Inheritance tax raised about £7 billion last year. That was less than the amount of interest paid on government debt in the single month of May 2023 alone.
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.
Or reduce wasteful government spending?
Funnily enough, as a public sector worker, you never seem to see this staggeringly obvious alternative.
The problem is twofold.
* 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.
We also need to consider that the scope for tax cuts is limited by the poor state of public finances. Last years budget deficit was £139 billion, or 20x this mooted IHT cut. It is a rounding error.
In May, government debt passed 100% of GDP, the highest since 1961. Higher than either the GFC bailout or covid years.
No its not. Denis Healey's favourite aphorism of the first you do in a hole is stop digging comes to mind. We have, through a series of crises, got used to dangerously large government deficits. The GFC, Covid, high gas prices, the reasons and justifications just keep coming. And it has to stop. We are kidding ourselves, paying for a standard of living we are not earning with our children's money. Its immoral and wrong.
I think that I am as dry as you on government finances. The freezing of thresholds of tax bands is going to be quite a stealth tax over the next few years, and probably a necessary one to gradually reduce the deficit.
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.
It would be a price worth paying in that it would reduce intergenerational unfairness and wealth inequality. It is very, very difficult in this country to accumulate capital from income, the latter is taxed far too highly. In contrast capital generated from capital is barely touched. It drives inequality and many other of our social ills.
Interesting that it's often us who fret about taxation inequity, balance of payments, food security, health and so on, while the Tories on PB just say meh and go all out for Trussonomics and Sunakonomics andf bribery of a very small part of the UK population.
Sunakonomics is swiftly becoming Trussonomics in a spreadsheet with prettier conditional formatting.
Nope, Hunt has still reversed most of the Kwarteng tax cuts and keeping a close cap on spending.
The IHT cut would NOT come in this Parliament, only if the Tories got a mandate for it as a manifesto commitment by winning the next election
So they get the downsides of promising it now (ostensibly popular it could well be, but in an atmosphere where people dislike the government the obvious Labour attack lines will hit home), without the benefits of people benefiting from it.
No the upsides, it is targeted at the key bluewall swing voter Rishi is now focused on. It is all about shoring up the core vote now, forget the redwall, long gone and if people vote for it then it has a mandate while for now the government can keep focusing on the finances and cutting inflation and borrowing
Blue wall voter: I can only get this thing if the country as a whole votes Tory. I still would, but they look like losing elsewhere because no one else will like this, so there's not much point voting for them. I think I'll stay home. After all, they haven't stopped the boat people.
Blue wall voters care far more about scrapping IHT than stopping the boats, the latter is more a redwall issue.
Indeed some of the blue wall voters in West London and Surrey probably end up with some of the boat migrants as gardeners and domestic staff!
I think it is fundamentally a misunderstanding by Sunak.
So far as the "Blue Wall" and "Red Wall" exist at all, the former is driven largely by cultural factors (such as dislike of Brexit and Culture War) while the latter is driven more by economic factors (levelling up, cost of living).
Hence this policy combination of Culture War and tax breaks for the rich has something to piss off everyone.
I like the idea of abolishing IHT and instead taxing inheritance money as income in the hands of the recipient, subject to the normal rates and allowances. I think Labour under Corbyn were looking at something like this.
Inheritance tax raised about £7 billion last year. That was less than the amount of interest paid on government debt in the single month of May 2023 alone.
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.
Or reduce wasteful government spending?
Funnily enough, as a public sector worker, you never seem to see this staggeringly obvious alternative.
The problem is twofold.
* 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.
We also need to consider that the scope for tax cuts is limited by the poor state of public finances. Last years budget deficit was £139 billion, or 20x this mooted IHT cut. It is a rounding error.
In May, government debt passed 100% of GDP, the highest since 1961. Higher than either the GFC bailout or covid years.
No its not. Denis Healey's favourite aphorism of the first you do in a hole is stop digging comes to mind. We have, through a series of crises, got used to dangerously large government deficits. The GFC, Covid, high gas prices, the reasons and justifications just keep coming. And it has to stop. We are kidding ourselves, paying for a standard of living we are not earning with our children's money. Its immoral and wrong.
I think that I am as dry as you on government finances. The freezing of thresholds of tax bands is going to be quite a stealth tax over the next few years, and probably a necessary one to gradually reduce the deficit.
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.
It would be a price worth paying in that it would reduce intergenerational unfairness and wealth inequality. It is very, very difficult in this country to accumulate capital from income, the latter is taxed far too highly. In contrast capital generated from capital is barely touched. It drives inequality and many other of our social ills.
Interesting that it's often us who fret about taxation inequity, balance of payments, food security, health and so on, while the Tories on PB just say meh and go all out for Trussonomics and Sunakonomics andf bribery of a very small part of the UK population.
Sunakonomics is swiftly becoming Trussonomics in a spreadsheet with prettier conditional formatting.
Nope, Hunt has still reversed most of the Kwarteng tax cuts and keeping a close cap on spending.
The IHT cut would NOT come in this Parliament, only if the Tories got a mandate for it as a manifesto commitment by winning the next election
So they get the downsides of promising it now (ostensibly popular it could well be, but in an atmosphere where people dislike the government the obvious Labour attack lines will hit home), without the benefits of people benefiting from it.
No the upsides, it is targeted at the key bluewall swing voter Rishi is now focused on. It is all about shoring up the core vote now, forget the redwall, long gone and if people vote for it then it has a mandate while for now the government can keep focusing on the finances and cutting inflation and borrowing
Blue wall voter: I can only get this thing if the country as a whole votes Tory. I still would, but they look like losing elsewhere because no one else will like this, so there's not much point voting for them. I think I'll stay home. After all, they haven't stopped the boat people.
Blue wall voters care far more about scrapping IHT than stopping the boats, the latter is more a redwall issue.
Indeed some of the blue wall voters in West London and Surrey probably end up with some of the boat migrants as gardeners and domestic staff!
Hang on. Your bloke has 5 pledges. He and ministers and you have insisted these are the people's priorities. STOP THE BOATS is there. SCRAP IHT is not.
So no, scrapping IHT is not one of the electorate's priorities. If it was you would have it. Either that our your "people's priorities" are just focus group bullshit?
They are having trouble funding the usual "Tax-Cut Bribe" to ensure voters hold their noses and vote Conservative
Inheritance tax raised about £7 billion last year. That was less than the amount of interest paid on government debt in the single month of May 2023 alone.
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.
Or reduce wasteful government spending?
Funnily enough, as a public sector worker, you never seem to see this staggeringly obvious alternative.
The problem is twofold.
* 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.
We also need to consider that the scope for tax cuts is limited by the poor state of public finances. Last years budget deficit was £139 billion, or 20x this mooted IHT cut. It is a rounding error.
In May, government debt passed 100% of GDP, the highest since 1961. Higher than either the GFC bailout or covid years.
No its not. Denis Healey's favourite aphorism of the first you do in a hole is stop digging comes to mind. We have, through a series of crises, got used to dangerously large government deficits. The GFC, Covid, high gas prices, the reasons and justifications just keep coming. And it has to stop. We are kidding ourselves, paying for a standard of living we are not earning with our children's money. Its immoral and wrong.
I think that I am as dry as you on government finances. The freezing of thresholds of tax bands is going to be quite a stealth tax over the next few years, and probably a necessary one to gradually reduce the deficit.
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.
It would be a price worth paying in that it would reduce intergenerational unfairness and wealth inequality. It is very, very difficult in this country to accumulate capital from income, the latter is taxed far too highly. In contrast capital generated from capital is barely touched. It drives inequality and many other of our social ills.
Interesting that it's often us who fret about taxation inequity, balance of payments, food security, health and so on, while the Tories on PB just say meh and go all out for Trussonomics and Sunakonomics andf bribery of a very small part of the UK population.
Sunakonomics is swiftly becoming Trussonomics in a spreadsheet with prettier conditional formatting.
Nope, Hunt has still reversed most of the Kwarteng tax cuts and keeping a close cap on spending.
The IHT cut would NOT come in this Parliament, only if the Tories got a mandate for it as a manifesto commitment by winning the next election
So they get the downsides of promising it now (ostensibly popular it could well be, but in an atmosphere where people dislike the government the obvious Labour attack lines will hit home), without the benefits of people benefiting from it.
No the upsides, it is targeted at the key bluewall swing voter Rishi is now focused on. It is all about shoring up the core vote now, forget the redwall, long gone and if people vote for it then it has a mandate while for now the government can keep focusing on the finances and cutting inflation and borrowing
Blue wall voter: I can only get this thing if the country as a whole votes Tory. I still would, but they look like losing elsewhere because no one else will like this, so there's not much point voting for them. I think I'll stay home. After all, they haven't stopped the boat people.
Blue wall voters care far more about scrapping IHT than stopping the boats, the latter is more a redwall issue.
Indeed some of the blue wall voters in West London and Surrey probably end up with some of the boat migrants as gardeners and domestic staff!
Rishi made stopping the boats one of his top five priorities. Would that be the case if only Red Wallers cared?
Annoyingly, big client has decided that the last Friday of my holiday is the right time to kick off budget 2024 discussions. So not only am I going to that meeting, I'm also doing a load of prep for it beforehand.
Ah well. Billable days whilst on holiday isn't too bad.
Inheritance tax raised about £7 billion last year. That was less than the amount of interest paid on government debt in the single month of May 2023 alone.
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.
If that was levied on a primary residence, that really would be electoral suicide.
Even if it's fair, it would be horrendously unpopular.
I like the idea of abolishing IHT and instead taxing inheritance money as income in the hands of the recipient, subject to the normal rates and allowances. I think Labour under Corbyn were looking at something like this.
As one lump sum or spread over a number of years?
Tax as one lump sum. Include all gifts over, say £5,000. If parents choose to pass on their wealth over a number of years before they die, that's fine.
This is such a good idea, Labour should get it out now under the heading 'Labour will abolish IHT'.
It wouldn't surprise me if Starmer matched any IHT pledge.
Thus would it be quickly neutralised - indeed, it might work to Labour's advantage. Starmer is targetting the Don't Knows currently, not especially as he sees them as potential Labour voters but he wants to ensure that in lieu of them not voting for him, they don't vote Conservative.
He wants them to feel so relaxed about a Labour Government they stay at home (a big win is a big win whether the turnout is 60% or 70% - ask Tony Blair) and while the commentators might assert Starmer doesn't have the same mandate as Johnson if he doesn't poll as many votes, if the votes Starmer does have translate to 400 seats that's more than enough mandate under FPTP.
Inheritance tax raised about £7 billion last year. That was less than the amount of interest paid on government debt in the single month of May 2023 alone.
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.
Or reduce wasteful government spending?
Funnily enough, as a public sector worker, you never seem to see this staggeringly obvious alternative.
The problem is twofold.
* 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.
We also need to consider that the scope for tax cuts is limited by the poor state of public finances. Last years budget deficit was £139 billion, or 20x this mooted IHT cut. It is a rounding error.
In May, government debt passed 100% of GDP, the highest since 1961. Higher than either the GFC bailout or covid years.
No its not. Denis Healey's favourite aphorism of the first you do in a hole is stop digging comes to mind. We have, through a series of crises, got used to dangerously large government deficits. The GFC, Covid, high gas prices, the reasons and justifications just keep coming. And it has to stop. We are kidding ourselves, paying for a standard of living we are not earning with our children's money. Its immoral and wrong.
I think that I am as dry as you on government finances. The freezing of thresholds of tax bands is going to be quite a stealth tax over the next few years, and probably a necessary one to gradually reduce the deficit.
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.
It would be a price worth paying in that it would reduce intergenerational unfairness and wealth inequality. It is very, very difficult in this country to accumulate capital from income, the latter is taxed far too highly. In contrast capital generated from capital is barely touched. It drives inequality and many other of our social ills.
Interesting that it's often us who fret about taxation inequity, balance of payments, food security, health and so on, while the Tories on PB just say meh and go all out for Trussonomics and Sunakonomics andf bribery of a very small part of the UK population.
Sunakonomics is swiftly becoming Trussonomics in a spreadsheet with prettier conditional formatting.
Nope, Hunt has still reversed most of the Kwarteng tax cuts and keeping a close cap on spending.
The IHT cut would NOT come in this Parliament, only if the Tories got a mandate for it as a manifesto commitment by winning the next election
So they get the downsides of promising it now (ostensibly popular it could well be, but in an atmosphere where people dislike the government the obvious Labour attack lines will hit home), without the benefits of people benefiting from it.
No the upsides, it is targeted at the key bluewall swing voter Rishi is now focused on. It is all about shoring up the core vote now, forget the redwall, long gone and if people vote for it then it has a mandate while for now the government can keep focusing on the finances and cutting inflation and borrowing
Blue wall voter: I can only get this thing if the country as a whole votes Tory. I still would, but they look like losing elsewhere because no one else will like this, so there's not much point voting for them. I think I'll stay home. After all, they haven't stopped the boat people.
Blue wall voters care far more about scrapping IHT than stopping the boats, the latter is more a redwall issue.
Indeed some of the blue wall voters in West London and Surrey probably end up with some of the boat migrants as gardeners and domestic staff!
Germany is taking a sensible step forward here:
Asylum seekers with pending applications submitted by 29 March 2023, who have the relevant qualifications and a job offer, will also be allowed to seek work or undertake vocational training while their asylum application is in progress.
I like the idea of abolishing IHT and instead taxing inheritance money as income in the hands of the recipient, subject to the normal rates and allowances. I think Labour under Corbyn were looking at something like this.
Labour would need to be careful how they respond to the Tories scrapping IHT .
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 .
We have lots of double taxation.
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.
I thought you had an electric car?
We have 2 cars in our house, 1 electric and one hybrid.
You must have a very wide front door.
And watch out for oil stains on the carpet.
In the Midlands we have quite an innovative way of managing this issue. We call it a garage, a sort of room deliberately constructed to house a car, and generally uncarpeted with a wide door.
We've opened up an exciting philosophical issue:
Is it right to consider an attached garage to be part of your house?
I say No.
My sister and brother-in-law turned their garage into a playroom for the kids. They put a carpet and a radiator in there, insulated the door, and put a shed in the back garden for their tools. Probably only cost a couple of grand, gives them a couple of hundred square feet extra space, and lets the kids keep all their mess in one place. Very few people routinely work on the car anymore, unless it’s an old classic.
So they extended their house into what was previously a garage.
Pretty much, but still keeping the garage as a garage under building code.
I like the idea of abolishing IHT and instead taxing inheritance money as income in the hands of the recipient, subject to the normal rates and allowances. I think Labour under Corbyn were looking at something like this.
