Reform on 10% now just 2% off of UKIP's voteshare in 2015, Farage may be tempted to return to lead them if that becomes consistent.
However plenty of time for Sunak and Hunt to win back voters from Reform with tax cuts and reductions in immigration
Except in reality... neither of those works, does it?
There is less than no money. So tax cuts are out of the question- the frozen thresholds means that taxes are going up, if anything. And immigration is the only thing keeping health, social care and the economy moving.
So what does Rishi do?
If inflation falls through the government's tight control of spending then that would allow for a cut in the basic rate especially, perhaps promise of raising the IHT threshold to £1 million for all estates if the Tories are re elected.
Economic migrants are certainly not all working in the NHS and migration remains a key concern for Tory to RefUK swing voters
If strawberry plants achieve sentience and send intergalactic starships to the Magellanic Clouds, and if Boris Johnson solves the P versus NP problem, the Tories might be re-elected.
Edit: ... and in any case most estates are 1m free of IHT, if they are of the Tory-approved nuclear family un-woke variety. So why bother changing?
Only the main property of married couples via transfer, not assets beyond the main property or for children of divorced couples or where one died before Osborne's tax reform.
The IHT threshold is still £325k, it should be raised to £1 million in my view and that should be in the Tory manifesto next year as a promise if they are re elected
The practical limit is 1m for approved politically correct families as far as most people realise - IHT is only ever an issue with the second death of the married couple.
£1M per person woiuld be absolutely outrageous and a further kick in the teeth of working people and a further sign that Tories and their elderly voters are parasitic leeches on society.
Only a whinging far left socialist like you would think removing decent middle class families out of IHT whether the parents are married or not and for all assets not just the main residence and leaving it only for the very rich was somehow 'outrageous.'
I am not a far left whinging socialist but a one nation conservative who considers IHT a fair tax based on £325,000
Why should those of us in the north give wealthy southerners a million pound bung
As you have far cheaper house prices and don't need inheritances as much (though those with detached properties or significant savings in the North and Wales would also benefit from an increase in the IHT to £1 million)
Nobody should aspire to inherit anything. You should live by your own means if you can.
In any case, IHT is already £1m even on the death of both parents as any unused allowance is carried over.
So it is actually £325k x 2 + £350k for the main home = £1m.
Why shouldn't they?
I am a Tory and believe in inherited wealth and the family.
If I believed in pure individualism and wealth created by individual earnings alone I would be a Liberal not a Tory
Well, I don't know about you, but I'd feel pretty guilty living off someone else's money if I was capable of looking after myself.
The kind of people that don't end up gluing themselves to roads out of boredom.
You can't live off an inheritance comfortably if it is less than £1 million, only if you inherit say £4 million+.
Those super rich estates would still pay IHT if the threshold was £1 million
Depends what you mean by comfortably. You could easily scoop the median salary on interest alone. If you're 40 and prudent, a million lump sum is enough to retire on.
Half of it would go on property in the South, it certainly wouldn't all go on annual earnings
You don't have to buy and you don't have to live in the south
If you don't buy half of it would have to be put aside for rent
Like people who work for a living. What's your problem with that?
Rents are far cheaper in the North where you live than London or the South East so inheritance is less needed
Who knows? It's all very strange. Nor is there much sign of Ukraine taking advantage, though they still might - perhaps the Soviet-era doctrine of never launching an offensive without weeks of preparation is still in force on both sides?
It normally seems to take a day or two to get information about military movements. There are people saying that the Ukrainians have crossed the river at Kherson and are now attacking from that end.
As they say, loose lips sink ships.
It seems the Ukrainians are more interested in winning the war than touting their own horn. Some villages liberated are being announced a week after liberation.
It makes sense, if they've punched a hole in the enemies defences then why advertise that fact, warning them to send in reinforcements? Take advantage while you can, especially since the enemies own communication and intelligence chain is rather broken.
Reform on 10% now just 2% off of UKIP's voteshare in 2015, Farage may be tempted to return to lead them if that becomes consistent.
However plenty of time for Sunak and Hunt to win back voters from Reform with tax cuts and reductions in immigration
Except in reality... neither of those works, does it?
There is less than no money. So tax cuts are out of the question- the frozen thresholds means that taxes are going up, if anything. And immigration is the only thing keeping health, social care and the economy moving.
So what does Rishi do?
If inflation falls through the government's tight control of spending then that would allow for a cut in the basic rate especially, perhaps promise of raising the IHT threshold to £1 million for all estates if the Tories are re elected.
Economic migrants are certainly not all working in the NHS and migration remains a key concern for Tory to RefUK swing voters
If strawberry plants achieve sentience and send intergalactic starships to the Magellanic Clouds, and if Boris Johnson solves the P versus NP problem, the Tories might be re-elected.
Edit: ... and in any case most estates are 1m free of IHT, if they are of the Tory-approved nuclear family un-woke variety. So why bother changing?
Only the main property of married couples via transfer, not assets beyond the main property or for children of divorced couples or where one died before Osborne's tax reform.
The IHT threshold is still £325k, it should be raised to £1 million in my view and that should be in the Tory manifesto next year as a promise if they are re elected
The practical limit is 1m for approved politically correct families as far as most people realise - IHT is only ever an issue with the second death of the married couple.
£1M per person woiuld be absolutely outrageous and a further kick in the teeth of working people and a further sign that Tories and their elderly voters are parasitic leeches on society.
Only a whinging far left socialist like you would think removing decent middle class families out of IHT whether the parents are married or not and for all assets not just the main residence and leaving it only for the very rich was somehow 'outrageous.'
I am not a far left whinging socialist but a one nation conservative who considers IHT a fair tax based on £325,000
Why should those of us in the north give wealthy southerners a million pound bung
As you have far cheaper house prices and don't need inheritances as much (though those with detached properties or significant savings in the North and Wales would also benefit from an increase in the IHT to £1 million)
Nobody should aspire to inherit anything. You should live by your own means if you can.
In any case, IHT is already £1m even on the death of both parents as any unused allowance is carried over.
So it is actually £325k x 2 + £350k for the main home = £1m.
Why shouldn't they?
I am a Tory and believe in inherited wealth and the family.
If I believed in pure individualism and wealth created by individual earnings alone I would be a Liberal not a Tory
Well, I don't know about you, but I'd feel pretty guilty living off someone else's money if I was capable of looking after myself.
The kind of people that don't end up gluing themselves to roads out of boredom.
You can't live off an inheritance comfortably if it is less than £1 million, only if you inherit say £4 million+.
Those super rich estates would still pay IHT if the threshold was £1 million
Depends what you mean by comfortably. You could easily scoop the median salary on interest alone. If you're 40 and prudent, a million lump sum is enough to retire on.
Half of it would go on property in the South, it certainly wouldn't all go on annual earnings
You don't have to buy and you don't have to live in the south
If you don't buy half of it would have to be put aside for rent
You can rent a 4 bed house for £1000 a month in some parts of the country. Even cheaper if you are happy with smaller.
Reform on 10% now just 2% off of UKIP's voteshare in 2015, Farage may be tempted to return to lead them if that becomes consistent.
However plenty of time for Sunak and Hunt to win back voters from Reform with tax cuts and reductions in immigration
Except in reality... neither of those works, does it?
There is less than no money. So tax cuts are out of the question- the frozen thresholds means that taxes are going up, if anything. And immigration is the only thing keeping health, social care and the economy moving.
So what does Rishi do?
If inflation falls through the government's tight control of spending then that would allow for a cut in the basic rate especially, perhaps promise of raising the IHT threshold to £1 million for all estates if the Tories are re elected.
Economic migrants are certainly not all working in the NHS and migration remains a key concern for Tory to RefUK swing voters
If strawberry plants achieve sentience and send intergalactic starships to the Magellanic Clouds, and if Boris Johnson solves the P versus NP problem, the Tories might be re-elected.
Edit: ... and in any case most estates are 1m free of IHT, if they are of the Tory-approved nuclear family un-woke variety. So why bother changing?
Only the main property of married couples via transfer, not assets beyond the main property or for children of divorced couples or where one died before Osborne's tax reform.
The IHT threshold is still £325k, it should be raised to £1 million in my view and that should be in the Tory manifesto next year as a promise if they are re elected
The practical limit is 1m for approved politically correct families as far as most people realise - IHT is only ever an issue with the second death of the married couple.
£1M per person woiuld be absolutely outrageous and a further kick in the teeth of working people and a further sign that Tories and their elderly voters are parasitic leeches on society.
Only a whinging far left socialist like you would think removing decent middle class families out of IHT whether the parents are married or not and for all assets not just the main residence and leaving it only for the very rich was somehow 'outrageous.'
I am not a far left whinging socialist but a one nation conservative who considers IHT a fair tax based on £325,000
Why should those of us in the north give wealthy southerners a million pound bung
As you have far cheaper house prices and don't need inheritances as much (though those with detached properties or significant savings in the North and Wales would also benefit from an increase in the IHT to £1 million)
Nobody should aspire to inherit anything. You should live by your own means if you can.
