Households will pay a £170-a-year green levy on energy bills in the coming days, with Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt accused of “slyly” shifting costs back to consumers.
The Telegraph has learned that the two-year suspension of green levies announced last autumn is to end from the beginning of July, after just nine months.
Absolutely useless once again from Rishi and Jeremy.
They have absolutely no understanding of the issues and pressures that ordinary people face.
It’s stories like this, that make me think a Farage party could actually pick up seats in ‘red wall’ areas. Con and Lab must seem like two cheeks of the same arse, to those in private-sector working-class jobs.
About the only cat they can pull out of the bag now, is a serious reduction in the 20% rate of income tax, down to 15%. Even that might not be enough.
Farage's party is much more likely to be a spoiler rather than win anywhere. Also they are likely to have useless candidates.
Maybe even Reckless ones.
Talking of spoilers, a Green vote of 3-5% would stop Labour or Liberal Democrats from winning in a number of seats. Spoken as someone who lost by 35 votes in the recent local elections to the Conservatives partially thanks to a Green who didn't campaign taking 58 votes!
Yes, quite, I lost Broxtowe in 2010 partly due to the intervention of a Green candidate, who got under 1%. A few months later, he joined the Labour Party, and I had a hard time persuading loyalists not to resign in disgust that we'd welcomed him.
To be fair, it's difficult to know as a Green what to do if your ambition is to achieve Green government in the future. In principle there are only about 3 seats in Britain where they can reasonably hope to win, but we can't really expect them only to stand 3 candidates. So they stand elsewhere to show the flag.
Households will pay a £170-a-year green levy on energy bills in the coming days, with Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt accused of “slyly” shifting costs back to consumers.
The Telegraph has learned that the two-year suspension of green levies announced last autumn is to end from the beginning of July, after just nine months.
Absolutely useless once again from Rishi and Jeremy.
They have absolutely no understanding of the issues and pressures that ordinary people face.
The sooner they get the hammering at the election they deserve the better. Absolute clown show.
I’ve no enthusiasm for starmer or labour but, by god, this lot just don’t get how dire things are for many many people at the moment.
Good morning
Sunak and Hunt are following a policy of inflation reduction and at the same time do have net zero responsibilities
This news, together with yesterday's suggestion they may overrule pay review bodies, may well be responsible but it is politically tone deaf and a Starmer majority is looking a certainty
However, Starmer and Reeves will face the same economic winter and how they deal with it will be fascinating
The issue isn’t the net zero responsibility but the reneging on a commitment to help people during a cost of living crisis. It is also an open goal for the opposition.
Reeves and Starmer will find the goodwill they have when they come to power will evaporate very very quickly if they cannot get on top of these issues.
Indeed. I think goodwill towards LAB in general will evaporate very very very quickly within six months. LAB have no idea!
I keep trying to keep my pessimism in check and remind myself that we can't fully judge how Labour claims it is going to approach our desperate problems until we get an election manifesto, but I'd agree that the signs do not look encouraging. Reeves' platform, from what little we've heard so far (which seems to centre around an aversion to almost all further changes to rates of taxation, apart from a larger windfall tax on fossil fuel extraction and the abolition of tax breaks for private schools,) sounds suspiciously like continuity Toryism, plus a few quid scraped together to build some extra wind turbines.
They appear to have decided that the needs and wishes of core Conservative voters are much more important than those of core Labour voters, and will reap a well-deserved harvest of apathy and disillusionment if and when this becomes obvious. It's all very well saying that we're headed for a change election, but what happens when the voters realise that the principal change on offer is to who's going to be appearing on television to try to justify all this crap, whilst the rotten system is kept practically intact?
Nandy on Sky has just now said they would have to see the pay review bodies recommendations to assess if they were affordable prompting Trevor Philips to say
'So you are on the same page as the government'
He went on to ask her to outline one measure Labour would take to combat inflation and her response was to see banks paid savers a fair rate of interest !!!!!!
As I have said before you can change who is in no 10, but you cannot change the economics
The key is to get into Government first.
Once in Government the key is to emphasise what a hideous disaster we have inherited, it's far worse than anticipated (worked for Cameron and Osborne).
In Government they can U turn to their hearts content if they achieve a healthy majority. If they remain in a minority their hands are tied.
The key is trade with Europe. They could, early doors, call an EU Referendum worded something like "We left the European Union and are not rejoining, however the vote in 2016 was ambiguous as to what Leaving meant. Therefore, would you;
a) prefer a Tory hard Brexit which has seen our great nation crumble into the sea and your standard of living crash and burn. Or,
b) demand the Labour Government seeks a close economic arrangement with the EU, but as a distinct 3rd party.
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?
Saving isn't some unalloyed good. If everyone is thrifty all the time, the economy grinds to a halt. We need people to spend because spending creates jobs.
It's all very well saving and having your money used to invest, but investments are a bet on future spending. Spending is what drives the economy.
Besides, what's with the "penalising savers" thing?
The person who did the saving isn't getting taxed in any meaningful way, because they have gone to a place where there is no tax. (At least we assume that's the case. Maybe Hell is an eternal self assessment form.)
The people who end up with less money because of inheritance tax are the inheritors, who have generally neither saved, toiled nor spun for what they receive. That's not to be begrudged, but a world where a person's life chances depend more on inheritance and less on what they do is not a good one. You can't abolish the inheritance effect, but it's not really something to encourage, I reckon.
If your starting point is that taxes are a necessary unpleasantness to pay for a good society, then tax paid when you receive an inheritance is probably one of the less objectionable ones.
As I pointed out in the last thread for the average person unless they are in the top 10% or especially top 1% of earners capitalism is not doing much for them in terms of wage rises. House prices and capital in property and savings and shares have generally risen much more this century than average earnings.
So if the state confiscates all or most assets on the death of their owner which would have been inherited otherwise and reduces accumulation of wealth then support for capitalism beyond the top 10% of earners in the private sector will fall even further
The trouble with asset wealth, especially locked up in bricks and mortar, is you can't spend it, whereas a pay rise can pay for a new car which employs car workers or dining out which employs restaurant workers and Deliveroo riders. That is capitalism.
And capitalism and pay rises aren't delivering much for 90% of workers now, whereas assets and savings are delivering more for the average person
Capitalism is delivering for workers. We're caught in a cycle of inflation and bad policy the now, but capitalism is still good. What we're doing as a country now isn't the only way to do capitalism. We just need to adjust course, not abandon ship.
Exclude government completely and just leave the economy to the market and unless you are an investment banker, FTSE 100 company ceo or director, tech executive or Premier League footballer capitalism isn't doing a great deal for you now. For most workers their pay is rising well below inflation. At least if they own a property that still likely has a high value even if falling a bit and their savings will be boosted by rising interest rates
I'm curious to know what your solution is.
Knowing you, it's probably feudalism. It is, isn't it?
Inheritance in part and feudalism was not all bad, most peasants had a hut and a smallholding for food. There was more stability and less anxiety even if life expectancy was lower and if the work was hard in the fields it was normally there.
There was a church and inn in almost every village and town (many villages no longer even have a pub or church with services each Sunday)
The Tories won’t do themselves any favours overruling independent pay bodies on public sector pay.
We are just likely to see more and more strikes and disruption and not just from the likes of the RMT who are politically motivated.
Yes, restoring the medical pay board independence is the key demand for Consultants in the current strike ballot. Results out Tuesday, I think, first 48 hour strike on 20th July pencilled in.
I don't get a vote as not in the BMA.
Do you think they will vote to strike ? They won a key concession after the consultative ballot. Namely the pensions lifetime allowance being raised with the annual amount you can put in one increased to 60K.
Doctors are getting too greedy by far. They are among highest paid in teh country and blackmail whilst people die , live in agony is not pleasant.
I can't think of a more deserving group to get paid well. Years of hard studying and hard work, having to deal with all kinds of depressing stuff, but their work is incredibly valuable to the individual and society. If they aren't paid well, who should be?
They are well paid though already. obviously the shit bankers/finance geezers are well overpaid but compared to your average person , Doctors are at top of the tree already. Far better to pay those at the bottom who are being shat on. There are NO poor doctor's.
There certainly are poor doctors. If you're starting off on £30k and with £60k debts, are you rich?
You think that is a poor salary for a new graduate? And their pay scales see them on double that in a few years. That's before the big bucks kick in when they become consultants or GPs.
All funded by the taxes of people on much lower incomes.
As I have said before, if doctors' pay is so bad, why are applicants queueing round the block to get into med school?
Nandy on Sky has just now said they would have to see the pay review bodies recommendations to assess if they were affordable prompting Trevor Philips to say
'So you are on the same page as the government'
He went on to ask her to outline one measure Labour would take to combat inflation and her response was to see banks paid savers a fair rate of interest !!!!!!
As I have said before you can change who is in no 10, but you cannot change the economics
Getting the blessed banks to pass on more of these constant hikes in base rates to savers would be helpful - some rebalancing of the economy away from consumption and towards investment is a good idea, and not just because it ought to weaken demand in the short term and help to tame inflation - but it is still tinkering around the edges. What Labour point blank refuses to face up to is the nature of the UK as a mature Western economy full of old people, rather than an emerging market economy full of young people, which implies that:
+Growth, which is currently about zero and has been anaemic for many years, can only do so much of the heavy lifting in terms of repairing public services and lifting the struggling out of poverty - regardless of how many exciting sounding industrial initiatives are launched, it's not going to match Chinese or Indian levels +The burden of providing pension income, health and social care to an ageing population is immense, is going to get worse, and threatens to crush the working age population as the demographic pyramid inverts +Taxation of earned incomes is high, and workers (at least in the lower half of the earnings distribution) have already been bled white by the toxic combination of inflating housing costs, bills and falling real wages, and have nothing left to give
And then we need to factor in the particular British problem with residential property, which is in short supply (especially in many of the more prosperous parts of the country) and is therefore ludicrously expensive to buy and even worse to rent, at any rate privately.
None of this means that it is impossible to do anything different. It simply means that the Opposition appears to lack the will to do anything different. The program required is blindingly obvious and consists principally of major hikes in the taxation of assets and capital gains, including inheritances, and wealth taxes for the very rich, balanced by smaller but meaningful reductions in the taxation of earned incomes. Along with a big programme of social housing construction, and the replacement of the state pension triple lock with a less generous universal settlement, buttressed with means-tested support for poorer pensioners which will be substantially cheaper to fund.
It ought to be perfectly possible to squeeze a lot of money out of shire counties Tories and pass it to Labour's less well-off supporters through redistributive mechanisms such as these - because, when economic growth is weak or non-existent, as it is and is liable to continue to be for the foreseeable future, affluence is a zero-sum gain and politics is entirely about who gets what share of the available pie. Labour should be acting as Robin Hood, stripping the better off of some of their wealth and giving it to the poor in the form of better public services, higher social security benefits, lower housing costs, and allowing them to keep a larger share of their take home pay. This is not rocket science.
< So neither side are prepared to talk about the actual scope of government activity, merely the balance of pay rises and inflationary pressure.
As @MaxPB pointed out yesterday, there’s a million more civil servants today than in 2016. Pay rises need to be linked to productivity, and there needs to be an awful lot of replacement of labour with capital within the public sector.
It depends what you mean by "civil servants". There are for example a million fewer workers in local Government now than in 2010 and if you want to know what happened to austerity, that's your answer.
Throwing useless statistics like "a million more civil servants" without a scintilla of context isn't helpful. One could ask why the Conservatives (apparently once a party which believed in a smaller state) have allowed the numbers to rise so dramatically.
There are so many questions about the Conservatives' failures after 13 years of leading the Government, it really is hard to know where to start. Probably the best place is "And why should we allow you failures to have another five years of inertia, incompetence and indolence?".
Besides, there are only half a million Civil Servants in total.
Numbers have gone up, which seems to be related to the stuff that needs to be done in the UK now it isn't done in Brussels or the extra management of the border.
The total number of public sector workers doesn't seem to have gone up by a million either:
It's almost certainly true that those people are less efficient than they could be, because the state doesn't spend enough on equipment or support staff. But that's been a deliberate policy for ages, Frontline Blah Blah Blah. And whilst that's something that needs fixing, it will mean spending money upfront so that the future can benefit. And reversing the attitudes underpinning that is not going to be easy.
Various reports that Shoigu is about to be sacked, and Putin is wanting to reassert control.
His former bodyguard and governor of Tula lined up to replace Shoigu. The same sources are now claiming that it was he, Dyumin, that resolved the situation, not Lukashenko.
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?
Saving isn't some unalloyed good. If everyone is thrifty all the time, the economy grinds to a halt. We need people to spend because spending creates jobs.
It's all very well saving and having your money used to invest, but investments are a bet on future spending. Spending is what drives the economy.
Besides, what's with the "penalising savers" thing?
The person who did the saving isn't getting taxed in any meaningful way, because they have gone to a place where there is no tax. (At least we assume that's the case. Maybe Hell is an eternal self assessment form.)
The people who end up with less money because of inheritance tax are the inheritors, who have generally neither saved, toiled nor spun for what they receive. That's not to be begrudged, but a world where a person's life chances depend more on inheritance and less on what they do is not a good one. You can't abolish the inheritance effect, but it's not really something to encourage, I reckon.
If your starting point is that taxes are a necessary unpleasantness to pay for a good society, then tax paid when you receive an inheritance is probably one of the less objectionable ones.
As I pointed out in the last thread for the average person unless they are in the top 10% or especially top 1% of earners capitalism is not doing much for them in terms of wage rises. House prices and capital in property and savings and shares have generally risen much more this century than average earnings.
So if the state confiscates all or most assets on the death of their owner which would have been inherited otherwise and reduces accumulation of wealth then support for capitalism beyond the top 10% of earners in the private sector will fall even further
The trouble with asset wealth, especially locked up in bricks and mortar, is you can't spend it, whereas a pay rise can pay for a new car which employs car workers or dining out which employs restaurant workers and Deliveroo riders. That is capitalism.
And capitalism and pay rises aren't delivering much for 90% of workers now, whereas assets and savings are delivering more for the average person
Capitalism is delivering for workers. We're caught in a cycle of inflation and bad policy the now, but capitalism is still good. What we're doing as a country now isn't the only way to do capitalism. We just need to adjust course, not abandon ship.
Exclude government completely and just leave the economy to the market and unless you are an investment banker, FTSE 100 company ceo or director, tech executive or Premier League footballer capitalism isn't doing a great deal for you now. For most workers their pay is rising well below inflation. At least if they own a property that still likely has a high value even if falling a bit and their savings will be boosted by rising interest rates
I'm curious to know what your solution is.
Knowing you, it's probably feudalism. It is, isn't it?
Inheritance in part and feudalism was not all bad, most peasants had a hut and a smallholding for food. There was more stability and less anxiety even if life expectancy was lower and if the work was hard in the fields it was normally there.
There was a church and inn in almost every village and town (many villages no longer even have a pub or church with services each Sunday)
If I walked across the village green to St James's church at 1100 hours I would be in a congregation of about half a dozen. As a capitalist you have to agree that church is not economically viable- close it down, deconsecrate and sell it off for housing!
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?
Saving isn't some unalloyed good. If everyone is thrifty all the time, the economy grinds to a halt. We need people to spend because spending creates jobs.
It's all very well saving and having your money used to invest, but investments are a bet on future spending. Spending is what drives the economy.
Besides, what's with the "penalising savers" thing?
The person who did the saving isn't getting taxed in any meaningful way, because they have gone to a place where there is no tax. (At least we assume that's the case. Maybe Hell is an eternal self assessment form.)
The people who end up with less money because of inheritance tax are the inheritors, who have generally neither saved, toiled nor spun for what they receive. That's not to be begrudged, but a world where a person's life chances depend more on inheritance and less on what they do is not a good one. You can't abolish the inheritance effect, but it's not really something to encourage, I reckon.
If your starting point is that taxes are a necessary unpleasantness to pay for a good society, then tax paid when you receive an inheritance is probably one of the less objectionable ones.
As I pointed out in the last thread for the average person unless they are in the top 10% or especially top 1% of earners capitalism is not doing much for them in terms of wage rises. House prices and capital in property and savings and shares have generally risen much more this century than average earnings.
So if the state confiscates all or most assets on the death of their owner which would have been inherited otherwise and reduces accumulation of wealth then support for capitalism beyond the top 10% of earners in the private sector will fall even further
The trouble with asset wealth, especially locked up in bricks and mortar, is you can't spend it, whereas a pay rise can pay for a new car which employs car workers or dining out which employs restaurant workers and Deliveroo riders. That is capitalism.
And capitalism and pay rises aren't delivering much for 90% of workers now, whereas assets and savings are delivering more for the average person
Capitalism is delivering for workers. We're caught in a cycle of inflation and bad policy the now, but capitalism is still good. What we're doing as a country now isn't the only way to do capitalism. We just need to adjust course, not abandon ship.
Exclude government completely and just leave the economy to the market and unless you are an investment banker, FTSE 100 company ceo or director, tech executive or Premier League footballer capitalism isn't doing a great deal for you now. For most workers their pay is rising well below inflation. At least if they own a property that still likely has a high value even if falling a bit and their savings will be boosted by rising interest rates
I'm curious to know what your solution is.
Knowing you, it's probably feudalism. It is, isn't it?
Inheritance in part and feudalism was not all bad, most peasants had a hut and a smallholding for food. There was more stability and less anxiety even if life expectancy was lower and if the work was hard in the fields it was normally there.
There was a church and inn in almost every village and town (many villages no longer even have a pub or church with services each Sunday)
Brilliant. Tory manifesto right there: We guarantee that all peasants will have a hut and a smallholding for food, and a church and a pub in every village.
Households will pay a £170-a-year green levy on energy bills in the coming days, with Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt accused of “slyly” shifting costs back to consumers.
The Telegraph has learned that the two-year suspension of green levies announced last autumn is to end from the beginning of July, after just nine months.
Absolutely useless once again from Rishi and Jeremy.
They have absolutely no understanding of the issues and pressures that ordinary people face.
The sooner they get the hammering at the election they deserve the better. Absolute clown show.
I’ve no enthusiasm for starmer or labour but, by god, this lot just don’t get how dire things are for many many people at the moment.
Good morning
Sunak and Hunt are following a policy of inflation reduction and at the same time do have net zero responsibilities
This news, together with yesterday's suggestion they may overrule pay review bodies, may well be responsible but it is politically tone deaf and a Starmer majority is looking a certainty
However, Starmer and Reeves will face the same economic winter and how they deal with it will be fascinating
The issue isn’t the net zero responsibility but the reneging on a commitment to help people during a cost of living crisis. It is also an open goal for the opposition.
Reeves and Starmer will find the goodwill they have when they come to power will evaporate very very quickly if they cannot get on top of these issues.
Indeed. I think goodwill towards LAB in general will evaporate very very very quickly within six months. LAB have no idea!
I keep trying to keep my pessimism in check and remind myself that we can't fully judge how Labour claims it is going to approach our desperate problems until we get an election manifesto, but I'd agree that the signs do not look encouraging. Reeves' platform, from what little we've heard so far (which seems to centre around an aversion to almost all further changes to rates of taxation, apart from a larger windfall tax on fossil fuel extraction and the abolition of tax breaks for private schools,) sounds suspiciously like continuity Toryism, plus a few quid scraped together to build some extra wind turbines.
They appear to have decided that the needs and wishes of core Conservative voters are much more important than those of core Labour voters, and will reap a well-deserved harvest of apathy and disillusionment if and when this becomes obvious. It's all very well saying that we're headed for a change election, but what happens when the voters realise that the principal change on offer is to who's going to be appearing on television to try to justify all this crap, whilst the rotten system is kept practically intact?
We had a CLP discussion on this earlier this week, when there was a proposal to support universal school meals (to eliminate stigma and help the not-quite-poor). I argued that there were any number of deserving causes to support and Labour was going to have to pick and choose or find ourselves constantly rebelling. That got a respectful hearing and people accepted that we can't do everything (but they outvoted me to support that one).
I think Labour will if elected have a grace period of a year or so before people get fed up, but sooner or later we'll need to look at some form of wealth tax to avoid what you describe.
Households will pay a £170-a-year green levy on energy bills in the coming days, with Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt accused of “slyly” shifting costs back to consumers.
The Telegraph has learned that the two-year suspension of green levies announced last autumn is to end from the beginning of July, after just nine months.
Absolutely useless once again from Rishi and Jeremy.
They have absolutely no understanding of the issues and pressures that ordinary people face.
The sooner they get the hammering at the election they deserve the better. Absolute clown show.
I’ve no enthusiasm for starmer or labour but, by god, this lot just don’t get how dire things are for many many people at the moment.
Good morning
Sunak and Hunt are following a policy of inflation reduction and at the same time do have net zero responsibilities
This news, together with yesterday's suggestion they may overrule pay review bodies, may well be responsible but it is politically tone deaf and a Starmer majority is looking a certainty
However, Starmer and Reeves will face the same economic winter and how they deal with it will be fascinating
The issue isn’t the net zero responsibility but the reneging on a commitment to help people during a cost of living crisis. It is also an open goal for the opposition.
Reeves and Starmer will find the goodwill they have when they come to power will evaporate very very quickly if they cannot get on top of these issues.
Indeed. I think goodwill towards LAB in general will evaporate very very very quickly within six months. LAB have no idea!
I keep trying to keep my pessimism in check and remind myself that we can't fully judge how Labour claims it is going to approach our desperate problems until we get an election manifesto, but I'd agree that the signs do not look encouraging. Reeves' platform, from what little we've heard so far (which seems to centre around an aversion to almost all further changes to rates of taxation, apart from a larger windfall tax on fossil fuel extraction and the abolition of tax breaks for private schools,) sounds suspiciously like continuity Toryism, plus a few quid scraped together to build some extra wind turbines.
They appear to have decided that the needs and wishes of core Conservative voters are much more important than those of core Labour voters, and will reap a well-deserved harvest of apathy and disillusionment if and when this becomes obvious. It's all very well saying that we're headed for a change election, but what happens when the voters realise that the principal change on offer is to who's going to be appearing on television to try to justify all this crap, whilst the rotten system is kept practically intact?
I think, and hope, that you are being unduly pessimistic. Labour's sole, over-riding aim right now is to win the election. Just like Blair and Brown in 1997, they think the biggest danger to doing so is being portrayed as irresponsible with the economy. (The second biggest perceived danger is overturning Brexit - hence the "make Brexit work" slogan). So, as in 1997, Reeves is promising fiscal rectitude. The polls suggest it is working at the moment, with Labour leading the Tories on "the economy". But, once elected, I would expect Starmer to pivot towards a more redistributive tax and spend policy, including ensuring the rich, both in income and wealth, pay a higher share for the common good.
Yes. And he has to if you think about it. There's no point to him unless he wins the election and ends Tory rule. And there's no point to him if having won he pursues policies no different to Tory ones. He doesn't want to be pointless, who does? Hence the strategy now. Hence the pivot in power. Not a sudden transformation to radical socialism. Nothing that will make floating voters feel conned. So maybe 'pivot' isn't quite the word. Let's say 'shimmy'. He'll do a little shimmy after Labour have won the election. And so will I for that matter.
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?
Saving isn't some unalloyed good. If everyone is thrifty all the time, the economy grinds to a halt. We need people to spend because spending creates jobs.
It's all very well saving and having your money used to invest, but investments are a bet on future spending. Spending is what drives the economy.
Besides, what's with the "penalising savers" thing?
The person who did the saving isn't getting taxed in any meaningful way, because they have gone to a place where there is no tax. (At least we assume that's the case. Maybe Hell is an eternal self assessment form.)
The people who end up with less money because of inheritance tax are the inheritors, who have generally neither saved, toiled nor spun for what they receive. That's not to be begrudged, but a world where a person's life chances depend more on inheritance and less on what they do is not a good one. You can't abolish the inheritance effect, but it's not really something to encourage, I reckon.
If your starting point is that taxes are a necessary unpleasantness to pay for a good society, then tax paid when you receive an inheritance is probably one of the less objectionable ones.
As I pointed out in the last thread for the average person unless they are in the top 10% or especially top 1% of earners capitalism is not doing much for them in terms of wage rises. House prices and capital in property and savings and shares have generally risen much more this century than average earnings.
So if the state confiscates all or most assets on the death of their owner which would have been inherited otherwise and reduces accumulation of wealth then support for capitalism beyond the top 10% of earners in the private sector will fall even further
The trouble with asset wealth, especially locked up in bricks and mortar, is you can't spend it, whereas a pay rise can pay for a new car which employs car workers or dining out which employs restaurant workers and Deliveroo riders. That is capitalism.
And capitalism and pay rises aren't delivering much for 90% of workers now, whereas assets and savings are delivering more for the average person
Capitalism is delivering for workers. We're caught in a cycle of inflation and bad policy the now, but capitalism is still good. What we're doing as a country now isn't the only way to do capitalism. We just need to adjust course, not abandon ship.
Exclude government completely and just leave the economy to the market and unless you are an investment banker, FTSE 100 company ceo or director, tech executive or Premier League footballer capitalism isn't doing a great deal for you now. For most workers their pay is rising well below inflation. At least if they own a property that still likely has a high value even if falling a bit and their savings will be boosted by rising interest rates
I'm curious to know what your solution is.
Knowing you, it's probably feudalism. It is, isn't it?
Inheritance in part and feudalism was not all bad, most peasants had a hut and a smallholding for food. There was more stability and less anxiety even if life expectancy was lower and if the work was hard in the fields it was normally there.
There was a church and inn in almost every village and town (many villages no longer even have a pub or church with services each Sunday)
Brilliant. Tory manifesto right there: We guarantee that all peasants will have a hut and a smallholding for food, and a church and a pub in every village.
I expect it would at least give us a poll bounce from the current very low Tory poll rating!