Seems incredibly good sense. And would massively streamline the system.
Yes a simplification dividend too. The Tory proposal will just be the 'abolish' part, I suppose. I do expect them to try it. It could save some seats. One of the few things in their power that might.
Inheritance tax raised about £7 billion last year. That was less than the amount of interest paid on government debt in the single month of May 2023 alone.
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.
Or reduce wasteful government spending?
Funnily enough, as a public sector worker, you never seem to see this staggeringly obvious alternative.
The problem is twofold.
* 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.
We also need to consider that the scope for tax cuts is limited by the poor state of public finances. Last years budget deficit was £139 billion, or 20x this mooted IHT cut. It is a rounding error.
In May, government debt passed 100% of GDP, the highest since 1961. Higher than either the GFC bailout or covid years.
No its not. Denis Healey's favourite aphorism of the first you do in a hole is stop digging comes to mind. We have, through a series of crises, got used to dangerously large government deficits. The GFC, Covid, high gas prices, the reasons and justifications just keep coming. And it has to stop. We are kidding ourselves, paying for a standard of living we are not earning with our children's money. Its immoral and wrong.
I don't doubt that in coming decades, euthanasia, as a means of solving fiscal problems, will become an increasingly live suggestion in Western countries.
The mother of my brother's ex was recently euthanised in Holland. It seems to be much more openly accepted there already.
Yeugh! Put like that it sounds terrible, nightmarish.
Euthanised once you've exhausted your pension pot and lifetime NHS allowance. It is a bit dystopian.
Reminds me that my late Mum got it into her head that her NHS pension was going to stop at 80. She was very worried about how she was going to manage, and started gutting back on all sorts of small treats when she was 79, until I managed to convince she was wrong.
Inheritance tax raised about £7 billion last year. That was less than the amount of interest paid on government debt in the single month of May 2023 alone.
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.
If that was levied on a primary residence, that really would be electoral suicide.
Even if it's fair, it would be horrendously unpopular.
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.
Tends to be a bit tory though. Alan Partridge was once Shappsie's +1 for the FoS.
Labour would need to be careful how they respond to the Tories scrapping IHT .
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 .
We have lots of double taxation.
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.
I thought you had an electric car?
We have 2 cars in our house, 1 electric and one hybrid.
You must have a very wide front door.
And watch out for oil stains on the carpet.
In the Midlands we have quite an innovative way of managing this issue. We call it a garage, a sort of room deliberately constructed to house a car, and generally uncarpeted with a wide door.
We've opened up an exciting philosophical issue:
Is it right to consider an attached garage to be part of your house?
I say No.
My sister and brother-in-law turned their garage into a playroom for the kids. They put a carpet and a radiator in there, insulated the door, and put a shed in the back garden for their tools. Probably only cost a couple of grand, gives them a couple of hundred square feet extra space, and lets the kids keep all their mess in one place. Very few people routinely work on the car anymore, unless it’s an old classic.
So they extended their house into what was previously a garage.
Pretty much, but still keeping the garage as a garage under building code.
Now that just makes the whole thing even more esoteric.
Schrodinger's playroom, or something. It is only when you open the up and over door that you determine whether it is part of the house or not.
Regarding Squareroot's view that things were equally bad, or worse in 2010: I appreciate that this is a not uncommon view.
Never mind attacking Sunak, Labour should produce a set of posters and adverts which clearly paint the picture of how much better the period 1997-2010 was for the UK than 2010-2023/24 has been. It really wouldn't be hard, some simple graphs or simple statements of things like:
- NHS waiting times - Real income - Debt (seriously, who'd have thought would be a higher share of GDP now than in 2010?) - Growth - Inflation - Immigration - House ownership % - Days lost to strikes
I am sure PBers can think of a few others (number of Cabinet members prosecuted?)
You'd have to exclude the 2008-10 period.
The economy was in better shape, pre-2008, than now.
Not only that but ignore the effects of Brexit, covid and war in Ukraine all in the last 3 years, which are the unique drivers to where we are today
More excuses than a pregnant nun!
Hard to face reality then
I'm sure you were arguing that we should ignore the Global Financial Crisis when thinking about howe to vote back in 2010, Big_G ;-)
In truth, every government faces unexpected events. Labour had 9/11, 7/7 and the GFC; Tories had Brexit, Covid, Ukraine.
But Brexit was entirely of the Conservative Government's making.
You can't put that down as an "act of God" unless your god is called Boris Johnson.
Indeed true, but Big_G was using it as a reason for the Tories utter screw-up of the economy over the past 13 years, so I allowed him that one.
Some Tories, of course, still cling to the idea that the GFC was all Labour's fault (in which case they had a mighty impressive ability to influence the global economy).
Bottom line though, are there any PB posters, of whatever persuasion, who think the Tories have managed the economy at all well?
Labour would need to be careful how they respond to the Tories scrapping IHT .
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 .
We have lots of double taxation.
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.
I thought you had an electric car?
We have 2 cars in our house, 1 electric and one hybrid.
You must have a very wide front door.
And watch out for oil stains on the carpet.
In the Midlands we have quite an innovative way of managing this issue. We call it a garage, a sort of room deliberately constructed to house a car, and generally uncarpeted with a wide door.
We've opened up an exciting philosophical issue:
Is it right to consider an attached garage to be part of your house?
I say No.
My sister and brother-in-law turned their garage into a playroom for the kids. They put a carpet and a radiator in there, insulated the door, and put a shed in the back garden for their tools. Probably only cost a couple of grand, gives them a couple of hundred square feet extra space, and lets the kids keep all their mess in one place. Very few people routinely work on the car anymore, unless it’s an old classic.
So they extended their house into what was previously a garage.
Pretty much, but still keeping the garage as a garage under building code.
Now that just makes the whole thing even more esoteric.
Schrodinger's playroom, or something. It is only when you open the up and over door that you determine whether it is part of the house or not.
Indeed. I assume that a house with no garage is difficult to sell, or there’s some local rule that says houses should have garages - but in reality it’s just the garage properly cleaned, with plastered walls and ceiling, and a rug on the floor, that you could park a car in tomorrow if you wanted to, but in the meantime keeps the kids (boys of 11 and 9) out of the house for most of the day!
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.
Tends to be a bit tory though. Alan Partridge was once Shappsie's +1 for the FoS.
How many times have you been though? I’ll bet it’s a few.
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.
Tends to be a bit tory though. Alan Partridge was once Shappsie's +1 for the FoS.
I imagine the Goodwood Revival is even more so. I still fancy going though.
I like the idea of abolishing IHT and instead taxing inheritance money as income in the hands of the recipient, subject to the normal rates and allowances. I think Labour under Corbyn were looking at something like this.
As one lump sum or spread over a number of years?
Ah the detail the detail. Lump sum, I think? Or maybe some amortization rules.
Either way, an incentive to leave money to people who don't have a lot already.
I like the idea of abolishing IHT and instead taxing inheritance money as income in the hands of the recipient, subject to the normal rates and allowances. I think Labour under Corbyn were looking at something like this.
Would you also tax gifts?
Possibly. But you'd have to consider enforceability and be careful not to get into too much 'lockdown rules' type complexity.
It wouldn't surprise me if Starmer matched any IHT pledge.
Thus would it be quickly neutralised - indeed, it might work to Labour's advantage. Starmer is targetting the Don't Knows currently, not especially as he sees them as potential Labour voters but he wants to ensure that in lieu of them not voting for him, they don't vote Conservative.
He wants them to feel so relaxed about a Labour Government they stay at home (a big win is a big win whether the turnout is 60% or 70% - ask Tony Blair) and while the commentators might assert Starmer doesn't have the same mandate as Johnson if he doesn't poll as many votes, if the votes Starmer does have translate to 400 seats that's more than enough mandate under FPTP.
I think he might if it were felt to be a genuine threat to the election win. That's priority 1,2, and 3.
Inheritance tax raised about £7 billion last year. That was less than the amount of interest paid on government debt in the single month of May 2023 alone.
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.
If that was levied on a primary residence, that really would be electoral suicide.
Even if it's fair, it would be horrendously unpopular.
I like the idea of abolishing IHT and instead taxing inheritance money as income in the hands of the recipient, subject to the normal rates and allowances. I think Labour under Corbyn were looking at something like this.
As one lump sum or spread over a number of years?
Ah the detail the detail. Lump sum, I think? Or maybe some amortization rules.
Either way, an incentive to leave money to people who don't have a lot already.
It makes little difference overall. Most will be taxed at 40 or 45% and for most recipients their personal allowances and 20% band will be largely used up with their regular income, every year.
Some benefit in changing a will to leave to a non-working spouse of one's offspring, I guess?
Inheritance tax raised about £7 billion last year. That was less than the amount of interest paid on government debt in the single month of May 2023 alone.
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.
Or reduce wasteful government spending?
Funnily enough, as a public sector worker, you never seem to see this staggeringly obvious alternative.
The problem is twofold.
* 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.
We also need to consider that the scope for tax cuts is limited by the poor state of public finances. Last years budget deficit was £139 billion, or 20x this mooted IHT cut. It is a rounding error.
In May, government debt passed 100% of GDP, the highest since 1961. Higher than either the GFC bailout or covid years.
No its not. Denis Healey's favourite aphorism of the first you do in a hole is stop digging comes to mind. We have, through a series of crises, got used to dangerously large government deficits. The GFC, Covid, high gas prices, the reasons and justifications just keep coming. And it has to stop. We are kidding ourselves, paying for a standard of living we are not earning with our children's money. Its immoral and wrong.
I don't doubt that in coming decades, euthanasia, as a means of solving fiscal problems, will become an increasingly live suggestion in Western countries.
The mother of my brother's ex was recently euthanised in Holland. It seems to be much more openly accepted there already.
Yeugh! Put like that it sounds terrible, nightmarish.
Euthanised once you've exhausted your pension pot and lifetime NHS allowance. It is a bit dystopian.
It's the way we're heading though.
Not something I am comfortable with.
The situation in Canada looks pretty troubling, as pretty quickly an open approach to it seems to have developed close to attitudes of you 'can' to you 'probably should'. Not fully there yet, but it's getting there.
There's a pretty good Irish film about the topic that I saw recently, called Sunlight. It comes down quite positively in favour of assisted dying, in the sense of choosing the manner of your passing and being in control of it, although I remain deeply sceptical myself. There's even an inheritance too, so something for HYUFD as well.
I would only support assisted dying if a terminal illness in deep pain with less than 6 months to live, inheritance or now
My mother in law, if asked 10 years ago, would have been all for it. She was a very pragmatic person who had no truck with any religious mores.
Unfortunately, now she needs it (dementia, no life at all, fights with carers including her own daughter) she can no longer make the decision. She is basically a permanently depressed 1 year old that before too long won't remember how to swallow.
Meanwhile we do our best to preserve what dignity we can, but it is hard for everyone.
I understand the reluctance to change the law because not all families can be trusted - but surely it isn't beyond the wit of man to come up with a sane policy involving some kind of 'living will'.
Admittedly there is an issue with giving the final say to doctors. A friend of mine was put on the 'we're giving up here' list until another doctor spotted what was wrong. She got another 2 years of worthwhile life once recovered.
Ironically the original doctor who pronounced that she was a hopeless case died first (of Covid).
I like the idea of abolishing IHT and instead taxing inheritance money as income in the hands of the recipient, subject to the normal rates and allowances. I think Labour under Corbyn were looking at something like this.
As one lump sum or spread over a number of years?
Ah the detail the detail. Lump sum, I think? Or maybe some amortization rules.
Either way, an incentive to leave money to people who don't have a lot already.
It makes little difference overall. Most will be taxed at 40 or 45% and for most recipients their personal allowances and 20% band will be largely used up with their regular income, every year.
Some benefit in changing a will to leave to a non-working spouse of one's offspring, I guess?
Yes, some new tricks will emerge no doubt. A better overall outcome, though, imo.
I’ve never really understood the furore around IHT. For me 1) paying taxes when I’m dead would be my preferred time to be paying tax; and 2) I regard the assets of my relatives/ parents as theirs, not mine - and feel it quite distasteful to think otherwise.
Inheritance tax raised about £7 billion last year. That was less than the amount of interest paid on government debt in the single month of May 2023 alone.
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.
Or reduce wasteful government spending?
Funnily enough, as a public sector worker, you never seem to see this staggeringly obvious alternative.
The problem is twofold.
* 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.
We also need to consider that the scope for tax cuts is limited by the poor state of public finances. Last years budget deficit was £139 billion, or 20x this mooted IHT cut. It is a rounding error.
In May, government debt passed 100% of GDP, the highest since 1961. Higher than either the GFC bailout or covid years.
No its not. Denis Healey's favourite aphorism of the first you do in a hole is stop digging comes to mind. We have, through a series of crises, got used to dangerously large government deficits. The GFC, Covid, high gas prices, the reasons and justifications just keep coming. And it has to stop. We are kidding ourselves, paying for a standard of living we are not earning with our children's money. Its immoral and wrong.
I don't doubt that in coming decades, euthanasia, as a means of solving fiscal problems, will become an increasingly live suggestion in Western countries.
The mother of my brother's ex was recently euthanised in Holland. It seems to be much more openly accepted there already.
Yeugh! Put like that it sounds terrible, nightmarish.
Euthanised once you've exhausted your pension pot and lifetime NHS allowance. It is a bit dystopian.
It's the way we're heading though.
Not something I am comfortable with.
The situation in Canada looks pretty troubling, as pretty quickly an open approach to it seems to have developed close to attitudes of you 'can' to you 'probably should'. Not fully there yet, but it's getting there.
There's a pretty good Irish film about the topic that I saw recently, called Sunlight. It comes down quite positively in favour of assisted dying, in the sense of choosing the manner of your passing and being in control of it, although I remain deeply sceptical myself. There's even an inheritance too, so something for HYUFD as well.
I would only support assisted dying if a terminal illness in deep pain with less than 6 months to live, inheritance or now
The problem is that a non trivial number of humans are scumbags. I would use the word unbelievable, but after the 1,000,000 instance of scumbaggery, such behaviour is believable.
A Dutch friend tells of people, openly harassing their elderly relatives to “stop wasting their time” by carrying on living. Because aged parents are not fashionable or something. Then you get the Pavlovian Inheritors - mention grandparents are ill, they start salivating.
Sadly, we must build our society to deal with the noisome.
A simple suggestion to stop the Pavlovian Inheritors badgering their old ones - assisted suicide comes with doubled inheritance tax.
Inheritance tax raised about £7 billion last year. That was less than the amount of interest paid on government debt in the single month of May 2023 alone.
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.
Or reduce wasteful government spending?
Funnily enough, as a public sector worker, you never seem to see this staggeringly obvious alternative.