In any case, IHT is already £1m even on the death of both parents as any unused allowance is carried over.
So it is actually £325k x 2 + £350k for the main home = £1m.
Why shouldn't they?
I am a Tory and believe in inherited wealth and the family.
If I believed in pure individualism and wealth created by individual earnings alone I would be a Liberal not a Tory
Well, I don't know about you, but I'd feel pretty guilty living off someone else's money if I was capable of looking after myself.
The kind of people that don't end up gluing themselves to roads out of boredom.
You can't live off an inheritance comfortably if it is less than £1 million, only if you inherit say £4 million+.
Those super rich estates would still pay IHT if the threshold was £1 million
Depends what you mean by comfortably. You could easily scoop the median salary on interest alone. If you're 40 and prudent, a million lump sum is enough to retire on.
Half of it would go on property in the South, it certainly wouldn't all go on annual earnings
You don't have to buy and you don't have to live in the south
If you don't buy half of it would have to be put aside for rent
Like people who work for a living. What's your problem with that?
Rents are far cheaper in the North where you live than London or the South East so inheritance is less needed
Inheritance is never needed. Most people will never get any inheritance, certainly not by the time they'll want to buy themselves.
Get a job you bum. Don't rely on welfare or inheritance.
Reform on 10% now just 2% off of UKIP's voteshare in 2015, Farage may be tempted to return to lead them if that becomes consistent.
However plenty of time for Sunak and Hunt to win back voters from Reform with tax cuts and reductions in immigration
Except in reality... neither of those works, does it?
There is less than no money. So tax cuts are out of the question- the frozen thresholds means that taxes are going up, if anything. And immigration is the only thing keeping health, social care and the economy moving.
So what does Rishi do?
If inflation falls through the government's tight control of spending then that would allow for a cut in the basic rate especially, perhaps promise of raising the IHT threshold to £1 million for all estates if the Tories are re elected.
Economic migrants are certainly not all working in the NHS and migration remains a key concern for Tory to RefUK swing voters
If strawberry plants achieve sentience and send intergalactic starships to the Magellanic Clouds, and if Boris Johnson solves the P versus NP problem, the Tories might be re-elected.
Edit: ... and in any case most estates are 1m free of IHT, if they are of the Tory-approved nuclear family un-woke variety. So why bother changing?
Only the main property of married couples via transfer, not assets beyond the main property or for children of divorced couples or where one died before Osborne's tax reform.
The IHT threshold is still £325k, it should be raised to £1 million in my view and that should be in the Tory manifesto next year as a promise if they are re elected
The practical limit is 1m for approved politically correct families as far as most people realise - IHT is only ever an issue with the second death of the married couple.
£1M per person woiuld be absolutely outrageous and a further kick in the teeth of working people and a further sign that Tories and their elderly voters are parasitic leeches on society.
Only a whinging far left socialist like you would think removing decent middle class families out of IHT whether the parents are married or not and for all assets not just the main residence and leaving it only for the very rich was somehow 'outrageous.'
No that’s not true. I am a long way from being a far left socialist (although I like the occasional whinge) and I think capital is not taxed nearly enough and income, specifically earned income, far too much. We need to address this balance and cutting IHT is a step in the wrong direction.
If you want to tax wealth and capital far more and income less then you are a Liberal ideogically not a Conservative Tory really even if still not a Socialist (who would want to tax capital and income more to fund an expansion of the welfare state and public sector)
But, but I don’t wear sandals, even in this heat.
Sometimes @HYUFD , you should think about the size of tent you want your party to pitch. Right now it’s looking smaller than most of those at Glasto.
You are an Orange Book LD not a Tory.
63% want to raise the IHT threshold. 48% even want to scrap IHT completely, far higher than the current Tory poll rating
I think we need to tax inheritance properly to help out with the national debt. So no more transfer of the IHT tax free threshold to the surviving partner's estate. No more £1m threshold for those with children
Get rid of all the exemptions like 'gifts out of income'
To be clear I support IHT free transfers between the widowed spouse/civil partnership relationship etc but beyond the inheritors need to pay.
And let's make it 50% on anything over £200,000
👍👍👍
A policy which if Starmer went for it would be even more unpopular than May's dementia tax and would probably be the one thing that could now win the Tories a 5th term, so despised would it be. Indeed it would hit properties even on the average UK house price
If increased taxes on inheritance led to property values going down - which it would do - it's a good thing.
It would make it easier for people from poorer backgrounds who can't rely on Mummy and Daddy money to get on the property ladder.
Good news all round!
👍
No it wouldn't, it would just mean barely anyone South of Watford could afford to buy a property. Certainly not unless they were in the top 10% of earners.
IHT revenue would go to the State, not helping people with deposits and inheriting property like inheritance does
Reform on 10% now just 2% off of UKIP's voteshare in 2015, Farage may be tempted to return to lead them if that becomes consistent.
However plenty of time for Sunak and Hunt to win back voters from Reform with tax cuts and reductions in immigration
Except in reality... neither of those works, does it?
There is less than no money. So tax cuts are out of the question- the frozen thresholds means that taxes are going up, if anything. And immigration is the only thing keeping health, social care and the economy moving.
So what does Rishi do?
If inflation falls through the government's tight control of spending then that would allow for a cut in the basic rate especially, perhaps promise of raising the IHT threshold to £1 million for all estates if the Tories are re elected.
Economic migrants are certainly not all working in the NHS and migration remains a key concern for Tory to RefUK swing voters
If strawberry plants achieve sentience and send intergalactic starships to the Magellanic Clouds, and if Boris Johnson solves the P versus NP problem, the Tories might be re-elected.
Edit: ... and in any case most estates are 1m free of IHT, if they are of the Tory-approved nuclear family un-woke variety. So why bother changing?
Only the main property of married couples via transfer, not assets beyond the main property or for children of divorced couples or where one died before Osborne's tax reform.
The IHT threshold is still £325k, it should be raised to £1 million in my view and that should be in the Tory manifesto next year as a promise if they are re elected
The practical limit is 1m for approved politically correct families as far as most people realise - IHT is only ever an issue with the second death of the married couple.
£1M per person woiuld be absolutely outrageous and a further kick in the teeth of working people and a further sign that Tories and their elderly voters are parasitic leeches on society.
Only a whinging far left socialist like you would think removing decent middle class families out of IHT whether the parents are married or not and for all assets not just the main residence and leaving it only for the very rich was somehow 'outrageous.'
No that’s not true. I am a long way from being a far left socialist (although I like the occasional whinge) and I think capital is not taxed nearly enough and income, specifically earned income, far too much. We need to address this balance and cutting IHT is a step in the wrong direction.
If you want to tax wealth and capital far more and income less then you are a Liberal ideogically not a Conservative Tory really even if still not a Socialist (who would want to tax capital and income more to fund an expansion of the welfare state and public sector)
But, but I don’t wear sandals, even in this heat.
Sometimes @HYUFD , you should think about the size of tent you want your party to pitch. Right now it’s looking smaller than most of those at Glasto.
You are an Orange Book LD not a Tory.
63% want to raise the IHT threshold. 48% even want to scrap IHT completely, far higher than the current Tory poll rating
I think we need to tax inheritance properly to help out with the national debt. So no more transfer of the IHT tax free threshold to the surviving partner's estate. No more £1m threshold for those with children
Get rid of all the exemptions like 'gifts out of income'
To be clear I support IHT free transfers between the widowed spouse/civil partnership relationship etc but beyond the inheritors need to pay.
And let's make it 50% on anything over £200,000
👍👍👍
I'd simplify it, no tax on transfers between spouses, but every penny of inheritance gets taxed the same as money people have worked for gets taxed, including of course National Insurance.
Earned income should not be taxed less than unearned income.
How can income be unearned?
Benefits: unearned Salary: earned Inheritance: unearned Posting on PB from a Russian troll farm: priceless
Reform on 10% now just 2% off of UKIP's voteshare in 2015, Farage may be tempted to return to lead them if that becomes consistent.
However plenty of time for Sunak and Hunt to win back voters from Reform with tax cuts and reductions in immigration
Except in reality... neither of those works, does it?
There is less than no money. So tax cuts are out of the question- the frozen thresholds means that taxes are going up, if anything. And immigration is the only thing keeping health, social care and the economy moving.
So what does Rishi do?
If inflation falls through the government's tight control of spending then that would allow for a cut in the basic rate especially, perhaps promise of raising the IHT threshold to £1 million for all estates if the Tories are re elected.
Economic migrants are certainly not all working in the NHS and migration remains a key concern for Tory to RefUK swing voters
If strawberry plants achieve sentience and send intergalactic starships to the Magellanic Clouds, and if Boris Johnson solves the P versus NP problem, the Tories might be re-elected.
Edit: ... and in any case most estates are 1m free of IHT, if they are of the Tory-approved nuclear family un-woke variety. So why bother changing?
Only the main property of married couples via transfer, not assets beyond the main property or for children of divorced couples or where one died before Osborne's tax reform.
