@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”
“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”
Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.
Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.
You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont
Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own. Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%
The rich will find ways around the wealth tax
Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?
Taxes won't save the planet.
They'll just get soaked up by bureaucrats, as always.
Incentivise technology to solve climate change, and it will be done.
Hmm, that's a bit starry eyed for me. Suspect avoidance of hard choices.
This is a sobering report about climate change action or inaction and especially the last paragraph (The whole article is in the Guardian)
G20 countries fail to reach agreement on cutting fossil fuels
Fossil fuel-producing members dispute goal of tripling renewable capacity by 2030
The G20 bloc of wealthy economies meeting in India failed to reach a consensus on phasing down fossil fuels on Saturday after objections by some producer nations.
Scientists and campaigners are exasperated by international bodies’ foot-dragging on action to curb global heating even as extreme weather across the northern hemisphere underlined the climate crisis facing the world.
The G20 member countries together account for more than three-quarters of global emissions and gross domestic product, so a cumulative effort by the group to decarbonise is crucial in the global fight against climate breakdown.
However, disagreements including the intended tripling of renewable energy capacities by 2030 resulted in officials issuing an outcome statement and a chair summary instead of a joint communique at the end of their four-day meeting in Panaji, the capital of the Indian coastal state of Goa.
Fossil fuel use became a lightning rod in daylong discussions, but officials failed to reach consensus over curbing “unabated” use and argued over the language to describe the pathway to cut emissions, two sources familiar with the matter said. However, the chair statement released on Saturday evening included concerns from some member nations that were missing in the Friday draft, saying “others had different views on the matter that abatement and removal technologies will address such concerns”.
Singh, in a press briefing after the conference, said some countries wanted to use carbon capture instead of a phase-down of fossil fuels. He did not name the countries.
Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, South Africa and Indonesia are all known to oppose the goal of tripling renewable energy capacity this decade.
50 degrees c in China last week may concentrate minds in Beijing
SigmaDos for TVE (I think this might be a large tracker poll taken today, rather than an exit poll):
PP 145-150 PSOE 113-118 Sumar 28-31 Vox 24-27 ERC 9 Junts 9 Bildu 6 PNV 5 BNG 1-2 CUP 1 CC 1 Teruel Existe 0-1
So PP+Vox is 169-177 (176 needed)
GAD3 for Mediaset:
150 PP 112 PSOE 31 Vox 27 Sumar
PP+Vox = 181
Sociometrica final poll:
PP 134-140 PSOE 109-115 VOX 35-39 Sumar 32-35
PP+Vox = 169-179
If those are the final scores, then Sanchez has lost, but pocketed some meaningful wins along the way for next time.
Key one is nixing Podemos (divaish fantasy hard left) by forcing them into the embrace of Sumar (practical hard left). The other one is bluntly posing the question to the PP- how much do they want to get into bed with Vox? Because there will be a cost in doing that. Whether that cost is small or large remains to be seen.
Still a loss, but there are good losses and bad ones. The risk for the UK Conservatives is that they lose, and lose in a way that makes future recovery even harder.
@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”
“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”
Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.
Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.
You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont
Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own. Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%
The rich will find ways around the wealth tax
Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?
There is no such thing as a progressive tax frankly, your side have introduced so called progressive taxation measures, so have the tories. Always seems to hit the poor harder than the rich.
We don't need to save the planet either. Whatever happens the planet will still be here even if there are no humans. What you mean is save humans. Sorry too late it ain't going to happen. Rich countries in the west will find mitigation measures poor countries will be left to hang. There is nothing that can be done unless we get a global dictatorship that bans all private transportation, all meat etc. That won't happen so accept it.
Bit bleak. Too bleak imo. Verging on throwing in the towel on the notion of collective action to solve collective problems. I'm not signing up to that.
Re the voting data for the GE in Spain. The figures do not include the postal votes which will be higher this time as the election is taking place in the middle of the main Spanish holiday season. It may be notable however that currently Catalonia is ove 8 points lower than last time. Possibly worse news for the left than the right as PP/VOX get far fewer votes in the Communidad.
When will we start to get results, are they counting overnight?
Exit poll at 8pm when the polls close. Counting is very quick as it's the D'Hondt method. As it could be very close it may be a while before we know which Coalition, if any, is viable, but the broad picture is likely to be apparent within a couple of hours.
So what is/are "bellweather" area(s) for Spanish GEs, if there are any?
Large Communities and some cities but there aren't constituencies in the UK sense. The biggest in Andalucia which PP took 2/3 years ago on an unprecedented landslide. Without a big recovery there Sanchez will struggle to be largets party. Then we have Catalunia and Madrid both big the former with a significant nationalist vote althjough their turnout figures look very low today. Finally, Galicia - Feijjo's great PP stronghold. However, the polls have been somewhat unclear, and it's not clear who will end up winning overall.
My understanding is that Aragon has been described as "the Ohio of Spain"? Although of course now Ohio leans red rather than being purple.
Katherine of Ohio doesn't quite have the same ring to it!
@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”
“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”
Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.
Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.
You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont
Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own. Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%
The rich will find ways around the wealth tax
Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?
“Wealth taxes” will end up trying to tax people’s houses. Since this is based on an artificial shortage of houses, this will fuck up things more, rather than less. And probably not raise much money - unless you want to try the politics of forcing people to sell to richer people.
There aren’t that many mega properties in the U.K. - any tax on property that raises the kind of money that makes a difference will include suburban semis.
That's nonsense. It's perfectly doable. Don't be such a faintheart.
SigmaDos for TVE (I think this might be a large tracker poll taken today, rather than an exit poll):
PP 145-150 PSOE 113-118 Sumar 28-31 Vox 24-27 ERC 9 Junts 9 Bildu 6 PNV 5 BNG 1-2 CUP 1 CC 1 Teruel Existe 0-1
So PP+Vox is 169-177 (176 needed)
GAD3 for Mediaset:
150 PP 112 PSOE 31 Vox 27 Sumar
PP+Vox = 181
Sociometrica final poll:
PP 134-140 PSOE 109-115 VOX 35-39 Sumar 32-35
PP+Vox = 169-179
If those are the final scores, then Sanchez has lost, but pocketed some meaningful wins along the way for next time.
Key one is nixing Podemos (divaish fantasy hard left) by forcing them into the embrace of Sumar (practical hard left). The other one is bluntly posing the question to the PP- how much do they want to get into bed with Vox? Because there will be a cost in doing that. Whether that cost is small or large remains to be seen.
Still a loss, but there are good losses and bad ones. The risk for the UK Conservatives is that they lose, and lose in a way that makes future recovery even harder.
If anyone wants to get an understanding of where the US Republican primaries start next January, the Indycar race from Iowa is just about to start.
They’ve just had prayers, the national anthem, and the flypast, and they’ll be starting their engines shortly. British singer Ed Sheeran will will wave the green flag, and play the concert afterwards.
Pedant alert.
Isn't New Hampshire traditionally the first "primary"?
Traditionally AND by state law. With Iowa host the first-in-nation precinct caucuses, before NH but NOT same kettle of fish, though indeed the first step toward Dem & Rep POTUS nominations in 2024.
Meaning that while schedule set by Democratic National Committee makes South Carolina the first primary, New Hampshire - as represented by state Secretary of State - will say, screw that, and schedule before SC. Even if that would mean December 2023!
In return, DNC will threaten to strip NH of its national convention delegates. To which NH will say, so fucking what? And when the summer finally rolls around, NH will likely be seated anyway. BECAUSE Biden (and Granite State congressional candidates) would prefer to WIN it that lose it in November.
@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”
“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”
Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.
Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.
You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont
Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own. Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%
The rich will find ways around the wealth tax
Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?
There is no such thing as a progressive tax frankly, your side have introduced so called progressive taxation measures, so have the tories. Always seems to hit the poor harder than the rich.
We don't need to save the planet either. Whatever happens the planet will still be here even if there are no humans. What you mean is save humans. Sorry too late it ain't going to happen. Rich countries in the west will find mitigation measures poor countries will be left to hang. There is nothing that can be done unless we get a global dictatorship that bans all private transportation, all meat etc. That won't happen so accept it.
Bit bleak. Too bleak imo. Verging on throwing in the towel on the notion of collective action to solve collective problems. I'm not signing up to that.
It really doesn't matter if you sign up to it or not....the last 30 years have shown time and time again there is absolutely no appetite for global action. My view is supported by history, your view is based on a belief in fairy unicorns
@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”
“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”
Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.
Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.
You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont
Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own. Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%
The rich will find ways around the wealth tax
Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?
There is no such thing as a progressive tax frankly, your side have introduced so called progressive taxation measures, so have the tories. Always seems to hit the poor harder than the rich.
We don't need to save the planet either. Whatever happens the planet will still be here even if there are no humans. What you mean is save humans. Sorry too late it ain't going to happen. Rich countries in the west will find mitigation measures poor countries will be left to hang. There is nothing that can be done unless we get a global dictatorship that bans all private transportation, all meat etc. That won't happen so accept it.
You are talking a lot of rubbish again Pagan.
Income tax as implemented is unarguably progressive. You could argue it's not progressive enough and you could also argue that some very wealthy people find ways to avoid it. But by and large it's a progressive tax. (NI and VAT, in contrast, are not.)
Now about your assertion that People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k not the 40k they actually own. There is no possible basis for that to be the case. What you are describing would be a borrowing tax - an interesting concept but not one which would win many votes for any perty proposing or implementing it I would guess.
SigmaDos for TVE (I think this might be a large tracker poll taken today, rather than an exit poll):
PP 145-150 PSOE 113-118 Sumar 28-31 Vox 24-27 ERC 9 Junts 9 Bildu 6 PNV 5 BNG 1-2 CUP 1 CC 1 Teruel Existe 0-1
So PP+Vox is 169-177 (176 needed)
GAD3 for Mediaset:
150 PP 112 PSOE 31 Vox 27 Sumar
PP+Vox = 181
Sociometrica final poll:
PP 134-140 PSOE 109-115 VOX 35-39 Sumar 32-35
PP+Vox = 169-179
If those are the final scores, then Sanchez has lost, but pocketed some meaningful wins along the way for next time.
Key one is nixing Podemos (divaish fantasy hard left) by forcing them into the embrace of Sumar (practical hard left). The other one is bluntly posing the question to the PP- how much do they want to get into bed with Vox? Because there will be a cost in doing that. Whether that cost is small or large remains to be seen.
Still a loss, but there are good losses and bad ones. The risk for the UK Conservatives is that they lose, and lose in a way that makes future recovery even harder.
In the last Spanish general election in 2019 the PP got just 20% of the vote and a mere 89 constituencies out of 350 ie they were thrashed.
Now the exit polls are predicting the PP have comfortably won most seats. So even bad defeats can be overcome with the right opposition leader, an unpopular government and a poor economy, see also here Labour post 2019 landslide defeat now looking to win with Starmer
Ok so links below for one of the hotter election days I've followed (Canada Jan 2006 probably the coldest), lots of fans being waved and water bottles in the polling stations.
Polls close on the mainland at 7pm BST and results should be released from 8pm BST once the Canary Islands have finished voting.
Votes will be counted at polling stations (as in most countries) and with Spain being one of the fastest-counting larger countries, the whole country should be pretty much counted quicker than it took Uxbridge to get to recount stage on Thursday night.
Spain has a closed-list PR system using d'Hondt, with a 3% threshold, but the 50 provinces are the constituencies, so in the smaller ones that elect 3 or 4 MPs, the key will be who wins the 3rd and 4th seats, as only in the larger provinces such as Madrid or Barcelona are the results more proportional.
For tonight, my gut feeling is that PP + Vox will just get over the 176-seat majority line and Feijoo to be next PM, with PP finishing a few points ahead of the PSOE, and the leftwing grouping Sumar finishing in fourth. However it could be close, and if neither PP/Vox or PSOE/Sumar have a majority, it will depend on how the various nationalist/regionalist parties go with their support for a government. If PP+Vox is a majority, will it be confidence and supply, or a full coalition?
Finally, Thursday night was a lot of fun, an interesting set of results, really enjoyed the updates and banter, and thanks again to HYUFD for his Uxbridge insight which translated into a winning bet for me.
Muchas gracias,
Alfombra Doble
Useful as ever, @DoubleCarpet . Nice to see you back. Do you have a bet on the outcome?
Many thanks Viewcode! - not for this one, the odds on the PP providing the next PM were very short.
@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”
“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”
Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.
Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.
You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont
Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own. Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%
The rich will find ways around the wealth tax
Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?
There is no such thing as a progressive tax frankly, your side have introduced so called progressive taxation measures, so have the tories. Always seems to hit the poor harder than the rich.
We don't need to save the planet either. Whatever happens the planet will still be here even if there are no humans. What you mean is save humans. Sorry too late it ain't going to happen. Rich countries in the west will find mitigation measures poor countries will be left to hang. There is nothing that can be done unless we get a global dictatorship that bans all private transportation, all meat etc. That won't happen so accept it.
You are talking a lot of rubbish again Pagan.
Income tax as implemented is unarguably progressive. You could argue it's not progressive enough and you could also argue that some very wealthy people find ways to avoid it. But by and large it's a progressive tax. NI and VAT however are not.
Now about your assertion that People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k not the 40k they actually own. There is no possible basis for that to be the case. What you are describing would be a borrowing tax - an interesting concept but not one which would win many votes for any perty proposing or implementing it I would guess.
Focus on the facts, not your fantasies.
Of course they would they would be paying a wealth tax on the value of the house, not the capital they had paid off in their mortgage, doing anything else would just incentivise everyone to take out interest only mortgages which would result in a disaster. No I absolutely do not agree income tax is at all progressive. Simple fact is there are so many ways to avoid it. That famous right wing person of this Parish Foxy for example was railing about no longer being able to stuff earnings into his pension fund to avoid tax on it so talked about reducing his hours
SigmaDos for TVE (I think this might be a large tracker poll taken today, rather than an exit poll):
PP 145-150 PSOE 113-118 Sumar 28-31 Vox 24-27 ERC 9 Junts 9 Bildu 6 PNV 5 BNG 1-2 CUP 1 CC 1 Teruel Existe 0-1
So PP+Vox is 169-177 (176 needed)
GAD3 for Mediaset:
150 PP 112 PSOE 31 Vox 27 Sumar
PP+Vox = 181
Sociometrica final poll:
PP 134-140 PSOE 109-115 VOX 35-39 Sumar 32-35
PP+Vox = 169-179
If those are the final scores, then Sanchez has lost, but pocketed some meaningful wins along the way for next time.
Key one is nixing Podemos (divaish fantasy hard left) by forcing them into the embrace of Sumar (practical hard left). The other one is bluntly posing the question to the PP- how much do they want to get into bed with Vox? Because there will be a cost in doing that. Whether that cost is small or large remains to be seen.
Still a loss, but there are good losses and bad ones. The risk for the UK Conservatives is that they lose, and lose in a way that makes future recovery even harder.
Has there ever been any doubt that PP would govern with Vox?
Ok so links below for one of the hotter election days I've followed (Canada Jan 2006 probably the coldest), lots of fans being waved and water bottles in the polling stations.
