After 2 hours 48 minutes of waiting on hold to Esure, I've just been cut off. I can think of nothing for it but to join twitter.
I sometimes think that if a political party pledged to enact a statutory obligation for service providers to answer the telephone within a reasonable period, they would be rewarded with a landslide victory.
My pet hate while waiting to get through is: "Your call is important to us".
It obviously fucking isn't.
Shout out for Cathay Pacific. One of the only airlines, if not companies, I know where you can actually speak to someone in customer services within seconds of calling. And someone who knows what they’re doing too.
Belatedly, the slow-ass mainstream media has finally noted what we noted days ago - Suella Braverman is weirdly popular on Twitter. Getting more views per tweet than Barack Obama
In contrast to PB, Palestine is generally crushing Israel in terms of social media 'popularity' too. Obviously the Gaza reality is the other way round.
I’ve noted before that the Israel pr machine is terrible, I can’t work out whether they are genuinely behind on this stuff or that it’s no one likes us, we don’t care. If the former I’d start with not sending out Regev to persuade the world of the righteousness of their cause.
State of this.
Perhaps feathers or massive "Medical Supplies" labels count as actual medical supplies in Gaza
Step Two When a complaint can’t be resolved quickly or you aren’t happy with the initial resolution our Customer Relations team are here to help you. This is a dedicated team who will carry out an independent review for you and they act with full authority of our Chief Executive.
We’ll contact you to tell you who will own your complaint and how long you can expect to wait for a decision. We will write to you with our view within eight weeks from the date you first complained – this is known as a ‘final decision’ letter.
The email address is CustomerRelationsExec@esure.com or you can write to;
Customer Relations esure The Equinox 19 Cadogan Street Glasgow G2 6QQ
People support the abolition of inheritance tax even if they are never going to pay it themselves. Its about fairness. Taxing the dead is absolutely unfair when you have paid taxes all your life. It will be difficult for Labour to overturn it. Its a sort if 45p tax trap like McDoom set.
Think of it as taxing those who get the inheritance, not those who left it. Obviously the dead person can't be taxed. They're dead.
Ok, so change the rules so the beneficiaries get taxed, rather than (as present) the estate.
Conceptually, that would be the simplest way of doing it: treat it as income and adjust income tax bands as necessary. But I doubt that would be popular either in reality as it'd shove most people getting an inheritance that year into the 45p band.
Labour should just oppose it and campaign on the personal benefits that Sunak and Hunt would themselves get.
I'm not, as a rule, in favour of that kind of ad hom targeting but I do think it'd be valid in this case because it demonstrates the gross unfairness of a massive tax bung to the wealthiest, when those most in need are having benefits tightened still further.
Your last line is a social democratic or socialist argument. And so is the language.
You used to be a Conservative and argue in favour of welfare cuts.
I remember it well.
Whose welfare would you cut Casino?
The best welfare is a move into work, financially, emotionally and socially.
I have consistently argued for UC that supports a move into work, and I don't think it's the job of the state to pay for people to sit indefinitely at home when they could be doing something. Anything. The burden of taxation is too high and there are far more pressing things the state could and should invest in, from science, industry, education and defence.
Attitudes to disability - including mental health - have changed in a way that makes this more feasible than in the past so I think it should be kept under review.
The worst depression I experienced was whilst sitting at home being idle.
You cannot, should not, transpose how you felt onto everyone or indeed anyone else with mental health conditions. People vary.
For many people, pressuring them to return to work is the LAST thing they need. It should be an informed decision between patient and mental health practitioners not some servant of this wicked Conservative callous machine.
For some it will be the final straw to push them over the edge.
Presumably that would suit this Nasty Party. Force them into suicide then they don’t have to pay for their care, a word which once upon a time actually meant something to this now morally bankrupt and downright evil manifestation of conservatism.
Okay, here's my STOP THE BOATS theory. The majority of voters think this is a real priority, regardless of whether they support the Rwanda scheme or not. So far so good, However, it's now damaging the Tories in the polls. And the reason for this is that voters think there are lots of other priorities as well, but all they hear about from Sunak and others is 'stop the boats' - the PM even holds a special press conference about it. It's become an obsession, as if nothing else matters, at the expense of other priorities.
In conclusion: single issue parties aren't popular with the voters. The Tories need to broaden their repertoire, because folk are getting a bit fed up with the government wittering on about boats and nothing much else (apart from the occasional pothole interjection).
I don't disagree with any of this. But I'd also add that while stop the boats is a priority for voters, the Conservatives evidently aren't stopping the boats. They've ramped up the importance of one issue that they either have no intention of doing anything about or are terrible at doing so. People who want the boats stopped are increasingly bemused about why the Conservatives aren't doing so.
Yeah I agree with all that
I think some form of Rwanda is worth trying - and remember, WE HAVEN’T ACTUALLY TRIED IT YET - because deterrence might work. I see all the flaws with Rwanda but no one has any better idea. Which is why other countries are reaching a similar conclusion - Rwanda
However the government are so inept they have managed to get all the bad vibes of packing poor asylum seekers off to Kigali while all the time they’ve sent not one person to Kigali - thus infuriating both sides while doing nothing
It’s another example of Cookie’s Law. This government makes right wing noises but actually behaves more like an incompetent left wing government, ensuring the contempt of all
Cookie's Law is very real. My itchy conspiracy believing side is constantly telling me that it's intentional - Rishi and Hunt intend both to lose the election and marginalise the right for a generation. Of course I also realise that the two of them being utterly incompetent is as likely a reason.
Surely Rishi and Hunt and Cameron need to win to marginalise the right for a generation? If they lose the right will take back the Conservative party with a vengeance
I hope Man City get docked 50 points every year for the next 5 years.
But to go that far would mean addressing a whole load more sportswashing and corruption and that’s not going to happen. At least, not under the current Government.
Is that the current government that are bringing in a Football regulator to stop shady financial and ownership behaviour?
Belatedly, the slow-ass mainstream media has finally noted what we noted days ago - Suella Braverman is weirdly popular on Twitter. Getting more views per tweet than Barack Obama
In contrast to PB, Palestine is generally crushing Israel in terms of social media 'popularity' too. Obviously the Gaza reality is the other way round.
I’ve noted before that the Israel pr machine is terrible, I can’t work out whether they are genuinely behind on this stuff or that it’s no one likes us, we don’t care. If the former I’d start with not sending out Regev to persuade the world of the righteousness of their cause.
It's interesting because they used to be good at this, sending plausible English-accented spokespeople to speak on the Today programme, etc. The quality has really dropped off. I suspect it's related to the internal political divisions they've faced, where I imagine a lot of the sensible people have been purged, a la Brexit. They're current messaging has been nuts, eg Netanyahu saying they had to flatten Gaza to stop Palestinian kids being taught to hate Israel, as though flattening Gaza wouldn't make them hate Israel more effectively than any Hamas school textbook could. At the end of this Israel risks looking very isolated, presumably that's why Biden is trying to rein them in - he has the benefit of distance plus a deep understanding of foreign affairs.
Yeah, that sounds right. To go with your Brexit comparison, like sending out IDS and Lord Frost to win EU friends and influence foreign people.
People support the abolition of inheritance tax even if they are never going to pay it themselves. Its about fairness. Taxing the dead is absolutely unfair when you have paid taxes all your life. It will be difficult for Labour to overturn it. Its a sort if 45p tax trap like McDoom set.
Think of it as taxing those who get the inheritance, not those who left it. Obviously the dead person can't be taxed. They're dead.
The Dead are taxed. The tax is deducted from the estate of the deceased before assets are distributed. Its iniquitous.
Surely being taxed when you are dead is the best time to get taxed. Damn all use to me when I'm dead.
For those that inherit it is a wodge of unearned income so again best time to tax rather than on their earned income.
And any claim that it is a tax on taxed money is true, but then so are a lot of taxes eg Vat, stamp duty on a property, etc
Why has Forces News just dropped three vids on the Ajax? Why are they calling it an Armoured Fighting Vehicle (AFV) when it's specifically for reconnaissance, combat reconnaissance at a push?
People support the abolition of inheritance tax even if they are never going to pay it themselves. Its about fairness. Taxing the dead is absolutely unfair when you have paid taxes all your life. It will be difficult for Labour to overturn it. Its a sort if 45p tax trap like McDoom set.
Think of it as taxing those who get the inheritance, not those who left it. Obviously the dead person can't be taxed. They're dead.
Ok, so change the rules so the beneficiaries get taxed, rather than (as present) the estate.
Conceptually, that would be the simplest way of doing it: treat it as income and adjust income tax bands as necessary. But I doubt that would be popular either in reality as it'd shove most people getting an inheritance that year into the 45p band.
Labour should just oppose it and campaign on the personal benefits that Sunak and Hunt would themselves get.
