Why is Inheritance Tax levied on estates and not recipients? It seems it would be much more logical for the recipients of inheritance to be taxed, rather than the estates themselves.
And why not simply have a lifetime gift allowance, that includes pre-inheritance gifts?
You're absolutely right.
But, of course, the people who complain most loudly about Inheritance Tax aren't really complaining because of their deep sympathy for poor old grandma, whose dearest last wish is to pass on her earned estate (which definitely didn't result from house price rises since 1970 but the sweat of her dear old brow) to her nearest and dearest.
No, they just want a fat cheque when the old coffin dodger croaks at last. The complainants, to a large extent, ARE the recipients, and they don't want gran spreading her inheritence to a load of great-grand-nephews and whatever, as would be the incentive in your proposal.
I accept that is a generalisation, and people oppose IHT for various reasons. But there's quite a bit of truth in it.
I'm amazed that only 1-in-20 estates are over £325,000 in the UK. I would have thought the number would be more like 1-in-5 or 1-in-6.
That 325000 does not include the first 180,000 of the value of the primary residence.
Plus, it's one of the easiest taxes to avoid.
Your figure would probably be correct if it weren't for that.
What a ridiculous exemption. Just make the threshold £500k, and get rid of the primary residence absurdity.
Actually, I forgot another exemption. A married couple get a double allowance and there is no tax on an estate passing to the survivor.
So effectively the nil rate band for a widow/widower leaving an estate including a house to their children/grandchildren is around £830,000.
Not that hard for most people to make sure their assets come in under or close to that even with a very nice house in a rich area.
If the home owner requires nursing home residency the average house value will be consumed in around five years at costs of around 6 grand a month per person. If they are a couple riddled with dementia make that two and a half years before the family home is reduced to c28 grand per person and a pile of dust.
Yes but if they have a major capital asset, why shouldn't they pay rather than the tax payer?
I don't disagree. I was merely suggesting that the notion peddled by Liz Truss, HYUFD and their disciples that everyone has a million pound plus property to bequeath to their nearest and dearest is somewhat scuppered, not by inheritance tax but by residential care costs.
What utter rubbish. You do realise the AVERAGE house is now worth just £372K and OVER the inheritance tax threshold of £325k.
It is no wonder therefore most voters want the threshold for it raised to £1 million as not all of them are even married couples who benefit from Osborne's allowance. Were it not for Osborne's allowance even more would have been hit by it. No wonder you leftwingers don't have a clue how the average voter feels on this issue? https://www.rightmove.co.uk/news/house-price-index/
"you leftwingers"
That's you told.
Ofg course, a decreasing percentage have full equity in their houses. It's no good havingf a house worth over 325K when one dies, if one has a mortage for half of it.
I disagree with @HYUFD and while I am a one nation conservative I am not a left winger
He'll be back on in a minute to explain why you're not a true Tory because you didn't fight Cromwell in defence of King Charles II, or something similar.
Indeed, BigG would definitely have been a Roundhead and then a Whig!
I had a call with a moderately well known economist today, who is just back in the US after spending a lot of time at the BoE. He's of the view that inflation is going to fall very quickly from here, because almost all of the external elements (i.e. gas / electricity / grains / etc) are in freefall at the wholesale level. It essentially guarantees - in his view - that inflation will be close to zero by the middle of next year as peoples' utility bills register big year-over-year declines.
His view is that the BoE should be cutting now, rather than doing so next year, when they will be chasing a falling inflation rate.
He was very persuasive.
That rather assumes that low interest rates are the way to go. Is that the view of everyone?
Personally, speaking as somebody who is not an economist, I would have said that after 14 years of ridiculous lows they need to stay up.
I think his point was more subtle.
If interest rates chase headline inflation down, it will be adding a lot of inflationary fuel to the fire. Essentially people will have more disposable income from lower gas and electricity (and food) bills, and if you combine that with falling interest rates, then you will create a big surge in demand.
Better to cut rates now, to relieve pressure on households, and then be in a position to tighten next year.
(More generally, I agree that ultra loose monetary policy is bad for everyone in the medium term. However, it's very rare that real interest rates - i.e. the gap between what is paid on debt and inflation - exceeds 3 or 4%.)
Not sure how this works. People will have a bit more disposable income compared with six months earlier but a LOT LESS than they had two years earlier.
Right now people are being squeezed two-fold: Firstly, the price of the things they are buying has risen; Secondly, the cost of debt (and most people have at least some debt) has gone up dramatically.
On the other hand, wages have risen, and will continue to rise. From the ONS: "average regular pay growth for the private sector was 6.9% in December 2022 to February 2023, and 5.3% for the public sector".
The price of things - particularly ones which are driven by commodity prices, as well as the commodities themselves - will fall. Gas is down. Oil is down. Wholesale electricity markets are down. Wheat has fallen. Corn has fallen. Coffee has fallen. (Sugar has not.)
Now, that doesn't mean everything is hunky dory. But in the next 12 months, even absent changes in interest rates, people's costs are likely to fall while their incomes will probably rise.
I think the poll was posted earlier, but I do like the way Omnisis tweeted it:
1/ With the relentless intensity of a Skynet Terminator, Labour continues to lead our voter intention poll, increasing its lead from 19 to 21 points this week:
🔴 Lab 46% (-1) 🔵 Con 25% (-3) 🟠 LD 10% (NC) 🟡 SNP 3% (NC) ⚪ Ref 6% (NC) 🟢 Green 7% (+2)
'Finally, government calculations estimate the recent Australian and NZ trade deal will increase UK GDP by 0.08% (£2.3bn a year) by 2035. Is this a good deal?
Why is Inheritance Tax levied on estates and not recipients? It seems it would be much more logical for the recipients of inheritance to be taxed, rather than the estates themselves.
And why not simply have a lifetime gift allowance, that includes pre-inheritance gifts?
You're absolutely right.
But, of course, the people who complain most loudly about Inheritance Tax aren't really complaining because of their deep sympathy for poor old grandma, whose dearest last wish is to pass on her earned estate (which definitely didn't result from house price rises since 1970 but the sweat of her dear old brow) to her nearest and dearest.
No, they just want a fat cheque when the old coffin dodger croaks at last. The complainants, to a large extent, ARE the recipients, and they don't want gran spreading her inheritence to a load of great-grand-nephews and whatever, as would be the incentive in your proposal.
I accept that is a generalisation, and people oppose IHT for various reasons. But there's quite a bit of truth in it.
I'm amazed that only 1-in-20 estates are over £325,000 in the UK. I would have thought the number would be more like 1-in-5 or 1-in-6.
That 325000 does not include the first 180,000 of the value of the primary residence.
Plus, it's one of the easiest taxes to avoid.
Your figure would probably be correct if it weren't for that.
What a ridiculous exemption. Just make the threshold £500k, and get rid of the primary residence absurdity.
Actually, I forgot another exemption. A married couple get a double allowance and there is no tax on an estate passing to the survivor.
So effectively the nil rate band for a widow/widower leaving an estate including a house to their children/grandchildren is around £830,000.
Not that hard for most people to make sure their assets come in under or close to that even with a very nice house in a rich area.
If the home owner requires nursing home residency the average house value will be consumed in around five years at costs of around 6 grand a month per person. If they are a couple riddled with dementia make that two and a half years before the family home is reduced to c28 grand per person and a pile of dust.
Yes but if they have a major capital asset, why shouldn't they pay rather than the tax payer?
I don't disagree. I was merely suggesting that the notion peddled by Liz Truss, HYUFD and their disciples that everyone has a million pound plus property to bequeath to their nearest and dearest is somewhat scuppered, not by inheritance tax but by residential care costs.
What utter rubbish. You do realise the AVERAGE house is now worth just £372K and OVER the inheritance tax threshold of £325k.
It is no wonder therefore most voters want the threshold for it raised to £1 million as not all of them are even married couples who benefit from Osborne's allowance. Were it not for Osborne's allowance even more would have been hit by it. No wonder you leftwingers don't have a clue how the average voter feels on this issue? https://www.rightmove.co.uk/news/house-price-index/
"you leftwingers"
That's you told.
Ofg course, a decreasing percentage have full equity in their houses. It's no good havingf a house worth over 325K when one dies, if one has a mortage for half of it.
I disagree with @HYUFD and while I am a one nation conservative I am not a left winger
He'll be back on in a minute to explain why you're not a true Tory because you didn't fight Cromwell in defence of King Charles II, or something similar.
Indeed, BigG would definitely have been a Roundhead and then a Whig!
BigG’s ancestor was a minor member of the Welsh gentry who wasted his declining years investigating rumours that Cromwell feasted on a bewitched sausage during the Bare-arse Parliament.
He's an excellent smokescreen for all the Heather Hallet nonsense. If the news outlets all lead on Schofield no one will notice what arses Johnson, Case and Sunak have been.
It is also keeping the sleeze in Labour out of the headlines with not only Geraint Davies suspended, but allegations made again today that the party are covering up a shadow minister unacceptable behaviour
No. R4 PM led on Charlotte Nichols and Stella Creasey explaining that when they arrived in Parliament in 2019 and 2010 respectively they were warned that 30 MPs were a danger to young female MPs. They were both highly critical of the Labour Party hierarchy who ignored common knowledge regarding Davies. It was couched as an exclusively Labour Party problem by Evan Davies. It clearly isn't and I was expecting the usual BBC balance caveats, perhaps referencing Rob Roberts or Pincher, but he didn't. I think BBC balance only applies to negative stories involving Boris Johnson.
He's an excellent smokescreen for all the Heather Hallet nonsense. If the news outlets all lead on Schofield no one will notice what arses Johnson, Case and Sunak have been.
It is also keeping the sleeze in Labour out of the headlines with not only Geraint Davies suspended, but allegations made again today that the party are covering up a shadow minister unacceptable behaviour
No. R4 PM led on Charlotte Nichols and Stella Creasey explaining that when they arrived in Parliament in 2019 and 2010 respectively they were warned that 30 MPs were a danger to young female MPs. They were both highly critical of the Labour Party hierarchy who ignored common knowledge regarding Davies. It was couched as an exclusively Labour Party problem by Evan Davies. It clearly isn't and I was expecting the usual BBC balance caveats, perhaps referencing Rob Roberts or Pincher, but he didn't. I think BBC balance only applies to negative stories involving Boris Johnson.
The point though is Schofield is dominating everything in the media and now they are giving out the Samaritans phone number
The reporting has been disgraceful and it demotes other stories including covid and Labour’s sleeze
It is across all parties but Starmer and labour are covering up allegations about a shadow minister which is not acceptable in the present climate
I don't disagree.
Charlotte Nichols (in particular) Rosie Duffield and Stella Creasey have given the Geraint Davies story legs. He does seem an odious creep and I doubt he will be representing Swansea West after the next GE. I take my hat off to all three for doing Labour's dirty washing in public. Perhaps a serious comment and an apology by Starmer on this issue is overdue.
As to the shadow minister question this was put to Stella Creasey who added that care should be taken over potentially vexatious complaints.She didn't expand, but of course she recently had social services threaten to remove her children after a vexatious complaint from someone who had never met her but was offended by her anti-misogyny campaigning. The complainant falsely reported her to social services out of spite, and with no legal repercussions.
I had a call with a moderately well known economist today, who is just back in the US after spending a lot of time at the BoE. He's of the view that inflation is going to fall very quickly from here, because almost all of the external elements (i.e. gas / electricity / grains / etc) are in freefall at the wholesale level. It essentially guarantees - in his view - that inflation will be close to zero by the middle of next year as peoples' utility bills register big year-over-year declines.
His view is that the BoE should be cutting now, rather than doing so next year, when they will be chasing a falling inflation rate.
He was very persuasive.
That rather assumes that low interest rates are the way to go. Is that the view of everyone?
Personally, speaking as somebody who is not an economist, I would have said that after 14 years of ridiculous lows they need to stay up.
I think his point was more subtle.
If interest rates chase headline inflation down, it will be adding a lot of inflationary fuel to the fire. Essentially people will have more disposable income from lower gas and electricity (and food) bills, and if you combine that with falling interest rates, then you will create a big surge in demand.
Better to cut rates now, to relieve pressure on households, and then be in a position to tighten next year.
(More generally, I agree that ultra loose monetary policy is bad for everyone in the medium term. However, it's very rare that real interest rates - i.e. the gap between what is paid on debt and inflation - exceeds 3 or 4%.)
Not sure how this works. People will have a bit more disposable income compared with six months earlier but a LOT LESS than they had two years earlier.
Right now people are being squeezed two-fold: Firstly, the price of the things they are buying has risen; Secondly, the cost of debt (and most people have at least some debt) has gone up dramatically.
On the other hand, wages have risen, and will continue to rise. From the ONS: "average regular pay growth for the private sector was 6.9% in December 2022 to February 2023, and 5.3% for the public sector".
The price of things - particularly ones which are driven by commodity prices, as well as the commodities themselves - will fall. Gas is down. Oil is down. Wholesale electricity markets are down. Wheat has fallen. Corn has fallen. Coffee has fallen. (Sugar has not.)
Now, that doesn't mean everything is hunky dory. But in the next 12 months, even absent changes in interest rates, people's costs are likely to fall while their incomes will probably rise.
On average people's incomes have missed inflation by about 5% points on those.figures. They would need to exceed inflation by the same amount just to stay still. It would be inflationary in the short term but deflationary over the previous two year period.