Polls close on the mainland at 7pm BST and results should be released from 8pm BST once the Canary Islands have finished voting.
Votes will be counted at polling stations (as in most countries) and with Spain being one of the fastest-counting larger countries, the whole country should be pretty much counted quicker than it took Uxbridge to get to recount stage on Thursday night.
Spain has a closed-list PR system using d'Hondt, with a 3% threshold, but the 50 provinces are the constituencies, so in the smaller ones that elect 3 or 4 MPs, the key will be who wins the 3rd and 4th seats, as only in the larger provinces such as Madrid or Barcelona are the results more proportional.
For tonight, my gut feeling is that PP + Vox will just get over the 176-seat majority line and Feijoo to be next PM, with PP finishing a few points ahead of the PSOE, and the leftwing grouping Sumar finishing in fourth. However it could be close, and if neither PP/Vox or PSOE/Sumar have a majority, it will depend on how the various nationalist/regionalist parties go with their support for a government. If PP+Vox is a majority, will it be confidence and supply, or a full coalition?
Finally, Thursday night was a lot of fun, an interesting set of results, really enjoyed the updates and banter, and thanks again to HYUFD for his Uxbridge insight which translated into a winning bet for me.
Muchas gracias,
Alfombra Doble
Thanks DC. Always rely on you turning up on election day, wherever it is.
Thanks Andy! - if it's one I'm not following Stodge probably will be
For the autumn, currently aiming to follow NZ 14 Oct, Switzerland 22 Oct, Argentina presidential 22 Oct/19 Nov, Netherlands 22 Nov, plus of course any UK by-elections.
@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”
“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”
Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.
Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.
You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont
Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own. Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%
The rich will find ways around the wealth tax
Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?
There is no such thing as a progressive tax frankly, your side have introduced so called progressive taxation measures, so have the tories. Always seems to hit the poor harder than the rich.
We don't need to save the planet either. Whatever happens the planet will still be here even if there are no humans. What you mean is save humans. Sorry too late it ain't going to happen. Rich countries in the west will find mitigation measures poor countries will be left to hang. There is nothing that can be done unless we get a global dictatorship that bans all private transportation, all meat etc. That won't happen so accept it.
You are talking a lot of rubbish again Pagan.
Income tax as implemented is unarguably progressive. You could argue it's not progressive enough and you could also argue that some very wealthy people find ways to avoid it. But by and large it's a progressive tax. (NI and VAT, in contrast, are not.)
Now about your assertion that People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k not the 40k they actually own. There is no possible basis for that to be the case. What you are describing would be a borrowing tax - an interesting concept but not one which would win many votes for any perty proposing or implementing it I would guess.
Focus on the facts, not your fantasies.
I am not sure that can be the case can it? If wealth tax is, in part supposed to replace council tax and also provide additional raxation then it has to be on the value of the property not just on the bit you have paid off.
@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”
“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”
Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.
Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.
You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont
Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own. Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%
The rich will find ways around the wealth tax
Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?
“Wealth taxes” will end up trying to tax people’s houses. Since this is based on an artificial shortage of houses, this will fuck up things more, rather than less. And probably not raise much money - unless you want to try the politics of forcing people to sell to richer people.
There aren’t that many mega properties in the U.K. - any tax on property that raises the kind of money that makes a difference will include suburban semis.
Even worse is that, as with escalating stamp duty rates, it incentivises the Treasury to want to keep house prices high.
Since house values have risen quite rapidly over the last several years, I suggest the range of people with less than 25% equity is quite limited (have not looked it up). The 90% number seems to me to be a slight red herring at present. It may make sense to charge a wealth tax on net equity, but given UK habits many would borrow to the hilt and spend it all to save tax.
I think we could learn from the Swiss on wealth and inheritance taxes.
Start with a low rate applied to a wide base in both cases.
As far as I can see (I don't know the system well) Swiss IHT starts at a low threshold, and at a rate of single figure percentage for the first 100k or so, varied by Canton. And tax the beneficiary not the estate. Immediate family are exempt. https://www.expatica.com/ch/finance/taxes/inheritance-tax-switzerland-1010097/
eg Geneva
Sounds rational, and they take a similar - wide base, low rate - approach to their wealth tax. Perhaps make annual wealth taxes start a threshold of say 16k (which I think is the savings threshold where UC stops), and set the starting rate at a low 0.1% or so for British domiciles.
Of course, apply it to *all* dwellings, which would put modest downward pressure on house values.
Such systems also accustom everyone to paying taxes.
There are other wealth taxes that apply in Switzerland (one for property owners based on rental value?), and I would welcome an explanatory article by someone who understands the system.
@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”
“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”
Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.
Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.
You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont
Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own. Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%
The rich will find ways around the wealth tax
Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?
“Wealth taxes” will end up trying to tax people’s houses. Since this is based on an artificial shortage of houses, this will fuck up things more, rather than less. And probably not raise much money - unless you want to try the politics of forcing people to sell to richer people.
There aren’t that many mega properties in the U.K. - any tax on property that raises the kind of money that makes a difference will include suburban semis.
I agree there are problems, but there are two starting points of significance. One is that current property taxes (local authority taxes and business rates) are not progressive enough. Mayfair does not pay massively more than Accrington. Secondly, property taxes have one unignorable merit over all others, in that real property cannot be hidden or sent overseas. It is an area needing a good deal of attention and action.
Andy, you do know that trans people existed before 1995, yes? Also that David Bowie famously "dated" a trans woman in his 1970s Berlin days?
I know PB has no memory, but still this place is sometimes so ahistorical it's weird. I keep thinking I have to remind people that James Callaghan existed and was Prime Minister. MoonRabbit's view of unions is so warped it's scary
PB has the memory of the people it contains. Which always looks weird from a different timescale. For some, a decade ago is before they were interested in the world around them…
A simple example -
When I told people of a time when carpets were fitted (at relatively high expense) by a number of British workmen, it was met with incredulity. And that was 1998. Globalisation has collapsed costs and wages.
But to many here, a new carpet for a flat has always been a few hundred quid and fitted by a lone Bosnian* guy in a tearing hurry to get to his next job.
*Recent job I had done. He drank double espressos as fast I could make them. By the end of the job he was The Flash.
I believe you. Things change and nobody ever seems to remember things were different. I'm reading thru "Duty of Care" by David Hennessey ( I got depressed after reading Goodwin's VV&V book and thought I'd cheer myself up), and the first half was devoted to the 45to79 Butskellian consensus, when the Government thought it had a duty to do things FOR the British people instead of TO them. It's a whole different world.
Edgerton is also good on this. A period when the government was consciously trying to build a British state, instead of leaving it to hollow out.
Ok so links below for one of the hotter election days I've followed (Canada Jan 2006 probably the coldest), lots of fans being waved and water bottles in the polling stations.
Polls close on the mainland at 7pm BST and results should be released from 8pm BST once the Canary Islands have finished voting.
Votes will be counted at polling stations (as in most countries) and with Spain being one of the fastest-counting larger countries, the whole country should be pretty much counted quicker than it took Uxbridge to get to recount stage on Thursday night.
Spain has a closed-list PR system using d'Hondt, with a 3% threshold, but the 50 provinces are the constituencies, so in the smaller ones that elect 3 or 4 MPs, the key will be who wins the 3rd and 4th seats, as only in the larger provinces such as Madrid or Barcelona are the results more proportional.
For tonight, my gut feeling is that PP + Vox will just get over the 176-seat majority line and Feijoo to be next PM, with PP finishing a few points ahead of the PSOE, and the leftwing grouping Sumar finishing in fourth. However it could be close, and if neither PP/Vox or PSOE/Sumar have a majority, it will depend on how the various nationalist/regionalist parties go with their support for a government. If PP+Vox is a majority, will it be confidence and supply, or a full coalition?
Finally, Thursday night was a lot of fun, an interesting set of results, really enjoyed the updates and banter, and thanks again to HYUFD for his Uxbridge insight which translated into a winning bet for me.
Muchas gracias,
Alfombra Doble
Thanks DC. Always rely on you turning up on election day, wherever it is.
Thanks Andy! - if it's one I'm not following Stodge probably will be
For the autumn, currently aiming to follow NZ 14 Oct, Switzerland 22 Oct, Argentina presidential 22 Oct/19 Nov, Netherlands 22 Nov, plus of course any UK by-elections.
I do miss the old prediction games you used to run for us. I understand why you stopped but they were brilliant.
I fear I'm in a minority of one on here as regards the cricket, but here goes. The vagaries of the weather, particularly but not only in England, add to the joy of cricket rather than detract from it, and the authorities should do absolutely nothing about it. (They should, though, tackle and resolve the abysmal over rates).
As a kid growing up next to Headingley, many a summer's day of eager anticipation was spoilt by the weather. And as an adult player of the game, the same - although games devastated by rain did enable good pub sessions.
But several of the most thrilling test matches have resulted from rain-affected delays, I'm sure. I remember Derek Underwood bowling Australia out on a strip of mud at the Oval in 1968, an astonishingly tense finish, with all fielders around the bat. I think nearly two days were lost to rain: https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/australia-tour-of-england-1968-61359/england-vs-australia-5th-test-63027/full-scorecard Today, we happened to be on the wrong side of the weather. That's life. It balances out over a period.
@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”
“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”
Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.
Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.
You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont
Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own. Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%
The rich will find ways around the wealth tax
Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?
There is no such thing as a progressive tax frankly, your side have introduced so called progressive taxation measures, so have the tories. Always seems to hit the poor harder than the rich.
We don't need to save the planet either. Whatever happens the planet will still be here even if there are no humans. What you mean is save humans. Sorry too late it ain't going to happen. Rich countries in the west will find mitigation measures poor countries will be left to hang. There is nothing that can be done unless we get a global dictatorship that bans all private transportation, all meat etc. That won't happen so accept it.
You are talking a lot of rubbish again Pagan.
Income tax as implemented is unarguably progressive. You could argue it's not progressive enough and you could also argue that some very wealthy people find ways to avoid it. But by and large it's a progressive tax. (NI and VAT, in contrast, are not.)
Now about your assertion that People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k not the 40k they actually own. There is no possible basis for that to be the case. What you are describing would be a borrowing tax - an interesting concept but not one which would win many votes for any perty proposing or implementing it I would guess.
Focus on the facts, not your fantasies.
I am not sure that can be the case can it? If wealth tax is, in part supposed to replace council tax and also provide additional raxation then it has to be on the value of the property not just on the bit you have paid off.
All proposals for wealth tax have so far been on the value of the house, nothing as far as I know has ever been mentioned about taxing just the principal you own. As I pointed out it would encourage interest only mortgages for a start which would end up in a collosal blow up at some point.
The point remains people paying it would be renters when land lords put the rent up to cover it.
The people just about managing to pay their mortgage as it is
People who have paid off houses they bought decades ago and have minimal incomes now
There will be loopholes for the well off as there always are in tax codes to avoid it.
You cannot allow deferrment of the tax till sale as it would discourage mobility and also because it would raise no money immediately. Maybe evicting pensioners and jams for non payment of taxes is seen as progressive these days. It always seemed a daft term to me that the left coined to make it sound like their barm pot ideological ideas were good
Ok so links below for one of the hotter election days I've followed (Canada Jan 2006 probably the coldest), lots of fans being waved and water bottles in the polling stations.
Polls close on the mainland at 7pm BST and results should be released from 8pm BST once the Canary Islands have finished voting.
Votes will be counted at polling stations (as in most countries) and with Spain being one of the fastest-counting larger countries, the whole country should be pretty much counted quicker than it took Uxbridge to get to recount stage on Thursday night.
Spain has a closed-list PR system using d'Hondt, with a 3% threshold, but the 50 provinces are the constituencies, so in the smaller ones that elect 3 or 4 MPs, the key will be who wins the 3rd and 4th seats, as only in the larger provinces such as Madrid or Barcelona are the results more proportional.
For tonight, my gut feeling is that PP + Vox will just get over the 176-seat majority line and Feijoo to be next PM, with PP finishing a few points ahead of the PSOE, and the leftwing grouping Sumar finishing in fourth. However it could be close, and if neither PP/Vox or PSOE/Sumar have a majority, it will depend on how the various nationalist/regionalist parties go with their support for a government. If PP+Vox is a majority, will it be confidence and supply, or a full coalition?
Finally, Thursday night was a lot of fun, an interesting set of results, really enjoyed the updates and banter, and thanks again to HYUFD for his Uxbridge insight which translated into a winning bet for me.
Muchas gracias,
Alfombra Doble
Thanks DC. Always rely on you turning up on election day, wherever it is.
Thanks Andy! - if it's one I'm not following Stodge probably will be
For the autumn, currently aiming to follow NZ 14 Oct, Switzerland 22 Oct, Argentina presidential 22 Oct/19 Nov, Netherlands 22 Nov, plus of course any UK by-elections.
I do miss the old prediction games you used to run for us. I understand why you stopped but they were brilliant.
Thanks so much Richard, that is really appreciated.
@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”
“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”
Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.
Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.
You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont
Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own. Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%
The rich will find ways around the wealth tax
Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?
There is no such thing as a progressive tax frankly, your side have introduced so called progressive taxation measures, so have the tories. Always seems to hit the poor harder than the rich.
We don't need to save the planet either. Whatever happens the planet will still be here even if there are no humans. What you mean is save humans. Sorry too late it ain't going to happen. Rich countries in the west will find mitigation measures poor countries will be left to hang. There is nothing that can be done unless we get a global dictatorship that bans all private transportation, all meat etc. That won't happen so accept it.
Bit bleak. Too bleak imo. Verging on throwing in the towel on the notion of collective action to solve collective problems. I'm not signing up to that.
It really doesn't matter if you sign up to it or not....the last 30 years have shown time and time again there is absolutely no appetite for global action. My view is supported by history, your view is based on a belief in fairy unicorns
I fear I'm in a minority of one on here as regards the cricket, but here goes. The vagaries of the weather, particularly but not only in England, add to the joy of cricket rather than detract from it, and the authorities should do absolutely nothing about it. (They should, though, tackle and resolve the abysmal over rates).
As a kid growing up next to Headingley, many a summer's day of eager anticipation was spoilt by the weather. And as an adult player of the game, the same - although games devastated by rain did enable good pub sessions.
But several of the most thrilling test matches have resulted from rain-affected delays, I'm sure. I remember Derek Underwood bowling Australia out on a strip of mud at the Oval in 1968, an astonishingly tense finish, with all fielders around the bat. I think nearly two days were lost to rain: https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/australia-tour-of-england-1968-61359/england-vs-australia-5th-test-63027/full-scorecard Today, we happened to be on the wrong side of the weather. That's life. It balances out over a period.
@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”
“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”
Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.
Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.
You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont
Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own. Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%
The rich will find ways around the wealth tax
Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?
There is no such thing as a progressive tax frankly, your side have introduced so called progressive taxation measures, so have the tories. Always seems to hit the poor harder than the rich.
We don't need to save the planet either. Whatever happens the planet will still be here even if there are no humans. What you mean is save humans. Sorry too late it ain't going to happen. Rich countries in the west will find mitigation measures poor countries will be left to hang. There is nothing that can be done unless we get a global dictatorship that bans all private transportation, all meat etc. That won't happen so accept it.