I'm not, as a rule, in favour of that kind of ad hom targeting but I do think it'd be valid in this case because it demonstrates the gross unfairness of a massive tax bung to the wealthiest, when those most in need are having benefits tightened still further.
Your last line is a social democratic or socialist argument. And so is the language.
You used to be a Conservative and argue in favour of welfare cuts.
I remember it well.
Whose welfare would you cut Casino?
The best welfare is a move into work, financially, emotionally and socially.
I have consistently argued for UC that supports a move into work, and I don't think it's the job of the state to pay for people to sit indefinitely at home when they could be doing something. Anything. The burden of taxation is too high and there are far more pressing things the state could and should invest in, from science, industry, education and defence.
Attitudes to disability - including mental health - have changed in a way that makes this more feasible than in the past so I think it should be kept under review.
The worst depression I experienced was whilst sitting at home being idle.
You cannot, should not, transpose how you felt onto everyone or indeed anyone else with mental health conditions. People vary.
For many people, pressuring them to return to work is the LAST thing they need.
For some it will be the final straw to push them over the edge.
Presumably that would suit this Nasty Party. Force them into suicide then they don’t have to pay for their care, a word which once upon a time actually meant something to this now morally bankrupt and downright evil manifestation of conservatism.
Have you heard of projection? Its fine that you don't want a conservative government but I think you need to take a look at the bile you post about people. Do you ever consider that people may come to different opinions to you without being 'morally bankrupt and downright evil"?
People support the abolition of inheritance tax even if they are never going to pay it themselves. Its about fairness. Taxing the dead is absolutely unfair when you have paid taxes all your life. It will be difficult for Labour to overturn it. Its a sort if 45p tax trap like McDoom set.
Periodic reminder that inheritance tax taxes the living on unearned income. The dead, being dead, do not pay. The living, in most cases, already do not pay due to the exemptions and the loopholes for those inclined to find them.
As it stands,* I'll land a substantial inheritance one day due to my good judgement in having parents with a house in the south east (I haven't looked into it, but I suspect we'll actually not be charged due to the exemptions) but I really don't see why I should be handed a few £100k tax free that I have done nothing to deserve, while I get taxed etc on the money I work for.
*my parents are, unfortunately, loathe to spend money, despite having pretty comfortable pensions - getting them to even shell out for useful modifications to their home as they're getting old or paying for more than the cheapest care services is hard. It may all go on care home costs, of course, which is also fine with me (I just hope they use the money to have the best possible final years).
Yes, I agree. And squareroot's point reminds me of the third reason I can't get too excited about the proposed cut in inheritance tax - despite, as I said, it being worth about nine years' net wages to me - I simply don't believe it wouldn't be immediately reversed. It'll be of any use only to those few unlucky people whose parents die in the short period between the cut and Labour getting around to reversing it.
All taxes are unfair in some way. But we need to raise money somehow. Inheritance tax strikes me as less iniquitous than most.
I’m at the other end of the argument. It can’t, surely, be many years now before my heirs and assigns have the bother of clearing up my, and my wife’s, affairs, notifying everyone who matters (including, in my case pb) and clearing out the house for sale. And when they do sell it, unless something very spectacular has has happened to the property market, it will sell for a great deal more than we paid for it. A rise which we have done nothing to deserve. What we have given our children is a good education, which has enabled them to earn a good living themselves, and, I hope, a moral code which results in them treating those around them with respect. Why, then, should they benefit from an increase in the value of something to which neither we nor they have contributed?
To enable a more prosperous future for your grand and great? grandchildren. Life is difficult enough as it is, I will not begrudge anyone who benefits from inheritance. What will the Gov't do with the money anyway ? Spaff it on cancellation costs for a HS2 contractual supplier ?
My view is that it's better for people to have money when they start working, rather than having to wait 30 years for their relatives to drop off, before gaining a windfall.
I am going to inherit a lot, over the next ten years, in all likelihood, but at the age of 56, it's of limited use.
That's why it's better to put the available sums into the pockets of workers.
It's no wonder young people aren't voting Conservative.
If you look at 1979, when Margaret Thatcher won over young people, it's because she was absolutely on their side of getting on against the stultifying practices of ideological councils and trade unions.
Because of the rise in inflation, fiscal drag means the government is taking far more income tax than was anticipated in 2021, when the rate freeze was announced. By far the best thing the government could do would be to raise the personal allowance and higher rate threshold by 10-15% each. And, that would be unlikely to be reversed by an incoming Labour government.
Even getting a few thousand extra a year however in income would not ultimately match getting a house worth £350-£700k IHT tax free (and most homes south of Watford are within that band)
Belatedly, the slow-ass mainstream media has finally noted what we noted days ago - Suella Braverman is weirdly popular on Twitter. Getting more views per tweet than Barack Obama
In contrast to PB, Palestine is generally crushing Israel in terms of social media 'popularity' too. Obviously the Gaza reality is the other way round.
I’ve noted before that the Israel pr machine is terrible, I can’t work out whether they are genuinely behind on this stuff or that it’s no one likes us, we don’t care. If the former I’d start with not sending out Regev to persuade the world of the righteousness of their cause.
State of this.
Perhaps feathers or massive "Medical Supplies" labels count as actual medical supplies in Gaza
Okay, here's my STOP THE BOATS theory. The majority of voters think this is a real priority, regardless of whether they support the Rwanda scheme or not. So far so good, However, it's now damaging the Tories in the polls. And the reason for this is that voters think there are lots of other priorities as well, but all they hear about from Sunak and others is 'stop the boats' - the PM even holds a special press conference about it. It's become an obsession, as if nothing else matters, at the expense of other priorities.
In conclusion: single issue parties aren't popular with the voters. The Tories need to broaden their repertoire, because folk are getting a bit fed up with the government wittering on about boats and nothing much else (apart from the occasional pothole interjection).
I don't disagree with any of this. But I'd also add that while stop the boats is a priority for voters, the Conservatives evidently aren't stopping the boats. They've ramped up the importance of one issue that they either have no intention of doing anything about or are terrible at doing so. People who want the boats stopped are increasingly bemused about why the Conservatives aren't doing so.
Yeah I agree with all that
I think some form of Rwanda is worth trying - and remember, WE HAVEN’T ACTUALLY TRIED IT YET - because deterrence might work. I see all the flaws with Rwanda but no one has any better idea. Which is why other countries are reaching a similar conclusion - Rwanda
However the government are so inept they have managed to get all the bad vibes of packing poor asylum seekers off to Kigali while all the time they’ve sent not one person to Kigali - thus infuriating both sides while doing nothing
It’s another example of Cookie’s Law. This government makes right wing noises but actually behaves more like an incompetent left wing government, ensuring the contempt of all
Cookie's Law is very real. My itchy conspiracy believing side is constantly telling me that it's intentional - Rishi and Hunt intend both to lose the election and marginalise the right for a generation. Of course I also realise that the two of them being utterly incompetent is as likely a reason.
Surely Rishi and Hunt and Cameron need to win to marginalise the right for a generation? If they lose the right will take back the Conservative party with a vengeance
Do you support Braverman wanting to withdraw us from all international law and put us alongside Russia and Belarus?
I can state unequivocally that is not acceptable for our Country in any circumstances and is shameful
Braverman and others need to join Reform UK or even the BNP
Is it just me or does anyone else think Rachel Reeves wears shit clothes? Fringey haircut doesn't help either.
She needs a stylist.
Ooh, get Gok Wan!
Sort of agree, her style could kindly be described as stolid, and when combined with that wasp trapped in a bottle voice.. Yousaf’s dress sense is also a bit rubbish lest anyone thinks I’m a mcp. As for the Starmer flirtation with Stone Island..
A good number of centre-left female politicians seem to dress in a loose sack that's dyed the colour of root vegetables. I presume it's because they want to be taken seriously and don't want their clothes or appearance to be a distraction from that, but these things do matter.
Nicola Sturgeon tbf did it very well.
It's easy for men. For most men, there are exactly four levels of formality: 1) Wearing a suit: Easy. All suits look basically the same. As long as you find one that fits you have fulfilled the brief. Unless it's red or corduroy or something no-one will ever notice or care. 2) Smart-ish: Like for a nice party. Tricky one this because some level of decision is called for. But a clean, ironed shirt and a pair of jeans and trainers will probably do 98% of the time. 3) Doesn't matter: This grade covers most of my waking life when I am not in the office. Jeans, t-shirt and a jumper or hoody in the winter; shorts and t-shirt in the summer. Basically whatever comes out of the rotation and suits the weather. 4) Some sort of specialist activity. Like hill walking: combat trousers and a wicking t-shirt and a fleece. Or sleeping: pants and an old t-shirt. Or jetwashing the drive: stuff which can get wet and go straight in the wash.