Why is Inheritance Tax levied on estates and not recipients? It seems it would be much more logical for the recipients of inheritance to be taxed, rather than the estates themselves.
And why not simply have a lifetime gift allowance, that includes pre-inheritance gifts?
You're absolutely right.
But, of course, the people who complain most loudly about Inheritance Tax aren't really complaining because of their deep sympathy for poor old grandma, whose dearest last wish is to pass on her earned estate (which definitely didn't result from house price rises since 1970 but the sweat of her dear old brow) to her nearest and dearest.
No, they just want a fat cheque when the old coffin dodger croaks at last. The complainants, to a large extent, ARE the recipients, and they don't want gran spreading her inheritence to a load of great-grand-nephews and whatever, as would be the incentive in your proposal.
I accept that is a generalisation, and people oppose IHT for various reasons. But there's quite a bit of truth in it.
I'm amazed that only 1-in-20 estates are over £325,000 in the UK. I would have thought the number would be more like 1-in-5 or 1-in-6.
That 325000 does not include the first 180,000 of the value of the primary residence.
Plus, it's one of the easiest taxes to avoid.
Your figure would probably be correct if it weren't for that.
What a ridiculous exemption. Just make the threshold £500k, and get rid of the primary residence absurdity.
Actually, I forgot another exemption. A married couple get a double allowance and there is no tax on an estate passing to the survivor.
So effectively the nil rate band for a widow/widower leaving an estate including a house to their children/grandchildren is around £830,000.
Not that hard for most people to make sure their assets come in under or close to that even with a very nice house in a rich area.
If the home owner requires nursing home residency the average house value will be consumed in around five years at costs of around 6 grand a month per person. If they are a couple riddled with dementia make that two and a half years before the family home is reduced to c28 grand per person and a pile of dust.
Yes but if they have a major capital asset, why shouldn't they pay rather than the tax payer?
I don't disagree. I was merely suggesting that the notion peddled by Liz Truss, HYUFD and their disciples that everyone has a million pound plus property to bequeath to their nearest and dearest is somewhat scuppered, not by inheritance tax but by residential care costs.
What utter rubbish. You do realise the AVERAGE house is now worth just £372K and OVER the inheritance tax threshold of £325k.
It is no wonder therefore most voters want the threshold for it raised to £1 million as not all of them are even married couples who benefit from Osborne's allowance. Were it not for Osborne's allowance even more would have been hit by it. No wonder you leftwingers don't have a clue how the average voter feels on this issue? https://www.rightmove.co.uk/news/house-price-index/
"you leftwingers"
That's you told.
Ofg course, a decreasing percentage have full equity in their houses. It's no good havingf a house worth over 325K when one dies, if one has a mortage for half of it.
I disagree with @HYUFD and while I am a one nation conservative I am not a left winger
He'll be back on in a minute to explain why you're not a true Tory because you didn't fight Cromwell in defence of King Charles II, or something similar.
Indeed, BigG would definitely have been a Roundhead and then a Whig!
BigG’s ancestor was a minor member of the Welsh gentry who wasted his declining years investigating rumours that Cromwell feasted on a bewitched sausage during the Bare-arse Parliament.
I had a call with a moderately well known economist today, who is just back in the US after spending a lot of time at the BoE. He's of the view that inflation is going to fall very quickly from here, because almost all of the external elements (i.e. gas / electricity / grains / etc) are in freefall at the wholesale level. It essentially guarantees - in his view - that inflation will be close to zero by the middle of next year as peoples' utility bills register big year-over-year declines.
His view is that the BoE should be cutting now, rather than doing so next year, when they will be chasing a falling inflation rate.
He was very persuasive.
That rather assumes that low interest rates are the way to go. Is that the view of everyone?
Personally, speaking as somebody who is not an economist, I would have said that after 14 years of ridiculous lows they need to stay up.
I think his point was more subtle.
If interest rates chase headline inflation down, it will be adding a lot of inflationary fuel to the fire. Essentially people will have more disposable income from lower gas and electricity (and food) bills, and if you combine that with falling interest rates, then you will create a big surge in demand.
Better to cut rates now, to relieve pressure on households, and then be in a position to tighten next year.
(More generally, I agree that ultra loose monetary policy is bad for everyone in the medium term. However, it's very rare that real interest rates - i.e. the gap between what is paid on debt and inflation - exceeds 3 or 4%.)
But that's my point. Just because inflation is back under control is bluntly no reason to cut interest rates.
In particular, if they even think about cutting them back down to low levels they'll bugger pensions again.
It seems to me a ridiculous assumption that interest rates *should* come down merely because official inflation does. Rather, they should not rise further from what remain pretty low levels.
Real interest rates are very rarely more than 3 or 4%. Not least because if the BoE is offering 5%, inflation is 0%, then why would anyone do anything other than park money with the Central Bank?
Why is Inheritance Tax levied on estates and not recipients? It seems it would be much more logical for the recipients of inheritance to be taxed, rather than the estates themselves.
And why not simply have a lifetime gift allowance, that includes pre-inheritance gifts?
You're absolutely right.
But, of course, the people who complain most loudly about Inheritance Tax aren't really complaining because of their deep sympathy for poor old grandma, whose dearest last wish is to pass on her earned estate (which definitely didn't result from house price rises since 1970 but the sweat of her dear old brow) to her nearest and dearest.
No, they just want a fat cheque when the old coffin dodger croaks at last. The complainants, to a large extent, ARE the recipients, and they don't want gran spreading her inheritence to a load of great-grand-nephews and whatever, as would be the incentive in your proposal.
I accept that is a generalisation, and people oppose IHT for various reasons. But there's quite a bit of truth in it.
I'm amazed that only 1-in-20 estates are over £325,000 in the UK. I would have thought the number would be more like 1-in-5 or 1-in-6.
That 325000 does not include the first 180,000 of the value of the primary residence.
Plus, it's one of the easiest taxes to avoid.
Your figure would probably be correct if it weren't for that.
What a ridiculous exemption. Just make the threshold £500k, and get rid of the primary residence absurdity.
Actually, I forgot another exemption. A married couple get a double allowance and there is no tax on an estate passing to the survivor.
So effectively the nil rate band for a widow/widower leaving an estate including a house to their children/grandchildren is around £830,000.
Not that hard for most people to make sure their assets come in under or close to that even with a very nice house in a rich area.
If the home owner requires nursing home residency the average house value will be consumed in around five years at costs of around 6 grand a month per person. If they are a couple riddled with dementia make that two and a half years before the family home is reduced to c28 grand per person and a pile of dust.
Yes but if they have a major capital asset, why shouldn't they pay rather than the tax payer?
I don't disagree. I was merely suggesting that the notion peddled by Liz Truss, HYUFD and their disciples that everyone has a million pound plus property to bequeath to their nearest and dearest is somewhat scuppered, not by inheritance tax but by residential care costs.
What utter rubbish. You do realise the AVERAGE house is now worth just £372K and OVER the inheritance tax threshold of £325k.
It is no wonder therefore most voters want the threshold for it raised to £1 million as not all of them are even married couples who benefit from Osborne's allowance. Were it not for Osborne's allowance even more would have been hit by it. No wonder you leftwingers don't have a clue how the average voter feels on this issue? https://www.rightmove.co.uk/news/house-price-index/
"you leftwingers"
That's you told.
Ofg course, a decreasing percentage have full equity in their houses. It's no good havingf a house worth over 325K when one dies, if one has a mortage for half of it.
I disagree with @HYUFD and while I am a one nation conservative I am not a left winger
He'll be back on in a minute to explain why you're not a true Tory because you didn't fight Cromwell in defence of King Charles II, or something similar.
Indeed, BigG would definitely have been a Roundhead and then a Whig!
BigG’s ancestor was a minor member of the Welsh gentry who wasted his declining years investigating rumours that Cromwell feasted on a bewitched sausage during the Bare-arse Parliament.
You know nothing about my ancestors who by the way were all either English or Welsh as traced back generations by my daughter
You seem to have such a nasty streak in you for a Kiwi most of whom I have met are nothing like you
Thanks all, we plan to go for 4 days to Lisbon, what should we do in that time?
Try to fit in a half day for Belem or Sintra. Ride one of the old funiculars up to Bairro Alto for the hip trendy areas at night or down to the seafront, and also the Santa Justa lift.
He's an excellent smokescreen for all the Heather Hallet nonsense. If the news outlets all lead on Schofield no one will notice what arses Johnson, Case and Sunak have been.
It is also keeping the sleeze in Labour out of the headlines with not only Geraint Davies suspended, but allegations made again today that the party are covering up a shadow minister unacceptable behaviour
No. R4 PM led on Charlotte Nichols and Stella Creasey explaining that when they arrived in Parliament in 2019 and 2010 respectively they were warned that 30 MPs were a danger to young female MPs. They were both highly critical of the Labour Party hierarchy who ignored common knowledge regarding Davies. It was couched as an exclusively Labour Party problem by Evan Davies. It clearly isn't and I was expecting the usual BBC balance caveats, perhaps referencing Rob Roberts or Pincher, but he didn't. I think BBC balance only applies to negative stories involving Boris Johnson.
The point though is Schofield is dominating everything in the media and now they are giving out the Samaritans phone number
The reporting has been disgraceful and it demotes other stories including covid and Labour’s sleeze
It is across all parties but Starmer and labour are covering up allegations about a shadow minister which is not acceptable in the present climate
If Starmer is covering up allegations, it is unacceptable. But do you have any evidence for that, or is it just another one of your Starmer witch-hunts?
I am more concerned frankly that Labour HQ have de-selected the North East Mayor for standing again, apparently for consorting with Ken Loach.
I have already posted the link and it has been reported for a while now
Creasy hinted at a potentially vexatious complaint (my interpretation, not necessarily what she asserted). Starmer has been ruthless in throwing miscreants under the bus, so there may be more (or less) to the allegation than meets the eye. You are apportioning guilt on Starmer, and you may be right. You may also not be fully availed of the facts.
He's an excellent smokescreen for all the Heather Hallet nonsense. If the news outlets all lead on Schofield no one will notice what arses Johnson, Case and Sunak have been.
It is also keeping the sleeze in Labour out of the headlines with not only Geraint Davies suspended, but allegations made again today that the party are covering up a shadow minister unacceptable behaviour
No. R4 PM led on Charlotte Nichols and Stella Creasey explaining that when they arrived in Parliament in 2019 and 2010 respectively they were warned that 30 MPs were a danger to young female MPs. They were both highly critical of the Labour Party hierarchy who ignored common knowledge regarding Davies. It was couched as an exclusively Labour Party problem by Evan Davies. It clearly isn't and I was expecting the usual BBC balance caveats, perhaps referencing Rob Roberts or Pincher, but he didn't. I think BBC balance only applies to negative stories involving Boris Johnson.
The point though is Schofield is dominating everything in the media and now they are giving out the Samaritans phone number
The reporting has been disgraceful and it demotes other stories including covid and Labour’s sleeze
It is across all parties but Starmer and labour are covering up allegations about a shadow minister which is not acceptable in the present climate
If Starmer is covering up allegations, it is unacceptable. But do you have any evidence for that, or is it just another one of your Starmer witch-hunts?
I am more concerned frankly that Labour HQ have de-selected the North East Mayor for standing again, apparently for consorting with Ken Loach.
I have already posted the link and it has been reported for a while now
Creasy hinted at a potentially vexatious complaint (my interpretation, not necessarily what she asserted). Starmer has been ruthless in throwing miscreants under the bus, so there may be more (or less) to the allegation than meets the eye. You are apportioning guilt on Starmer, and you may be right. You may also not be fully availed of the facts.
The accusation is from a female Labour mp and if such accusation came from a conservative mp about a cabinet minister you would be demanding Sunak took action
Have you never experienced Premier Inn free WiFi? It drops in and out all day long, so you are forced to pay for premium WiFi . Who can blame such a rebellion?
I had a call with a moderately well known economist today, who is just back in the US after spending a lot of time at the BoE. He's of the view that inflation is going to fall very quickly from here, because almost all of the external elements (i.e. gas / electricity / grains / etc) are in freefall at the wholesale level. It essentially guarantees - in his view - that inflation will be close to zero by the middle of next year as peoples' utility bills register big year-over-year declines.
His view is that the BoE should be cutting now, rather than doing so next year, when they will be chasing a falling inflation rate.
He was very persuasive.
That rather assumes that low interest rates are the way to go. Is that the view of everyone?
Personally, speaking as somebody who is not an economist, I would have said that after 14 years of ridiculous lows they need to stay up.
I think his point was more subtle.
If interest rates chase headline inflation down, it will be adding a lot of inflationary fuel to the fire. Essentially people will have more disposable income from lower gas and electricity (and food) bills, and if you combine that with falling interest rates, then you will create a big surge in demand.
Better to cut rates now, to relieve pressure on households, and then be in a position to tighten next year.
(More generally, I agree that ultra loose monetary policy is bad for everyone in the medium term. However, it's very rare that real interest rates - i.e. the gap between what is paid on debt and inflation - exceeds 3 or 4%.)
Not sure how this works. People will have a bit more disposable income compared with six months earlier but a LOT LESS than they had two years earlier.
Right now people are being squeezed two-fold: Firstly, the price of the things they are buying has risen; Secondly, the cost of debt (and most people have at least some debt) has gone up dramatically.