You are talking a lot of rubbish again Pagan.
Income tax as implemented is unarguably progressive. You could argue it's not progressive enough and you could also argue that some very wealthy people find ways to avoid it. But by and large it's a progressive tax. (NI and VAT, in contrast, are not.)
Now about your assertion that People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k not the 40k they actually own. There is no possible basis for that to be the case. What you are describing would be a borrowing tax - an interesting concept but not one which would win many votes for any perty proposing or implementing it I would guess.
Focus on the facts, not your fantasies.
I am not sure that can be the case can it? If wealth tax is, in part supposed to replace council tax and also provide additional raxation then it has to be on the value of the property not just on the bit you have paid off.
All proposals for wealth tax have so far been on the value of the house, nothing as far as I know has ever been mentioned about taxing just the principal you own. As I pointed out it would encourage interest only mortgages for a start which would end up in a collosal blow up at some point.
The point remains people paying it would be renters when land lords put the rent up to cover it.
The people just about managing to pay their mortgage as it is
People who have paid off houses they bought decades ago and have minimal incomes now
There will be loopholes for the well off as there always are in tax codes to avoid it.
You cannot allow deferrment of the tax till sale as it would discourage mobility and also because it would raise no money immediately. Maybe evicting pensioners and jams for non payment of taxes is seen as progressive these days. It always seemed a daft term to me that the left coined to make it sound like their barm pot ideological ideas were good
Yep agree with all of that. The additional question arises as to what happens whem we get into a negative equity situation again and people are paying both a mortgage and wealth tax on a diminishing asset. Are we going to see a complete national revaluation every year
This is a sobering report about climate change action or inaction and especially the last paragraph (The whole article is in the Guardian)
G20 countries fail to reach agreement on cutting fossil fuels
Fossil fuel-producing members dispute goal of tripling renewable capacity by 2030
The G20 bloc of wealthy economies meeting in India failed to reach a consensus on phasing down fossil fuels on Saturday after objections by some producer nations.
Scientists and campaigners are exasperated by international bodies’ foot-dragging on action to curb global heating even as extreme weather across the northern hemisphere underlined the climate crisis facing the world.
The G20 member countries together account for more than three-quarters of global emissions and gross domestic product, so a cumulative effort by the group to decarbonise is crucial in the global fight against climate breakdown.
However, disagreements including the intended tripling of renewable energy capacities by 2030 resulted in officials issuing an outcome statement and a chair summary instead of a joint communique at the end of their four-day meeting in Panaji, the capital of the Indian coastal state of Goa.
Fossil fuel use became a lightning rod in daylong discussions, but officials failed to reach consensus over curbing “unabated” use and argued over the language to describe the pathway to cut emissions, two sources familiar with the matter said. However, the chair statement released on Saturday evening included concerns from some member nations that were missing in the Friday draft, saying “others had different views on the matter that abatement and removal technologies will address such concerns”.
Singh, in a press briefing after the conference, said some countries wanted to use carbon capture instead of a phase-down of fossil fuels. He did not name the countries.
Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, South Africa and Indonesia are all known to oppose the goal of tripling renewable energy capacity this decade.
The reluctance of these countries to decarbonise is why it is difficult to adhere to the more radical demands of environmentalists. These countries are not stupid, they are mostly more threatened by climate change than we are in a practical sense (ie desertification, sea levels rising), but they look at the evidence and just decide to basically carry on, essentially business as usual, whilst playing the card of 'blaming the oppressor' (the west).
@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”
“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”
Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.
Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.
You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont
Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own. Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%
The rich will find ways around the wealth tax
Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?
There is no such thing as a progressive tax frankly, your side have introduced so called progressive taxation measures, so have the tories. Always seems to hit the poor harder than the rich.
We don't need to save the planet either. Whatever happens the planet will still be here even if there are no humans. What you mean is save humans. Sorry too late it ain't going to happen. Rich countries in the west will find mitigation measures poor countries will be left to hang. There is nothing that can be done unless we get a global dictatorship that bans all private transportation, all meat etc. That won't happen so accept it.
Bit bleak. Too bleak imo. Verging on throwing in the towel on the notion of collective action to solve collective problems. I'm not signing up to that.
It really doesn't matter if you sign up to it or not....the last 30 years have shown time and time again there is absolutely no appetite for global action. My view is supported by history, your view is based on a belief in fairy unicorns
It's my cagey optimism vs your nihilistic gloom.
It is your belief in fairy dust vs my realism more like
The 1979 race was infamous - it was in the middle of August and I remember it because we were enjoying what would be our last family summer holiday in St Ives. I recall the lifeboat being launched and the bay full of yachts (some dismasted) seeking shelter fom the storm.
Hopefully, no fatalities this time unlike 1979 and modern weather forecasting meant the fleet were warned well in advance.
@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”
“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”
Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.
Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.
You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont
Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own. Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%
The rich will find ways around the wealth tax
Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?
There is no such thing as a progressive tax frankly, your side have introduced so called progressive taxation measures, so have the tories. Always seems to hit the poor harder than the rich.
We don't need to save the planet either. Whatever happens the planet will still be here even if there are no humans. What you mean is save humans. Sorry too late it ain't going to happen. Rich countries in the west will find mitigation measures poor countries will be left to hang. There is nothing that can be done unless we get a global dictatorship that bans all private transportation, all meat etc. That won't happen so accept it.
You are talking a lot of rubbish again Pagan.
Income tax as implemented is unarguably progressive. You could argue it's not progressive enough and you could also argue that some very wealthy people find ways to avoid it. But by and large it's a progressive tax. (NI and VAT, in contrast, are not.)
Now about your assertion that People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k not the 40k they actually own. There is no possible basis for that to be the case. What you are describing would be a borrowing tax - an interesting concept but not one which would win many votes for any perty proposing or implementing it I would guess.
Focus on the facts, not your fantasies.
I am not sure that can be the case can it? If wealth tax is, in part supposed to replace council tax and also provide additional raxation then it has to be on the value of the property not just on the bit you have paid off.
All proposals for wealth tax have so far been on the value of the house, nothing as far as I know has ever been mentioned about taxing just the principal you own. As I pointed out it would encourage interest only mortgages for a start which would end up in a collosal blow up at some point.
The point remains people paying it would be renters when land lords put the rent up to cover it.
The people just about managing to pay their mortgage as it is
People who have paid off houses they bought decades ago and have minimal incomes now
There will be loopholes for the well off as there always are in tax codes to avoid it.
You cannot allow deferrment of the tax till sale as it would discourage mobility and also because it would raise no money immediately. Maybe evicting pensioners and jams for non payment of taxes is seen as progressive these days. It always seemed a daft term to me that the left coined to make it sound like their barm pot ideological ideas were good
You’d also want a local element, with the rates set on a local scale of house prices, rather than a national scale - you want to be taxing five bedroom houses no matter where they are, and not taxing two bed flats just because they’re in London.
@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”
“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”
Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.
Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.
You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont
Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own. Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%
The rich will find ways around the wealth tax
Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?
“Wealth taxes” will end up trying to tax people’s houses. Since this is based on an artificial shortage of houses, this will fuck up things more, rather than less. And probably not raise much money - unless you want to try the politics of forcing people to sell to richer people.
There aren’t that many mega properties in the U.K. - any tax on property that raises the kind of money that makes a difference will include suburban semis.
That's nonsense. It's perfectly doable. Don't be such a faintheart.
There aren’t enough 10 bedroom mansions with swimming pools to fund a property tax.
So you’d have to tax “ordinary” houses. Where are people going to find the extra income from to fund the taxes? Not as if most people aren’t paying taxes already.
I'm doing a Poundshop Leon this evening. Table for one in the restaurant of Manchester Airport Holiday Inn. The place is mobbed. Start of school hols so plenty jetting off early doors tomorrow. I'll be the saddo travelling for work on the Disney land flight.
@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”
“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”
Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.
Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.
You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont
Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own. Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%
The rich will find ways around the wealth tax
Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?
“Wealth taxes” will end up trying to tax people’s houses. Since this is based on an artificial shortage of houses, this will fuck up things more, rather than less. And probably not raise much money - unless you want to try the politics of forcing people to sell to richer people.
There aren’t that many mega properties in the U.K. - any tax on property that raises the kind of money that makes a difference will include suburban semis.
I agree there are problems, but there are two starting points of significance. One is that current property taxes (local authority taxes and business rates) are not progressive enough. Mayfair does not pay massively more than Accrington. Secondly, property taxes have one unignorable merit over all others, in that real property cannot be hidden or sent overseas. It is an area needing a good deal of attention and action.
Yes. It's rather difficult to shift taxation away from income and more towards wealth if you rule out a wealth tax. The clue is in the title.
How far right are Vox? Are they UKIP or BNP? (The British press customarily makes no distinction).
Are Vox post-fascist or indeed post-Franco-ist?
I am absolutely not an expert but from the list of their beliefs I have seen they seem to be to the right of pre Brexit UKIP and direct inheritors of the mantle of Franco.
@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”
“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”
Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.
Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.
You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont
Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own. Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%
The rich will find ways around the wealth tax
Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?
There is no such thing as a progressive tax frankly, your side have introduced so called progressive taxation measures, so have the tories. Always seems to hit the poor harder than the rich.
We don't need to save the planet either. Whatever happens the planet will still be here even if there are no humans. What you mean is save humans. Sorry too late it ain't going to happen. Rich countries in the west will find mitigation measures poor countries will be left to hang. There is nothing that can be done unless we get a global dictatorship that bans all private transportation, all meat etc. That won't happen so accept it.
You are talking a lot of rubbish again Pagan.
Income tax as implemented is unarguably progressive. You could argue it's not progressive enough and you could also argue that some very wealthy people find ways to avoid it. But by and large it's a progressive tax. (NI and VAT, in contrast, are not.)
Now about your assertion that People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k not the 40k they actually own. There is no possible basis for that to be the case. What you are describing would be a borrowing tax - an interesting concept but not one which would win many votes for any perty proposing or implementing it I would guess.
Focus on the facts, not your fantasies.
I am not sure that can be the case can it? If wealth tax is, in part supposed to replace council tax and also provide additional raxation then it has to be on the value of the property not just on the bit you have paid off.
All proposals for wealth tax have so far been on the value of the house, nothing as far as I know has ever been mentioned about taxing just the principal you own. As I pointed out it would encourage interest only mortgages for a start which would end up in a collosal blow up at some point.
The point remains people paying it would be renters when land lords put the rent up to cover it.
The people just about managing to pay their mortgage as it is
People who have paid off houses they bought decades ago and have minimal incomes now
There will be loopholes for the well off as there always are in tax codes to avoid it.
You cannot allow deferrment of the tax till sale as it would discourage mobility and also because it would raise no money immediately. Maybe evicting pensioners and jams for non payment of taxes is seen as progressive these days. It always seemed a daft term to me that the left coined to make it sound like their barm pot ideological ideas were good
Yep agree with all of that. The additional question arises as to what happens whem we get into a negative equity situation again and people are paying both a mortgage and wealth tax on a diminishing asset. Are we going to see a complete national revaluation every year
The problem to solve is some only have one answer....more funding for the state. They never seem to look and say hang on some of our state services have had real terms increase and deliver less. I stand by my feeling that too often for every pound we spend on the public sector too often we get 50 pence more service out of them
@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”
“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”
Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.
Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.
You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont
Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own. Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%
The rich will find ways around the wealth tax
Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?
There is no such thing as a progressive tax frankly, your side have introduced so called progressive taxation measures, so have the tories. Always seems to hit the poor harder than the rich.
We don't need to save the planet either. Whatever happens the planet will still be here even if there are no humans. What you mean is save humans. Sorry too late it ain't going to happen. Rich countries in the west will find mitigation measures poor countries will be left to hang. There is nothing that can be done unless we get a global dictatorship that bans all private transportation, all meat etc. That won't happen so accept it.
You are talking a lot of rubbish again Pagan.
Income tax as implemented is unarguably progressive. You could argue it's not progressive enough and you could also argue that some very wealthy people find ways to avoid it. But by and large it's a progressive tax. NI and VAT however are not.
Now about your assertion that People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k not the 40k they actually own. There is no possible basis for that to be the case. What you are describing would be a borrowing tax - an interesting concept but not one which would win many votes for any perty proposing or implementing it I would guess.
Focus on the facts, not your fantasies.
Of course they would they would be paying a wealth tax on the value of the house, not the capital they had paid off in their mortgage, doing anything else would just incentivise everyone to take out interest only mortgages which would result in a disaster. No I absolutely do not agree income tax is at all progressive. Simple fact is there are so many ways to avoid it. That famous right wing person of this Parish Foxy for example was railing about no longer being able to stuff earnings into his pension fund to avoid tax on it so talked about reducing his hours
Just stop for a moment and think about what you are saying.
Person A, let's call them Mr. Rich, has £1m sat in his bank, and will pay Wealth Tax (WT) on it at the rate set by HMG. If he uses that £1m to buy a house or block of flats to let, he will pay WT on the value of the property instead.
If he takes out an interest only mortgage for 90% of the £1m property, sure he only owns 10% of it and will only get WT on that £100k but he still has £900k in the bank so his WT position is unchanged.
No one is going to be incentivised to take out an mortgage to avoid WT for the simple reason that they would not avoid WT that way.
Regarding tax-free pension contributions, I can assure you from personal experience, and I suspect many others on PB can verify too, that that allowance does not magically turn ICT into a non-progressive tax.
The simple fact is that for 99% of people in this country, the more you earn the greater % of your earnings you pay in ICT. That is the very definition of a progressive tax.
Essentially, it’s a WW1 like stalemate. The Russians have got their act together - and of course it is easier to defend than attack. It’s literal trench warfare, a conflict of attrition - and Russia has more to attrit than Ukraine, tho Ukraine has more motivation to fight than Russia
I’ve spent the day marvelling at the bravery and endurance of the Ukrainians, but I fear they may have to accept an ugly armistice which divides Ukraine roughly where it is divided now. They can’t afford to kill all their young men, and that is the logical endpoint
If someone can show me an alternative and superior outcome for Ukraine that would be uplifting. I can’t see it
Some division always seemed likely. It is a question of backing their resistance so they dont feel pushed into that, which was the plan of Stop the West and fellow travellers. Hopefully they can push back closer to the 2014 lines at least.
I doubt they will get that. The counter offensive is failing. Russia has successfully dug in
Ukraine simply does not have the manpower to win a war of attrition like this. The alternative is the west provides them with huge super weapons. A seriously capable new air force. That’s not gonna happen
A Korean style armistice beckons
I'm not sure that's a great analogy.
This is an invasion. A large part of Ukraine is occupied with Russian troops.
Remember:: the invasion is usually the easy bit. Then there's the what next?
Because occupying countries is fucking tough: look at Afghanistan or Northern Ireland. It means that Russia is constantly sending money and young men out west, and for what?