There, all male sartorial choices solved in 2 minutes. Far harder for women. I lay the blame for this 100% at the door of women*, who have made it difficult for themselves by introducing all sorts of subtle gradations and nuances and meanings.
*Though obviously 'women' are not one block. There are probably lots of women who would like clothing to be much simpler, and it is not generally those women who are to blame for the complexity of female clothing choices.
You have missed out the category for most men working in an office* - a shirt and trousers (not jeans) and shoes (not trainers).
*Except on Friday, where it is T-shirt, jeans and trainers
People support the abolition of inheritance tax even if they are never going to pay it themselves. Its about fairness. Taxing the dead is absolutely unfair when you have paid taxes all your life. It will be difficult for Labour to overturn it. Its a sort if 45p tax trap like McDoom set.
Think of it as taxing those who get the inheritance, not those who left it. Obviously the dead person can't be taxed. They're dead.
Ok, so change the rules so the beneficiaries get taxed, rather than (as present) the estate.
Conceptually, that would be the simplest way of doing it: treat it as income and adjust income tax bands as necessary. But I doubt that would be popular either in reality as it'd shove most people getting an inheritance that year into the 45p band.
Labour should just oppose it and campaign on the personal benefits that Sunak and Hunt would themselves get.
I'm not, as a rule, in favour of that kind of ad hom targeting but I do think it'd be valid in this case because it demonstrates the gross unfairness of a massive tax bung to the wealthiest, when those most in need are having benefits tightened still further.
Your last line is a social democratic or socialist argument. And so is the language.
You used to be a Conservative and argue in favour of welfare cuts.
I remember it well.
Whose welfare would you cut Casino?
The best welfare is a move into work, financially, emotionally and socially.
I have consistently argued for UC that supports a move into work, and I don't think it's the job of the state to pay for people to sit indefinitely at home when they could be doing something. Anything. The burden of taxation is too high and there are far more pressing things the state could and should invest in, from science, industry, education and defence.
Attitudes to disability - including mental health - have changed in a way that makes this more feasible than in the past so I think it should be kept under review.
The worst depression I experienced was whilst sitting at home being idle.
You cannot, should not, transpose how you felt onto everyone or indeed anyone else with mental health conditions. People vary.
For many people, pressuring them to return to work is the LAST thing they need. It should be an informed decision between patient and mental health practitioners not some servant of this wicked Conservative callous machine.
For some it will be the final straw to push them over the edge.
Presumably that would suit this Nasty Party. Force them into suicide then they don’t have to pay for their care, a word which once upon a time actually meant something to this now morally bankrupt and downright evil manifestation of conservatism.
In some nations like the US if you are unemployed and not back in work after 6 months you don't get any further benefits at all from that point (beyond food stamps if you have children).
The UK is pretty generous compared to some OECD nations in both providing non contributory unemployment benefits and not time limiting them. All that is being proposed is those who refuse job offers after 6 months lose benefits
People support the abolition of inheritance tax even if they are never going to pay it themselves. Its about fairness. Taxing the dead is absolutely unfair when you have paid taxes all your life. It will be difficult for Labour to overturn it. Its a sort if 45p tax trap like McDoom set.
Think of it as taxing those who get the inheritance, not those who left it. Obviously the dead person can't be taxed. They're dead.
Ok, so change the rules so the beneficiaries get taxed, rather than (as present) the estate.
Conceptually, that would be the simplest way of doing it: treat it as income and adjust income tax bands as necessary. But I doubt that would be popular either in reality as it'd shove most people getting an inheritance that year into the 45p band.
Labour should just oppose it and campaign on the personal benefits that Sunak and Hunt would themselves get.
I'm not, as a rule, in favour of that kind of ad hom targeting but I do think it'd be valid in this case because it demonstrates the gross unfairness of a massive tax bung to the wealthiest, when those most in need are having benefits tightened still further.
Your last line is a social democratic or socialist argument. And so is the language.
You used to be a Conservative and argue in favour of welfare cuts.
I remember it well.
Whose welfare would you cut Casino?
The best welfare is a move into work, financially, emotionally and socially.
I have consistently argued for UC that supports a move into work, and I don't think it's the job of the state to pay for people to sit indefinitely at home when they could be doing something. Anything. The burden of taxation is too high and there are far more pressing things the state could and should invest in, from science, industry, education and defence.
Attitudes to disability - including mental health - have changed in a way that makes this more feasible than in the past so I think it should be kept under review.
The worst depression I experienced was whilst sitting at home being idle.
You cannot, should not, transpose how you felt onto everyone or indeed anyone else with mental health conditions. People vary.
For many people, pressuring them to return to work is the LAST thing they need.
For some it will be the final straw to push them over the edge.
Presumably that would suit this Nasty Party. Force them into suicide then they don’t have to pay for their care, a word which once upon a time actually meant something to this now morally bankrupt and downright evil manifestation of conservatism.
Have you heard of projection? Its fine that you don't want a conservative government but I think you need to take a look at the bile you post about people. Do you ever consider that people may come to different opinions to you without being 'morally bankrupt and downright evil"?
I feel this one keenly for reasons that are very personal to me. My Conservative Party friend and I were discussing this earlier and she feels the exact same. She is just as angry about it as I.
So, no. It’s you who needs to get out more and start listening to the people who make up the majority of this country who are going to give the tories a kicking at the election, the like of which has never been seen.
Belatedly, the slow-ass mainstream media has finally noted what we noted days ago - Suella Braverman is weirdly popular on Twitter. Getting more views per tweet than Barack Obama
In contrast to PB, Palestine is generally crushing Israel in terms of social media 'popularity' too. Obviously the Gaza reality is the other way round.
I’ve noted before that the Israel pr machine is terrible, I can’t work out whether they are genuinely behind on this stuff or that it’s no one likes us, we don’t care. If the former I’d start with not sending out Regev to persuade the world of the righteousness of their cause.
State of this.
Perhaps feathers or massive "Medical Supplies" labels count as actual medical supplies in Gaza
Okay, here's my STOP THE BOATS theory. The majority of voters think this is a real priority, regardless of whether they support the Rwanda scheme or not. So far so good, However, it's now damaging the Tories in the polls. And the reason for this is that voters think there are lots of other priorities as well, but all they hear about from Sunak and others is 'stop the boats' - the PM even holds a special press conference about it. It's become an obsession, as if nothing else matters, at the expense of other priorities.
In conclusion: single issue parties aren't popular with the voters. The Tories need to broaden their repertoire, because folk are getting a bit fed up with the government wittering on about boats and nothing much else (apart from the occasional pothole interjection).
I don't disagree with any of this. But I'd also add that while stop the boats is a priority for voters, the Conservatives evidently aren't stopping the boats. They've ramped up the importance of one issue that they either have no intention of doing anything about or are terrible at doing so. People who want the boats stopped are increasingly bemused about why the Conservatives aren't doing so.
Yeah I agree with all that
I think some form of Rwanda is worth trying - and remember, WE HAVEN’T ACTUALLY TRIED IT YET - because deterrence might work. I see all the flaws with Rwanda but no one has any better idea. Which is why other countries are reaching a similar conclusion - Rwanda
However the government are so inept they have managed to get all the bad vibes of packing poor asylum seekers off to Kigali while all the time they’ve sent not one person to Kigali - thus infuriating both sides while doing nothing
It’s another example of Cookie’s Law. This government makes right wing noises but actually behaves more like an incompetent left wing government, ensuring the contempt of all
Cookie's Law is very real. My itchy conspiracy believing side is constantly telling me that it's intentional - Rishi and Hunt intend both to lose the election and marginalise the right for a generation. Of course I also realise that the two of them being utterly incompetent is as likely a reason.
Surely Rishi and Hunt and Cameron need to win to marginalise the right for a generation? If they lose the right will take back the Conservative party with a vengeance
Do you support Braverman wanting to withdraw us from all international law and put us alongside Russia and Belarus?
To be fair, I don't think she is suggesting we should withdraw from all international law - only the laws she wants to break.
People support the abolition of inheritance tax even if they are never going to pay it themselves. Its about fairness. Taxing the dead is absolutely unfair when you have paid taxes all your life. It will be difficult for Labour to overturn it. Its a sort if 45p tax trap like McDoom set.
Think of it as taxing those who get the inheritance, not those who left it. Obviously the dead person can't be taxed. They're dead.
The Dead are taxed. The tax is deducted from the estate of the deceased before assets are distributed. Its iniquitous.
Surely being taxed when you are dead is the best time to get taxed. Damn all use to me when I'm dead.
For those that inherit it is a wodge of unearned income so again best time to tax rather than on their earned income.