Nandy on Sky has just now said they would have to see the pay review bodies recommendations to assess if they were affordable prompting Trevor Philips to say
'So you are on the same page as the government'
He went on to ask her to outline one measure Labour would take to combat inflation and her response was to see banks paid savers a fair rate of interest !!!!!!
As I have said before you can change who is in no 10, but you cannot change the economics
Getting the blessed banks to pass on more of these constant hikes in base rates to savers would be helpful - some rebalancing of the economy away from consumption and towards investment is a good idea, and not just because it ought to weaken demand in the short term and help to tame inflation - but it is still tinkering around the edges. What Labour point blank refuses to face up to is the nature of the UK as a mature Western economy full of old people, rather than an emerging market economy full of young people, which implies that:
+Growth, which is currently about zero and has been anaemic for many years, can only do so much of the heavy lifting in terms of repairing public services and lifting the struggling out of poverty - regardless of how many exciting sounding industrial initiatives are launched, it's not going to match Chinese or Indian levels +The burden of providing pension income, health and social care to an ageing population is immense, is going to get worse, and threatens to crush the working age population as the demographic pyramid inverts +Taxation of earned incomes is high, and workers (at least in the lower half of the earnings distribution) have already been bled white by the toxic combination of inflating housing costs, bills and falling real wages, and have nothing left to give
And then we need to factor in the particular British problem with residential property, which is in short supply (especially in many of the more prosperous parts of the country) and is therefore ludicrously expensive to buy and even worse to rent, at any rate privately.
None of this means that it is impossible to do anything different. It simply means that the Opposition appears to lack the will to do anything different. The program required is blindingly obvious and consists principally of major hikes in the taxation of assets and capital gains, including inheritances, and wealth taxes for the very rich, balanced by smaller but meaningful reductions in the taxation of earned incomes. Along with a big programme of social housing construction, and the replacement of the state pension triple lock with a less generous universal settlement, buttressed with means-tested support for poorer pensioners which will be substantially cheaper to fund.
It ought to be perfectly possible to squeeze a lot of money out of shire counties Tories and pass it to Labour's less well-off supporters through redistributive mechanisms such as these - because, when economic growth is weak or non-existent, as it is and is liable to continue to be for the foreseeable future, affluence is a zero-sum gain and politics is entirely about who gets what share of the available pie. Labour should be acting as Robin Hood, stripping the better off of some of their wealth and giving it to the poor in the form of better public services, higher social security benefits, lower housing costs, and allowing them to keep a larger share of their take home pay. This is not rocket science.
Excellent response and little to disagree with only is Starmer going to propose asset taxation and capital gains taxes plus reductions in IT and a real wealth tax ?
Households will pay a £170-a-year green levy on energy bills in the coming days, with Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt accused of “slyly” shifting costs back to consumers.
The Telegraph has learned that the two-year suspension of green levies announced last autumn is to end from the beginning of July, after just nine months.
Absolutely useless once again from Rishi and Jeremy.
They have absolutely no understanding of the issues and pressures that ordinary people face.
The sooner they get the hammering at the election they deserve the better. Absolute clown show.
I’ve no enthusiasm for starmer or labour but, by god, this lot just don’t get how dire things are for many many people at the moment.
Good morning
Sunak and Hunt are following a policy of inflation reduction and at the same time do have net zero responsibilities
This news, together with yesterday's suggestion they may overrule pay review bodies, may well be responsible but it is politically tone deaf and a Starmer majority is looking a certainty
However, Starmer and Reeves will face the same economic winter and how they deal with it will be fascinating
The issue isn’t the net zero responsibility but the reneging on a commitment to help people during a cost of living crisis. It is also an open goal for the opposition.
Reeves and Starmer will find the goodwill they have when they come to power will evaporate very very quickly if they cannot get on top of these issues.
Indeed. I think goodwill towards LAB in general will evaporate very very very quickly within six months. LAB have no idea!
I keep trying to keep my pessimism in check and remind myself that we can't fully judge how Labour claims it is going to approach our desperate problems until we get an election manifesto, but I'd agree that the signs do not look encouraging. Reeves' platform, from what little we've heard so far (which seems to centre around an aversion to almost all further changes to rates of taxation, apart from a larger windfall tax on fossil fuel extraction and the abolition of tax breaks for private schools,) sounds suspiciously like continuity Toryism, plus a few quid scraped together to build some extra wind turbines.
They appear to have decided that the needs and wishes of core Conservative voters are much more important than those of core Labour voters, and will reap a well-deserved harvest of apathy and disillusionment if and when this becomes obvious. It's all very well saying that we're headed for a change election, but what happens when the voters realise that the principal change on offer is to who's going to be appearing on television to try to justify all this crap, whilst the rotten system is kept practically intact?
Nandy on Sky has just now said they would have to see the pay review bodies recommendations to assess if they were affordable prompting Trevor Philips to say
'So you are on the same page as the government'
He went on to ask her to outline one measure Labour would take to combat inflation and her response was to see banks paid savers a fair rate of interest !!!!!!
As I have said before you can change who is in no 10, but you cannot change the economics
The key is to get into Government first.
Once in Government the key is to emphasise what a hideous disaster we have inherited, it's far worse than anticipated (worked for Cameron and Osborne).
In Government they can U turn to their hearts content if they achieve a healthy majority. If they remain in a minority their hands are tied.
The key is trade with Europe. They could, early doors, call an EU Referendum worded something like "We left the European Union and are not rejoining, however the vote in 2016 was ambiguous as to what Leaving meant. Therefore, would you;
a) prefer a Tory hard Brexit which has seen our great nation crumble into the sea and your standard of living crash and burn. Or,
b) demand the Labour Government seeks a close economic arrangement with the EU, but as a distinct 3rd party.
No referendum needed for that, and Sunak is already charting that course. It’s also the EU is the root of all our issues/Brexit is the root of all our issues problem (delete as appropriate). We have been stagnant as a nation for many years, well before Brexit. Frictionless trade with the EU will help, but won’t solve our structural problems.
So have the Wagner troops all gone to Belarus? What are they going to do there? Or have they gone back to the front in Ukraine? Or are they out of the war entirely?
Some are becoming contrakti in the RF armed forces, some will melt away to whatever muddy, backward, shithole they came from, some will go the new PMCs; Convoy, Kadyrov's and that one that the head of the Russian Prison Service is starting. PMC Porridge.
For all those of you who don't speak @Dura_Ace, here is a free translation
Some (of the Wagner troops) are becoming contrakti (contract employers, ie mercenaries) in the RF (Russian Federation) armed forces, some will melt away to whatever muddy, backward, shithole they came from (everything East of Moscow), some will go the new PMCs (Private Military Companies: mercenary groups); Convoy (PMC Convoy, a mercenary group started by Crimean Sergey Aksyonov), Kadyrov's (an as-yet-unnamed PMC started by Chechen Ramzan Kadyrov) and that one that the head of the Russian Prison Service is starting (an as-yet-unnamed PMC started by Federal Penitentiary Service head Sergei Chemezov). PMC Porridge (a humorous reference to "porridge", British slang for a prison term and a popular 1970's BBC comedy series)
Households will pay a £170-a-year green levy on energy bills in the coming days, with Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt accused of “slyly” shifting costs back to consumers.
The Telegraph has learned that the two-year suspension of green levies announced last autumn is to end from the beginning of July, after just nine months.
Absolutely useless once again from Rishi and Jeremy.
They have absolutely no understanding of the issues and pressures that ordinary people face.
The sooner they get the hammering at the election they deserve the better. Absolute clown show.
I’ve no enthusiasm for starmer or labour but, by god, this lot just don’t get how dire things are for many many people at the moment.
Good morning
Sunak and Hunt are following a policy of inflation reduction and at the same time do have net zero responsibilities
This news, together with yesterday's suggestion they may overrule pay review bodies, may well be responsible but it is politically tone deaf and a Starmer majority is looking a certainty
However, Starmer and Reeves will face the same economic winter and how they deal with it will be fascinating
The issue isn’t the net zero responsibility but the reneging on a commitment to help people during a cost of living crisis. It is also an open goal for the opposition.
Reeves and Starmer will find the goodwill they have when they come to power will evaporate very very quickly if they cannot get on top of these issues.
Indeed. I think goodwill towards LAB in general will evaporate very very very quickly within six months. LAB have no idea!
I keep trying to keep my pessimism in check and remind myself that we can't fully judge how Labour claims it is going to approach our desperate problems until we get an election manifesto, but I'd agree that the signs do not look encouraging. Reeves' platform, from what little we've heard so far (which seems to centre around an aversion to almost all further changes to rates of taxation, apart from a larger windfall tax on fossil fuel extraction and the abolition of tax breaks for private schools,) sounds suspiciously like continuity Toryism, plus a few quid scraped together to build some extra wind turbines.
They appear to have decided that the needs and wishes of core Conservative voters are much more important than those of core Labour voters, and will reap a well-deserved harvest of apathy and disillusionment if and when this becomes obvious. It's all very well saying that we're headed for a change election, but what happens when the voters realise that the principal change on offer is to who's going to be appearing on television to try to justify all this crap, whilst the rotten system is kept practically intact?
We had a CLP discussion on this earlier this week, when there was a proposal to support universal school meals (to eliminate stigma and help the not-quite-poor). I argued that there were any number of deserving causes to support and Labour was going to have to pick and choose or find ourselves constantly rebelling. That got a respectful hearing and people accepted that we can't do everything (but they outvoted me to support that one).
I think Labour will if elected have a grace period of a year or so before people get fed up, but sooner or later we'll need to look at some form of wealth tax to avoid what you describe.
Surely as a seasoned politician you would agree it's better for Labour to wade straight in with their boots on than pussy around for a while first? Assuming of course a reasonable majority.
Households will pay a £170-a-year green levy on energy bills in the coming days, with Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt accused of “slyly” shifting costs back to consumers.
The Telegraph has learned that the two-year suspension of green levies announced last autumn is to end from the beginning of July, after just nine months.
Absolutely useless once again from Rishi and Jeremy.
They have absolutely no understanding of the issues and pressures that ordinary people face.
The sooner they get the hammering at the election they deserve the better. Absolute clown show.
I’ve no enthusiasm for starmer or labour but, by god, this lot just don’t get how dire things are for many many people at the moment.
Good morning
Sunak and Hunt are following a policy of inflation reduction and at the same time do have net zero responsibilities
This news, together with yesterday's suggestion they may overrule pay review bodies, may well be responsible but it is politically tone deaf and a Starmer majority is looking a certainty
However, Starmer and Reeves will face the same economic winter and how they deal with it will be fascinating
The issue isn’t the net zero responsibility but the reneging on a commitment to help people during a cost of living crisis. It is also an open goal for the opposition.
Reeves and Starmer will find the goodwill they have when they come to power will evaporate very very quickly if they cannot get on top of these issues.
Indeed. I think goodwill towards LAB in general will evaporate very very very quickly within six months. LAB have no idea!
I keep trying to keep my pessimism in check and remind myself that we can't fully judge how Labour claims it is going to approach our desperate problems until we get an election manifesto, but I'd agree that the signs do not look encouraging. Reeves' platform, from what little we've heard so far (which seems to centre around an aversion to almost all further changes to rates of taxation, apart from a larger windfall tax on fossil fuel extraction and the abolition of tax breaks for private schools,) sounds suspiciously like continuity Toryism, plus a few quid scraped together to build some extra wind turbines.
They appear to have decided that the needs and wishes of core Conservative voters are much more important than those of core Labour voters, and will reap a well-deserved harvest of apathy and disillusionment if and when this becomes obvious. It's all very well saying that we're headed for a change election, but what happens when the voters realise that the principal change on offer is to who's going to be appearing on television to try to justify all this crap, whilst the rotten system is kept practically intact?
I think, and hope, that you are being unduly pessimistic. Labour's sole, over-riding aim right now is to win the election. Just like Blair and Brown in 1997, they think the biggest danger to doing so is being portrayed as irresponsible with the economy. (The second biggest perceived danger is overturning Brexit - hence the "make Brexit work" slogan). So, as in 1997, Reeves is promising fiscal rectitude. The polls suggest it is working at the moment, with Labour leading the Tories on "the economy". But, once elected, I would expect Starmer to pivot towards a more redistributive tax and spend policy, including ensuring the rich, both in income and wealth, pay a higher share for the common good.
Yes. And he has to if you think about it. There's no point to him unless he wins the election and ends Tory rule. And there's no point to him if having won he pursues policies no different to Tory ones. He doesn't want to be pointless, who does? Hence the strategy now. Hence the pivot in power. Not a sudden transformation to radical socialism. Nothing that will make floating voters feel conned. So maybe 'pivot' isn't quite the word. Let's say 'shimmy'. He'll do a little shimmy after Labour have won the election. And so will I for that matter.
All together now:
"We knew things were bad, but even we couldn't have imagined quite how bad a mess the Tories would leave for us to clear up. So we have to do these things to fix Britain..."
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?
Saving isn't some unalloyed good. If everyone is thrifty all the time, the economy grinds to a halt. We need people to spend because spending creates jobs.
It's all very well saving and having your money used to invest, but investments are a bet on future spending. Spending is what drives the economy.
Besides, what's with the "penalising savers" thing?
The person who did the saving isn't getting taxed in any meaningful way, because they have gone to a place where there is no tax. (At least we assume that's the case. Maybe Hell is an eternal self assessment form.)
The people who end up with less money because of inheritance tax are the inheritors, who have generally neither saved, toiled nor spun for what they receive. That's not to be begrudged, but a world where a person's life chances depend more on inheritance and less on what they do is not a good one. You can't abolish the inheritance effect, but it's not really something to encourage, I reckon.
If your starting point is that taxes are a necessary unpleasantness to pay for a good society, then tax paid when you receive an inheritance is probably one of the less objectionable ones.
As I pointed out in the last thread for the average person unless they are in the top 10% or especially top 1% of earners capitalism is not doing much for them in terms of wage rises. House prices and capital in property and savings and shares have generally risen much more this century than average earnings.
So if the state confiscates all or most assets on the death of their owner which would have been inherited otherwise and reduces accumulation of wealth then support for capitalism beyond the top 10% of earners in the private sector will fall even further
The trouble with asset wealth, especially locked up in bricks and mortar, is you can't spend it, whereas a pay rise can pay for a new car which employs car workers or dining out which employs restaurant workers and Deliveroo riders. That is capitalism.
And capitalism and pay rises aren't delivering much for 90% of workers now, whereas assets and savings are delivering more for the average person
Capitalism is delivering for workers. We're caught in a cycle of inflation and bad policy the now, but capitalism is still good. What we're doing as a country now isn't the only way to do capitalism. We just need to adjust course, not abandon ship.
Exclude government completely and just leave the economy to the market and unless you are an investment banker, FTSE 100 company ceo or director, tech executive or Premier League footballer capitalism isn't doing a great deal for you now. For most workers their pay is rising well below inflation. At least if they own a property that still likely has a high value even if falling a bit and their savings will be boosted by rising interest rates
I'm curious to know what your solution is.
Knowing you, it's probably feudalism. It is, isn't it?
Inheritance in part and feudalism was not all bad, most peasants had a hut and a smallholding for food. There was more stability and less anxiety even if life expectancy was lower and if the work was hard in the fields it was normally there.
There was a church and inn in almost every village and town (many villages no longer even have a pub or church with services each Sunday)
If I walked across the village green to St James's church at 1100 hours I would be in a congregation of about half a dozen. As a capitalist you have to agree that church is not economically viable- close it down, deconsecrate and sell it off for housing!
No, the congregation's reward regardless of size will be eternal life with Christ who managed with just 12 followers originally
Households will pay a £170-a-year green levy on energy bills in the coming days, with Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt accused of “slyly” shifting costs back to consumers.
The Telegraph has learned that the two-year suspension of green levies announced last autumn is to end from the beginning of July, after just nine months.
Absolutely useless once again from Rishi and Jeremy.
They have absolutely no understanding of the issues and pressures that ordinary people face.
The sooner they get the hammering at the election they deserve the better. Absolute clown show.
I’ve no enthusiasm for starmer or labour but, by god, this lot just don’t get how dire things are for many many people at the moment.
Good morning
Sunak and Hunt are following a policy of inflation reduction and at the same time do have net zero responsibilities
This news, together with yesterday's suggestion they may overrule pay review bodies, may well be responsible but it is politically tone deaf and a Starmer majority is looking a certainty
However, Starmer and Reeves will face the same economic winter and how they deal with it will be fascinating
The issue isn’t the net zero responsibility but the reneging on a commitment to help people during a cost of living crisis. It is also an open goal for the opposition.
Reeves and Starmer will find the goodwill they have when they come to power will evaporate very very quickly if they cannot get on top of these issues.
Indeed. I think goodwill towards LAB in general will evaporate very very very quickly within six months. LAB have no idea!
I keep trying to keep my pessimism in check and remind myself that we can't fully judge how Labour claims it is going to approach our desperate problems until we get an election manifesto, but I'd agree that the signs do not look encouraging. Reeves' platform, from what little we've heard so far (which seems to centre around an aversion to almost all further changes to rates of taxation, apart from a larger windfall tax on fossil fuel extraction and the abolition of tax breaks for private schools,) sounds suspiciously like continuity Toryism, plus a few quid scraped together to build some extra wind turbines.
They appear to have decided that the needs and wishes of core Conservative voters are much more important than those of core Labour voters, and will reap a well-deserved harvest of apathy and disillusionment if and when this becomes obvious. It's all very well saying that we're headed for a change election, but what happens when the voters realise that the principal change on offer is to who's going to be appearing on television to try to justify all this crap, whilst the rotten system is kept practically intact?
Nandy on Sky has just now said they would have to see the pay review bodies recommendations to assess if they were affordable prompting Trevor Philips to say
'So you are on the same page as the government'
He went on to ask her to outline one measure Labour would take to combat inflation and her response was to see banks paid savers a fair rate of interest !!!!!!
As I have said before you can change who is in no 10, but you cannot change the economics
The key is to get into Government first.
Once in Government the key is to emphasise what a hideous disaster we have inherited, it's far worse than anticipated (worked for Cameron and Osborne).
In Government they can U turn to their hearts content if they achieve a healthy majority. If they remain in a minority their hands are tied.
The key is trade with Europe. They could, early doors, call an EU Referendum worded something like "We left the European Union and are not rejoining, however the vote in 2016 was ambiguous as to what Leaving meant. Therefore, would you;
a) prefer a Tory hard Brexit which has seen our great nation crumble into the sea and your standard of living crash and burn. Or,
b) demand the Labour Government seeks a close economic arrangement with the EU, but as a distinct 3rd party.
Are you really suggesting Labour will be looking at an EU Referendum in their first term ?
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?
Saving isn't some unalloyed good. If everyone is thrifty all the time, the economy grinds to a halt. We need people to spend because spending creates jobs.
It's all very well saving and having your money used to invest, but investments are a bet on future spending. Spending is what drives the economy.
Besides, what's with the "penalising savers" thing?
The person who did the saving isn't getting taxed in any meaningful way, because they have gone to a place where there is no tax. (At least we assume that's the case. Maybe Hell is an eternal self assessment form.)
The people who end up with less money because of inheritance tax are the inheritors, who have generally neither saved, toiled nor spun for what they receive. That's not to be begrudged, but a world where a person's life chances depend more on inheritance and less on what they do is not a good one. You can't abolish the inheritance effect, but it's not really something to encourage, I reckon.
If your starting point is that taxes are a necessary unpleasantness to pay for a good society, then tax paid when you receive an inheritance is probably one of the less objectionable ones.
As I pointed out in the last thread for the average person unless they are in the top 10% or especially top 1% of earners capitalism is not doing much for them in terms of wage rises. House prices and capital in property and savings and shares have generally risen much more this century than average earnings.
So if the state confiscates all or most assets on the death of their owner which would have been inherited otherwise and reduces accumulation of wealth then support for capitalism beyond the top 10% of earners in the private sector will fall even further
The trouble with asset wealth, especially locked up in bricks and mortar, is you can't spend it, whereas a pay rise can pay for a new car which employs car workers or dining out which employs restaurant workers and Deliveroo riders. That is capitalism.
And capitalism and pay rises aren't delivering much for 90% of workers now, whereas assets and savings are delivering more for the average person
Capitalism is delivering for workers. We're caught in a cycle of inflation and bad policy the now, but capitalism is still good. What we're doing as a country now isn't the only way to do capitalism. We just need to adjust course, not abandon ship.
Exclude government completely and just leave the economy to the market and unless you are an investment banker, FTSE 100 company ceo or director, tech executive or Premier League footballer capitalism isn't doing a great deal for you now. For most workers their pay is rising well below inflation. At least if they own a property that still likely has a high value even if falling a bit and their savings will be boosted by rising interest rates
I'm curious to know what your solution is.
Knowing you, it's probably feudalism. It is, isn't it?
Inheritance in part and feudalism was not all bad, most peasants had a hut and a smallholding for food. There was more stability and less anxiety even if life expectancy was lower and if the work was hard in the fields it was normally there.
There was a church and inn in almost every village and town (many villages no longer even have a pub or church with services each Sunday)
If I walked across the village green to St James's church at 1100 hours I would be in a congregation of about half a dozen. As a capitalist you have to agree that church is not economically viable- close it down, deconsecrate and sell it off for housing!
No, the congregation's reward regardless of size will be eternal life with Christ who managed with just 12 followers originally
Though He didn't have a listed building to maintain or a tea rota to staff.
The Tories won’t do themselves any favours overruling independent pay bodies on public sector pay.
We are just likely to see more and more strikes and disruption and not just from the likes of the RMT who are politically motivated.
Yes, restoring the medical pay board independence is the key demand for Consultants in the current strike ballot. Results out Tuesday, I think, first 48 hour strike on 20th July pencilled in.
I don't get a vote as not in the BMA.
Do you think they will vote to strike ? They won a key concession after the consultative ballot. Namely the pensions lifetime allowance being raised with the annual amount you can put in one increased to 60K.
Doctors are getting too greedy by far. They are among highest paid in teh country and blackmail whilst people die , live in agony is not pleasant.
I can't think of a more deserving group to get paid well. Years of hard studying and hard work, having to deal with all kinds of depressing stuff, but their work is incredibly valuable to the individual and society. If they aren't paid well, who should be?
They are well paid though already. obviously the shit bankers/finance geezers are well overpaid but compared to your average person , Doctors are at top of the tree already. Far better to pay those at the bottom who are being shat on. There are NO poor doctor's.
There certainly are poor doctors. If you're starting off on £30k and with £60k debts, are you rich?
Such people are the ones who pay all the tax.
I'd say the most squeezed now are earners between £50k to £125k - you get all the tax (and more and more of it) with shitloads of debt and loads of obligations, but none of the benefits.
(NB: for those who think £50k is "a lot" it's about £29.5k in pre-GFC 2008 terms)
Households will pay a £170-a-year green levy on energy bills in the coming days, with Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt accused of “slyly” shifting costs back to consumers.
The Telegraph has learned that the two-year suspension of green levies announced last autumn is to end from the beginning of July, after just nine months.
Absolutely useless once again from Rishi and Jeremy.
They have absolutely no understanding of the issues and pressures that ordinary people face.
The sooner they get the hammering at the election they deserve the better. Absolute clown show.
I’ve no enthusiasm for starmer or labour but, by god, this lot just don’t get how dire things are for many many people at the moment.
Good morning
Sunak and Hunt are following a policy of inflation reduction and at the same time do have net zero responsibilities
This news, together with yesterday's suggestion they may overrule pay review bodies, may well be responsible but it is politically tone deaf and a Starmer majority is looking a certainty
However, Starmer and Reeves will face the same economic winter and how they deal with it will be fascinating
The issue isn’t the net zero responsibility but the reneging on a commitment to help people during a cost of living crisis. It is also an open goal for the opposition.
Reeves and Starmer will find the goodwill they have when they come to power will evaporate very very quickly if they cannot get on top of these issues.
Indeed. I think goodwill towards LAB in general will evaporate very very very quickly within six months. LAB have no idea!
I keep trying to keep my pessimism in check and remind myself that we can't fully judge how Labour claims it is going to approach our desperate problems until we get an election manifesto, but I'd agree that the signs do not look encouraging. Reeves' platform, from what little we've heard so far (which seems to centre around an aversion to almost all further changes to rates of taxation, apart from a larger windfall tax on fossil fuel extraction and the abolition of tax breaks for private schools,) sounds suspiciously like continuity Toryism, plus a few quid scraped together to build some extra wind turbines.
They appear to have decided that the needs and wishes of core Conservative voters are much more important than those of core Labour voters, and will reap a well-deserved harvest of apathy and disillusionment if and when this becomes obvious. It's all very well saying that we're headed for a change election, but what happens when the voters realise that the principal change on offer is to who's going to be appearing on television to try to justify all this crap, whilst the rotten system is kept practically intact?
Nandy on Sky has just now said they would have to see the pay review bodies recommendations to assess if they were affordable prompting Trevor Philips to say
'So you are on the same page as the government'
He went on to ask her to outline one measure Labour would take to combat inflation and her response was to see banks paid savers a fair rate of interest !!!!!!
As I have said before you can change who is in no 10, but you cannot change the economics
The key is to get into Government first.
Once in Government the key is to emphasise what a hideous disaster we have inherited, it's far worse than anticipated (worked for Cameron and Osborne).
In Government they can U turn to their hearts content if they achieve a healthy majority. If they remain in a minority their hands are tied.
The key is trade with Europe. They could, early doors, call an EU Referendum worded something like "We left the European Union and are not rejoining, however the vote in 2016 was ambiguous as to what Leaving meant. Therefore, would you;
a) prefer a Tory hard Brexit which has seen our great nation crumble into the sea and your standard of living crash and burn. Or,
b) demand the Labour Government seeks a close economic arrangement with the EU, but as a distinct 3rd party.