Russia is Russifying the occupied territories very fast. Replacing Ukrainians with apparently loyal Russians or “new Russians”
That’s the plan
Of course in the long term this is disastrous for Russia as it will face an incredibly hostile Ukraine for generations. And a fifth column of Ukrainians inside Russia who could do anything
I reckon this ultimately ends with Putin being toppled because of this catastrophic error
However in the medium term, militarily, I don’t see how either side can win. And that means some sort of ceasefire, inevitably. It won’t be peace. It will be an armistice, a sort of truce: until next time
It took Ukraine three months to push the Russians out of Kherson.
Russia’s in a similar position to Germany after Kursk. The initiative has been lost, and they can only react to attacks. And they face an insurgency.
That’s a fairly absurd analogy. The USSR had almost limitless men, and by 1943 huge supplies from the USA and UK. Nazi Germany was also fighting on at least two other fronts - with the Royal Navy and US navy confronting it at sea, and the RAF and USAF bombing Germany itself to cinders
Ukraine is not the USSR of 1943; Russia is not the Third Reich in inevitable retreat in 1943
Korea is the better comparison
Just repeating something, doesn't make it so.
Russia is under enormous strain right now. They are begging their allies for any weapons they can, and who is stepping up? Hardly anyone.
By contrast, Ukraine gets better equipped by the day.
Don't forget, Russia's big advantage was artillery. But barrels don't last forever. Every time you fire there's a thermal expansion, contractions cycle, and that means they are running through their artillery pieces at a rate, even as the West continues to ship new (better) kit to Ukraine.
As Big G’s granddaughter’s cohort would say “this is so,like, Russia’s Afghanistan.”
As opposed to, say, Afghanistan being, like, Russia’s Afghanistan?
@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”
“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”
Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.
Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.
You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont
Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own. Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%
The rich will find ways around the wealth tax
Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?
There is no such thing as a progressive tax frankly, your side have introduced so called progressive taxation measures, so have the tories. Always seems to hit the poor harder than the rich.
We don't need to save the planet either. Whatever happens the planet will still be here even if there are no humans. What you mean is save humans. Sorry too late it ain't going to happen. Rich countries in the west will find mitigation measures poor countries will be left to hang. There is nothing that can be done unless we get a global dictatorship that bans all private transportation, all meat etc. That won't happen so accept it.
You are talking a lot of rubbish again Pagan.
Income tax as implemented is unarguably progressive. You could argue it's not progressive enough and you could also argue that some very wealthy people find ways to avoid it. But by and large it's a progressive tax. (NI and VAT, in contrast, are not.)
Now about your assertion that People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k not the 40k they actually own. There is no possible basis for that to be the case. What you are describing would be a borrowing tax - an interesting concept but not one which would win many votes for any perty proposing or implementing it I would guess.
Focus on the facts, not your fantasies.
So in the middle of a mortgage crisis, you’d be adding a tax on the property as well, to be paid by mortgage holders, based on the proportion of the property they actually own?
I fear I'm in a minority of one on here as regards the cricket, but here goes. The vagaries of the weather, particularly but not only in England, add to the joy of cricket rather than detract from it, and the authorities should do absolutely nothing about it. (They should, though, tackle and resolve the abysmal over rates).
As a kid growing up next to Headingley, many a summer's day of eager anticipation was spoilt by the weather. And as an adult player of the game, the same - although games devastated by rain did enable good pub sessions.
But several of the most thrilling test matches have resulted from rain-affected delays, I'm sure. I remember Derek Underwood bowling Australia out on a strip of mud at the Oval in 1968, an astonishingly tense finish, with all fielders around the bat. I think nearly two days were lost to rain: https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/australia-tour-of-england-1968-61359/england-vs-australia-5th-test-63027/full-scorecard Today, we happened to be on the wrong side of the weather. That's life. It balances out over a period.
And, of course, pitches were left uncovered throughout the match and bowlers like Underwood learned how to take advantage of a drying wicket. It was one of those obscure technicalities that made cricket more interesting. We'll never see his like again.
@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”
“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”
Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.
Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.
You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont
Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own. Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%
The rich will find ways around the wealth tax
Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?
There is no such thing as a progressive tax frankly, your side have introduced so called progressive taxation measures, so have the tories. Always seems to hit the poor harder than the rich.
We don't need to save the planet either. Whatever happens the planet will still be here even if there are no humans. What you mean is save humans. Sorry too late it ain't going to happen. Rich countries in the west will find mitigation measures poor countries will be left to hang. There is nothing that can be done unless we get a global dictatorship that bans all private transportation, all meat etc. That won't happen so accept it.
You are talking a lot of rubbish again Pagan.
Income tax as implemented is unarguably progressive. You could argue it's not progressive enough and you could also argue that some very wealthy people find ways to avoid it. But by and large it's a progressive tax. NI and VAT however are not.
Now about your assertion that People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k not the 40k they actually own. There is no possible basis for that to be the case. What you are describing would be a borrowing tax - an interesting concept but not one which would win many votes for any perty proposing or implementing it I would guess.
Focus on the facts, not your fantasies.
Of course they would they would be paying a wealth tax on the value of the house, not the capital they had paid off in their mortgage, doing anything else would just incentivise everyone to take out interest only mortgages which would result in a disaster. No I absolutely do not agree income tax is at all progressive. Simple fact is there are so many ways to avoid it. That famous right wing person of this Parish Foxy for example was railing about no longer being able to stuff earnings into his pension fund to avoid tax on it so talked about reducing his hours
Just stop for a moment and think about what you are saying.
Person A, let's call them Mr. Rich, has £1m sat in his bank, and will pay Wealth Tax (WT) on it at the rate set by HMG. If he uses that £1m to buy a house or block of flats to let, he will pay WT on the value of the property instead.
If he takes out an interest only mortgage for 90% of the £1m property, sure he only owns 10% of it and will only get WT on that £100k but he still has £900k in the bank so his WT position is unchanged.
No one is going to be incentivised to take out an mortgage to avoid WT for the simple reason that they would not avoid WT that way.
Regarding tax-free pension contributions, I can assure you from personal experience, and I suspect many others on PB can verify too, that that allowance does not magically turn ICT into a non-progressive tax.
The simple fact is that for 99% of people in this country, the more you earn the greater % of your earnings you pay in ICT. That is the very definition of a progressive tax.
Your mistake here is thinking person A wont just move the money outwith the grasp of the hmrc which he almost certainly will
How far right are Vox? Are they UKIP or BNP? (The British press customarily makes no distinction).
Are Vox post-fascist or indeed post-Franco-ist?
They seem to be a bit 'somewhat to the right of the tories, with the odd nutter thrown in' as far as I can make out. So as others have said - quite UKIPie.
Early results favouring PSOE atm. Not sure the polls being reflected in the results.
I noticed that but do we think there is a reporting bias going on? Or won't the early reporting stations tend to be smaller/more rural and should lean PP?
@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”
“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”
Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.
Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.
You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont
Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own. Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%
The rich will find ways around the wealth tax
Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?
There is no such thing as a progressive tax frankly, your side have introduced so called progressive taxation measures, so have the tories. Always seems to hit the poor harder than the rich.
We don't need to save the planet either. Whatever happens the planet will still be here even if there are no humans. What you mean is save humans. Sorry too late it ain't going to happen. Rich countries in the west will find mitigation measures poor countries will be left to hang. There is nothing that can be done unless we get a global dictatorship that bans all private transportation, all meat etc. That won't happen so accept it.
You are talking a lot of rubbish again Pagan.
Income tax as implemented is unarguably progressive. You could argue it's not progressive enough and you could also argue that some very wealthy people find ways to avoid it. But by and large it's a progressive tax. NI and VAT however are not.
Now about your assertion that People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k not the 40k they actually own. There is no possible basis for that to be the case. What you are describing would be a borrowing tax - an interesting concept but not one which would win many votes for any perty proposing or implementing it I would guess.
Focus on the facts, not your fantasies.
Of course they would they would be paying a wealth tax on the value of the house, not the capital they had paid off in their mortgage, doing anything else would just incentivise everyone to take out interest only mortgages which would result in a disaster. No I absolutely do not agree income tax is at all progressive. Simple fact is there are so many ways to avoid it. That famous right wing person of this Parish Foxy for example was railing about no longer being able to stuff earnings into his pension fund to avoid tax on it so talked about reducing his hours
Just stop for a moment and think about what you are saying.
Person A, let's call them Mr. Rich, has £1m sat in his bank, and will pay Wealth Tax (WT) on it at the rate set by HMG. If he uses that £1m to buy a house or block of flats to let, he will pay WT on the value of the property instead.
If he takes out an interest only mortgage for 90% of the £1m property, sure he only owns 10% of it and will only get WT on that £100k but he still has £900k in the bank so his WT position is unchanged.
No one is going to be incentivised to take out an mortgage to avoid WT for the simple reason that they would not avoid WT that way.
Regarding tax-free pension contributions, I can assure you from personal experience, and I suspect many others on PB can verify too, that that allowance does not magically turn ICT into a non-progressive tax.
The simple fact is that for 99% of people in this country, the more you earn the greater % of your earnings you pay in ICT. That is the very definition of a progressive tax.
He hides 300,000 offshore, spends 300,000 on coke n hookers, and 300,000 on a ferrari which he then gets valued at 75,000 by a crooked assessor.
I fear I'm in a minority of one on here as regards the cricket, but here goes. The vagaries of the weather, particularly but not only in England, add to the joy of cricket rather than detract from it, and the authorities should do absolutely nothing about it. (They should, though, tackle and resolve the abysmal over rates).
As a kid growing up next to Headingley, many a summer's day of eager anticipation was spoilt by the weather. And as an adult player of the game, the same - although games devastated by rain did enable good pub sessions.
But several of the most thrilling test matches have resulted from rain-affected delays, I'm sure. I remember Derek Underwood bowling Australia out on a strip of mud at the Oval in 1968, an astonishingly tense finish, with all fielders around the bat. I think nearly two days were lost to rain: https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/australia-tour-of-england-1968-61359/england-vs-australia-5th-test-63027/full-scorecard Today, we happened to be on the wrong side of the weather. That's life. It balances out over a period.
Brave, Al. Very brave.
Thanks. Safer than expressing my support for ULEZ, though.
@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”
“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”
Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.
Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.
You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont
Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own. Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%
The rich will find ways around the wealth tax
Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?
There is no such thing as a progressive tax frankly, your side have introduced so called progressive taxation measures, so have the tories. Always seems to hit the poor harder than the rich.
We don't need to save the planet either. Whatever happens the planet will still be here even if there are no humans. What you mean is save humans. Sorry too late it ain't going to happen. Rich countries in the west will find mitigation measures poor countries will be left to hang. There is nothing that can be done unless we get a global dictatorship that bans all private transportation, all meat etc. That won't happen so accept it.
You are talking a lot of rubbish again Pagan.
Income tax as implemented is unarguably progressive. You could argue it's not progressive enough and you could also argue that some very wealthy people find ways to avoid it. But by and large it's a progressive tax. (NI and VAT, in contrast, are not.)
Now about your assertion that People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k not the 40k they actually own. There is no possible basis for that to be the case. What you are describing would be a borrowing tax - an interesting concept but not one which would win many votes for any perty proposing or implementing it I would guess.
Focus on the facts, not your fantasies.
So in the middle of a mortgage crisis, you’d be adding a tax on the property as well, to be paid by mortgage holders, based on the proportion of the property they actually own?
Not only that but requires hmrc to have access to your mortgage accounts so they can calculate the tax if it is only on principle paid off. I scent already double mortgages. Get an interest only mortgage in the uk, which pays of another mortgage in a different country which is paying off equity.
If anyone wants to get an understanding of where the US Republican primaries start next January, the Indycar race from Iowa is just about to start.
They’ve just had prayers, the national anthem, and the flypast, and they’ll be starting their engines shortly. British singer Ed Sheeran will will wave the green flag, and play the concert afterwards.
Pedant alert.
Isn't New Hampshire traditionally the first "primary"?
I fear I'm in a minority of one on here as regards the cricket, but here goes. The vagaries of the weather, particularly but not only in England, add to the joy of cricket rather than detract from it, and the authorities should do absolutely nothing about it. (They should, though, tackle and resolve the abysmal over rates).
As a kid growing up next to Headingley, many a summer's day of eager anticipation was spoilt by the weather. And as an adult player of the game, the same - although games devastated by rain did enable good pub sessions.
But several of the most thrilling test matches have resulted from rain-affected delays, I'm sure. I remember Derek Underwood bowling Australia out on a strip of mud at the Oval in 1968, an astonishingly tense finish, with all fielders around the bat. I think nearly two days were lost to rain: https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/australia-tour-of-england-1968-61359/england-vs-australia-5th-test-63027/full-scorecard Today, we happened to be on the wrong side of the weather. That's life. It balances out over a period.
And, of course, pitches were left uncovered throughout the match and bowlers like Underwood learned how to take advantage of a drying wicket. It was one of those obscure technicalities that made cricket more interesting. We'll never see his like again.
Agree. Sticky wickets were great fun, though, for those who remember them.
Early results favouring PSOE atm. Not sure the polls being reflected in the results.
I wouldn't be concerned as regards the final outcome though it may be PSOE will limit the losses as both VOX and SUMAR fail to progress leaving PP to mop up what's left of the old Citizens vote.
As to what Feijoo will do, I suspect he has a long spoon ready for his negotiations with Abascal.
This is a sobering report about climate change action or inaction and especially the last paragraph (The whole article is in the Guardian)
G20 countries fail to reach agreement on cutting fossil fuels
Fossil fuel-producing members dispute goal of tripling renewable capacity by 2030
The G20 bloc of wealthy economies meeting in India failed to reach a consensus on phasing down fossil fuels on Saturday after objections by some producer nations.
Scientists and campaigners are exasperated by international bodies’ foot-dragging on action to curb global heating even as extreme weather across the northern hemisphere underlined the climate crisis facing the world.
The G20 member countries together account for more than three-quarters of global emissions and gross domestic product, so a cumulative effort by the group to decarbonise is crucial in the global fight against climate breakdown.
However, disagreements including the intended tripling of renewable energy capacities by 2030 resulted in officials issuing an outcome statement and a chair summary instead of a joint communique at the end of their four-day meeting in Panaji, the capital of the Indian coastal state of Goa.
Fossil fuel use became a lightning rod in daylong discussions, but officials failed to reach consensus over curbing “unabated” use and argued over the language to describe the pathway to cut emissions, two sources familiar with the matter said. However, the chair statement released on Saturday evening included concerns from some member nations that were missing in the Friday draft, saying “others had different views on the matter that abatement and removal technologies will address such concerns”.
Singh, in a press briefing after the conference, said some countries wanted to use carbon capture instead of a phase-down of fossil fuels. He did not name the countries.
Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, South Africa and Indonesia are all known to oppose the goal of tripling renewable energy capacity this decade.
The reluctance of these countries to decarbonise is why it is difficult to adhere to the more radical demands of environmentalists. These countries are not stupid, they are mostly more threatened by climate change than we are in a practical sense (ie desertification, sea levels rising), but they look at the evidence and just decide to basically carry on, essentially business as usual, whilst playing the card of 'blaming the oppressor' (the west).
For context G20 are 75%+ of world emissions as quoted.
But also 64% of population.
I think the core issue is getting USA and the BRICS properly on board.