On the other hand, wages have risen, and will continue to rise. From the ONS: "average regular pay growth for the private sector was 6.9% in December 2022 to February 2023, and 5.3% for the public sector".
The price of things - particularly ones which are driven by commodity prices, as well as the commodities themselves - will fall. Gas is down. Oil is down. Wholesale electricity markets are down. Wheat has fallen. Corn has fallen. Coffee has fallen. (Sugar has not.)
Now, that doesn't mean everything is hunky dory. But in the next 12 months, even absent changes in interest rates, people's costs are likely to fall while their incomes will probably rise.
On average people's incomes have missed inflation by about 5% points on those.figures. They would need to exceed inflation by the same amount just to stay still. It would be inflationary in the short term but deflationary over the previous two year period.
"Growth in total and regular pay fell in real terms (adjusted for inflation) on the year in December 2022 to February 2023, by 3.0% for total pay and 2.3% for regular pay; a larger fall on the year for real total pay was last seen in February to April 2009 when it fell by 4.5%, but it still remains among the largest falls in growth since comparable records began in 2001."
A 3% real drop is a lot, but wage increases tend to lag inflation both up and down. I'd expect the (real) number to be strongly positive in the next 12 months as falling inflation meets continued rising wages.
Have you never experienced Premier Inn free WiFi? It drops in and out all day long, so you are forced to pay for premium WiFi . Who can blame such a rebellion?
I can stomach the shonky wifi, so long as I can tether to my phone.
It's when the aircon suddenly starts blasting you at 28 degrees c for no reason at 3am I get up to complain.
He's an excellent smokescreen for all the Heather Hallet nonsense. If the news outlets all lead on Schofield no one will notice what arses Johnson, Case and Sunak have been.
It is also keeping the sleeze in Labour out of the headlines with not only Geraint Davies suspended, but allegations made again today that the party are covering up a shadow minister unacceptable behaviour
No. R4 PM led on Charlotte Nichols and Stella Creasey explaining that when they arrived in Parliament in 2019 and 2010 respectively they were warned that 30 MPs were a danger to young female MPs. They were both highly critical of the Labour Party hierarchy who ignored common knowledge regarding Davies. It was couched as an exclusively Labour Party problem by Evan Davies. It clearly isn't and I was expecting the usual BBC balance caveats, perhaps referencing Rob Roberts or Pincher, but he didn't. I think BBC balance only applies to negative stories involving Boris Johnson.
The point though is Schofield is dominating everything in the media and now they are giving out the Samaritans phone number
The reporting has been disgraceful and it demotes other stories including covid and Labour’s sleeze
It is across all parties but Starmer and labour are covering up allegations about a shadow minister which is not acceptable in the present climate
If Starmer is covering up allegations, it is unacceptable. But do you have any evidence for that, or is it just another one of your Starmer witch-hunts?
I am more concerned frankly that Labour HQ have de-selected the North East Mayor for standing again, apparently for consorting with Ken Loach.
I have already posted the link and it has been reported for a while now
Creasy hinted at a potentially vexatious complaint (my interpretation, not necessarily what she asserted). Starmer has been ruthless in throwing miscreants under the bus, so there may be more (or less) to the allegation than meets the eye. You are apportioning guilt on Starmer, and you may be right. You may also not be fully availed of the facts.
The accusation is from a female Labour mp and if such accusation came from a conservative mp about a cabinet minister you would be demanding Sunak took action
Have you still got an ongoing complaint about how awful it is that SKS takes care of retired donkeys? And that he dips his Rich Tea biscuits in his coffee?
I had a call with a moderately well known economist today, who is just back in the US after spending a lot of time at the BoE. He's of the view that inflation is going to fall very quickly from here, because almost all of the external elements (i.e. gas / electricity / grains / etc) are in freefall at the wholesale level. It essentially guarantees - in his view - that inflation will be close to zero by the middle of next year as peoples' utility bills register big year-over-year declines.
His view is that the BoE should be cutting now, rather than doing so next year, when they will be chasing a falling inflation rate.
He was very persuasive.
Let's assume that he is correct. Whilst inflation dropping towards zero is very welcome after this period of madness, that doesn't mean that prices fall. Just that prices stop rising.
The "how can we afford this" narrative that has possessed so many voters is just embossed into the marble on the Tories' tombstone...
That's right. While eliminating shortage driven inflation is welcome and inevitable in the end, it will lock in high prices. Rents are already sky high, fuel seems to have settled at about twice what it was before and a bit smaller but still very large increase is likely for food as well. Which is the bulk of people's cost of living. People will continue to feel poorer.
But take @rcs1000 point about cutting interest rates sooner rather than later.
How is fuel twice what it was before? It’s not been 70p a litre for decades.
Have you never experienced Premier Inn free WiFi? It drops in and out all day long, so you are forced to pay for premium WiFi . Who can blame such a rebellion?
I had a call with a moderately well known economist today, who is just back in the US after spending a lot of time at the BoE. He's of the view that inflation is going to fall very quickly from here, because almost all of the external elements (i.e. gas / electricity / grains / etc) are in freefall at the wholesale level. It essentially guarantees - in his view - that inflation will be close to zero by the middle of next year as peoples' utility bills register big year-over-year declines.
His view is that the BoE should be cutting now, rather than doing so next year, when they will be chasing a falling inflation rate.
He was very persuasive.
Let's assume that he is correct. Whilst inflation dropping towards zero is very welcome after this period of madness, that doesn't mean that prices fall. Just that prices stop rising.
The "how can we afford this" narrative that has possessed so many voters is just embossed into the marble on the Tories' tombstone...
That's right. While eliminating shortage driven inflation is welcome and inevitable in the end, it will lock in high prices. Rents are already sky high, fuel seems to have settled at about twice what it was before and a bit smaller but still very large increase is likely for food as well. Which is the bulk of people's cost of living. People will continue to feel poorer.
But take @rcs1000 point about cutting interest rates sooner rather than later.
How is fuel twice what it was before? It’s not been 70p a litre for decades.
I was thinking more of domestic energy. You pay 70p a litre for vehicle fuel?
No, petrol is £1.40 ish, so if it’s twice what it was that’s two times 70p. Heating oil is now around 50p a litre, about as cheap as I can recall.
He's an excellent smokescreen for all the Heather Hallet nonsense. If the news outlets all lead on Schofield no one will notice what arses Johnson, Case and Sunak have been.
It is also keeping the sleeze in Labour out of the headlines with not only Geraint Davies suspended, but allegations made again today that the party are covering up a shadow minister unacceptable behaviour
No. R4 PM led on Charlotte Nichols and Stella Creasey explaining that when they arrived in Parliament in 2019 and 2010 respectively they were warned that 30 MPs were a danger to young female MPs. They were both highly critical of the Labour Party hierarchy who ignored common knowledge regarding Davies. It was couched as an exclusively Labour Party problem by Evan Davies. It clearly isn't and I was expecting the usual BBC balance caveats, perhaps referencing Rob Roberts or Pincher, but he didn't. I think BBC balance only applies to negative stories involving Boris Johnson.
The point though is Schofield is dominating everything in the media and now they are giving out the Samaritans phone number
The reporting has been disgraceful and it demotes other stories including covid and Labour’s sleeze
It is across all parties but Starmer and labour are covering up allegations about a shadow minister which is not acceptable in the present climate
If Starmer is covering up allegations, it is unacceptable. But do you have any evidence for that, or is it just another one of your Starmer witch-hunts?
I am more concerned frankly that Labour HQ have de-selected the North East Mayor for standing again, apparently for consorting with Ken Loach.
I have already posted the link and it has been reported for a while now
Creasy hinted at a potentially vexatious complaint (my interpretation, not necessarily what she asserted). Starmer has been ruthless in throwing miscreants under the bus, so there may be more (or less) to the allegation than meets the eye. You are apportioning guilt on Starmer, and you may be right. You may also not be fully availed of the facts.
The accusation is from a female Labour mp and if such accusation came from a conservative mp about a cabinet minister you would be demanding Sunak took action
Like I said, Starmer is known to throw the accused under the bus, so I am surprised at any inaction that would impact his leadership credentials, particularly after the party have been caught with their pants down over the Davies affair.
Where is Ivo Delingpole and Durham Constabulary when we need them?
He's an excellent smokescreen for all the Heather Hallet nonsense. If the news outlets all lead on Schofield no one will notice what arses Johnson, Case and Sunak have been.
It is also keeping the sleeze in Labour out of the headlines with not only Geraint Davies suspended, but allegations made again today that the party are covering up a shadow minister unacceptable behaviour
No. R4 PM led on Charlotte Nichols and Stella Creasey explaining that when they arrived in Parliament in 2019 and 2010 respectively they were warned that 30 MPs were a danger to young female MPs. They were both highly critical of the Labour Party hierarchy who ignored common knowledge regarding Davies. It was couched as an exclusively Labour Party problem by Evan Davies. It clearly isn't and I was expecting the usual BBC balance caveats, perhaps referencing Rob Roberts or Pincher, but he didn't. I think BBC balance only applies to negative stories involving Boris Johnson.
The point though is Schofield is dominating everything in the media and now they are giving out the Samaritans phone number
The reporting has been disgraceful and it demotes other stories including covid and Labour’s sleeze
It is across all parties but Starmer and labour are covering up allegations about a shadow minister which is not acceptable in the present climate
If Starmer is covering up allegations, it is unacceptable. But do you have any evidence for that, or is it just another one of your Starmer witch-hunts?
I am more concerned frankly that Labour HQ have de-selected the North East Mayor for standing again, apparently for consorting with Ken Loach.
I have already posted the link and it has been reported for a while now
Creasy hinted at a potentially vexatious complaint (my interpretation, not necessarily what she asserted). Starmer has been ruthless in throwing miscreants under the bus, so there may be more (or less) to the allegation than meets the eye. You are apportioning guilt on Starmer, and you may be right. You may also not be fully availed of the facts.
The accusation is from a female Labour mp and if such accusation came from a conservative mp about a cabinet minister you would be demanding Sunak took action
Have you still got an ongoing complaint about how awful it is that SKS takes care of retired donkeys? And that he dips his Rich Tea biscuits in his coffee?
The complaint is from a female Labour mp and surprised you want to make a joke about it
Why is Inheritance Tax levied on estates and not recipients? It seems it would be much more logical for the recipients of inheritance to be taxed, rather than the estates themselves.
And why not simply have a lifetime gift allowance, that includes pre-inheritance gifts?
You're absolutely right.
But, of course, the people who complain most loudly about Inheritance Tax aren't really complaining because of their deep sympathy for poor old grandma, whose dearest last wish is to pass on her earned estate (which definitely didn't result from house price rises since 1970 but the sweat of her dear old brow) to her nearest and dearest.
No, they just want a fat cheque when the old coffin dodger croaks at last. The complainants, to a large extent, ARE the recipients, and they don't want gran spreading her inheritence to a load of great-grand-nephews and whatever, as would be the incentive in your proposal.
I accept that is a generalisation, and people oppose IHT for various reasons. But there's quite a bit of truth in it.
I'm amazed that only 1-in-20 estates are over £325,000 in the UK. I would have thought the number would be more like 1-in-5 or 1-in-6.
That 325000 does not include the first 180,000 of the value of the primary residence.
Plus, it's one of the easiest taxes to avoid.
Your figure would probably be correct if it weren't for that.
What a ridiculous exemption. Just make the threshold £500k, and get rid of the primary residence absurdity.
Actually, I forgot another exemption. A married couple get a double allowance and there is no tax on an estate passing to the survivor.
So effectively the nil rate band for a widow/widower leaving an estate including a house to their children/grandchildren is around £830,000.
Not that hard for most people to make sure their assets come in under or close to that even with a very nice house in a rich area.
If the home owner requires nursing home residency the average house value will be consumed in around five years at costs of around 6 grand a month per person. If they are a couple riddled with dementia make that two and a half years before the family home is reduced to c28 grand per person and a pile of dust.
Yes but if they have a major capital asset, why shouldn't they pay rather than the tax payer?
I don't disagree. I was merely suggesting that the notion peddled by Liz Truss, HYUFD and their disciples that everyone has a million pound plus property to bequeath to their nearest and dearest is somewhat scuppered, not by inheritance tax but by residential care costs.
What utter rubbish. You do realise the AVERAGE house is now worth just £372K and OVER the inheritance tax threshold of £325k.
It is no wonder therefore most voters want the threshold for it raised to £1 million as not all of them are even married couples who benefit from Osborne's allowance. Were it not for Osborne's allowance even more would have been hit by it. No wonder you leftwingers don't have a clue how the average voter feels on this issue? https://www.rightmove.co.uk/news/house-price-index/
"you leftwingers"
That's you told.
Ofg course, a decreasing percentage have full equity in their houses. It's no good havingf a house worth over 325K when one dies, if one has a mortage for half of it.
I disagree with @HYUFD and while I am a one nation conservative I am not a left winger
He'll be back on in a minute to explain why you're not a true Tory because you didn't fight Cromwell in defence of King Charles II, or something similar.
Indeed, BigG would definitely have been a Roundhead and then a Whig!
BigG’s ancestor was a minor member of the Welsh gentry who wasted his declining years investigating rumours that Cromwell feasted on a bewitched sausage during the Bare-arse Parliament.
You know nothing about my ancestors who by the way were all either English or Welsh as traced back generations by my daughter
You seem to have such a nasty streak in you for a Kiwi most of whom I have met are nothing like you
Come on Big G, you’re a semi-professional troll for the Conservative Party, and it’s often very obvious and quite amusing.