No referendum needed for that, and Sunak is already charting that course. It’s also the EU is the root of all our issues/Brexit is the root of all our issues problem (delete as appropriate). We have been stagnant as a nation for many years, well before Brexit. Frictionless trade with the EU will help, but won’t solve our structural problems.
Labour's poll lead is due to Tory weakness, not any enthusiasm for Labour. It could turn around rapidly. Especially of Labour want to put uncontrolled immigration from Romania and Bulgaria back on the table during a time of economic struggle.
The Tories won’t do themselves any favours overruling independent pay bodies on public sector pay.
We are just likely to see more and more strikes and disruption and not just from the likes of the RMT who are politically motivated.
Yes, restoring the medical pay board independence is the key demand for Consultants in the current strike ballot. Results out Tuesday, I think, first 48 hour strike on 20th July pencilled in.
I don't get a vote as not in the BMA.
Do you think they will vote to strike ? They won a key concession after the consultative ballot. Namely the pensions lifetime allowance being raised with the annual amount you can put in one increased to 60K.
Doctors are getting too greedy by far. They are among highest paid in teh country and blackmail whilst people die , live in agony is not pleasant.
I can't think of a more deserving group to get paid well. Years of hard studying and hard work, having to deal with all kinds of depressing stuff, but their work is incredibly valuable to the individual and society. If they aren't paid well, who should be?
They are well paid though already. obviously the shit bankers/finance geezers are well overpaid but compared to your average person , Doctors are at top of the tree already. Far better to pay those at the bottom who are being shat on. There are NO poor doctor's.
There certainly are poor doctors. If you're starting off on £30k and with £60k debts, are you rich?
You are average, if by the end of your career you are a surgeon or partner in a gp practice then you will very likely be rich
£30k is about median salary. The huge debt you start off with needs to be taken into account if you're judging whether there in fact "NO poor doctors".
Yes, eventually you won't be poor any more. That's a good thing. But most doctors will start their working lives very poor indeed. That's just a fact. Not one I chose to raise, but I couldn't let malcolm's comment slide because it was untrue.
It was not untrue, as I said £30K is the very basic which no-one will earn , they get shift allowances, unsocial hours , overtime , speciality payments etc etc so none of ethm ever earn £30K. There are no poor doctor's, even at the very start they are above median wage and soon miles above it with double , treble or even more.
Being poor is about wealth as well as wages. Why are you completely ignoring the not insignificant presence of a £60k debt? Because it fatally undermines your rash and silly statement, that's why.
Oh I wouldn’t worry about the £60k debt, Australia are now recruiting our medical graduates upon graduation and offering them more money and a guaranteed career path (which the NHS has also failed to deliver this year).
Households will pay a £170-a-year green levy on energy bills in the coming days, with Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt accused of “slyly” shifting costs back to consumers.
The Telegraph has learned that the two-year suspension of green levies announced last autumn is to end from the beginning of July, after just nine months.
Absolutely useless once again from Rishi and Jeremy.
They have absolutely no understanding of the issues and pressures that ordinary people face.
The sooner they get the hammering at the election they deserve the better. Absolute clown show.
I’ve no enthusiasm for starmer or labour but, by god, this lot just don’t get how dire things are for many many people at the moment.
Good morning
Sunak and Hunt are following a policy of inflation reduction and at the same time do have net zero responsibilities
This news, together with yesterday's suggestion they may overrule pay review bodies, may well be responsible but it is politically tone deaf and a Starmer majority is looking a certainty
However, Starmer and Reeves will face the same economic winter and how they deal with it will be fascinating
The issue isn’t the net zero responsibility but the reneging on a commitment to help people during a cost of living crisis. It is also an open goal for the opposition.
Reeves and Starmer will find the goodwill they have when they come to power will evaporate very very quickly if they cannot get on top of these issues.
Indeed. I think goodwill towards LAB in general will evaporate very very very quickly within six months. LAB have no idea!
I keep trying to keep my pessimism in check and remind myself that we can't fully judge how Labour claims it is going to approach our desperate problems until we get an election manifesto, but I'd agree that the signs do not look encouraging. Reeves' platform, from what little we've heard so far (which seems to centre around an aversion to almost all further changes to rates of taxation, apart from a larger windfall tax on fossil fuel extraction and the abolition of tax breaks for private schools,) sounds suspiciously like continuity Toryism, plus a few quid scraped together to build some extra wind turbines.
They appear to have decided that the needs and wishes of core Conservative voters are much more important than those of core Labour voters, and will reap a well-deserved harvest of apathy and disillusionment if and when this becomes obvious. It's all very well saying that we're headed for a change election, but what happens when the voters realise that the principal change on offer is to who's going to be appearing on television to try to justify all this crap, whilst the rotten system is kept practically intact?
We had a CLP discussion on this earlier this week, when there was a proposal to support universal school meals (to eliminate stigma and help the not-quite-poor). I argued that there were any number of deserving causes to support and Labour was going to have to pick and choose or find ourselves constantly rebelling. That got a respectful hearing and people accepted that we can't do everything (but they outvoted me to support that one).
I think Labour will if elected have a grace period of a year or so before people get fed up, but sooner or later we'll need to look at some form of wealth tax to avoid what you describe.
This is the big choice coming imo. Wealth taxes or a smaller public sector. I'd like to see an election fought honestly on that issue. See what sort of country people want. But 'honestly' is the key word there in terms of getting the right decision. So it's not going to happen. It's not how we roll.
The Tories won’t do themselves any favours overruling independent pay bodies on public sector pay.
We are just likely to see more and more strikes and disruption and not just from the likes of the RMT who are politically motivated.
Yes, restoring the medical pay board independence is the key demand for Consultants in the current strike ballot. Results out Tuesday, I think, first 48 hour strike on 20th July pencilled in.
I don't get a vote as not in the BMA.
Do you think they will vote to strike ? They won a key concession after the consultative ballot. Namely the pensions lifetime allowance being raised with the annual amount you can put in one increased to 60K.
Doctors are getting too greedy by far. They are among highest paid in teh country and blackmail whilst people die , live in agony is not pleasant.
I can't think of a more deserving group to get paid well. Years of hard studying and hard work, having to deal with all kinds of depressing stuff, but their work is incredibly valuable to the individual and society. If they aren't paid well, who should be?
They are well paid though already. obviously the shit bankers/finance geezers are well overpaid but compared to your average person , Doctors are at top of the tree already. Far better to pay those at the bottom who are being shat on. There are NO poor doctor's.
There certainly are poor doctors. If you're starting off on £30k and with £60k debts, are you rich?
Those are the junior doctors who are already striking.
We are discussing the consultants whose ballot closes this week and one of their main demands was the govt remove the lifetime allowance on pension pots. Duly done and increased the amount they could put into it in a year from 40K to 60K.
Junior Doctors starting out, in the scenario you paint, should certainly have something more done to help them. These are the ones I have some sympathy for.
For example a suggestion was made to forgive a portion of their debt for every year they rema8ned in the NHS.
The Tories won’t do themselves any favours overruling independent pay bodies on public sector pay.
We are just likely to see more and more strikes and disruption and not just from the likes of the RMT who are politically motivated.
Yes, restoring the medical pay board independence is the key demand for Consultants in the current strike ballot. Results out Tuesday, I think, first 48 hour strike on 20th July pencilled in.
I don't get a vote as not in the BMA.
Do you think they will vote to strike ? They won a key concession after the consultative ballot. Namely the pensions lifetime allowance being raised with the annual amount you can put in one increased to 60K.
Doctors are getting too greedy by far. They are among highest paid in teh country and blackmail whilst people die , live in agony is not pleasant.
I can't think of a more deserving group to get paid well. Years of hard studying and hard work, having to deal with all kinds of depressing stuff, but their work is incredibly valuable to the individual and society. If they aren't paid well, who should be?
They are well paid though already. obviously the shit bankers/finance geezers are well overpaid but compared to your average person , Doctors are at top of the tree already. Far better to pay those at the bottom who are being shat on. There are NO poor doctor's.
There certainly are poor doctors. If you're starting off on £30k and with £60k debts, are you rich?
Doctors tend to be the sons and daughters of doctors. Who can pay off that debt.
So have the Wagner troops all gone to Belarus? What are they going to do there? Or have they gone back to the front in Ukraine? Or are they out of the war entirely?
Some are becoming contrakti in the RF armed forces, some will melt away to whatever muddy, backward, shithole they came from, some will go the new PMCs; Convoy, Kadyrov's and that one that the head of the Russian Prison Service is starting. PMC Porridge.
For all those of you who don't speak @Dura_Ace, here is a free translation
Some (of the Wagner troops) are becoming contrakti (contract employers, ie mercenaries) in the RF (Russian Federation) armed forces, some will melt away to whatever muddy, backward, shithole they came from (everything East of Moscow), some will go the new PMCs (Private Military Companies: mercenary groups); Convoy (PMC Convoy, a mercenary group started by Crimean Sergey Aksyonov), Kadyrov's (an as-yet-unnamed PMC started by Chechen Ramzan Kadyrov) and that one that the head of the Russian Prison Service is starting (an as-yet-unnamed PMC started by Federal Penitentiary Service head Sergei Chemezov). PMC Porridge (a humorous reference to "porridge", British slang for a prison term and a popular 1970's BBC comedy series)
I didn't think Dura's explanation was too bad, tbh.
But you did a good job anyway, I reckon you've got a future subtitling regional British films for American audiences! (One of the films I watched, and indeed re-read, when I building my Italian skills back in the day was Trainspotting, as there was little loss of intelligibility from the original!).
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?
Saving isn't some unalloyed good. If everyone is thrifty all the time, the economy grinds to a halt. We need people to spend because spending creates jobs.
It's all very well saving and having your money used to invest, but investments are a bet on future spending. Spending is what drives the economy.
Besides, what's with the "penalising savers" thing?
The person who did the saving isn't getting taxed in any meaningful way, because they have gone to a place where there is no tax. (At least we assume that's the case. Maybe Hell is an eternal self assessment form.)
The people who end up with less money because of inheritance tax are the inheritors, who have generally neither saved, toiled nor spun for what they receive. That's not to be begrudged, but a world where a person's life chances depend more on inheritance and less on what they do is not a good one. You can't abolish the inheritance effect, but it's not really something to encourage, I reckon.
If your starting point is that taxes are a necessary unpleasantness to pay for a good society, then tax paid when you receive an inheritance is probably one of the less objectionable ones.
As I pointed out in the last thread for the average person unless they are in the top 10% or especially top 1% of earners capitalism is not doing much for them in terms of wage rises. House prices and capital in property and savings and shares have generally risen much more this century than average earnings.
So if the state confiscates all or most assets on the death of their owner which would have been inherited otherwise and reduces accumulation of wealth then support for capitalism beyond the top 10% of earners in the private sector will fall even further
The trouble with asset wealth, especially locked up in bricks and mortar, is you can't spend it, whereas a pay rise can pay for a new car which employs car workers or dining out which employs restaurant workers and Deliveroo riders. That is capitalism.
And capitalism and pay rises aren't delivering much for 90% of workers now, whereas assets and savings are delivering more for the average person
Capitalism is delivering for workers. We're caught in a cycle of inflation and bad policy the now, but capitalism is still good. What we're doing as a country now isn't the only way to do capitalism. We just need to adjust course, not abandon ship.
Exclude government completely and just leave the economy to the market and unless you are an investment banker, FTSE 100 company ceo or director, tech executive or Premier League footballer capitalism isn't doing a great deal for you now. For most workers their pay is rising well below inflation. At least if they own a property that still likely has a high value even if falling a bit and their savings will be boosted by rising interest rates
I'm curious to know what your solution is.
Knowing you, it's probably feudalism. It is, isn't it?
Inheritance in part and feudalism was not all bad, most peasants had a hut and a smallholding for food. There was more stability and less anxiety even if life expectancy was lower and if the work was hard in the fields it was normally there.
There was a church and inn in almost every village and town (many villages no longer even have a pub or church with services each Sunday)
If I walked across the village green to St James's church at 1100 hours I would be in a congregation of about half a dozen. As a capitalist you have to agree that church is not economically viable- close it down, deconsecrate and sell it off for housing!
No, the congregation's reward regardless of size will be eternal life with Christ who managed with just 12 followers originally
Households will pay a £170-a-year green levy on energy bills in the coming days, with Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt accused of “slyly” shifting costs back to consumers.
The Telegraph has learned that the two-year suspension of green levies announced last autumn is to end from the beginning of July, after just nine months.
Absolutely useless once again from Rishi and Jeremy.
They have absolutely no understanding of the issues and pressures that ordinary people face.
The sooner they get the hammering at the election they deserve the better. Absolute clown show.
I’ve no enthusiasm for starmer or labour but, by god, this lot just don’t get how dire things are for many many people at the moment.
Good morning
Sunak and Hunt are following a policy of inflation reduction and at the same time do have net zero responsibilities
This news, together with yesterday's suggestion they may overrule pay review bodies, may well be responsible but it is politically tone deaf and a Starmer majority is looking a certainty
However, Starmer and Reeves will face the same economic winter and how they deal with it will be fascinating
The issue isn’t the net zero responsibility but the reneging on a commitment to help people during a cost of living crisis. It is also an open goal for the opposition.
Reeves and Starmer will find the goodwill they have when they come to power will evaporate very very quickly if they cannot get on top of these issues.
Indeed. I think goodwill towards LAB in general will evaporate very very very quickly within six months. LAB have no idea!
I keep trying to keep my pessimism in check and remind myself that we can't fully judge how Labour claims it is going to approach our desperate problems until we get an election manifesto, but I'd agree that the signs do not look encouraging. Reeves' platform, from what little we've heard so far (which seems to centre around an aversion to almost all further changes to rates of taxation, apart from a larger windfall tax on fossil fuel extraction and the abolition of tax breaks for private schools,) sounds suspiciously like continuity Toryism, plus a few quid scraped together to build some extra wind turbines.
They appear to have decided that the needs and wishes of core Conservative voters are much more important than those of core Labour voters, and will reap a well-deserved harvest of apathy and disillusionment if and when this becomes obvious. It's all very well saying that we're headed for a change election, but what happens when the voters realise that the principal change on offer is to who's going to be appearing on television to try to justify all this crap, whilst the rotten system is kept practically intact?
Nandy on Sky has just now said they would have to see the pay review bodies recommendations to assess if they were affordable prompting Trevor Philips to say
'So you are on the same page as the government'
He went on to ask her to outline one measure Labour would take to combat inflation and her response was to see banks paid savers a fair rate of interest !!!!!!
As I have said before you can change who is in no 10, but you cannot change the economics
The key is to get into Government first.
Once in Government the key is to emphasise what a hideous disaster we have inherited, it's far worse than anticipated (worked for Cameron and Osborne).
In Government they can U turn to their hearts content if they achieve a healthy majority. If they remain in a minority their hands are tied.
The key is trade with Europe. They could, early doors, call an EU Referendum worded something like "We left the European Union and are not rejoining, however the vote in 2016 was ambiguous as to what Leaving meant. Therefore, would you;
a) prefer a Tory hard Brexit which has seen our great nation crumble into the sea and your standard of living crash and burn. Or,
b) demand the Labour Government seeks a close economic arrangement with the EU, but as a distinct 3rd party.
Are you really suggesting Labour will be looking at an EU Referendum in their first term ?
They might have to after the mess the filthy corrupt Tories have put us in. Remember Brexit is a self inflicted calamity created by the Tory party.
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?
Saving isn't some unalloyed good. If everyone is thrifty all the time, the economy grinds to a halt. We need people to spend because spending creates jobs.
It's all very well saving and having your money used to invest, but investments are a bet on future spending. Spending is what drives the economy.
Besides, what's with the "penalising savers" thing?
The person who did the saving isn't getting taxed in any meaningful way, because they have gone to a place where there is no tax. (At least we assume that's the case. Maybe Hell is an eternal self assessment form.)
The people who end up with less money because of inheritance tax are the inheritors, who have generally neither saved, toiled nor spun for what they receive. That's not to be begrudged, but a world where a person's life chances depend more on inheritance and less on what they do is not a good one. You can't abolish the inheritance effect, but it's not really something to encourage, I reckon.
If your starting point is that taxes are a necessary unpleasantness to pay for a good society, then tax paid when you receive an inheritance is probably one of the less objectionable ones.
As I pointed out in the last thread for the average person unless they are in the top 10% or especially top 1% of earners capitalism is not doing much for them in terms of wage rises. House prices and capital in property and savings and shares have generally risen much more this century than average earnings.
So if the state confiscates all or most assets on the death of their owner which would have been inherited otherwise and reduces accumulation of wealth then support for capitalism beyond the top 10% of earners in the private sector will fall even further
The trouble with asset wealth, especially locked up in bricks and mortar, is you can't spend it, whereas a pay rise can pay for a new car which employs car workers or dining out which employs restaurant workers and Deliveroo riders. That is capitalism.
And capitalism and pay rises aren't delivering much for 90% of workers now, whereas assets and savings are delivering more for the average person
Capitalism is delivering for workers. We're caught in a cycle of inflation and bad policy the now, but capitalism is still good. What we're doing as a country now isn't the only way to do capitalism. We just need to adjust course, not abandon ship.
Exclude government completely and just leave the economy to the market and unless you are an investment banker, FTSE 100 company ceo or director, tech executive or Premier League footballer capitalism isn't doing a great deal for you now. For most workers their pay is rising well below inflation. At least if they own a property that still likely has a high value even if falling a bit and their savings will be boosted by rising interest rates
I'm curious to know what your solution is.
Knowing you, it's probably feudalism. It is, isn't it?
Inheritance in part and feudalism was not all bad, most peasants had a hut and a smallholding for food. There was more stability and less anxiety even if life expectancy was lower and if the work was hard in the fields it was normally there.
There was a church and inn in almost every village and town (many villages no longer even have a pub or church with services each Sunday)
If I walked across the village green to St James's church at 1100 hours I would be in a congregation of about half a dozen. As a capitalist you have to agree that church is not economically viable- close it down, deconsecrate and sell it off for housing!
No, the congregation's reward regardless of size will be eternal life with Christ who managed with just 12 followers originally
So Christ had more followers than Truss?
I would think Satan now has more followers than Truss
The Tories won’t do themselves any favours overruling independent pay bodies on public sector pay.
We are just likely to see more and more strikes and disruption and not just from the likes of the RMT who are politically motivated.
Yes, restoring the medical pay board independence is the key demand for Consultants in the current strike ballot. Results out Tuesday, I think, first 48 hour strike on 20th July pencilled in.
I don't get a vote as not in the BMA.
Do you think they will vote to strike ? They won a key concession after the consultative ballot. Namely the pensions lifetime allowance being raised with the annual amount you can put in one increased to 60K.
Doctors are getting too greedy by far. They are among highest paid in teh country and blackmail whilst people die , live in agony is not pleasant.
I can't think of a more deserving group to get paid well. Years of hard studying and hard work, having to deal with all kinds of depressing stuff, but their work is incredibly valuable to the individual and society. If they aren't paid well, who should be?
They are well paid though already. obviously the shit bankers/finance geezers are well overpaid but compared to your average person , Doctors are at top of the tree already. Far better to pay those at the bottom who are being shat on. There are NO poor doctor's.
There certainly are poor doctors. If you're starting off on £30k and with £60k debts, are you rich?
You think that is a poor salary for a new graduate? And their pay scales see them on double that in a few years. That's before the big bucks kick in when they become consultants or GPs.
All funded by the taxes of people on much lower incomes.
As I have said before, if doctors' pay is so bad, why are applicants queueing round the block to get into med school?
You're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say it was a poor salary, I said new starters usually start poor (unless their tuition has been bankrolled by rich relatives).
Secondly, I didn't say doctors were paid badly, I said I can't think of anyone who deserves it more.
Do better.
So they are poor, but earn a good salary?
Having a debt that you may or may not have to pay off, depending on future earnings, does not make you poor.
Getting a place at med school is a golden ticket to high earnings and a high standard of living. Undeniable.
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?
Saving isn't some unalloyed good. If everyone is thrifty all the time, the economy grinds to a halt. We need people to spend because spending creates jobs.
It's all very well saving and having your money used to invest, but investments are a bet on future spending. Spending is what drives the economy.
Besides, what's with the "penalising savers" thing?
The person who did the saving isn't getting taxed in any meaningful way, because they have gone to a place where there is no tax. (At least we assume that's the case. Maybe Hell is an eternal self assessment form.)
The people who end up with less money because of inheritance tax are the inheritors, who have generally neither saved, toiled nor spun for what they receive. That's not to be begrudged, but a world where a person's life chances depend more on inheritance and less on what they do is not a good one. You can't abolish the inheritance effect, but it's not really something to encourage, I reckon.
If your starting point is that taxes are a necessary unpleasantness to pay for a good society, then tax paid when you receive an inheritance is probably one of the less objectionable ones.
As I pointed out in the last thread for the average person unless they are in the top 10% or especially top 1% of earners capitalism is not doing much for them in terms of wage rises. House prices and capital in property and savings and shares have generally risen much more this century than average earnings.
So if the state confiscates all or most assets on the death of their owner which would have been inherited otherwise and reduces accumulation of wealth then support for capitalism beyond the top 10% of earners in the private sector will fall even further
The trouble with asset wealth, especially locked up in bricks and mortar, is you can't spend it, whereas a pay rise can pay for a new car which employs car workers or dining out which employs restaurant workers and Deliveroo riders. That is capitalism.
And capitalism and pay rises aren't delivering much for 90% of workers now, whereas assets and savings are delivering more for the average person
Capitalism is delivering for workers. We're caught in a cycle of inflation and bad policy the now, but capitalism is still good. What we're doing as a country now isn't the only way to do capitalism. We just need to adjust course, not abandon ship.
Exclude government completely and just leave the economy to the market and unless you are an investment banker, FTSE 100 company ceo or director, tech executive or Premier League footballer capitalism isn't doing a great deal for you now. For most workers their pay is rising well below inflation. At least if they own a property that still likely has a high value even if falling a bit and their savings will be boosted by rising interest rates
I'm curious to know what your solution is.
Knowing you, it's probably feudalism. It is, isn't it?
Inheritance in part and feudalism was not all bad, most peasants had a hut and a smallholding for food. There was more stability and less anxiety even if life expectancy was lower and if the work was hard in the fields it was normally there.
There was a church and inn in almost every village and town (many villages no longer even have a pub or church with services each Sunday)
If I walked across the village green to St James's church at 1100 hours I would be in a congregation of about half a dozen. As a capitalist you have to agree that church is not economically viable- close it down, deconsecrate and sell it off for housing!
No, the congregation's reward regardless of size will be eternal life with Christ who managed with just 12 followers originally
So Christ had more followers than Truss?
I would think Satan now has more followers than Truss
The intersection on the Venn diagram contains some interesting types though.
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?
Saving isn't some unalloyed good. If everyone is thrifty all the time, the economy grinds to a halt. We need people to spend because spending creates jobs.
It's all very well saving and having your money used to invest, but investments are a bet on future spending. Spending is what drives the economy.
Besides, what's with the "penalising savers" thing?
The person who did the saving isn't getting taxed in any meaningful way, because they have gone to a place where there is no tax. (At least we assume that's the case. Maybe Hell is an eternal self assessment form.)
The people who end up with less money because of inheritance tax are the inheritors, who have generally neither saved, toiled nor spun for what they receive. That's not to be begrudged, but a world where a person's life chances depend more on inheritance and less on what they do is not a good one. You can't abolish the inheritance effect, but it's not really something to encourage, I reckon.
If your starting point is that taxes are a necessary unpleasantness to pay for a good society, then tax paid when you receive an inheritance is probably one of the less objectionable ones.
As I pointed out in the last thread for the average person unless they are in the top 10% or especially top 1% of earners capitalism is not doing much for them in terms of wage rises. House prices and capital in property and savings and shares have generally risen much more this century than average earnings.
So if the state confiscates all or most assets on the death of their owner which would have been inherited otherwise and reduces accumulation of wealth then support for capitalism beyond the top 10% of earners in the private sector will fall even further
The trouble with asset wealth, especially locked up in bricks and mortar, is you can't spend it, whereas a pay rise can pay for a new car which employs car workers or dining out which employs restaurant workers and Deliveroo riders. That is capitalism.
And capitalism and pay rises aren't delivering much for 90% of workers now, whereas assets and savings are delivering more for the average person
Capitalism is delivering for workers. We're caught in a cycle of inflation and bad policy the now, but capitalism is still good. What we're doing as a country now isn't the only way to do capitalism. We just need to adjust course, not abandon ship.
Exclude government completely and just leave the economy to the market and unless you are an investment banker, FTSE 100 company ceo or director, tech executive or Premier League footballer capitalism isn't doing a great deal for you now. For most workers their pay is rising well below inflation. At least if they own a property that still likely has a high value even if falling a bit and their savings will be boosted by rising interest rates
I'm curious to know what your solution is.
Knowing you, it's probably feudalism. It is, isn't it?
Inheritance in part and feudalism was not all bad, most peasants had a hut and a smallholding for food. There was more stability and less anxiety even if life expectancy was lower and if the work was hard in the fields it was normally there.
There was a church and inn in almost every village and town (many villages no longer even have a pub or church with services each Sunday)
If I walked across the village green to St James's church at 1100 hours I would be in a congregation of about half a dozen. As a capitalist you have to agree that church is not economically viable- close it down, deconsecrate and sell it off for housing!
No, the congregation's reward regardless of size will be eternal life with Christ who managed with just 12 followers originally
Though He didn't have a listed building to maintain or a tea rota to staff.