@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”
“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”
Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.
Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.
You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont
Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own. Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%
The rich will find ways around the wealth tax
Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?
There is no such thing as a progressive tax frankly, your side have introduced so called progressive taxation measures, so have the tories. Always seems to hit the poor harder than the rich.
We don't need to save the planet either. Whatever happens the planet will still be here even if there are no humans. What you mean is save humans. Sorry too late it ain't going to happen. Rich countries in the west will find mitigation measures poor countries will be left to hang. There is nothing that can be done unless we get a global dictatorship that bans all private transportation, all meat etc. That won't happen so accept it.
You are talking a lot of rubbish again Pagan.
Income tax as implemented is unarguably progressive. You could argue it's not progressive enough and you could also argue that some very wealthy people find ways to avoid it. But by and large it's a progressive tax. NI and VAT however are not.
Now about your assertion that People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k not the 40k they actually own. There is no possible basis for that to be the case. What you are describing would be a borrowing tax - an interesting concept but not one which would win many votes for any perty proposing or implementing it I would guess.
Focus on the facts, not your fantasies.
Of course they would they would be paying a wealth tax on the value of the house, not the capital they had paid off in their mortgage, doing anything else would just incentivise everyone to take out interest only mortgages which would result in a disaster. No I absolutely do not agree income tax is at all progressive. Simple fact is there are so many ways to avoid it. That famous right wing person of this Parish Foxy for example was railing about no longer being able to stuff earnings into his pension fund to avoid tax on it so talked about reducing his hours
Just stop for a moment and think about what you are saying.
Person A, let's call them Mr. Rich, has £1m sat in his bank, and will pay Wealth Tax (WT) on it at the rate set by HMG. If he uses that £1m to buy a house or block of flats to let, he will pay WT on the value of the property instead.
If he takes out an interest only mortgage for 90% of the £1m property, sure he only owns 10% of it and will only get WT on that £100k but he still has £900k in the bank so his WT position is unchanged.
No one is going to be incentivised to take out an mortgage to avoid WT for the simple reason that they would not avoid WT that way.
Regarding tax-free pension contributions, I can assure you from personal experience, and I suspect many others on PB can verify too, that that allowance does not magically turn ICT into a non-progressive tax.
The simple fact is that for 99% of people in this country, the more you earn the greater % of your earnings you pay in ICT. That is the very definition of a progressive tax.
That makes absolutely no sense at all. We were not talking about how much money someone has in their bank account as for 99% of people that has no relation to how much their property is worth or how much their mortgage is. You are conflating two unconnected things.
Early results favouring PSOE atm. Not sure the polls being reflected in the results.
I noticed that but do we think there is a reporting bias going on? Or won't the early reporting stations tend to be smaller/more rural and should lean PP?
You’d think it was . Normally in most countries that’s the case . It would be a huge shock if this pattern holds given the exit polls all put PP well ahead in terms of seats .
Early results favouring PSOE atm. Not sure the polls being reflected in the results.
I noticed that but do we think there is a reporting bias going on? Or won't the early reporting stations tend to be smaller/more rural and should lean PP?
Not sure but Andalucía is looking better for PSOE which is a surprise.
Re the voting data for the GE in Spain. The figures do not include the postal votes which will be higher this time as the election is taking place in the middle of the main Spanish holiday season. It may be notable however that currently Catalonia is ove 8 points lower than last time. Possibly worse news for the left than the right as PP/VOX get far fewer votes in the Communidad.
When will we start to get results, are they counting overnight?
Exit poll at 8pm when the polls close. Counting is very quick as it's the D'Hondt method. As it could be very close it may be a while before we know which Coalition, if any, is viable, but the broad picture is likely to be apparent within a couple of hours.
So what is/are "bellweather" area(s) for Spanish GEs, if there are any?
Large Communities and some cities but there aren't constituencies in the UK sense. The biggest in Andalucia which PP took 2/3 years ago on an unprecedented landslide. Without a big recovery there Sanchez will struggle to be largets party. Then we have Catalunia and Madrid both big the former with a significant nationalist vote althjough their turnout figures look very low today. Finally, Galicia - Feijjo's great PP stronghold. However, the polls have been somewhat unclear, and it's not clear who will end up winning overall.
My understanding is that Aragon has been described as "the Ohio of Spain"? Although of course now Ohio leans red rather than being purple.
Katherine of Ohio doesn't quite have the same ring to it!
@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”
“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”
Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.
Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.
You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont
Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own. Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%
The rich will find ways around the wealth tax
Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?
There is no such thing as a progressive tax frankly, your side have introduced so called progressive taxation measures, so have the tories. Always seems to hit the poor harder than the rich.
We don't need to save the planet either. Whatever happens the planet will still be here even if there are no humans. What you mean is save humans. Sorry too late it ain't going to happen. Rich countries in the west will find mitigation measures poor countries will be left to hang. There is nothing that can be done unless we get a global dictatorship that bans all private transportation, all meat etc. That won't happen so accept it.
You are talking a lot of rubbish again Pagan.
Income tax as implemented is unarguably progressive. You could argue it's not progressive enough and you could also argue that some very wealthy people find ways to avoid it. But by and large it's a progressive tax. (NI and VAT, in contrast, are not.)
Now about your assertion that People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k not the 40k they actually own. There is no possible basis for that to be the case. What you are describing would be a borrowing tax - an interesting concept but not one which would win many votes for any perty proposing or implementing it I would guess.
Focus on the facts, not your fantasies.
So in the middle of a mortgage crisis, you’d be adding a tax on the property as well, to be paid by mortgage holders, based on the proportion of the property they actually own?
1. I wasn't suggesting it, I was responding to Pagan's ridiculous assertion that people would have to pay WT on property they did not own.
2. If it were down to me, I'd would introduce a WT but I'd either exempt a principle residence up to the value of, say, £500k per adult owning said property or (better) give everyone a £500k WT personal allowance. (Average per capita UK wealth is circa £150k, so the large majority of the population would be exempt.)
@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”
“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”
Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.
Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.
You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont
Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own. Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%
The rich will find ways around the wealth tax
Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?
There is no such thing as a progressive tax frankly, your side have introduced so called progressive taxation measures, so have the tories. Always seems to hit the poor harder than the rich.
We don't need to save the planet either. Whatever happens the planet will still be here even if there are no humans. What you mean is save humans. Sorry too late it ain't going to happen. Rich countries in the west will find mitigation measures poor countries will be left to hang. There is nothing that can be done unless we get a global dictatorship that bans all private transportation, all meat etc. That won't happen so accept it.
You are talking a lot of rubbish again Pagan.
Income tax as implemented is unarguably progressive. You could argue it's not progressive enough and you could also argue that some very wealthy people find ways to avoid it. But by and large it's a progressive tax. NI and VAT however are not.
Now about your assertion that People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k not the 40k they actually own. There is no possible basis for that to be the case. What you are describing would be a borrowing tax - an interesting concept but not one which would win many votes for any perty proposing or implementing it I would guess.
Focus on the facts, not your fantasies.
Of course they would they would be paying a wealth tax on the value of the house, not the capital they had paid off in their mortgage, doing anything else would just incentivise everyone to take out interest only mortgages which would result in a disaster. No I absolutely do not agree income tax is at all progressive. Simple fact is there are so many ways to avoid it. That famous right wing person of this Parish Foxy for example was railing about no longer being able to stuff earnings into his pension fund to avoid tax on it so talked about reducing his hours
Just stop for a moment and think about what you are saying.
Person A, let's call them Mr. Rich, has £1m sat in his bank, and will pay Wealth Tax (WT) on it at the rate set by HMG. If he uses that £1m to buy a house or block of flats to let, he will pay WT on the value of the property instead.
If he takes out an interest only mortgage for 90% of the £1m property, sure he only owns 10% of it and will only get WT on that £100k but he still has £900k in the bank so his WT position is unchanged.
No one is going to be incentivised to take out an mortgage to avoid WT for the simple reason that they would not avoid WT that way.
Regarding tax-free pension contributions, I can assure you from personal experience, and I suspect many others on PB can verify too, that that allowance does not magically turn ICT into a non-progressive tax.
The simple fact is that for 99% of people in this country, the more you earn the greater % of your earnings you pay in ICT. That is the very definition of a progressive tax.
He hides 300,000 offshore, spends 300,000 on coke n hookers, and 300,000 on a ferrari which he then gets valued at 75,000 by a crooked assessor.
The assessor problem has been solved by the French: you declare the value of your Ferrari at £75k and anyone is allowed to pay a 50% premium to assessed value to acquire it. Undervaluing assets becomes a very risky game.
@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”
“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”
Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.
Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.
You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont
Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own. Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%
The rich will find ways around the wealth tax
Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?
There is no such thing as a progressive tax frankly, your side have introduced so called progressive taxation measures, so have the tories. Always seems to hit the poor harder than the rich.
We don't need to save the planet either. Whatever happens the planet will still be here even if there are no humans. What you mean is save humans. Sorry too late it ain't going to happen. Rich countries in the west will find mitigation measures poor countries will be left to hang. There is nothing that can be done unless we get a global dictatorship that bans all private transportation, all meat etc. That won't happen so accept it.
Bit bleak. Too bleak imo. Verging on throwing in the towel on the notion of collective action to solve collective problems. I'm not signing up to that.
It really doesn't matter if you sign up to it or not....the last 30 years have shown time and time again there is absolutely no appetite for global action. My view is supported by history, your view is based on a belief in fairy unicorns
It's my cagey optimism vs your nihilistic gloom.
A more realistic view is to try and make efforts to address the problem and plan for various eventualities, whilst also accepting the reality that things may play out in the way that pagan suggests.
What I find objectionable is the societal panic about this issue in general. IE you must do this, that etc immediately to save the world or else you are evil.
MPs jumping on NIMBY bandwagons is just a symptom of course. They have no ability to impact a decision, and opposers will be much louder, so it almost always makes sense for them to come out against - if it gets approved they can always blame the local council or an inspector. Being in favour has equally no impact on the decision, and pleases fewer people.
MPs do have the ability to affect things, they set the f***ing law.
MPs could and should strip NIMBYs of the right to interfere or have any say at all in what other people do with their own land. As has already been done by MPs in Japan to great success.
We need Parliament to change the law. Only MPs can do that.
Japan has much tougher immigration laws than we do, it is extremely difficult to get permanent residence in Japan. Combined with their low birthrate they thus need less new housing
Empty homes aren't a problem they're a good thing. It means that supply exceeds demand which allows buyers (and renters) the strength to say no to dilapidated or bad homes, or expensive homes, and get good quality affordable ones instead.
How is that remotely a bad thing? Unless you are looking for a guaranteed income to sweat your asset and live off someone else's rent and you don't think they should have a right to say "not interested in paying you rent thank you".
Not to forget of course location, location, location. Tokyo has seen it's population rise significantly while other locations have seen population falls. Empty homes in locations people have no desire to live in don't help Tokyo's housing market.
The interesting added extra in Japan is earthquake resilience. If that report is correct a lot of the vacant houses aren't any great shakes in that respect, so to speak, being distinctly sub par [edit] by modern standards. I can't imagine it is a very cheap or easy retrofit, either. But IANAE.
Indeed that's the equivalent of dilapidated that I mentioned. Substandard homes don't have people living in them, as people can choose non-substandard homes to live in instead.
And that's a "problem" how exactly?
Indeed. To complain about the seller being shortchanged is a peculiarly narrow-minded and partisan perspective.
This is a sobering report about climate change action or inaction and especially the last paragraph (The whole article is in the Guardian)
G20 countries fail to reach agreement on cutting fossil fuels
Fossil fuel-producing members dispute goal of tripling renewable capacity by 2030
The G20 bloc of wealthy economies meeting in India failed to reach a consensus on phasing down fossil fuels on Saturday after objections by some producer nations.
Scientists and campaigners are exasperated by international bodies’ foot-dragging on action to curb global heating even as extreme weather across the northern hemisphere underlined the climate crisis facing the world.
The G20 member countries together account for more than three-quarters of global emissions and gross domestic product, so a cumulative effort by the group to decarbonise is crucial in the global fight against climate breakdown.
However, disagreements including the intended tripling of renewable energy capacities by 2030 resulted in officials issuing an outcome statement and a chair summary instead of a joint communique at the end of their four-day meeting in Panaji, the capital of the Indian coastal state of Goa.
Fossil fuel use became a lightning rod in daylong discussions, but officials failed to reach consensus over curbing “unabated” use and argued over the language to describe the pathway to cut emissions, two sources familiar with the matter said. However, the chair statement released on Saturday evening included concerns from some member nations that were missing in the Friday draft, saying “others had different views on the matter that abatement and removal technologies will address such concerns”.
Singh, in a press briefing after the conference, said some countries wanted to use carbon capture instead of a phase-down of fossil fuels. He did not name the countries.
Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, South Africa and Indonesia are all known to oppose the goal of tripling renewable energy capacity this decade.
The reluctance of these countries to decarbonise is why it is difficult to adhere to the more radical demands of environmentalists. These countries are not stupid, they are mostly more threatened by climate change than we are in a practical sense (ie desertification, sea levels rising), but they look at the evidence and just decide to basically carry on, essentially business as usual, whilst playing the card of 'blaming the oppressor' (the west).
For context G20 are 75%+ of world emissions as quoted.
But also 64% of population.
I think the core issue is getting USA and the BRICS properly on board.
Don't forget germany which shut down its nuclear plants, not only build lignite plants to make up but has bulldozed at least one windfarm to open an opencast lignite mine....oh but global action is going to occur...I believe in unicorns that fart rainbows
Just seen a note on the news which suggests PSOE doing well in small towns with PP recovering in the cities. At this point I think Sanchez will hold on.
@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”
“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”
Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.
Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.
You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont
Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own. Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%
The rich will find ways around the wealth tax
Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?
There is no such thing as a progressive tax frankly, your side have introduced so called progressive taxation measures, so have the tories. Always seems to hit the poor harder than the rich.
We don't need to save the planet either. Whatever happens the planet will still be here even if there are no humans. What you mean is save humans. Sorry too late it ain't going to happen. Rich countries in the west will find mitigation measures poor countries will be left to hang. There is nothing that can be done unless we get a global dictatorship that bans all private transportation, all meat etc. That won't happen so accept it.
You are talking a lot of rubbish again Pagan.
Income tax as implemented is unarguably progressive. You could argue it's not progressive enough and you could also argue that some very wealthy people find ways to avoid it. But by and large it's a progressive tax. (NI and VAT, in contrast, are not.)
Now about your assertion that People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k not the 40k they actually own. There is no possible basis for that to be the case. What you are describing would be a borrowing tax - an interesting concept but not one which would win many votes for any perty proposing or implementing it I would guess.
Focus on the facts, not your fantasies.
I am not sure that can be the case can it? If wealth tax is, in part supposed to replace council tax and also provide additional raxation then it has to be on the value of the property not just on the bit you have paid off.
All proposals for wealth tax have so far been on the value of the house, nothing as far as I know has ever been mentioned about taxing just the principal you own. As I pointed out it would encourage interest only mortgages for a start which would end up in a collosal blow up at some point.
