't know why our PB age warriors aren't all over it like, erm, bears on honey. Because the oldies would have to pay up.
Excuse me? I am all over it. 🤚
That would be a much fairer way to generate taxes than sweating those working for a living as we do now with ridiculous cliff-edges, then untaxed income.
Oh and of course on top of the property tax, all property income should be taxed in full at the same rate as all other income.
It usually takes a little while for Budget reaction to get beyond the spin. The effect of fiscal drag for example is only being commented on today.
Yesterday was very probably the high water mark for the Budget.
It rather seems that way – there are several 'nasties' in there:
• Fiscal drag • Extreme cliff edge • Childcare package two-year delay (by the time it fully kicks in the Tories might not even be in government) • Growth forecast relies on 250,000 net immigration per year (not a problem with me personally, but it will be for some people)
a) I know there are a lot of comments about the £100k cliff edge being a rich person's problem, but it is a mess and it needs sorting. It is a nonsense and it discourages people from working.
b) The doctors pension issue needed sorting but I think this was the wrong solution, although I accept Jeremy Hunt's comment that it is easy to implement immediately and also solves the problem for others as well. Personally I think it would have been cheaper and politically more acceptable to focus on the Doctors only and allow them to opt out of further pension contributions and to stop accumulating pension years. Surely that solves it doesn't it?
Comments
F1: a further problem for Ferrari is that the 10 place grid penalty coming so early means they probably don't want to throw in new elements and make it a back of the grid deal. And the electronics unit currently in Leclerc's car probably won't make it through the season.
Some things never seem to change.
I have no idea what the Epping Conservatives are proposing, but that is what they are busy doing elsewhere.
https://twitter.com/Savanta_UK/status/1636049367541989400?s=20
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-64972800
Really? I mean, really?? Isn't the greater risk that members see the next leader being a stitch up, shorne of democracy? Might they not find that "very upsetting".
I would have thought that Yousef being on the wrong side of this issue might hurt him badly. But hey, this is Scottish politics, so what do I know?
Lets hope Charlies numbers don't drop as fast as Brexit's
https://www.statista.com/statistics/987347/brexit-opinion-poll/
Drivers are often defined by their adversaries. Damon Hill had Michael Schumacher. Max Verstappen had Lewis Hamilton. Charles Leclerc has Ferrari.
There was a battle in WWI were Vickers guns were used to create a beaten zone for hours. Think it was 12 hours and a million rounds fired….
In Afghanistan, there were, IIRC, people on the front line suggesting that a water-cooled weapon would be useful against human wave attacks.
I wonder if they are using “the tap” - a technique from WWI against infantry assaults. The gunner would be firing continuously from the water cooled machine gun, and give it a nudge at regular intervals to traverse it.
https://twitter.com/TheIFS/status/1636059648657612800
I know the £100K+ is apparently a "niche" concern. However, the marginal rate of over 70% with 3 kids if one parent goes over £40K is most definitely not.
EDIT "fiscal drag" was referenced 77 times in the previous 3 threads.
Japan is lifting controls on exports of chip and display manufacturing materials to South Korea, while in return, Seoul is withdrawing a dispute settlement case brought before the World Trade Organization (WTO).
https://twitter.com/dpa_intl/status/1636303542536531969
You object to new building as all that is built are "expensive mansions", while Rochdale bemoans that all is built are "shitboxes".
The reality is that what is built are "homes" and that is what the country needs.
If cheap "shitboxes" are built then that's affordable homes for people to live in.
If "mansions" are built then that's new homes for people to live in, they can move out of the home they're currently in and people can move up the housing ladder.
Objecting to either is bad. Let people have houses of their own, and if there's enough homes built then people can move up and down the housing ladder depending upon their circumstances and any derelict or shit houses won't be occupied rather than having guaranteed tenants to sweat money from like at present as there's simply not enough houses.
Not everyone is a switched on as our PB posters.
Roger
Goodbye Virgin Orbit
But don’t worry about Branson - he made himself senior debtor
https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/02/richard-branson-moves-to-consolidate-his-secured-interest-in-virgin-orbit/
I have a friend who bought a shareholding in a small company about a decade ago. He’s worked very hard and built the company to 500+ employees.
Are you saying that kind of activity shouldn’t be encouraged?
And for the “shit box” types - who advocated and voted for reductions in the minimum sizes of rooms in houses? In the name of increasing density?
In a few months time, will people generally have money left at the end of the month, or month left at the end of the money? Everyone notices that, irrespective of how much or little attention they pay to the news.