The IHT threshold is still £325k, it should be raised to £1 million in my view and that should be in the Tory manifesto next year as a promise if they are re elected
The practical limit is 1m for approved politically correct families as far as most people realise - IHT is only ever an issue with the second death of the married couple.
£1M per person woiuld be absolutely outrageous and a further kick in the teeth of working people and a further sign that Tories and their elderly voters are parasitic leeches on society.
Only a whinging far left socialist like you would think removing decent middle class families out of IHT whether the parents are married or not and for all assets not just the main residence and leaving it only for the very rich was somehow 'outrageous.'
No that’s not true. I am a long way from being a far left socialist (although I like the occasional whinge) and I think capital is not taxed nearly enough and income, specifically earned income, far too much. We need to address this balance and cutting IHT is a step in the wrong direction.
If you want to tax wealth and capital far more and income less then you are a Liberal ideogically not a Conservative Tory really even if still not a Socialist (who would want to tax capital and income more to fund an expansion of the welfare state and public sector)
But, but I don’t wear sandals, even in this heat.
Sometimes @HYUFD , you should think about the size of tent you want your party to pitch. Right now it’s looking smaller than most of those at Glasto.
You are an Orange Book LD not a Tory.
63% want to raise the IHT threshold. 48% even want to scrap IHT completely, far higher than the current Tory poll rating
There is some truth in that. When I was a teenager, more than 40 years ago now, I was active in the SDP and agreed with the Orange Bookers about economics, if not the EU fawning. I've not changed much. I still believe in sound money, sensible public finances, the importance of public services which work for those who need them but are not overbearing for those who don't, equality of opportunity and as much freedom as is compatible with all of the above.
One nation Tories used to be a major and important part of the brand and I felt equally comfortable with them as they had much in common as we saw during the Coalition government. It seems to me that the Tories are defining themselves into a corner, one that has no chance at all of regaining power after they inevitably lose it. They need to refocus on what the majority of this country needs, not just the wealthy. And they could try being more hospitable to those with whom they have common ground. You should try it too.
Why should I be hospitable to Liberals I ideologically disagree with when they want to raise IHT?
Even the median house is now more than the IHT threshold on some estimates (and certainly in London and the South), it is hardly just an issue for the wealthy
On topic, the fact Putin's calling this person a traitor and a threat to the nation while his reception on the streets seems to be fairly warm and he can drive largely unmolested to Moscow with his coup d'etat trousers on suggests that there may be a problem with Russian polling?
Reform on 10% now just 2% off of UKIP's voteshare in 2015, Farage may be tempted to return to lead them if that becomes consistent.
However plenty of time for Sunak and Hunt to win back voters from Reform with tax cuts and reductions in immigration
Except in reality... neither of those works, does it?
There is less than no money. So tax cuts are out of the question- the frozen thresholds means that taxes are going up, if anything. And immigration is the only thing keeping health, social care and the economy moving.
So what does Rishi do?
If inflation falls through the government's tight control of spending then that would allow for a cut in the basic rate especially, perhaps promise of raising the IHT threshold to £1 million for all estates if the Tories are re elected.
Economic migrants are certainly not all working in the NHS and migration remains a key concern for Tory to RefUK swing voters
If strawberry plants achieve sentience and send intergalactic starships to the Magellanic Clouds, and if Boris Johnson solves the P versus NP problem, the Tories might be re-elected.
Edit: ... and in any case most estates are 1m free of IHT, if they are of the Tory-approved nuclear family un-woke variety. So why bother changing?
Only the main property of married couples via transfer, not assets beyond the main property or for children of divorced couples or where one died before Osborne's tax reform.
The IHT threshold is still £325k, it should be raised to £1 million in my view and that should be in the Tory manifesto next year as a promise if they are re elected
The practical limit is 1m for approved politically correct families as far as most people realise - IHT is only ever an issue with the second death of the married couple.
£1M per person woiuld be absolutely outrageous and a further kick in the teeth of working people and a further sign that Tories and their elderly voters are parasitic leeches on society.
Only a whinging far left socialist like you would think removing decent middle class families out of IHT whether the parents are married or not and for all assets not just the main residence and leaving it only for the very rich was somehow 'outrageous.'
No that’s not true. I am a long way from being a far left socialist (although I like the occasional whinge) and I think capital is not taxed nearly enough and income, specifically earned income, far too much. We need to address this balance and cutting IHT is a step in the wrong direction.
If you want to tax wealth and capital far more and income less then you are a Liberal ideogically not a Conservative Tory really even if still not a Socialist (who would want to tax capital and income more to fund an expansion of the welfare state and public sector)
But, but I don’t wear sandals, even in this heat.
Sometimes @HYUFD , you should think about the size of tent you want your party to pitch. Right now it’s looking smaller than most of those at Glasto.
You are an Orange Book LD not a Tory.
63% want to raise the IHT threshold. 48% even want to scrap IHT completely, far higher than the current Tory poll rating
There is some truth in that. When I was a teenager, more than 40 years ago now, I was active in the SDP and agreed with the Orange Bookers about economics, if not the EU fawning. I've not changed much. I still believe in sound money, sensible public finances, the importance of public services which work for those who need them but are not overbearing for those who don't, equality of opportunity and as much freedom as is compatible with all of the above.
One nation Tories used to be a major and important part of the brand and I felt equally comfortable with them as they had much in common as we saw during the Coalition government. It seems to me that the Tories are defining themselves into a corner, one that has no chance at all of regaining power after they inevitably lose it. They need to refocus on what the majority of this country needs, not just the wealthy. And they could try being more hospitable to those with whom they have common ground. You should try it too.
Why should I be hospitable to Liberals I ideologically disagree with when they want to raise IHT?
Because you want your coalition, with whom you will not have complete agreement on everything, to be capable of winning elections. Ideological purity is a mugs game in a FPTP system, ask the fools who followed Corbyn to destruction.
Hypothetical question. If Vladimir Putin announced that he was in favour of inherited wealth, would that be more or less important to you than his invasion of Ukraine?
Reform on 10% now just 2% off of UKIP's voteshare in 2015, Farage may be tempted to return to lead them if that becomes consistent.
However plenty of time for Sunak and Hunt to win back voters from Reform with tax cuts and reductions in immigration
Except in reality... neither of those works, does it?
There is less than no money. So tax cuts are out of the question- the frozen thresholds means that taxes are going up, if anything. And immigration is the only thing keeping health, social care and the economy moving.
So what does Rishi do?
If inflation falls through the government's tight control of spending then that would allow for a cut in the basic rate especially, perhaps promise of raising the IHT threshold to £1 million for all estates if the Tories are re elected.
Economic migrants are certainly not all working in the NHS and migration remains a key concern for Tory to RefUK swing voters
If strawberry plants achieve sentience and send intergalactic starships to the Magellanic Clouds, and if Boris Johnson solves the P versus NP problem, the Tories might be re-elected.
Edit: ... and in any case most estates are 1m free of IHT, if they are of the Tory-approved nuclear family un-woke variety. So why bother changing?
Only the main property of married couples via transfer, not assets beyond the main property or for children of divorced couples or where one died before Osborne's tax reform.
The IHT threshold is still £325k, it should be raised to £1 million in my view and that should be in the Tory manifesto next year as a promise if they are re elected
The practical limit is 1m for approved politically correct families as far as most people realise - IHT is only ever an issue with the second death of the married couple.
£1M per person woiuld be absolutely outrageous and a further kick in the teeth of working people and a further sign that Tories and their elderly voters are parasitic leeches on society.
Only a whinging far left socialist like you would think removing decent middle class families out of IHT whether the parents are married or not and for all assets not just the main residence and leaving it only for the very rich was somehow 'outrageous.'
No that’s not true. I am a long way from being a far left socialist (although I like the occasional whinge) and I think capital is not taxed nearly enough and income, specifically earned income, far too much. We need to address this balance and cutting IHT is a step in the wrong direction.
If you want to tax wealth and capital far more and income less then you are a Liberal ideogically not a Conservative Tory really even if still not a Socialist (who would want to tax capital and income more to fund an expansion of the welfare state and public sector)
But, but I don’t wear sandals, even in this heat.
Sometimes @HYUFD , you should think about the size of tent you want your party to pitch. Right now it’s looking smaller than most of those at Glasto.
You are an Orange Book LD not a Tory.
63% want to raise the IHT threshold. 48% even want to scrap IHT completely, far higher than the current Tory poll rating
I think we need to tax inheritance properly to help out with the national debt. So no more transfer of the IHT tax free threshold to the surviving partner's estate. No more £1m threshold for those with children
Get rid of all the exemptions like 'gifts out of income'
To be clear I support IHT free transfers between the widowed spouse/civil partnership relationship etc but beyond the inheritors need to pay.
And let's make it 50% on anything over £200,000
👍👍👍
I'd simplify it, no tax on transfers between spouses, but every penny of inheritance gets taxed the same as money people have worked for gets taxed, including of course National Insurance.
Earned income should not be taxed less than unearned income.
How can income be unearned?