The point remains people paying it would be renters when land lords put the rent up to cover it.
The people just about managing to pay their mortgage as it is
People who have paid off houses they bought decades ago and have minimal incomes now
There will be loopholes for the well off as there always are in tax codes to avoid it.
You cannot allow deferrment of the tax till sale as it would discourage mobility and also because it would raise no money immediately. Maybe evicting pensioners and jams for non payment of taxes is seen as progressive these days. It always seemed a daft term to me that the left coined to make it sound like their barm pot ideological ideas were good
Taxing pensioners out of expensive houses would be popular, for some.
Where I live, there are a number of people who lived in their houses since the area wasn’t fashionable. Now they are “bed blocking” the people who want to buy a big house and rip it out and redo. Kick the pensioners and poors out, and sell to people with millions in cash.
There’s one lady I know whose husband bought in the late 50s. Windrush bus driver - literally. She wants to stay in the house - couple of generations live with her. Refuses big offers. Let’s get her in the street. Fuck! Yeah!
Essentially, it’s a WW1 like stalemate. The Russians have got their act together - and of course it is easier to defend than attack. It’s literal trench warfare, a conflict of attrition - and Russia has more to attrit than Ukraine, tho Ukraine has more motivation to fight than Russia
I’ve spent the day marvelling at the bravery and endurance of the Ukrainians, but I fear they may have to accept an ugly armistice which divides Ukraine roughly where it is divided now. They can’t afford to kill all their young men, and that is the logical endpoint
If someone can show me an alternative and superior outcome for Ukraine that would be uplifting. I can’t see it
Some division always seemed likely. It is a question of backing their resistance so they dont feel pushed into that, which was the plan of Stop the West and fellow travellers. Hopefully they can push back closer to the 2014 lines at least.
I doubt they will get that. The counter offensive is failing. Russia has successfully dug in
Ukraine simply does not have the manpower to win a war of attrition like this. The alternative is the west provides them with huge super weapons. A seriously capable new air force. That’s not gonna happen
A Korean style armistice beckons
I'm not sure that's a great analogy.
This is an invasion. A large part of Ukraine is occupied with Russian troops.
Remember:: the invasion is usually the easy bit. Then there's the what next?
Because occupying countries is fucking tough: look at Afghanistan or Northern Ireland. It means that Russia is constantly sending money and young men out west, and for what?
Russia is Russifying the occupied territories very fast. Replacing Ukrainians with apparently loyal Russians or “new Russians”
That’s the plan
Of course in the long term this is disastrous for Russia as it will face an incredibly hostile Ukraine for generations. And a fifth column of Ukrainians inside Russia who could do anything
I reckon this ultimately ends with Putin being toppled because of this catastrophic error
However in the medium term, militarily, I don’t see how either side can win. And that means some sort of ceasefire, inevitably. It won’t be peace. It will be an armistice, a sort of truce: until next time
It took Ukraine three months to push the Russians out of Kherson.
Russia’s in a similar position to Germany after Kursk. The initiative has been lost, and they can only react to attacks. And they face an insurgency.
That’s a fairly absurd analogy. The USSR had almost limitless men, and by 1943 huge supplies from the USA and UK. Nazi Germany was also fighting on at least two other fronts - with the Royal Navy and US navy confronting it at sea, and the RAF and USAF bombing Germany itself to cinders
Ukraine is not the USSR of 1943; Russia is not the Third Reich in inevitable retreat in 1943
Korea is the better comparison
Just repeating something, doesn't make it so.
Russia is under enormous strain right now. They are begging their allies for any weapons they can, and who is stepping up? Hardly anyone.
By contrast, Ukraine gets better equipped by the day.
Don't forget, Russia's big advantage was artillery. But barrels don't last forever. Every time you fire there's a thermal expansion, contractions cycle, and that means they are running through their artillery pieces at a rate, even as the West continues to ship new (better) kit to Ukraine.
As Big G’s granddaughter’s cohort would say “this is so,like, Russia’s Afghanistan.”
As opposed to, say, Afghanistan being, like, Russia’s Afghanistan?
@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”
“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”
Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.
Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.
You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont
Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own. Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%
The rich will find ways around the wealth tax
Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?
There is no such thing as a progressive tax frankly, your side have introduced so called progressive taxation measures, so have the tories. Always seems to hit the poor harder than the rich.
We don't need to save the planet either. Whatever happens the planet will still be here even if there are no humans. What you mean is save humans. Sorry too late it ain't going to happen. Rich countries in the west will find mitigation measures poor countries will be left to hang. There is nothing that can be done unless we get a global dictatorship that bans all private transportation, all meat etc. That won't happen so accept it.
You are talking a lot of rubbish again Pagan.
Income tax as implemented is unarguably progressive. You could argue it's not progressive enough and you could also argue that some very wealthy people find ways to avoid it. But by and large it's a progressive tax. (NI and VAT, in contrast, are not.)
Now about your assertion that People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k not the 40k they actually own. There is no possible basis for that to be the case. What you are describing would be a borrowing tax - an interesting concept but not one which would win many votes for any perty proposing or implementing it I would guess.
Focus on the facts, not your fantasies.
In respect of your second paragraph, most wealth taxes use the value of the property not the value of the equity in the property as their primary metric
Re the voting data for the GE in Spain. The figures do not include the postal votes which will be higher this time as the election is taking place in the middle of the main Spanish holiday season. It may be notable however that currently Catalonia is ove 8 points lower than last time. Possibly worse news for the left than the right as PP/VOX get far fewer votes in the Communidad.
When will we start to get results, are they counting overnight?
Exit poll at 8pm when the polls close. Counting is very quick as it's the D'Hondt method. As it could be very close it may be a while before we know which Coalition, if any, is viable, but the broad picture is likely to be apparent within a couple of hours.
So what is/are "bellweather" area(s) for Spanish GEs, if there are any?
bellwether, doh!
My question both psephological AND meteorological.
A bellwether is a flock-leading ram wearing a bell. Nothing to do with the weather.
@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”
“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”
Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.
Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.
You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont
Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own. Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%
The rich will find ways around the wealth tax
Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?
“Wealth taxes” will end up trying to tax people’s houses. Since this is based on an artificial shortage of houses, this will fuck up things more, rather than less. And probably not raise much money - unless you want to try the politics of forcing people to sell to richer people.
There aren’t that many mega properties in the U.K. - any tax on property that raises the kind of money that makes a difference will include suburban semis.
That's nonsense. It's perfectly doable. Don't be such a faintheart.
There aren’t enough 10 bedroom mansions with swimming pools to fund a property tax.
So you’d have to tax “ordinary” houses. Where are people going to find the extra income from to fund the taxes? Not as if most people aren’t paying taxes already.
We're shifting the tax burden a bit from income to wealth. Don't you want to? Thought this was sliced bread on here, left and right.
Re the voting data for the GE in Spain. The figures do not include the postal votes which will be higher this time as the election is taking place in the middle of the main Spanish holiday season. It may be notable however that currently Catalonia is ove 8 points lower than last time. Possibly worse news for the left than the right as PP/VOX get far fewer votes in the Communidad.
When will we start to get results, are they counting overnight?
Exit poll at 8pm when the polls close. Counting is very quick as it's the D'Hondt method. As it could be very close it may be a while before we know which Coalition, if any, is viable, but the broad picture is likely to be apparent within a couple of hours.
So what is/are "bellweather" area(s) for Spanish GEs, if there are any?
Large Communities and some cities but there aren't constituencies in the UK sense. The biggest in Andalucia which PP took 2/3 years ago on an unprecedented landslide. Without a big recovery there Sanchez will struggle to be largets party. Then we have Catalunia and Madrid both big the former with a significant nationalist vote althjough their turnout figures look very low today. Finally, Galicia - Feijjo's great PP stronghold. However, the polls have been somewhat unclear, and it's not clear who will end up winning overall.
My understanding is that Aragon has been described as "the Ohio of Spain"? Although of course now Ohio leans red rather than being purple.
Katherine of Ohio doesn't quite have the same ring to it!
Obvious you have NEVER ever heard of Cambridge, Ohio.
This is a sobering report about climate change action or inaction and especially the last paragraph (The whole article is in the Guardian)
G20 countries fail to reach agreement on cutting fossil fuels
Fossil fuel-producing members dispute goal of tripling renewable capacity by 2030
The G20 bloc of wealthy economies meeting in India failed to reach a consensus on phasing down fossil fuels on Saturday after objections by some producer nations.
Scientists and campaigners are exasperated by international bodies’ foot-dragging on action to curb global heating even as extreme weather across the northern hemisphere underlined the climate crisis facing the world.
The G20 member countries together account for more than three-quarters of global emissions and gross domestic product, so a cumulative effort by the group to decarbonise is crucial in the global fight against climate breakdown.
However, disagreements including the intended tripling of renewable energy capacities by 2030 resulted in officials issuing an outcome statement and a chair summary instead of a joint communique at the end of their four-day meeting in Panaji, the capital of the Indian coastal state of Goa.
Fossil fuel use became a lightning rod in daylong discussions, but officials failed to reach consensus over curbing “unabated” use and argued over the language to describe the pathway to cut emissions, two sources familiar with the matter said. However, the chair statement released on Saturday evening included concerns from some member nations that were missing in the Friday draft, saying “others had different views on the matter that abatement and removal technologies will address such concerns”.
Singh, in a press briefing after the conference, said some countries wanted to use carbon capture instead of a phase-down of fossil fuels. He did not name the countries.
Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, South Africa and Indonesia are all known to oppose the goal of tripling renewable energy capacity this decade.
The reluctance of these countries to decarbonise is why it is difficult to adhere to the more radical demands of environmentalists. These countries are not stupid, they are mostly more threatened by climate change than we are in a practical sense (ie desertification, sea levels rising), but they look at the evidence and just decide to basically carry on, essentially business as usual, whilst playing the card of 'blaming the oppressor' (the west).
For context G20 are 75%+ of world emissions as quoted.
But also 64% of population.
I think the core issue is getting USA and the BRICS properly on board.
Don't forget germany which shut down its nuclear plants, not only build lignite plants to make up but has bulldozed at least one windfarm to open an opencast lignite mine....oh but global ac
@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”
“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”
Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.
Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.
You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont
Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own. Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%
The rich will find ways around the wealth tax
Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?
There is no such thing as a progressive tax frankly, your side have introduced so called progressive taxation measures, so have the tories. Always seems to hit the poor harder than the rich.
We don't need to save the planet either. Whatever happens the planet will still be here even if there are no humans. What you mean is save humans. Sorry too late it ain't going to happen. Rich countries in the west will find mitigation measures poor countries will be left to hang. There is nothing that can be done unless we get a global dictatorship that bans all private transportation, all meat etc. That won't happen so accept it.
You are talking a lot of rubbish again Pagan.
Income tax as implemented is unarguably progressive. You could argue it's not progressive enough and you could also argue that some very wealthy people find ways to avoid it. But by and large it's a progressive tax. NI and VAT however are not.
Now about your assertion that People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k not the 40k they actually own. There is no possible basis for that to be the case. What you are describing would be a borrowing tax - an interesting concept but not one which would win many votes for any perty proposing or implementing it I would guess.
Focus on the facts, not your fantasies.
Of course they would they would be paying a wealth tax on the value of the house, not the capital they had paid off in their mortgage, doing anything else would just incentivise everyone to take out interest only mortgages which would result in a disaster. No I absolutely do not agree income tax is at all progressive. Simple fact is there are so many ways to avoid it. That famous right wing person of this Parish Foxy for example was railing about no longer being able to stuff earnings into his pension fund to avoid tax on it so talked about reducing his hours
Just stop for a moment and think about what you are saying.
Person A, let's call them Mr. Rich, has £1m sat in his bank, and will pay Wealth Tax (WT) on it at the rate set by HMG. If he uses that £1m to buy a house or block of flats to let, he will pay WT on the value of the property instead.
If he takes out an interest only mortgage for 90% of the £1m property, sure he only owns 10% of it and will only get WT on that £100k but he still has £900k in the bank so his WT position is unchanged.
No one is going to be incentivised to take out an mortgage to avoid WT for the simple reason that they would not avoid WT that way.
Regarding tax-free pension contributions, I can assure you from personal experience, and I suspect many others on PB can verify too, that that allowance does not magically turn ICT into a non-progressive tax.
The simple fact is that for 99% of people in this country, the more you earn the greater % of your earnings you pay in ICT. That is the very definition of a progressive tax.
He hides 300,000 offshore, spends 300,000 on coke n hookers, and 300,000 on a ferrari which he then gets valued at 75,000 by a crooked assessor.
The assessor problem has been solved by the French: you declare the value of your Ferrari at £75k and anyone is allowed to pay a 50% premium to assessed value to acquire it. Undervaluing assets becomes a very risky game.
And was the french wealth tax a roaring success? Everything I heard suggests no it raised peanuts
Just seen a note on the news which suggests PSOE doing well in small towns with PP recovering in the cities. At this point I think Sanchez will hold on.
Interesting, I've had a small bet on Sanchez next PM at 14.5 on BF.
Just seen a note on the news which suggests PSOE doing well in small towns with PP recovering in the cities. At this point I think Sanchez will hold on.
That’s bizarre to say the least . Surely all those exit polls can’t be wrong but of course they’re not really true exit polls just voter intention on the day .
These could be skewed towards older voters with younger people voting later .
SigmaDos for TVE (I think this might be a large tracker poll taken today, rather than an exit poll):
PP 145-150 PSOE 113-118 Sumar 28-31 Vox 24-27 ERC 9 Junts 9 Bildu 6 PNV 5 BNG 1-2 CUP 1 CC 1 Teruel Existe 0-1
So PP+Vox is 169-177 (176 needed)
GAD3 for Mediaset:
150 PP 112 PSOE 31 Vox 27 Sumar
PP+Vox = 181
Sociometrica final poll:
PP 134-140 PSOE 109-115 VOX 35-39 Sumar 32-35
PP+Vox = 169-179
If those are the final scores, then Sanchez has lost, but pocketed some meaningful wins along the way for next time.
Key one is nixing Podemos (divaish fantasy hard left) by forcing them into the embrace of Sumar (practical hard left). The other one is bluntly posing the question to the PP- how much do they want to get into bed with Vox? Because there will be a cost in doing that. Whether that cost is small or large remains to be seen.
Still a loss, but there are good losses and bad ones. The risk for the UK Conservatives is that they lose, and lose in a way that makes future recovery even harder.
Haha. The HYUFD of the left speaks.
@HYUFD gets his numbers right, so I'll take that bit as a compliment.
(Disagree with him about the possible outcomes, though. Choices are PP+Vox or PP minority with PSOE staying their hands for now.)
@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”
“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”
Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.
Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.
You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont
Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own. Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%
The rich will find ways around the wealth tax
Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?
There is no such thing as a progressive tax frankly, your side have introduced so called progressive taxation measures, so have the tories. Always seems to hit the poor harder than the rich.
We don't need to save the planet either. Whatever happens the planet will still be here even if there are no humans. What you mean is save humans. Sorry too late it ain't going to happen. Rich countries in the west will find mitigation measures poor countries will be left to hang. There is nothing that can be done unless we get a global dictatorship that bans all private transportation, all meat etc. That won't happen so accept it.