Why is Inheritance Tax levied on estates and not recipients? It seems it would be much more logical for the recipients of inheritance to be taxed, rather than the estates themselves.
And why not simply have a lifetime gift allowance, that includes pre-inheritance gifts?
You're absolutely right.
But, of course, the people who complain most loudly about Inheritance Tax aren't really complaining because of their deep sympathy for poor old grandma, whose dearest last wish is to pass on her earned estate (which definitely didn't result from house price rises since 1970 but the sweat of her dear old brow) to her nearest and dearest.
No, they just want a fat cheque when the old coffin dodger croaks at last. The complainants, to a large extent, ARE the recipients, and they don't want gran spreading her inheritence to a load of great-grand-nephews and whatever, as would be the incentive in your proposal.
I accept that is a generalisation, and people oppose IHT for various reasons. But there's quite a bit of truth in it.
I'm amazed that only 1-in-20 estates are over £325,000 in the UK. I would have thought the number would be more like 1-in-5 or 1-in-6.
That 325000 does not include the first 180,000 of the value of the primary residence.
Plus, it's one of the easiest taxes to avoid.
Your figure would probably be correct if it weren't for that.
What a ridiculous exemption. Just make the threshold £500k, and get rid of the primary residence absurdity.
Actually, I forgot another exemption. A married couple get a double allowance and there is no tax on an estate passing to the survivor.
So effectively the nil rate band for a widow/widower leaving an estate including a house to their children/grandchildren is around £830,000.
Not that hard for most people to make sure their assets come in under or close to that even with a very nice house in a rich area.
If the home owner requires nursing home residency the average house value will be consumed in around five years at costs of around 6 grand a month per person. If they are a couple riddled with dementia make that two and a half years before the family home is reduced to c28 grand per person and a pile of dust.
Yes but if they have a major capital asset, why shouldn't they pay rather than the tax payer?
I don't disagree. I was merely suggesting that the notion peddled by Liz Truss, HYUFD and their disciples that everyone has a million pound plus property to bequeath to their nearest and dearest is somewhat scuppered, not by inheritance tax but by residential care costs.
What utter rubbish. You do realise the AVERAGE house is now worth just £372K and OVER the inheritance tax threshold of £325k.
It is no wonder therefore most voters want the threshold for it raised to £1 million as not all of them are even married couples who benefit from Osborne's allowance. Were it not for Osborne's allowance even more would have been hit by it. No wonder you leftwingers don't have a clue how the average voter feels on this issue? https://www.rightmove.co.uk/news/house-price-index/
"you leftwingers"
That's you told.
Ofg course, a decreasing percentage have full equity in their houses. It's no good havingf a house worth over 325K when one dies, if one has a mortage for half of it.
I disagree with @HYUFD and while I am a one nation conservative I am not a left winger
He'll be back on in a minute to explain why you're not a true Tory because you didn't fight Cromwell in defence of King Charles II, or something similar.
Indeed, BigG would definitely have been a Roundhead and then a Whig!
BigG’s ancestor was a minor member of the Welsh gentry who wasted his declining years investigating rumours that Cromwell feasted on a bewitched sausage during the Bare-arse Parliament.
You know nothing about my ancestors who by the way were all either English or Welsh as traced back generations by my daughter
You seem to have such a nasty streak in you for a Kiwi most of whom I have met are nothing like you
Come on Big G, you’re a semi-professional troll for the Conservative Party, and it’s often very obvious and quite amusing.
I am not a member of the conservative party but also am not a supporter of Starmer and labour
My eldest son is a Kiwi with joint citizenship with the UK and lived in Christchurch from 2003 to 2015
In our several trips and meetings with many Kiwis you do not fit the type of warm and pleasant persona demonstrate to us on our visits
This website (order order) used to have some kind of power and influence, it interesting that it has now gone. It has become absolutely powerless in the 'woke' era.
Why is Inheritance Tax levied on estates and not recipients? It seems it would be much more logical for the recipients of inheritance to be taxed, rather than the estates themselves.
And why not simply have a lifetime gift allowance, that includes pre-inheritance gifts?
You're absolutely right.
But, of course, the people who complain most loudly about Inheritance Tax aren't really complaining because of their deep sympathy for poor old grandma, whose dearest last wish is to pass on her earned estate (which definitely didn't result from house price rises since 1970 but the sweat of her dear old brow) to her nearest and dearest.
No, they just want a fat cheque when the old coffin dodger croaks at last. The complainants, to a large extent, ARE the recipients, and they don't want gran spreading her inheritence to a load of great-grand-nephews and whatever, as would be the incentive in your proposal.
I accept that is a generalisation, and people oppose IHT for various reasons. But there's quite a bit of truth in it.
I'm amazed that only 1-in-20 estates are over £325,000 in the UK. I would have thought the number would be more like 1-in-5 or 1-in-6.
That 325000 does not include the first 180,000 of the value of the primary residence.
Plus, it's one of the easiest taxes to avoid.
Your figure would probably be correct if it weren't for that.
What a ridiculous exemption. Just make the threshold £500k, and get rid of the primary residence absurdity.
Actually, I forgot another exemption. A married couple get a double allowance and there is no tax on an estate passing to the survivor.
So effectively the nil rate band for a widow/widower leaving an estate including a house to their children/grandchildren is around £830,000.
Not that hard for most people to make sure their assets come in under or close to that even with a very nice house in a rich area.
If the home owner requires nursing home residency the average house value will be consumed in around five years at costs of around 6 grand a month per person. If they are a couple riddled with dementia make that two and a half years before the family home is reduced to c28 grand per person and a pile of dust.
Yes but if they have a major capital asset, why shouldn't they pay rather than the tax payer?
I don't disagree. I was merely suggesting that the notion peddled by Liz Truss, HYUFD and their disciples that everyone has a million pound plus property to bequeath to their nearest and dearest is somewhat scuppered, not by inheritance tax but by residential care costs.
What utter rubbish. You do realise the AVERAGE house is now worth just £372K and OVER the inheritance tax threshold of £325k.
It is no wonder therefore most voters want the threshold for it raised to £1 million as not all of them are even married couples who benefit from Osborne's allowance. Were it not for Osborne's allowance even more would have been hit by it. No wonder you leftwingers don't have a clue how the average voter feels on this issue? https://www.rightmove.co.uk/news/house-price-index/
"you leftwingers"
That's you told.
Ofg course, a decreasing percentage have full equity in their houses. It's no good havingf a house worth over 325K when one dies, if one has a mortage for half of it.
I disagree with @HYUFD and while I am a one nation conservative I am not a left winger
He'll be back on in a minute to explain why you're not a true Tory because you didn't fight Cromwell in defence of King Charles II, or something similar.
Indeed, BigG would definitely have been a Roundhead and then a Whig!
BigG’s ancestor was a minor member of the Welsh gentry who wasted his declining years investigating rumours that Cromwell feasted on a bewitched sausage during the Bare-arse Parliament.
You know nothing about my ancestors who by the way were all either English or Welsh as traced back generations by my daughter
You seem to have such a nasty streak in you for a Kiwi most of whom I have met are nothing like you
Come on Big G, you’re a semi-professional troll for the Conservative Party, and it’s often very obvious and quite amusing.
I am not a member of the conservative party but also am not a supporter of Starmer and labour
My eldest son is a Kiwi with joint citizenship with the UK and lived in Christchurch from 2003 to 2015
In our several trips and meetings with many Kiwis you do not fit the type of warm and pleasant persona demonstrate to us on our visits
Well I suspect even you keep your Keir-bothering on hold when you’re on holiday.
Why is Inheritance Tax levied on estates and not recipients? It seems it would be much more logical for the recipients of inheritance to be taxed, rather than the estates themselves.
And why not simply have a lifetime gift allowance, that includes pre-inheritance gifts?
You're absolutely right.
But, of course, the people who complain most loudly about Inheritance Tax aren't really complaining because of their deep sympathy for poor old grandma, whose dearest last wish is to pass on her earned estate (which definitely didn't result from house price rises since 1970 but the sweat of her dear old brow) to her nearest and dearest.
No, they just want a fat cheque when the old coffin dodger croaks at last. The complainants, to a large extent, ARE the recipients, and they don't want gran spreading her inheritence to a load of great-grand-nephews and whatever, as would be the incentive in your proposal.
I accept that is a generalisation, and people oppose IHT for various reasons. But there's quite a bit of truth in it.
I'm amazed that only 1-in-20 estates are over £325,000 in the UK. I would have thought the number would be more like 1-in-5 or 1-in-6.
That 325000 does not include the first 180,000 of the value of the primary residence.
Plus, it's one of the easiest taxes to avoid.
Your figure would probably be correct if it weren't for that.
What a ridiculous exemption. Just make the threshold £500k, and get rid of the primary residence absurdity.
Actually, I forgot another exemption. A married couple get a double allowance and there is no tax on an estate passing to the survivor.
So effectively the nil rate band for a widow/widower leaving an estate including a house to their children/grandchildren is around £830,000.
Not that hard for most people to make sure their assets come in under or close to that even with a very nice house in a rich area.
If the home owner requires nursing home residency the average house value will be consumed in around five years at costs of around 6 grand a month per person. If they are a couple riddled with dementia make that two and a half years before the family home is reduced to c28 grand per person and a pile of dust.
Yes but if they have a major capital asset, why shouldn't they pay rather than the tax payer?
I don't disagree. I was merely suggesting that the notion peddled by Liz Truss, HYUFD and their disciples that everyone has a million pound plus property to bequeath to their nearest and dearest is somewhat scuppered, not by inheritance tax but by residential care costs.
What utter rubbish. You do realise the AVERAGE house is now worth just £372K and OVER the inheritance tax threshold of £325k.
It is no wonder therefore most voters want the threshold for it raised to £1 million as not all of them are even married couples who benefit from Osborne's allowance. Were it not for Osborne's allowance even more would have been hit by it. No wonder you leftwingers don't have a clue how the average voter feels on this issue? https://www.rightmove.co.uk/news/house-price-index/
"you leftwingers"
That's you told.
Ofg course, a decreasing percentage have full equity in their houses. It's no good havingf a house worth over 325K when one dies, if one has a mortage for half of it.
I disagree with @HYUFD and while I am a one nation conservative I am not a left winger
He'll be back on in a minute to explain why you're not a true Tory because you didn't fight Cromwell in defence of King Charles II, or something similar.
Indeed, BigG would definitely have been a Roundhead and then a Whig!
BigG’s ancestor was a minor member of the Welsh gentry who wasted his declining years investigating rumours that Cromwell feasted on a bewitched sausage during the Bare-arse Parliament.
You know nothing about my ancestors who by the way were all either English or Welsh as traced back generations by my daughter
You seem to have such a nasty streak in you for a Kiwi most of whom I have met are nothing like you
Come on Big G, you’re a semi-professional troll for the Conservative Party, and it’s often very obvious and quite amusing.
I am not a member of the conservative party but also am not a supporter of Starmer and labour
My eldest son is a Kiwi with joint citizenship with the UK and lived in Christchurch from 2003 to 2015
In our several trips and meetings with many Kiwis you do not fit the type of warm and pleasant persona demonstrate to us on our visits
Well, there is an arsehole element in every population. People are people.
Why is Inheritance Tax levied on estates and not recipients? It seems it would be much more logical for the recipients of inheritance to be taxed, rather than the estates themselves.
And why not simply have a lifetime gift allowance, that includes pre-inheritance gifts?
You're absolutely right.
But, of course, the people who complain most loudly about Inheritance Tax aren't really complaining because of their deep sympathy for poor old grandma, whose dearest last wish is to pass on her earned estate (which definitely didn't result from house price rises since 1970 but the sweat of her dear old brow) to her nearest and dearest.
No, they just want a fat cheque when the old coffin dodger croaks at last. The complainants, to a large extent, ARE the recipients, and they don't want gran spreading her inheritence to a load of great-grand-nephews and whatever, as would be the incentive in your proposal.
I accept that is a generalisation, and people oppose IHT for various reasons. But there's quite a bit of truth in it.
I'm amazed that only 1-in-20 estates are over £325,000 in the UK. I would have thought the number would be more like 1-in-5 or 1-in-6.
That 325000 does not include the first 180,000 of the value of the primary residence.
Plus, it's one of the easiest taxes to avoid.
Your figure would probably be correct if it weren't for that.
What a ridiculous exemption. Just make the threshold £500k, and get rid of the primary residence absurdity.
Actually, I forgot another exemption. A married couple get a double allowance and there is no tax on an estate passing to the survivor.
So effectively the nil rate band for a widow/widower leaving an estate including a house to their children/grandchildren is around £830,000.
Not that hard for most people to make sure their assets come in under or close to that even with a very nice house in a rich area.
If the home owner requires nursing home residency the average house value will be consumed in around five years at costs of around 6 grand a month per person. If they are a couple riddled with dementia make that two and a half years before the family home is reduced to c28 grand per person and a pile of dust.
Yes but if they have a major capital asset, why shouldn't they pay rather than the tax payer?
I don't disagree. I was merely suggesting that the notion peddled by Liz Truss, HYUFD and their disciples that everyone has a million pound plus property to bequeath to their nearest and dearest is somewhat scuppered, not by inheritance tax but by residential care costs.