Benefits: unearned Salary: earned Inheritance: unearned Posting on PB from a Russian troll farm: priceless
Reform on 10% now just 2% off of UKIP's voteshare in 2015, Farage may be tempted to return to lead them if that becomes consistent.
However plenty of time for Sunak and Hunt to win back voters from Reform with tax cuts and reductions in immigration
Except in reality... neither of those works, does it?
There is less than no money. So tax cuts are out of the question- the frozen thresholds means that taxes are going up, if anything. And immigration is the only thing keeping health, social care and the economy moving.
So what does Rishi do?
If inflation falls through the government's tight control of spending then that would allow for a cut in the basic rate especially, perhaps promise of raising the IHT threshold to £1 million for all estates if the Tories are re elected.
Economic migrants are certainly not all working in the NHS and migration remains a key concern for Tory to RefUK swing voters
If strawberry plants achieve sentience and send intergalactic starships to the Magellanic Clouds, and if Boris Johnson solves the P versus NP problem, the Tories might be re-elected.
Edit: ... and in any case most estates are 1m free of IHT, if they are of the Tory-approved nuclear family un-woke variety. So why bother changing?
Only the main property of married couples via transfer, not assets beyond the main property or for children of divorced couples or where one died before Osborne's tax reform.
The IHT threshold is still £325k, it should be raised to £1 million in my view and that should be in the Tory manifesto next year as a promise if they are re elected
The practical limit is 1m for approved politically correct families as far as most people realise - IHT is only ever an issue with the second death of the married couple.
£1M per person woiuld be absolutely outrageous and a further kick in the teeth of working people and a further sign that Tories and their elderly voters are parasitic leeches on society.
Only a whinging far left socialist like you would think removing decent middle class families out of IHT whether the parents are married or not and for all assets not just the main residence and leaving it only for the very rich was somehow 'outrageous.'
No that’s not true. I am a long way from being a far left socialist (although I like the occasional whinge) and I think capital is not taxed nearly enough and income, specifically earned income, far too much. We need to address this balance and cutting IHT is a step in the wrong direction.
If you want to tax wealth and capital far more and income less then you are a Liberal ideogically not a Conservative Tory really even if still not a Socialist (who would want to tax capital and income more to fund an expansion of the welfare state and public sector)
But, but I don’t wear sandals, even in this heat.
Sometimes @HYUFD , you should think about the size of tent you want your party to pitch. Right now it’s looking smaller than most of those at Glasto.
You are an Orange Book LD not a Tory.
63% want to raise the IHT threshold. 48% even want to scrap IHT completely, far higher than the current Tory poll rating
There is some truth in that. When I was a teenager, more than 40 years ago now, I was active in the SDP and agreed with the Orange Bookers about economics, if not the EU fawning. I've not changed much. I still believe in sound money, sensible public finances, the importance of public services which work for those who need them but are not overbearing for those who don't, equality of opportunity and as much freedom as is compatible with all of the above.
One nation Tories used to be a major and important part of the brand and I felt equally comfortable with them as they had much in common as we saw during the Coalition government. It seems to me that the Tories are defining themselves into a corner, one that has no chance at all of regaining power after they inevitably lose it. They need to refocus on what the majority of this country needs, not just the wealthy. And they could try being more hospitable to those with whom they have common ground. You should try it too.
Why should I be hospitable to Liberals I ideologically disagree with when they want to raise IHT?
Even the median house is now more than the IHT threshold on some estimates (and certainly in London and the South), it is hardly just an issue for the wealthy
Which is what jobs are for. So people can pay their own way.
Sad you're not getting this.
If you think you aren't capable of getting a home of your own without mummy and daddy's inheritance then maybe think why that is and get some self respect man.
Reform on 10% now just 2% off of UKIP's voteshare in 2015, Farage may be tempted to return to lead them if that becomes consistent.
However plenty of time for Sunak and Hunt to win back voters from Reform with tax cuts and reductions in immigration
Except in reality... neither of those works, does it?
There is less than no money. So tax cuts are out of the question- the frozen thresholds means that taxes are going up, if anything. And immigration is the only thing keeping health, social care and the economy moving.
So what does Rishi do?
If inflation falls through the government's tight control of spending then that would allow for a cut in the basic rate especially, perhaps promise of raising the IHT threshold to £1 million for all estates if the Tories are re elected.
Economic migrants are certainly not all working in the NHS and migration remains a key concern for Tory to RefUK swing voters
If strawberry plants achieve sentience and send intergalactic starships to the Magellanic Clouds, and if Boris Johnson solves the P versus NP problem, the Tories might be re-elected.
Edit: ... and in any case most estates are 1m free of IHT, if they are of the Tory-approved nuclear family un-woke variety. So why bother changing?
Only the main property of married couples via transfer, not assets beyond the main property or for children of divorced couples or where one died before Osborne's tax reform.
The IHT threshold is still £325k, it should be raised to £1 million in my view and that should be in the Tory manifesto next year as a promise if they are re elected
The practical limit is 1m for approved politically correct families as far as most people realise - IHT is only ever an issue with the second death of the married couple.
£1M per person woiuld be absolutely outrageous and a further kick in the teeth of working people and a further sign that Tories and their elderly voters are parasitic leeches on society.
Only a whinging far left socialist like you would think removing decent middle class families out of IHT whether the parents are married or not and for all assets not just the main residence and leaving it only for the very rich was somehow 'outrageous.'
I am not a far left whinging socialist but a one nation conservative who considers IHT a fair tax based on £325,000
Why should those of us in the north give wealthy southerners a million pound bung
As you have far cheaper house prices and don't need inheritances as much (though those with detached properties or significant savings in the North and Wales would also benefit from an increase in the IHT to £1 million)
Nobody should aspire to inherit anything. You should live by your own means if you can.
In any case, IHT is already £1m even on the death of both parents as any unused allowance is carried over.
So it is actually £325k x 2 + £350k for the main home = £1m.
Why shouldn't they?
I am a Tory and believe in inherited wealth and the family.
If I believed in pure individualism and wealth created by individual earnings alone I would be a Liberal not a Tory
Well, I don't know about you, but I'd feel pretty guilty living off someone else's money if I was capable of looking after myself.
The kind of people that don't end up gluing themselves to roads out of boredom.
You can't live off an inheritance comfortably if it is less than £1 million, only if you inherit say £4 million+.
Those super rich estates would still pay IHT if the threshold was £1 million
Depends what you mean by comfortably. You could easily scoop the median salary on interest alone. If you're 40 and prudent, a million lump sum is enough to retire on.
Half of it would go on property in the South, it certainly wouldn't all go on annual earnings
You don't have to buy and you don't have to live in the south
If you don't buy half of it would have to be put aside for rent
Like people who work for a living. What's your problem with that?
Rents are far cheaper in the North where you live than London or the South East so inheritance is less needed
Wages are higher in the South where you live than in Highland so inheritance is less needed
Average wages in the South are at most 1.5 times those in the North. House prices in the South East are about 2.5 times those in the North and house prices in London about 5 times those in the North on average
Hypothetical question. If Vladimir Putin announced that he was in favour of inherited wealth, would that be more or less important to you than his invasion of Ukraine?
Some conservatives like Putin's anti Woke, pro traditional family stance, some conservatives would like his support for inherited wealth too if that was his policy.
Doesn't mean you have to also agree with his Ukraine invasion
On topic, the fact Putin's calling this person a traitor and a threat to the nation while his reception on the streets seems to be fairly warm and he can drive largely unmolested to Moscow with his coup d'etat trousers on suggests that there may be a problem with Russian polling?
I think it's more people are loathe to get in the way of thousands of armed mercenaries. Prigozhin has made all the running on pro war TG so he's quite well liked there but I think the coup was seen as an overstep.
Reform on 10% now just 2% off of UKIP's voteshare in 2015, Farage may be tempted to return to lead them if that becomes consistent.
However plenty of time for Sunak and Hunt to win back voters from Reform with tax cuts and reductions in immigration
Except in reality... neither of those works, does it?
There is less than no money. So tax cuts are out of the question- the frozen thresholds means that taxes are going up, if anything. And immigration is the only thing keeping health, social care and the economy moving.
So what does Rishi do?
If inflation falls through the government's tight control of spending then that would allow for a cut in the basic rate especially, perhaps promise of raising the IHT threshold to £1 million for all estates if the Tories are re elected.
Economic migrants are certainly not all working in the NHS and migration remains a key concern for Tory to RefUK swing voters
If strawberry plants achieve sentience and send intergalactic starships to the Magellanic Clouds, and if Boris Johnson solves the P versus NP problem, the Tories might be re-elected.
Edit: ... and in any case most estates are 1m free of IHT, if they are of the Tory-approved nuclear family un-woke variety. So why bother changing?
Only the main property of married couples via transfer, not assets beyond the main property or for children of divorced couples or where one died before Osborne's tax reform.
The IHT threshold is still £325k, it should be raised to £1 million in my view and that should be in the Tory manifesto next year as a promise if they are re elected
The practical limit is 1m for approved politically correct families as far as most people realise - IHT is only ever an issue with the second death of the married couple.