Fiscal drag makes it more likely that the money runs out first, which is why it's less clever than it superficially looks.
(Yesterday's announcements mostly look fine, though the pension thing might turn out to be a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The government's problem, all our problem, is the stuff coming in that was announced when Rishi was still chancellor. That was a long time ago.)
So, how many families is that? Have you estimated?
I'd say that was quite niche as well.
Cliff edges are not good -- but they are difficult to avoid unless everything is made universal.
And as soon as you make some things mean-tested or income-dependent, you will create some inadvertent cliff edges.
Instead we have the polar opposite. Yesterday's Budget saw tax rises waved through on earned income via stealth fiscal drag, while the cliff edge problem was made worse not better.
Its unforgiveable. Especially from the Party that is supposed to be pro-aspiration.
Not rocket science, and then you can have flatter real terms tax rates without the cliff edges. It works as a policy, its just more politically easy to do the wrong thing.
I am looking to wind up my private practice, so have been looking around this.
No one really thinks about counter factuals, to your point they just think “do I have a bit more cash sloshing around than I did last year”.
That is the 1930s-ish Soviet model of Maxim, btw, with the wide water filler to allow snow to be crammed in in lieu of water. Simple genius of practical design.
https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/local-news/updates-fire-takes-hold-loughborough-8255251
I am sure most 100k-ers own nice big houses. Property taxes in this country are skewed to benefit people with nice, big houses. So, there is an instance in which they are benefitting.
But, I am not too bothered myself as long as -- integrated over a lifetime -- the tax system is reasonably fair.
It isn't fair, but it is people at the bottom who are getting the rough deal, not the 100 k-ers.
People at the bottom are absolutely shafted with high marginal tax rates, and so too are the 100k-ers. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Those who get off easily are the 200-300k and above who have a marginal tax rate massively less than those on 100k, or those on 20-30k.
The others who get off easily are those living off unearned incomes who don't have to declare their income for a large proportion of modern income tax (ie graduate tax and national insurance).
You don’t have an absolute right to build on your property because you need to consider the impact on others rights
We'll make a Euroweenie Christian Democrat of you yet...
(Remembers CCF Bren)
The curve of take home pay as a function of salary made by the IFS was actually quite smooth, only distorted by the childcare component.
Let's change this glitch in the tax system for the 100k-ers *AND* change the Council tax bands so that people with properties over 500k pay more and those with properties over 1 million much, much more. Let's follow the US where property taxes are much more substantial for the wealthy.
My guess is that will provoke even louder squeals from the same people.
Because childcare is for a few years but Council Tax is for life.
So much is built as rabbit hutches.
The other end is custom built - you buy an acre or 2 and put a house on it. Strangely, people doing that don’t want 2m x 2m bedrooms. One chap I knew specified that all the bedrooms needed to be 6m on minimum dimension, not including cupboards or en-suites.
As for view, I'm sorry but views are subject to change. If a voyeur likes the view of his nubile young neighbour getting changed in her bedroom should he get to object to her putting a curtain rail up and closing the curtains? Of course not, what people do with their own property is up to them, not up to you, even if affects your view. If you want something to view, put it in your own property.
Behind our new house just over the fence is undeveloped land with some trees immediately behind our fence that our girls can see from their rooms. Living in the trees are squirrels that the girls have named Bob and Fluffy. I've seen more than 2 squirrels running around, but to the girls they're all Bob or Fluffy. If that land gets developed and the trees get cut down and a new house put in its place then that would worsen our view and our girls would be disappointed but they're not our trees. They're not in our border, they're not our property. I do not feel I would have any right whatsoever to object to what other people do with their land and nor should anyone else. If it affects your view, then suck it up. View what's in your property, or buy the view if you want it that much.
As @NickPalmer said yesterday, you can (for example) support higher taxation rates overall whilst recognising this cliff edge approach is absolute madness.
I haven’t heard Starmer’s response (I tried but fell asleep) but @Big_G_NorthWales is complaining that he didn’t have the sprinkle
Many of the people living in million pound semis didn’t buy them at that price. Or have the incomes to buy them.
If you look down many expensive roads in London, you can see the rich incomers by the cars. In many places 50%+ are people who bought there years before the comic house prices.
So this squealer would not squeal more loudly.
Indeed I've said I'd go further, I'd abolish Council Tax altogether and replace with a new Property Tax like the Americans have which charges a percentage of a home's value per annum. I would also put the burden of paying that tax on the owner of the property, not the tenant.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/15/a-disgrace-more-than-100-trees-cut-down-in-plymouth-despite-local-opposition
Light is a different matter, but the rights to light are not as clear cut as people often imagine.