The problem is twofold.
* 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.
We also need to consider that the scope for tax cuts is limited by the poor state of public finances. Last years budget deficit was £139 billion, or 20x this mooted IHT cut. It is a rounding error.
In May, government debt passed 100% of GDP, the highest since 1961. Higher than either the GFC bailout or covid years.
No its not. Denis Healey's favourite aphorism of the first you do in a hole is stop digging comes to mind. We have, through a series of crises, got used to dangerously large government deficits. The GFC, Covid, high gas prices, the reasons and justifications just keep coming. And it has to stop. We are kidding ourselves, paying for a standard of living we are not earning with our children's money. Its immoral and wrong.
I don't doubt that in coming decades, euthanasia, as a means of solving fiscal problems, will become an increasingly live suggestion in Western countries.
The mother of my brother's ex was recently euthanised in Holland. It seems to be much more openly accepted there already.
Yeugh! Put like that it sounds terrible, nightmarish.
Euthanised once you've exhausted your pension pot and lifetime NHS allowance. It is a bit dystopian.
It's the way we're heading though.
Not something I am comfortable with.
The situation in Canada looks pretty troubling, as pretty quickly an open approach to it seems to have developed close to attitudes of you 'can' to you 'probably should'. Not fully there yet, but it's getting there.
There's a pretty good Irish film about the topic that I saw recently, called Sunlight. It comes down quite positively in favour of assisted dying, in the sense of choosing the manner of your passing and being in control of it, although I remain deeply sceptical myself. There's even an inheritance too, so something for HYUFD as well.
I would only support assisted dying if a terminal illness in deep pain with less than 6 months to live, inheritance or now
My mother in law, if asked 10 years ago, would have been all for it. She was a very pragmatic person who had no truck with any religious mores.
Unfortunately, now she needs it (dementia, no life at all, fights with carers including her own daughter) she can no longer make the decision. She is basically a permanently depressed 1 year old that before too long won't remember how to swallow.
Meanwhile we do our best to preserve what dignity we can, but it is hard for everyone.
I understand the reluctance to change the law because not all families can be trusted - but surely it isn't beyond the wit of man to come up with a sane policy involving some kind of 'living will'.
Admittedly there is an issue with giving the final say to doctors. A friend of mine was put on the 'we're giving up here' list until another doctor spotted what was wrong. She got another 2 years of worthwhile life once recovered.
Ironically the original doctor who pronounced that she was a hopeless case died first (of Covid).
Chilling.
A point I only realised the other day is that testing new treatments for dementia is virtually impossible because you can never get informed consent from patients.
Inheritance tax raised about £7 billion last year. That was less than the amount of interest paid on government debt in the single month of May 2023 alone.
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.
If that was levied on a primary residence, that really would be electoral suicide.
Even if it's fair, it would be horrendously unpopular.
Inheritance tax raised about £7 billion last year. That was less than the amount of interest paid on government debt in the single month of May 2023 alone.
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.
Or reduce wasteful government spending?
Funnily enough, as a public sector worker, you never seem to see this staggeringly obvious alternative.
The problem is twofold.
* 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.
We also need to consider that the scope for tax cuts is limited by the poor state of public finances. Last years budget deficit was £139 billion, or 20x this mooted IHT cut. It is a rounding error.
In May, government debt passed 100% of GDP, the highest since 1961. Higher than either the GFC bailout or covid years.
No its not. Denis Healey's favourite aphorism of the first you do in a hole is stop digging comes to mind. We have, through a series of crises, got used to dangerously large government deficits. The GFC, Covid, high gas prices, the reasons and justifications just keep coming. And it has to stop. We are kidding ourselves, paying for a standard of living we are not earning with our children's money. Its immoral and wrong.
I don't doubt that in coming decades, euthanasia, as a means of solving fiscal problems, will become an increasingly live suggestion in Western countries.
The mother of my brother's ex was recently euthanised in Holland. It seems to be much more openly accepted there already.
Yeugh! Put like that it sounds terrible, nightmarish.
Euthanised once you've exhausted your pension pot and lifetime NHS allowance. It is a bit dystopian.
It's the way we're heading though.
Not something I am comfortable with.
The situation in Canada looks pretty troubling, as pretty quickly an open approach to it seems to have developed close to attitudes of you 'can' to you 'probably should'. Not fully there yet, but it's getting there.
There's a pretty good Irish film about the topic that I saw recently, called Sunlight. It comes down quite positively in favour of assisted dying, in the sense of choosing the manner of your passing and being in control of it, although I remain deeply sceptical myself. There's even an inheritance too, so something for HYUFD as well.
I would only support assisted dying if a terminal illness in deep pain with less than 6 months to live, inheritance or now
My mother in law, if asked 10 years ago, would have been all for it. She was a very pragmatic person who had no truck with any religious mores.
Unfortunately, now she needs it (dementia, no life at all, fights with carers including her own daughter) she can no longer make the decision. She is basically a permanently depressed 1 year old that before too long won't remember how to swallow.
Meanwhile we do our best to preserve what dignity we can, but it is hard for everyone.
I understand the reluctance to change the law because not all families can be trusted - but surely it isn't beyond the wit of man to come up with a sane policy involving some kind of 'living will'.
Admittedly there is an issue with giving the final say to doctors. A friend of mine was put on the 'we're giving up here' list until another doctor spotted what was wrong. She got another 2 years of worthwhile life once recovered.
Ironically the original doctor who pronounced that she was a hopeless case died first (of Covid).
Chilling.
A point I only realised the other day is that testing new treatments for dementia is virtually impossible because you can never get informed consent from patients.
I think if they have granted medical power of attorney it shouldn’t be a problem?
Inheritance tax raised about £7 billion last year. That was less than the amount of interest paid on government debt in the single month of May 2023 alone.
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.
Or reduce wasteful government spending?
Funnily enough, as a public sector worker, you never seem to see this staggeringly obvious alternative.
The problem is twofold.
* 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.
We also need to consider that the scope for tax cuts is limited by the poor state of public finances. Last years budget deficit was £139 billion, or 20x this mooted IHT cut. It is a rounding error.
In May, government debt passed 100% of GDP, the highest since 1961. Higher than either the GFC bailout or covid years.
No its not. Denis Healey's favourite aphorism of the first you do in a hole is stop digging comes to mind. We have, through a series of crises, got used to dangerously large government deficits. The GFC, Covid, high gas prices, the reasons and justifications just keep coming. And it has to stop. We are kidding ourselves, paying for a standard of living we are not earning with our children's money. Its immoral and wrong.
I don't doubt that in coming decades, euthanasia, as a means of solving fiscal problems, will become an increasingly live suggestion in Western countries.
The mother of my brother's ex was recently euthanised in Holland. It seems to be much more openly accepted there already.
Yeugh! Put like that it sounds terrible, nightmarish.
Euthanised once you've exhausted your pension pot and lifetime NHS allowance. It is a bit dystopian.
It's the way we're heading though.
Not something I am comfortable with.
The situation in Canada looks pretty troubling, as pretty quickly an open approach to it seems to have developed close to attitudes of you 'can' to you 'probably should'. Not fully there yet, but it's getting there.
There's a pretty good Irish film about the topic that I saw recently, called Sunlight. It comes down quite positively in favour of assisted dying, in the sense of choosing the manner of your passing and being in control of it, although I remain deeply sceptical myself. There's even an inheritance too, so something for HYUFD as well.
I would only support assisted dying if a terminal illness in deep pain with less than 6 months to live, inheritance or now
The problem is that a non trivial number of humans are scumbags. I would use the word unbelievable, but after the 1,000,000 instance of scumbaggery, such behaviour is believable.
A Dutch friend tells of people, openly harassing their elderly relatives to “stop wasting their time” by carrying on living. Because aged parents are not fashionable or something. Then you get the Pavlovian Inheritors - mention grandparents are ill, they start salivating.
Sadly, we must build our society to deal with the noisome.
A simple suggestion to stop the Pavlovian Inheritors badgering their old ones - assisted suicide comes with doubled inheritance tax.
Inheritance tax raised about £7 billion last year. That was less than the amount of interest paid on government debt in the single month of May 2023 alone.
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.
Or reduce wasteful government spending?
Funnily enough, as a public sector worker, you never seem to see this staggeringly obvious alternative.
The problem is twofold.
* 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.
We also need to consider that the scope for tax cuts is limited by the poor state of public finances. Last years budget deficit was £139 billion, or 20x this mooted IHT cut. It is a rounding error.
In May, government debt passed 100% of GDP, the highest since 1961. Higher than either the GFC bailout or covid years.
No its not. Denis Healey's favourite aphorism of the first you do in a hole is stop digging comes to mind. We have, through a series of crises, got used to dangerously large government deficits. The GFC, Covid, high gas prices, the reasons and justifications just keep coming. And it has to stop. We are kidding ourselves, paying for a standard of living we are not earning with our children's money. Its immoral and wrong.
I don't doubt that in coming decades, euthanasia, as a means of solving fiscal problems, will become an increasingly live suggestion in Western countries.
The mother of my brother's ex was recently euthanised in Holland. It seems to be much more openly accepted there already.
Yeugh! Put like that it sounds terrible, nightmarish.
Euthanised once you've exhausted your pension pot and lifetime NHS allowance. It is a bit dystopian.
It's the way we're heading though.
Not something I am comfortable with.
The situation in Canada looks pretty troubling, as pretty quickly an open approach to it seems to have developed close to attitudes of you 'can' to you 'probably should'. Not fully there yet, but it's getting there.
There's a pretty good Irish film about the topic that I saw recently, called Sunlight. It comes down quite positively in favour of assisted dying, in the sense of choosing the manner of your passing and being in control of it, although I remain deeply sceptical myself. There's even an inheritance too, so something for HYUFD as well.
I would only support assisted dying if a terminal illness in deep pain with less than 6 months to live, inheritance or now
My mother in law, if asked 10 years ago, would have been all for it. She was a very pragmatic person who had no truck with any religious mores.
Unfortunately, now she needs it (dementia, no life at all, fights with carers including her own daughter) she can no longer make the decision. She is basically a permanently depressed 1 year old that before too long won't remember how to swallow.
Meanwhile we do our best to preserve what dignity we can, but it is hard for everyone.
I understand the reluctance to change the law because not all families can be trusted - but surely it isn't beyond the wit of man to come up with a sane policy involving some kind of 'living will'.
Admittedly there is an issue with giving the final say to doctors. A friend of mine was put on the 'we're giving up here' list until another doctor spotted what was wrong. She got another 2 years of worthwhile life once recovered.
Ironically the original doctor who pronounced that she was a hopeless case died first (of Covid).
Chilling.
A point I only realised the other day is that testing new treatments for dementia is virtually impossible because you can never get informed consent from patients.
I think if they have granted medical power of attorney it shouldn’t be a problem?
Probably right, but there may not be enough of those
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.
Tends to be a bit tory though. Alan Partridge was once Shappsie's +1 for the FoS.
How many times have you been though? I’ll bet it’s a few.
I went to the 911 one. 2013? I think...
I remember the traffic was utterly dire and I was glad I was on my MV Agusta F4 1000R. I did a massive 2nd gear wheelie (easily 70mph+) on the way out and fucked the rear hub.
Inheritance tax raised about £7 billion last year. That was less than the amount of interest paid on government debt in the single month of May 2023 alone.
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.
Or reduce wasteful government spending?
Funnily enough, as a public sector worker, you never seem to see this staggeringly obvious alternative.
The problem is twofold.
* 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.
We also need to consider that the scope for tax cuts is limited by the poor state of public finances. Last years budget deficit was £139 billion, or 20x this mooted IHT cut. It is a rounding error.
In May, government debt passed 100% of GDP, the highest since 1961. Higher than either the GFC bailout or covid years.
No its not. Denis Healey's favourite aphorism of the first you do in a hole is stop digging comes to mind. We have, through a series of crises, got used to dangerously large government deficits. The GFC, Covid, high gas prices, the reasons and justifications just keep coming. And it has to stop. We are kidding ourselves, paying for a standard of living we are not earning with our children's money. Its immoral and wrong.
I don't doubt that in coming decades, euthanasia, as a means of solving fiscal problems, will become an increasingly live suggestion in Western countries.
The mother of my brother's ex was recently euthanised in Holland. It seems to be much more openly accepted there already.
Yeugh! Put like that it sounds terrible, nightmarish.
Euthanised once you've exhausted your pension pot and lifetime NHS allowance. It is a bit dystopian.
It's the way we're heading though.
Not something I am comfortable with.
The situation in Canada looks pretty troubling, as pretty quickly an open approach to it seems to have developed close to attitudes of you 'can' to you 'probably should'. Not fully there yet, but it's getting there.
There's a pretty good Irish film about the topic that I saw recently, called Sunlight. It comes down quite positively in favour of assisted dying, in the sense of choosing the manner of your passing and being in control of it, although I remain deeply sceptical myself. There's even an inheritance too, so something for HYUFD as well.
I would only support assisted dying if a terminal illness in deep pain with less than 6 months to live, inheritance or now
The problem is that a non trivial number of humans are scumbags. I would use the word unbelievable, but after the 1,000,000 instance of scumbaggery, such behaviour is believable.
A Dutch friend tells of people, openly harassing their elderly relatives to “stop wasting their time” by carrying on living. Because aged parents are not fashionable or something. Then you get the Pavlovian Inheritors - mention grandparents are ill, they start salivating.
Sadly, we must build our society to deal with the noisome.
A simple suggestion to stop the Pavlovian Inheritors badgering their old ones - assisted suicide comes with doubled inheritance tax.
That's a rather creative fusing of the 2 topics there. Hats off.
Sufferers of Musk derangement syndrome have declared that it’s a Ponzi scheme. I can only assume they don’t understand what ad revenue is.
Please don't start calling it 'Musk Derangement Syndrome'; as the most deranged are the sycophants who follow him.
Like most geniuses he goes well off the deep end into flights of utter madness. Paypal was ground-breaking. SpaceX reimagined space travel and led to Starlink. Tesla has transformed the prospects of the global car industry. All in the positive column.
Negatives? The Boring Company is insane (though I did enjoy "this is not a flamethrower"). His stoner attacks on the Thai cave rescuers (and other similar instances). Buying Twitter. Denouncing the dangers of OpenAI then founding xAI. On this latter piece if he ends up responsible for creating the AI that kills or enslaves humanity I wouldn't be surprised.
Inheritance tax raised about £7 billion last year. That was less than the amount of interest paid on government debt in the single month of May 2023 alone.
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.
Or reduce wasteful government spending?
Funnily enough, as a public sector worker, you never seem to see this staggeringly obvious alternative.