£1M per person woiuld be absolutely outrageous and a further kick in the teeth of working people and a further sign that Tories and their elderly voters are parasitic leeches on society.
Only a whinging far left socialist like you would think removing decent middle class families out of IHT whether the parents are married or not and for all assets not just the main residence and leaving it only for the very rich was somehow 'outrageous.'
No that’s not true. I am a long way from being a far left socialist (although I like the occasional whinge) and I think capital is not taxed nearly enough and income, specifically earned income, far too much. We need to address this balance and cutting IHT is a step in the wrong direction.
If you want to tax wealth and capital far more and income less then you are a Liberal ideogically not a Conservative Tory really even if still not a Socialist (who would want to tax capital and income more to fund an expansion of the welfare state and public sector)
But, but I don’t wear sandals, even in this heat.
Sometimes @HYUFD , you should think about the size of tent you want your party to pitch. Right now it’s looking smaller than most of those at Glasto.
You are an Orange Book LD not a Tory.
63% want to raise the IHT threshold. 48% even want to scrap IHT completely, far higher than the current Tory poll rating
There is some truth in that. When I was a teenager, more than 40 years ago now, I was active in the SDP and agreed with the Orange Bookers about economics, if not the EU fawning. I've not changed much. I still believe in sound money, sensible public finances, the importance of public services which work for those who need them but are not overbearing for those who don't, equality of opportunity and as much freedom as is compatible with all of the above.
One nation Tories used to be a major and important part of the brand and I felt equally comfortable with them as they had much in common as we saw during the Coalition government. It seems to me that the Tories are defining themselves into a corner, one that has no chance at all of regaining power after they inevitably lose it. They need to refocus on what the majority of this country needs, not just the wealthy. And they could try being more hospitable to those with whom they have common ground. You should try it too.
Why should I be hospitable to Liberals I ideologically disagree with when they want to raise IHT?
Even the median house is now more than the IHT threshold on some estimates (and certainly in London and the South), it is hardly just an issue for the wealthy
Which is what jobs are for. So people can pay their own way.
Sad you're not getting this.
If you think you aren't capable of getting a home of your own without mummy and daddy's inheritance then maybe think why that is and get some self respect man.
The average person has seen a far bigger rise year on year in their house price than the wage they earn percentage wise this century.
Unless you are in the top 10% and especially the top 1% of earners, capitalism doesn't work that well for you in terms of your job earnings. It works out better for you in terms of your savings and investments and wealth from the property you earn. It works out better for you in terms of your savings and investments and wealth from the property you own and inherit
If you were president of a country, let's call it Krajina. And your country was invaded by a larger neighbour, Ruskistan. There's been fighting for over a year, and suddenly there's a mutiny in your enemy's country. It gets resolved and the mutinous military guy, Preggobich, goes to another of your neighbours which we'll call Bellendia.
If you could get your hands on a nasty poison that Ruskistan is famous for using (let's call is Covichok). Would you us the Covichok to kill Preggobich? The hope being the murder is pinned on Ruskistan and reignites the mutiny.
Would ya?
It depends. Does Preggobich support inherited wealth?
Reform on 10% now just 2% off of UKIP's voteshare in 2015, Farage may be tempted to return to lead them if that becomes consistent.
However plenty of time for Sunak and Hunt to win back voters from Reform with tax cuts and reductions in immigration
Except in reality... neither of those works, does it?
There is less than no money. So tax cuts are out of the question- the frozen thresholds means that taxes are going up, if anything. And immigration is the only thing keeping health, social care and the economy moving.
So what does Rishi do?
If inflation falls through the government's tight control of spending then that would allow for a cut in the basic rate especially, perhaps promise of raising the IHT threshold to £1 million for all estates if the Tories are re elected.
Economic migrants are certainly not all working in the NHS and migration remains a key concern for Tory to RefUK swing voters
If strawberry plants achieve sentience and send intergalactic starships to the Magellanic Clouds, and if Boris Johnson solves the P versus NP problem, the Tories might be re-elected.
Edit: ... and in any case most estates are 1m free of IHT, if they are of the Tory-approved nuclear family un-woke variety. So why bother changing?
Only the main property of married couples via transfer, not assets beyond the main property or for children of divorced couples or where one died before Osborne's tax reform.
The IHT threshold is still £325k, it should be raised to £1 million in my view and that should be in the Tory manifesto next year as a promise if they are re elected
The practical limit is 1m for approved politically correct families as far as most people realise - IHT is only ever an issue with the second death of the married couple.
£1M per person woiuld be absolutely outrageous and a further kick in the teeth of working people and a further sign that Tories and their elderly voters are parasitic leeches on society.
Only a whinging far left socialist like you would think removing decent middle class families out of IHT whether the parents are married or not and for all assets not just the main residence and leaving it only for the very rich was somehow 'outrageous.'
No that’s not true. I am a long way from being a far left socialist (although I like the occasional whinge) and I think capital is not taxed nearly enough and income, specifically earned income, far too much. We need to address this balance and cutting IHT is a step in the wrong direction.
If you want to tax wealth and capital far more and income less then you are a Liberal ideogically not a Conservative Tory really even if still not a Socialist (who would want to tax capital and income more to fund an expansion of the welfare state and public sector)
But, but I don’t wear sandals, even in this heat.
Sometimes @HYUFD , you should think about the size of tent you want your party to pitch. Right now it’s looking smaller than most of those at Glasto.
You are an Orange Book LD not a Tory.
63% want to raise the IHT threshold. 48% even want to scrap IHT completely, far higher than the current Tory poll rating
There is some truth in that. When I was a teenager, more than 40 years ago now, I was active in the SDP and agreed with the Orange Bookers about economics, if not the EU fawning. I've not changed much. I still believe in sound money, sensible public finances, the importance of public services which work for those who need them but are not overbearing for those who don't, equality of opportunity and as much freedom as is compatible with all of the above.
One nation Tories used to be a major and important part of the brand and I felt equally comfortable with them as they had much in common as we saw during the Coalition government. It seems to me that the Tories are defining themselves into a corner, one that has no chance at all of regaining power after they inevitably lose it. They need to refocus on what the majority of this country needs, not just the wealthy. And they could try being more hospitable to those with whom they have common ground. You should try it too.
Why should I be hospitable to Liberals I ideologically disagree with when they want to raise IHT?
Even the median house is now more than the IHT threshold on some estimates (and certainly in London and the South), it is hardly just an issue for the wealthy
Which is what jobs are for. So people can pay their own way.
Sad you're not getting this.
If you think you aren't capable of getting a home of your own without mummy and daddy's inheritance then maybe think why that is and get some self respect man.
NYT - U.S. officials say they suspected Prigozhin was preparing to take military action against Russia. Senior American national security officials had indications as early as Wednesday that Yevgeny Prigozhin, the leader of the Wagner Group, was preparing to take military action against senior Russian defense officials, according to officials briefed on the intelligence.
The information suggests that the United States had at least some warning of impending chaos in Russia, just as it warned in late 2021 that Vladimir V. Putin was planning to invade Ukraine.
In this case, the information was considered both solid and alarming because of the possibility that a major nuclear-armed rival of the United States could descend into chaos.
While it is not clear exactly when the United States first learned of the plot, intelligence officials conducted briefings on Wednesday with the administration and defense officials. On Thursday, as additional confirmation of the plot came in, intelligence officials informed a narrow group of congressional leaders . . . .
For months, intelligence officials have tracked rising tensions between Mr. Prigozhin and leaders of Russia’s defense ministry, including Sergei K. Shoigu, the minister of defense. . . .
But it was only in recent days that intelligence officials got the initial warnings that Mr. Prigozhin might take action.
Officials said that intelligence agencies did not know what the results of Mr. Prigozhin taking military action would be, but they were immediately worried about how it might affect the control of Russia’s arsenal of nuclear weapons. . . .
Since Mr. Prigozhin took action on Friday, American officials have been locked down, saying little publicly about his intentions or what they knew about events on the ground. Officials have been wary, both because events were moving fast and because they did not want to give Mr. Putin any excuse to blame the west for Mr. Prigozhin’s actions. But several officials said they fully expected that Mr. Putin would eventually say the uprising was the result of a foreign plot.
The concept that doing a job is earned wealth and inheriting money is unearned wealth is very much based on an individualistic view of life. People who view things in more of a non-individualistic way might not necessarily agree with those categorisations.
The concept that doing a job is earned wealth and inheriting money is unearned wealth is very much based on an individualistic view of life. People who view things in more of a non-individualistic way might not necessarily agree with those categorisations.
On topic, the fact Putin's calling this person a traitor and a threat to the nation while his reception on the streets seems to be fairly warm and he can drive largely unmolested to Moscow with his coup d'etat trousers on suggests that there may be a problem with Russian polling?