And any claim that it is a tax on taxed money is true, but then so are a lot of taxes eg Vat, stamp duty on a property, etc
Go back a to the start of the nation state and taxes had to be raised specifically each time by act of parliament. Over time innovations have crept in and we are where we are with income tax, national insurance (another income tax), VAT and all the other myriad taxes. There is no specific reason that an inheritance should be taxed other than that it can be. No-one would advocate taxing birthday presents.
The question of why should some benefit from large inheritances tax free is well why should it be taxed? Ultimately the state has a balance of raising income to meet expenditure.
I hope Man City get docked 50 points every year for the next 5 years.
But to go that far would mean addressing a whole load more sportswashing and corruption and that’s not going to happen. At least, not under the current Government.
And why stop at Man City? What of Newcastle?
There's issues up and down the pyramid - I'd add incompetence as a third horseman of footy finance apocalpyse, as well as potentially other active criminality, e.g. money laundering, insurance scams etc.
To be clear, I'm not talking about Forest, who are owned by someone who is DEFINITELY NOT an organised crime kingpin.
There's nothing new here, of course, but I'd honestly say that as cultural institutions (and football fandom being one of our greatest artefacts of intangible cultural heritages) they deserve a little more scrutiny, if not protection, than other businesses.
Nice to see Suella Braverman's strategy being called out for the fascist and unConservative bollocks it is.
Damian Green. lol
Is he wrong?
Your inner fascist is poking out
Parliament must be sovereign, in the end. If you consider that fascism then fuck knows how you’d cope with actual, you know, fascism
You’re just petulantly upset that Sunak’s stupid reshuffle turned out to be a disaster - as predicted by some on here, at the time
The courts exist as a check on the executive
In our system the executive mainly controls the legislature/
Giving the executive the power to overrule the courts would make them the untrammelled source of power in the country
Sir Thomas More’s warning comes to mind
Indeed. The prospect of politicians, elected or otherwise, being able to just 'do what they want' is not appealing. Esp populist politicians like Braverman.
Step Two When a complaint can’t be resolved quickly or you aren’t happy with the initial resolution our Customer Relations team are here to help you. This is a dedicated team who will carry out an independent review for you and they act with full authority of our Chief Executive.
We’ll contact you to tell you who will own your complaint and how long you can expect to wait for a decision. We will write to you with our view within eight weeks from the date you first complained – this is known as a ‘final decision’ letter.
The email address is CustomerRelationsExec@esure.com or you can write to;
Customer Relations esure The Equinox 19 Cadogan Street Glasgow G2 6QQ
@Cookie try emailing david.mcmillan@esure.com He is the CEO.
Okay, here's my STOP THE BOATS theory. The majority of voters think this is a real priority, regardless of whether they support the Rwanda scheme or not. So far so good, However, it's now damaging the Tories in the polls. And the reason for this is that voters think there are lots of other priorities as well, but all they hear about from Sunak and others is 'stop the boats' - the PM even holds a special press conference about it. It's become an obsession, as if nothing else matters, at the expense of other priorities.
In conclusion: single issue parties aren't popular with the voters. The Tories need to broaden their repertoire, because folk are getting a bit fed up with the government wittering on about boats and nothing much else (apart from the occasional pothole interjection).
I don't disagree with any of this. But I'd also add that while stop the boats is a priority for voters, the Conservatives evidently aren't stopping the boats. They've ramped up the importance of one issue that they either have no intention of doing anything about or are terrible at doing so. People who want the boats stopped are increasingly bemused about why the Conservatives aren't doing so.
Yeah I agree with all that
I think some form of Rwanda is worth trying - and remember, WE HAVEN’T ACTUALLY TRIED IT YET - because deterrence might work. I see all the flaws with Rwanda but no one has any better idea. Which is why other countries are reaching a similar conclusion - Rwanda
However the government are so inept they have managed to get all the bad vibes of packing poor asylum seekers off to Kigali while all the time they’ve sent not one person to Kigali - thus infuriating both sides while doing nothing
It’s another example of Cookie’s Law. This government makes right wing noises but actually behaves more like an incompetent left wing government, ensuring the contempt of all
Cookie's Law is very real. My itchy conspiracy believing side is constantly telling me that it's intentional - Rishi and Hunt intend both to lose the election and marginalise the right for a generation. Of course I also realise that the two of them being utterly incompetent is as likely a reason.
Surely Rishi and Hunt and Cameron need to win to marginalise the right for a generation? If they lose the right will take back the Conservative party with a vengeance
Do you support Braverman wanting to withdraw us from all international law and put us alongside Russia and Belarus?
I can state unequivocally that is not acceptable for our Country in any circumstances and is shameful
Braverman and others need to join Reform UK or even the BNP
No but 28% of voters do (more than the 19-22% still backing the Tories on latest polls), as do 54% of Conservative voters and 55% of Leave voters and 49% of voters over 65
People support the abolition of inheritance tax even if they are never going to pay it themselves. Its about fairness. Taxing the dead is absolutely unfair when you have paid taxes all your life. It will be difficult for Labour to overturn it. Its a sort if 45p tax trap like McDoom set.
Think of it as taxing those who get the inheritance, not those who left it. Obviously the dead person can't be taxed. They're dead.
Ok, so change the rules so the beneficiaries get taxed, rather than (as present) the estate.
Conceptually, that would be the simplest way of doing it: treat it as income and adjust income tax bands as necessary. But I doubt that would be popular either in reality as it'd shove most people getting an inheritance that year into the 45p band.
Labour should just oppose it and campaign on the personal benefits that Sunak and Hunt would themselves get.
I'm not, as a rule, in favour of that kind of ad hom targeting but I do think it'd be valid in this case because it demonstrates the gross unfairness of a massive tax bung to the wealthiest, when those most in need are having benefits tightened still further.
Your last line is a social democratic or socialist argument. And so is the language.
You used to be a Conservative and argue in favour of welfare cuts.
I remember it well.
Whose welfare would you cut Casino?
The best welfare is a move into work, financially, emotionally and socially.
I have consistently argued for UC that supports a move into work, and I don't think it's the job of the state to pay for people to sit indefinitely at home when they could be doing something. Anything. The burden of taxation is too high and there are far more pressing things the state could and should invest in, from science, industry, education and defence.
Attitudes to disability - including mental health - have changed in a way that makes this more feasible than in the past so I think it should be kept under review.
The worst depression I experienced was whilst sitting at home being idle.
You cannot, should not, transpose how you felt onto everyone or indeed anyone else with mental health conditions. People vary.
For many people, pressuring them to return to work is the LAST thing they need.
For some it will be the final straw to push them over the edge.
Presumably that would suit this Nasty Party. Force them into suicide then they don’t have to pay for their care, a word which once upon a time actually meant something to this now morally bankrupt and downright evil manifestation of conservatism.
Have you heard of projection? Its fine that you don't want a conservative government but I think you need to take a look at the bile you post about people. Do you ever consider that people may come to different opinions to you without being 'morally bankrupt and downright evil"?
I feel this one keenly for reasons that are very personal to me. My Conservative Party friend and I were discussing this earlier and she feels the exact same. She is just as angry about it as I.
So, no. It’s you who needs to get out more and start listening to the people who make up the majority of this country who are going to give the tories a kicking at the election, the like of which has never been seen.
Don’t believe me? Let’s see who is proved right.
You don't seem to talk to people who disagree with you.
Belatedly, the slow-ass mainstream media has finally noted what we noted days ago - Suella Braverman is weirdly popular on Twitter. Getting more views per tweet than Barack Obama
In contrast to PB, Palestine is generally crushing Israel in terms of social media 'popularity' too. Obviously the Gaza reality is the other way round.
I’ve noted before that the Israel pr machine is terrible, I can’t work out whether they are genuinely behind on this stuff or that it’s no one likes us, we don’t care. If the former I’d start with not sending out Regev to persuade the world of the righteousness of their cause.
It's interesting because they used to be good at this, sending plausible English-accented spokespeople to speak on the Today programme, etc. The quality has really dropped off. I suspect it's related to the internal political divisions they've faced, where I imagine a lot of the sensible people have been purged, a la Brexit. They're current messaging has been nuts, eg Netanyahu saying they had to flatten Gaza to stop Palestinian kids being taught to hate Israel, as though flattening Gaza wouldn't make them hate Israel more effectively than any Hamas school textbook could. At the end of this Israel risks looking very isolated, presumably that's why Biden is trying to rein them in - he has the benefit of distance plus a deep understanding of foreign affairs.
The Israelis haven't had decent PR at any point in my lifetime (at least the last couple decades). I actually thought they were doing a lot better this time round, with a focus on personal stories around the hostages and those murdered on 7 October, but it has made absolutely no difference. Pointing out the various hypocrisies of various so-called liberals - LGBT activists supporting homophobes, women's rights activists silent on the use of rape as a weapon of war, immigrant groups in Western countries aggressively shouting the odds about "colonisers" - has been amusing, but obviously was never really going to move the dial.