The problem is twofold.
* 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.
We also need to consider that the scope for tax cuts is limited by the poor state of public finances. Last years budget deficit was £139 billion, or 20x this mooted IHT cut. It is a rounding error.
In May, government debt passed 100% of GDP, the highest since 1961. Higher than either the GFC bailout or covid years.
No its not. Denis Healey's favourite aphorism of the first you do in a hole is stop digging comes to mind. We have, through a series of crises, got used to dangerously large government deficits. The GFC, Covid, high gas prices, the reasons and justifications just keep coming. And it has to stop. We are kidding ourselves, paying for a standard of living we are not earning with our children's money. Its immoral and wrong.
I don't doubt that in coming decades, euthanasia, as a means of solving fiscal problems, will become an increasingly live suggestion in Western countries.
The mother of my brother's ex was recently euthanised in Holland. It seems to be much more openly accepted there already.
Yeugh! Put like that it sounds terrible, nightmarish.
Euthanised once you've exhausted your pension pot and lifetime NHS allowance. It is a bit dystopian.
It's the way we're heading though.
Not something I am comfortable with.
The situation in Canada looks pretty troubling, as pretty quickly an open approach to it seems to have developed close to attitudes of you 'can' to you 'probably should'. Not fully there yet, but it's getting there.
There's a pretty good Irish film about the topic that I saw recently, called Sunlight. It comes down quite positively in favour of assisted dying, in the sense of choosing the manner of your passing and being in control of it, although I remain deeply sceptical myself. There's even an inheritance too, so something for HYUFD as well.
I would only support assisted dying if a terminal illness in deep pain with less than 6 months to live, inheritance or now
My mother in law, if asked 10 years ago, would have been all for it. She was a very pragmatic person who had no truck with any religious mores.
Unfortunately, now she needs it (dementia, no life at all, fights with carers including her own daughter) she can no longer make the decision. She is basically a permanently depressed 1 year old that before too long won't remember how to swallow.
Meanwhile we do our best to preserve what dignity we can, but it is hard for everyone.
I understand the reluctance to change the law because not all families can be trusted - but surely it isn't beyond the wit of man to come up with a sane policy involving some kind of 'living will'.
Admittedly there is an issue with giving the final say to doctors. A friend of mine was put on the 'we're giving up here' list until another doctor spotted what was wrong. She got another 2 years of worthwhile life once recovered.
Ironically the original doctor who pronounced that she was a hopeless case died first (of Covid).
Yes, on balance I support assisted dying. I think we have to come up with something workable on this.
Sufferers of Musk derangement syndrome have declared that it’s a Ponzi scheme. I can only assume they don’t understand what ad revenue is.
Please don't start calling it 'Musk Derangement Syndrome'; as the most deranged are the sycophants who follow him.
Like most geniuses he goes well off the deep end into flights of utter madness. Paypal was ground-breaking. SpaceX reimagined space travel and led to Starlink. Tesla has transformed the prospects of the global car industry. All in the positive column.
Negatives? The Boring Company is insane (though I did enjoy "this is not a flamethrower"). His stoner attacks on the Thai cave rescuers (and other similar instances). Buying Twitter. Denouncing the dangers of OpenAI then founding xAI. On this latter piece if he ends up responsible for creating the AI that kills or enslaves humanity I wouldn't be surprised.
“ kills or enslaves”
Why not both?
A trope in SF is that aliens/bad guys copy your mind state, kill you, then re-instantiate you as a slave.. AI, pretty much
I like the idea of abolishing IHT and instead taxing inheritance money as income in the hands of the recipient, subject to the normal rates and allowances. I think Labour under Corbyn were looking at something like this.
As one lump sum or spread over a number of years?
Ah the detail the detail. Lump sum, I think? Or maybe some amortization rules.
Either way, an incentive to leave money to people who don't have a lot already.
It makes little difference overall. Most will be taxed at 40 or 45% and for most recipients their personal allowances and 20% band will be largely used up with their regular income, every year.
Some benefit in changing a will to leave to a non-working spouse of one's offspring, I guess?
Yes, some new tricks will emerge no doubt. A better overall outcome, though, imo.
It would be a change from “Inheritance tax paid at 40% by millionaires” to “Inheritance tax paid at 40%, (or 45%, or that horrible in-between 60%) by everyone” There’s barely a less popular policy out there.
It wouldn't surprise me if Starmer matched any IHT pledge.
Thus would it be quickly neutralised - indeed, it might work to Labour's advantage. Starmer is targetting the Don't Knows currently, not especially as he sees them as potential Labour voters but he wants to ensure that in lieu of them not voting for him, they don't vote Conservative.
He wants them to feel so relaxed about a Labour Government they stay at home (a big win is a big win whether the turnout is 60% or 70% - ask Tony Blair) and while the commentators might assert Starmer doesn't have the same mandate as Johnson if he doesn't poll as many votes, if the votes Starmer does have translate to 400 seats that's more than enough mandate under FPTP.
Only if Starmer is desperate to win Kensington and Westminster will he match the Tories IHT scrapping plan.
Otherwise to fulfil it he would need deeper public sector cuts as PM, infuriating the unions and his base. More likely he imposes a wealth tax on assets over £1-2 million if elected.
Plus Starmer doesn't need the bluewall to win and become PM, just win back the redwall and most of the seats that switched from Labour in 2005 to Conservative in 2010.
Sunak does however need to hold the bluewall seats to at least save the furniture
Sufferers of Musk derangement syndrome have declared that it’s a Ponzi scheme. I can only assume they don’t understand what ad revenue is.
Please don't start calling it 'Musk Derangement Syndrome'; as the most deranged are the sycophants who follow him.
Like most geniuses he goes well off the deep end into flights of utter madness. Paypal was ground-breaking. SpaceX reimagined space travel and led to Starlink. Tesla has transformed the prospects of the global car industry. All in the positive column.
Negatives? The Boring Company is insane (though I did enjoy "this is not a flamethrower"). His stoner attacks on the Thai cave rescuers (and other similar instances). Buying Twitter. Denouncing the dangers of OpenAI then founding xAI. On this latter piece if he ends up responsible for creating the AI that kills or enslaves humanity I wouldn't be surprised.
"SpaceX Starlink satellites had to make 25,000 collision-avoidance maneuvers in just 6 months — and it will only get worse"
Inheritance tax raised about £7 billion last year. That was less than the amount of interest paid on government debt in the single month of May 2023 alone.
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.
Or reduce wasteful government spending?
Funnily enough, as a public sector worker, you never seem to see this staggeringly obvious alternative.
The problem is twofold.
* 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.
We also need to consider that the scope for tax cuts is limited by the poor state of public finances. Last years budget deficit was £139 billion, or 20x this mooted IHT cut. It is a rounding error.
In May, government debt passed 100% of GDP, the highest since 1961. Higher than either the GFC bailout or covid years.
No its not. Denis Healey's favourite aphorism of the first you do in a hole is stop digging comes to mind. We have, through a series of crises, got used to dangerously large government deficits. The GFC, Covid, high gas prices, the reasons and justifications just keep coming. And it has to stop. We are kidding ourselves, paying for a standard of living we are not earning with our children's money. Its immoral and wrong.
I don't doubt that in coming decades, euthanasia, as a means of solving fiscal problems, will become an increasingly live suggestion in Western countries.
The mother of my brother's ex was recently euthanised in Holland. It seems to be much more openly accepted there already.
Yeugh! Put like that it sounds terrible, nightmarish.
Euthanised once you've exhausted your pension pot and lifetime NHS allowance. It is a bit dystopian.
It's the way we're heading though.
Not something I am comfortable with.
The situation in Canada looks pretty troubling, as pretty quickly an open approach to it seems to have developed close to attitudes of you 'can' to you 'probably should'. Not fully there yet, but it's getting there.
There's a pretty good Irish film about the topic that I saw recently, called Sunlight. It comes down quite positively in favour of assisted dying, in the sense of choosing the manner of your passing and being in control of it, although I remain deeply sceptical myself. There's even an inheritance too, so something for HYUFD as well.
I would only support assisted dying if a terminal illness in deep pain with less than 6 months to live, inheritance or now
My mother in law, if asked 10 years ago, would have been all for it. She was a very pragmatic person who had no truck with any religious mores.
Unfortunately, now she needs it (dementia, no life at all, fights with carers including her own daughter) she can no longer make the decision. She is basically a permanently depressed 1 year old that before too long won't remember how to swallow.
Meanwhile we do our best to preserve what dignity we can, but it is hard for everyone.
I understand the reluctance to change the law because not all families can be trusted - but surely it isn't beyond the wit of man to come up with a sane policy involving some kind of 'living will'.
Admittedly there is an issue with giving the final say to doctors. A friend of mine was put on the 'we're giving up here' list until another doctor spotted what was wrong. She got another 2 years of worthwhile life once recovered.
Ironically the original doctor who pronounced that she was a hopeless case died first (of Covid).
Yes, on balance I support assisted dying. I think we have to come up with something workable on this.
Logans run did the heavy lifting on this for us already
Inheritance tax raised about £7 billion last year. That was less than the amount of interest paid on government debt in the single month of May 2023 alone.
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.
Or reduce wasteful government spending?
Funnily enough, as a public sector worker, you never seem to see this staggeringly obvious alternative.
The problem is twofold.
* 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.
We also need to consider that the scope for tax cuts is limited by the poor state of public finances. Last years budget deficit was £139 billion, or 20x this mooted IHT cut. It is a rounding error.
In May, government debt passed 100% of GDP, the highest since 1961. Higher than either the GFC bailout or covid years.
No its not. Denis Healey's favourite aphorism of the first you do in a hole is stop digging comes to mind. We have, through a series of crises, got used to dangerously large government deficits. The GFC, Covid, high gas prices, the reasons and justifications just keep coming. And it has to stop. We are kidding ourselves, paying for a standard of living we are not earning with our children's money. Its immoral and wrong.
I think that I am as dry as you on government finances. The freezing of thresholds of tax bands is going to be quite a stealth tax over the next few years, and probably a necessary one to gradually reduce the deficit.
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.
It would be a price worth paying in that it would reduce intergenerational unfairness and wealth inequality. It is very, very difficult in this country to accumulate capital from income, the latter is taxed far too highly. In contrast capital generated from capital is barely touched. It drives inequality and many other of our social ills.
Interesting that it's often us who fret about taxation inequity, balance of payments, food security, health and so on, while the Tories on PB just say meh and go all out for Trussonomics and Sunakonomics andf bribery of a very small part of the UK population.
Sunakonomics is swiftly becoming Trussonomics in a spreadsheet with prettier conditional formatting.
Nope, Hunt has still reversed most of the Kwarteng tax cuts and keeping a close cap on spending.
The IHT cut would NOT come in this Parliament, only if the Tories got a mandate for it as a manifesto commitment by winning the next election
So they get the downsides of promising it now (ostensibly popular it could well be, but in an atmosphere where people dislike the government the obvious Labour attack lines will hit home), without the benefits of people benefiting from it.
No the upsides, it is targeted at the key bluewall swing voter Rishi is now focused on. It is all about shoring up the core vote now, forget the redwall, long gone and if people vote for it then it has a mandate while for now the government can keep focusing on the finances and cutting inflation and borrowing
Blue wall voter: I can only get this thing if the country as a whole votes Tory. I still would, but they look like losing elsewhere because no one else will like this, so there's not much point voting for them. I think I'll stay home. After all, they haven't stopped the boat people.
Blue wall voters care far more about scrapping IHT than stopping the boats, the latter is more a redwall issue.
Indeed some of the blue wall voters in West London and Surrey probably end up with some of the boat migrants as gardeners and domestic staff!
I think it is fundamentally a misunderstanding by Sunak.
So far as the "Blue Wall" and "Red Wall" exist at all, the former is driven largely by cultural factors (such as dislike of Brexit and Culture War) while the latter is driven more by economic factors (levelling up, cost of living).
Hence this policy combination of Culture War and tax breaks for the rich has something to piss off everyone.
That is a misreading, the blue wall is fiscally conservative and socially liberal but while it mostly voted Remain or soft Leave it was less Remain than inner city Labour seats for instance and is also much less woke than inner city and university town Labour seats too.
The redwall cared about Brexit, otherwise it would not have voted for Boris in 2019 to get it done and reducing immigration, not just inflation and cost of living and levelling up
Regarding Squareroot's view that things were equally bad, or worse in 2010: I appreciate that this is a not uncommon view.
Never mind attacking Sunak, Labour should produce a set of posters and adverts which clearly paint the picture of how much better the period 1997-2010 was for the UK than 2010-2023/24 has been. It really wouldn't be hard, some simple graphs or simple statements of things like:
- NHS waiting times - Real income - Debt (seriously, who'd have thought would be a higher share of GDP now than in 2010?) - Growth - Inflation - Immigration - House ownership % - Days lost to strikes
I am sure PBers can think of a few others (number of Cabinet members prosecuted?)
You'd have to exclude the 2008-10 period.
The economy was in better shape, pre-2008, than now.
Even if you include the GFC 2008-10 period, Labour significantly outperformed the Conservatives. 30% real increase in GDP against 23% increase, I think, according to OECD data.
Leaving aside the damage austerity has done to public services.
Regarding Squareroot's view that things were equally bad, or worse in 2010: I appreciate that this is a not uncommon view.
Never mind attacking Sunak, Labour should produce a set of posters and adverts which clearly paint the picture of how much better the period 1997-2010 was for the UK than 2010-2023/24 has been. It really wouldn't be hard, some simple graphs or simple statements of things like:
- NHS waiting times - Real income - Debt (seriously, who'd have thought would be a higher share of GDP now than in 2010?) - Growth - Inflation - Immigration - House ownership % - Days lost to strikes
I am sure PBers can think of a few others (number of Cabinet members prosecuted?)
You'd have to exclude the 2008-10 period.
The economy was in better shape, pre-2008, than now.
Not only that but ignore the effects of Brexit, covid and war in Ukraine all in the last 3 years, which are the unique drivers to where we are today
More excuses than a pregnant nun!
Hard to face reality then
I'm sure you were arguing that we should ignore the Global Financial Crisis when thinking about howe to vote back in 2010, Big_G ;-)
In truth, every government faces unexpected events. Labour had 9/11, 7/7 and the GFC; Tories had Brexit, Covid, Ukraine.
But Brexit was entirely of the Conservative Government's making.
You can't put that down as an "act of God" unless your god is called Boris Johnson.
Indeed true, but Big_G was using it as a reason for the Tories utter screw-up of the economy over the past 13 years, so I allowed him that one.
Some Tories, of course, still cling to the idea that the GFC was all Labour's fault (in which case they had a mighty impressive ability to influence the global economy).