Economic common sense probably won't be applied until the retention/ recruitment problem for workers becomes so severe that it forces HMG to act.
The tax will get passed on.
FFS.
My proposal is a 3% per annum tax on all owned property, paid by the owner, with an 80% discount for owner-occupied property. Council Tax and Stamp Duty to be abolished when this is introduced. Numbers to be tweaked to make it work.
For those with salary sacrifice pension and AVC options, is eligibility on taxable income so one could for a few years simply up pre-tax AVCs to bring post-tax income down below £100k and then, once childcare needs had passed or earning over £134k, revert?
I have a colleague doing something similar for the £50k child benefit cliff edge.* Didn't occur to me when I was at that point.
*that ones less extreme as you're not actually worse off for earning more unless you have a very large number of children, but it's still an eyewatering marginal rate of tax.
You and I have been the most persistent advocates on here on much higher property taxes.
My point is that there are unfairnesses everywhere in the tax system. And the same people may be benefitting from one unfairness while being penalised by another.
Though see this -
https://vickersmg.blog/2019/08/13/one-million-rounds-fired-in-12-hours/
Good luck on saving your deposit with that policy, when forced sales are predicted to crash the housing market.
If the landlord has to pay all such taxes then a vast swathe of admin and Court fees and cases are then abolished in one go. If tenants are in arrears to their landlord for non-payment of rent, which now would include a contribution towards taxes, then that can be handled the normal way it would anyway.
So, in reality, I have to suck up a massive tax hit on it and hope I can drive my career through to crawl out the hole the other side.
But, several of my co-directors are simply doing a 4-day week to go <£100k and 'staying at grade' for the next few years whilst their kids are young. Or looking at Australia, Saudi or the UAE.
The older residents have *much* better parties. And why not, the wealthier incomers are paying for their retirement!
So on a 750 k house, you are paying £16,950.
If forced sales crash the housing market then the tax would go down proportionately under my proposal. If your million pound house is now only a 500k property, then your tax bill is halved.
He needs to own the role and live the role.
The other issue is that he doesn't take advice, like QEII, and doesn't like to be challenged. He needs to get over that - fast.
Worth noting that those opinion polls don't include (I think) the 3 million living abroad who are entitled to vote. According to this:
https://www.ysk.gov.tr/doc/dosyalar/docs/24Haziran2018/KesinSecimSonuclari/2018CB-416B.pdf
in 2018 they voted 60% for Erdoğan, compared to 52% in Turkey.
Turnout was quite low though - 45% compared to 88% in Turkey.
About half of those 3 million live in Germany. I would say the Erdoğan supporters are better organised here. I think there is polling showing that he isn't that popular among those eligible to vote, but most don't bother voting, which is partly why he gets a big lead with those who do. Which suggests there could be votes for the opposition here if they can motivate people. The other thing is that part of the Erdoğan enthusiasm here is an act of defiance by people who feel sometimes rejected and alienated by a country that has done a generally poor job of integrating those with a Turkish 'migration background'.
There was a world-leader turbine manufacturer wanting to build a new factory south Wales, if the lagoons got the go ahead.
They received a letter from BEIS which basically said "Fuck off, and take your green jobs with you."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-europe-64967070
Many of the people living in That was the story I was thinking of. Interesting.
Meanwhile, the 70% marginal tax rates created by the means testing lead to well-paid employees choosing to work part time or not at all.
There’s a need to make these things much simpler, rather than every scheme adding complexity and perverse incentives.
That would be a much fairer way to generate taxes than sweating those working for a living as we do now with ridiculous cliff-edges, then untaxed income.
Oh and of course on top of the property tax, all property income should be taxed in full at the same rate as all other income.
• Fiscal drag
• Extreme cliff edge
• Childcare package two-year delay (by the time it fully kicks in the Tories might not even be in government)
• Growth forecast relies on 250,000 net immigration per year (not a problem with me personally, but it will be for some people)
a) I know there are a lot of comments about the £100k cliff edge being a rich person's problem, but it is a mess and it needs sorting. It is a nonsense and it discourages people from working.
b) The doctors pension issue needed sorting but I think this was the wrong solution, although I accept Jeremy Hunt's comment that it is easy to implement immediately and also solves the problem for others as well. Personally I think it would have been cheaper and politically more acceptable to focus on the Doctors only and allow them to opt out of further pension contributions and to stop accumulating pension years. Surely that solves it doesn't it?