Or the £8.7 billion of assets and investments the Church of England still has
Households will pay a £170-a-year green levy on energy bills in the coming days, with Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt accused of “slyly” shifting costs back to consumers.
The Telegraph has learned that the two-year suspension of green levies announced last autumn is to end from the beginning of July, after just nine months.
Absolutely useless once again from Rishi and Jeremy.
They have absolutely no understanding of the issues and pressures that ordinary people face.
The sooner they get the hammering at the election they deserve the better. Absolute clown show.
I’ve no enthusiasm for starmer or labour but, by god, this lot just don’t get how dire things are for many many people at the moment.
Good morning
Sunak and Hunt are following a policy of inflation reduction and at the same time do have net zero responsibilities
This news, together with yesterday's suggestion they may overrule pay review bodies, may well be responsible but it is politically tone deaf and a Starmer majority is looking a certainty
However, Starmer and Reeves will face the same economic winter and how they deal with it will be fascinating
The issue isn’t the net zero responsibility but the reneging on a commitment to help people during a cost of living crisis. It is also an open goal for the opposition.
Reeves and Starmer will find the goodwill they have when they come to power will evaporate very very quickly if they cannot get on top of these issues.
Indeed. I think goodwill towards LAB in general will evaporate very very very quickly within six months. LAB have no idea!
I keep trying to keep my pessimism in check and remind myself that we can't fully judge how Labour claims it is going to approach our desperate problems until we get an election manifesto, but I'd agree that the signs do not look encouraging. Reeves' platform, from what little we've heard so far (which seems to centre around an aversion to almost all further changes to rates of taxation, apart from a larger windfall tax on fossil fuel extraction and the abolition of tax breaks for private schools,) sounds suspiciously like continuity Toryism, plus a few quid scraped together to build some extra wind turbines.
They appear to have decided that the needs and wishes of core Conservative voters are much more important than those of core Labour voters, and will reap a well-deserved harvest of apathy and disillusionment if and when this becomes obvious. It's all very well saying that we're headed for a change election, but what happens when the voters realise that the principal change on offer is to who's going to be appearing on television to try to justify all this crap, whilst the rotten system is kept practically intact?
I think, and hope, that you are being unduly pessimistic. Labour's sole, over-riding aim right now is to win the election. Just like Blair and Brown in 1997, they think the biggest danger to doing so is being portrayed as irresponsible with the economy. (The second biggest perceived danger is overturning Brexit - hence the "make Brexit work" slogan). So, as in 1997, Reeves is promising fiscal rectitude. The polls suggest it is working at the moment, with Labour leading the Tories on "the economy". But, once elected, I would expect Starmer to pivot towards a more redistributive tax and spend policy, including ensuring the rich, both in income and wealth, pay a higher share for the common good.
Yes. And he has to if you think about it. There's no point to him unless he wins the election and ends Tory rule. And there's no point to him if having won he pursues policies no different to Tory ones. He doesn't want to be pointless, who does? Hence the strategy now. Hence the pivot in power. Not a sudden transformation to radical socialism. Nothing that will make floating voters feel conned. So maybe 'pivot' isn't quite the word. Let's say 'shimmy'. He'll do a little shimmy after Labour have won the election. And so will I for that matter.
All together now:
"We knew things were bad, but even we couldn't have imagined quite how bad a mess the Tories would leave for us to clear up. So we have to do these things to fix Britain..."
Yes, that's actually an intelligent discussion and another illustration of the puzzling extent to which it's possible to have critical voices on Russian TV. That isn't a new phenomenon - we've seen off-message discussions highlighted repeatedly over the last year or two, from rational people like this to truly bonkers commentators. To some extent that's presumably allowing some letting off steam, but it also illustrates the fact that power isn't as centralised and monolithic as we tend to think.
Which is probably a good thing, as it gives the possibility of less imperialist figures coming to the fore - but obviously it gives space for ultra-nationalists nutters as well.
I think that's a bit naïve. Putin wouldn't allow anyone broadcasting he didn't want to.
And that dialogue is very pro-war, as they always are.
The main critisicm of Putin is not from the anti war side in Russia.
Yes, but that's because all the anti war side have been locked up, or worse.
Households will pay a £170-a-year green levy on energy bills in the coming days, with Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt accused of “slyly” shifting costs back to consumers.
The Telegraph has learned that the two-year suspension of green levies announced last autumn is to end from the beginning of July, after just nine months.
Absolutely useless once again from Rishi and Jeremy.
They have absolutely no understanding of the issues and pressures that ordinary people face.
The sooner they get the hammering at the election they deserve the better. Absolute clown show.
I’ve no enthusiasm for starmer or labour but, by god, this lot just don’t get how dire things are for many many people at the moment.
Good morning
Sunak and Hunt are following a policy of inflation reduction and at the same time do have net zero responsibilities
This news, together with yesterday's suggestion they may overrule pay review bodies, may well be responsible but it is politically tone deaf and a Starmer majority is looking a certainty
However, Starmer and Reeves will face the same economic winter and how they deal with it will be fascinating
The issue isn’t the net zero responsibility but the reneging on a commitment to help people during a cost of living crisis. It is also an open goal for the opposition.
Reeves and Starmer will find the goodwill they have when they come to power will evaporate very very quickly if they cannot get on top of these issues.
Indeed. I think goodwill towards LAB in general will evaporate very very very quickly within six months. LAB have no idea!
I keep trying to keep my pessimism in check and remind myself that we can't fully judge how Labour claims it is going to approach our desperate problems until we get an election manifesto, but I'd agree that the signs do not look encouraging. Reeves' platform, from what little we've heard so far (which seems to centre around an aversion to almost all further changes to rates of taxation, apart from a larger windfall tax on fossil fuel extraction and the abolition of tax breaks for private schools,) sounds suspiciously like continuity Toryism, plus a few quid scraped together to build some extra wind turbines.
They appear to have decided that the needs and wishes of core Conservative voters are much more important than those of core Labour voters, and will reap a well-deserved harvest of apathy and disillusionment if and when this becomes obvious. It's all very well saying that we're headed for a change election, but what happens when the voters realise that the principal change on offer is to who's going to be appearing on television to try to justify all this crap, whilst the rotten system is kept practically intact?
Nandy on Sky has just now said they would have to see the pay review bodies recommendations to assess if they were affordable prompting Trevor Philips to say
'So you are on the same page as the government'
He went on to ask her to outline one measure Labour would take to combat inflation and her response was to see banks paid savers a fair rate of interest !!!!!!
As I have said before you can change who is in no 10, but you cannot change the economics
The key is to get into Government first.
Once in Government the key is to emphasise what a hideous disaster we have inherited, it's far worse than anticipated (worked for Cameron and Osborne).
In Government they can U turn to their hearts content if they achieve a healthy majority. If they remain in a minority their hands are tied.
The key is trade with Europe. They could, early doors, call an EU Referendum worded something like "We left the European Union and are not rejoining, however the vote in 2016 was ambiguous as to what Leaving meant. Therefore, would you;
a) prefer a Tory hard Brexit which has seen our great nation crumble into the sea and your standard of living crash and burn. Or,
b) demand the Labour Government seeks a close economic arrangement with the EU, but as a distinct 3rd party.
Are you really suggesting Labour will be looking at an EU Referendum in their first term ?
They might have to after the mess the filthy corrupt Tories have put us in. Remember Brexit is a self inflicted calamity created by the Tory party.
To you, but to others Brexit is OK but a friendlier closer relationship is the future as Sunak is presently pursuing and will be continued by Starmer
Households will pay a £170-a-year green levy on energy bills in the coming days, with Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt accused of “slyly” shifting costs back to consumers.
The Telegraph has learned that the two-year suspension of green levies announced last autumn is to end from the beginning of July, after just nine months.
Absolutely useless once again from Rishi and Jeremy.
They have absolutely no understanding of the issues and pressures that ordinary people face.
The sooner they get the hammering at the election they deserve the better. Absolute clown show.
I’ve no enthusiasm for starmer or labour but, by god, this lot just don’t get how dire things are for many many people at the moment.
Good morning
Sunak and Hunt are following a policy of inflation reduction and at the same time do have net zero responsibilities
This news, together with yesterday's suggestion they may overrule pay review bodies, may well be responsible but it is politically tone deaf and a Starmer majority is looking a certainty
However, Starmer and Reeves will face the same economic winter and how they deal with it will be fascinating
The issue isn’t the net zero responsibility but the reneging on a commitment to help people during a cost of living crisis. It is also an open goal for the opposition.
Reeves and Starmer will find the goodwill they have when they come to power will evaporate very very quickly if they cannot get on top of these issues.
Indeed. I think goodwill towards LAB in general will evaporate very very very quickly within six months. LAB have no idea!
I keep trying to keep my pessimism in check and remind myself that we can't fully judge how Labour claims it is going to approach our desperate problems until we get an election manifesto, but I'd agree that the signs do not look encouraging. Reeves' platform, from what little we've heard so far (which seems to centre around an aversion to almost all further changes to rates of taxation, apart from a larger windfall tax on fossil fuel extraction and the abolition of tax breaks for private schools,) sounds suspiciously like continuity Toryism, plus a few quid scraped together to build some extra wind turbines.
They appear to have decided that the needs and wishes of core Conservative voters are much more important than those of core Labour voters, and will reap a well-deserved harvest of apathy and disillusionment if and when this becomes obvious. It's all very well saying that we're headed for a change election, but what happens when the voters realise that the principal change on offer is to who's going to be appearing on television to try to justify all this crap, whilst the rotten system is kept practically intact?
Nandy on Sky has just now said they would have to see the pay review bodies recommendations to assess if they were affordable prompting Trevor Philips to say
'So you are on the same page as the government'
He went on to ask her to outline one measure Labour would take to combat inflation and her response was to see banks paid savers a fair rate of interest !!!!!!
As I have said before you can change who is in no 10, but you cannot change the economics
The key is to get into Government first.
Once in Government the key is to emphasise what a hideous disaster we have inherited, it's far worse than anticipated (worked for Cameron and Osborne).
In Government they can U turn to their hearts content if they achieve a healthy majority. If they remain in a minority their hands are tied.
The key is trade with Europe. They could, early doors, call an EU Referendum worded something like "We left the European Union and are not rejoining, however the vote in 2016 was ambiguous as to what Leaving meant. Therefore, would you;
a) prefer a Tory hard Brexit which has seen our great nation crumble into the sea and your standard of living crash and burn. Or,
b) demand the Labour Government seeks a close economic arrangement with the EU, but as a distinct 3rd party.
No referendum needed for that, and Sunak is already charting that course. It’s also the EU is the root of all our issues/Brexit is the root of all our issues problem (delete as appropriate). We have been stagnant as a nation for many years, well before Brexit. Frictionless trade with the EU will help, but won’t solve our structural problems.
Labour's poll lead is due to Tory weakness, not any enthusiasm for Labour. It could turn around rapidly. Especially of Labour want to put uncontrolled immigration from Romania and Bulgaria back on the table during a time of economic struggle.
I'm struggling to find a scintilla of evidence that Labour wants to put uncontrolled immigration from Romania and Bulgaria back on the table.
Households will pay a £170-a-year green levy on energy bills in the coming days, with Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt accused of “slyly” shifting costs back to consumers.
The Telegraph has learned that the two-year suspension of green levies announced last autumn is to end from the beginning of July, after just nine months.
Absolutely useless once again from Rishi and Jeremy.
They have absolutely no understanding of the issues and pressures that ordinary people face.
The sooner they get the hammering at the election they deserve the better. Absolute clown show.
I’ve no enthusiasm for starmer or labour but, by god, this lot just don’t get how dire things are for many many people at the moment.
Good morning
Sunak and Hunt are following a policy of inflation reduction and at the same time do have net zero responsibilities
This news, together with yesterday's suggestion they may overrule pay review bodies, may well be responsible but it is politically tone deaf and a Starmer majority is looking a certainty
However, Starmer and Reeves will face the same economic winter and how they deal with it will be fascinating
The issue isn’t the net zero responsibility but the reneging on a commitment to help people during a cost of living crisis. It is also an open goal for the opposition.
Reeves and Starmer will find the goodwill they have when they come to power will evaporate very very quickly if they cannot get on top of these issues.
Indeed. I think goodwill towards LAB in general will evaporate very very very quickly within six months. LAB have no idea!
I keep trying to keep my pessimism in check and remind myself that we can't fully judge how Labour claims it is going to approach our desperate problems until we get an election manifesto, but I'd agree that the signs do not look encouraging. Reeves' platform, from what little we've heard so far (which seems to centre around an aversion to almost all further changes to rates of taxation, apart from a larger windfall tax on fossil fuel extraction and the abolition of tax breaks for private schools,) sounds suspiciously like continuity Toryism, plus a few quid scraped together to build some extra wind turbines.
They appear to have decided that the needs and wishes of core Conservative voters are much more important than those of core Labour voters, and will reap a well-deserved harvest of apathy and disillusionment if and when this becomes obvious. It's all very well saying that we're headed for a change election, but what happens when the voters realise that the principal change on offer is to who's going to be appearing on television to try to justify all this crap, whilst the rotten system is kept practically intact?
Nandy on Sky has just now said they would have to see the pay review bodies recommendations to assess if they were affordable prompting Trevor Philips to say
'So you are on the same page as the government'
He went on to ask her to outline one measure Labour would take to combat inflation and her response was to see banks paid savers a fair rate of interest !!!!!!
As I have said before you can change who is in no 10, but you cannot change the economics
The key is to get into Government first.
Once in Government the key is to emphasise what a hideous disaster we have inherited, it's far worse than anticipated (worked for Cameron and Osborne).
In Government they can U turn to their hearts content if they achieve a healthy majority. If they remain in a minority their hands are tied.
The key is trade with Europe. They could, early doors, call an EU Referendum worded something like "We left the European Union and are not rejoining, however the vote in 2016 was ambiguous as to what Leaving meant. Therefore, would you;
a) prefer a Tory hard Brexit which has seen our great nation crumble into the sea and your standard of living crash and burn. Or,
b) demand the Labour Government seeks a close economic arrangement with the EU, but as a distinct 3rd party.
No referendum needed for that, and Sunak is already charting that course. It’s also the EU is the root of all our issues/Brexit is the root of all our issues problem (delete as appropriate). We have been stagnant as a nation for many years, well before Brexit. Frictionless trade with the EU will help, but won’t solve our structural problems.
Labour's poll lead is due to Tory weakness, not any enthusiasm for Labour. It could turn around rapidly. Especially of Labour want to put uncontrolled immigration from Romania and Bulgaria back on the table during a time of economic struggle.
Tories are going to loose power at next GE. Deservedly so. What’s in the balance is whether Labour can get a majority.
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?
Saving isn't some unalloyed good. If everyone is thrifty all the time, the economy grinds to a halt. We need people to spend because spending creates jobs.
It's all very well saving and having your money used to invest, but investments are a bet on future spending. Spending is what drives the economy.
Besides, what's with the "penalising savers" thing?
The person who did the saving isn't getting taxed in any meaningful way, because they have gone to a place where there is no tax. (At least we assume that's the case. Maybe Hell is an eternal self assessment form.)
The people who end up with less money because of inheritance tax are the inheritors, who have generally neither saved, toiled nor spun for what they receive. That's not to be begrudged, but a world where a person's life chances depend more on inheritance and less on what they do is not a good one. You can't abolish the inheritance effect, but it's not really something to encourage, I reckon.
If your starting point is that taxes are a necessary unpleasantness to pay for a good society, then tax paid when you receive an inheritance is probably one of the less objectionable ones.
As I pointed out in the last thread for the average person unless they are in the top 10% or especially top 1% of earners capitalism is not doing much for them in terms of wage rises. House prices and capital in property and savings and shares have generally risen much more this century than average earnings.
So if the state confiscates all or most assets on the death of their owner which would have been inherited otherwise and reduces accumulation of wealth then support for capitalism beyond the top 10% of earners in the private sector will fall even further
The trouble with asset wealth, especially locked up in bricks and mortar, is you can't spend it, whereas a pay rise can pay for a new car which employs car workers or dining out which employs restaurant workers and Deliveroo riders. That is capitalism.
And capitalism and pay rises aren't delivering much for 90% of workers now, whereas assets and savings are delivering more for the average person
Capitalism is delivering for workers. We're caught in a cycle of inflation and bad policy the now, but capitalism is still good. What we're doing as a country now isn't the only way to do capitalism. We just need to adjust course, not abandon ship.
Exclude government completely and just leave the economy to the market and unless you are an investment banker, FTSE 100 company ceo or director, tech executive or Premier League footballer capitalism isn't doing a great deal for you now. For most workers their pay is rising well below inflation. At least if they own a property that still likely has a high value even if falling a bit and their savings will be boosted by rising interest rates
I'm curious to know what your solution is.
Knowing you, it's probably feudalism. It is, isn't it?
Inheritance in part and feudalism was not all bad, most peasants had a hut and a smallholding for food. There was more stability and less anxiety even if life expectancy was lower and if the work was hard in the fields it was normally there.
There was a church and inn in almost every village and town (many villages no longer even have a pub or church with services each Sunday)
If I walked across the village green to St James's church at 1100 hours I would be in a congregation of about half a dozen. As a capitalist you have to agree that church is not economically viable- close it down, deconsecrate and sell it off for housing!
No, the congregation's reward regardless of size will be eternal life with Christ who managed with just 12 followers originally
Though He didn't have a listed building to maintain or a tea rota to staff.
Or the £8.7 billion of assets and investments the Church of England still has
Many of the churches assets were stolen from the people of this country. If we are looking at reparations then the church should be looking at reparations in the U.K. to the people,of,the U.K.
I see the Sunday morning rounds has Sunak telling mortgage holders to hold their nerve.
I'm guessing that is short form for "we are doing the necessary things for this to all turn round and, eventually, get better, so hold out if you possibly can".
But, for someone who is remortgaging this month and is going to struggle to afford it there has got to be a sense of "what the hell does that even mean". Not a great reassurance.
Yes, that's actually an intelligent discussion and another illustration of the puzzling extent to which it's possible to have critical voices on Russian TV. That isn't a new phenomenon - we've seen off-message discussions highlighted repeatedly over the last year or two, from rational people like this to truly bonkers commentators. To some extent that's presumably allowing some letting off steam, but it also illustrates the fact that power isn't as centralised and monolithic as we tend to think.
Which is probably a good thing, as it gives the possibility of less imperialist figures coming to the fore - but obviously it gives space for ultra-nationalists nutters as well.
I think that's a bit naïve. Putin wouldn't allow anyone broadcasting he didn't want to.
And that dialogue is very pro-war, as they always are.
The main critisicm of Putin is not from the anti war side in Russia.
Yes, but that's because all the anti war side have been locked up, or worse.
I don't think it is. Obviously it doesn't help that people can't speak out against the war freely but generally when a country goes to war their people become completely and utterly deranged for a while, and take at least a couple of years to come to their senses.
I'm trying to think of examples of wars that were unpopular in the country that started them when they started them. There are probably some but I'm drawing a blank.
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?
Saving isn't some unalloyed good. If everyone is thrifty all the time, the economy grinds to a halt. We need people to spend because spending creates jobs.
It's all very well saving and having your money used to invest, but investments are a bet on future spending. Spending is what drives the economy.
Besides, what's with the "penalising savers" thing?
The person who did the saving isn't getting taxed in any meaningful way, because they have gone to a place where there is no tax. (At least we assume that's the case. Maybe Hell is an eternal self assessment form.)
The people who end up with less money because of inheritance tax are the inheritors, who have generally neither saved, toiled nor spun for what they receive. That's not to be begrudged, but a world where a person's life chances depend more on inheritance and less on what they do is not a good one. You can't abolish the inheritance effect, but it's not really something to encourage, I reckon.
If your starting point is that taxes are a necessary unpleasantness to pay for a good society, then tax paid when you receive an inheritance is probably one of the less objectionable ones.
As I pointed out in the last thread for the average person unless they are in the top 10% or especially top 1% of earners capitalism is not doing much for them in terms of wage rises. House prices and capital in property and savings and shares have generally risen much more this century than average earnings.
So if the state confiscates all or most assets on the death of their owner which would have been inherited otherwise and reduces accumulation of wealth then support for capitalism beyond the top 10% of earners in the private sector will fall even further
The trouble with asset wealth, especially locked up in bricks and mortar, is you can't spend it, whereas a pay rise can pay for a new car which employs car workers or dining out which employs restaurant workers and Deliveroo riders. That is capitalism.
And capitalism and pay rises aren't delivering much for 90% of workers now, whereas assets and savings are delivering more for the average person
Capitalism is delivering for workers. We're caught in a cycle of inflation and bad policy the now, but capitalism is still good. What we're doing as a country now isn't the only way to do capitalism. We just need to adjust course, not abandon ship.
Exclude government completely and just leave the economy to the market and unless you are an investment banker, FTSE 100 company ceo or director, tech executive or Premier League footballer capitalism isn't doing a great deal for you now. For most workers their pay is rising well below inflation. At least if they own a property that still likely has a high value even if falling a bit and their savings will be boosted by rising interest rates
I'm curious to know what your solution is.
Knowing you, it's probably feudalism. It is, isn't it?
Inheritance in part and feudalism was not all bad, most peasants had a hut and a smallholding for food. There was more stability and less anxiety even if life expectancy was lower and if the work was hard in the fields it was normally there.
There was a church and inn in almost every village and town (many villages no longer even have a pub or church with services each Sunday)
If I walked across the village green to St James's church at 1100 hours I would be in a congregation of about half a dozen. As a capitalist you have to agree that church is not economically viable- close it down, deconsecrate and sell it off for housing!
No, the congregation's reward regardless of size will be eternal life with Christ who managed with just 12 followers originally
Why is he so greedy about new ones now then? There's billions of 'em!
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?
Saving isn't some unalloyed good. If everyone is thrifty all the time, the economy grinds to a halt. We need people to spend because spending creates jobs.
It's all very well saving and having your money used to invest, but investments are a bet on future spending. Spending is what drives the economy.
Besides, what's with the "penalising savers" thing?
The person who did the saving isn't getting taxed in any meaningful way, because they have gone to a place where there is no tax. (At least we assume that's the case. Maybe Hell is an eternal self assessment form.)
The people who end up with less money because of inheritance tax are the inheritors, who have generally neither saved, toiled nor spun for what they receive. That's not to be begrudged, but a world where a person's life chances depend more on inheritance and less on what they do is not a good one. You can't abolish the inheritance effect, but it's not really something to encourage, I reckon.
If your starting point is that taxes are a necessary unpleasantness to pay for a good society, then tax paid when you receive an inheritance is probably one of the less objectionable ones.
As I pointed out in the last thread for the average person unless they are in the top 10% or especially top 1% of earners capitalism is not doing much for them in terms of wage rises. House prices and capital in property and savings and shares have generally risen much more this century than average earnings.
So if the state confiscates all or most assets on the death of their owner which would have been inherited otherwise and reduces accumulation of wealth then support for capitalism beyond the top 10% of earners in the private sector will fall even further
The trouble with asset wealth, especially locked up in bricks and mortar, is you can't spend it, whereas a pay rise can pay for a new car which employs car workers or dining out which employs restaurant workers and Deliveroo riders. That is capitalism.
And capitalism and pay rises aren't delivering much for 90% of workers now, whereas assets and savings are delivering more for the average person
Capitalism is delivering for workers. We're caught in a cycle of inflation and bad policy the now, but capitalism is still good. What we're doing as a country now isn't the only way to do capitalism. We just need to adjust course, not abandon ship.
Exclude government completely and just leave the economy to the market and unless you are an investment banker, FTSE 100 company ceo or director, tech executive or Premier League footballer capitalism isn't doing a great deal for you now. For most workers their pay is rising well below inflation. At least if they own a property that still likely has a high value even if falling a bit and their savings will be boosted by rising interest rates
I'm curious to know what your solution is.
Knowing you, it's probably feudalism. It is, isn't it?
Inheritance in part and feudalism was not all bad, most peasants had a hut and a smallholding for food. There was more stability and less anxiety even if life expectancy was lower and if the work was hard in the fields it was normally there.
There was a church and inn in almost every village and town (many villages no longer even have a pub or church with services each Sunday)
If I walked across the village green to St James's church at 1100 hours I would be in a congregation of about half a dozen. As a capitalist you have to agree that church is not economically viable- close it down, deconsecrate and sell it off for housing!
No, the congregation's reward regardless of size will be eternal life with Christ who managed with just 12 followers originally
Though He didn't have a listed building to maintain or a tea rota to staff.
Or the £8.7 billion of assets and investments the Church of England still has
Many of the churches assets were stolen from the people of this country. If we are looking at reparations then the church should be looking at reparations in the U.K. to the people,of,the U.K.
No, at most they were stolen from the Roman Catholics at the Reformation in terms of assets pre 16th century.
Never mind reparations, you could restore Tithes to maintain our historic churches
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?
Saving isn't some unalloyed good. If everyone is thrifty all the time, the economy grinds to a halt. We need people to spend because spending creates jobs.
It's all very well saving and having your money used to invest, but investments are a bet on future spending. Spending is what drives the economy.
Besides, what's with the "penalising savers" thing?
The person who did the saving isn't getting taxed in any meaningful way, because they have gone to a place where there is no tax. (At least we assume that's the case. Maybe Hell is an eternal self assessment form.)
The people who end up with less money because of inheritance tax are the inheritors, who have generally neither saved, toiled nor spun for what they receive. That's not to be begrudged, but a world where a person's life chances depend more on inheritance and less on what they do is not a good one. You can't abolish the inheritance effect, but it's not really something to encourage, I reckon.
If your starting point is that taxes are a necessary unpleasantness to pay for a good society, then tax paid when you receive an inheritance is probably one of the less objectionable ones.