Bottom line though, are there any PB posters, of whatever persuasion, who think the Tories have managed the economy at all well?
I'd say that their economic management has been about average, for rich world governments, from 2010 to date.
Almost every rich country has been dealt a rotten hand, over the past 13 years.
Real criticism of the government lies elsewhere, IMHO. The corruption, the infighting, and the very odd sense of priorities, in terms of public spending. The almost wilful ineptititude with which they run institutions.
Inheritance tax raised about £7 billion last year. That was less than the amount of interest paid on government debt in the single month of May 2023 alone.
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.
Or reduce wasteful government spending?
Funnily enough, as a public sector worker, you never seem to see this staggeringly obvious alternative.
The problem is twofold.
* 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.
We also need to consider that the scope for tax cuts is limited by the poor state of public finances. Last years budget deficit was £139 billion, or 20x this mooted IHT cut. It is a rounding error.
In May, government debt passed 100% of GDP, the highest since 1961. Higher than either the GFC bailout or covid years.
No its not. Denis Healey's favourite aphorism of the first you do in a hole is stop digging comes to mind. We have, through a series of crises, got used to dangerously large government deficits. The GFC, Covid, high gas prices, the reasons and justifications just keep coming. And it has to stop. We are kidding ourselves, paying for a standard of living we are not earning with our children's money. Its immoral and wrong.
I don't doubt that in coming decades, euthanasia, as a means of solving fiscal problems, will become an increasingly live suggestion in Western countries.
The mother of my brother's ex was recently euthanised in Holland. It seems to be much more openly accepted there already.
Yeugh! Put like that it sounds terrible, nightmarish.
Euthanised once you've exhausted your pension pot and lifetime NHS allowance. It is a bit dystopian.
It's the way we're heading though.
Not something I am comfortable with.
The situation in Canada looks pretty troubling, as pretty quickly an open approach to it seems to have developed close to attitudes of you 'can' to you 'probably should'. Not fully there yet, but it's getting there.
There's a pretty good Irish film about the topic that I saw recently, called Sunlight. It comes down quite positively in favour of assisted dying, in the sense of choosing the manner of your passing and being in control of it, although I remain deeply sceptical myself. There's even an inheritance too, so something for HYUFD as well.
I would only support assisted dying if a terminal illness in deep pain with less than 6 months to live, inheritance or now
My mother in law, if asked 10 years ago, would have been all for it. She was a very pragmatic person who had no truck with any religious mores.
Unfortunately, now she needs it (dementia, no life at all, fights with carers including her own daughter) she can no longer make the decision. She is basically a permanently depressed 1 year old that before too long won't remember how to swallow.
Meanwhile we do our best to preserve what dignity we can, but it is hard for everyone.
I understand the reluctance to change the law because not all families can be trusted - but surely it isn't beyond the wit of man to come up with a sane policy involving some kind of 'living will'.
Admittedly there is an issue with giving the final say to doctors. A friend of mine was put on the 'we're giving up here' list until another doctor spotted what was wrong. She got another 2 years of worthwhile life once recovered.
Ironically the original doctor who pronounced that she was a hopeless case died first (of Covid).
Yes, on balance I support assisted dying. I think we have to come up with something workable on this.
Logans run did the heavy lifting on this for us already
Lots of opporttunities for Tories with chums who are cabinet ministers. Covid PPE did the trial run for that.
And thje pressure to send granny off to Resyk will be much greater if IHT is removed.
I hope everyone else is enjoying a few hand shandies about the prospect of the Duke of Marlborough saving money on his IHT bill, because I know I am.
That's what the Tory Party is about - saving money for the aristos, while the little people fantasise about Upstairs Downstairs and the Tory on here keeps going on about posh and inheritances.
One or two people really will need to buy a new carpet, btw, the way they are going on.
The rich don't have carpets. The staff polish the floors.
Yes, but it's the poor and the middling who have the carpets and who shill for the rich on here.
Sufferers of Musk derangement syndrome have declared that it’s a Ponzi scheme. I can only assume they don’t understand what ad revenue is.
Please don't start calling it 'Musk Derangement Syndrome'; as the most deranged are the sycophants who follow him.
Like most geniuses he goes well off the deep end into flights of utter madness. Paypal was ground-breaking. SpaceX reimagined space travel and led to Starlink. Tesla has transformed the prospects of the global car industry. All in the positive column.
Negatives? The Boring Company is insane (though I did enjoy "this is not a flamethrower"). His stoner attacks on the Thai cave rescuers (and other similar instances). Buying Twitter. Denouncing the dangers of OpenAI then founding xAI. On this latter piece if he ends up responsible for creating the AI that kills or enslaves humanity I wouldn't be surprised.
"SpaceX Starlink satellites had to make 25,000 collision-avoidance maneuvers in just 6 months — and it will only get worse"
I’ve never really understood the furore around IHT. For me 1) paying taxes when I’m dead would be my preferred time to be paying tax; and 2) I regard the assets of my relatives/ parents as theirs, not mine - and feel it quite distasteful to think otherwise.
Quite so.Some views here come over as a malign version of the vultures in the Jumgle Book: "sitting waiting for mummy and daddy to die, that'll solve all the Tories' problems as well as mine".
Inheritance tax raised about £7 billion last year. That was less than the amount of interest paid on government debt in the single month of May 2023 alone.
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.
Or reduce wasteful government spending?
Funnily enough, as a public sector worker, you never seem to see this staggeringly obvious alternative.
The problem is twofold.
* 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.
We also need to consider that the scope for tax cuts is limited by the poor state of public finances. Last years budget deficit was £139 billion, or 20x this mooted IHT cut. It is a rounding error.
In May, government debt passed 100% of GDP, the highest since 1961. Higher than either the GFC bailout or covid years.
No its not. Denis Healey's favourite aphorism of the first you do in a hole is stop digging comes to mind. We have, through a series of crises, got used to dangerously large government deficits. The GFC, Covid, high gas prices, the reasons and justifications just keep coming. And it has to stop. We are kidding ourselves, paying for a standard of living we are not earning with our children's money. Its immoral and wrong.
I don't doubt that in coming decades, euthanasia, as a means of solving fiscal problems, will become an increasingly live suggestion in Western countries.
The mother of my brother's ex was recently euthanised in Holland. It seems to be much more openly accepted there already.
Yeugh! Put like that it sounds terrible, nightmarish.
Euthanised once you've exhausted your pension pot and lifetime NHS allowance. It is a bit dystopian.
It's the way we're heading though.
Not something I am comfortable with.
The situation in Canada looks pretty troubling, as pretty quickly an open approach to it seems to have developed close to attitudes of you 'can' to you 'probably should'. Not fully there yet, but it's getting there.
There's a pretty good Irish film about the topic that I saw recently, called Sunlight. It comes down quite positively in favour of assisted dying, in the sense of choosing the manner of your passing and being in control of it, although I remain deeply sceptical myself. There's even an inheritance too, so something for HYUFD as well.
I would only support assisted dying if a terminal illness in deep pain with less than 6 months to live, inheritance or now
My mother in law, if asked 10 years ago, would have been all for it. She was a very pragmatic person who had no truck with any religious mores.
Unfortunately, now she needs it (dementia, no life at all, fights with carers including her own daughter) she can no longer make the decision. She is basically a permanently depressed 1 year old that before too long won't remember how to swallow.
Meanwhile we do our best to preserve what dignity we can, but it is hard for everyone.
I understand the reluctance to change the law because not all families can be trusted - but surely it isn't beyond the wit of man to come up with a sane policy involving some kind of 'living will'.
Admittedly there is an issue with giving the final say to doctors. A friend of mine was put on the 'we're giving up here' list until another doctor spotted what was wrong. She got another 2 years of worthwhile life once recovered.
Ironically the original doctor who pronounced that she was a hopeless case died first (of Covid).
Chilling.
A point I only realised the other day is that testing new treatments for dementia is virtually impossible because you can never get informed consent from patients.
I think if they have granted medical power of attorney it shouldn’t be a problem?
Probably right, but there may not be enough of those
Speaking of which I must get that done. Today.
We have just applied for both property and health for both of us, but the waiting time for approval is 6 months so it is wise to act earlier than later
Sufferers of Musk derangement syndrome have declared that it’s a Ponzi scheme. I can only assume they don’t understand what ad revenue is.
Please don't start calling it 'Musk Derangement Syndrome'; as the most deranged are the sycophants who follow him.
Like most geniuses he goes well off the deep end into flights of utter madness. Paypal was ground-breaking. SpaceX reimagined space travel and led to Starlink. Tesla has transformed the prospects of the global car industry. All in the positive column.
Negatives? The Boring Company is insane (though I did enjoy "this is not a flamethrower"). His stoner attacks on the Thai cave rescuers (and other similar instances). Buying Twitter. Denouncing the dangers of OpenAI then founding xAI. On this latter piece if he ends up responsible for creating the AI that kills or enslaves humanity I wouldn't be surprised.
"SpaceX Starlink satellites had to make 25,000 collision-avoidance maneuvers in just 6 months — and it will only get worse"
I think we have kesslerised ourselves without really noticing or thinking about it. Starlink may in retrospect be the biggest negative of all.
Starlink is low enough that atmospheric drag clears the road pretty frequently.
It’s one thing that Elon Musk and Tory Bruno definitely agree on.
But you have to keep adding new Starlinks to compensate. And competitors are getting in on the game. Layman's view, but even 25,000 manoeuvres every 6 months looks like a disaster in waiting, and the forecast is that will be 1m in 8 years time
Inheritance tax raised about £7 billion last year. That was less than the amount of interest paid on government debt in the single month of May 2023 alone.
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.
Or reduce wasteful government spending?
Funnily enough, as a public sector worker, you never seem to see this staggeringly obvious alternative.
The problem is twofold.
* 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.
We also need to consider that the scope for tax cuts is limited by the poor state of public finances. Last years budget deficit was £139 billion, or 20x this mooted IHT cut. It is a rounding error.
In May, government debt passed 100% of GDP, the highest since 1961. Higher than either the GFC bailout or covid years.
No its not. Denis Healey's favourite aphorism of the first you do in a hole is stop digging comes to mind. We have, through a series of crises, got used to dangerously large government deficits. The GFC, Covid, high gas prices, the reasons and justifications just keep coming. And it has to stop. We are kidding ourselves, paying for a standard of living we are not earning with our children's money. Its immoral and wrong.
I don't doubt that in coming decades, euthanasia, as a means of solving fiscal problems, will become an increasingly live suggestion in Western countries.
The mother of my brother's ex was recently euthanised in Holland. It seems to be much more openly accepted there already.
Yeugh! Put like that it sounds terrible, nightmarish.
Euthanised once you've exhausted your pension pot and lifetime NHS allowance. It is a bit dystopian.
It's the way we're heading though.
Not something I am comfortable with.
The situation in Canada looks pretty troubling, as pretty quickly an open approach to it seems to have developed close to attitudes of you 'can' to you 'probably should'. Not fully there yet, but it's getting there.
There's a pretty good Irish film about the topic that I saw recently, called Sunlight. It comes down quite positively in favour of assisted dying, in the sense of choosing the manner of your passing and being in control of it, although I remain deeply sceptical myself. There's even an inheritance too, so something for HYUFD as well.
I would only support assisted dying if a terminal illness in deep pain with less than 6 months to live, inheritance or now
My mother in law, if asked 10 years ago, would have been all for it. She was a very pragmatic person who had no truck with any religious mores.
Unfortunately, now she needs it (dementia, no life at all, fights with carers including her own daughter) she can no longer make the decision. She is basically a permanently depressed 1 year old that before too long won't remember how to swallow.
Meanwhile we do our best to preserve what dignity we can, but it is hard for everyone.
I understand the reluctance to change the law because not all families can be trusted - but surely it isn't beyond the wit of man to come up with a sane policy involving some kind of 'living will'.
Admittedly there is an issue with giving the final say to doctors. A friend of mine was put on the 'we're giving up here' list until another doctor spotted what was wrong. She got another 2 years of worthwhile life once recovered.
Ironically the original doctor who pronounced that she was a hopeless case died first (of Covid).
Chilling.
A point I only realised the other day is that testing new treatments for dementia is virtually impossible because you can never get informed consent from patients.
I think if they have granted medical power of attorney it shouldn’t be a problem?
Probably right, but there may not be enough of those
Speaking of which I must get that done. Today.
We have just applied for both property and health for both of us, but the waiting time for approval is 6 months so it is wise to act earlier than later
And if anyone has moved to/from Scotland, the previous PoAs won't work.
Regarding Squareroot's view that things were equally bad, or worse in 2010: I appreciate that this is a not uncommon view.
Never mind attacking Sunak, Labour should produce a set of posters and adverts which clearly paint the picture of how much better the period 1997-2010 was for the UK than 2010-2023/24 has been. It really wouldn't be hard, some simple graphs or simple statements of things like:
- NHS waiting times - Real income - Debt (seriously, who'd have thought would be a higher share of GDP now than in 2010?) - Growth - Inflation - Immigration - House ownership % - Days lost to strikes
I am sure PBers can think of a few others (number of Cabinet members prosecuted?)
You'd have to exclude the 2008-10 period.
The economy was in better shape, pre-2008, than now.
Not only that but ignore the effects of Brexit, covid and war in Ukraine all in the last 3 years, which are the unique drivers to where we are today
More excuses than a pregnant nun!
Hard to face reality then
I'm sure you were arguing that we should ignore the Global Financial Crisis when thinking about howe to vote back in 2010, Big_G ;-)
In truth, every government faces unexpected events. Labour had 9/11, 7/7 and the GFC; Tories had Brexit, Covid, Ukraine.
But Brexit was entirely of the Conservative Government's making.
You can't put that down as an "act of God" unless your god is called Boris Johnson.
Indeed true, but Big_G was using it as a reason for the Tories utter screw-up of the economy over the past 13 years, so I allowed him that one.
Some Tories, of course, still cling to the idea that the GFC was all Labour's fault (in which case they had a mighty impressive ability to influence the global economy).
Bottom line though, are there any PB posters, of whatever persuasion, who think the Tories have managed the economy at all well?
I'd say that their economic management has been about average, for rich world governments, from 2010 to date.
Almost every rich country has been dealt a rotten hand, over the past 13 years.
Real criticism of the government lies elsewhere, IMHO. The corruption, the infighting, and the very odd sense of priorities, in terms of public spending. The almost wilful ineptititude with which they run institutions.
It's probably going to get worse. Demographics, climate and cultural challenges will make all Western countries very difficult to govern as happy ships in the next 20 years.