What utter rubbish. You do realise the AVERAGE house is now worth just £372K and OVER the inheritance tax threshold of £325k.
It is no wonder therefore most voters want the threshold for it raised to £1 million as not all of them are even married couples who benefit from Osborne's allowance. Were it not for Osborne's allowance even more would have been hit by it. No wonder you leftwingers don't have a clue how the average voter feels on this issue? https://www.rightmove.co.uk/news/house-price-index/
"you leftwingers"
That's you told.
Ofg course, a decreasing percentage have full equity in their houses. It's no good havingf a house worth over 325K when one dies, if one has a mortage for half of it.
I disagree with @HYUFD and while I am a one nation conservative I am not a left winger
He'll be back on in a minute to explain why you're not a true Tory because you didn't fight Cromwell in defence of King Charles II, or something similar.
Indeed, BigG would definitely have been a Roundhead and then a Whig!
BigG’s ancestor was a minor member of the Welsh gentry who wasted his declining years investigating rumours that Cromwell feasted on a bewitched sausage during the Bare-arse Parliament.
You know nothing about my ancestors who by the way were all either English or Welsh as traced back generations by my daughter
You seem to have such a nasty streak in you for a Kiwi most of whom I have met are nothing like you
Come on Big G, you’re a semi-professional troll for the Conservative Party, and it’s often very obvious and quite amusing.
I am not a member of the conservative party but also am not a supporter of Starmer and labour
My eldest son is a Kiwi with joint citizenship with the UK and lived in Christchurch from 2003 to 2015
In our several trips and meetings with many Kiwis you do not fit the type of warm and pleasant persona demonstrate to us on our visits
Well I suspect even you keep your Keir-bothering on hold when you’re on holiday.
He was not in office when my son lived in NZ but there are many who criticise Starmer and labour with every justification
I had a call with a moderately well known economist today, who is just back in the US after spending a lot of time at the BoE. He's of the view that inflation is going to fall very quickly from here, because almost all of the external elements (i.e. gas / electricity / grains / etc) are in freefall at the wholesale level. It essentially guarantees - in his view - that inflation will be close to zero by the middle of next year as peoples' utility bills register big year-over-year declines.
His view is that the BoE should be cutting now, rather than doing so next year, when they will be chasing a falling inflation rate.
He was very persuasive.
Let's assume that he is correct. Whilst inflation dropping towards zero is very welcome after this period of madness, that doesn't mean that prices fall. Just that prices stop rising.
The "how can we afford this" narrative that has possessed so many voters is just embossed into the marble on the Tories' tombstone...
That's right. While eliminating shortage driven inflation is welcome and inevitable in the end, it will lock in high prices. Rents are already sky high, fuel seems to have settled at about twice what it was before and a bit smaller but still very large increase is likely for food as well. Which is the bulk of people's cost of living. People will continue to feel poorer.
But take @rcs1000 point about cutting interest rates sooner rather than later.
How is fuel twice what it was before? It’s not been 70p a litre for decades.
Presumably meant domestic rather than motor fuel.
I did mean that. To be clear I should have said energy prices, not fuel prices, are settling at about twice what they were before what they were prior to the lead up to the Russian invasion. And that energy along with rent (already very high) and food (also considerably more expensive than before) makes up the bulk of people's cost of living.
Why is Inheritance Tax levied on estates and not recipients? It seems it would be much more logical for the recipients of inheritance to be taxed, rather than the estates themselves.
And why not simply have a lifetime gift allowance, that includes pre-inheritance gifts?
You're absolutely right.
But, of course, the people who complain most loudly about Inheritance Tax aren't really complaining because of their deep sympathy for poor old grandma, whose dearest last wish is to pass on her earned estate (which definitely didn't result from house price rises since 1970 but the sweat of her dear old brow) to her nearest and dearest.
No, they just want a fat cheque when the old coffin dodger croaks at last. The complainants, to a large extent, ARE the recipients, and they don't want gran spreading her inheritence to a load of great-grand-nephews and whatever, as would be the incentive in your proposal.
I accept that is a generalisation, and people oppose IHT for various reasons. But there's quite a bit of truth in it.
I'm amazed that only 1-in-20 estates are over £325,000 in the UK. I would have thought the number would be more like 1-in-5 or 1-in-6.
That 325000 does not include the first 180,000 of the value of the primary residence.
Plus, it's one of the easiest taxes to avoid.
Your figure would probably be correct if it weren't for that.
What a ridiculous exemption. Just make the threshold £500k, and get rid of the primary residence absurdity.
Actually, I forgot another exemption. A married couple get a double allowance and there is no tax on an estate passing to the survivor.
So effectively the nil rate band for a widow/widower leaving an estate including a house to their children/grandchildren is around £830,000.
Not that hard for most people to make sure their assets come in under or close to that even with a very nice house in a rich area.
If the home owner requires nursing home residency the average house value will be consumed in around five years at costs of around 6 grand a month per person. If they are a couple riddled with dementia make that two and a half years before the family home is reduced to c28 grand per person and a pile of dust.
Yes but if they have a major capital asset, why shouldn't they pay rather than the tax payer?
I don't disagree. I was merely suggesting that the notion peddled by Liz Truss, HYUFD and their disciples that everyone has a million pound plus property to bequeath to their nearest and dearest is somewhat scuppered, not by inheritance tax but by residential care costs.
What utter rubbish. You do realise the AVERAGE house is now worth just £372K and OVER the inheritance tax threshold of £325k.
It is no wonder therefore most voters want the threshold for it raised to £1 million as not all of them are even married couples who benefit from Osborne's allowance. Were it not for Osborne's allowance even more would have been hit by it. No wonder you leftwingers don't have a clue how the average voter feels on this issue? https://www.rightmove.co.uk/news/house-price-index/
"you leftwingers"
That's you told.
Ofg course, a decreasing percentage have full equity in their houses. It's no good havingf a house worth over 325K when one dies, if one has a mortage for half of it.
I disagree with @HYUFD and while I am a one nation conservative I am not a left winger
He'll be back on in a minute to explain why you're not a true Tory because you didn't fight Cromwell in defence of King Charles II, or something similar.
Indeed, BigG would definitely have been a Roundhead and then a Whig!
BigG’s ancestor was a minor member of the Welsh gentry who wasted his declining years investigating rumours that Cromwell feasted on a bewitched sausage during the Bare-arse Parliament.
You know nothing about my ancestors who by the way were all either English or Welsh as traced back generations by my daughter
You seem to have such a nasty streak in you for a Kiwi most of whom I have met are nothing like you
Come on Big G, you’re a semi-professional troll for the Conservative Party, and it’s often very obvious and quite amusing.
I am not a member of the conservative party but also am not a supporter of Starmer and labour
My eldest son is a Kiwi with joint citizenship with the UK and lived in Christchurch from 2003 to 2015
In our several trips and meetings with many Kiwis you do not fit the type of warm and pleasant persona demonstrate to us on our visits
Well I suspect even you keep your Keir-bothering on hold when you’re on holiday.
He was not in office when my son lived in NZ but there are many who criticise Starmer and labour with every justification
Beer and curry hangs around Starmer's neck albatross-like, in the same way wiretapping the Watergate Building did for Richard Nixon.
Don't worry about it. Your guy has totally got this handled.
NB, podium is normal size.
You're such a big man.
The thing is when apologists for genocidal wars decide to call Rishi a 'shit' those fence sitters like myself are tempted to give him the benefit of the doubt.
On the subject of decent new music which sometimes comes up, I went in to a record shop near my house. I guess it is just someones hobby and it won't last, but the owner had bought in a load of new release records, nordic electronica/ chamber pop etc. I bought the new album by the National, but then made a note of some of the other records she recommended and went home to listen to them on Spotify. One album that is really good is Museum, by JFDR - Jófríður Ákadóttir, I will go back and buy it tomorrow. It reinforced my belief that there is lots of good new music, but it is hard to find and it struggles to stand out given the sheer amount of stuff that is out there and caught up in spotify algorhythms.
Have you never experienced Premier Inn free WiFi? It drops in and out all day long, so you are forced to pay for premium WiFi . Who can blame such a rebellion?
I can stomach the shonky wifi, so long as I can tether to my phone.
It's when the aircon suddenly starts blasting you at 28 degrees c for no reason at 3am I get up to complain.
In hotels with per-room cooling, push up and shift aside ceiling panel in doorway next to vent. Switch off unit.
Why is Inheritance Tax levied on estates and not recipients? It seems it would be much more logical for the recipients of inheritance to be taxed, rather than the estates themselves.
And why not simply have a lifetime gift allowance, that includes pre-inheritance gifts?
You're absolutely right.
But, of course, the people who complain most loudly about Inheritance Tax aren't really complaining because of their deep sympathy for poor old grandma, whose dearest last wish is to pass on her earned estate (which definitely didn't result from house price rises since 1970 but the sweat of her dear old brow) to her nearest and dearest.
No, they just want a fat cheque when the old coffin dodger croaks at last. The complainants, to a large extent, ARE the recipients, and they don't want gran spreading her inheritence to a load of great-grand-nephews and whatever, as would be the incentive in your proposal.
I accept that is a generalisation, and people oppose IHT for various reasons. But there's quite a bit of truth in it.
I'm amazed that only 1-in-20 estates are over £325,000 in the UK. I would have thought the number would be more like 1-in-5 or 1-in-6.
That 325000 does not include the first 180,000 of the value of the primary residence.
Plus, it's one of the easiest taxes to avoid.
Your figure would probably be correct if it weren't for that.
What a ridiculous exemption. Just make the threshold £500k, and get rid of the primary residence absurdity.
Actually, I forgot another exemption. A married couple get a double allowance and there is no tax on an estate passing to the survivor.
So effectively the nil rate band for a widow/widower leaving an estate including a house to their children/grandchildren is around £830,000.
Not that hard for most people to make sure their assets come in under or close to that even with a very nice house in a rich area.
If the home owner requires nursing home residency the average house value will be consumed in around five years at costs of around 6 grand a month per person. If they are a couple riddled with dementia make that two and a half years before the family home is reduced to c28 grand per person and a pile of dust.
Yes but if they have a major capital asset, why shouldn't they pay rather than the tax payer?
I don't disagree. I was merely suggesting that the notion peddled by Liz Truss, HYUFD and their disciples that everyone has a million pound plus property to bequeath to their nearest and dearest is somewhat scuppered, not by inheritance tax but by residential care costs.
What utter rubbish. You do realise the AVERAGE house is now worth just £372K and OVER the inheritance tax threshold of £325k.
It is no wonder therefore most voters want the threshold for it raised to £1 million as not all of them are even married couples who benefit from Osborne's allowance. Were it not for Osborne's allowance even more would have been hit by it. No wonder you leftwingers don't have a clue how the average voter feels on this issue? https://www.rightmove.co.uk/news/house-price-index/
"you leftwingers"
That's you told.
Ofg course, a decreasing percentage have full equity in their houses. It's no good havingf a house worth over 325K when one dies, if one has a mortage for half of it.
I disagree with @HYUFD and while I am a one nation conservative I am not a left winger
He'll be back on in a minute to explain why you're not a true Tory because you didn't fight Cromwell in defence of King Charles II, or something similar.
Indeed, BigG would definitely have been a Roundhead and then a Whig!
BigG’s ancestor was a minor member of the Welsh gentry who wasted his declining years investigating rumours that Cromwell feasted on a bewitched sausage during the Bare-arse Parliament.
You know nothing about my ancestors who by the way were all either English or Welsh as traced back generations by my daughter
You seem to have such a nasty streak in you for a Kiwi most of whom I have met are nothing like you
Come on Big G, you’re a semi-professional troll for the Conservative Party, and it’s often very obvious and quite amusing.
I am not a member of the conservative party but also am not a supporter of Starmer and labour
My eldest son is a Kiwi with joint citizenship with the UK and lived in Christchurch from 2003 to 2015
In our several trips and meetings with many Kiwis you do not fit the type of warm and pleasant persona demonstrate to us on our visits
Well I suspect even you keep your Keir-bothering on hold when you’re on holiday.
He was not in office when my son lived in NZ but there are many who criticise Starmer and labour with every justification
Beer and curry hangs around Starmer's neck albatross-like, in the same way wiretapping the Watergate Building did for Richard Nixon.
I remember when Big G called for Starmer to resign
This website (order order) used to have some kind of power and influence, it interesting that it has now gone. It has become absolutely powerless in the 'woke' era.
Don't worry about it. Your guy has totally got this handled.
NB, podium is normal size.
You're such a big man.
The thing is when apologists for genocidal wars decide to call Rishi a 'shit' those fence sitters like myself are tempted to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Then you're simply being credulous and easily-led in a different way. Look at the facts and make up your own mind.
Why is Inheritance Tax levied on estates and not recipients? It seems it would be much more logical for the recipients of inheritance to be taxed, rather than the estates themselves.
And why not simply have a lifetime gift allowance, that includes pre-inheritance gifts?
You're absolutely right.
But, of course, the people who complain most loudly about Inheritance Tax aren't really complaining because of their deep sympathy for poor old grandma, whose dearest last wish is to pass on her earned estate (which definitely didn't result from house price rises since 1970 but the sweat of her dear old brow) to her nearest and dearest.
No, they just want a fat cheque when the old coffin dodger croaks at last. The complainants, to a large extent, ARE the recipients, and they don't want gran spreading her inheritence to a load of great-grand-nephews and whatever, as would be the incentive in your proposal.