As I pointed out in the last thread for the average person unless they are in the top 10% or especially top 1% of earners capitalism is not doing much for them in terms of wage rises. House prices and capital in property and savings and shares have generally risen much more this century than average earnings.
So if the state confiscates all or most assets on the death of their owner which would have been inherited otherwise and reduces accumulation of wealth then support for capitalism beyond the top 10% of earners in the private sector will fall even further
The trouble with asset wealth, especially locked up in bricks and mortar, is you can't spend it, whereas a pay rise can pay for a new car which employs car workers or dining out which employs restaurant workers and Deliveroo riders. That is capitalism.
And capitalism and pay rises aren't delivering much for 90% of workers now, whereas assets and savings are delivering more for the average person
Capitalism is delivering for workers. We're caught in a cycle of inflation and bad policy the now, but capitalism is still good. What we're doing as a country now isn't the only way to do capitalism. We just need to adjust course, not abandon ship.
Exclude government completely and just leave the economy to the market and unless you are an investment banker, FTSE 100 company ceo or director, tech executive or Premier League footballer capitalism isn't doing a great deal for you now. For most workers their pay is rising well below inflation. At least if they own a property that still likely has a high value even if falling a bit and their savings will be boosted by rising interest rates
I'm curious to know what your solution is.
Knowing you, it's probably feudalism. It is, isn't it?
Inheritance in part and feudalism was not all bad, most peasants had a hut and a smallholding for food. There was more stability and less anxiety even if life expectancy was lower and if the work was hard in the fields it was normally there.
There was a church and inn in almost every village and town (many villages no longer even have a pub or church with services each Sunday)
If I walked across the village green to St James's church at 1100 hours I would be in a congregation of about half a dozen. As a capitalist you have to agree that church is not economically viable- close it down, deconsecrate and sell it off for housing!
No, the congregation's reward regardless of size will be eternal life with Christ who managed with just 12 followers originally
Why is he so greedy about new ones now then? There's billions of 'em!
And of course there was not 1 Christian in Britain when Christ walked the earth
Households will pay a £170-a-year green levy on energy bills in the coming days, with Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt accused of “slyly” shifting costs back to consumers.
The Telegraph has learned that the two-year suspension of green levies announced last autumn is to end from the beginning of July, after just nine months.
Absolutely useless once again from Rishi and Jeremy.
They have absolutely no understanding of the issues and pressures that ordinary people face.
The sooner they get the hammering at the election they deserve the better. Absolute clown show.
I’ve no enthusiasm for starmer or labour but, by god, this lot just don’t get how dire things are for many many people at the moment.
Good morning
Sunak and Hunt are following a policy of inflation reduction and at the same time do have net zero responsibilities
This news, together with yesterday's suggestion they may overrule pay review bodies, may well be responsible but it is politically tone deaf and a Starmer majority is looking a certainty
However, Starmer and Reeves will face the same economic winter and how they deal with it will be fascinating
The issue isn’t the net zero responsibility but the reneging on a commitment to help people during a cost of living crisis. It is also an open goal for the opposition.
Reeves and Starmer will find the goodwill they have when they come to power will evaporate very very quickly if they cannot get on top of these issues.
Indeed. I think goodwill towards LAB in general will evaporate very very very quickly within six months. LAB have no idea!
I keep trying to keep my pessimism in check and remind myself that we can't fully judge how Labour claims it is going to approach our desperate problems until we get an election manifesto, but I'd agree that the signs do not look encouraging. Reeves' platform, from what little we've heard so far (which seems to centre around an aversion to almost all further changes to rates of taxation, apart from a larger windfall tax on fossil fuel extraction and the abolition of tax breaks for private schools,) sounds suspiciously like continuity Toryism, plus a few quid scraped together to build some extra wind turbines.
They appear to have decided that the needs and wishes of core Conservative voters are much more important than those of core Labour voters, and will reap a well-deserved harvest of apathy and disillusionment if and when this becomes obvious. It's all very well saying that we're headed for a change election, but what happens when the voters realise that the principal change on offer is to who's going to be appearing on television to try to justify all this crap, whilst the rotten system is kept practically intact?
Nandy on Sky has just now said they would have to see the pay review bodies recommendations to assess if they were affordable prompting Trevor Philips to say
'So you are on the same page as the government'
He went on to ask her to outline one measure Labour would take to combat inflation and her response was to see banks paid savers a fair rate of interest !!!!!!
As I have said before you can change who is in no 10, but you cannot change the economics
The key is to get into Government first.
Once in Government the key is to emphasise what a hideous disaster we have inherited, it's far worse than anticipated (worked for Cameron and Osborne).
In Government they can U turn to their hearts content if they achieve a healthy majority. If they remain in a minority their hands are tied.
The key is trade with Europe. They could, early doors, call an EU Referendum worded something like "We left the European Union and are not rejoining, however the vote in 2016 was ambiguous as to what Leaving meant. Therefore, would you;
a) prefer a Tory hard Brexit which has seen our great nation crumble into the sea and your standard of living crash and burn. Or,
b) demand the Labour Government seeks a close economic arrangement with the EU, but as a distinct 3rd party.
No referendum needed for that, and Sunak is already charting that course. It’s also the EU is the root of all our issues/Brexit is the root of all our issues problem (delete as appropriate). We have been stagnant as a nation for many years, well before Brexit. Frictionless trade with the EU will help, but won’t solve our structural problems.
Labour's poll lead is due to Tory weakness, not any enthusiasm for Labour. It could turn around rapidly. Especially of Labour want to put uncontrolled immigration from Romania and Bulgaria back on the table during a time of economic struggle.
I'm struggling to find a scintilla of evidence that Labour wants to put uncontrolled immigration from Romania and Bulgaria back on the table.
You need to look into the minds of Tory political strategists for that - they know what is in Keir's heart.
I see the Sunday morning rounds has Sunak telling mortgage holders to hold their nerve.
I'm guessing that is short form for "we are doing the necessary things for this to all turn round and, eventually, get better, so hold out if you possibly can".
But, for someone who is remortgaging this month and is going to struggle to afford it there has got to be a sense of "what the hell does that even mean". Not a great reassurance.
This is exactly the point I was making the other day when the BBC in particular were trying to float this meme that all the heavy lifting of iterest rate rises were being borne by the 1.4m still on variable rates. Its not true because the majority on fixed rates have to find another deal when their current one comes to an end and it is going to be seriously more expensive. Given the duration of most of these deals there is going to be a high rotation of this larger group. The effect will not be as instant as the variable raters but it will either happen soon or, at the least, be in contemplation.
The resilience of consumption has saved us from a recession and brought employment to a record high but how long can this go on? As government support on energy phases out, as mortgage holders get crucified, as rents increase to meet the higher costs of landlords, surely consumption is going to wilt. It is not easy to see where new growth is going to come from. The new Labour government is going to be facing difficult choices very quickly.
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?
Saving isn't some unalloyed good. If everyone is thrifty all the time, the economy grinds to a halt. We need people to spend because spending creates jobs.
It's all very well saving and having your money used to invest, but investments are a bet on future spending. Spending is what drives the economy.
Besides, what's with the "penalising savers" thing?
The person who did the saving isn't getting taxed in any meaningful way, because they have gone to a place where there is no tax. (At least we assume that's the case. Maybe Hell is an eternal self assessment form.)
The people who end up with less money because of inheritance tax are the inheritors, who have generally neither saved, toiled nor spun for what they receive. That's not to be begrudged, but a world where a person's life chances depend more on inheritance and less on what they do is not a good one. You can't abolish the inheritance effect, but it's not really something to encourage, I reckon.
If your starting point is that taxes are a necessary unpleasantness to pay for a good society, then tax paid when you receive an inheritance is probably one of the less objectionable ones.
As I pointed out in the last thread for the average person unless they are in the top 10% or especially top 1% of earners capitalism is not doing much for them in terms of wage rises. House prices and capital in property and savings and shares have generally risen much more this century than average earnings.
So if the state confiscates all or most assets on the death of their owner which would have been inherited otherwise and reduces accumulation of wealth then support for capitalism beyond the top 10% of earners in the private sector will fall even further
The trouble with asset wealth, especially locked up in bricks and mortar, is you can't spend it, whereas a pay rise can pay for a new car which employs car workers or dining out which employs restaurant workers and Deliveroo riders. That is capitalism.
And capitalism and pay rises aren't delivering much for 90% of workers now, whereas assets and savings are delivering more for the average person
Capitalism is delivering for workers. We're caught in a cycle of inflation and bad policy the now, but capitalism is still good. What we're doing as a country now isn't the only way to do capitalism. We just need to adjust course, not abandon ship.
Exclude government completely and just leave the economy to the market and unless you are an investment banker, FTSE 100 company ceo or director, tech executive or Premier League footballer capitalism isn't doing a great deal for you now. For most workers their pay is rising well below inflation. At least if they own a property that still likely has a high value even if falling a bit and their savings will be boosted by rising interest rates
I'm curious to know what your solution is.
Knowing you, it's probably feudalism. It is, isn't it?
Inheritance in part and feudalism was not all bad, most peasants had a hut and a smallholding for food. There was more stability and less anxiety even if life expectancy was lower and if the work was hard in the fields it was normally there.
There was a church and inn in almost every village and town (many villages no longer even have a pub or church with services each Sunday)
If I walked across the village green to St James's church at 1100 hours I would be in a congregation of about half a dozen. As a capitalist you have to agree that church is not economically viable- close it down, deconsecrate and sell it off for housing!
No, the congregation's reward regardless of size will be eternal life with Christ who managed with just 12 followers originally
Though He didn't have a listed building to maintain or a tea rota to staff.
Or the £8.7 billion of assets and investments the Church of England still has
Many of the churches assets were stolen from the people of this country. If we are looking at reparations then the church should be looking at reparations in the U.K. to the people,of,the U.K.
More correctly, owned by the Catholic Church [now Roman Catholic, not the Anglican splinter] in trust for the people.
There is plenty of case law that says the splitters don't get the assets, on the whole. See the Free Churches of Scotland passim.
We also need to look at reparations from the aristocracy, too, given what happened at the Dissolution. And the posh public schools such as Eton. Possibly the only institutions still functioning as their donors intended, mutatis mutandis for the modern context, are the Oxbridge colleges.
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?
Saving isn't some unalloyed good. If everyone is thrifty all the time, the economy grinds to a halt. We need people to spend because spending creates jobs.
It's all very well saving and having your money used to invest, but investments are a bet on future spending. Spending is what drives the economy.
Besides, what's with the "penalising savers" thing?
The person who did the saving isn't getting taxed in any meaningful way, because they have gone to a place where there is no tax. (At least we assume that's the case. Maybe Hell is an eternal self assessment form.)
The people who end up with less money because of inheritance tax are the inheritors, who have generally neither saved, toiled nor spun for what they receive. That's not to be begrudged, but a world where a person's life chances depend more on inheritance and less on what they do is not a good one. You can't abolish the inheritance effect, but it's not really something to encourage, I reckon.
If your starting point is that taxes are a necessary unpleasantness to pay for a good society, then tax paid when you receive an inheritance is probably one of the less objectionable ones.
As I pointed out in the last thread for the average person unless they are in the top 10% or especially top 1% of earners capitalism is not doing much for them in terms of wage rises. House prices and capital in property and savings and shares have generally risen much more this century than average earnings.
So if the state confiscates all or most assets on the death of their owner which would have been inherited otherwise and reduces accumulation of wealth then support for capitalism beyond the top 10% of earners in the private sector will fall even further
The trouble with asset wealth, especially locked up in bricks and mortar, is you can't spend it, whereas a pay rise can pay for a new car which employs car workers or dining out which employs restaurant workers and Deliveroo riders. That is capitalism.
And capitalism and pay rises aren't delivering much for 90% of workers now, whereas assets and savings are delivering more for the average person
Capitalism is delivering for workers. We're caught in a cycle of inflation and bad policy the now, but capitalism is still good. What we're doing as a country now isn't the only way to do capitalism. We just need to adjust course, not abandon ship.
Exclude government completely and just leave the economy to the market and unless you are an investment banker, FTSE 100 company ceo or director, tech executive or Premier League footballer capitalism isn't doing a great deal for you now. For most workers their pay is rising well below inflation. At least if they own a property that still likely has a high value even if falling a bit and their savings will be boosted by rising interest rates
I'm curious to know what your solution is.
Knowing you, it's probably feudalism. It is, isn't it?
Inheritance in part and feudalism was not all bad, most peasants had a hut and a smallholding for food. There was more stability and less anxiety even if life expectancy was lower and if the work was hard in the fields it was normally there.
There was a church and inn in almost every village and town (many villages no longer even have a pub or church with services each Sunday)
If I walked across the village green to St James's church at 1100 hours I would be in a congregation of about half a dozen. As a capitalist you have to agree that church is not economically viable- close it down, deconsecrate and sell it off for housing!
No, the congregation's reward regardless of size will be eternal life with Christ who managed with just 12 followers originally
Why is he so greedy about new ones now then? There's billions of 'em!
And of course there was not 1 Christian in Britain when Christ walked the earth
I see the Sunday morning rounds has Sunak telling mortgage holders to hold their nerve.
I'm guessing that is short form for "we are doing the necessary things for this to all turn round and, eventually, get better, so hold out if you possibly can".
But, for someone who is remortgaging this month and is going to struggle to afford it there has got to be a sense of "what the hell does that even mean". Not a great reassurance.
This is exactly the point I was making the other day when the BBC in particular were trying to float this meme that all the heavy lifting of iterest rate rises were being borne by the 1.4m still on variable rates. Its not true because the majority on fixed rates have to find another deal when their current one comes to an end and it is going to be seriously more expensive. Given the duration of most of these deals there is going to be a high rotation of this larger group. The effect will not be as instant as the variable raters but it will either happen soon or, at the least, be in contemplation.
The resilience of consumption has saved us from a recession and brought employment to a record high but how long can this go on? As government support on energy phases out, as mortgage holders get crucified, as rents increase to meet the higher costs of landlords, surely consumption is going to wilt. It is not easy to see where new growth is going to come from. The new Labour government is going to be facing difficult choices very quickly.
I bet the Tories will still claim to have left a golden legacy when Labour run into difficulty though.
I see the Sunday morning rounds has Sunak telling mortgage holders to hold their nerve.
I'm guessing that is short form for "we are doing the necessary things for this to all turn round and, eventually, get better, so hold out if you possibly can".
But, for someone who is remortgaging this month and is going to struggle to afford it there has got to be a sense of "what the hell does that even mean". Not a great reassurance.
This is exactly the point I was making the other day when the BBC in particular were trying to float this meme that all the heavy lifting of iterest rate rises were being borne by the 1.4m still on variable rates. Its not true because the majority on fixed rates have to find another deal when their current one comes to an end and it is going to be seriously more expensive. Given the duration of most of these deals there is going to be a high rotation of this larger group. The effect will not be as instant as the variable raters but it will either happen soon or, at the least, be in contemplation.
The resilience of consumption has saved us from a recession and brought employment to a record high but how long can this go on? As government support on energy phases out, as mortgage holders get crucified, as rents increase to meet the higher costs of landlords, surely consumption is going to wilt. It is not easy to see where new growth is going to come from. The new Labour government is going to be facing difficult choices very quickly.
I bet the Tories will still claim to have left a golden legacy when Labour run into difficulty though.
A plastic party wineglass full of urine on a desk in No 10.
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?
Saving isn't some unalloyed good. If everyone is thrifty all the time, the economy grinds to a halt. We need people to spend because spending creates jobs.
It's all very well saving and having your money used to invest, but investments are a bet on future spending. Spending is what drives the economy.
Besides, what's with the "penalising savers" thing?
The person who did the saving isn't getting taxed in any meaningful way, because they have gone to a place where there is no tax. (At least we assume that's the case. Maybe Hell is an eternal self assessment form.)
The people who end up with less money because of inheritance tax are the inheritors, who have generally neither saved, toiled nor spun for what they receive. That's not to be begrudged, but a world where a person's life chances depend more on inheritance and less on what they do is not a good one. You can't abolish the inheritance effect, but it's not really something to encourage, I reckon.
If your starting point is that taxes are a necessary unpleasantness to pay for a good society, then tax paid when you receive an inheritance is probably one of the less objectionable ones.
As I pointed out in the last thread for the average person unless they are in the top 10% or especially top 1% of earners capitalism is not doing much for them in terms of wage rises. House prices and capital in property and savings and shares have generally risen much more this century than average earnings.
So if the state confiscates all or most assets on the death of their owner which would have been inherited otherwise and reduces accumulation of wealth then support for capitalism beyond the top 10% of earners in the private sector will fall even further
The trouble with asset wealth, especially locked up in bricks and mortar, is you can't spend it, whereas a pay rise can pay for a new car which employs car workers or dining out which employs restaurant workers and Deliveroo riders. That is capitalism.
And capitalism and pay rises aren't delivering much for 90% of workers now, whereas assets and savings are delivering more for the average person
Capitalism is delivering for workers. We're caught in a cycle of inflation and bad policy the now, but capitalism is still good. What we're doing as a country now isn't the only way to do capitalism. We just need to adjust course, not abandon ship.
Exclude government completely and just leave the economy to the market and unless you are an investment banker, FTSE 100 company ceo or director, tech executive or Premier League footballer capitalism isn't doing a great deal for you now. For most workers their pay is rising well below inflation. At least if they own a property that still likely has a high value even if falling a bit and their savings will be boosted by rising interest rates
I'm curious to know what your solution is.
Knowing you, it's probably feudalism. It is, isn't it?
Inheritance in part and feudalism was not all bad, most peasants had a hut and a smallholding for food. There was more stability and less anxiety even if life expectancy was lower and if the work was hard in the fields it was normally there.
There was a church and inn in almost every village and town (many villages no longer even have a pub or church with services each Sunday)
If I walked across the village green to St James's church at 1100 hours I would be in a congregation of about half a dozen. As a capitalist you have to agree that church is not economically viable- close it down, deconsecrate and sell it off for housing!
No, the congregation's reward regardless of size will be eternal life with Christ who managed with just 12 followers originally
Though He didn't have a listed building to maintain or a tea rota to staff.
Or the £8.7 billion of assets and investments the Church of England still has
Many of the churches assets were stolen from the people of this country. If we are looking at reparations then the church should be looking at reparations in the U.K. to the people,of,the U.K.
More correctly, owned by the Catholic Church [now Roman Catholic, not the Anglican splinter] in trust for the people.
There is plenty of case law that says the splitters don't get the assets, on the whole. See the Free Churches of Scotland passim.
We also need to look at reparations from the aristocracy, too, given what happened at the Dissolution. And the posh public schools such as Eton. Possibly the only institutions still functioning as their donors intended, mutatis mutandis for the modern context, are the Oxbridge colleges.
Edit: I was forgetting. Henry VIII. Add the Royal Family to that list.
I see the Sunday morning rounds has Sunak telling mortgage holders to hold their nerve.
I'm guessing that is short form for "we are doing the necessary things for this to all turn round and, eventually, get better, so hold out if you possibly can".
But, for someone who is remortgaging this month and is going to struggle to afford it there has got to be a sense of "what the hell does that even mean". Not a great reassurance.
This is exactly the point I was making the other day when the BBC in particular were trying to float this meme that all the heavy lifting of iterest rate rises were being borne by the 1.4m still on variable rates. Its not true because the majority on fixed rates have to find another deal when their current one comes to an end and it is going to be seriously more expensive. Given the duration of most of these deals there is going to be a high rotation of this larger group. The effect will not be as instant as the variable raters but it will either happen soon or, at the least, be in contemplation.
The resilience of consumption has saved us from a recession and brought employment to a record high but how long can this go on? As government support on energy phases out, as mortgage holders get crucified, as rents increase to meet the higher costs of landlords, surely consumption is going to wilt. It is not easy to see where new growth is going to come from. The new Labour government is going to be facing difficult choices very quickly.
I bet the Tories will still claim to have left a golden legacy when Labour run into difficulty though.
A plastic party wineglass full of urine on a desk in No 10.
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?
Saving isn't some unalloyed good. If everyone is thrifty all the time, the economy grinds to a halt. We need people to spend because spending creates jobs.
It's all very well saving and having your money used to invest, but investments are a bet on future spending. Spending is what drives the economy.
Besides, what's with the "penalising savers" thing?
The person who did the saving isn't getting taxed in any meaningful way, because they have gone to a place where there is no tax. (At least we assume that's the case. Maybe Hell is an eternal self assessment form.)
The people who end up with less money because of inheritance tax are the inheritors, who have generally neither saved, toiled nor spun for what they receive. That's not to be begrudged, but a world where a person's life chances depend more on inheritance and less on what they do is not a good one. You can't abolish the inheritance effect, but it's not really something to encourage, I reckon.
If your starting point is that taxes are a necessary unpleasantness to pay for a good society, then tax paid when you receive an inheritance is probably one of the less objectionable ones.
As I pointed out in the last thread for the average person unless they are in the top 10% or especially top 1% of earners capitalism is not doing much for them in terms of wage rises. House prices and capital in property and savings and shares have generally risen much more this century than average earnings.
So if the state confiscates all or most assets on the death of their owner which would have been inherited otherwise and reduces accumulation of wealth then support for capitalism beyond the top 10% of earners in the private sector will fall even further
The trouble with asset wealth, especially locked up in bricks and mortar, is you can't spend it, whereas a pay rise can pay for a new car which employs car workers or dining out which employs restaurant workers and Deliveroo riders. That is capitalism.
And capitalism and pay rises aren't delivering much for 90% of workers now, whereas assets and savings are delivering more for the average person
Capitalism is delivering for workers. We're caught in a cycle of inflation and bad policy the now, but capitalism is still good. What we're doing as a country now isn't the only way to do capitalism. We just need to adjust course, not abandon ship.
Exclude government completely and just leave the economy to the market and unless you are an investment banker, FTSE 100 company ceo or director, tech executive or Premier League footballer capitalism isn't doing a great deal for you now. For most workers their pay is rising well below inflation. At least if they own a property that still likely has a high value even if falling a bit and their savings will be boosted by rising interest rates
I'm curious to know what your solution is.
Knowing you, it's probably feudalism. It is, isn't it?
Inheritance in part and feudalism was not all bad, most peasants had a hut and a smallholding for food. There was more stability and less anxiety even if life expectancy was lower and if the work was hard in the fields it was normally there.
There was a church and inn in almost every village and town (many villages no longer even have a pub or church with services each Sunday)
If I walked across the village green to St James's church at 1100 hours I would be in a congregation of about half a dozen. As a capitalist you have to agree that church is not economically viable- close it down, deconsecrate and sell it off for housing!
No, the congregation's reward regardless of size will be eternal life with Christ who managed with just 12 followers originally
Why is he so greedy about new ones now then? There's billions of 'em!
And of course there was not 1 Christian in Britain when Christ walked the earth
There wasn't a Christian anywhere!
Considering Jesus actually visited Glastonbury together with Joseph of Arimathea, I'm quite shocked by what HYUFD 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.'
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?
Saving isn't some unalloyed good. If everyone is thrifty all the time, the economy grinds to a halt. We need people to spend because spending creates jobs.
It's all very well saving and having your money used to invest, but investments are a bet on future spending. Spending is what drives the economy.
Besides, what's with the "penalising savers" thing?
The person who did the saving isn't getting taxed in any meaningful way, because they have gone to a place where there is no tax. (At least we assume that's the case. Maybe Hell is an eternal self assessment form.)
The people who end up with less money because of inheritance tax are the inheritors, who have generally neither saved, toiled nor spun for what they receive. That's not to be begrudged, but a world where a person's life chances depend more on inheritance and less on what they do is not a good one. You can't abolish the inheritance effect, but it's not really something to encourage, I reckon.
If your starting point is that taxes are a necessary unpleasantness to pay for a good society, then tax paid when you receive an inheritance is probably one of the less objectionable ones.
As I pointed out in the last thread for the average person unless they are in the top 10% or especially top 1% of earners capitalism is not doing much for them in terms of wage rises. House prices and capital in property and savings and shares have generally risen much more this century than average earnings.
So if the state confiscates all or most assets on the death of their owner which would have been inherited otherwise and reduces accumulation of wealth then support for capitalism beyond the top 10% of earners in the private sector will fall even further
The trouble with asset wealth, especially locked up in bricks and mortar, is you can't spend it, whereas a pay rise can pay for a new car which employs car workers or dining out which employs restaurant workers and Deliveroo riders. That is capitalism.
And capitalism and pay rises aren't delivering much for 90% of workers now, whereas assets and savings are delivering more for the average person
Capitalism is delivering for workers. We're caught in a cycle of inflation and bad policy the now, but capitalism is still good. What we're doing as a country now isn't the only way to do capitalism. We just need to adjust course, not abandon ship.
Exclude government completely and just leave the economy to the market and unless you are an investment banker, FTSE 100 company ceo or director, tech executive or Premier League footballer capitalism isn't doing a great deal for you now. For most workers their pay is rising well below inflation. At least if they own a property that still likely has a high value even if falling a bit and their savings will be boosted by rising interest rates
I'm curious to know what your solution is.
Knowing you, it's probably feudalism. It is, isn't it?
Inheritance in part and feudalism was not all bad, most peasants had a hut and a smallholding for food. There was more stability and less anxiety even if life expectancy was lower and if the work was hard in the fields it was normally there.
There was a church and inn in almost every village and town (many villages no longer even have a pub or church with services each Sunday)
Brilliant. Tory manifesto right there: We guarantee that all peasants will have a hut and a smallholding for food, and a church and a pub in every village.
I’m trying to imagine the average feudal Lord being told that his peasants weren’t being allowed to build hovels because of… rules.
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?