Looking at the statistics it is only 3-4% of all deaths that are liable to IHT. This may not be well known, but it means that it could be presented by the opposition as another gift to the very richest.
I think the VERY richest can probably pay the lawyers and accountants necessary to dodge IHT completely through trusts, foreign residency, etc. It's a gift to house owners in the south east.
But, as you say, I doubt there are enough of them to move the needle much.
But paradoxically it does, it single handedly sunk Brown's election in 2007 or 2008. I have no idea why (though nb 4% of deaths is misleading: let's say Rich Guy has 3 children 2 of them married and 4 grandchildren, then he plus 9 are fussed about IHT on his estate which multiplies up to 40% of the population)
So I think actually I have resolved my own paradox
That maths is staggeringly bad. It's 4% of deaths, not 4% of the whole population dying each year.
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.
No, THAT maths is staggeringly bad. mortality is 100% even among rich guys, so every single rich guy is going to die in 2023, or a subsequent year, so that is him plus 9 worrying about and voting according to, what the tax regime will be in 2026 or 2027 or 2037.
There may still be time to delete your foolish post, but I am afraid it is crystallised for eternity in the quote above.
But the people who die in the future with a taxable estate, will most likely be the same people who have inherited from a taxable estate in the past. You are counting them twice (or ten times). You'll get there in the end.
That makes no difference, or rather it makes your point even weaker. 4% of estates does not mean 4% of people, we agree. At first glance (this is your mistake) it means only 0.4% of people assuming rich oldies die off at 10% a year. But that doesn't matter. Mortality is 100% not 10%. So for every Big Daddy whose well-heeled death is foreseeable there are 10 voters with an interest in his death. Now, there is a bit of double counting at the grandchild level because they may have expectations from the other big granddaddy, so let's count them as half. That is still 8 votes per taxable estate. So the 4% figure is deceptive, but on the downside.
8 votes per estate? Many families have only 2-3 major/residual inheritors - the childrten - and the ones who get lump sums don't care abouit IHT.
One thouight: this might discourage gifts to charities and the Tory Party. IHT immunities for those become irrelevant, so that much less motive.
It would also lock up even more wealth with an even higher age group by removing the incentive to disperse assets before death.
On that logic, then we ought to tax wealth full stop if the rich oldies aren't doing anything useful with it.
Then it gets portrayed as a living death duty.
This is the tory strategy. Red wall is gone, shore up the Blue wall with a reverse TMay.
If I were Labour I'd be cooking up some hypotheticals as to how much Sunak would benefit personally from the abolition of IHT. You could make it look like £100 millions. Of course in reality it would be nothing like that because it would be dodged with offshore trusts and so on, but saying so would be a bit awks.
In fact IHT abolition is dead in the water for precisely that reason, unless Sunak is replaced by the Lord President of the Council who looks to be a clean skin inheritancewise (dad former O.R. para, mum SN teacher). Sunak is very, very neatly skewered here.
No he isn't, the middle class swing voters in the bluewall this policy is targeting won't care if Rishi is the richest and poshest man in Britain if they get a windfall via inheritance tax being scrapped
No, but swing voters elsewhere will be influenced by what looks like naked self-enrichment.
Voters in the redwall who own or rent a property below the £325k IHT threshold are almost certainly voting Labour again now anyway with Brexit done and Boris and Corbyn gone and ain't coming back to the Tories regardless anytime soon
The Tory party's sense of commitment to the people of the Red Wall has been salutary.
Inheritance tax raised about £7 billion last year. That was less than the amount of interest paid on government debt in the single month of May 2023 alone.
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.
Or reduce wasteful government spending?
Funnily enough, as a public sector worker, you never seem to see this staggeringly obvious alternative.
The problem is twofold.
* 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.
We also need to consider that the scope for tax cuts is limited by the poor state of public finances. Last years budget deficit was £139 billion, or 20x this mooted IHT cut. It is a rounding error.
In May, government debt passed 100% of GDP, the highest since 1961. Higher than either the GFC bailout or covid years.
No its not. Denis Healey's favourite aphorism of the first you do in a hole is stop digging comes to mind. We have, through a series of crises, got used to dangerously large government deficits. The GFC, Covid, high gas prices, the reasons and justifications just keep coming. And it has to stop. We are kidding ourselves, paying for a standard of living we are not earning with our children's money. Its immoral and wrong.
I don't doubt that in coming decades, euthanasia, as a means of solving fiscal problems, will become an increasingly live suggestion in Western countries.
The mother of my brother's ex was recently euthanised in Holland. It seems to be much more openly accepted there already.
Yeugh! Put like that it sounds terrible, nightmarish.
Euthanised once you've exhausted your pension pot and lifetime NHS allowance. It is a bit dystopian.
It's the way we're heading though.
Not something I am comfortable with.
The situation in Canada looks pretty troubling, as pretty quickly an open approach to it seems to have developed close to attitudes of you 'can' to you 'probably should'. Not fully there yet, but it's getting there.
There's a pretty good Irish film about the topic that I saw recently, called Sunlight. It comes down quite positively in favour of assisted dying, in the sense of choosing the manner of your passing and being in control of it, although I remain deeply sceptical myself. There's even an inheritance too, so something for HYUFD as well.
I would only support assisted dying if a terminal illness in deep pain with less than 6 months to live, inheritance or now
My mother in law, if asked 10 years ago, would have been all for it. She was a very pragmatic person who had no truck with any religious mores.
Unfortunately, now she needs it (dementia, no life at all, fights with carers including her own daughter) she can no longer make the decision. She is basically a permanently depressed 1 year old that before too long won't remember how to swallow.
Meanwhile we do our best to preserve what dignity we can, but it is hard for everyone.
I understand the reluctance to change the law because not all families can be trusted - but surely it isn't beyond the wit of man to come up with a sane policy involving some kind of 'living will'.
Admittedly there is an issue with giving the final say to doctors. A friend of mine was put on the 'we're giving up here' list until another doctor spotted what was wrong. She got another 2 years of worthwhile life once recovered.
Ironically the original doctor who pronounced that she was a hopeless case died first (of Covid).
Chilling.
A point I only realised the other day is that testing new treatments for dementia is virtually impossible because you can never get informed consent from patients.
I think if they have granted medical power of attorney it shouldn’t be a problem?
Probably right, but there may not be enough of those
Speaking of which I must get that done. Today.
We have just applied for both property and health for both of us, but the waiting time for approval is 6 months so it is wise to act earlier than later
And if anyone has moved to/from Scotland, the previous PoAs won't work.
Good point but notwithstanding our close family connections to Scotland it does not apply in our case
Regarding Squareroot's view that things were equally bad, or worse in 2010: I appreciate that this is a not uncommon view.
Never mind attacking Sunak, Labour should produce a set of posters and adverts which clearly paint the picture of how much better the period 1997-2010 was for the UK than 2010-2023/24 has been. It really wouldn't be hard, some simple graphs or simple statements of things like:
- NHS waiting times - Real income - Debt (seriously, who'd have thought would be a higher share of GDP now than in 2010?) - Growth - Inflation - Immigration - House ownership % - Days lost to strikes
I am sure PBers can think of a few others (number of Cabinet members prosecuted?)
You'd have to exclude the 2008-10 period.
The economy was in better shape, pre-2008, than now.
Not only that but ignore the effects of Brexit, covid and war in Ukraine all in the last 3 years, which are the unique drivers to where we are today
More excuses than a pregnant nun!
Hard to face reality then
I'm sure you were arguing that we should ignore the Global Financial Crisis when thinking about howe to vote back in 2010, Big_G ;-)
In truth, every government faces unexpected events. Labour had 9/11, 7/7 and the GFC; Tories had Brexit, Covid, Ukraine.
But Brexit was entirely of the Conservative Government's making.
You can't put that down as an "act of God" unless your god is called Boris Johnson.
Indeed true, but Big_G was using it as a reason for the Tories utter screw-up of the economy over the past 13 years, so I allowed him that one.
Some Tories, of course, still cling to the idea that the GFC was all Labour's fault (in which case they had a mighty impressive ability to influence the global economy).
Bottom line though, are there any PB posters, of whatever persuasion, who think the Tories have managed the economy at all well?
I'd say that their economic management has been about average, for rich world governments, from 2010 to date.
Almost every rich country has been dealt a rotten hand, over the past 13 years.
Real criticism of the government lies elsewhere, IMHO. The corruption, the infighting, and the very odd sense of priorities, in terms of public spending. The almost wilful ineptititude with which they run institutions.
I agree with your second point in things being less rosy for the world economy after GFC.But to your first point about economic management, we can point to specific government policies with poor economic outcomes that peer countries didn't follow to the same extent, including austerity, Brexit, COVID economic policies, extent of QE.
Inheritance tax raised about £7 billion last year. That was less than the amount of interest paid on government debt in the single month of May 2023 alone.
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.
Or reduce wasteful government spending?
Funnily enough, as a public sector worker, you never seem to see this staggeringly obvious alternative.
The problem is twofold.
* 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.
We also need to consider that the scope for tax cuts is limited by the poor state of public finances. Last years budget deficit was £139 billion, or 20x this mooted IHT cut. It is a rounding error.
In May, government debt passed 100% of GDP, the highest since 1961. Higher than either the GFC bailout or covid years.
No its not. Denis Healey's favourite aphorism of the first you do in a hole is stop digging comes to mind. We have, through a series of crises, got used to dangerously large government deficits. The GFC, Covid, high gas prices, the reasons and justifications just keep coming. And it has to stop. We are kidding ourselves, paying for a standard of living we are not earning with our children's money. Its immoral and wrong.
I don't doubt that in coming decades, euthanasia, as a means of solving fiscal problems, will become an increasingly live suggestion in Western countries.
The mother of my brother's ex was recently euthanised in Holland. It seems to be much more openly accepted there already.
Yeugh! Put like that it sounds terrible, nightmarish.
Euthanised once you've exhausted your pension pot and lifetime NHS allowance. It is a bit dystopian.
It's the way we're heading though.
Not something I am comfortable with.
The situation in Canada looks pretty troubling, as pretty quickly an open approach to it seems to have developed close to attitudes of you 'can' to you 'probably should'. Not fully there yet, but it's getting there.
There's a pretty good Irish film about the topic that I saw recently, called Sunlight. It comes down quite positively in favour of assisted dying, in the sense of choosing the manner of your passing and being in control of it, although I remain deeply sceptical myself. There's even an inheritance too, so something for HYUFD as well.
I would only support assisted dying if a terminal illness in deep pain with less than 6 months to live, inheritance or now
My mother in law, if asked 10 years ago, would have been all for it. She was a very pragmatic person who had no truck with any religious mores.
Unfortunately, now she needs it (dementia, no life at all, fights with carers including her own daughter) she can no longer make the decision. She is basically a permanently depressed 1 year old that before too long won't remember how to swallow.
Meanwhile we do our best to preserve what dignity we can, but it is hard for everyone.
I understand the reluctance to change the law because not all families can be trusted - but surely it isn't beyond the wit of man to come up with a sane policy involving some kind of 'living will'.
Admittedly there is an issue with giving the final say to doctors. A friend of mine was put on the 'we're giving up here' list until another doctor spotted what was wrong. She got another 2 years of worthwhile life once recovered.
Ironically the original doctor who pronounced that she was a hopeless case died first (of Covid).
Chilling.
A point I only realised the other day is that testing new treatments for dementia is virtually impossible because you can never get informed consent from patients.
I think if they have granted medical power of attorney it shouldn’t be a problem?
Probably right, but there may not be enough of those
Speaking of which I must get that done. Today.
We have just applied for both property and health for both of us, but the waiting time for approval is 6 months so it is wise to act earlier than later
And if anyone has moved to/from Scotland, the previous PoAs won't work.
Good point but notwithstanding our close family connections to Scotland it does not apply in our case
Oh, good. But always worth bearing in mind for anyone moving (and inheritance too).
Regarding Squareroot's view that things were equally bad, or worse in 2010: I appreciate that this is a not uncommon view.
Never mind attacking Sunak, Labour should produce a set of posters and adverts which clearly paint the picture of how much better the period 1997-2010 was for the UK than 2010-2023/24 has been. It really wouldn't be hard, some simple graphs or simple statements of things like:
- NHS waiting times - Real income - Debt (seriously, who'd have thought would be a higher share of GDP now than in 2010?) - Growth - Inflation - Immigration - House ownership % - Days lost to strikes
I am sure PBers can think of a few others (number of Cabinet members prosecuted?)
You'd have to exclude the 2008-10 period.
The economy was in better shape, pre-2008, than now.
Even if you include the GFC 2008-10 period, Labour significantly outperformed the Conservatives. 30% real increase in GDP against 23% increase, I think, according to OECD data.
Leaving aside the damage austerity has done to public services.
At some point in the 2000's rich world growth slowed markedly, from what we took for granted for several generations after WWII. That's a mix of demography, globalisation, and a habit of spending in one year, the money governments expected to be getting in future years.
Shouldn't ending 62% marginal tax rates be a Conservative priority? Doesn't the Government want a tax system that encourages growth, instead of holding it back?
Inheritance tax, by contrast, is irrelevant to growth. What a waste of £7bn. The tax fairy would be disappointed.
Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian youth have already died because America's foreign policy establishment manipulated their country into war to fulfill vain + futile geopolitical fantasy. Now, rather than acknowledge failure, Biden admin prepares to sacrifice American lives too. 7:26 PM · Jul 14, 2023 · 4M Views
Regarding Squareroot's view that things were equally bad, or worse in 2010: I appreciate that this is a not uncommon view.
Never mind attacking Sunak, Labour should produce a set of posters and adverts which clearly paint the picture of how much better the period 1997-2010 was for the UK than 2010-2023/24 has been. It really wouldn't be hard, some simple graphs or simple statements of things like:
- NHS waiting times - Real income - Debt (seriously, who'd have thought would be a higher share of GDP now than in 2010?) - Growth - Inflation - Immigration - House ownership % - Days lost to strikes
I am sure PBers can think of a few others (number of Cabinet members prosecuted?)
You'd have to exclude the 2008-10 period.
The economy was in better shape, pre-2008, than now.
Not only that but ignore the effects of Brexit, covid and war in Ukraine all in the last 3 years, which are the unique drivers to where we are today
More excuses than a pregnant nun!
Hard to face reality then
I'm sure you were arguing that we should ignore the Global Financial Crisis when thinking about howe to vote back in 2010, Big_G ;-)
In truth, every government faces unexpected events. Labour had 9/11, 7/7 and the GFC; Tories had Brexit, Covid, Ukraine.
But Brexit was entirely of the Conservative Government's making.
You can't put that down as an "act of God" unless your god is called Boris Johnson.