I accept that is a generalisation, and people oppose IHT for various reasons. But there's quite a bit of truth in it.
I'm amazed that only 1-in-20 estates are over £325,000 in the UK. I would have thought the number would be more like 1-in-5 or 1-in-6.
That 325000 does not include the first 180,000 of the value of the primary residence.
Plus, it's one of the easiest taxes to avoid.
Your figure would probably be correct if it weren't for that.
What a ridiculous exemption. Just make the threshold £500k, and get rid of the primary residence absurdity.
Actually, I forgot another exemption. A married couple get a double allowance and there is no tax on an estate passing to the survivor.
So effectively the nil rate band for a widow/widower leaving an estate including a house to their children/grandchildren is around £830,000.
Not that hard for most people to make sure their assets come in under or close to that even with a very nice house in a rich area.
If the home owner requires nursing home residency the average house value will be consumed in around five years at costs of around 6 grand a month per person. If they are a couple riddled with dementia make that two and a half years before the family home is reduced to c28 grand per person and a pile of dust.
Yes but if they have a major capital asset, why shouldn't they pay rather than the tax payer?
I don't disagree. I was merely suggesting that the notion peddled by Liz Truss, HYUFD and their disciples that everyone has a million pound plus property to bequeath to their nearest and dearest is somewhat scuppered, not by inheritance tax but by residential care costs.
What utter rubbish. You do realise the AVERAGE house is now worth just £372K and OVER the inheritance tax threshold of £325k.
It is no wonder therefore most voters want the threshold for it raised to £1 million as not all of them are even married couples who benefit from Osborne's allowance. Were it not for Osborne's allowance even more would have been hit by it. No wonder you leftwingers don't have a clue how the average voter feels on this issue? https://www.rightmove.co.uk/news/house-price-index/
"you leftwingers"
That's you told.
Ofg course, a decreasing percentage have full equity in their houses. It's no good havingf a house worth over 325K when one dies, if one has a mortage for half of it.
I disagree with @HYUFD and while I am a one nation conservative I am not a left winger
He'll be back on in a minute to explain why you're not a true Tory because you didn't fight Cromwell in defence of King Charles II, or something similar.
Indeed, BigG would definitely have been a Roundhead and then a Whig!
BigG’s ancestor was a minor member of the Welsh gentry who wasted his declining years investigating rumours that Cromwell feasted on a bewitched sausage during the Bare-arse Parliament.
You know nothing about my ancestors who by the way were all either English or Welsh as traced back generations by my daughter
You seem to have such a nasty streak in you for a Kiwi most of whom I have met are nothing like you
Come on Big G, you’re a semi-professional troll for the Conservative Party, and it’s often very obvious and quite amusing.
I am not a member of the conservative party but also am not a supporter of Starmer and labour
My eldest son is a Kiwi with joint citizenship with the UK and lived in Christchurch from 2003 to 2015
In our several trips and meetings with many Kiwis you do not fit the type of warm and pleasant persona demonstrate to us on our visits
Well I suspect even you keep your Keir-bothering on hold when you’re on holiday.
He was not in office when my son lived in NZ but there are many who criticise Starmer and labour with every justification
Beer and curry hangs around Starmer's neck albatross-like, in the same way wiretapping the Watergate Building did for Richard Nixon.
I remember when Big G called for Starmer to resign
This website (order order) used to have some kind of power and influence, it interesting that it has now gone. It has become absolutely powerless in the 'woke' era.
The purpose of Order Order was to dish the dirt on opponents of the natural party of government. It's got a bit lacking in credibility to do that while ignoring the stench coming from the Conservative Party
This website (order order) used to have some kind of power and influence, it interesting that it has now gone. It has become absolutely powerless in the 'woke' era.
The purpose of Order Order was to dish the dirt on opponents of the natural party of government. It's got a bit lacking in credibility to do that while ignoring the stench coming from the Conservative Party
Not to detract from the argument that the point of that site was for a convicted criminal to execute Tory hit jobs (e.g. "Is Brown Bonkers?"). However, it was also just a different time. You could shock people more easily and they were more credulous about what they read on the Internet. I don't think much in politics has shocked people after Trump.
Don't worry about it. Your guy has totally got this handled.
NB, podium is normal size.
You're such a big man.
The thing is when apologists for genocidal wars decide to call Rishi a 'shit' those fence sitters like myself are tempted to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Then you're simply being credulous and easily-led in a different way. Look at the facts and make up your own mind.
I'm just saying that being the most odious shit on pb means you aren't likely to prove very persuasive.
He's the standard bearer of cold, cynical realism. Apart from when it comes to the Tories. Who are of course lower than vermin. Why take him and his schtick seriously?
There used to be a time when you would briefly have a check in on PB and there would be utterly engrossing debates between lively characters. Now all the interesting folks have been banned and it seems so incredibly bland.
This website (order order) used to have some kind of power and influence, it interesting that it has now gone. It has become absolutely powerless in the 'woke' era.
The purpose of Order Order was to dish the dirt on opponents of the natural party of government. It's got a bit lacking in credibility to do that while ignoring the stench coming from the Conservative Party
The purpose of Order Order was for the owner to discomfit those politicians he dislikes. But websites with comments sections are now competing with Twitter, UnHerd, YouTube... How can Paul Whatsisface compete?
I know of exactly one figure with a record of moaning in public about ministers and civil servants having their hands OH SO TIED for fear of their every action getting scrutinised at judicial review. And he's keeping remarkably quiet at the moment. His missus is commissioning editor at the Spectator. Funny thing is it was thought by some that Rishi Sunak was going to be his placeman at No.10.
Don't worry about it. Your guy has totally got this handled.
NB, podium is normal size.
You're such a big man.
The thing is when apologists for genocidal wars decide to call Rishi a 'shit' those fence sitters like myself are tempted to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Then you're simply being credulous and easily-led in a different way. Look at the facts and make up your own mind.
I'm just saying that being the most odious shit on pb means you aren't likely to prove very persuasive.
He's the standard bearer of cold, cynical realism. Apart from when it comes to the Tories. Who are of course lower than vermin. Why take him and his schtick seriously?
Though our speed-freak ex-matelot has taken in a couple of Ukranian refugees, which is more than the rest of us. People are complex.
I had a call with a moderately well known economist today, who is just back in the US after spending a lot of time at the BoE. He's of the view that inflation is going to fall very quickly from here, because almost all of the external elements (i.e. gas / electricity / grains / etc) are in freefall at the wholesale level. It essentially guarantees - in his view - that inflation will be close to zero by the middle of next year as peoples' utility bills register big year-over-year declines.
His view is that the BoE should be cutting now, rather than doing so next year, when they will be chasing a falling inflation rate.
He was very persuasive.
Let's assume that he is correct. Whilst inflation dropping towards zero is very welcome after this period of madness, that doesn't mean that prices fall. Just that prices stop rising.
The "how can we afford this" narrative that has possessed so many voters is just embossed into the marble on the Tories' tombstone...
That's right. While eliminating shortage driven inflation is welcome and inevitable in the end, it will lock in high prices. Rents are already sky high, fuel seems to have settled at about twice what it was before and a bit smaller but still very large increase is likely for food as well. Which is the bulk of people's cost of living. People will continue to feel poorer.
But take @rcs1000 point about cutting interest rates sooner rather than later.
How is fuel twice what it was before? It’s not been 70p a litre for decades.
Presumably meant domestic rather than motor fuel.
I did mean that. To be clear I should have said energy prices, not fuel prices, are settling at about twice what they were before what they were prior to the lead up to the Russian invasion. And that energy along with rent (already very high) and food (also considerably more expensive than before) makes up the bulk of people's cost of living.
Is that true?
Brent is now below where it was before Russia invaded Ukraine. Ditto natural gas.
Now, this takes time to feed through to consumer prices, but feed through it will.
Quote from Andrew Sullivan's latest newsletter email.
"Britain, meanwhile, is now in the process of remaking its entire population. Brexit has not ended mass migration; it has, in fact, turbo-charged it. All Brexit did was end the right of anyone in the EU to live and work in the UK. And the Tories replaced that with a new law that brings huge numbers of non-EU citizens to the UK instead. In 2010, the new Tory prime minister, David Cameron, pledged to cut net migration to “tens of thousands” a year. Thirteen Tory-run years and one Brexit later, the number of net migrants to the UK last year was more than 600,000.
About 20 percent of the UK workforce is now foreign-born — higher than in the US. And the new wave is almost entirely non-white. Before Brexit, Poland was the biggest exporter of migrants to the UK. After Brexit, as Fraser Nelson notes, “India has supplanted Poland as the biggest source country for new workers: followed by the Philippines, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Australia and the United States.” One in four Brits — and one in two Londoners — now has a foreign-born mother. The notion that Brexit was about keeping Britain “white” has been turned on its head. Brexit may well be the turning point toward white minority status in Britain in the next century. Somehow I don’t think that’s what Brexit voters had in mind.
What are we to make of this failure even to restrain, let alone control, massive demographic change in both countries? I have to say I’m not entirely sure anymore."
Quote from Andrew Sullivan's latest newsletter email.
"Britain, meanwhile, is now in the process of remaking its entire population. Brexit has not ended mass migration; it has, in fact, turbo-charged it. All Brexit did was end the right of anyone in the EU to live and work in the UK. And the Tories replaced that with a new law that brings huge numbers of non-EU citizens to the UK instead. In 2010, the new Tory prime minister, David Cameron, pledged to cut net migration to “tens of thousands” a year. Thirteen Tory-run years and one Brexit later, the number of net migrants to the UK last year was more than 600,000.
About 20 percent of the UK workforce is now foreign-born — higher than in the US. And the new wave is almost entirely non-white. Before Brexit, Poland was the biggest exporter of migrants to the UK. After Brexit, as Fraser Nelson notes, “India has supplanted Poland as the biggest source country for new workers: followed by the Philippines, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Australia and the United States.” One in four Brits — and one in two Londoners — now has a foreign-born mother. The notion that Brexit was about keeping Britain “white” has been turned on its head. Brexit may well be the turning point toward white minority status in Britain in the next century. Somehow I don’t think that’s what Brexit voters had in mind.
What are we to make of this failure even to restrain, let alone control, massive demographic change in both countries? I have to say I’m not entirely sure anymore."
For a start, Poland - while a massive exporter of people in the 2004-2012 period - had reversed to negligible levels by the time of the EU referendum, and had gone negative by the time we actually left the EU:
EU-8 are the Eastern European countries.
And even his percentage of the workforce number feels a little forced, because it implies the US has a particularly large foreign workforce:
Don't worry about it. Your guy has totally got this handled.
NB, podium is normal size.
You're such a big man.
The thing is when apologists for genocidal wars decide to call Rishi a 'shit' those fence sitters like myself are tempted to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Then you're simply being credulous and easily-led in a different way. Look at the facts and make up your own mind.
I'm just saying that being the most odious shit on pb means you aren't likely to prove very persuasive.
He's the standard bearer of cold, cynical realism. Apart from when it comes to the Tories. Who are of course lower than vermin. Why take him and his schtick seriously?
Though our speed-freak ex-matelot has taken in a couple of Ukranian refugees, which is more than the rest of us. People are complex.
So he claims. He's the one poster who's comments appear to be totally lacking in any human feeling.
Don't worry about it. Your guy has totally got this handled.
NB, podium is normal size.
You're such a big man.
The thing is when apologists for genocidal wars decide to call Rishi a 'shit' those fence sitters like myself are tempted to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Then you're simply being credulous and easily-led in a different way. Look at the facts and make up your own mind.
I'm just saying that being the most odious shit on pb means you aren't likely to prove very persuasive.
He's the standard bearer of cold, cynical realism. Apart from when it comes to the Tories. Who are of course lower than vermin. Why take him and his schtick seriously?
Though our speed-freak ex-matelot has taken in a couple of Ukranian refugees, which is more than the rest of us. People are complex.
So he claims. He's the one poster who's comments appear to be totally lacking in any human feeling.
You should stop giving a fuck what I post, you'll be less agitated. Also, change that Jim Belushi avatar.
Quote from Andrew Sullivan's latest newsletter email.
"Britain, meanwhile, is now in the process of remaking its entire population. Brexit has not ended mass migration; it has, in fact, turbo-charged it. All Brexit did was end the right of anyone in the EU to live and work in the UK. And the Tories replaced that with a new law that brings huge numbers of non-EU citizens to the UK instead. In 2010, the new Tory prime minister, David Cameron, pledged to cut net migration to “tens of thousands” a year. Thirteen Tory-run years and one Brexit later, the number of net migrants to the UK last year was more than 600,000.
About 20 percent of the UK workforce is now foreign-born — higher than in the US. And the new wave is almost entirely non-white. Before Brexit, Poland was the biggest exporter of migrants to the UK. After Brexit, as Fraser Nelson notes, “India has supplanted Poland as the biggest source country for new workers: followed by the Philippines, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Australia and the United States.” One in four Brits — and one in two Londoners — now has a foreign-born mother. The notion that Brexit was about keeping Britain “white” has been turned on its head. Brexit may well be the turning point toward white minority status in Britain in the next century. Somehow I don’t think that’s what Brexit voters had in mind.
What are we to make of this failure even to restrain, let alone control, massive demographic change in both countries? I have to say I’m not entirely sure anymore."