Saving isn't some unalloyed good. If everyone is thrifty all the time, the economy grinds to a halt. We need people to spend because spending creates jobs.
It's all very well saving and having your money used to invest, but investments are a bet on future spending. Spending is what drives the economy.
Besides, what's with the "penalising savers" thing?
The person who did the saving isn't getting taxed in any meaningful way, because they have gone to a place where there is no tax. (At least we assume that's the case. Maybe Hell is an eternal self assessment form.)
The people who end up with less money because of inheritance tax are the inheritors, who have generally neither saved, toiled nor spun for what they receive. That's not to be begrudged, but a world where a person's life chances depend more on inheritance and less on what they do is not a good one. You can't abolish the inheritance effect, but it's not really something to encourage, I reckon.
If your starting point is that taxes are a necessary unpleasantness to pay for a good society, then tax paid when you receive an inheritance is probably one of the less objectionable ones.
As I pointed out in the last thread for the average person unless they are in the top 10% or especially top 1% of earners capitalism is not doing much for them in terms of wage rises. House prices and capital in property and savings and shares have generally risen much more this century than average earnings.
So if the state confiscates all or most assets on the death of their owner which would have been inherited otherwise and reduces accumulation of wealth then support for capitalism beyond the top 10% of earners in the private sector will fall even further
The trouble with asset wealth, especially locked up in bricks and mortar, is you can't spend it, whereas a pay rise can pay for a new car which employs car workers or dining out which employs restaurant workers and Deliveroo riders. That is capitalism.
And capitalism and pay rises aren't delivering much for 90% of workers now, whereas assets and savings are delivering more for the average person
Capitalism is delivering for workers. We're caught in a cycle of inflation and bad policy the now, but capitalism is still good. What we're doing as a country now isn't the only way to do capitalism. We just need to adjust course, not abandon ship.
Exclude government completely and just leave the economy to the market and unless you are an investment banker, FTSE 100 company ceo or director, tech executive or Premier League footballer capitalism isn't doing a great deal for you now. For most workers their pay is rising well below inflation. At least if they own a property that still likely has a high value even if falling a bit and their savings will be boosted by rising interest rates
I'm curious to know what your solution is.
Knowing you, it's probably feudalism. It is, isn't it?
Inheritance in part and feudalism was not all bad, most peasants had a hut and a smallholding for food. There was more stability and less anxiety even if life expectancy was lower and if the work was hard in the fields it was normally there.
There was a church and inn in almost every village and town (many villages no longer even have a pub or church with services each Sunday)
If I walked across the village green to St James's church at 1100 hours I would be in a congregation of about half a dozen. As a capitalist you have to agree that church is not economically viable- close it down, deconsecrate and sell it off for housing!
No, the congregation's reward regardless of size will be eternal life with Christ who managed with just 12 followers originally
Why is he so greedy about new ones now then? There's billions of 'em!
And of course there was not 1 Christian in Britain when Christ walked the earth
There wasn't a Christian anywhere!
Considering Jesus actually visited Glastonbury together with Joseph of Arimathea, I'm quite shocked by what HYUFD has said.
Jesus certainluy self-identified as a Jew, in any case. (No idea what else.)
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?
Saving isn't some unalloyed good. If everyone is thrifty all the time, the economy grinds to a halt. We need people to spend because spending creates jobs.
It's all very well saving and having your money used to invest, but investments are a bet on future spending. Spending is what drives the economy.
Besides, what's with the "penalising savers" thing?
The person who did the saving isn't getting taxed in any meaningful way, because they have gone to a place where there is no tax. (At least we assume that's the case. Maybe Hell is an eternal self assessment form.)
The people who end up with less money because of inheritance tax are the inheritors, who have generally neither saved, toiled nor spun for what they receive. That's not to be begrudged, but a world where a person's life chances depend more on inheritance and less on what they do is not a good one. You can't abolish the inheritance effect, but it's not really something to encourage, I reckon.
If your starting point is that taxes are a necessary unpleasantness to pay for a good society, then tax paid when you receive an inheritance is probably one of the less objectionable ones.
As I pointed out in the last thread for the average person unless they are in the top 10% or especially top 1% of earners capitalism is not doing much for them in terms of wage rises. House prices and capital in property and savings and shares have generally risen much more this century than average earnings.
So if the state confiscates all or most assets on the death of their owner which would have been inherited otherwise and reduces accumulation of wealth then support for capitalism beyond the top 10% of earners in the private sector will fall even further
The trouble with asset wealth, especially locked up in bricks and mortar, is you can't spend it, whereas a pay rise can pay for a new car which employs car workers or dining out which employs restaurant workers and Deliveroo riders. That is capitalism.
And capitalism and pay rises aren't delivering much for 90% of workers now, whereas assets and savings are delivering more for the average person
Capitalism is delivering for workers. We're caught in a cycle of inflation and bad policy the now, but capitalism is still good. What we're doing as a country now isn't the only way to do capitalism. We just need to adjust course, not abandon ship.
Exclude government completely and just leave the economy to the market and unless you are an investment banker, FTSE 100 company ceo or director, tech executive or Premier League footballer capitalism isn't doing a great deal for you now. For most workers their pay is rising well below inflation. At least if they own a property that still likely has a high value even if falling a bit and their savings will be boosted by rising interest rates
I'm curious to know what your solution is.
Knowing you, it's probably feudalism. It is, isn't it?
Inheritance in part and feudalism was not all bad, most peasants had a hut and a smallholding for food. There was more stability and less anxiety even if life expectancy was lower and if the work was hard in the fields it was normally there.
There was a church and inn in almost every village and town (many villages no longer even have a pub or church with services each Sunday)
If I walked across the village green to St James's church at 1100 hours I would be in a congregation of about half a dozen. As a capitalist you have to agree that church is not economically viable- close it down, deconsecrate and sell it off for housing!
No, the congregation's reward regardless of size will be eternal life with Christ who managed with just 12 followers originally
Why is he so greedy about new ones now then? There's billions of 'em!
And of course there was not 1 Christian in Britain when Christ walked the earth
There wasn't a Christian anywhere!
Considering Jesus actually visited Glastonbury together with Joseph of Arimathea, I'm quite shocked by what HYUFD has said.
Could be proposed as a way of helping people swallow council tax rises.
"Look, do you want to pay 10% of all your earnings to pay for the vicar's new house and some new windows in the church, or pay your council tax?"
That would be discrimination on the grounds of belief. The first Quaker refuser to go to court would win hands down.
Well, it could be more of a general religious/cultural tithe, to be divided proportionally between each authorities' census balance of faith groups or cultural funding for those who selected atheist.
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?
Saving isn't some unalloyed good. If everyone is thrifty all the time, the economy grinds to a halt. We need people to spend because spending creates jobs.
It's all very well saving and having your money used to invest, but investments are a bet on future spending. Spending is what drives the economy.
Besides, what's with the "penalising savers" thing?
The person who did the saving isn't getting taxed in any meaningful way, because they have gone to a place where there is no tax. (At least we assume that's the case. Maybe Hell is an eternal self assessment form.)
The people who end up with less money because of inheritance tax are the inheritors, who have generally neither saved, toiled nor spun for what they receive. That's not to be begrudged, but a world where a person's life chances depend more on inheritance and less on what they do is not a good one. You can't abolish the inheritance effect, but it's not really something to encourage, I reckon.
If your starting point is that taxes are a necessary unpleasantness to pay for a good society, then tax paid when you receive an inheritance is probably one of the less objectionable ones.
As I pointed out in the last thread for the average person unless they are in the top 10% or especially top 1% of earners capitalism is not doing much for them in terms of wage rises. House prices and capital in property and savings and shares have generally risen much more this century than average earnings.
So if the state confiscates all or most assets on the death of their owner which would have been inherited otherwise and reduces accumulation of wealth then support for capitalism beyond the top 10% of earners in the private sector will fall even further
The trouble with asset wealth, especially locked up in bricks and mortar, is you can't spend it, whereas a pay rise can pay for a new car which employs car workers or dining out which employs restaurant workers and Deliveroo riders. That is capitalism.
And capitalism and pay rises aren't delivering much for 90% of workers now, whereas assets and savings are delivering more for the average person
Many fewer people have either assets or savings today, then has been the case in the recent past.
That a diminishing number of people enjoy such benefits, is a huge problem for the country and its leaders.
Even in the 1960s most of the population rented. Now 65% of the population own a property with or without a mortgage and the value of those homes they own is still high even if their wages are rising on average significantly below inflation
Compare 2023 to 2003, or to 1993, and you’ll find the position is now much worse.
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?
Saving isn't some unalloyed good. If everyone is thrifty all the time, the economy grinds to a halt. We need people to spend because spending creates jobs.
It's all very well saving and having your money used to invest, but investments are a bet on future spending. Spending is what drives the economy.
Besides, what's with the "penalising savers" thing?
The person who did the saving isn't getting taxed in any meaningful way, because they have gone to a place where there is no tax. (At least we assume that's the case. Maybe Hell is an eternal self assessment form.)
The people who end up with less money because of inheritance tax are the inheritors, who have generally neither saved, toiled nor spun for what they receive. That's not to be begrudged, but a world where a person's life chances depend more on inheritance and less on what they do is not a good one. You can't abolish the inheritance effect, but it's not really something to encourage, I reckon.
If your starting point is that taxes are a necessary unpleasantness to pay for a good society, then tax paid when you receive an inheritance is probably one of the less objectionable ones.
As I pointed out in the last thread for the average person unless they are in the top 10% or especially top 1% of earners capitalism is not doing much for them in terms of wage rises. House prices and capital in property and savings and shares have generally risen much more this century than average earnings.
So if the state confiscates all or most assets on the death of their owner which would have been inherited otherwise and reduces accumulation of wealth then support for capitalism beyond the top 10% of earners in the private sector will fall even further
The trouble with asset wealth, especially locked up in bricks and mortar, is you can't spend it, whereas a pay rise can pay for a new car which employs car workers or dining out which employs restaurant workers and Deliveroo riders. That is capitalism.
And capitalism and pay rises aren't delivering much for 90% of workers now, whereas assets and savings are delivering more for the average person
Capitalism is delivering for workers. We're caught in a cycle of inflation and bad policy the now, but capitalism is still good. What we're doing as a country now isn't the only way to do capitalism. We just need to adjust course, not abandon ship.
Exclude government completely and just leave the economy to the market and unless you are an investment banker, FTSE 100 company ceo or director, tech executive or Premier League footballer capitalism isn't doing a great deal for you now. For most workers their pay is rising well below inflation. At least if they own a property that still likely has a high value even if falling a bit and their savings will be boosted by rising interest rates
I'm curious to know what your solution is.
Knowing you, it's probably feudalism. It is, isn't it?
Inheritance in part and feudalism was not all bad, most peasants had a hut and a smallholding for food. There was more stability and less anxiety even if life expectancy was lower and if the work was hard in the fields it was normally there.
There was a church and inn in almost every village and town (many villages no longer even have a pub or church with services each Sunday)
Brilliant. Tory manifesto right there: We guarantee that all peasants will have a hut and a smallholding for food, and a church and a pub in every village.
I’m trying to imagine the average feudal Lord being told that his peasants weren’t being allowed to build hovels because of… rules.
That manifesto, in any case, would go down very badly with a lot of very recent feudal lords, who liked to make a point of positively demolishing redundant hovels on their estates to force unwanted peasants out onto someone else's parish rate. This happened from Sutherland to Start Point.
On the lighter side, I hope everyone enjoyed the story of the Belgian shot putter who 'ran' the 100m hurdles as a team mate had withdrawn and it earns points in athletic rankings.
Could be proposed as a way of helping people swallow council tax rises.
"Look, do you want to pay 10% of all your earnings to pay for the vicar's new house and some new windows in the church, or pay your council tax?"
That would be discrimination on the grounds of belief. The first Quaker refuser to go to court would win hands down.
Well, it could be more of a general religious/cultural tithe, to be divided proportionally between each authorities' census balance of faith groups or cultural funding for those who selected atheist.
It's already happening, to some extent, of course - English Heritage and Historic Scotland and CADW grants, and the like, to help maintain the fabric of churches, redundant or otherwise, and the wider hidden funding through charitable tax relief.
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?
Saving isn't some unalloyed good. If everyone is thrifty all the time, the economy grinds to a halt. We need people to spend because spending creates jobs.
It's all very well saving and having your money used to invest, but investments are a bet on future spending. Spending is what drives the economy.
Besides, what's with the "penalising savers" thing?
The person who did the saving isn't getting taxed in any meaningful way, because they have gone to a place where there is no tax. (At least we assume that's the case. Maybe Hell is an eternal self assessment form.)
The people who end up with less money because of inheritance tax are the inheritors, who have generally neither saved, toiled nor spun for what they receive. That's not to be begrudged, but a world where a person's life chances depend more on inheritance and less on what they do is not a good one. You can't abolish the inheritance effect, but it's not really something to encourage, I reckon.
If your starting point is that taxes are a necessary unpleasantness to pay for a good society, then tax paid when you receive an inheritance is probably one of the less objectionable ones.
As I pointed out in the last thread for the average person unless they are in the top 10% or especially top 1% of earners capitalism is not doing much for them in terms of wage rises. House prices and capital in property and savings and shares have generally risen much more this century than average earnings.
So if the state confiscates all or most assets on the death of their owner which would have been inherited otherwise and reduces accumulation of wealth then support for capitalism beyond the top 10% of earners in the private sector will fall even further
The trouble with asset wealth, especially locked up in bricks and mortar, is you can't spend it, whereas a pay rise can pay for a new car which employs car workers or dining out which employs restaurant workers and Deliveroo riders. That is capitalism.
And capitalism and pay rises aren't delivering much for 90% of workers now, whereas assets and savings are delivering more for the average person
Capitalism is delivering for workers. We're caught in a cycle of inflation and bad policy the now, but capitalism is still good. What we're doing as a country now isn't the only way to do capitalism. We just need to adjust course, not abandon ship.
Exclude government completely and just leave the economy to the market and unless you are an investment banker, FTSE 100 company ceo or director, tech executive or Premier League footballer capitalism isn't doing a great deal for you now. For most workers their pay is rising well below inflation. At least if they own a property that still likely has a high value even if falling a bit and their savings will be boosted by rising interest rates
I'm curious to know what your solution is.
Knowing you, it's probably feudalism. It is, isn't it?
Inheritance in part and feudalism was not all bad, most peasants had a hut and a smallholding for food. There was more stability and less anxiety even if life expectancy was lower and if the work was hard in the fields it was normally there.
There was a church and inn in almost every village and town (many villages no longer even have a pub or church with services each Sunday)
If I walked across the village green to St James's church at 1100 hours I would be in a congregation of about half a dozen. As a capitalist you have to agree that church is not economically viable- close it down, deconsecrate and sell it off for housing!
No, the congregation's reward regardless of size will be eternal life with Christ who managed with just 12 followers originally
Why is he so greedy about new ones now then? There's billions of 'em!
And of course there was not 1 Christian in Britain when Christ walked the earth
There wasn't a Christian anywhere!
Considering Jesus actually visited Glastonbury together with Joseph of Arimathea, I'm quite shocked by what HYUFD has said.
Jesus certainluy self-identified as a Jew, in any case. (No idea what else.)
Could be proposed as a way of helping people swallow council tax rises.
"Look, do you want to pay 10% of all your earnings to pay for the vicar's new house and some new windows in the church, or pay your council tax?"
That would be discrimination on the grounds of belief. The first Quaker refuser to go to court would win hands down.
Well, it could be more of a general religious/cultural tithe, to be divided proportionally between each authorities' census balance of faith groups or cultural funding for those who selected atheist.
wider hidden funding through charitable tax relief.
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?
Saving isn't some unalloyed good. If everyone is thrifty all the time, the economy grinds to a halt. We need people to spend because spending creates jobs.
It's all very well saving and having your money used to invest, but investments are a bet on future spending. Spending is what drives the economy.
Besides, what's with the "penalising savers" thing?
The person who did the saving isn't getting taxed in any meaningful way, because they have gone to a place where there is no tax. (At least we assume that's the case. Maybe Hell is an eternal self assessment form.)
The people who end up with less money because of inheritance tax are the inheritors, who have generally neither saved, toiled nor spun for what they receive. That's not to be begrudged, but a world where a person's life chances depend more on inheritance and less on what they do is not a good one. You can't abolish the inheritance effect, but it's not really something to encourage, I reckon.
If your starting point is that taxes are a necessary unpleasantness to pay for a good society, then tax paid when you receive an inheritance is probably one of the less objectionable ones.
As I pointed out in the last thread for the average person unless they are in the top 10% or especially top 1% of earners capitalism is not doing much for them in terms of wage rises. House prices and capital in property and savings and shares have generally risen much more this century than average earnings.
So if the state confiscates all or most assets on the death of their owner which would have been inherited otherwise and reduces accumulation of wealth then support for capitalism beyond the top 10% of earners in the private sector will fall even further
The trouble with asset wealth, especially locked up in bricks and mortar, is you can't spend it, whereas a pay rise can pay for a new car which employs car workers or dining out which employs restaurant workers and Deliveroo riders. That is capitalism.
And capitalism and pay rises aren't delivering much for 90% of workers now, whereas assets and savings are delivering more for the average person
Capitalism is delivering for workers. We're caught in a cycle of inflation and bad policy the now, but capitalism is still good. What we're doing as a country now isn't the only way to do capitalism. We just need to adjust course, not abandon ship.
Exclude government completely and just leave the economy to the market and unless you are an investment banker, FTSE 100 company ceo or director, tech executive or Premier League footballer capitalism isn't doing a great deal for you now. For most workers their pay is rising well below inflation. At least if they own a property that still likely has a high value even if falling a bit and their savings will be boosted by rising interest rates
I'm curious to know what your solution is.
Knowing you, it's probably feudalism. It is, isn't it?
Inheritance in part and feudalism was not all bad, most peasants had a hut and a smallholding for food. There was more stability and less anxiety even if life expectancy was lower and if the work was hard in the fields it was normally there.
There was a church and inn in almost every village and town (many villages no longer even have a pub or church with services each Sunday)
If I walked across the village green to St James's church at 1100 hours I would be in a congregation of about half a dozen. As a capitalist you have to agree that church is not economically viable- close it down, deconsecrate and sell it off for housing!
No, the congregation's reward regardless of size will be eternal life with Christ who managed with just 12 followers originally
Why is he so greedy about new ones now then? There's billions of 'em!
And of course there was not 1 Christian in Britain when Christ walked the earth
On the lighter side, I hope everyone enjoyed the story of the Belgian shot putter who 'ran' the 100m hurdles as a team mate had withdrawn and it earns points in atheltic rankings.
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?
Saving isn't some unalloyed good. If everyone is thrifty all the time, the economy grinds to a halt. We need people to spend because spending creates jobs.
It's all very well saving and having your money used to invest, but investments are a bet on future spending. Spending is what drives the economy.
Besides, what's with the "penalising savers" thing?
The person who did the saving isn't getting taxed in any meaningful way, because they have gone to a place where there is no tax. (At least we assume that's the case. Maybe Hell is an eternal self assessment form.)
The people who end up with less money because of inheritance tax are the inheritors, who have generally neither saved, toiled nor spun for what they receive. That's not to be begrudged, but a world where a person's life chances depend more on inheritance and less on what they do is not a good one. You can't abolish the inheritance effect, but it's not really something to encourage, I reckon.
If your starting point is that taxes are a necessary unpleasantness to pay for a good society, then tax paid when you receive an inheritance is probably one of the less objectionable ones.
As I pointed out in the last thread for the average person unless they are in the top 10% or especially top 1% of earners capitalism is not doing much for them in terms of wage rises. House prices and capital in property and savings and shares have generally risen much more this century than average earnings.
So if the state confiscates all or most assets on the death of their owner which would have been inherited otherwise and reduces accumulation of wealth then support for capitalism beyond the top 10% of earners in the private sector will fall even further
The trouble with asset wealth, especially locked up in bricks and mortar, is you can't spend it, whereas a pay rise can pay for a new car which employs car workers or dining out which employs restaurant workers and Deliveroo riders. That is capitalism.
And capitalism and pay rises aren't delivering much for 90% of workers now, whereas assets and savings are delivering more for the average person
Many fewer people have either assets or savings today, then has been the case in the recent past.
That a diminishing number of people enjoy such benefits, is a huge problem for the country and its leaders.
Even in the 1960s most of the population rented. Now 65% of the population own a property with or without a mortgage and the value of those homes they own is still high even if their wages are rising on average significantly below inflation
Compare 2023 to 2003, or to 1993, and you’ll find the position is now much worse.
I think that may be true of a lot of things, outside of mobile phones and video game graphics.
The Tories won’t do themselves any favours overruling independent pay bodies on public sector pay.
We are just likely to see more and more strikes and disruption and not just from the likes of the RMT who are politically motivated.
Yes, restoring the medical pay board independence is the key demand for Consultants in the current strike ballot. Results out Tuesday, I think, first 48 hour strike on 20th July pencilled in.
I don't get a vote as not in the BMA.
Do you think they will vote to strike ? They won a key concession after the consultative ballot. Namely the pensions lifetime allowance being raised with the annual amount you can put in one increased to 60K.
Doctors are getting too greedy by far. They are among highest paid in teh country and blackmail whilst people die , live in agony is not pleasant.
I can't think of a more deserving group to get paid well. Years of hard studying and hard work, having to deal with all kinds of depressing stuff, but their work is incredibly valuable to the individual and society. If they aren't paid well, who should be?
They are well paid though already. obviously the shit bankers/finance geezers are well overpaid but compared to your average person , Doctors are at top of the tree already. Far better to pay those at the bottom who are being shat on. There are NO poor doctor's.
There certainly are poor doctors. If you're starting off on £30k and with £60k debts, are you rich?
Those are the junior doctors who are already striking.
We are discussing the consultants whose ballot closes this week and one of their main demands was the govt remove the lifetime allowance on pension pots. Duly done and increased the amount they could put into it in a year from 40K to 60K.
Junior Doctors starting out, in the scenario you paint, should certainly have something more done to help them. These are the ones I have some sympathy for.
For example a suggestion was made to forgive a portion of their debt for every year they rema8ned in the NHS.
That’s long been a suggestion of mine - along with teachers.
While employed, the employer takes on any repayments.
Forgive in yearly increments - say over 8 years. Set it up so the amount forgiven is heavily loaded to the end of the 8 years. So perhaps a 3rd of the debt is paid off in the last year.
If you get someone in a career for 8 years, you’ be probably got them for life.
The Tories won’t do themselves any favours overruling independent pay bodies on public sector pay.
We are just likely to see more and more strikes and disruption and not just from the likes of the RMT who are politically motivated.
Yes, restoring the medical pay board independence is the key demand for Consultants in the current strike ballot. Results out Tuesday, I think, first 48 hour strike on 20th July pencilled in.
I don't get a vote as not in the BMA.
Do you think they will vote to strike ? They won a key concession after the consultative ballot. Namely the pensions lifetime allowance being raised with the annual amount you can put in one increased to 60K.
Doctors are getting too greedy by far. They are among highest paid in teh country and blackmail whilst people die , live in agony is not pleasant.
I can't think of a more deserving group to get paid well. Years of hard studying and hard work, having to deal with all kinds of depressing stuff, but their work is incredibly valuable to the individual and society. If they aren't paid well, who should be?
They are well paid though already. obviously the shit bankers/finance geezers are well overpaid but compared to your average person , Doctors are at top of the tree already. Far better to pay those at the bottom who are being shat on. There are NO poor doctor's.
There certainly are poor doctors. If you're starting off on £30k and with £60k debts, are you rich?
Those are the junior doctors who are already striking.
We are discussing the consultants whose ballot closes this week and one of their main demands was the govt remove the lifetime allowance on pension pots. Duly done and increased the amount they could put into it in a year from 40K to 60K.
Junior Doctors starting out, in the scenario you paint, should certainly have something more done to help them. These are the ones I have some sympathy for.
For example a suggestion was made to forgive a portion of their debt for every year they rema8ned in the NHS.
That’s long been a suggestion of mine along with teachers.
While employed, the employer takes on an
Forgive in yearly increments - say over 8 years. Set it up so the amount forgiven is heavily loaded to the end of the 8 years. So perhaps a 3rd of the debt is paid off in the last year.
On the lighter side, I hope everyone enjoyed the story of the Belgian shot putter who 'ran' the 100m hurdles as a team mate had withdrawn and it earns points in atheltic rankings.
More rumours that Shoigu and Gerasimov are about to be sacked.
That was a key demand of Prigozhin, so if that happened it would emphasise that Putin is not in a very strong position, at the moment. He may also not be trusting anyone much.
The Tories won’t do themselves any favours overruling independent pay bodies on public sector pay.
We are just likely to see more and more strikes and disruption and not just from the likes of the RMT who are politically motivated.
Yes, restoring the medical pay board independence is the key demand for Consultants in the current strike ballot. Results out Tuesday, I think, first 48 hour strike on 20th July pencilled in.
I don't get a vote as not in the BMA.
Do you think they will vote to strike ? They won a key concession after the consultative ballot. Namely the pensions lifetime allowance being raised with the annual amount you can put in one increased to 60K.
Doctors are getting too greedy by far. They are among highest paid in teh country and blackmail whilst people die , live in agony is not pleasant.
I can't think of a more deserving group to get paid well. Years of hard studying and hard work, having to deal with all kinds of depressing stuff, but their work is incredibly valuable to the individual and society. If they aren't paid well, who should be?
They are well paid though already. obviously the shit bankers/finance geezers are well overpaid but compared to your average person , Doctors are at top of the tree already. Far better to pay those at the bottom who are being shat on. There are NO poor doctor's.