I agree Netanyahu's messaging is generally poor, but there are some signs that the strategy - make Gazans fear Israel more than they fear Hamas, and hate Hamas more than they hate Israel - is starting to work.
People support the abolition of inheritance tax even if they are never going to pay it themselves. Its about fairness. Taxing the dead is absolutely unfair when you have paid taxes all your life. It will be difficult for Labour to overturn it. Its a sort if 45p tax trap like McDoom set.
Periodic reminder that inheritance tax taxes the living on unearned income. The dead, being dead, do not pay. The living, in most cases, already do not pay due to the exemptions and the loopholes for those inclined to find them.
As it stands,* I'll land a substantial inheritance one day due to my good judgement in having parents with a house in the south east (I haven't looked into it, but I suspect we'll actually not be charged due to the exemptions) but I really don't see why I should be handed a few £100k tax free that I have done nothing to deserve, while I get taxed etc on the money I work for.
*my parents are, unfortunately, loathe to spend money, despite having pretty comfortable pensions - getting them to even shell out for useful modifications to their home as they're getting old or paying for more than the cheapest care services is hard. It may all go on care home costs, of course, which is also fine with me (I just hope they use the money to have the best possible final years).
Yes, I agree. And squareroot's point reminds me of the third reason I can't get too excited about the proposed cut in inheritance tax - despite, as I said, it being worth about nine years' net wages to me - I simply don't believe it wouldn't be immediately reversed. It'll be of any use only to those few unlucky people whose parents die in the short period between the cut and Labour getting around to reversing it.
All taxes are unfair in some way. But we need to raise money somehow. Inheritance tax strikes me as less iniquitous than most.
I’m at the other end of the argument. It can’t, surely, be many years now before my heirs and assigns have the bother of clearing up my, and my wife’s, affairs, notifying everyone who matters (including, in my case pb) and clearing out the house for sale. And when they do sell it, unless something very spectacular has has happened to the property market, it will sell for a great deal more than we paid for it. A rise which we have done nothing to deserve. What we have given our children is a good education, which has enabled them to earn a good living themselves, and, I hope, a moral code which results in them treating those around them with respect. Why, then, should they benefit from an increase in the value of something to which neither we nor they have contributed?
To enable a more prosperous future for your grand and great? grandchildren. Life is difficult enough as it is, I will not begrudge anyone who benefits from inheritance. What will the Gov't do with the money anyway ? Spaff it on cancellation costs for a HS2 contractual supplier ?
My view is that it's better for people to have money when they start working, rather than having to wait 30 years for their relatives to drop off, before gaining a windfall.
I am going to inherit a lot, over the next ten years, in all likelihood, but at the age of 56, it's of limited use.
That's why it's better to put the available sums into the pockets of workers.
It's no wonder young people aren't voting Conservative.
If you look at 1979, when Margaret Thatcher won over young people, it's because she was absolutely on their side of getting on against the stultifying practices of ideological councils and trade unions.
Because of the rise in inflation, fiscal drag means the government is taking far more income tax than was anticipated in 2021, when the rate freeze was announced. By far the best thing the government could do would be to raise the personal allowance and higher rate threshold by 10-15% each. And, that would be unlikely to be reversed by an incoming Labour government.
Even getting a few thousand extra a year however in income would not ultimately match getting a house worth £350-£700k IHT tax free (and most homes south of Watford are within that band)
Why would one wish to wait thirty years to hit the jackpot when a rich relative dies, rather than earn this money in one's 20's, 30's, and 40's.
People support the abolition of inheritance tax even if they are never going to pay it themselves. Its about fairness. Taxing the dead is absolutely unfair when you have paid taxes all your life. It will be difficult for Labour to overturn it. Its a sort if 45p tax trap like McDoom set.
Think of it as taxing those who get the inheritance, not those who left it. Obviously the dead person can't be taxed. They're dead.
Ok, so change the rules so the beneficiaries get taxed, rather than (as present) the estate.
Conceptually, that would be the simplest way of doing it: treat it as income and adjust income tax bands as necessary. But I doubt that would be popular either in reality as it'd shove most people getting an inheritance that year into the 45p band.
Labour should just oppose it and campaign on the personal benefits that Sunak and Hunt would themselves get.
I'm not, as a rule, in favour of that kind of ad hom targeting but I do think it'd be valid in this case because it demonstrates the gross unfairness of a massive tax bung to the wealthiest, when those most in need are having benefits tightened still further.
Your last line is a social democratic or socialist argument. And so is the language.
You used to be a Conservative and argue in favour of welfare cuts.
I remember it well.
Whose welfare would you cut Casino?
The best welfare is a move into work, financially, emotionally and socially.
I have consistently argued for UC that supports a move into work, and I don't think it's the job of the state to pay for people to sit indefinitely at home when they could be doing something. Anything. The burden of taxation is too high and there are far more pressing things the state could and should invest in, from science, industry, education and defence.
Attitudes to disability - including mental health - have changed in a way that makes this more feasible than in the past so I think it should be kept under review.
The worst depression I experienced was whilst sitting at home being idle.
You cannot, should not, transpose how you felt onto everyone or indeed anyone else with mental health conditions. People vary.
For many people, pressuring them to return to work is the LAST thing they need.
For some it will be the final straw to push them over the edge.
Presumably that would suit this Nasty Party. Force them into suicide then they don’t have to pay for their care, a word which once upon a time actually meant something to this now morally bankrupt and downright evil manifestation of conservatism.
Have you heard of projection? Its fine that you don't want a conservative government but I think you need to take a look at the bile you post about people. Do you ever consider that people may come to different opinions to you without being 'morally bankrupt and downright evil"?
I feel this one keenly for reasons that are very personal to me. My Conservative Party friend and I were discussing this earlier and she feels the exact same. She is just as angry about it as I.
So, no. It’s you who needs to get out more and start listening to the people who make up the majority of this country who are going to give the tories a kicking at the election, the like of which has never been seen.
Don’t believe me? Let’s see who is proved right.
I believe the tories are heading for a disasterous election, I just don't believe that they are 'morally bankrupt' and 'downright evil'. At heart most MP's are trying to do their best.
The election is lost for a number of reasons, not least the cost of living crisis which is a result of paying for covid and the Ukrananian war caused energy shock. Whichever government was in power when that hit would be paying the price electorally. Add in 13 years in power leading to a tired party and a decent opposition.
But please tone down the bile. Otherwise I'll picture you in your 'never kissed a Tory' T-shirt banging on about 'Tory scum'.
Step Two When a complaint can’t be resolved quickly or you aren’t happy with the initial resolution our Customer Relations team are here to help you. This is a dedicated team who will carry out an independent review for you and they act with full authority of our Chief Executive.
We’ll contact you to tell you who will own your complaint and how long you can expect to wait for a decision. We will write to you with our view within eight weeks from the date you first complained – this is known as a ‘final decision’ letter.
The email address is CustomerRelationsExec@esure.com or you can write to;
Customer Relations esure The Equinox 19 Cadogan Street Glasgow G2 6QQ
@Cookie try emailing david.mcmillan@esure.com He is the CEO.
People support the abolition of inheritance tax even if they are never going to pay it themselves. Its about fairness. Taxing the dead is absolutely unfair when you have paid taxes all your life. It will be difficult for Labour to overturn it. Its a sort if 45p tax trap like McDoom set.
Periodic reminder that inheritance tax taxes the living on unearned income. The dead, being dead, do not pay. The living, in most cases, already do not pay due to the exemptions and the loopholes for those inclined to find them.
As it stands,* I'll land a substantial inheritance one day due to my good judgement in having parents with a house in the south east (I haven't looked into it, but I suspect we'll actually not be charged due to the exemptions) but I really don't see why I should be handed a few £100k tax free that I have done nothing to deserve, while I get taxed etc on the money I work for.
*my parents are, unfortunately, loathe to spend money, despite having pretty comfortable pensions - getting them to even shell out for useful modifications to their home as they're getting old or paying for more than the cheapest care services is hard. It may all go on care home costs, of course, which is also fine with me (I just hope they use the money to have the best possible final years).
Yes, I agree. And squareroot's point reminds me of the third reason I can't get too excited about the proposed cut in inheritance tax - despite, as I said, it being worth about nine years' net wages to me - I simply don't believe it wouldn't be immediately reversed. It'll be of any use only to those few unlucky people whose parents die in the short period between the cut and Labour getting around to reversing it.
All taxes are unfair in some way. But we need to raise money somehow. Inheritance tax strikes me as less iniquitous than most.