It doesn't matter what race or ethnicity the migrants coming to the UK are. What matters is the caliber of the people. Unfortunately lots of those coming are low educated people via family migration or "shortage jobs". Do we really believe large numbers coming from Zimbabwe are increasing the skill mix of the population?
He's an excellent smokescreen for all the Heather Hallet nonsense. If the news outlets all lead on Schofield no one will notice what arses Johnson, Case and Sunak have been.
It is also keeping the sleeze in Labour out of the headlines with not only Geraint Davies suspended, but allegations made again today that the party are covering up a shadow minister unacceptable behaviour
No. R4 PM led on Charlotte Nichols and Stella Creasey explaining that when they arrived in Parliament in 2019 and 2010 respectively they were warned that 30 MPs were a danger to young female MPs. They were both highly critical of the Labour Party hierarchy who ignored common knowledge regarding Davies. It was couched as an exclusively Labour Party problem by Evan Davies. It clearly isn't and I was expecting the usual BBC balance caveats, perhaps referencing Rob Roberts or Pincher, but he didn't. I think BBC balance only applies to negative stories involving Boris Johnson.
The point though is Schofield is dominating everything in the media and now they are giving out the Samaritans phone number
The reporting has been disgraceful and it demotes other stories including covid and Labour’s sleeze
It is across all parties but Starmer and labour are covering up allegations about a shadow minister which is not acceptable in the present climate
I agree that the Schofield coverage is pretty odious. (The coverage not the person IMHO). BUt I se no signs that there is any defelction or cover up on the part of Starmer. The Labour sex scandal story is getting exactly the same amount of coverage as anyother sleaze story. The probem that we have is that we are now so used to scandals involving MPs of all parties that it is no longer really very newsworthy - sadly.
Quote from Andrew Sullivan's latest newsletter email.
"Britain, meanwhile, is now in the process of remaking its entire population. Brexit has not ended mass migration; it has, in fact, turbo-charged it. All Brexit did was end the right of anyone in the EU to live and work in the UK. And the Tories replaced that with a new law that brings huge numbers of non-EU citizens to the UK instead. In 2010, the new Tory prime minister, David Cameron, pledged to cut net migration to “tens of thousands” a year. Thirteen Tory-run years and one Brexit later, the number of net migrants to the UK last year was more than 600,000.
About 20 percent of the UK workforce is now foreign-born — higher than in the US. And the new wave is almost entirely non-white. Before Brexit, Poland was the biggest exporter of migrants to the UK. After Brexit, as Fraser Nelson notes, “India has supplanted Poland as the biggest source country for new workers: followed by the Philippines, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Australia and the United States.” One in four Brits — and one in two Londoners — now has a foreign-born mother. The notion that Brexit was about keeping Britain “white” has been turned on its head. Brexit may well be the turning point toward white minority status in Britain in the next century. Somehow I don’t think that’s what Brexit voters had in mind.
What are we to make of this failure even to restrain, let alone control, massive demographic change in both countries? I have to say I’m not entirely sure anymore."
It doesn't matter what race or ethnicity the migrants coming to the UK are. What matters is the caliber of the people. Unfortunately lots of those coming are low educated people via family migration or "shortage jobs". Do we really believe large numbers coming from Zimbabwe are increasing the skill mix of the population?
Actually it does matter.
Clearly the closer a migrant is culturally to the country they are moving to, the easier they are to assimilate.
I don’t think that’s racist, just kind of common sense.
There’s a class aspect to this as well, middle class are going to integrate better than working class.
Anyway, if you look at the stats, all the Nigerians and Philippinos are coming in to work in the NHS, because we told the Spanish and Portuguese to fuck off, and Covid.
I had a call with a moderately well known economist today, who is just back in the US after spending a lot of time at the BoE. He's of the view that inflation is going to fall very quickly from here, because almost all of the external elements (i.e. gas / electricity / grains / etc) are in freefall at the wholesale level. It essentially guarantees - in his view - that inflation will be close to zero by the middle of next year as peoples' utility bills register big year-over-year declines.
His view is that the BoE should be cutting now, rather than doing so next year, when they will be chasing a falling inflation rate.
He was very persuasive.
That rather assumes that low interest rates are the way to go. Is that the view of everyone?
Personally, speaking as somebody who is not an economist, I would have said that after 14 years of ridiculous lows they need to stay up.
It seems the increases, which by the way are low anyway, are having the effect of house price reductions which many want but at the same time is fracturing the buy to let market putting pressure on rents, just when that is a great worry for many
One of the “interesting” effects of interest rate hikes is that mortgages are now only paid by a subset of the population - maybe a third.
A third - typically retired - own outright, and a third rent.
So interest rates bash the the struggling middle (crassly expressed) most of all. This never used to be so starkly the case.
Even at 4%, interest rates are probably too toppy for homeowners, even if they are “about right” from a corporate borrowing perspective.
The real problem is renters who have not acquired a home and who by retirement will still have rent to pay, unlike most homeowners whose mortgage will have matured
The way to help renters is reform planning in order to build more houses.
Except reforming planning won't result in more houses being built. The way to build more houses is to allow councils to build them again. That doesn't need planning changes, it needs changes in the laws related to council house building and local government finance. Help pay for it by taxing developers on all undeveloped land they hold which has planning permission in place.
I had a call with a moderately well known economist today, who is just back in the US after spending a lot of time at the BoE. He's of the view that inflation is going to fall very quickly from here, because almost all of the external elements (i.e. gas / electricity / grains / etc) are in freefall at the wholesale level. It essentially guarantees - in his view - that inflation will be close to zero by the middle of next year as peoples' utility bills register big year-over-year declines.
His view is that the BoE should be cutting now, rather than doing so next year, when they will be chasing a falling inflation rate.
He was very persuasive.
That rather assumes that low interest rates are the way to go. Is that the view of everyone?
Personally, speaking as somebody who is not an economist, I would have said that after 14 years of ridiculous lows they need to stay up.
It seems the increases, which by the way are low anyway, are having the effect of house price reductions which many want but at the same time is fracturing the buy to let market putting pressure on rents, just when that is a great worry for many
One of the “interesting” effects of interest rate hikes is that mortgages are now only paid by a subset of the population - maybe a third.
A third - typically retired - own outright, and a third rent.
So interest rates bash the the struggling middle (crassly expressed) most of all. This never used to be so starkly the case.
Even at 4%, interest rates are probably too toppy for homeowners, even if they are “about right” from a corporate borrowing perspective.
The real problem is renters who have not acquired a home and who by retirement will still have rent to pay, unlike most homeowners whose mortgage will have matured
The way to help renters is reform planning in order to build more houses.
Except reforming planning won't result in more houses being built. The way to build more houses is to allow councils to build them again. That doesn't need planning changes, it needs changes in the laws related to council house building and local government finance. Help pay for it by taxing developers on all undeveloped land they hold which has planning permission in place.
We’ve done this one to death, and you’re wrong. Or, at least, insufficiently right. Refer to Andy whatsisnames posts.
The most compelling point made by Sullivan is that after 13 years, the Tories have utterly utterly failed on immigration according to their own yardstick.
Don't worry about it. Your guy has totally got this handled.
NB, podium is normal size.
You're such a big man.
The thing is when apologists for genocidal wars decide to call Rishi a 'shit' those fence sitters like myself are tempted to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Then you're simply being credulous and easily-led in a different way. Look at the facts and make up your own mind.
I'm just saying that being the most odious shit on pb means you aren't likely to prove very persuasive.
He's the standard bearer of cold, cynical realism. Apart from when it comes to the Tories. Who are of course lower than vermin. Why take him and his schtick seriously?
Though our speed-freak ex-matelot has taken in a couple of Ukranian refugees, which is more than the rest of us. People are complex.
So he claims. He's the one poster who's comments appear to be totally lacking in any human feeling.
You should stop giving a fuck what I post, you'll be less agitated. Also, change that Jim Belushi avatar.
Certainly the Ukranian spin machine is working better than the Russian troll army at getting its points across, quite apart from having the advantage of our natural sympathies.
Worth listening to the Russian propagandists too, even though much of what they say is transparent lies. It helps to understand your enemy and defeat them.
Quote from Andrew Sullivan's latest newsletter email.
"Britain, meanwhile, is now in the process of remaking its entire population. Brexit has not ended mass migration; it has, in fact, turbo-charged it. All Brexit did was end the right of anyone in the EU to live and work in the UK. And the Tories replaced that with a new law that brings huge numbers of non-EU citizens to the UK instead. In 2010, the new Tory prime minister, David Cameron, pledged to cut net migration to “tens of thousands” a year. Thirteen Tory-run years and one Brexit later, the number of net migrants to the UK last year was more than 600,000.
About 20 percent of the UK workforce is now foreign-born — higher than in the US. And the new wave is almost entirely non-white. Before Brexit, Poland was the biggest exporter of migrants to the UK. After Brexit, as Fraser Nelson notes, “India has supplanted Poland as the biggest source country for new workers: followed by the Philippines, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Australia and the United States.” One in four Brits — and one in two Londoners — now has a foreign-born mother. The notion that Brexit was about keeping Britain “white” has been turned on its head. Brexit may well be the turning point toward white minority status in Britain in the next century. Somehow I don’t think that’s what Brexit voters had in mind.
What are we to make of this failure even to restrain, let alone control, massive demographic change in both countries? I have to say I’m not entirely sure anymore."
It doesn't matter what race or ethnicity the migrants coming to the UK are. What matters is the caliber of the people. Unfortunately lots of those coming are low educated people via family migration or "shortage jobs". Do we really believe large numbers coming from Zimbabwe are increasing the skill mix of the population?
Actually it does matter.
Clearly the closer a migrant is culturally to the country they are moving to, the easier they are to assimilate.
I don’t think that’s racist, just kind of common sense.
There’s a class aspect to this as well, middle class are going to integrate better than working class.
Anyway, if you look at the stats, all the Nigerians and Philippinos are coming in to work in the NHS, because we told the Spanish and Portuguese to fuck off, and Covid.
I mean I do agree that culturally closer groups like Hong Kongers integrate better than Romanians first generation. But the driving factors of second generation integration are (1) economic success (2) religion.
I had a call with a moderately well known economist today, who is just back in the US after spending a lot of time at the BoE. He's of the view that inflation is going to fall very quickly from here, because almost all of the external elements (i.e. gas / electricity / grains / etc) are in freefall at the wholesale level. It essentially guarantees - in his view - that inflation will be close to zero by the middle of next year as peoples' utility bills register big year-over-year declines.
His view is that the BoE should be cutting now, rather than doing so next year, when they will be chasing a falling inflation rate.
He was very persuasive.
That rather assumes that low interest rates are the way to go. Is that the view of everyone?
Personally, speaking as somebody who is not an economist, I would have said that after 14 years of ridiculous lows they need to stay up.
It seems the increases, which by the way are low anyway, are having the effect of house price reductions which many want but at the same time is fracturing the buy to let market putting pressure on rents, just when that is a great worry for many
One of the “interesting” effects of interest rate hikes is that mortgages are now only paid by a subset of the population - maybe a third.
A third - typically retired - own outright, and a third rent.
So interest rates bash the the struggling middle (crassly expressed) most of all. This never used to be so starkly the case.
Even at 4%, interest rates are probably too toppy for homeowners, even if they are “about right” from a corporate borrowing perspective.
The real problem is renters who have not acquired a home and who by retirement will still have rent to pay, unlike most homeowners whose mortgage will have matured
The way to help renters is reform planning in order to build more houses.
Except reforming planning won't result in more houses being built. The way to build more houses is to allow councils to build them again. That doesn't need planning changes, it needs changes in the laws related to council house building and local government finance. Help pay for it by taxing developers on all undeveloped land they hold which has planning permission in place.
We’ve done this one to death, and you’re wrong. Or, at least, insufficiently right. Refer to Andy whatsisnames posts.
Nope. I know what I speak of since I am directly involved in it. Planning is not the issue. Those who think it is siply don't understand the planning system or what it is there for (hint - 9 out of 10 applications for development are approved by local councils without reference to central government and 60% more approvals are made every year than houses are actually built). You should stop believeing the rubbish that Bart writes about this.
There used to be a time when you would briefly have a check in on PB and there would be utterly engrossing debates between lively characters. Now all the interesting folks have been banned and it seems so incredibly bland.
Don't worry about it. Your guy has totally got this handled.
NB, podium is normal size.
You're such a big man.
The thing is when apologists for genocidal wars decide to call Rishi a 'shit' those fence sitters like myself are tempted to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Then you're simply being credulous and easily-led in a different way. Look at the facts and make up your own mind.
I'm just saying that being the most odious shit on pb means you aren't likely to prove very persuasive.
He's the standard bearer of cold, cynical realism. Apart from when it comes to the Tories. Who are of course lower than vermin. Why take him and his schtick seriously?
Though our speed-freak ex-matelot has taken in a couple of Ukranian refugees, which is more than the rest of us. People are complex.
So he claims. He's the one poster who's comments appear to be totally lacking in any human feeling.
You should stop giving a fuck what I post, you'll be less agitated. Also, change that Jim Belushi avatar.
Certainly the Ukranian spin machine is working better than the Russian troll army at getting its points across, quite apart from having the advantage of our natural sympathies.
Worth listening to the Russian propagandists too, even though much of what they say is transparent lies. It helps to understand your enemy and defeat them.
Quite though there is a difference between listening to and respecting.