You are talking a lot of rubbish again Pagan.
Income tax as implemented is unarguably progressive. You could argue it's not progressive enough and you could also argue that some very wealthy people find ways to avoid it. But by and large it's a progressive tax. NI and VAT however are not.
Now about your assertion that People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k not the 40k they actually own. There is no possible basis for that to be the case. What you are describing would be a borrowing tax - an interesting concept but not one which would win many votes for any perty proposing or implementing it I would guess.
Focus on the facts, not your fantasies.
Of course they would they would be paying a wealth tax on the value of the house, not the capital they had paid off in their mortgage, doing anything else would just incentivise everyone to take out interest only mortgages which would result in a disaster. No I absolutely do not agree income tax is at all progressive. Simple fact is there are so many ways to avoid it. That famous right wing person of this Parish Foxy for example was railing about no longer being able to stuff earnings into his pension fund to avoid tax on it so talked about reducing his hours
Just stop for a moment and think about what you are saying.
Person A, let's call them Mr. Rich, has £1m sat in his bank, and will pay Wealth Tax (WT) on it at the rate set by HMG. If he uses that £1m to buy a house or block of flats to let, he will pay WT on the value of the property instead.
If he takes out an interest only mortgage for 90% of the £1m property, sure he only owns 10% of it and will only get WT on that £100k but he still has £900k in the bank so his WT position is unchanged.
No one is going to be incentivised to take out an mortgage to avoid WT for the simple reason that they would not avoid WT that way.
Regarding tax-free pension contributions, I can assure you from personal experience, and I suspect many others on PB can verify too, that that allowance does not magically turn ICT into a non-progressive tax.
The simple fact is that for 99% of people in this country, the more you earn the greater % of your earnings you pay in ICT. That is the very definition of a progressive tax.
That makes absolutely no sense at all. We were not talking about how much money someone has in their bank account as for 99% of people that has no relation to how much their property is worth or how much their mortgage is. You are conflating two unconnected things.
You need to read my post again properly - I was just giving a simple example to show that taking out an interest only mortgage is not going to help anyone avoid a WT.
Of course a WT would be assessed on an individual's total assets: cash, shares, bonds, property, etc.
Fortunately the rules for assessing assets are already largely in place as anyone trying to claim UC or Pension Credit will know.
@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”
“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”
Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.
Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.
You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont
Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own. Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%
The rich will find ways around the wealth tax
Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?
“Wealth taxes” will end up trying to tax people’s houses. Since this is based on an artificial shortage of houses, this will fuck up things more, rather than less. And probably not raise much money - unless you want to try the politics of forcing people to sell to richer people.
There aren’t that many mega properties in the U.K. - any tax on property that raises the kind of money that makes a difference will include suburban semis.
It would have one positive effect: it would discourage people from staying in houses that are too big for them.
@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”
“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”
Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.
Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.
You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont
Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own. Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%
The rich will find ways around the wealth tax
Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?
There is no such thing as a progressive tax frankly, your side have introduced so called progressive taxation measures, so have the tories. Always seems to hit the poor harder than the rich.
We don't need to save the planet either. Whatever happens the planet will still be here even if there are no humans. What you mean is save humans. Sorry too late it ain't going to happen. Rich countries in the west will find mitigation measures poor countries will be left to hang. There is nothing that can be done unless we get a global dictatorship that bans all private transportation, all meat etc. That won't happen so accept it.
You are talking a lot of rubbish again Pagan.
Income tax as implemented is unarguably progressive. You could argue it's not progressive enough and you could also argue that some very wealthy people find ways to avoid it. But by and large it's a progressive tax. (NI and VAT, in contrast, are not.)
Now about your assertion that People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k not the 40k they actually own. There is no possible basis for that to be the case. What you are describing would be a borrowing tax - an interesting concept but not one which would win many votes for any perty proposing or implementing it I would guess.
Focus on the facts, not your fantasies.
I am not sure that can be the case can it? If wealth tax is, in part supposed to replace council tax and also provide additional raxation then it has to be on the value of the property not just on the bit you have paid off.
All proposals for wealth tax have so far been on the value of the house, nothing as far as I know has ever been mentioned about taxing just the principal you own. As I pointed out it would encourage interest only mortgages for a start which would end up in a collosal blow up at some point.
The point remains people paying it would be renters when land lords put the rent up to cover it.
The people just about managing to pay their mortgage as it is
People who have paid off houses they bought decades ago and have minimal incomes now
There will be loopholes for the well off as there always are in tax codes to avoid it.
You cannot allow deferrment of the tax till sale as it would discourage mobility and also because it would raise no money immediately. Maybe evicting pensioners and jams for non payment of taxes is seen as progressive these days. It always seemed a daft term to me that the left coined to make it sound like their barm pot ideological ideas were good
Taxing pensioners out of expensive houses would be popular, for some.
Where I live, there are a number of people who lived in their houses since the area wasn’t fashionable. Now they are “bed blocking” the people who want to buy a big house and rip it out and redo. Kick the pensioners and poors out, and sell to people with millions in cash.
There’s one lady I know whose husband bought in the late 50s. Windrush bus driver - literally. She wants to stay in the house - couple of generations live with her. Refuses big offers. Let’s get her in the street. Fuck! Yeah!
But its progressive.
Also remember when people suggest unemployed people shouldnt be able to get housing benefit to live in expensive areas the cry of the left was "but they have lived here for years their support network is here it is cruel to make them move".....how does that apply to the little old lady that has lived in the same house for 4 decades....oh its different because she had the temerity to own it
@Leon, @Sandpit, you are both on the discussion group I created about Ukraine. The TLDR is that both sides have to burn up a goodly number of men and materiel to capture very small areas. The Ukraine counter offensive has over the past two months retaken two rectangles each about 50sq km in the Zaporhizia oblast. The Russian capture of Bakhmut took about 25sq km in a similar period. These moves are each less than 0.5% of the area of 2014 Ukraine.
In that discussion group @LostPassword made some good points about attriting (yes, it's a word) the Russians: although I agree with him he thinks it'll take months and I think it'll take over a year. The war is following a similar structure to WW1: a war of manoeuvre expected to last month's becomes congested due to new weapons, movement ceases, trenches are laid, artillery uses up shells in their millions, there is a Shell Crisis as prewar stocks are used up and production must ramp up to keep the sides supplied.
In the discussion group I gave links to three or four videos discussing the situation. The total watch time is about 3hrs so you would be forgiven for not watching them but they explain the supply and attrition issue in much greater depth.
(Ps @rcs1000 do you want to join in? I'm on the tablet so I don't know how to add you) (PPS it takes a long time to burn up millions of men. Ukraine has a while to go yet)
I would be interested in joining if it's an option? I encounter a fair number of alt-right/kremlin-line-trotting people so it would be good to have a balanced view of what's going on.
Oh - and if it's any use to summarising long youtube videos, I wrote a little script the other day that can extract the transcripts and give a summary and/or a sentiment score to them. I'm looking to extend it to extract the audio and do speech-to-text on them so I can then summarise them.
Andy, you do know that trans people existed before 1995, yes? Also that David Bowie famously "dated" a trans woman in his 1970s Berlin days?
I know PB has no memory, but still this place is sometimes so ahistorical it's weird. I keep thinking I have to remind people that James Callaghan existed and was Prime Minister. MoonRabbit's view of unions is so warped it's scary
PB has the memory of the people it contains. Which always looks weird from a different timescale. For some, a decade ago is before they were interested in the world around them…
A simple example -
When I told people of a time when carpets were fitted (at relatively high expense) by a number of British workmen, it was met with incredulity. And that was 1998. Globalisation has collapsed costs and wages.
But to many here, a new carpet for a flat has always been a few hundred quid and fitted by a lone Bosnian* guy in a tearing hurry to get to his next job.
*Recent job I had done. He drank double espressos as fast I could make them. By the end of the job he was The Flash.
I believe you. Things change and nobody ever seems to remember things were different. I'm reading thru "Duty of Care" by David Hennessey ( I got depressed after reading Goodwin's VV&V book and thought I'd cheer myself up), and the first half was devoted to the 45to79 Butskellian consensus, when the Government thought it had a duty to do things FOR the British people instead of TO them. It's a whole different world.
Edgerton is also good on this. A period when the government was consciously trying to build a British state, instead of leaving it to hollow out.
Indeed. I have a copy of "Rise and Fall of the British Nation" and "The British War Machine" and reread them on occasion. A prophet poorly honoured in his own country. Damn, we really f***** this country up for the next generation. A state that worked and did things for people? What science fiction is this? The one we had in reality of over thirty years and reduced infant and child mortality and homelessness down to the point where it became unusual. We've got so used to tramps, druggies and shit towns we forget that things were better once.
@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”
“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”
Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.
Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.
You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont
Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own. Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%
The rich will find ways around the wealth tax
Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?
“Wealth taxes” will end up trying to tax people’s houses. Since this is based on an artificial shortage of houses, this will fuck up things more, rather than less. And probably not raise much money - unless you want to try the politics of forcing people to sell to richer people.
There aren’t that many mega properties in the U.K. - any tax on property that raises the kind of money that makes a difference will include suburban semis.
That's nonsense. It's perfectly doable. Don't be such a faintheart.
There aren’t enough 10 bedroom mansions with swimming pools to fund a property tax.
So you’d have to tax “ordinary” houses. Where are people going to find the extra income from to fund the taxes? Not as if most people aren’t paying taxes already.
We're shifting the tax burden a bit from income to wealth. Don't you want to? Thought this was sliced bread on here, left and right.
The problem you’ve got is that the wealth is nominal - lots of million pound houses. Cool. But to extract the money without taxing ordinary people isn’t going to work. Because there aren’t enough city boys with big houses to tax.
How far right are Vox? Are they UKIP or BNP? (The British press customarily makes no distinction).
Are Vox post-fascist or indeed post-Franco-ist?
I am absolutely not an expert but from the list of their beliefs I have seen they seem to be to the right of pre Brexit UKIP and direct inheritors of the mantle of Franco.
Yes, but there's Franco and Franco. He didn't exactly mellow with age, but he did become less actively cruel by the 1960s. And as he left the economy to the Opus Dei technocrats, it was a time of relative prosperity.
I'm not saying that Franco nostalgia is a wise thing, but it isn't totally crazy.
Re the voting data for the GE in Spain. The figures do not include the postal votes which will be higher this time as the election is taking place in the middle of the main Spanish holiday season. It may be notable however that currently Catalonia is ove 8 points lower than last time. Possibly worse news for the left than the right as PP/VOX get far fewer votes in the Communidad.
When will we start to get results, are they counting overnight?
Exit poll at 8pm when the polls close. Counting is very quick as it's the D'Hondt method. As it could be very close it may be a while before we know which Coalition, if any, is viable, but the broad picture is likely to be apparent within a couple of hours.
So what is/are "bellweather" area(s) for Spanish GEs, if there are any?
Large Communities and some cities but there aren't constituencies in the UK sense. The biggest in Andalucia which PP took 2/3 years ago on an unprecedented landslide. Without a big recovery there Sanchez will struggle to be largets party. Then we have Catalunia and Madrid both big the former with a significant nationalist vote althjough their turnout figures look very low today. Finally, Galicia - Feijjo's great PP stronghold. However, the polls have been somewhat unclear, and it's not clear who will end up winning overall.
My understanding is that Aragon has been described as "the Ohio of Spain"? Although of course now Ohio leans red rather than being purple.
Katherine of Ohio doesn't quite have the same ring to it!
This is a sobering report about climate change action or inaction and especially the last paragraph (The whole article is in the Guardian)
G20 countries fail to reach agreement on cutting fossil fuels
Fossil fuel-producing members dispute goal of tripling renewable capacity by 2030
The G20 bloc of wealthy economies meeting in India failed to reach a consensus on phasing down fossil fuels on Saturday after objections by some producer nations.
Scientists and campaigners are exasperated by international bodies’ foot-dragging on action to curb global heating even as extreme weather across the northern hemisphere underlined the climate crisis facing the world.
The G20 member countries together account for more than three-quarters of global emissions and gross domestic product, so a cumulative effort by the group to decarbonise is crucial in the global fight against climate breakdown.
However, disagreements including the intended tripling of renewable energy capacities by 2030 resulted in officials issuing an outcome statement and a chair summary instead of a joint communique at the end of their four-day meeting in Panaji, the capital of the Indian coastal state of Goa.
Fossil fuel use became a lightning rod in daylong discussions, but officials failed to reach consensus over curbing “unabated” use and argued over the language to describe the pathway to cut emissions, two sources familiar with the matter said. However, the chair statement released on Saturday evening included concerns from some member nations that were missing in the Friday draft, saying “others had different views on the matter that abatement and removal technologies will address such concerns”.
Singh, in a press briefing after the conference, said some countries wanted to use carbon capture instead of a phase-down of fossil fuels. He did not name the countries.
Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, South Africa and Indonesia are all known to oppose the goal of tripling renewable energy capacity this decade.
The reluctance of these countries to decarbonise is why it is difficult to adhere to the more radical demands of environmentalists. These countries are not stupid, they are mostly more threatened by climate change than we are in a practical sense (ie desertification, sea levels rising), but they look at the evidence and just decide to basically carry on, essentially business as usual, whilst playing the card of 'blaming the oppressor' (the west).
For context G20 are 75%+ of world emissions as quoted.
But also 64% of population.
I think the core issue is getting USA and the BRICS properly on board.
Don't forget germany which shut down its nuclear plants, not only build lignite plants to make up but has bulldozed at least one windfarm to open an opencast lignite mine....oh but global action is going to occur...I believe in unicorns that fart rainbows
TBF I also haven't looked at places like Japan and Indonesia.
@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”
“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”
Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.
Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.
You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont
Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own. Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%
The rich will find ways around the wealth tax
Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?
“Wealth taxes” will end up trying to tax people’s houses. Since this is based on an artificial shortage of houses, this will fuck up things more, rather than less. And probably not raise much money - unless you want to try the politics of forcing people to sell to richer people.
There aren’t that many mega properties in the U.K. - any tax on property that raises the kind of money that makes a difference will include suburban semis.
That's nonsense. It's perfectly doable. Don't be such a faintheart.
There aren’t enough 10 bedroom mansions with swimming pools to fund a property tax.
So you’d have to tax “ordinary” houses. Where are people going to find the extra income from to fund the taxes? Not as if most people aren’t paying taxes already.
We're shifting the tax burden a bit from income to wealth. Don't you want to? Thought this was sliced bread on here, left and right.
No I don't. I do support all forms of income whether active or passive being taxed the same. But taxing people for what they have spent their taxed income on no thanks
@Leon, @Sandpit, you are both on the discussion group I created about Ukraine. The TLDR is that both sides have to burn up a goodly number of men and materiel to capture very small areas. The Ukraine counter offensive has over the past two months retaken two rectangles each about 50sq km in the Zaporhizia oblast. The Russian capture of Bakhmut took about 25sq km in a similar period. These moves are each less than 0.5% of the area of 2014 Ukraine.