I’m at the other end of the argument. It can’t, surely, be many years now before my heirs and assigns have the bother of clearing up my, and my wife’s, affairs, notifying everyone who matters (including, in my case pb) and clearing out the house for sale. And when they do sell it, unless something very spectacular has has happened to the property market, it will sell for a great deal more than we paid for it. A rise which we have done nothing to deserve. What we have given our children is a good education, which has enabled them to earn a good living themselves, and, I hope, a moral code which results in them treating those around them with respect. Why, then, should they benefit from an increase in the value of something to which neither we nor they have contributed?
To enable a more prosperous future for your grand and great? grandchildren. Life is difficult enough as it is, I will not begrudge anyone who benefits from inheritance. What will the Gov't do with the money anyway ? Spaff it on cancellation costs for a HS2 contractual supplier ?
My view is that it's better for people to have money when they start working, rather than having to wait 30 years for their relatives to drop off, before gaining a windfall.
I am going to inherit a lot, over the next ten years, in all likelihood, but at the age of 56, it's of limited use.
That's why it's better to put the available sums into the pockets of workers.
It's no wonder young people aren't voting Conservative.
If you look at 1979, when Margaret Thatcher won over young people, it's because she was absolutely on their side of getting on against the stultifying practices of ideological councils and trade unions.
Because of the rise in inflation, fiscal drag means the government is taking far more income tax than was anticipated in 2021, when the rate freeze was announced. By far the best thing the government could do would be to raise the personal allowance and higher rate threshold by 10-15% each. And, that would be unlikely to be reversed by an incoming Labour government.
Even getting a few thousand extra a year however in income would not ultimately match getting a house worth £350-£700k IHT tax free (and most homes south of Watford are within that band)
Why would one wish to wait thirty years to hit the jackpot when a rich relative dies, rather than earn this money in one's 20's, 30's, and 40's.
As if you used a calculator you would work out it would make you richer in the longer term, assuming you weren't run over by a bus beforehand and house prices didn't collapse completely to inherit say a £500k house from your parents IHT free in a few decades (or much earlier if you get a big inheritance from a grandparent) even if you have to pay a bit more in income tax and NI on your earnings now
Step Two When a complaint can’t be resolved quickly or you aren’t happy with the initial resolution our Customer Relations team are here to help you. This is a dedicated team who will carry out an independent review for you and they act with full authority of our Chief Executive.
We’ll contact you to tell you who will own your complaint and how long you can expect to wait for a decision. We will write to you with our view within eight weeks from the date you first complained – this is known as a ‘final decision’ letter.
The email address is CustomerRelationsExec@esure.com or you can write to;
Customer Relations esure The Equinox 19 Cadogan Street Glasgow G2 6QQ
@Cookie try emailing david.mcmillan@esure.com He is the CEO.
Okay, here's my STOP THE BOATS theory. The majority of voters think this is a real priority, regardless of whether they support the Rwanda scheme or not. So far so good, However, it's now damaging the Tories in the polls. And the reason for this is that voters think there are lots of other priorities as well, but all they hear about from Sunak and others is 'stop the boats' - the PM even holds a special press conference about it. It's become an obsession, as if nothing else matters, at the expense of other priorities.
In conclusion: single issue parties aren't popular with the voters. The Tories need to broaden their repertoire, because folk are getting a bit fed up with the government wittering on about boats and nothing much else (apart from the occasional pothole interjection).
I don't disagree with any of this. But I'd also add that while stop the boats is a priority for voters, the Conservatives evidently aren't stopping the boats. They've ramped up the importance of one issue that they either have no intention of doing anything about or are terrible at doing so. People who want the boats stopped are increasingly bemused about why the Conservatives aren't doing so.
Yeah I agree with all that
I think some form of Rwanda is worth trying - and remember, WE HAVEN’T ACTUALLY TRIED IT YET - because deterrence might work. I see all the flaws with Rwanda but no one has any better idea. Which is why other countries are reaching a similar conclusion - Rwanda
However the government are so inept they have managed to get all the bad vibes of packing poor asylum seekers off to Kigali while all the time they’ve sent not one person to Kigali - thus infuriating both sides while doing nothing
It’s another example of Cookie’s Law. This government makes right wing noises but actually behaves more like an incompetent left wing government, ensuring the contempt of all
Cookie's Law is very real. My itchy conspiracy believing side is constantly telling me that it's intentional - Rishi and Hunt intend both to lose the election and marginalise the right for a generation. Of course I also realise that the two of them being utterly incompetent is as likely a reason.
Surely Rishi and Hunt and Cameron need to win to marginalise the right for a generation? If they lose the right will take back the Conservative party with a vengeance
Do you support Braverman wanting to withdraw us from all international law and put us alongside Russia and Belarus?
I can state unequivocally that is not acceptable for our Country in any circumstances and is shameful
Braverman and others need to join Reform UK or even the BNP
I don't see international law as holy writ. Ultimately, salus populi suprema lex.
I just don't see the half-baked Rwanda scheme as any sort of hill to die upon.
People support the abolition of inheritance tax even if they are never going to pay it themselves. Its about fairness. Taxing the dead is absolutely unfair when you have paid taxes all your life. It will be difficult for Labour to overturn it. Its a sort if 45p tax trap like McDoom set.
Periodic reminder that inheritance tax taxes the living on unearned income. The dead, being dead, do not pay. The living, in most cases, already do not pay due to the exemptions and the loopholes for those inclined to find them.
As it stands,* I'll land a substantial inheritance one day due to my good judgement in having parents with a house in the south east (I haven't looked into it, but I suspect we'll actually not be charged due to the exemptions) but I really don't see why I should be handed a few £100k tax free that I have done nothing to deserve, while I get taxed etc on the money I work for.
*my parents are, unfortunately, loathe to spend money, despite having pretty comfortable pensions - getting them to even shell out for useful modifications to their home as they're getting old or paying for more than the cheapest care services is hard. It may all go on care home costs, of course, which is also fine with me (I just hope they use the money to have the best possible final years).
Yes, I agree. And squareroot's point reminds me of the third reason I can't get too excited about the proposed cut in inheritance tax - despite, as I said, it being worth about nine years' net wages to me - I simply don't believe it wouldn't be immediately reversed. It'll be of any use only to those few unlucky people whose parents die in the short period between the cut and Labour getting around to reversing it.
All taxes are unfair in some way. But we need to raise money somehow. Inheritance tax strikes me as less iniquitous than most.
I’m at the other end of the argument. It can’t, surely, be many years now before my heirs and assigns have the bother of clearing up my, and my wife’s, affairs, notifying everyone who matters (including, in my case pb) and clearing out the house for sale. And when they do sell it, unless something very spectacular has has happened to the property market, it will sell for a great deal more than we paid for it. A rise which we have done nothing to deserve. What we have given our children is a good education, which has enabled them to earn a good living themselves, and, I hope, a moral code which results in them treating those around them with respect. Why, then, should they benefit from an increase in the value of something to which neither we nor they have contributed?
Just get a Trust before Labour stop that too. I am sick of paying taxes to Govts who piss it up against the wall. The bastards wont be getting any of my moneyon death, that's for sure.
Okay, here's my STOP THE BOATS theory. The majority of voters think this is a real priority, regardless of whether they support the Rwanda scheme or not. So far so good, However, it's now damaging the Tories in the polls. And the reason for this is that voters think there are lots of other priorities as well, but all they hear about from Sunak and others is 'stop the boats' - the PM even holds a special press conference about it. It's become an obsession, as if nothing else matters, at the expense of other priorities.
In conclusion: single issue parties aren't popular with the voters. The Tories need to broaden their repertoire, because folk are getting a bit fed up with the government wittering on about boats and nothing much else (apart from the occasional pothole interjection).
I don't disagree with any of this. But I'd also add that while stop the boats is a priority for voters, the Conservatives evidently aren't stopping the boats. They've ramped up the importance of one issue that they either have no intention of doing anything about or are terrible at doing so. People who want the boats stopped are increasingly bemused about why the Conservatives aren't doing so.
Yeah I agree with all that
I think some form of Rwanda is worth trying - and remember, WE HAVEN’T ACTUALLY TRIED IT YET - because deterrence might work. I see all the flaws with Rwanda but no one has any better idea. Which is why other countries are reaching a similar conclusion - Rwanda
However the government are so inept they have managed to get all the bad vibes of packing poor asylum seekers off to Kigali while all the time they’ve sent not one person to Kigali - thus infuriating both sides while doing nothing
It’s another example of Cookie’s Law. This government makes right wing noises but actually behaves more like an incompetent left wing government, ensuring the contempt of all
Cookie's Law is very real. My itchy conspiracy believing side is constantly telling me that it's intentional - Rishi and Hunt intend both to lose the election and marginalise the right for a generation. Of course I also realise that the two of them being utterly incompetent is as likely a reason.