Rather sadly, it appears that Russian popular support for Putin and the SMO outweighs the opposers. Even the more anti-Putin pollsters show this (see https://www.chronicles.report/en). We assume that because *we* disdain the war that the Russians do also, and if they don't then they are deluded or coerced. I don't think this is the case: they know the facts, they're not stupid, they support it anyway. Based on past wars, that support will remain until it affects the Russians in a way that they notice and/or it becomes apparent they are losing. At that point popular opposition may sway Putin, but until then it won't.
If you were president of a country, let's call it Krajina. And your country was invaded by a larger neighbour, Ruskistan. There's been fighting for over a year, and suddenly there's a mutiny in your enemy's country. It gets resolved and the mutinous military guy, Preggobich, goes to another of your neighbours which we'll call Bellendia.
If you could get your hands on a nasty poison that Ruskistan is famous for using (let's call is Covichok). Would you us the Covichok to kill Preggobich? The hope being the murder is pinned on Ruskistan and reignites the mutiny.
Would ya?
No. If you have poison to kill your enemy, you use the poison, kill your enemy, and go home. Life's not complicated.
On topic, the fact Putin's calling this person a traitor and a threat to the nation while his reception on the streets seems to be fairly warm and he can drive largely unmolested to Moscow with his coup d'etat trousers on suggests that there may be a problem with Russian polling?
Rather sadly, it appears that Russian popular support for Putin and the SMO outweighs the opposers. Even the more anti-Putin pollsters show this (see https://www.chronicles.report/en). We assume that because *we* disdain the war that the Russians do also, and if they don't then they are deluded or coerced. I don't think this is the case: they know the facts, they're not stupid, they support it anyway. Based on past wars, that support will remain until it affects the Russians in a way that they notice and/or it becomes apparent they are losing. At that point popular opposition may sway Putin, but until then it won't.
Clearly that's what the polling says, and what I thought was probably true until yesterday. What I'm saying is that what we just saw suggests there may be something wrong with the polling, at least as far as support for Putin is concerned.
The concept that doing a job is earned wealth and inheriting money is unearned wealth is very much based on an individualistic view of life. People who view things in more of a non-individualistic way might not necessarily agree with those categorisations.
This is true. The latter are unfortunately in the ascendancy, to our detriment I feel. I know the realities of life and that life isn't fair, but it does bite hard that the country is run by people whose main source of income is inherited wealth.
On topic, the fact Putin's calling this person a traitor and a threat to the nation while his reception on the streets seems to be fairly warm and he can drive largely unmolested to Moscow with his coup d'etat trousers on suggests that there may be a problem with Russian polling?
Rather sadly, it appears that Russian popular support for Putin and the SMO outweighs the opposers. Even the more anti-Putin pollsters show this (see https://www.chronicles.report/en). We assume that because *we* disdain the war that the Russians do also, and if they don't then they are deluded or coerced. I don't think this is the case: they know the facts, they're not stupid, they support it anyway. Based on past wars, that support will remain until it affects the Russians in a way that they notice and/or it becomes apparent they are losing. At that point popular opposition may sway Putin, but until then it won't.
Clearly that's what the polling says, and what I thought was probably true until yesterday. What I'm saying is that what we just saw suggests there may be something wrong with the polling, at least as far as support for Putin is concerned.
I know. Working this out is a genuine problem. The Carnegie Endowment looked at it last year and it *appears* that support, although not homogeneous and not all firm, is genuine.
We keep getting tripped up by this. Trump is bad, Trump has high support, the polls are wrong. Putin is bad , Putin has high support, the polls are wrong. And then they win and we look stupid. Russian support is a lot like Republican support: genuine support mixed in with echo-chamber and self-selected news sources.
So although I do genuinely get your point, the counterpoint is currently more plausible.
Q - who is Most Ludicrous poster on last couple PB threads? 1. theshard 2. Riddler 3. HYUFD
A - believe PBers know the (obvious) answer.
Can we please not be so gangy-uppy on @HYUFD ? He is an almost unique specimen on PB of the old-fashioned monarchist landowner Conservative, which is still an important thread in British politics and so a valuable source of information.
On topic, the fact Putin's calling this person a traitor and a threat to the nation while his reception on the streets seems to be fairly warm and he can drive largely unmolested to Moscow with his coup d'etat trousers on suggests that there may be a problem with Russian polling?
Rather sadly, it appears that Russian popular support for Putin and the SMO outweighs the opposers. Even the more anti-Putin pollsters show this (see https://www.chronicles.report/en). We assume that because *we* disdain the war that the Russians do also, and if they don't then they are deluded or coerced. I don't think this is the case: they know the facts, they're not stupid, they support it anyway. Based on past wars, that support will remain until it affects the Russians in a way that they notice and/or it becomes apparent they are losing. At that point popular opposition may sway Putin, but until then it won't.
Clearly that's what the polling says, and what I thought was probably true until yesterday. What I'm saying is that what we just saw suggests there may be something wrong with the polling, at least as far as support for Putin is concerned.
I know. Working this out is a genuine problem. The Carnegie Endowment looked at it last year and it *appears* that support, although not homogeneous and not all firm, is genuine.
We keep getting tripped up by this. Trump is bad, Trump has high support, the polls are wrong. Putin is bad , Putin has high support, the polls are wrong. And then they win and we look stupid. Russian support is a lot like Republican support: genuine support mixed in with echo-chamber and self-selected news sources.
So although I do genuinely get your point, the counterpoint is currently more plausible.
Nothing I've said is anything do with "Putin is bad". Putin was bad yesterday and I believed the polling. Since then we've got some new information and it suggests that it may be wonky. Polling is hard, polling in authoritarian regimes is very hard.
Q - who is Most Ludicrous poster on last couple PB threads? 1. theshard 2. Riddler 3. HYUFD
A - believe PBers know the (obvious) answer.
Can we please not be so gangy-uppy on @HYUFD ? He is an almost unique specimen on PB of the old-fashioned monarchist landowner Conservative, which is still an important thread in British politics and so a valuable source of information.
Not to mention unfailingly civil even in the face of people being rude.
On topic, the fact Putin's calling this person a traitor and a threat to the nation while his reception on the streets seems to be fairly warm and he can drive largely unmolested to Moscow with his coup d'etat trousers on suggests that there may be a problem with Russian polling?
Rather sadly, it appears that Russian popular support for Putin and the SMO outweighs the opposers. Even the more anti-Putin pollsters show this (see https://www.chronicles.report/en). We assume that because *we* disdain the war that the Russians do also, and if they don't then they are deluded or coerced. I don't think this is the case: they know the facts, they're not stupid, they support it anyway. Based on past wars, that support will remain until it affects the Russians in a way that they notice and/or it becomes apparent they are losing. At that point popular opposition may sway Putin, but until then it won't.
Clearly that's what the polling says, and what I thought was probably true until yesterday. What I'm saying is that what we just saw suggests there may be something wrong with the polling, at least as far as support for Putin is concerned.
I know. Working this out is a genuine problem. The Carnegie Endowment looked at it last year and it *appears* that support, although not homogeneous and not all firm, is genuine.
We keep getting tripped up by this. Trump is bad, Trump has high support, the polls are wrong. Putin is bad , Putin has high support, the polls are wrong. And then they win and we look stupid. Russian support is a lot like Republican support: genuine support mixed in with echo-chamber and self-selected news sources.
So although I do genuinely get your point, the counterpoint is currently more plausible.
Nothing I've said is anything do with "Putin is bad". Putin was bad yesterday and I believed the polling. Since then we've got some new information and it suggests that it may be wonky. Polling is hard, polling in authoritarian regimes is very hard.
I do know that polling in authoritarian regimes is hard. But it's not just the case that the absolute value is stable, the relative value (support vs oppose) hasn't changed much since before Feb 2022.
What you saw yesterday was Wagner doing a thunder run to Moscow, stopping on the outskirts, twiddling their thumbs for a bit then being sheepishly escorted off the premises by - of all people - Lukashenko. Did they receive waves of support from an oppressed Russian populace? Flowers thrown onto the tanks? Crowds demonstrating support? Army forces defecting to them? No. What we saw was Russians holding their phones up, taking photos, then wandering off for a bit of shopping. What was in that content that made you think "The Russians oppose Putin?"
Q - who is Most Ludicrous poster on last couple PB threads? 1. theshard 2. Riddler 3. HYUFD
A - believe PBers know the (obvious) answer.
Can we please not be so gangy-uppy on @HYUFD ? He is an almost unique specimen on PB of the old-fashioned monarchist landowner Conservative, which is still an important thread in British politics and so a valuable source of information.
Not to mention unfailingly civil even in the face of people being rude.
On topic, the fact Putin's calling this person a traitor and a threat to the nation while his reception on the streets seems to be fairly warm and he can drive largely unmolested to Moscow with his coup d'etat trousers on suggests that there may be a problem with Russian polling?
Rather sadly, it appears that Russian popular support for Putin and the SMO outweighs the opposers. Even the more anti-Putin pollsters show this (see https://www.chronicles.report/en). We assume that because *we* disdain the war that the Russians do also, and if they don't then they are deluded or coerced. I don't think this is the case: they know the facts, they're not stupid, they support it anyway. Based on past wars, that support will remain until it affects the Russians in a way that they notice and/or it becomes apparent they are losing. At that point popular opposition may sway Putin, but until then it won't.
