Categories
Sunak continues to struggle with favourability – politicalbetting.com
Sunak continues to struggle with favourability – politicalbetting.com
My immediate reaction to this latest polling from Ipsos is that it can be a lot harder for the incumbent PM to do well on this question than the Opposition Leader. Quite simply the former has to make decisions that are often controversial.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MUX6nYUed0
Two and a half minutes of video from Unison.
Osborne got married a few days ago, and several journalists and Conservative thinkers were among the guests. Is it possible they sought the great man's thoughts on the government's unpopularity? Is it coincidence that inheritance tax should appear again?
But, as you say, I doubt there are enough of them to move the needle much.
I can’t imagine it would be anything other than a vote loser for the Tories to change PM again.
But more to the point, there’s no very obvious alternative who might do better.
Mr. Doethur, replacing Sunak would be cutting a new hole in the bottom of the boat to let the water out.
It isn't a lot of money in government terms, and inheritance tax does create a lot of work for accountants in avoidance schemes.
Historically death duties were important in breaking up large estates and reducing inequality, but not much any longer.
Replace it with a better structured property tax (as the form of wealth hardest to hide) paid annually.
Even if it's fair, it would be horrendously unpopular.
Funnily enough, as a public sector worker, you never seem to see this staggeringly obvious alternative.
Though to be fair this time it's prefaced by 'within.'
Technically, yes, it could be as late as 28th January 2025, just as it could be 03rd January or, heck, 24th December. If the Gov't try to delay to the last possible minute they will be eviscerated in the main stream media, followed by the public vote. It would be political suicide for the Conservatives who, in the month when no-one has any money, would be wiped off the electoral map.
The General Election is either 10/11 months away (May or June) or 15 months away (October).
It's really a question now of which one minimises their losses. There is no magical Mr Micawber waiting in the wings.
So I think actually I have resolved my own paradox
Although it's everyone's favourite new tax, it can't take the burden of replacing all current unpopular taxes.
I think the best way for Labour to play this is to announce that they too would abolish IHT in its current form, and bring in a new tax on unearned wealth that would tax all those who currently benefit from tax dodges like family trusts - i.e. we want to cut tax for the people who play by the current IHT rules, and tax those who abuse loopholes to avoid IHT.
Cutting tax for the virtuous and raising tax for freeloaders hits the right notes for the current political climate.
The Blue Wall is saved. And it may be true her previous outings in high office have ended in tears. So a handful of years keeping the PM hot-seat warm for Boris Johnson may be not arrest our nation's decline, but who wouldn't exchange their vote for a Prime Minister who resembles Catherine Deneuve?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window_tax
The deep desperation of the current Conservatives is almost a joy to behold.
They are heading into the political wilderness for at least a decade. They know it. So does (almost) everyone else.
Although my personal favourite daft tax was Pitt the Younger's tax on female servants.
(Sacking diversity officers wouldn't save much, although each NHS one costs as much as three nurses on average, but it would be intensely satisfying and motivate me to look for more savings).
What would you cut, or do you think that in a trillion pounds a year there's nothing that can be saved?
4% of deaths is 4% of people's dying grandparents, or rich aunts.
The explanation is quite simple - given by DecripterJohnL. It's a tax on aspiration. People hope that when they die they will have enough to pass on that they would be liable to IHT, and so they hope to benefit from its abolition. No-one wants to accept that they will die outside of the charmed circle.
* Not all government spending is wasteful government spending. If you have a sovereign state in a Westphalian world, then you have to pay for it. This neoliberalism idea of continually cutting the state has reached and passed its limit. We have to stop indulging in fantasy politics and start actually paying for things. Like normal people.
* A shit-ton of government spending is debt repayment. You either default, dilute the debt away thru inflation, or pay it. Pick one.
Part of the reason it is disliked is its complexity. If people realised that it really only exists above 1 million pounds when the main asset is a family house.
Hence the simultaneous dislike of IHT and support for a "mansion tax".
There may still be time to delete your foolish post, but I am afraid it is crystallised for eternity in the quote above.
In terms of implementation the obvious change would be to move from a tax on estates to a tax on recipients (and claim this would achieve all the political propaganda objectives). Whether it would, or not, I don't know, but my post was addressing the pre-election political issue, and not the policy itself.
My father's estate ought really to have been liable for inheritance tax, but due to some shrewd planning he had done over the years it didn't pay a penny.
Similarly, the Duke of Westminster is the richest man in England, owning large chunks of London, but when his father died a few years back I'm willing to bet they didn't pay a penny in inheritance tax due to the way the family's finances are organised.
But these come at a cost of their own. Because of the planning Dad had done, I had to pay solicitors and accountants to disentangle his affairs. If he hadn't been tying up his money to avoid inheritance tax, I could have done it myself. It also did add an awful lot of stress and complexity that I could have frankly done without, and probably didn't save much in the end as by the time we had finally got things sorted, probate had come through and we were able to sell his house the market had dropped significantly.
Meanwhile, people with fairly ordinary three bed houses in South London get clobbered regardless.
So - get rid of it because it doesn't work. That's a winning slogan.
But - given this lot, I'm willing to bet they'll mess up any replacement.