Indeed true, but Big_G was using it as a reason for the Tories utter screw-up of the economy over the past 13 years, so I allowed him that one.
Some Tories, of course, still cling to the idea that the GFC was all Labour's fault (in which case they had a mighty impressive ability to influence the global economy).
Bottom line though, are there any PB posters, of whatever persuasion, who think the Tories have managed the economy at all well?
I'd say that their economic management has been about average, for rich world governments, from 2010 to date.
Almost every rich country has been dealt a rotten hand, over the past 13 years.
Real criticism of the government lies elsewhere, IMHO. The corruption, the infighting, and the very odd sense of priorities, in terms of public spending. The almost wilful ineptititude with which they run institutions.
It's probably going to get worse. Demographics, climate and cultural challenges will make all Western countries very difficult to govern as happy ships in the next 20 years.
Labour won't have a fun time of it either.
Without being partisan, I just cannot see any government for the forceable future rediscovering the good days, not least due to the costs of climate change and the desire for net zero
I understand the loss of fuel duty as we transition to EV is massive, and to date nobody has even started to address how this loss of revenue is replaced
My wife and I met some friends who we had been close to 45 years ago, and in our chat it was generally accepted that our generation have experienced the best of times compared to what is coming in the future for todays young and middle age generation
Sufferers of Musk derangement syndrome have declared that it’s a Ponzi scheme. I can only assume they don’t understand what ad revenue is.
Please don't start calling it 'Musk Derangement Syndrome'; as the most deranged are the sycophants who follow him.
Like most geniuses he goes well off the deep end into flights of utter madness. Paypal was ground-breaking. SpaceX reimagined space travel and led to Starlink. Tesla has transformed the prospects of the global car industry. All in the positive column.
Negatives? The Boring Company is insane (though I did enjoy "this is not a flamethrower"). His stoner attacks on the Thai cave rescuers (and other similar instances). Buying Twitter. Denouncing the dangers of OpenAI then founding xAI. On this latter piece if he ends up responsible for creating the AI that kills or enslaves humanity I wouldn't be surprised.
"SpaceX Starlink satellites had to make 25,000 collision-avoidance maneuvers in just 6 months — and it will only get worse"
I think we have kesslerised ourselves without really noticing or thinking about it. Starlink may in retrospect be the biggest negative of all.
Starlink is low enough that atmospheric drag clears the road pretty frequently.
It’s one thing that Elon Musk and Tory Bruno definitely agree on.
But you have to keep adding new Starlinks to compensate. And competitors are getting in on the game. Layman's view, but even 25,000 manoeuvres every 6 months looks like a disaster in waiting, and the forecast is that will be 1m in 8 years time
So far, nearly all those manoeuvres have been to stay outside an extended version of the safe distance zones around other objects*.
That is, there’s a minimum safe distance rule between objects*. To be conservative, you add a bit on to that.
Lots of on the ground reports coming in that the Ukrainian army is very nearly spent, Mr Z has been forcing young male civilians into the battleground, this info would tie in with Biden sending 3000 troops to Europe. Be mindful of the blanking Mr Z got at this weeks NATO meeting
If anything we need to be increasing the rate of IHT, not abolishing it.
Stupid policy though probably superficially popular.
I currently stand to pay a relatively small amount of IHT on my father's estate, although that may be in a good few years yet. I can't really avoid it because he doesn't have a lot of agency to make decisions and as POA I cannot really give it away to myself. Setting up a trust is just hassle.
I'm somewhat conflicted about this. I believe in standing on your own feet if possible and I can survive perfectly well without an inheritance, but I also don't like the government taxing money twice, particularly as a lump sum.
I quite like the idea of taxing everything at the same rate but with a caveat that you can automatically put inheritance money into a ring fenced fund and pay tax on what you take out each year as income. That would mean that those with expensive lawyers don't have an advantage in setting up trusts and also that those on benefits don't end up with effectively a 100% tax rate on relatively small sums.
If the law stays as it is I will probably make a deed of variation and give away anything above the threshold to a suitable charity (depending on my view of the government at the time).
Regarding Squareroot's view that things were equally bad, or worse in 2010: I appreciate that this is a not uncommon view.
Never mind attacking Sunak, Labour should produce a set of posters and adverts which clearly paint the picture of how much better the period 1997-2010 was for the UK than 2010-2023/24 has been. It really wouldn't be hard, some simple graphs or simple statements of things like:
- NHS waiting times - Real income - Debt (seriously, who'd have thought would be a higher share of GDP now than in 2010?) - Growth - Inflation - Immigration - House ownership % - Days lost to strikes
I am sure PBers can think of a few others (number of Cabinet members prosecuted?)
You'd have to exclude the 2008-10 period.
The economy was in better shape, pre-2008, than now.
Not only that but ignore the effects of Brexit, covid and war in Ukraine all in the last 3 years, which are the unique drivers to where we are today
More excuses than a pregnant nun!
Hard to face reality then
I'm sure you were arguing that we should ignore the Global Financial Crisis when thinking about howe to vote back in 2010, Big_G ;-)
In truth, every government faces unexpected events. Labour had 9/11, 7/7 and the GFC; Tories had Brexit, Covid, Ukraine.
But Brexit was entirely of the Conservative Government's making.
You can't put that down as an "act of God" unless your god is called Boris Johnson.
Indeed true, but Big_G was using it as a reason for the Tories utter screw-up of the economy over the past 13 years, so I allowed him that one.
Some Tories, of course, still cling to the idea that the GFC was all Labour's fault (in which case they had a mighty impressive ability to influence the global economy).
Bottom line though, are there any PB posters, of whatever persuasion, who think the Tories have managed the economy at all well?
I'd say that their economic management has been about average, for rich world governments, from 2010 to date.
Almost every rich country has been dealt a rotten hand, over the past 13 years.
Real criticism of the government lies elsewhere, IMHO. The corruption, the infighting, and the very odd sense of priorities, in terms of public spending. The almost wilful ineptititude with which they run institutions.
I agree with your second point in things being less rosy for the world economy after GFC.But to your first point about economic management, we can point to specific government policies with poor economic outcomes that peer countries didn't follow to the same extent, including austerity, Brexit, COVID economic policies, extent of QE.
A lot of rich countries practised forms of austerity that make ours look laughably lenient by comparison (Ireland, Iceland, the Club Med nations). Pretty well everyone sought to cut budget deficits sharply, after 2010. Brexit is pretty small beer, overall. The COVID policies and QE definitely caused problems down the line, but it really was. case of choosing between evils.
Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian youth have already died because America's foreign policy establishment manipulated their country into war to fulfill vain + futile geopolitical fantasy. Now, rather than acknowledge failure, Biden admin prepares to sacrifice American lives too. 7:26 PM · Jul 14, 2023 · 4M Views
▪️Ukraine will lose huge territories after Russia's victory, said American political scientist John Mearsheimer in an interview for "South China Morning Post",
"What will remain of Ukraine will be dysfunctional remnants that will not be able to conduct major military operations against Russia and will not meet the criteria for entry into either the EU or NATO. I think that will be the end result," he said.
▪️According to his opinion, Ukraine will lose "several large parts", which will be like half of its territory. Mearsheimer predicted that the conflict would continue for another two years.
Looking at the statistics it is only 3-4% of all deaths that are liable to IHT. This may not be well known, but it means that it could be presented by the opposition as another gift to the very richest.
I think the VERY richest can probably pay the lawyers and accountants necessary to dodge IHT completely through trusts, foreign residency, etc. It's a gift to house owners in the south east.
But, as you say, I doubt there are enough of them to move the needle much.
But paradoxically it does, it single handedly sunk Brown's election in 2007 or 2008. I have no idea why (though nb 4% of deaths is misleading: let's say Rich Guy has 3 children 2 of them married and 4 grandchildren, then he plus 9 are fussed about IHT on his estate which multiplies up to 40% of the population)
So I think actually I have resolved my own paradox
That maths is staggeringly bad. It's 4% of deaths, not 4% of the whole population dying each year.
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.
No, THAT maths is staggeringly bad. mortality is 100% even among rich guys, so every single rich guy is going to die in 2023, or a subsequent year, so that is him plus 9 worrying about and voting according to, what the tax regime will be in 2026 or 2027 or 2037.
There may still be time to delete your foolish post, but I am afraid it is crystallised for eternity in the quote above.
But the people who die in the future with a taxable estate, will most likely be the same people who have inherited from a taxable estate in the past. You are counting them twice (or ten times). You'll get there in the end.
That makes no difference, or rather it makes your point even weaker. 4% of estates does not mean 4% of people, we agree. At first glance (this is your mistake) it means only 0.4% of people assuming rich oldies die off at 10% a year. But that doesn't matter. Mortality is 100% not 10%. So for every Big Daddy whose well-heeled death is foreseeable there are 10 voters with an interest in his death. Now, there is a bit of double counting at the grandchild level because they may have expectations from the other big granddaddy, so let's count them as half. That is still 8 votes per taxable estate. So the 4% figure is deceptive, but on the downside.
8 votes per estate? Many families have only 2-3 major/residual inheritors - the childrten - and the ones who get lump sums don't care abouit IHT.
One thouight: this might discourage gifts to charities and the Tory Party. IHT immunities for those become irrelevant, so that much less motive.
It would also lock up even more wealth with an even higher age group by removing the incentive to disperse assets before death.
On that logic, then we ought to tax wealth full stop if the rich oldies aren't doing anything useful with it.
Then it gets portrayed as a living death duty.
This is the tory strategy. Red wall is gone, shore up the Blue wall with a reverse TMay.
If I were Labour I'd be cooking up some hypotheticals as to how much Sunak would benefit personally from the abolition of IHT. You could make it look like £100 millions. Of course in reality it would be nothing like that because it would be dodged with offshore trusts and so on, but saying so would be a bit awks.
In fact IHT abolition is dead in the water for precisely that reason, unless Sunak is replaced by the Lord President of the Council who looks to be a clean skin inheritancewise (dad former O.R. para, mum SN teacher). Sunak is very, very neatly skewered here.
No he isn't, the middle class swing voters in the bluewall this policy is targeting won't care if Rishi is the richest and poshest man in Britain if they get a windfall via inheritance tax being scrapped
No, but swing voters elsewhere will be influenced by what looks like naked self-enrichment.
Voters in the redwall who own or rent a property below the £325k IHT threshold are almost certainly voting Labour again now anyway with Brexit done and Boris and Corbyn gone and ain't coming back to the Tories regardless anytime soon
The Tory party's sense of commitment to the people of the Red Wall has been salutary.
Was it ever going to be any other way? The parties care about being elected. That is it. They will say and do anything to achieve that. Though the Tories are better at it than Labour to be fair. Which might just be a compliment to Labour.
▪️Ukraine will lose huge territories after Russia's victory, said American political scientist John Mearsheimer in an interview for "South China Morning Post",
"What will remain of Ukraine will be dysfunctional remnants that will not be able to conduct major military operations against Russia and will not meet the criteria for entry into either the EU or NATO. I think that will be the end result," he said.
▪️According to his opinion, Ukraine will lose "several large parts", which will be like half of its territory. Mearsheimer predicted that the conflict would continue for another two years.
If anything we need to be increasing the rate of IHT, not abolishing it.
Stupid policy though probably superficially popular.
I currently stand to pay a relatively small amount of IHT on my father's estate, although that may be in a good few years yet. I can't really avoid it because he doesn't have a lot of agency to make decisions and as POA I cannot really give it away to myself. Setting up a trust is just hassle.
I'm somewhat conflicted about this. I believe in standing on your own feet if possible and I can survive perfectly well without an inheritance, but I also don't like the government taxing money twice, particularly as a lump sum.
I quite like the idea of taxing everything at the same rate but with a caveat that you can automatically put inheritance money into a ring fenced fund and pay tax on what you take out each year as income. That would mean that those with expensive lawyers don't have an advantage in setting up trusts and also that those on benefits don't end up with effectively a 100% tax rate on relatively small sums.
If the law stays as it is I will probably make a deed of variation and give away anything above the threshold to a suitable charity (depending on my view of the government at the time).
Bear in mind that the threshold moves down a bit if you give above a certain percentage, 10% I think. But DYOR.
Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian youth have already died because America's foreign policy establishment manipulated their country into war to fulfill vain + futile geopolitical fantasy. Now, rather than acknowledge failure, Biden admin prepares to sacrifice American lives too. 7:26 PM · Jul 14, 2023 · 4M Views
1) if a plane crashes on the Republic of China/Ukraine border, which side do you bury the survivors? 2) pineapple on pizza. Warcrime or not? 3) which is more legendary? @TSE’s modesty or the subdued nature of his apparel?
Zelensky stays in Ukraine he risks the Mussolini treatment, if he flees the country he risks future Russian vengeance - Financial supporters are humiliated (and will want him dead) and his political sponsors now risk exposure on biolabs to world-class money laundering.
Shouldn't ending 62% marginal tax rates be a Conservative priority? Doesn't the Government want a tax system that encourages growth, instead of holding it back?
Inheritance tax, by contrast, is irrelevant to growth. What a waste of £7bn. The tax fairy would be disappointed.
Plenty more own properties over the £325k threshold for IHT than earn over £100k a year, the income earners he wants to slash marginal tax rates on
The President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, should not worry because Ukraine is not accepted into NATO, but because his country has fallen apart, said the spokeswoman of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia, Maria Zakharova.
She referred to the statement of Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić, who advised Zelenskiy not to be alarmed by the fact that there is no concrete plan for Ukraine's entry into NATO and added that the West is preparing "great and wonderful things for Ukraine at the end of the year". "In my opinion, he is right that Zelensky should probably be the least worried about Ukraine not being accepted into NATO. He has many other, more important reasons for anxiety - he no longer has a state, no people, no industry, no production, no political parties, civil society, no freedoms at all," commented Zakharova.
Regarding Squareroot's view that things were equally bad, or worse in 2010: I appreciate that this is a not uncommon view.
Never mind attacking Sunak, Labour should produce a set of posters and adverts which clearly paint the picture of how much better the period 1997-2010 was for the UK than 2010-2023/24 has been. It really wouldn't be hard, some simple graphs or simple statements of things like:
- NHS waiting times - Real income - Debt (seriously, who'd have thought would be a higher share of GDP now than in 2010?) - Growth - Inflation - Immigration - House ownership % - Days lost to strikes
I am sure PBers can think of a few others (number of Cabinet members prosecuted?)
You'd have to exclude the 2008-10 period.
The economy was in better shape, pre-2008, than now.
Not only that but ignore the effects of Brexit, covid and war in Ukraine all in the last 3 years, which are the unique drivers to where we are today
More excuses than a pregnant nun!