There certainly are poor doctors. If you're starting off on £30k and with £60k debts, are you rich?
Those are the junior doctors who are already striking.
We are discussing the consultants whose ballot closes this week and one of their main demands was the govt remove the lifetime allowance on pension pots. Duly done and increased the amount they could put into it in a year from 40K to 60K.
Junior Doctors starting out, in the scenario you paint, should certainly have something more done to help them. These are the ones I have some sympathy for.
For example a suggestion was made to forgive a portion of their debt for every year they rema8ned in the NHS.
That’s long been a suggestion of mine - along with teachers.
While employed, the employer takes on any repayments.
Forgive in yearly increments - say over 8 years. Set it up so the amount forgiven is heavily loaded to the end of the 8 years. So perhaps a 3rd of the debt is paid off in the last year.
If you get someone in a career for 8 years, you’ be probably got them for life.
I wonder is there a large share of NHS junior doctors with student debt for a British university course. At any rate, if you give people an implicit pay cut after year 8, I'd expect a rapid development of a norm that people leave at year 8.
This is what I've written about today. Who is this response aimed at? Boris supporters still think he's throwing Boris under a bus. Boris's critics still think he's bottling it. If he wants to frame himself as a man of integrity and authority, he needs to give a straight answer.
There’s a lot of stories about schools in the US at the moment. Schooling could well be a major issue in the election campaign, it certainly will be a major issue in the Republican primaries.
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?
Saving isn't some unalloyed good. If everyone is thrifty all the time, the economy grinds to a halt. We need people to spend because spending creates jobs.
It's all very well saving and having your money used to invest, but investments are a bet on future spending. Spending is what drives the economy.
Besides, what's with the "penalising savers" thing?
The person who did the saving isn't getting taxed in any meaningful way, because they have gone to a place where there is no tax. (At least we assume that's the case. Maybe Hell is an eternal self assessment form.)
The people who end up with less money because of inheritance tax are the inheritors, who have generally neither saved, toiled nor spun for what they receive. That's not to be begrudged, but a world where a person's life chances depend more on inheritance and less on what they do is not a good one. You can't abolish the inheritance effect, but it's not really something to encourage, I reckon.
If your starting point is that taxes are a necessary unpleasantness to pay for a good society, then tax paid when you receive an inheritance is probably one of the less objectionable ones.
As I pointed out in the last thread for the average person unless they are in the top 10% or especially top 1% of earners capitalism is not doing much for them in terms of wage rises. House prices and capital in property and savings and shares have generally risen much more this century than average earnings.
So if the state confiscates all or most assets on the death of their owner which would have been inherited otherwise and reduces accumulation of wealth then support for capitalism beyond the top 10% of earners in the private sector will fall even further
The trouble with asset wealth, especially locked up in bricks and mortar, is you can't spend it, whereas a pay rise can pay for a new car which employs car workers or dining out which employs restaurant workers and Deliveroo riders. That is capitalism.
And capitalism and pay rises aren't delivering much for 90% of workers now, whereas assets and savings are delivering more for the average person
Capitalism is delivering for workers. We're caught in a cycle of inflation and bad policy the now, but capitalism is still good. What we're doing as a country now isn't the only way to do capitalism. We just need to adjust course, not abandon ship.
Exclude government completely and just leave the economy to the market and unless you are an investment banker, FTSE 100 company ceo or director, tech executive or Premier League footballer capitalism isn't doing a great deal for you now. For most workers their pay is rising well below inflation. At least if they own a property that still likely has a high value even if falling a bit and their savings will be boosted by rising interest rates
I'm curious to know what your solution is.
Knowing you, it's probably feudalism. It is, isn't it?
Inheritance in part and feudalism was not all bad, most peasants had a hut and a smallholding for food. There was more stability and less anxiety even if life expectancy was lower and if the work was hard in the fields it was normally there.
There was a church and inn in almost every village and town (many villages no longer even have a pub or church with services each Sunday)
If I walked across the village green to St James's church at 1100 hours I would be in a congregation of about half a dozen. As a capitalist you have to agree that church is not economically viable- close it down, deconsecrate and sell it off for housing!
No, the congregation's reward regardless of size will be eternal life with Christ who managed with just 12 followers originally
Why is he so greedy about new ones now then? There's billions of 'em!
And of course there was not 1 Christian in Britain when Christ walked the earth
There wasn't a Christian anywhere!
Considering Jesus actually visited Glastonbury together with Joseph of Arimathea, I'm quite shocked by what HYUFD has said.
Jesus certainluy self-identified as a Jew, in any case. (No idea what else.)
He was born a Jew, by his death he had created a new covenant, a new message as set out by the disciples in the gospels and founded a new religion of Christianity based on his teachings
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?
Saving isn't some unalloyed good. If everyone is thrifty all the time, the economy grinds to a halt. We need people to spend because spending creates jobs.
It's all very well saving and having your money used to invest, but investments are a bet on future spending. Spending is what drives the economy.
Besides, what's with the "penalising savers" thing?
The person who did the saving isn't getting taxed in any meaningful way, because they have gone to a place where there is no tax. (At least we assume that's the case. Maybe Hell is an eternal self assessment form.)
The people who end up with less money because of inheritance tax are the inheritors, who have generally neither saved, toiled nor spun for what they receive. That's not to be begrudged, but a world where a person's life chances depend more on inheritance and less on what they do is not a good one. You can't abolish the inheritance effect, but it's not really something to encourage, I reckon.
If your starting point is that taxes are a necessary unpleasantness to pay for a good society, then tax paid when you receive an inheritance is probably one of the less objectionable ones.
As I pointed out in the last thread for the average person unless they are in the top 10% or especially top 1% of earners capitalism is not doing much for them in terms of wage rises. House prices and capital in property and savings and shares have generally risen much more this century than average earnings.
So if the state confiscates all or most assets on the death of their owner which would have been inherited otherwise and reduces accumulation of wealth then support for capitalism beyond the top 10% of earners in the private sector will fall even further
The trouble with asset wealth, especially locked up in bricks and mortar, is you can't spend it, whereas a pay rise can pay for a new car which employs car workers or dining out which employs restaurant workers and Deliveroo riders. That is capitalism.
And capitalism and pay rises aren't delivering much for 90% of workers now, whereas assets and savings are delivering more for the average person
Capitalism is delivering for workers. We're caught in a cycle of inflation and bad policy the now, but capitalism is still good. What we're doing as a country now isn't the only way to do capitalism. We just need to adjust course, not abandon ship.
Exclude government completely and just leave the economy to the market and unless you are an investment banker, FTSE 100 company ceo or director, tech executive or Premier League footballer capitalism isn't doing a great deal for you now. For most workers their pay is rising well below inflation. At least if they own a property that still likely has a high value even if falling a bit and their savings will be boosted by rising interest rates
I'm curious to know what your solution is.
Knowing you, it's probably feudalism. It is, isn't it?
Inheritance in part and feudalism was not all bad, most peasants had a hut and a smallholding for food. There was more stability and less anxiety even if life expectancy was lower and if the work was hard in the fields it was normally there.
There was a church and inn in almost every village and town (many villages no longer even have a pub or church with services each Sunday)
If I walked across the village green to St James's church at 1100 hours I would be in a congregation of about half a dozen. As a capitalist you have to agree that church is not economically viable- close it down, deconsecrate and sell it off for housing!
No, the congregation's reward regardless of size will be eternal life with Christ who managed with just 12 followers originally
Why is he so greedy about new ones now then? There's billions of 'em!
And of course there was not 1 Christian in Britain when Christ walked the earth
There wasn't a Christian anywhere!
Considering Jesus actually visited Glastonbury together with Joseph of Arimathea, I'm quite shocked by what HYUFD has said.
Even if they visited Britain, neither were native British but from Palestine and Judea
More rumours that Shoigu and Gerasimov are about to be sacked.
That was a key demand of Prigozhin, which would emphasise that Putin is not in a very strong position , at the moment.
Would be dramatic indeed - Putin does not seem to like reshuffles of the truly big posts (see also Lavrov in Foreign affairs), and Shoigu has been Defence Minister since 2012, and 'Minister for Emergency Situations' for 21 years prior to that.
When the President starts recycling the old guard to refresh things it can work, but can also just emphasise that the President has been in place a loooong time and is now the oldest of the old guard.
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?
Saving isn't some unalloyed good. If everyone is thrifty all the time, the economy grinds to a halt. We need people to spend because spending creates jobs.
It's all very well saving and having your money used to invest, but investments are a bet on future spending. Spending is what drives the economy.
That is very true and the present spending is surprising in view of the COL crisis
Savers have already been penalised over the last decade of low interest rates. There has been little incentive to squirrel money away given the returns.
Higher interest rates don’t only take money out of the econ9my from borrowers but also fr9m savers.
We need a balance between spend and save. People saving for their retirement and latter years is a benefit as it reduces what the govt needs to pay out in terms of additional benefits.
It also makes sense to have six months salary saved in case of unemployment and savings for emergencies.
Saving is not all bad.
To be honest I'm struggling to think of a time where cash savings have beat inflation in the last 15 years regardless of interest rate. I think you'd have consistently lost money in real terms almost all of the time. And NSI premium bonds are almost always shit.
It's stocks and shares ISAs/pensions and assets where you can save to generate a real return, or betting of course.
I'd agree that Premium Bonds are a bit shite, but do make sense to bung some cash away short term that you can get hold of in a few days. We've got the maximum in them while we're house hunting and made 225 quid over the last 3 months. Next month might be nowt, but it's safe, easy to get out once we find somewhere and so far the winnings have bought the wife a new set of tyres for her bike!
Could be proposed as a way of helping people swallow council tax rises.
"Look, do you want to pay 10% of all your earnings to pay for the vicar's new house and some new windows in the church, or pay your council tax?"
That would be discrimination on the grounds of belief. The first Quaker refuser to go to court would win hands down.
Well, it could be more of a general religious/cultural tithe, to be divided proportionally between each authorities' census balance of faith groups or cultural funding for those who selected atheist.
wider hidden funding through charitable tax relief.
'Tis god's will.
This discussion gives me an opportunity to fire up a favourite word - antidisestablishmentarianism
It used to give my eldest daughter much joy to ask me my favourite word, hear it, attempt to say it, and collapse in laughter.
The youngest did a presentation for her RE class on it.
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?
Saving isn't some unalloyed good. If everyone is thrifty all the time, the economy grinds to a halt. We need people to spend because spending creates jobs.
It's all very well saving and having your money used to invest, but investments are a bet on future spending. Spending is what drives the economy.
Besides, what's with the "penalising savers" thing?
The person who did the saving isn't getting taxed in any meaningful way, because they have gone to a place where there is no tax. (At least we assume that's the case. Maybe Hell is an eternal self assessment form.)
The people who end up with less money because of inheritance tax are the inheritors, who have generally neither saved, toiled nor spun for what they receive. That's not to be begrudged, but a world where a person's life chances depend more on inheritance and less on what they do is not a good one. You can't abolish the inheritance effect, but it's not really something to encourage, I reckon.
If your starting point is that taxes are a necessary unpleasantness to pay for a good society, then tax paid when you receive an inheritance is probably one of the less objectionable ones.
As I pointed out in the last thread for the average person unless they are in the top 10% or especially top 1% of earners capitalism is not doing much for them in terms of wage rises. House prices and capital in property and savings and shares have generally risen much more this century than average earnings.
So if the state confiscates all or most assets on the death of their owner which would have been inherited otherwise and reduces accumulation of wealth then support for capitalism beyond the top 10% of earners in the private sector will fall even further
The trouble with asset wealth, especially locked up in bricks and mortar, is you can't spend it, whereas a pay rise can pay for a new car which employs car workers or dining out which employs restaurant workers and Deliveroo riders. That is capitalism.
And capitalism and pay rises aren't delivering much for 90% of workers now, whereas assets and savings are delivering more for the average person
Many fewer people have either assets or savings today, then has been the case in the recent past.
That a diminishing number of people enjoy such benefits, is a huge problem for the country and its leaders.
Even in the 1960s most of the population rented. Now 65% of the population own a property with or without a mortgage and the value of those homes they own is still high even if their wages are rising on average significantly below inflation
Compare 2023 to 2003, or to 1993, and you’ll find the position is now much worse.
House prices for the 2/3 of the population who own a house with or without a mortgage are much higher than in 1993.
Main problem for those with mortgages is rising interest rates, just as it was for them in 1993 post Black Wednesday
Could be proposed as a way of helping people swallow council tax rises.
"Look, do you want to pay 10% of all your earnings to pay for the vicar's new house and some new windows in the church, or pay your council tax?"
That would be discrimination on the grounds of belief. The first Quaker refuser to go to court would win hands down.
Well, it could be more of a general religious/cultural tithe, to be divided proportionally between each authorities' census balance of faith groups or cultural funding for those who selected atheist.
wider hidden funding through charitable tax relief.
'Tis god's will.
Who said learning had to be boring.
The History Channel, that's why they leave the interesting stuff to be done on Youtube.
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?
Saving isn't some unalloyed good. If everyone is thrifty all the time, the economy grinds to a halt. We need people to spend because spending creates jobs.
It's all very well saving and having your money used to invest, but investments are a bet on future spending. Spending is what drives the economy.
Besides, what's with the "penalising savers" thing?
The person who did the saving isn't getting taxed in any meaningful way, because they have gone to a place where there is no tax. (At least we assume that's the case. Maybe Hell is an eternal self assessment form.)
The people who end up with less money because of inheritance tax are the inheritors, who have generally neither saved, toiled nor spun for what they receive. That's not to be begrudged, but a world where a person's life chances depend more on inheritance and less on what they do is not a good one. You can't abolish the inheritance effect, but it's not really something to encourage, I reckon.
If your starting point is that taxes are a necessary unpleasantness to pay for a good society, then tax paid when you receive an inheritance is probably one of the less objectionable ones.
As I pointed out in the last thread for the average person unless they are in the top 10% or especially top 1% of earners capitalism is not doing much for them in terms of wage rises. House prices and capital in property and savings and shares have generally risen much more this century than average earnings.
So if the state confiscates all or most assets on the death of their owner which would have been inherited otherwise and reduces accumulation of wealth then support for capitalism beyond the top 10% of earners in the private sector will fall even further
The trouble with asset wealth, especially locked up in bricks and mortar, is you can't spend it, whereas a pay rise can pay for a new car which employs car workers or dining out which employs restaurant workers and Deliveroo riders. That is capitalism.
And capitalism and pay rises aren't delivering much for 90% of workers now, whereas assets and savings are delivering more for the average person
Capitalism is delivering for workers. We're caught in a cycle of inflation and bad policy the now, but capitalism is still good. What we're doing as a country now isn't the only way to do capitalism. We just need to adjust course, not abandon ship.
Exclude government completely and just leave the economy to the market and unless you are an investment banker, FTSE 100 company ceo or director, tech executive or Premier League footballer capitalism isn't doing a great deal for you now. For most workers their pay is rising well below inflation. At least if they own a property that still likely has a high value even if falling a bit and their savings will be boosted by rising interest rates
I'm curious to know what your solution is.
Knowing you, it's probably feudalism. It is, isn't it?
Inheritance in part and feudalism was not all bad, most peasants had a hut and a smallholding for food. There was more stability and less anxiety even if life expectancy was lower and if the work was hard in the fields it was normally there.
There was a church and inn in almost every village and town (many villages no longer even have a pub or church with services each Sunday)
If I walked across the village green to St James's church at 1100 hours I would be in a congregation of about half a dozen. As a capitalist you have to agree that church is not economically viable- close it down, deconsecrate and sell it off for housing!
No, the congregation's reward regardless of size will be eternal life with Christ who managed with just 12 followers originally
Though He didn't have a listed building to maintain or a tea rota to staff.
Or the £8.7 billion of assets and investments the Church of England still has
Many of the churches assets were stolen from the people of this country. If we are looking at reparations then the church should be looking at reparations in the U.K. to the people,of,the U.K.
More correctly, owned by the Catholic Church [now Roman Catholic, not the Anglican splinter] in trust for the people.
There is plenty of case law that says the splitters don't get the assets, on the whole. See the Free Churches of Scotland passim.
We also need to look at reparations from the aristocracy, too, given what happened at the Dissolution. And the posh public schools such as Eton. Possibly the only institutions still functioning as their donors intended, mutatis mutandis for the modern context, are the Oxbridge colleges.
Eton and Winchester should be lumped in with the Oxbridge colleges as they are the original foundations still, along with their sister Oxbridge colleges so are also pre-reformation institutions.
Could be proposed as a way of helping people swallow council tax rises.
"Look, do you want to pay 10% of all your earnings to pay for the vicar's new house and some new windows in the church, or pay your council tax?"
That would be discrimination on the grounds of belief. The first Quaker refuser to go to court would win hands down.
Well, it could be more of a general religious/cultural tithe, to be divided proportionally between each authorities' census balance of faith groups or cultural funding for those who selected atheist.
wider hidden funding through charitable tax relief.
'Tis god's will.
This discussion gives me an opportunity to fire up a favourite word - antidisestablishmentarianism
It used to give my eldest daughter much joy to ask me my favourite word, hear it, attempt to say it, and collapse in laughter.
The youngest did a presentation for her RE class on it.
Who said learning had to be boring.
Edit: Church Tax is still a thing in Germany
And Sweden and Denmark I think
Denmark's Lutheran church is still the established church there with the monarch obliged to belong to it, 73% of Danes are at least nominal members of it. It is funded by a church tax for members and government subsidy
This is what I've written about today. Who is this response aimed at? Boris supporters still think he's throwing Boris under a bus. Boris's critics still think he's bottling it. If he wants to frame himself as a man of integrity and authority, he needs to give a straight answer.
The Johnson dickriders are still a formidable section of the tory membership but he also needs the votes of the slightly less radged so what else can he do but equivocate?
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?
Saving isn't some unalloyed good. If everyone is thrifty all the time, the economy grinds to a halt. We need people to spend because spending creates jobs.
It's all very well saving and having your money used to invest, but investments are a bet on future spending. Spending is what drives the economy.
That is very true and the present spending is surprising in view of the COL crisis
Savers have already been penalised over the last decade of low interest rates. There has been little incentive to squirrel money away given the returns.
Higher interest rates don’t only take money out of the econ9my from borrowers but also fr9m savers.
We need a balance between spend and save. People saving for their retirement and latter years is a benefit as it reduces what the govt needs to pay out in terms of additional benefits.
It also makes sense to have six months salary saved in case of unemployment and savings for emergencies.
Saving is not all bad.
To be honest I'm struggling to think of a time where cash savings have beat inflation in the last 15 years regardless of interest rate. I think you'd have consistently lost money in real terms almost all of the time. And NSI premium bonds are almost always shit.
It's stocks and shares ISAs/pensions and assets where you can save to generate a real return, or betting of course.
I'd agree that Premium Bonds are a bit shite, but do make sense to bung some cash away short term that you can get hold of in a few days. We've got the maximum in them while we're house hunting and made 225 quid over the last 3 months. Next month might be nowt, but it's safe, easy to get out once we find somewhere and so far the winnings have bought the wife a new set of tyres for her bike!
As an alternative NS&I offer savings bonds which pay interest and you can get the money back in few days.
All that Premium Bonds are doing is taking a rather shit rate of interest and using that to fund a lottery.
I have some Premium Bonds, among my savings, on the basis that the marginal value of the interest is very low - to me. Whereas a big win… the basic £1 a week on the lottery thing.
Some years ago, the Economist suggested that every £1 paid in income tax should be a lottery ticket.
So have the Wagner troops all gone to Belarus? What are they going to do there? Or have they gone back to the front in Ukraine? Or are they out of the war entirely?
Some are becoming contrakti in the RF armed forces, some will melt away to whatever muddy, backward, shithole they came from, some will go the new PMCs; Convoy, Kadyrov's and that one that the head of the Russian Prison Service is starting. PMC Porridge.
For all those of you who don't speak @Dura_Ace, here is a free translation
Some (of the Wagner troops) are becoming contrakti (contract employers, ie mercenaries) in the RF (Russian Federation) armed forces, some will melt away to whatever muddy, backward, shithole they came from (everything East of Moscow), some will go the new PMCs (Private Military Companies: mercenary groups); Convoy (PMC Convoy, a mercenary group started by Crimean Sergey Aksyonov), Kadyrov's (an as-yet-unnamed PMC started by Chechen Ramzan Kadyrov) and that one that the head of the Russian Prison Service is starting (an as-yet-unnamed PMC started by Federal Penitentiary Service head Sergei Chemezov). PMC Porridge (a humorous reference to "porridge", British slang for a prison term and a popular 1970's BBC comedy series)
I didn't think Dura's explanation was too bad, tbh.
But you did a good job anyway, I reckon you've got a future subtitling regional British films for American audiences! (One of the films I watched, and indeed re-read, when I building my Italian skills back in the day was Trainspotting, as there was little loss of intelligibility from the original!).
I bet they had fun finding an Italian translator, who must surely have studied in Glasgow and understood the most colloquial of Scottish, for that one.
This is what I've written about today. Who is this response aimed at? Boris supporters still think he's throwing Boris under a bus. Boris's critics still think he's bottling it. If he wants to frame himself as a man of integrity and authority, he needs to give a straight answer.
The Johnson dickriders are still a formidable section of the tory membership but he also needs the votes of the slightly less radged so what else can he do but equivocate?
But he doesn't gain the votes of either by doing that.
He should have just sided with Boris, that appears to be the more active side of the party even though it is not the majority, the rest have just given up and are depressed.
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?
Saving isn't some unalloyed good. If everyone is thrifty all the time, the economy grinds to a halt. We need people to spend because spending creates jobs.
It's all very well saving and having your money used to invest, but investments are a bet on future spending. Spending is what drives the economy.
Besides, what's with the "penalising savers" thing?
The person who did the saving isn't getting taxed in any meaningful way, because they have gone to a place where there is no tax. (At least we assume that's the case. Maybe Hell is an eternal self assessment form.)
The people who end up with less money because of inheritance tax are the inheritors, who have generally neither saved, toiled nor spun for what they receive. That's not to be begrudged, but a world where a person's life chances depend more on inheritance and less on what they do is not a good one. You can't abolish the inheritance effect, but it's not really something to encourage, I reckon.
If your starting point is that taxes are a necessary unpleasantness to pay for a good society, then tax paid when you receive an inheritance is probably one of the less objectionable ones.
As I pointed out in the last thread for the average person unless they are in the top 10% or especially top 1% of earners capitalism is not doing much for them in terms of wage rises. House prices and capital in property and savings and shares have generally risen much more this century than average earnings.
So if the state confiscates all or most assets on the death of their owner which would have been inherited otherwise and reduces accumulation of wealth then support for capitalism beyond the top 10% of earners in the private sector will fall even further
The trouble with asset wealth, especially locked up in bricks and mortar, is you can't spend it, whereas a pay rise can pay for a new car which employs car workers or dining out which employs restaurant workers and Deliveroo riders. That is capitalism.
And capitalism and pay rises aren't delivering much for 90% of workers now, whereas assets and savings are delivering more for the average person
Capitalism is delivering for workers. We're caught in a cycle of inflation and bad policy the now, but capitalism is still good. What we're doing as a country now isn't the only way to do capitalism. We just need to adjust course, not abandon ship.
Exclude government completely and just leave the economy to the market and unless you are an investment banker, FTSE 100 company ceo or director, tech executive or Premier League footballer capitalism isn't doing a great deal for you now. For most workers their pay is rising well below inflation. At least if they own a property that still likely has a high value even if falling a bit and their savings will be boosted by rising interest rates
I'm curious to know what your solution is.
Knowing you, it's probably feudalism. It is, isn't it?
Inheritance in part and feudalism was not all bad, most peasants had a hut and a smallholding for food. There was more stability and less anxiety even if life expectancy was lower and if the work was hard in the fields it was normally there.
There was a church and inn in almost every village and town (many villages no longer even have a pub or church with services each Sunday)
If I walked across the village green to St James's church at 1100 hours I would be in a congregation of about half a dozen. As a capitalist you have to agree that church is not economically viable- close it down, deconsecrate and sell it off for housing!
No, the congregation's reward regardless of size will be eternal life with Christ who managed with just 12 followers originally
Though He didn't have a listed building to maintain or a tea rota to staff.
Or the £8.7 billion of assets and investments the Church of England still has
Many of the churches assets were stolen from the people of this country. If we are looking at reparations then the church should be looking at reparations in the U.K. to the people,of,the U.K.
No, at most they were stolen from the Roman Catholics at the Reformation in terms of assets pre 16th century.
Never mind reparations, you could restore Tithes to maintain our historic churches
As a confirmed Catholic, I am more than happy to receive my share of reparations from the Church of England.
Could be proposed as a way of helping people swallow council tax rises.
"Look, do you want to pay 10% of all your earnings to pay for the vicar's new house and some new windows in the church, or pay your council tax?"
That would be discrimination on the grounds of belief. The first Quaker refuser to go to court would win hands down.
Well, it could be more of a general religious/cultural tithe, to be divided proportionally between each authorities' census balance of faith groups or cultural funding for those who selected atheist.
wider hidden funding through charitable tax relief.
'Tis god's will.
Who said learning had to be boring.
The History Channel, that's why they leave the interesting stuff to be done on Youtube.
Yes, that's actually an intelligent discussion and another illustration of the puzzling extent to which it's possible to have critical voices on Russian TV. That isn't a new phenomenon - we've seen off-message discussions highlighted repeatedly over the last year or two, from rational people like this to truly bonkers commentators. To some extent that's presumably allowing some letting off steam, but it also illustrates the fact that power isn't as centralised and monolithic as we tend to think.
Which is probably a good thing, as it gives the possibility of less imperialist figures coming to the fore - but obviously it gives space for ultra-nationalists nutters as well.