This is mostly a genteel place and, even when there are sharp differences of opinion, there is usually a degree of respect.
I suggest you cut the unnecessary rudeness and spend a little more time listening and reflecting.
Rich man has 9 rich descendants, that is 9 people who actively want to maximise the take from his death. If they are also rich they additionally want their heirs to maximise the take for themselves, which makes them even more anti IHT but it doesn't take them out of the equation for double counting, as you seem to think.
In May, government debt passed 100% of GDP, the highest since 1961. Higher than either the GFC bailout or covid years.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/bulletins/publicsectorfinances/may2023
That isn't a position amenable to tax cuts.
Rather than correcting my manners I suggest you address yourself to the Sisyphean task of dispelling the mass delusion that the tories have a majority of 100-150 dialled in at the GE. You are truly a voice crying in the wilderness.
If we really do want inheritances distributed over a larger number of people, the way to do it is to tax as capital gain by the recipient, so encouraging estate planners to distribute to many, and preferentially those with small incomes.
Edit: also massively and disproportionately favourable to those owning houses in the south and especially the home counties. Huge inflation booster there, crystallising the house price boom 100%.
I am not pushing any particular principle here btw, just trying to establish why the issue is so powerful, apparently paradoxically.
One thouight: this might discourage gifts to charities and the Tory Party. IHT immunities for those become irrelevant, so that much less motive.
If we are all so stupid why do you bother interacting with us idiots. Why don't you let us get on with our own clearly moronic conversations.
I pointed out to someone, with quotes, that he was wrong. That is not calling him a liar.
I have had the courtesy to agree not to interact with you. Kindly reciprocate.
It’s one of those taxes which most hate even if they’ll never benefit from it .
On the face of it it’s a form of double taxation.
I’m sure the policy will poll well and I’m sure will help the Tories in certain seats .
I have been musing on how our country used to manage on far lower tax take as a percent of GDP. I think we have to go back to 1908 (before state pensions) to get to 15% of GDP, though we did have spending below 35% even into the 1960s.
The main thing that was different was the age structure of the population, with far fewer elderly, but also we had far more tolerance of poverty. To some extent that poverty was managed via an informal welfare state of family, community and religious obligations, as indeed it still is in many parts of the world.
To get back to a government spend of below 30% we would have to abolish most state benefits, or greatly restrict eligibility, and cease government funding of most health and education.
It would be a radically different society, and one where most of the informal welfare state of family, community and religious obligations have atrophied.
Maybe that they will be on 100-150 seats in total, but not that as a majority surely?
If I put petrol in my car or buy a pint in the pub I am paying fuel duty, beer duty and VAT, all out of already taxed money.
We were there yesterday and the persistent rain dampened the experience a bit but we still had a great time. God knows how many £millions of rare and exotic cars there were there, too many to see them all.
It is interesting that 'for the wind up' (a post from sometime ago) was the trigger for you. I had no idea. It is a reflection as to how your brain must work because that post was a joke mainly for the attention of @ydoethur (a history teacher) with a great sense of humour with whom I and other often exchange jokes. Yet you took it as a serious post.
As regarding @kle4 being called a liar, he raised that with you twice and yet you did not clarify and you most certainly called me a liar directly previously
I consider the people posting here to be my friends. I have known them for a long time. I will not stand by and see them abused by you and not comment.
Also true that far more people are more worried about potential care home fees than IHT.
Living standards during 13 years of Tories have stagnated; many will feel (and actually be) worse off now than they were in 2010.
It's as simple as that.
To do that and abolish IHT is a net transfer of tax from wealth to income, further increasing generational inequality.
Worth noting too that the mooted decrease in house prices of 10-15% in absolute terms, or 20-40% in real terms will have quite an impact on estate size and IHT receipts.
The more I think about it the more ridiculous IHT appears.
Of course there's a huge overlap. Much of the worry about care home fees is presumably from children seeing their inheritance eaten up.
https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1678426099716333570?s=20
The Tory plan to have abolishing IHT as a manifesto commitment is a brilliant one. Having it as the big goodie in the Tory manifesto means Sunak and Hunt can focus on cutting inflation and keeping cost of living down before the next election without any big tax cuts (income tax or VAT cuts would also cost more than abolishing IHT overall). Only if the Tories win an unprecedented 5th consecutive general election victory would it need to be implemented.
It is also a policy targeted at the Waitrose shopper southern England and posh bits of London bluewall seats, which the Conservatives are currently neck and neck with Labour in and where the LDs are strong and which they need to hold to save the furniture. The more Aldi shopper Redwall seats are likely gone back to Labour regardless now Brexit has been done and Boris and Corbyn are gone and Labour now have a big poll lead there again
For anyone who hasn’t been, it’s a brilliant event with hundreds of classic cars, all actually running rather than as exhibits, and with the paddock open to the public to walk around. Very much a contrast with the Grand Prix, where you have to spend a fortune on paddock club tickets to walk around the cars and meet the teams.
Personally I don't have an issue with IHT or the paying for care home fees. I don't see why someone poorer than me should subsidise me so my children can inherit more.
However as @HYUFD will correctly point out it does influence the vote of many of those who either want to leave money to their children, children who will inherit money, or even those who don't fall into these categories but aspire to.
https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20230715001251315