Hard to face reality then
I'm sure you were arguing that we should ignore the Global Financial Crisis when thinking about howe to vote back in 2010, Big_G ;-)
In truth, every government faces unexpected events. Labour had 9/11, 7/7 and the GFC; Tories had Brexit, Covid, Ukraine.
But Brexit was entirely of the Conservative Government's making.
You can't put that down as an "act of God" unless your god is called Boris Johnson.
Indeed true, but Big_G was using it as a reason for the Tories utter screw-up of the economy over the past 13 years, so I allowed him that one.
Some Tories, of course, still cling to the idea that the GFC was all Labour's fault (in which case they had a mighty impressive ability to influence the global economy).
Bottom line though, are there any PB posters, of whatever persuasion, who think the Tories have managed the economy at all well?
I'd say that their economic management has been about average, for rich world governments, from 2010 to date.
Almost every rich country has been dealt a rotten hand, over the past 13 years.
Real criticism of the government lies elsewhere, IMHO. The corruption, the infighting, and the very odd sense of priorities, in terms of public spending. The almost wilful ineptititude with which they run institutions.
I agree with your second point in things being less rosy for the world economy after GFC.But to your first point about economic management, we can point to specific government policies with poor economic outcomes that peer countries didn't follow to the same extent, including austerity, Brexit, COVID economic policies, extent of QE.
A lot of rich countries practised forms of austerity that make ours look laughably lenient by comparison (Ireland, Iceland, the Club Med nations). Pretty well everyone sought to cut budget deficits sharply, after 2010. Brexit is pretty small beer, overall. The COVID policies and QE definitely caused problems down the line, but it really was. case of choosing between evils.
UK austerity was reducing the *rate of increase* in spending to below the rate of growth in the economy.
Some countries had double digits cuts in spending in one year.
Shouldn't ending 62% marginal tax rates be a Conservative priority? Doesn't the Government want a tax system that encourages growth, instead of holding it back?
Inheritance tax, by contrast, is irrelevant to growth. What a waste of £7bn. The tax fairy would be disappointed.
I don't like IHT but it seems a really daft one to move on at the moment. When the effective lower limit for most people is £1 million it writes its own attack lines. It is literally a tax break for millionaires.
Zelensky stays in Ukraine he risks the Mussolini treatment, if he flees the country he risks future Russian vengeance - Financial supporters are humiliated (and will want him dead) and his political sponsors now risk exposure on biolabs to world-class money laundering.
Inheritance tax raised about £7 billion last year. That was less than the amount of interest paid on government debt in the single month of May 2023 alone.
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.
Or reduce wasteful government spending?
Funnily enough, as a public sector worker, you never seem to see this staggeringly obvious alternative.
The problem is twofold.
* 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.
We also need to consider that the scope for tax cuts is limited by the poor state of public finances. Last years budget deficit was £139 billion, or 20x this mooted IHT cut. It is a rounding error.
In May, government debt passed 100% of GDP, the highest since 1961. Higher than either the GFC bailout or covid years.
No its not. Denis Healey's favourite aphorism of the first you do in a hole is stop digging comes to mind. We have, through a series of crises, got used to dangerously large government deficits. The GFC, Covid, high gas prices, the reasons and justifications just keep coming. And it has to stop. We are kidding ourselves, paying for a standard of living we are not earning with our children's money. Its immoral and wrong.
I don't doubt that in coming decades, euthanasia, as a means of solving fiscal problems, will become an increasingly live suggestion in Western countries.
The mother of my brother's ex was recently euthanised in Holland. It seems to be much more openly accepted there already.
Yeugh! Put like that it sounds terrible, nightmarish.
Euthanised once you've exhausted your pension pot and lifetime NHS allowance. It is a bit dystopian.
It's the way we're heading though.
Not something I am comfortable with.
The situation in Canada looks pretty troubling, as pretty quickly an open approach to it seems to have developed close to attitudes of you 'can' to you 'probably should'. Not fully there yet, but it's getting there.
There's a pretty good Irish film about the topic that I saw recently, called Sunlight. It comes down quite positively in favour of assisted dying, in the sense of choosing the manner of your passing and being in control of it, although I remain deeply sceptical myself. There's even an inheritance too, so something for HYUFD as well.
I would only support assisted dying if a terminal illness in deep pain with less than 6 months to live, inheritance or now
My mother in law, if asked 10 years ago, would have been all for it. She was a very pragmatic person who had no truck with any religious mores.
Unfortunately, now she needs it (dementia, no life at all, fights with carers including her own daughter) she can no longer make the decision. She is basically a permanently depressed 1 year old that before too long won't remember how to swallow.
Meanwhile we do our best to preserve what dignity we can, but it is hard for everyone.
I understand the reluctance to change the law because not all families can be trusted - but surely it isn't beyond the wit of man to come up with a sane policy involving some kind of 'living will'.
Admittedly there is an issue with giving the final say to doctors. A friend of mine was put on the 'we're giving up here' list until another doctor spotted what was wrong. She got another 2 years of worthwhile life once recovered.
Ironically the original doctor who pronounced that she was a hopeless case died first (of Covid).
Chilling.
A point I only realised the other day is that testing new treatments for dementia is virtually impossible because you can never get informed consent from patients.
I think if they have granted medical power of attorney it shouldn’t be a problem?
Even without MPOA it is possible.
1) Most drug trials on dementia drugs start in the early stages of the condition, at which stage most people retain capacity, so can consent for themselves.
2) The absence of MPOA consent for treatment takes place between the treating doctors and unpaid carers (usually but not always family). In the absence of unpaid carers, or disagreement between them, it is possible to instruct an independent advocate, or even go to court. This would generally be for serious interventions such as surgery, rather than drug trials.
Comments
So far as the "Blue Wall" and "Red Wall" exist at all, the former is driven largely by cultural factors (such as dislike of Brexit and Culture War) while the latter is driven more by economic factors (levelling up, cost of living).
Hence this policy combination of Culture War and tax breaks for the rich has something to piss off everyone.
https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/13/23794189/twitter-blue-monetization-ad-revenue-sharing-payments
This is such a good idea, Labour should get it out now under the heading 'Labour will abolish IHT'.
Thus would it be quickly neutralised - indeed, it might work to Labour's advantage. Starmer is targetting the Don't Knows currently, not especially as he sees them as potential Labour voters but he wants to ensure that in lieu of them not voting for him, they don't vote Conservative.
He wants them to feel so relaxed about a Labour Government they stay at home (a big win is a big win whether the turnout is 60% or 70% - ask Tony Blair) and while the commentators might assert Starmer doesn't have the same mandate as Johnson if he doesn't poll as many votes, if the votes Starmer does have translate to 400 seats that's more than enough mandate under FPTP.
Schrodinger's playroom, or something. It is only when you open the up and over door that you determine whether it is part of the house or not.
Some Tories, of course, still cling to the idea that the GFC was all Labour's fault (in which case they had a mighty impressive ability to influence the global economy).
Bottom line though, are there any PB posters, of whatever persuasion, who think the Tories have managed the economy at all well?
Either way, an incentive to leave money to people who don't have a lot already.
Some benefit in changing a will to leave to a non-working spouse of one's offspring, I guess?
Unfortunately, now she needs it (dementia, no life at all, fights with carers including her own daughter) she can no longer make the decision. She is basically a permanently depressed 1 year old that before too long won't remember how to swallow.
Meanwhile we do our best to preserve what dignity we can, but it is hard for everyone.
I understand the reluctance to change the law because not all families can be trusted - but surely it isn't beyond the wit of man to come up with a sane policy involving some kind of 'living will'.
Admittedly there is an issue with giving the final say to doctors. A friend of mine was put on the 'we're giving up here' list until another doctor spotted what was wrong. She got another 2 years of worthwhile life once recovered.
Ironically the original doctor who pronounced that she was a hopeless case died first (of Covid).
A Dutch friend tells of people, openly harassing their elderly relatives to “stop wasting their time” by carrying on living. Because aged parents are not fashionable or something. Then you get the Pavlovian Inheritors - mention grandparents are ill, they start salivating.
Sadly, we must build our society to deal with the noisome.
A simple suggestion to stop the Pavlovian Inheritors badgering their old ones - assisted suicide comes with doubled inheritance tax.
A point I only realised the other day is that testing new treatments for dementia is virtually impossible because you can never get informed consent from patients.
Pay off the National debt in April.
Case exactly in point, yesterday
Speaking of which I must get that done. Today.
The phenomenon of the hater who turns into the sycophant and vs is fairly common. And doesn’t seem to effect the verbiage much.
I remember the traffic was utterly dire and I was glad I was on my MV Agusta F4 1000R. I did a massive 2nd gear wheelie (easily 70mph+) on the way out and fucked the rear hub.
Negatives? The Boring Company is insane (though I did enjoy "this is not a flamethrower"). His stoner attacks on the Thai cave rescuers (and other similar instances). Buying Twitter. Denouncing the dangers of OpenAI then founding xAI. On this latter piece if he ends up responsible for creating the AI that kills or enslaves humanity I wouldn't be surprised.
Why not both?
A trope in SF is that aliens/bad guys copy your mind state, kill you, then re-instantiate you as a slave.. AI, pretty much
There’s barely a less popular policy out there.
Otherwise to fulfil it he would need deeper public sector cuts as PM, infuriating the unions and his base. More likely he imposes a wealth tax on assets over £1-2 million if elected.
Plus Starmer doesn't need the bluewall to win and become PM, just win back the redwall and most of the seats that switched from Labour in 2005 to Conservative in 2010.
Sunak does however need to hold the bluewall seats to at least save the furniture
https://www.space.com/starlink-satellite-conjunction-increase-threatens-space-sustainability
I think we have kesslerised ourselves without really noticing or thinking about it. Starlink may in retrospect be the biggest negative of all.
Stupid policy though probably superficially popular.
The redwall cared about Brexit, otherwise it would not have voted for Boris in 2019 to get it done and reducing immigration, not just inflation and cost of living and levelling up
Leaving aside the damage austerity has done to public services.
Almost every rich country has been dealt a rotten hand, over the past 13 years.
Real criticism of the government lies elsewhere, IMHO. The corruption, the infighting, and the very odd sense of priorities, in terms of public spending. The almost wilful ineptititude with which they run institutions.
Organise a fight off between both sides. In plate armour, with swords. On a frozen lake.
I’ll bring popcorn.
And thje pressure to send granny off to Resyk will be much greater if IHT is removed.
It’s one thing that Elon Musk and Tory Bruno definitely agree on.
Labour won't have a fun time of it either.
In the 1970s, this English City knocked some Roman fortifications to build this boots. Where am I?
(Otherwise quite nice - public realm is good, cycle lanes being constructed, Tudor buildings, cathedral, vibrant docks. Potential.)
NATO have turned their backs on Zelensky.
Without NATO’s direct military intervention, Ukraine will perish, making Zelensky a dead man walking.
The West sacrificed Ukraine and it’s People in an attempt to weaken Russia.
They failed.
https://twitter.com/Raymond82310289/status/1679094169640349696?s=20
Shouldn't ending 62% marginal tax rates be a Conservative priority? Doesn't the Government want a tax system that encourages growth, instead of holding it back?
Inheritance tax, by contrast, is irrelevant to growth. What a waste of £7bn. The tax fairy would be disappointed.
Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian youth have already died because America's foreign policy establishment manipulated their country into war to fulfill vain + futile geopolitical fantasy. Now, rather than acknowledge failure, Biden admin prepares to sacrifice American lives too.
7:26 PM · Jul 14, 2023
·
4M
Views
https://twitter.com/RobertKennedyJr/status/1679920422572130325?s=20
NATO doesn't need to launch WW3 with Russia to keep Ukraine supplied with weapons and sanctions on Moscow
I understand the loss of fuel duty as we transition to EV is massive, and to date nobody has even started to address how this loss of revenue is replaced
My wife and I met some friends who we had been close to 45 years ago, and in our chat it was generally accepted that our generation have experienced the best of times compared to what is coming in the future for todays young and middle age generation
That is, there’s a minimum safe distance rule between objects*. To be conservative, you add a bit on to that.
*not just other satellites - debris as well
I'm somewhat conflicted about this. I believe in standing on your own feet if possible and I can survive perfectly well without an inheritance, but I also don't like the government taxing money twice, particularly as a lump sum.
I quite like the idea of taxing everything at the same rate but with a caveat that you can automatically put inheritance money into a ring fenced fund and pay tax on what you take out each year as income. That would mean that those with expensive lawyers don't have an advantage in setting up trusts and also that those on benefits don't end up with effectively a 100% tax rate on relatively small sums.
If the law stays as it is I will probably make a deed of variation and give away anything above the threshold to a suitable charity (depending on my view of the government at the time).
▪️Ukraine will lose huge territories after Russia's victory, said American political scientist John Mearsheimer in an interview for "South China Morning Post",
"What will remain of Ukraine will be dysfunctional remnants that will not be able to conduct major military operations against Russia and will not meet the criteria for entry into either the EU or NATO. I think that will be the end result," he said.
▪️According to his opinion, Ukraine will lose "several large parts", which will be like half of its territory. Mearsheimer predicted that the conflict would continue for another two years.
https://twitter.com/SpriterTeam/status/1679553899428978692?s=20
2) pineapple on pizza. Warcrime or not?
3) which is more legendary? @TSE’s modesty or the subdued nature of his apparel?
https://twitter.com/DougAMacgregor/status/1679503037306372098?s=20
Not sure why you bother
She referred to the statement of Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić, who advised Zelenskiy not to be alarmed by the fact that there is no concrete plan for Ukraine's entry into NATO and added that the West is preparing "great and wonderful things for Ukraine at the end of the year".
"In my opinion, he is right that Zelensky should probably be the least worried about Ukraine not being accepted into NATO. He has many other, more important reasons for anxiety - he no longer has a state, no people, no industry, no production, no political parties, civil society, no freedoms at all," commented Zakharova.
https://twitter.com/SpriterTeam/status/1679853768857337857?s=20
Some countries had double digits cuts in spending in one year.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rblYSKz_VnI
I hope you enjoy your short stay here. Please consider coming back in another capacity.
Why is RFK saying Biden is committing US lives?
https://twitter.com/mattletiss7/status/1679913916313239569?s=20
1) Most drug trials on dementia drugs start in the early stages of the condition, at which stage most people retain capacity, so can consent for themselves.
2) The absence of MPOA consent for treatment takes place between the treating doctors and unpaid carers (usually but not always family). In the absence of unpaid carers, or disagreement between them, it is possible to instruct an independent advocate, or even go to court. This would generally be for serious interventions such as surgery, rather than drug trials.