Clearly that's what the polling says, and what I thought was probably true until yesterday. What I'm saying is that what we just saw suggests there may be something wrong with the polling, at least as far as support for Putin is concerned.
I know. Working this out is a genuine problem. The Carnegie Endowment looked at it last year and it *appears* that support, although not homogeneous and not all firm, is genuine.
We keep getting tripped up by this. Trump is bad, Trump has high support, the polls are wrong. Putin is bad , Putin has high support, the polls are wrong. And then they win and we look stupid. Russian support is a lot like Republican support: genuine support mixed in with echo-chamber and self-selected news sources.
So although I do genuinely get your point, the counterpoint is currently more plausible.
Nothing I've said is anything do with "Putin is bad". Putin was bad yesterday and I believed the polling. Since then we've got some new information and it suggests that it may be wonky. Polling is hard, polling in authoritarian regimes is very hard.
I do know that polling in authoritarian regimes is hard. But it's not just the case that the absolute value is stable, the relative value (support vs oppose) hasn't changed much since before Feb 2022.
What you saw yesterday was Wagner doing a thunder run to Moscow, stopping on the outskirts, twiddling their thumbs for a bit then being sheepishly escorted off the premises by - of all people - Lukashenko. Did they receive waves of support from an oppressed Russian populace? Flowers thrown onto the tanks? Crowds demonstrating support? Army forces defecting to them? No. What we saw was Russians holding their phones up, taking photos, then wandering off for a bit of shopping. What was in that content that made you think "The Russians oppose Putin?"
On topic, the fact Putin's calling this person a traitor and a threat to the nation while his reception on the streets seems to be fairly warm and he can drive largely unmolested to Moscow with his coup d'etat trousers on suggests that there may be a problem with Russian polling?
Rather sadly, it appears that Russian popular support for Putin and the SMO outweighs the opposers. Even the more anti-Putin pollsters show this (see https://www.chronicles.report/en). We assume that because *we* disdain the war that the Russians do also, and if they don't then they are deluded or coerced. I don't think this is the case: they know the facts, they're not stupid, they support it anyway. Based on past wars, that support will remain until it affects the Russians in a way that they notice and/or it becomes apparent they are losing. At that point popular opposition may sway Putin, but until then it won't.
Clearly that's what the polling says, and what I thought was probably true until yesterday. What I'm saying is that what we just saw suggests there may be something wrong with the polling, at least as far as support for Putin is concerned.
I know. Working this out is a genuine problem. The Carnegie Endowment looked at it last year and it *appears* that support, although not homogeneous and not all firm, is genuine.
We keep getting tripped up by this. Trump is bad, Trump has high support, the polls are wrong. Putin is bad , Putin has high support, the polls are wrong. And then they win and we look stupid. Russian support is a lot like Republican support: genuine support mixed in with echo-chamber and self-selected news sources.
So although I do genuinely get your point, the counterpoint is currently more plausible.
Nothing I've said is anything do with "Putin is bad". Putin was bad yesterday and I believed the polling. Since then we've got some new information and it suggests that it may be wonky. Polling is hard, polling in authoritarian regimes is very hard.
I do know that polling in authoritarian regimes is hard. But it's not just the case that the absolute value is stable, the relative value (support vs oppose) hasn't changed much since before Feb 2022.
What you saw yesterday was Wagner doing a thunder run to Moscow, stopping on the outskirts, twiddling their thumbs for a bit then being sheepishly escorted off the premises by - of all people - Lukashenko. Did they receive waves of support from an oppressed Russian populace? Flowers thrown onto the tanks? Crowds demonstrating support? Army forces defecting to them? No. What we saw was Russians holding their phones up, taking photos, then wandering off for a bit of shopping. What was in that content that made you think "The Russians oppose Putin?"
Hmpf. Looking at the other footage i may have shot myself in the foot, as there actually were Russian civilians clapping, giving food, etc. However there weren't many, and the lack of anything more substantial still gives me pause. So I'll make you a deal. If something significant happens wrt popular support - uprisings, something more impressive than a JustStopOil protest - and the polling remains stable, then I'll look at it again. But until then the point still stands: Russian public support for the war outweighs opposition.
Who knows? It's all very strange. Nor is there much sign of Ukraine taking advantage, though they still might - perhaps the Soviet-era doctrine of never launching an offensive without weeks of preparation is still in force on both sides?
It normally seems to take a day or two to get information about military movements. There are people saying that the Ukrainians have crossed the river at Kherson and are now attacking from that end.
As they say, loose lips sink ships.
It seems the Ukrainians are more interested in winning the war than touting their own horn. Some villages liberated are being announced a week after liberation.
It makes sense, if they've punched a hole in the enemies defences then why advertise that fact, warning them to send in reinforcements? Take advantage while you can, especially since the enemies own communication and intelligence chain is rather broken.
It has been suggested that Ukraine worried about a major advance reuniting Russia, Wagner and other factions so contented themselves with popcorn memes and some minor tactical advances.
BREAKING: Wagner leader Yevgeny Prigozhin and his fighters will not be prosecuted for their attempted revolt, and he will move to Belarus, the Kremlin has said
Reform on 10% now just 2% off of UKIP's voteshare in 2015, Farage may be tempted to return to lead them if that becomes consistent.
However plenty of time for Sunak and Hunt to win back voters from Reform with tax cuts and reductions in immigration
Except in reality... neither of those works, does it?
There is less than no money. So tax cuts are out of the question- the frozen thresholds means that taxes are going up, if anything. And immigration is the only thing keeping health, social care and the economy moving.
So what does Rishi do?
If inflation falls through the government's tight control of spending then that would allow for a cut in the basic rate especially, perhaps promise of raising the IHT threshold to £1 million for all estates if the Tories are re elected.
Economic migrants are certainly not all working in the NHS and migration remains a key concern for Tory to RefUK swing voters
If strawberry plants achieve sentience and send intergalactic starships to the Magellanic Clouds, and if Boris Johnson solves the P versus NP problem, the Tories might be re-elected.
Edit: ... and in any case most estates are 1m free of IHT, if they are of the Tory-approved nuclear family un-woke variety. So why bother changing?
Only the main property of married couples via transfer, not assets beyond the main property or for children of divorced couples or where one died before Osborne's tax reform.
The IHT threshold is still £325k, it should be raised to £1 million in my view and that should be in the Tory manifesto next year as a promise if they are re elected
The practical limit is 1m for approved politically correct families as far as most people realise - IHT is only ever an issue with the second death of the married couple.
£1M per person woiuld be absolutely outrageous and a further kick in the teeth of working people and a further sign that Tories and their elderly voters are parasitic leeches on society.
Only a whinging far left socialist like you would think removing decent middle class families out of IHT whether the parents are married or not and for all assets not just the main residence and leaving it only for the very rich was somehow 'outrageous.'
I am not a far left whinging socialist but a one nation conservative who considers IHT a fair tax based on £325,000
Why should those of us in the north give wealthy southerners a million pound bung
To add to this debate:
Agricultural land is being priced out of the reach of actual farmers by the rich using a loophole to pass on wealth to kids via land that is IHT exempt.
Needs addressing
Not really a loophole - been that way for decades to prevent family farms being split up and becoming uneconomic
There are already protections in place (minimum of 100 acres, has to be in active use for agricultural purposes, etc.)
Reform on 10% now just 2% off of UKIP's voteshare in 2015, Farage may be tempted to return to lead them if that becomes consistent.
However plenty of time for Sunak and Hunt to win back voters from Reform with tax cuts and reductions in immigration
Except in reality... neither of those works, does it?
There is less than no money. So tax cuts are out of the question- the frozen thresholds means that taxes are going up, if anything. And immigration is the only thing keeping health, social care and the economy moving.
So what does Rishi do?
If inflation falls through the government's tight control of spending then that would allow for a cut in the basic rate especially, perhaps promise of raising the IHT threshold to £1 million for all estates if the Tories are re elected.
Economic migrants are certainly not all working in the NHS and migration remains a key concern for Tory to RefUK swing voters
If strawberry plants achieve sentience and send intergalactic starships to the Magellanic Clouds, and if Boris Johnson solves the P versus NP problem, the Tories might be re-elected.
Edit: ... and in any case most estates are 1m free of IHT, if they are of the Tory-approved nuclear family un-woke variety. So why bother changing?
Only the main property of married couples via transfer, not assets beyond the main property or for children of divorced couples or where one died before Osborne's tax reform.
The IHT threshold is still £325k, it should be raised to £1 million in my view and that should be in the Tory manifesto next year as a promise if they are re elected
The practical limit is 1m for approved politically correct families as far as most people realise - IHT is only ever an issue with the second death of the married couple.
£1M per person woiuld be absolutely outrageous and a further kick in the teeth of working people and a further sign that Tories and their elderly voters are parasitic leeches on society.