On the issue of spin/propaganda I wish you were right. It may be true here but in much of the world the Russian narrative about Nato gains traction. It was heartening to see Lavrov get laughed at in India though.
Don't worry about it. Your guy has totally got this handled.
NB, podium is normal size.
You're such a big man.
The thing is when apologists for genocidal wars decide to call Rishi a 'shit' those fence sitters like myself are tempted to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Then you're simply being credulous and easily-led in a different way. Look at the facts and make up your own mind.
I'm just saying that being the most odious shit on pb means you aren't likely to prove very persuasive.
He's the standard bearer of cold, cynical realism. Apart from when it comes to the Tories. Who are of course lower than vermin. Why take him and his schtick seriously?
Though our speed-freak ex-matelot has taken in a couple of Ukranian refugees, which is more than the rest of us. People are complex.
So he claims. He's the one poster who's comments appear to be totally lacking in any human feeling.
You should stop giving a fuck what I post, you'll be less agitated. Also, change that Jim Belushi avatar.
Certainly the Ukranian spin machine is working better than the Russian troll army at getting its points across, quite apart from having the advantage of our natural sympathies.
Worth listening to the Russian propagandists too, even though much of what they say is transparent lies. It helps to understand your enemy and defeat them.
Quite though there is a difference between listening to and respecting.
On the issue of spin/propaganda I wish you were right. It may be true here but in much of the world the Russian narrative about Nato gains traction. It was heartening to see Lavrov get laughed at in India though.
Certainly the Russian propaganda is getting a lot of support across MENA, SSA and South Asia. It is worth being aware of that, even when hard to comprehend.
How concerning is it that Vox may enter government in Spain in a few weeks' time? No-one seems to be talking about it much thus far.
Well the hard right nationalist party Vox would be the junior partner in the Spanish government to the centre right PP rather than being the senior partner as the hard right nationalist FdI and Lega are in the Italian government with the centre right Forza Italia the junior partner
Don't worry about it. Your guy has totally got this handled.
NB, podium is normal size.
You're such a big man.
The thing is when apologists for genocidal wars decide to call Rishi a 'shit' those fence sitters like myself are tempted to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Then you're simply being credulous and easily-led in a different way. Look at the facts and make up your own mind.
I'm just saying that being the most odious shit on pb means you aren't likely to prove very persuasive.
He's the standard bearer of cold, cynical realism. Apart from when it comes to the Tories. Who are of course lower than vermin. Why take him and his schtick seriously?
Though our speed-freak ex-matelot has taken in a couple of Ukranian refugees, which is more than the rest of us. People are complex.
So he claims. He's the one poster who's comments appear to be totally lacking in any human feeling.
You should stop giving a fuck what I post, you'll be less agitated. Also, change that Jim Belushi avatar.
Don't worry about it. Your guy has totally got this handled.
NB, podium is normal size.
You're such a big man.
The thing is when apologists for genocidal wars decide to call Rishi a 'shit' those fence sitters like myself are tempted to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Then you're simply being credulous and easily-led in a different way. Look at the facts and make up your own mind.
I'm just saying that being the most odious shit on pb means you aren't likely to prove very persuasive.
He's the standard bearer of cold, cynical realism. Apart from when it comes to the Tories. Who are of course lower than vermin. Why take him and his schtick seriously?
Though our speed-freak ex-matelot has taken in a couple of Ukranian refugees, which is more than the rest of us. People are complex.
So he claims. He's the one poster who's comments appear to be totally lacking in any human feeling.
You should stop giving a fuck what I post, you'll be less agitated. Also, change that Jim Belushi avatar.
Certainly the Ukranian spin machine is working better than the Russian troll army at getting its points across, quite apart from having the advantage of our natural sympathies.
Worth listening to the Russian propagandists too, even though much of what they say is transparent lies. It helps to understand your enemy and defeat them.
If the government or other opinion formers on side A tell the population on side A hey look, eveyone, watch out for the propaganda of side B because it's everywhere, that's a victory for side B's psyops. Generally, though, Russian propaganda in the west now is crap compared to what it was in 2016. Better defences, or an absence or scaling down of the support for the Russian effort that was evident in 2016, or different Russian goals? Discuss....
Don't worry about it. Your guy has totally got this handled.
NB, podium is normal size.
You're such a big man.
The thing is when apologists for genocidal wars decide to call Rishi a 'shit' those fence sitters like myself are tempted to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Then you're simply being credulous and easily-led in a different way. Look at the facts and make up your own mind.
I'm just saying that being the most odious shit on pb means you aren't likely to prove very persuasive.
He's the standard bearer of cold, cynical realism. Apart from when it comes to the Tories. Who are of course lower than vermin. Why take him and his schtick seriously?
Though our speed-freak ex-matelot has taken in a couple of Ukranian refugees, which is more than the rest of us. People are complex.
So he claims. He's the one poster who's comments appear to be totally lacking in any human feeling.
You should stop giving a fuck what I post, you'll be less agitated. Also, change that Jim Belushi avatar.
Certainly the Ukranian spin machine is working better than the Russian troll army at getting its points across, quite apart from having the advantage of our natural sympathies.
Worth listening to the Russian propagandists too, even though much of what they say is transparent lies. It helps to understand your enemy and defeat them.
The Ukrainians like posting cat videos and soldiers doing dance moves of variable quality. Interspersed with combat footage. Usually with very bad music.
The Russian stuff that my relatives send is weird rants about how they are being cheated somehow and interviews with people in the street advocating increases nastiness to turn things round.
I had a call with a moderately well known economist today, who is just back in the US after spending a lot of time at the BoE. He's of the view that inflation is going to fall very quickly from here, because almost all of the external elements (i.e. gas / electricity / grains / etc) are in freefall at the wholesale level. It essentially guarantees - in his view - that inflation will be close to zero by the middle of next year as peoples' utility bills register big year-over-year declines.
His view is that the BoE should be cutting now, rather than doing so next year, when they will be chasing a falling inflation rate.
He was very persuasive.
That rather assumes that low interest rates are the way to go. Is that the view of everyone?
Personally, speaking as somebody who is not an economist, I would have said that after 14 years of ridiculous lows they need to stay up.
It seems the increases, which by the way are low anyway, are having the effect of house price reductions which many want but at the same time is fracturing the buy to let market putting pressure on rents, just when that is a great worry for many
One of the “interesting” effects of interest rate hikes is that mortgages are now only paid by a subset of the population - maybe a third.
A third - typically retired - own outright, and a third rent.
So interest rates bash the the struggling middle (crassly expressed) most of all. This never used to be so starkly the case.
Even at 4%, interest rates are probably too toppy for homeowners, even if they are “about right” from a corporate borrowing perspective.
The real problem is renters who have not acquired a home and who by retirement will still have rent to pay, unlike most homeowners whose mortgage will have matured
The way to help renters is reform planning in order to build more houses.
Except reforming planning won't result in more houses being built. The way to build more houses is to allow councils to build them again. That doesn't need planning changes, it needs changes in the laws related to council house building and local government finance. Help pay for it by taxing developers on all undeveloped land they hold which has planning permission in place.
One problem, which nearly everyone ignores, is that the big developers often have a *local* monopoly or duopoly. So the numbers of players in the market in a given area is often small. Which makes turning building on and off to keep prices up, possible.
Comments
On the other hand, wages have risen, and will continue to rise. From the ONS: "average regular pay growth for the private sector was 6.9% in December 2022 to February 2023, and 5.3% for the public sector".
The price of things - particularly ones which are driven by commodity prices, as well as the commodities themselves - will fall. Gas is down. Oil is down. Wholesale electricity markets are down. Wheat has fallen. Corn has fallen. Coffee has fallen. (Sugar has not.)
Now, that doesn't mean everything is hunky dory. But in the next 12 months, even absent changes in interest rates, people's costs are likely to fall while their incomes will probably rise.
'We all know how useful robots are in industry, but do people think AI will impact their job security in future:
☹️ 41% yes
🙂 38% no
😐 20% don’t know'
https://twitter.com/Omnisis/status/1664648864719093762?s=20
'And to stop AI becoming a threat, we asked if it should be regulated:
👍 76% yes
👎 10% no
🤷 13% don’t know'
https://twitter.com/Omnisis/status/1664648866111561729?s=20
🙂 45% good deal
☹️ 20% bad deal
😐 35% don’t know'
https://twitter.com/Omnisis/status/1664648870905643009?s=20
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jun/01/female-staff-express-fears-over-using-labour-partys-complaints-procedure
But you make a fair point.
Charlotte Nichols (in particular) Rosie Duffield and Stella Creasey have given the Geraint Davies story legs. He does seem an odious creep and I doubt he will be representing Swansea West after the next GE. I take my hat off to all three for doing Labour's dirty washing in public. Perhaps a serious comment and an apology by Starmer on this issue is overdue.
As to the shadow minister question this was put to Stella Creasey who added that care should be taken over potentially vexatious complaints.She didn't expand, but of course she recently had social services threaten to remove her children after a vexatious complaint from someone who had never met her but was offended by her anti-misogyny campaigning. The complainant falsely reported her to social services out of spite, and with no legal repercussions.
https://order-order.com/2023/06/02/richard-tice-apologises-on-behalf-of-british-taxpayer-for-weak-wi-fi-in-migrants-central-london-hotel/
https://twitter.com/NileGardiner/status/1664607307852808192?s=20
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Café_A_Brasileira
You seem to have such a nasty streak in you for a Kiwi most of whom I have met are nothing like you
NB, podium is normal size.
"Growth in total and regular pay fell in real terms (adjusted for inflation) on the year in December 2022 to February 2023, by 3.0% for total pay and 2.3% for regular pay; a larger fall on the year for real total pay was last seen in February to April 2009 when it fell by 4.5%, but it still remains among the largest falls in growth since comparable records began in 2001."
A 3% real drop is a lot, but wage increases tend to lag inflation both up and down. I'd expect the (real) number to be strongly positive in the next 12 months as falling inflation meets continued rising wages.
It's when the aircon suddenly starts blasting you at 28 degrees c for no reason at 3am I get up to complain.
Where is Ivo Delingpole and Durham Constabulary when we need them?
My eldest son is a Kiwi with joint citizenship with the UK and lived in Christchurch from 2003 to 2015
In our several trips and meetings with many Kiwis you do not fit the type of warm and pleasant persona demonstrate to us on our visits
The thing is when apologists for genocidal wars decide to call Rishi a 'shit' those fence sitters like myself are tempted to give him the benefit of the doubt.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9JqgsKta2Y
He's the standard bearer of cold, cynical realism. Apart from when it comes to the Tories. Who are of course lower than vermin. Why take him and his schtick seriously?
Brent is now below where it was before Russia invaded Ukraine. Ditto natural gas.
Now, this takes time to feed through to consumer prices, but feed through it will.
"Britain, meanwhile, is now in the process of remaking its entire population. Brexit has not ended mass migration; it has, in fact, turbo-charged it. All Brexit did was end the right of anyone in the EU to live and work in the UK. And the Tories replaced that with a new law that brings huge numbers of non-EU citizens to the UK instead. In 2010, the new Tory prime minister, David Cameron, pledged to cut net migration to “tens of thousands” a year. Thirteen Tory-run years and one Brexit later, the number of net migrants to the UK last year was more than 600,000.
About 20 percent of the UK workforce is now foreign-born — higher than in the US. And the new wave is almost entirely non-white. Before Brexit, Poland was the biggest exporter of migrants to the UK. After Brexit, as Fraser Nelson notes, “India has supplanted Poland as the biggest source country for new workers: followed by the Philippines, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Australia and the United States.” One in four Brits — and one in two Londoners — now has a foreign-born mother. The notion that Brexit was about keeping Britain “white” has been turned on its head. Brexit may well be the turning point toward white minority status in Britain in the next century. Somehow I don’t think that’s what Brexit voters had in mind.
What are we to make of this failure even to restrain, let alone control, massive demographic change in both countries? I have to say I’m not entirely sure anymore."
https://andrewsullivan.substack.com/
For a start, Poland - while a massive exporter of people in the 2004-2012 period - had reversed to negligible levels by the time of the EU referendum, and had gone negative by the time we actually left the EU:
EU-8 are the Eastern European countries.
And even his percentage of the workforce number feels a little forced, because it implies the US has a particularly large foreign workforce:
Clearly the closer a migrant is culturally to the country they are moving to, the easier they are to assimilate.
I don’t think that’s racist, just kind of common sense.
There’s a class aspect to this as well, middle class are going to integrate better than working class.
Anyway, if you look at the stats, all the Nigerians and Philippinos are coming in to work in the NHS, because we told the Spanish and Portuguese to fuck off, and Covid.
Or, at least, insufficiently right. Refer to Andy whatsisnames posts.
Worth listening to the Russian propagandists too, even though much of what they say is transparent lies. It helps to understand your enemy and defeat them.
On the issue of spin/propaganda I wish you were right. It may be true here but in much of the world the Russian narrative about Nato gains traction. It was heartening to see Lavrov get laughed at in India though.
https://www.euronews.com/2023/06/01/europe-s-liberals-should-take-a-page-or-two-from-the-populist-movement-book
https://novaramedia.com/2023/05/18/we-should-be-very-very-worried-about-national-conservatism/
https://www.ft.com/content/9ac7444e-04c4-4d6a-bca6-66dd82055284
The Russian stuff that my relatives send is weird rants about how they are being cheated somehow and interviews with people in the street advocating increases nastiness to turn things round.