In that discussion group @LostPassword made some good points about attriting (yes, it's a word) the Russians: although I agree with him he thinks it'll take months and I think it'll take over a year. The war is following a similar structure to WW1: a war of manoeuvre expected to last month's becomes congested due to new weapons, movement ceases, trenches are laid, artillery uses up shells in their millions, there is a Shell Crisis as prewar stocks are used up and production must ramp up to keep the sides supplied.
In the discussion group I gave links to three or four videos discussing the situation. The total watch time is about 3hrs so you would be forgiven for not watching them but they explain the supply and attrition issue in much greater depth.
(Ps @rcs1000 do you want to join in? I'm on the tablet so I don't know how to add you) (PPS it takes a long time to burn up millions of men. Ukraine has a while to go yet)
I would be interested in joining if it's an option? I encounter a fair number of alt-right/kremlin-line-trotting people so it would be good to have a balanced view of what's going on.
Oh - and if it's any use to summarising long youtube videos, I wrote a little script the other day that can extract the transcripts and give a summary and/or a sentiment score to them. I'm looking to extend it to extract the audio and do speech-to-text on them so I can then summarise them.
The things you do when you're "on holiday"...
Will add you tomorrow - I'm travelling to work and the tablet does not show the "add person" button, so will do so tomorrow on the laptop. Hope that is ok. Remind me tomorrow if I forget.
Andy, you do know that trans people existed before 1995, yes? Also that David Bowie famously "dated" a trans woman in his 1970s Berlin days?
I know PB has no memory, but still this place is sometimes so ahistorical it's weird. I keep thinking I have to remind people that James Callaghan existed and was Prime Minister. MoonRabbit's view of unions is so warped it's scary
PB has the memory of the people it contains. Which always looks weird from a different timescale. For some, a decade ago is before they were interested in the world around them…
A simple example -
When I told people of a time when carpets were fitted (at relatively high expense) by a number of British workmen, it was met with incredulity. And that was 1998. Globalisation has collapsed costs and wages.
But to many here, a new carpet for a flat has always been a few hundred quid and fitted by a lone Bosnian* guy in a tearing hurry to get to his next job.
*Recent job I had done. He drank double espressos as fast I could make them. By the end of the job he was The Flash.
I believe you. Things change and nobody ever seems to remember things were different. I'm reading thru "Duty of Care" by David Hennessey ( I got depressed after reading Goodwin's VV&V book and thought I'd cheer myself up), and the first half was devoted to the 45to79 Butskellian consensus, when the Government thought it had a duty to do things FOR the British people instead of TO them. It's a whole different world.
Edgerton is also good on this. A period when the government was consciously trying to build a British state, instead of leaving it to hollow out.
Indeed. I have a copy of "Rise and Fall of the British Nation" and "The British War Machine" and reread them on occasion. A prophet poorly honoured in his own country. Damn, we really f***** this country up for the next generation. A state that worked and did things for people? What science fiction is this? The one we had in reality of over thirty years and reduced infant and child mortality and homelessness down to the point where it became unusual. We've got so used to tramps, druggies and shit towns we forget that things were better once.
Tramps existed. They were just kicked out of anywhere “respectable”, harassed and locked up.
The Victorian asylums helped out, by warehousing the problematic. Later they added drugging them into compliance. Or a nice lobotomy. Without bothering to ask their permission.
With the later, reintroducing it will run into the small problem that no doctor will do such things, these days.
@Miklosvar has a point on Rhodes. This does not sound “normal”
“Greece mounted its largest-ever island evacuation this weekend, moving close to 19,000 people on Rhodes to escape wildfires that have prompted some tour operators to cancel flights to the popular destination.”
Which is why we need policies that aren’t regressive taxation. Note that the climate change levy on energy bills isn’t a problem because it is *equal*. Well, kinda. The rich have the best insulated homes, of course.
Green New Deal funded by Wealth Tax then. Done.
You seem to think only the rich will pay a wealth tax. Clue they wont
Renters will have the wealth tax added to their rent People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k noth the 40k they actually own. Poor pensioners that live on nothing more than a state pension but in the 40 years since they paid off their house that has now increased to an incredible price will suddenly find the wealth tax eating half their pension, fuel prices stealing the other half and food inflation swallowing another 20%
The rich will find ways around the wealth tax
Well we were looking at non-regressive ways to fund important things like saving the planet. What taxes would you rather use?
There is no such thing as a progressive tax frankly, your side have introduced so called progressive taxation measures, so have the tories. Always seems to hit the poor harder than the rich.
We don't need to save the planet either. Whatever happens the planet will still be here even if there are no humans. What you mean is save humans. Sorry too late it ain't going to happen. Rich countries in the west will find mitigation measures poor countries will be left to hang. There is nothing that can be done unless we get a global dictatorship that bans all private transportation, all meat etc. That won't happen so accept it.
You are talking a lot of rubbish again Pagan.
Income tax as implemented is unarguably progressive. You could argue it's not progressive enough and you could also argue that some very wealthy people find ways to avoid it. But by and large it's a progressive tax. (NI and VAT, in contrast, are not.)
Now about your assertion that People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k not the 40k they actually own. There is no possible basis for that to be the case. What you are describing would be a borrowing tax - an interesting concept but not one which would win many votes for any perty proposing or implementing it I would guess.
Focus on the facts, not your fantasies.
In respect of your second paragraph, most wealth taxes use the value of the property not the value of the equity in the property as their primary metric
Er... evidence?
According to the examples covered here most, if not all appear to be levied on net assets.
Comments
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4110974-frustrated-lawmakers-demand-answers-on-ufos/
Key one is nixing Podemos (divaish fantasy hard left) by forcing them into the embrace of Sumar (practical hard left). The other one is bluntly posing the question to the PP- how much do they want to get into bed with Vox? Because there will be a cost in doing that. Whether that cost is small or large remains to be seen.
Still a loss, but there are good losses and bad ones. The risk for the UK Conservatives is that they lose, and lose in a way that makes future recovery even harder.
Meaning that while schedule set by Democratic National Committee makes South Carolina the first primary, New Hampshire - as represented by state Secretary of State - will say, screw that, and schedule before SC. Even if that would mean December 2023!
In return, DNC will threaten to strip NH of its national convention delegates. To which NH will say, so fucking what? And when the summer finally rolls around, NH will likely be seated anyway. BECAUSE Biden (and Granite State congressional candidates) would prefer to WIN it that lose it in November.
Income tax as implemented is unarguably progressive. You could argue it's not progressive enough and you could also argue that some very wealthy people find ways to avoid it. But by and large it's a progressive tax. (NI and VAT, in contrast, are not.)
Now about your assertion that People who have paid off 10% of a 400,000 pound house will be paying wealth tax on the full 400k not the 40k they actually own. There is no possible basis for that to be the case. What you are describing would be a borrowing tax - an interesting concept but not one which would win many votes for any perty proposing or implementing it I would guess.
Focus on the facts, not your fantasies.
Now the exit polls are predicting the PP have comfortably won most seats. So even bad defeats can be overcome with the right opposition leader, an unpopular government and a poor economy, see also here Labour post 2019 landslide defeat now looking to win with Starmer
For the autumn, currently aiming to follow NZ 14 Oct, Switzerland 22 Oct, Argentina presidential 22 Oct/19 Nov, Netherlands 22 Nov, plus of course any UK by-elections.
94% critics rating
94% audience rating
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/oppenheimer_2023
I think we could learn from the Swiss on wealth and inheritance taxes.
Start with a low rate applied to a wide base in both cases.
As far as I can see (I don't know the system well) Swiss IHT starts at a low threshold, and at a rate of single figure percentage for the first 100k or so, varied by Canton. And tax the beneficiary not the estate. Immediate family are exempt.
https://www.expatica.com/ch/finance/taxes/inheritance-tax-switzerland-1010097/
eg Geneva
Sounds rational, and they take a similar - wide base, low rate - approach to their wealth tax. Perhaps make annual wealth taxes start a threshold of say 16k (which I think is the savings threshold where UC stops), and set the starting rate at a low 0.1% or so for British domiciles.
Of course, apply it to *all* dwellings, which would put modest downward pressure on house values.
Such systems also accustom everyone to paying taxes.
There are other wealth taxes that apply in Switzerland (one for property owners based on rental value?), and I would welcome an explanatory article by someone who understands the system.
334 total seats projected out of 350, PSOE 129 PP 124 Vox 31 Sumar 23
A period when the government was consciously trying to build a British state, instead of leaving it to hollow out.
As a kid growing up next to Headingley, many a summer's day of eager anticipation was spoilt by the weather. And as an adult player of the game, the same - although games devastated by rain did enable good pub sessions.
But several of the most thrilling test matches have resulted from rain-affected delays, I'm sure. I remember Derek Underwood bowling Australia out on a strip of mud at the Oval in 1968, an astonishingly tense finish, with all fielders around the bat. I think nearly two days were lost to rain:
https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/australia-tour-of-england-1968-61359/england-vs-australia-5th-test-63027/full-scorecard
Today, we happened to be on the wrong side of the weather. That's life. It balances out over a period.
The point remains people paying it would be renters when land lords put the rent up to cover it.
The people just about managing to pay their mortgage as it is
People who have paid off houses they bought decades ago and have minimal incomes now
There will be loopholes for the well off as there always are in tax codes to avoid it.
You cannot allow deferrment of the tax till sale as it would discourage mobility and also because it would raise no money immediately. Maybe evicting pensioners and jams for non payment of taxes is seen as progressive these days. It always seemed a daft term to me that the left coined to make it sound like their barm pot ideological ideas were good
Are they UKIP or BNP? (The British press customarily makes no distinction).
Are Vox post-fascist or indeed post-Franco-ist?
I see, 44 years on, the summer weather has once again taken a toll on the Fastnet Race
https://www.rolexfastnetrace.com/en/news/1261-severe-opening-night-impacts-on-rolex-fastnet-race-fleet
The 1979 race was infamous - it was in the middle of August and I remember it because we were enjoying what would be our last family summer holiday in St Ives. I recall the lifeboat being launched and the bay full of yachts (some dismasted) seeking shelter fom the storm.
Hopefully, no fatalities this time unlike 1979 and modern weather forecasting meant the fleet were warned well in advance.
So, broadly UKIPy.
So you’d have to tax “ordinary” houses. Where are people going to find the extra income from to fund the taxes? Not as if most people aren’t paying taxes already.
Person A, let's call them Mr. Rich, has £1m sat in his bank, and will pay Wealth Tax (WT) on it at the rate set by HMG. If he uses that £1m to buy a house or block of flats to let, he will pay WT on the value of the property instead.
If he takes out an interest only mortgage for 90% of the £1m property, sure he only owns 10% of it and will only get WT on that £100k but he still has £900k in the bank so his WT position is unchanged.
No one is going to be incentivised to take out an mortgage to avoid WT for the simple reason that they would not avoid WT that way.
Regarding tax-free pension contributions, I can assure you from personal experience, and I suspect many others on PB can verify too, that that allowance does not magically turn ICT into a non-progressive tax.
The simple fact is that for 99% of people in this country, the more you earn the greater % of your earnings you pay in ICT. That is the very definition of a progressive tax.
Q1 2019 to Q1 2023 only 4 areas have house price increases of under 20% - Bucks, Berks, Herts and London. And London is the lowest at 14%.
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-12199051/Which-counties-seen-house-price-growth-2019.html
So it's only recent purchasers with 95% mortgages who will be at 90% equity.
How many people have bought houses within the last 18 months on 95% mortgages as a % of the 19m (estimate) owner occupied homes?
I'll design it now and post for sign-off tomorrow.
I believe that was @BartholomewRoberts ’s point
As to what Feijoo will do, I suspect he has a long spoon ready for his negotiations with Abascal.
But also 64% of population.
I think the core issue is getting USA and the BRICS properly on board.
2. If it were down to me, I'd would introduce a WT but I'd either exempt a principle residence up to the value of, say, £500k per adult owning said property or (better) give everyone a £500k WT personal allowance. (Average per capita UK wealth is circa £150k, so the large majority of the population would be exempt.)
What I find objectionable is the societal panic about this issue in general. IE you must do this, that etc immediately to save the world or else you are evil.
Where I live, there are a number of people who lived in their houses since the area wasn’t fashionable. Now they are “bed blocking” the people who want to buy a big house and rip it out and redo. Kick the pensioners and poors out, and sell to people with millions in cash.
There’s one lady I know whose husband bought in the late 50s. Windrush bus driver - literally. She wants to stay in the house - couple of generations live with her. Refuses big offers. Let’s get her in the street. Fuck! Yeah!
A man who was born to be hunted like a wild animal
Because he was poor
But he refused to accept his fate
And today his honor has been restored
He was only nineteen
And he was sentenced to die
For something that somebody else did
And blamed on El Lute
Then they changed it to life
And so he could escape
From then on they chased him
And searched for him day and night
All over Spain
But the search was in vain for El Lute
He had only seen the dark side of life
The man they called El Lute
And he wanted a home just like you and like me
In a country where all would be free
Though he taught himself to read and to write
It didn't help El Lute
He was one who had dared to escape overnight
They had to find El Lute
Soon the fame of his name
Spread like wildfire all over the land
With a price on his head
People still gave him bread
And they gave him a hand
For they knew he was right
And his fight was their fight
No one gave you a chance
In the Spain of those days
On the walls every place
They had put up the face of El Lute
And he robbed where he could
Just like once Robin Hood
They finally caught him
And that seemed the end
But they caught him in vain
'Cause a change came for Spain
And El Lute
He had only seen the dark side of life
The man they called El Lute
And he wanted a home just like you and like me
In a country where all would be free
And then freedom really came to his land
And also to El Lute
Now he walks in the light of a sunny new day
The man they called El Lute
These could be skewed towards older voters with younger people voting later .
(Disagree with him about the possible outcomes, though. Choices are PP+Vox or PP minority with PSOE staying their hands for now.)
Of course a WT would be assessed on an individual's total assets: cash, shares, bonds, property, etc.
Fortunately the rules for assessing assets are already largely in place as anyone trying to claim UC or Pension Credit will know.
Also remember when people suggest unemployed people shouldnt be able to get housing benefit to live in expensive areas the cry of the left was "but they have lived here for years their support network is here it is cruel to make them move".....how does that apply to the little old lady that has lived in the same house for 4 decades....oh its different because she had the temerity to own it
Oh - and if it's any use to summarising long youtube videos, I wrote a little script the other day that can extract the transcripts and give a summary and/or a sentiment score to them. I'm looking to extend it to extract the audio and do speech-to-text on them so I can then summarise them.
The things you do when you're "on holiday"...
But to extract the money without taxing ordinary people isn’t going to work. Because there aren’t enough city boys with big houses to tax.
I'm not saying that Franco nostalgia is a wise thing, but it isn't totally crazy.
The Victorian asylums helped out, by warehousing the problematic. Later they added drugging them into compliance. Or a nice lobotomy. Without bothering to ask their permission.
With the later, reintroducing it will run into the small problem that no doctor will do such things, these days.
Results by commune from NYT
According to the examples covered here most, if not all appear to be levied on net assets.