Only a whinging far left socialist like you would think removing decent middle class families out of IHT whether the parents are married or not and for all assets not just the main residence and leaving it only for the very rich was somehow 'outrageous.'
No that’s not true. I am a long way from being a far left socialist (although I like the occasional whinge) and I think capital is not taxed nearly enough and income, specifically earned income, far too much. We need to address this balance and cutting IHT is a step in the wrong direction.
If you want to tax wealth and capital far more and income less then you are a Liberal ideogically not a Conservative Tory really even if still not a Socialist (who would want to tax capital and income more to fund an expansion of the welfare state and public sector)
But, but I don’t wear sandals, even in this heat.
Sometimes @HYUFD , you should think about the size of tent you want your party to pitch. Right now it’s looking smaller than most of those at Glasto.
You are an Orange Book LD not a Tory.
63% want to raise the IHT threshold. 48% even want to scrap IHT completely, far higher than the current Tory poll rating
The point you always miss is that the “Tories” are only a small part of the Conservative Party. The confusion arises because the Conservatives were labelled Tories by their opponents as a political attack
Reform on 10% now just 2% off of UKIP's voteshare in 2015, Farage may be tempted to return to lead them if that becomes consistent.
However plenty of time for Sunak and Hunt to win back voters from Reform with tax cuts and reductions in immigration
Except in reality... neither of those works, does it?
There is less than no money. So tax cuts are out of the question- the frozen thresholds means that taxes are going up, if anything. And immigration is the only thing keeping health, social care and the economy moving.
So what does Rishi do?
If inflation falls through the government's tight control of spending then that would allow for a cut in the basic rate especially, perhaps promise of raising the IHT threshold to £1 million for all estates if the Tories are re elected.
Economic migrants are certainly not all working in the NHS and migration remains a key concern for Tory to RefUK swing voters
If strawberry plants achieve sentience and send intergalactic starships to the Magellanic Clouds, and if Boris Johnson solves the P versus NP problem, the Tories might be re-elected.
Edit: ... and in any case most estates are 1m free of IHT, if they are of the Tory-approved nuclear family un-woke variety. So why bother changing?
Only the main property of married couples via transfer, not assets beyond the main property or for children of divorced couples or where one died before Osborne's tax reform.
The IHT threshold is still £325k, it should be raised to £1 million in my view and that should be in the Tory manifesto next year as a promise if they are re elected
The practical limit is 1m for approved politically correct families as far as most people realise - IHT is only ever an issue with the second death of the married couple.
£1M per person woiuld be absolutely outrageous and a further kick in the teeth of working people and a further sign that Tories and their elderly voters are parasitic leeches on society.
Only a whinging far left socialist like you would think removing decent middle class families out of IHT whether the parents are married or not and for all assets not just the main residence and leaving it only for the very rich was somehow 'outrageous.'
No that’s not true. I am a long way from being a far left socialist (although I like the occasional whinge) and I think capital is not taxed nearly enough and income, specifically earned income, far too much. We need to address this balance and cutting IHT is a step in the wrong direction.
If you want to tax wealth and capital far more and income less then you are a Liberal ideogically not a Conservative Tory really even if still not a Socialist (who would want to tax capital and income more to fund an expansion of the welfare state and public sector)
But, but I don’t wear sandals, even in this heat.
Sometimes @HYUFD , you should think about the size of tent you want your party to pitch. Right now it’s looking smaller than most of those at Glasto.
You are an Orange Book LD not a Tory.
63% want to raise the IHT threshold. 48% even want to scrap IHT completely, far higher than the current Tory poll rating
I think we need to tax inheritance properly to help out with the national debt. So no more transfer of the IHT tax free threshold to the surviving partner's estate. No more £1m threshold for those with children
Get rid of all the exemptions like 'gifts out of income'
To be clear I support IHT free transfers between the widowed spouse/civil partnership relationship etc but beyond the inheritors need to pay.
And let's make it 50% on anything over £200,000
👍👍👍
I'd simplify it, no tax on transfers between spouses, but every penny of inheritance gets taxed the same as money people have worked for gets taxed, including of course National Insurance.
Earned income should not be taxed less than unearned income.
Why should savers be penalised?
Person A works hard all their life and on retirement blows 3/4 of his savings on wine, women & song (the rest he wastes). His only child gets no inheritance.
Person B works hard all his life and on retirement lives modestly and leaves 1/2 his savings to his only child.
Why should the government want to discourage thriftiness and saving?
The concept that doing a job is earned wealth and inheriting money is unearned wealth is very much based on an individualistic view of life. People who view things in more of a non-individualistic way might not necessarily agree with those categorisations.
i.e. people who are happy to sponge off their family and others
Comments
It seems the Ukrainians are more interested in winning the war than touting their own horn. Some villages liberated are being announced a week after liberation.
It makes sense, if they've punched a hole in the enemies defences then why advertise that fact, warning them to send in reinforcements? Take advantage while you can, especially since the enemies own communication and intelligence chain is rather broken.
Get a job you bum. Don't rely on welfare or inheritance.
IHT revenue would go to the State, not helping people with deposits and inheriting property like inheritance does
Salary: earned
Inheritance: unearned
Posting on PB from a Russian troll farm: priceless
Even the median house is now more than the IHT threshold on some estimates (and certainly in London and the South), it is hardly just an issue for the wealthy
https://www.statista.com/statistics/896181/putin-approval-rating-russia/
Hypothetical question. If Vladimir Putin announced that he was in favour of inherited wealth, would that be more or less important to you than his invasion of Ukraine?
Sad you're not getting this.
If you think you aren't capable of getting a home of your own without mummy and daddy's inheritance then maybe think why that is and get some self respect man.
Doesn't mean you have to also agree with his Ukraine invasion
Unless you are in the top 10% and especially the top 1% of earners, capitalism doesn't work that well for you in terms of your job earnings. It works out better for you in terms of your savings and investments and wealth from the property you earn. It works out better for you in terms of your savings and investments and wealth from the property you own and inherit
1. theshard
2. Riddler
3. HYUFD
A - believe PBers know the (obvious) answer.
Senior American national security officials had indications as early as Wednesday that Yevgeny Prigozhin, the leader of the Wagner Group, was preparing to take military action against senior Russian defense officials, according to officials briefed on the intelligence.
The information suggests that the United States had at least some warning of impending chaos in Russia, just as it warned in late 2021 that Vladimir V. Putin was planning to invade Ukraine.
In this case, the information was considered both solid and alarming because of the possibility that a major nuclear-armed rival of the United States could descend into chaos.
While it is not clear exactly when the United States first learned of the plot, intelligence officials conducted briefings on Wednesday with the administration and defense officials. On Thursday, as additional confirmation of the plot came in, intelligence officials informed a narrow group of congressional leaders . . . .
For months, intelligence officials have tracked rising tensions between Mr. Prigozhin and leaders of Russia’s defense ministry, including Sergei K. Shoigu, the minister of defense. . . .
But it was only in recent days that intelligence officials got the initial warnings that Mr. Prigozhin might take action.
Officials said that intelligence agencies did not know what the results of Mr. Prigozhin taking military action would be, but they were immediately worried about how it might affect the control of Russia’s arsenal of nuclear weapons. . . .
Since Mr. Prigozhin took action on Friday, American officials have been locked down, saying little publicly about his intentions or what they knew about events on the ground. Officials have been wary, both because events were moving fast and because they did not want to give Mr. Putin any excuse to blame the west for Mr. Prigozhin’s actions. But several officials said they fully expected that Mr. Putin would eventually say the uprising was the result of a foreign plot.
"I believe in inherited wealth"
Most people in favour of low IHT use the phrase
"I'd like to pass my stuff onto my children"
We keep getting tripped up by this. Trump is bad, Trump has high support, the polls are wrong. Putin is bad , Putin has high support, the polls are wrong. And then they win and we look stupid. Russian support is a lot like Republican support: genuine support mixed in with echo-chamber and self-selected news sources.
So although I do genuinely get your point, the counterpoint is currently more plausible.
https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/09/07/my-country-right-or-wrong-russian-public-opinion-on-ukraine-pub-87803
What you saw yesterday was Wagner doing a thunder run to Moscow, stopping on the outskirts, twiddling their thumbs for a bit then being sheepishly escorted off the premises by - of all people - Lukashenko. Did they receive waves of support from an oppressed Russian populace? Flowers thrown onto the tanks? Crowds demonstrating support? Army forces defecting to them? No. What we saw was Russians holding their phones up, taking photos, then wandering off for a bit of shopping. What was in that content that made you think "The Russians oppose Putin?"
There are already protections in place (minimum of 100 acres, has to be in active use for agricultural purposes, etc.)
Is it me, or was yesterday weird?
Person A works hard all their life and on retirement blows 3/4 of his savings on wine, women & song (the rest he wastes). His only child gets no inheritance.
Person B works hard all his life and on retirement lives modestly and leaves 1/2 his savings to his only child.
Why should the government want to discourage thriftiness and saving?