I think that's a bit naïve. Putin wouldn't allow anyone broadcasting he didn't want to.
And that dialogue is very pro-war, as they always are.
The main critisicm of Putin is not from the anti war side in Russia.
Yes, but that's because all the anti war side have been locked up, or worse.
I don't think it is. Obviously it doesn't help that people can't speak out against the war freely but generally when a country goes to war their people become completely and utterly deranged for a while, and take at least a couple of years to come to their senses.
I'm trying to think of examples of wars that were unpopular in the country that started them when they started them. There are probably some but I'm drawing a blank.
You obviously missed all the huge protests in Moscow and St.Petersburg (amongst others) when the war got going, and the silent protest of the newsreader, all of whom were bundled off the streets, thrown in jail and the key thrown away - or worse.
The rest took the first flight out of Russia that they could.
Let's not pretend please that there isn't an anti-war opposition in Russia: there is; they've just been silenced.
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?
Saving isn't some unalloyed good. If everyone is thrifty all the time, the economy grinds to a halt. We need people to spend because spending creates jobs.
It's all very well saving and having your money used to invest, but investments are a bet on future spending. Spending is what drives the economy.
That is very true and the present spending is surprising in view of the COL crisis
Savers have already been penalised over the last decade of low interest rates. There has been little incentive to squirrel money away given the returns.
Higher interest rates don’t only take money out of the econ9my from borrowers but also fr9m savers.
We need a balance between spend and save. People saving for their retirement and latter years is a benefit as it reduces what the govt needs to pay out in terms of additional benefits.
It also makes sense to have six months salary saved in case of unemployment and savings for emergencies.
Saving is not all bad.
To be honest I'm struggling to think of a time where cash savings have beat inflation in the last 15 years regardless of interest rate. I think you'd have consistently lost money in real terms almost all of the time. And NSI premium bonds are almost always shit.
It's stocks and shares ISAs/pensions and assets where you can save to generate a real return, or betting of course.
I'd agree that Premium Bonds are a bit shite, but do make sense to bung some cash away short term that you can get hold of in a few days. We've got the maximum in them while we're house hunting and made 225 quid over the last 3 months. Next month might be nowt, but it's safe, easy to get out once we find somewhere and so far the winnings have bought the wife a new set of tyres for her bike!
There's a liquidity/accessibility benefit to ready cash, which is better than stuffing it under the mattress, and I do the same, but am under no illusions I'm making any money from it.
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?
Saving isn't some unalloyed good. If everyone is thrifty all the time, the economy grinds to a halt. We need people to spend because spending creates jobs.
It's all very well saving and having your money used to invest, but investments are a bet on future spending. Spending is what drives the economy.
Besides, what's with the "penalising savers" thing?
The person who did the saving isn't getting taxed in any meaningful way, because they have gone to a place where there is no tax. (At least we assume that's the case. Maybe Hell is an eternal self assessment form.)
The people who end up with less money because of inheritance tax are the inheritors, who have generally neither saved, toiled nor spun for what they receive. That's not to be begrudged, but a world where a person's life chances depend more on inheritance and less on what they do is not a good one. You can't abolish the inheritance effect, but it's not really something to encourage, I reckon.
If your starting point is that taxes are a necessary unpleasantness to pay for a good society, then tax paid when you receive an inheritance is probably one of the less objectionable ones.
As I pointed out in the last thread for the average person unless they are in the top 10% or especially top 1% of earners capitalism is not doing much for them in terms of wage rises. House prices and capital in property and savings and shares have generally risen much more this century than average earnings.
So if the state confiscates all or most assets on the death of their owner which would have been inherited otherwise and reduces accumulation of wealth then support for capitalism beyond the top 10% of earners in the private sector will fall even further
The trouble with asset wealth, especially locked up in bricks and mortar, is you can't spend it, whereas a pay rise can pay for a new car which employs car workers or dining out which employs restaurant workers and Deliveroo riders. That is capitalism.
And capitalism and pay rises aren't delivering much for 90% of workers now, whereas assets and savings are delivering more for the average person
Capitalism is delivering for workers. We're caught in a cycle of inflation and bad policy the now, but capitalism is still good. What we're doing as a country now isn't the only way to do capitalism. We just need to adjust course, not abandon ship.
Exclude government completely and just leave the economy to the market and unless you are an investment banker, FTSE 100 company ceo or director, tech executive or Premier League footballer capitalism isn't doing a great deal for you now. For most workers their pay is rising well below inflation. At least if they own a property that still likely has a high value even if falling a bit and their savings will be boosted by rising interest rates
I'm curious to know what your solution is.
Knowing you, it's probably feudalism. It is, isn't it?
Inheritance in part and feudalism was not all bad, most peasants had a hut and a smallholding for food. There was more stability and less anxiety even if life expectancy was lower and if the work was hard in the fields it was normally there.
There was a church and inn in almost every village and town (many villages no longer even have a pub or church with services each Sunday)
If I walked across the village green to St James's church at 1100 hours I would be in a congregation of about half a dozen. As a capitalist you have to agree that church is not economically viable- close it down, deconsecrate and sell it off for housing!
No, the congregation's reward regardless of size will be eternal life with Christ who managed with just 12 followers originally
Though He didn't have a listed building to maintain or a tea rota to staff.
Or the £8.7 billion of assets and investments the Church of England still has
Many of the churches assets were stolen from the people of this country. If we are looking at reparations then the church should be looking at reparations in the U.K. to the people,of,the U.K.
More correctly, owned by the Catholic Church [now Roman Catholic, not the Anglican splinter] in trust for the people.
There is plenty of case law that says the splitters don't get the assets, on the whole. See the Free Churches of Scotland passim.
We also need to look at reparations from the aristocracy, too, given what happened at the Dissolution. And the posh public schools such as Eton. Possibly the only institutions still functioning as their donors intended, mutatis mutandis for the modern context, are the Oxbridge colleges.
Most Oxbridge colleges have Roman Catholic services as well as the main Anglican ones.
Reflecting the fact that all pre 1531 Oxbridge college chapels would indeed have been Roman Catholic
Could be proposed as a way of helping people swallow council tax rises.
"Look, do you want to pay 10% of all your earnings to pay for the vicar's new house and some new windows in the church, or pay your council tax?"
That would be discrimination on the grounds of belief. The first Quaker refuser to go to court would win hands down.
Well, it could be more of a general religious/cultural tithe, to be divided proportionally between each authorities' census balance of faith groups or cultural funding for those who selected atheist.
wider hidden funding through charitable tax relief.
'Tis god's will.
This discussion gives me an opportunity to fire up a favourite word - antidisestablishmentarianism
It used to give my eldest daughter much joy to ask me my favourite word, hear it, attempt to say it, and collapse in laughter.
The youngest did a presentation for her RE class on it.
Who said learning had to be boring.
Edit: Church Tax is still a thing in Germany
But it is optional and if you choose to pay it you specify Roman Catholic or Evangelische Church (which is the equivalent to the CoE here). I don't pay it.
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?
Saving isn't some unalloyed good. If everyone is thrifty all the time, the economy grinds to a halt. We need people to spend because spending creates jobs.
It's all very well saving and having your money used to invest, but investments are a bet on future spending. Spending is what drives the economy.
Besides, what's with the "penalising savers" thing?
The person who did the saving isn't getting taxed in any meaningful way, because they have gone to a place where there is no tax. (At least we assume that's the case. Maybe Hell is an eternal self assessment form.)
The people who end up with less money because of inheritance tax are the inheritors, who have generally neither saved, toiled nor spun for what they receive. That's not to be begrudged, but a world where a person's life chances depend more on inheritance and less on what they do is not a good one. You can't abolish the inheritance effect, but it's not really something to encourage, I reckon.
If your starting point is that taxes are a necessary unpleasantness to pay for a good society, then tax paid when you receive an inheritance is probably one of the less objectionable ones.
As I pointed out in the last thread for the average person unless they are in the top 10% or especially top 1% of earners capitalism is not doing much for them in terms of wage rises. House prices and capital in property and savings and shares have generally risen much more this century than average earnings.
So if the state confiscates all or most assets on the death of their owner which would have been inherited otherwise and reduces accumulation of wealth then support for capitalism beyond the top 10% of earners in the private sector will fall even further
The trouble with asset wealth, especially locked up in bricks and mortar, is you can't spend it, whereas a pay rise can pay for a new car which employs car workers or dining out which employs restaurant workers and Deliveroo riders. That is capitalism.
And capitalism and pay rises aren't delivering much for 90% of workers now, whereas assets and savings are delivering more for the average person
Capitalism is delivering for workers. We're caught in a cycle of inflation and bad policy the now, but capitalism is still good. What we're doing as a country now isn't the only way to do capitalism. We just need to adjust course, not abandon ship.
Exclude government completely and just leave the economy to the market and unless you are an investment banker, FTSE 100 company ceo or director, tech executive or Premier League footballer capitalism isn't doing a great deal for you now. For most workers their pay is rising well below inflation. At least if they own a property that still likely has a high value even if falling a bit and their savings will be boosted by rising interest rates
I'm curious to know what your solution is.
Knowing you, it's probably feudalism. It is, isn't it?
Inheritance in part and feudalism was not all bad, most peasants had a hut and a smallholding for food. There was more stability and less anxiety even if life expectancy was lower and if the work was hard in the fields it was normally there.
There was a church and inn in almost every village and town (many villages no longer even have a pub or church with services each Sunday)
If I walked across the village green to St James's church at 1100 hours I would be in a congregation of about half a dozen. As a capitalist you have to agree that church is not economically viable- close it down, deconsecrate and sell it off for housing!
No, the congregation's reward regardless of size will be eternal life with Christ who managed with just 12 followers originally
Why is he so greedy about new ones now then? There's billions of 'em!
And of course there was not 1 Christian in Britain when Christ walked the earth
There wasn't a Christian anywhere!
Considering Jesus actually visited Glastonbury together with Joseph of Arimathea, I'm quite shocked by what HYUFD has said.
Jesus certainluy self-identified as a Jew, in any case. (No idea what else.)
He was born a Jew, by his death he had created a new covenant, a new message as set out by the disciples in the gospels and founded a new religion of Christianity based on his teachings
Oh I see. He was only a Christian after he had died.
I see the Sunday morning rounds has Sunak telling mortgage holders to hold their nerve.
I'm guessing that is short form for "we are doing the necessary things for this to all turn round and, eventually, get better, so hold out if you possibly can".
But, for someone who is remortgaging this month and is going to struggle to afford it there has got to be a sense of "what the hell does that even mean". Not a great reassurance.
Sunak and Hunt urgently need an advisor who understands working people. A Campbell or Coulson, or even a Cummings.
Rishi Rich and Hunt the C… appear to have no idea of the scale of the effect of mortgage rate rises on average earners, which are going to come due in the next year.
The Tories won’t do themselves any favours overruling independent pay bodies on public sector pay.
We are just likely to see more and more strikes and disruption and not just from the likes of the RMT who are politically motivated.
Yes, restoring the medical pay board independence is the key demand for Consultants in the current strike ballot. Results out Tuesday, I think, first 48 hour strike on 20th July pencilled in.
I don't get a vote as not in the BMA.
Do you think they will vote to strike ? They won a key concession after the consultative ballot. Namely the pensions lifetime allowance being raised with the annual amount you can put in one increased to 60K.
Doctors are getting too greedy by far. They are among highest paid in teh country and blackmail whilst people die , live in agony is not pleasant.
I can't think of a more deserving group to get paid well. Years of hard studying and hard work, having to deal with all kinds of depressing stuff, but their work is incredibly valuable to the individual and society. If they aren't paid well, who should be?
They are well paid though already. obviously the shit bankers/finance geezers are well overpaid but compared to your average person , Doctors are at top of the tree already. Far better to pay those at the bottom who are being shat on. There are NO poor doctor's.
There certainly are poor doctors. If you're starting off on £30k and with £60k debts, are you rich?
You think that is a poor salary for a new graduate? And their pay scales see them on double that in a few years. That's before the big bucks kick in when they become consultants or GPs.
All funded by the taxes of people on much lower incomes.
As I have said before, if doctors' pay is so bad, why are applicants queueing round the block to get into med school?
You're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say it was a poor salary, I said new starters usually start poor (unless their tuition has been bankrolled by rich relatives).
Secondly, I didn't say doctors were paid badly, I said I can't think of anyone who deserves it more.
Do better.
So they are poor, but earn a good salary?
Having a debt that you may or may not have to pay off, depending on future earnings, does not make you poor.
Getting a place at med school is a golden ticket to high earnings and a high standard of living. Undeniable.
So they are poor but they earn a somewhat median salary, rising to a good or excellent salary later.
And yes, I'm quite happy with the fact that doctors earn good salaries. That's exactly where I came into this conversation, saying I'm happy with their good pay. Implicit was I don't want to see it whittled down by below-inflation rises. I think that's a reasonable position given the difficulty, stress, and expense of becoming a doctor, and the social utility of having doctors. What's more important than our health, collectively or individually? If we aren't gearing society around that, then what?
Oh, and to address the last point, getting a place in med school is only the start. Not everybody can cut it. So the "golden ticket" (which I think is an ugly way of expressing earning something through years of hard work) is not bestowed upon those who merely begin studying.
They are not poor! Having a student debt does not make you poor.
We aren't going to agree, so let's both enjoy the sunshine.
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?
Saving isn't some unalloyed good. If everyone is thrifty all the time, the economy grinds to a halt. We need people to spend because spending creates jobs.
It's all very well saving and having your money used to invest, but investments are a bet on future spending. Spending is what drives the economy.
Besides, what's with the "penalising savers" thing?
The person who did the saving isn't getting taxed in any meaningful way, because they have gone to a place where there is no tax. (At least we assume that's the case. Maybe Hell is an eternal self assessment form.)
The people who end up with less money because of inheritance tax are the inheritors, who have generally neither saved, toiled nor spun for what they receive. That's not to be begrudged, but a world where a person's life chances depend more on inheritance and less on what they do is not a good one. You can't abolish the inheritance effect, but it's not really something to encourage, I reckon.
If your starting point is that taxes are a necessary unpleasantness to pay for a good society, then tax paid when you receive an inheritance is probably one of the less objectionable ones.
As I pointed out in the last thread for the average person unless they are in the top 10% or especially top 1% of earners capitalism is not doing much for them in terms of wage rises. House prices and capital in property and savings and shares have generally risen much more this century than average earnings.
So if the state confiscates all or most assets on the death of their owner which would have been inherited otherwise and reduces accumulation of wealth then support for capitalism beyond the top 10% of earners in the private sector will fall even further
The trouble with asset wealth, especially locked up in bricks and mortar, is you can't spend it, whereas a pay rise can pay for a new car which employs car workers or dining out which employs restaurant workers and Deliveroo riders. That is capitalism.
And capitalism and pay rises aren't delivering much for 90% of workers now, whereas assets and savings are delivering more for the average person
Capitalism is delivering for workers. We're caught in a cycle of inflation and bad policy the now, but capitalism is still good. What we're doing as a country now isn't the only way to do capitalism. We just need to adjust course, not abandon ship.
Exclude government completely and just leave the economy to the market and unless you are an investment banker, FTSE 100 company ceo or director, tech executive or Premier League footballer capitalism isn't doing a great deal for you now. For most workers their pay is rising well below inflation. At least if they own a property that still likely has a high value even if falling a bit and their savings will be boosted by rising interest rates
I'm curious to know what your solution is.
Knowing you, it's probably feudalism. It is, isn't it?
Inheritance in part and feudalism was not all bad, most peasants had a hut and a smallholding for food. There was more stability and less anxiety even if life expectancy was lower and if the work was hard in the fields it was normally there.
There was a church and inn in almost every village and town (many villages no longer even have a pub or church with services each Sunday)
If I walked across the village green to St James's church at 1100 hours I would be in a congregation of about half a dozen. As a capitalist you have to agree that church is not economically viable- close it down, deconsecrate and sell it off for housing!
No, the congregation's reward regardless of size will be eternal life with Christ who managed with just 12 followers originally
So Christ had more followers than Truss?
“Christ only had 13 agents, and one was a double.”
Comments
To be fair, it's difficult to know as a Green what to do if your ambition is to achieve Green government in the future. In principle there are only about 3 seats in Britain where they can reasonably hope to win, but we can't really expect them only to stand 3 candidates. So they stand elsewhere to show the flag.
https://twitter.com/EricMGarcia/status/1672776668455530497
Once in Government the key is to emphasise what a hideous disaster we have inherited, it's far worse than anticipated (worked for Cameron and Osborne).
In Government they can U turn to their hearts content if they achieve a healthy majority. If they remain in a minority their hands are tied.
The key is trade with Europe. They could, early doors, call an EU Referendum worded something like "We left the European Union and are not rejoining, however the vote in 2016 was ambiguous as to what Leaving meant. Therefore, would you;
a) prefer a Tory hard Brexit which has seen our great nation crumble into the sea and your standard of living crash and burn. Or,
b) demand the Labour Government seeks a close economic arrangement with the EU, but as a distinct 3rd party.
There was a church and inn in almost every village and town (many villages no longer even have a pub or church with services each Sunday)
All funded by the taxes of people on much lower incomes.
As I have said before, if doctors' pay is so bad, why are applicants queueing round the block to get into med school?
+Growth, which is currently about zero and has been anaemic for many years, can only do so much of the heavy lifting in terms of repairing public services and lifting the struggling out of poverty - regardless of how many exciting sounding industrial initiatives are launched, it's not going to match Chinese or Indian levels
+The burden of providing pension income, health and social care to an ageing population is immense, is going to get worse, and threatens to crush the working age population as the demographic pyramid inverts
+Taxation of earned incomes is high, and workers (at least in the lower half of the earnings distribution) have already been bled white by the toxic combination of inflating housing costs, bills and falling real wages, and have nothing left to give
And then we need to factor in the particular British problem with residential property, which is in short supply (especially in many of the more prosperous parts of the country) and is therefore ludicrously expensive to buy and even worse to rent, at any rate privately.
None of this means that it is impossible to do anything different. It simply means that the Opposition appears to lack the will to do anything different. The program required is blindingly obvious and consists principally of major hikes in the taxation of assets and capital gains, including inheritances, and wealth taxes for the very rich, balanced by smaller but meaningful reductions in the taxation of earned incomes. Along with a big programme of social housing construction, and the replacement of the state pension triple lock with a less generous universal settlement, buttressed with means-tested support for poorer pensioners which will be substantially cheaper to fund.
It ought to be perfectly possible to squeeze a lot of money out of shire counties Tories and pass it to Labour's less well-off supporters through redistributive mechanisms such as these - because, when economic growth is weak or non-existent, as it is and is liable to continue to be for the foreseeable future, affluence is a zero-sum gain and politics is entirely about who gets what share of the available pie. Labour should be acting as Robin Hood, stripping the better off of some of their wealth and giving it to the poor in the form of better public services, higher social security benefits, lower housing costs, and allowing them to keep a larger share of their take home pay. This is not rocket science.
https://www.civilservant.org.uk/information-numbers.html
Numbers have gone up, which seems to be related to the stuff that needs to be done in the UK now it isn't done in Brussels or the extra management of the border.
The total number of public sector workers doesn't seem to have gone up by a million either:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/623259/public-sector-workforce-uk/
(minimum 5.3 million, currently 5.8 million)
It's almost certainly true that those people are less efficient than they could be, because the state doesn't spend enough on equipment or support staff. But that's been a deliberate policy for ages, Frontline Blah Blah Blah. And whilst that's something that needs fixing, it will mean spending money upfront so that the future can benefit. And reversing the attitudes underpinning that is not going to be easy.
His former bodyguard and governor of Tula lined up to replace Shoigu. The same sources are now claiming that it was he, Dyumin, that resolved the situation, not Lukashenko.
I think Labour will if elected have a grace period of a year or so before people get fed up, but sooner or later we'll need to look at some form of wealth tax to avoid what you describe.
It’s also the EU is the root of all our issues/Brexit is the root of all our issues problem (delete as appropriate). We have been stagnant as a nation for many years, well before Brexit. Frictionless trade with the EU will help, but won’t solve our structural problems.
Some (of the Wagner troops) are becoming contrakti (contract employers, ie mercenaries) in the RF (Russian Federation) armed forces, some will melt away to whatever muddy, backward, shithole they came from (everything East of Moscow), some will go the new PMCs (Private Military Companies: mercenary groups); Convoy (PMC Convoy, a mercenary group started by Crimean Sergey Aksyonov), Kadyrov's (an as-yet-unnamed PMC started by Chechen Ramzan Kadyrov) and that one that the head of the Russian Prison Service is starting (an as-yet-unnamed PMC started by Federal Penitentiary Service head Sergei Chemezov). PMC Porridge (a humorous reference to "porridge", British slang for a prison term and a popular 1970's BBC comedy series)
"We knew things were bad, but even we couldn't have imagined quite how bad a mess the Tories would leave for us to clear up. So we have to do these things to fix Britain..."
I'd say the most squeezed now are earners between £50k to £125k - you get all the tax (and more and more of it) with shitloads of debt and loads of obligations, but none of the benefits.
(NB: for those who think £50k is "a lot" it's about £29.5k in pre-GFC 2008 terms)
We are discussing the consultants whose ballot closes this week and one of their main demands was the govt remove the lifetime allowance on pension pots. Duly done and increased the amount they could put into it in a year from 40K to 60K.
Junior Doctors starting out, in the scenario you paint, should certainly have something more done to help them. These are the ones I have some sympathy for.
For example a suggestion was made to forgive a portion of their debt for every year they rema8ned in the NHS.
But you did a good job anyway, I reckon you've got a future subtitling regional British films for American audiences! (One of the films I watched, and indeed re-read, when I building my Italian skills back in the day was Trainspotting, as there was little loss of intelligibility from the original!).
Having a debt that you may or may not have to pay off, depending on future earnings, does not make you poor.
Getting a place at med school is a golden ticket to high earnings and a high standard of living. Undeniable.
I'm guessing that is short form for "we are doing the necessary things for this to all turn round and, eventually, get better, so hold out if you possibly can".
But, for someone who is remortgaging this month and is going to struggle to afford it there has got to be a sense of "what the hell does that even mean". Not a great reassurance.
I'm trying to think of examples of wars that were unpopular in the country that started them when they started them. There are probably some but I'm drawing a blank.
Never mind reparations, you could restore Tithes to maintain our historic churches
"Look, do you want to pay 10% of all your earnings to pay for the vicar's new house and some new windows in the church, or pay your council tax?"
The resilience of consumption has saved us from a recession and brought employment to a record high but how long can this go on? As government support on energy phases out, as mortgage holders get crucified, as rents increase to meet the higher costs of landlords, surely consumption is going to wilt. It is not easy to see where new growth is going to come from. The new Labour government is going to be facing difficult choices very quickly.
There is plenty of case law that says the splitters don't get the assets, on the whole. See the Free Churches of Scotland passim.
We also need to look at reparations from the aristocracy, too, given what happened at the Dissolution. And the posh public schools such as Eton. Possibly the only institutions still functioning as their donors intended, mutatis mutandis for the modern context, are the Oxbridge colleges.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/athletics/66010470
Someone to hear your prayers
Someone who cares
Your own Personal Jesus
Someone to hear your prayers
Someone who's there
(Just kidding, the 90s sucked).
While employed, the employer takes on any repayments.
Forgive in yearly increments - say over 8 years. Set it up so the amount forgiven is heavily loaded to the end of the 8 years. So perhaps a 3rd of the debt is paid off in the last year.
If you get someone in a career for 8 years, you’ be probably got them for life.
While employed, the employer takes on an
Forgive in yearly increments - say over 8 years. Set it up so the amount forgiven is heavily loaded to the end of the 8 years. So perhaps a 3rd of the debt is paid off in the last year. There’s something about a professional sportsperson competing in a sport or portion of a sport they aren’t good at, that is compelling.
Like watching Devon Malcom bat….
That was a key demand of Prigozhin, so if that happened it would emphasise that Putin is not in a very strong position, at the moment. He may also not be trusting anyone much.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/church-lost-its-soul-in-rectory-sell-off-6kl9hpqc3
This is what I've written about today. Who is this response aimed at? Boris supporters still think he's throwing Boris under a bus. Boris's critics still think he's bottling it. If he wants to frame himself as a man of integrity and authority, he needs to give a straight answer.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1672896372448587776
When the President starts recycling the old guard to refresh things it can work, but can also just emphasise that the President has been in place a loooong time and is now the oldest of the old guard.
It used to give my eldest daughter much joy to ask me my favourite word, hear it, attempt to say it, and collapse in laughter.
The youngest did a presentation for her RE class on it.
Who said learning had to be boring.
Edit: Church Tax is still a thing in Germany
Main problem for those with mortgages is rising interest rates, just as it was for them in 1993 post Black Wednesday
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Denmark
All that Premium Bonds are doing is taking a rather shit rate of interest and using that to fund a lottery.
I have some Premium Bonds, among my savings, on the basis that the marginal value of the interest is very low - to me. Whereas a big win… the basic £1 a week on the lottery thing.
Some years ago, the Economist suggested that every £1 paid in income tax should be a lottery ticket.
He should have just sided with Boris, that appears to be the more active side of the party even though it is not the majority, the rest have just given up and are depressed.
The rest took the first flight out of Russia that they could.
Let's not pretend please that there isn't an anti-war opposition in Russia: there is; they've just been silenced.
Reflecting the fact that all pre 1531 Oxbridge college chapels would indeed have been Roman Catholic
Rishi Rich and Hunt the C… appear to have no idea of the scale of the effect of mortgage rate rises on average earners, which are going to come due in the next year.
We aren't going to agree, so let's both enjoy the sunshine.