Surely Rishi and Hunt and Cameron need to win to marginalise the right for a generation? If they lose the right will take back the Conservative party with a vengeance
Do you support Braverman wanting to withdraw us from all international law and put us alongside Russia and Belarus?
I can state unequivocally that is not acceptable for our Country in any circumstances and is shameful
Braverman and others need to join Reform UK or even the BNP
No but 28% of voters do (more than the 19-22% still backing the Tories on latest polls), as do 54% of Conservative voters and 55% of Leave voters and 49% of voters over 65
That poll is the ECHR which a clear majority do not want to leave, but if you had listened to the judgment it is not just the ECHR but other international treaties that Braverman also wants to disregard placing us alongside Russia and Belarus
You very definitely lean to the right and the nuance of your posts is that is where your sympathises are
Fortunately, there are a majority of current conservatives mps who reject Braverman and her nasty ill conceived ideas and, of course, more importantly the public who are understandbly looking at the riven and torn conservative party and saying 'no thanks' despite the bland Starmer who really has few answers other than he and labour are all that is left
Nice to see Suella Braverman's strategy being called out for the fascist and unConservative bollocks it is.
Damian Green. lol
Is he wrong?
Your inner fascist is poking out
Parliament must be sovereign, in the end. If you consider that fascism then fuck knows how you’d cope with actual, you know, fascism
You’re just petulantly upset that Sunak’s stupid reshuffle turned out to be a disaster - as predicted by some on here, at the time
If you don't realise that politicians demanding that they be allowed to do what the hell they like regardless of the law, without any restraints on their power, without any ability of the citizen to hold them to account is precisely the road to tyranny, it is you being petulant and ignorant. Braverman's second demand in that Telegraph article is the most dangerous, unconservative and frankly astonishing thing for a lawyer and former A-G to say.
It is the frustrated wail of a toddler screaming "I want, I must get".
Sovereigns must be subject to the rule of law, in the end. That is what the Civil War was about. It is what much of British politics has been about since then. If the Tory party fails to understand this in order to placate the frustrations and ego of a second-rate lawyer turned third-rate politician with no competence, ability or achievements to her name then it deserves to be - and I hope will be - obliterated.
Oh give over. I'm not a toddler, I do understand the Separation of Powers. Executive, Judiciary. Legislature. I've read my Montesquieu (or at least the relevant bits in English)
However, the ability to protect a nation's borders and stop unwanted people coming in is fundamental to a government, it is the job of the elected Executive to decide this, the elected Legislature to enact this, and the apppointed Judiciary to police but not obstruct. Stopping the government protecting the borders via legal constraints is like the Supreme Court deciding an elected government and parliament does not have the power to declare war because the ECHR doesn't like it. Would you approve of that?
It seems to me we have a judiciary which is overly political, overly pro-active, and overly obeisant to endless international laws some of which it seems to conjure out of thin air
Braverman is right. Overrule the judges
Our executive is not elected. It is appointed by the sovereign. By convention the sovereign appoints members of the elected House of Commons to lead the executive on his behalf but, as you have pointed out just this week, the sovereign can and does also appoint unelected peers to the executive. So what you are actually saying is that the appointed executive should not be obstructed by the unelected judiciary.
You got an example of the judiciary conjuring a law out of thin air? I'd be fascinated to read that.
Technically, is not the judiciary also appointed by the Sovereign, on advice from their appointed Lord Chancellor (on the advice of a Judicial Committee, I believe)?
People support the abolition of inheritance tax even if they are never going to pay it themselves. Its about fairness. Taxing the dead is absolutely unfair when you have paid taxes all your life. It will be difficult for Labour to overturn it. Its a sort if 45p tax trap like McDoom set.
Periodic reminder that inheritance tax taxes the living on unearned income. The dead, being dead, do not pay. The living, in most cases, already do not pay due to the exemptions and the loopholes for those inclined to find them.
As it stands,* I'll land a substantial inheritance one day due to my good judgement in having parents with a house in the south east (I haven't looked into it, but I suspect we'll actually not be charged due to the exemptions) but I really don't see why I should be handed a few £100k tax free that I have done nothing to deserve, while I get taxed etc on the money I work for.
*my parents are, unfortunately, loathe to spend money, despite having pretty comfortable pensions - getting them to even shell out for useful modifications to their home as they're getting old or paying for more than the cheapest care services is hard. It may all go on care home costs, of course, which is also fine with me (I just hope they use the money to have the best possible final years).
Yes, I agree. And squareroot's point reminds me of the third reason I can't get too excited about the proposed cut in inheritance tax - despite, as I said, it being worth about nine years' net wages to me - I simply don't believe it wouldn't be immediately reversed. It'll be of any use only to those few unlucky people whose parents die in the short period between the cut and Labour getting around to reversing it.
All taxes are unfair in some way. But we need to raise money somehow. Inheritance tax strikes me as less iniquitous than most.
I’m at the other end of the argument. It can’t, surely, be many years now before my heirs and assigns have the bother of clearing up my, and my wife’s, affairs, notifying everyone who matters (including, in my case pb) and clearing out the house for sale. And when they do sell it, unless something very spectacular has has happened to the property market, it will sell for a great deal more than we paid for it. A rise which we have done nothing to deserve. What we have given our children is a good education, which has enabled them to earn a good living themselves, and, I hope, a moral code which results in them treating those around them with respect. Why, then, should they benefit from an increase in the value of something to which neither we nor they have contributed?
To enable a more prosperous future for your grand and great? grandchildren. Life is difficult enough as it is, I will not begrudge anyone who benefits from inheritance. What will the Gov't do with the money anyway ? Spaff it on cancellation costs for a HS2 contractual supplier ?
My view is that it's better for people to have money when they start working, rather than having to wait 30 years for their relatives to drop off, before gaining a windfall.
I am going to inherit a lot, over the next ten years, in all likelihood, but at the age of 56, it's of limited use.
That's why it's better to put the available sums into the pockets of workers.
It's no wonder young people aren't voting Conservative.
If you look at 1979, when Margaret Thatcher won over young people, it's because she was absolutely on their side of getting on against the stultifying practices of ideological councils and trade unions.
Because of the rise in inflation, fiscal drag means the government is taking far more income tax than was anticipated in 2021, when the rate freeze was announced. By far the best thing the government could do would be to raise the personal allowance and higher rate threshold by 10-15% each. And, that would be unlikely to be reversed by an incoming Labour government.
Even getting a few thousand extra a year however in income would not ultimately match getting a house worth £350-£700k IHT tax free (and most homes south of Watford are within that band)
Why would one wish to wait thirty years to hit the jackpot when a rich relative dies, rather than earn this money in one's 20's, 30's, and 40's.
As if you used a calculator you would work out it would make you richer in the longer term, assuming you weren't run over by a bus beforehand and house prices didn't collapse completely to inherit say a £500k house from your parents IHT free in a few decades (or much earlier if you get a big inheritance from a grandparent) even if you have to pay a bit more in income tax and NI on your earnings now
It's pretty cold comfort to inherit a lot, as one approaches retirement, rather than to have money when it is of most to you.
And, about 50% of people will never inherit anything of significance. It is far better to motivate people to work hard, rather than turn them into drones waiting for a windfall.
People support the abolition of inheritance tax even if they are never going to pay it themselves. Its about fairness. Taxing the dead is absolutely unfair when you have paid taxes all your life. It will be difficult for Labour to overturn it. Its a sort if 45p tax trap like McDoom set.
Think of it as taxing those who get the inheritance, not those who left it. Obviously the dead person can't be taxed. They're dead.
People support the abolition of inheritance tax even if they are never going to pay it themselves. Its about fairness. Taxing the dead is absolutely unfair when you have paid taxes all your life. It will be difficult for Labour to overturn it. Its a sort if 45p tax trap like McDoom set.
Think of it as taxing those who get the inheritance, not those who left it. Obviously the dead person can't be taxed. They're dead.
Ok, so change the rules so the beneficiaries get taxed, rather than (as present) the estate.
Conceptually, that would be the simplest way of doing it: treat it as income and adjust income tax bands as necessary. But I doubt that would be popular either in reality as it'd shove most people getting an inheritance that year into the 45p band.
Labour should just oppose it and campaign on the personal benefits that Sunak and Hunt would themselves get.
I'm not, as a rule, in favour of that kind of ad hom targeting but I do think it'd be valid in this case because it demonstrates the gross unfairness of a massive tax bung to the wealthiest, when those most in need are having benefits tightened still further.
The main problem with inheritance tax is that it seems to be a doddle for people like the Sunak's to avoid. Nobody expects their estate to pay 40% tax on their wealth of however many billions it is.
If you really want a tax of 40% per generation on all assets then it might be easier to do that a little bit at a time every year, rather than all in one go on whatever escapes the inheritance tax planning loopholes.
Average age of a mother at birth of first child is around 30 years, so an annual asset taxation rate of ~1.3% would raise as much as inheritance tax would do (without the loopholes). Is that more or less unfair as a tax?
People support the abolition of inheritance tax even if they are never going to pay it themselves. Its about fairness. Taxing the dead is absolutely unfair when you have paid taxes all your life. It will be difficult for Labour to overturn it. Its a sort if 45p tax trap like McDoom set.
Periodic reminder that inheritance tax taxes the living on unearned income. The dead, being dead, do not pay. The living, in most cases, already do not pay due to the exemptions and the loopholes for those inclined to find them.
As it stands,* I'll land a substantial inheritance one day due to my good judgement in having parents with a house in the south east (I haven't looked into it, but I suspect we'll actually not be charged due to the exemptions) but I really don't see why I should be handed a few £100k tax free that I have done nothing to deserve, while I get taxed etc on the money I work for.
*my parents are, unfortunately, loathe to spend money, despite having pretty comfortable pensions - getting them to even shell out for useful modifications to their home as they're getting old or paying for more than the cheapest care services is hard. It may all go on care home costs, of course, which is also fine with me (I just hope they use the money to have the best possible final years).
Yes, I agree. And squareroot's point reminds me of the third reason I can't get too excited about the proposed cut in inheritance tax - despite, as I said, it being worth about nine years' net wages to me - I simply don't believe it wouldn't be immediately reversed. It'll be of any use only to those few unlucky people whose parents die in the short period between the cut and Labour getting around to reversing it.
All taxes are unfair in some way. But we need to raise money somehow. Inheritance tax strikes me as less iniquitous than most.
I’m at the other end of the argument. It can’t, surely, be many years now before my heirs and assigns have the bother of clearing up my, and my wife’s, affairs, notifying everyone who matters (including, in my case pb) and clearing out the house for sale. And when they do sell it, unless something very spectacular has has happened to the property market, it will sell for a great deal more than we paid for it. A rise which we have done nothing to deserve. What we have given our children is a good education, which has enabled them to earn a good living themselves, and, I hope, a moral code which results in them treating those around them with respect. Why, then, should they benefit from an increase in the value of something to which neither we nor they have contributed?
To enable a more prosperous future for your grand and great? grandchildren. Life is difficult enough as it is, I will not begrudge anyone who benefits from inheritance. What will the Gov't do with the money anyway ? Spaff it on cancellation costs for a HS2 contractual supplier ?
My view is that it's better for people to have money when they start working, rather than having to wait 30 years for their relatives to drop off, before gaining a windfall.
I am going to inherit a lot, over the next ten years, in all likelihood, but at the age of 56, it's of limited use.
That's why it's better to put the available sums into the pockets of workers.
It's no wonder young people aren't voting Conservative.
If you look at 1979, when Margaret Thatcher won over young people, it's because she was absolutely on their side of getting on against the stultifying practices of ideological councils and trade unions.
Because of the rise in inflation, fiscal drag means the government is taking far more income tax than was anticipated in 2021, when the rate freeze was announced. By far the best thing the government could do would be to raise the personal allowance and higher rate threshold by 10-15% each. And, that would be unlikely to be reversed by an incoming Labour government.
Instead, Rishi and Jez have chosen to extend the threshold freeze. That feels incredibly revealing, and not in a good way.
Okay, here's my STOP THE BOATS theory. The majority of voters think this is a real priority, regardless of whether they support the Rwanda scheme or not. So far so good, However, it's now damaging the Tories in the polls. And the reason for this is that voters think there are lots of other priorities as well, but all they hear about from Sunak and others is 'stop the boats' - the PM even holds a special press conference about it. It's become an obsession, as if nothing else matters, at the expense of other priorities.
In conclusion: single issue parties aren't popular with the voters. The Tories need to broaden their repertoire, because folk are getting a bit fed up with the government wittering on about boats and nothing much else (apart from the occasional pothole interjection).
I don't disagree with any of this. But I'd also add that while stop the boats is a priority for voters, the Conservatives evidently aren't stopping the boats. They've ramped up the importance of one issue that they either have no intention of doing anything about or are terrible at doing so. People who want the boats stopped are increasingly bemused about why the Conservatives aren't doing so.
Yeah I agree with all that
I think some form of Rwanda is worth trying - and remember, WE HAVEN’T ACTUALLY TRIED IT YET - because deterrence might work. I see all the flaws with Rwanda but no one has any better idea. Which is why other countries are reaching a similar conclusion - Rwanda
However the government are so inept they have managed to get all the bad vibes of packing poor asylum seekers off to Kigali while all the time they’ve sent not one person to Kigali - thus infuriating both sides while doing nothing
It’s another example of Cookie’s Law. This government makes right wing noises but actually behaves more like an incompetent left wing government, ensuring the contempt of all
Cookie's Law is very real. My itchy conspiracy believing side is constantly telling me that it's intentional - Rishi and Hunt intend both to lose the election and marginalise the right for a generation. Of course I also realise that the two of them being utterly incompetent is as likely a reason.
Surely Rishi and Hunt and Cameron need to win to marginalise the right for a generation? If they lose the right will take back the Conservative party with a vengeance
And you will end up in opposition for at least a decade. Which I suspect you are smart enough to realise.
Okay, here's my STOP THE BOATS theory. The majority of voters think this is a real priority, regardless of whether they support the Rwanda scheme or not. So far so good, However, it's now damaging the Tories in the polls. And the reason for this is that voters think there are lots of other priorities as well, but all they hear about from Sunak and others is 'stop the boats' - the PM even holds a special press conference about it. It's become an obsession, as if nothing else matters, at the expense of other priorities.
In conclusion: single issue parties aren't popular with the voters. The Tories need to broaden their repertoire, because folk are getting a bit fed up with the government wittering on about boats and nothing much else (apart from the occasional pothole interjection).
I don't disagree with any of this. But I'd also add that while stop the boats is a priority for voters, the Conservatives evidently aren't stopping the boats. They've ramped up the importance of one issue that they either have no intention of doing anything about or are terrible at doing so. People who want the boats stopped are increasingly bemused about why the Conservatives aren't doing so.
Yeah I agree with all that
I think some form of Rwanda is worth trying - and remember, WE HAVEN’T ACTUALLY TRIED IT YET - because deterrence might work. I see all the flaws with Rwanda but no one has any better idea. Which is why other countries are reaching a similar conclusion - Rwanda
However the government are so inept they have managed to get all the bad vibes of packing poor asylum seekers off to Kigali while all the time they’ve sent not one person to Kigali - thus infuriating both sides while doing nothing
It’s another example of Cookie’s Law. This government makes right wing noises but actually behaves more like an incompetent left wing government, ensuring the contempt of all
Cookie's Law is very real. My itchy conspiracy believing side is constantly telling me that it's intentional - Rishi and Hunt intend both to lose the election and marginalise the right for a generation. Of course I also realise that the two of them being utterly incompetent is as likely a reason.
Surely Rishi and Hunt and Cameron need to win to marginalise the right for a generation? If they lose the right will take back the Conservative party with a vengeance
Do you support Braverman wanting to withdraw us from all international law and put us alongside Russia and Belarus?
I can state unequivocally that is not acceptable for our Country in any circumstances and is shameful
Braverman and others need to join Reform UK or even the BNP
No but 28% of voters do (more than the 19-22% still backing the Tories on latest polls), as do 54% of Conservative voters and 55% of Leave voters and 49% of voters over 65
That poll is the ECHR which a clear majority do not want to leave, but if you had listened to the judgment it is not just the ECHR but other international treaties that Braverman also wants to disregard placing us alongside Russia and Belarus
You very definitely lean to the right and the nuance of your posts is that is where your sympathises are
Fortunately, there are a majority of current conservatives mps who reject Braverman and her nasty ill conceived ideas and, of course, more importantly the public who are understandbly looking at the riven and torn conservative party and saying 'no thanks' despite the bland Starmer who really has few answers other than he and labour are all that is left
Unfortunately not enough people even realize that only Russia and Belarus are not in the ECHR . Sunak is becoming totally obsessed with the Rwanda policy and will do anything to revive it .
Step Two When a complaint can’t be resolved quickly or you aren’t happy with the initial resolution our Customer Relations team are here to help you. This is a dedicated team who will carry out an independent review for you and they act with full authority of our Chief Executive.
We’ll contact you to tell you who will own your complaint and how long you can expect to wait for a decision. We will write to you with our view within eight weeks from the date you first complained – this is known as a ‘final decision’ letter.
The email address is CustomerRelationsExec@esure.com or you can write to;
Customer Relations esure The Equinox 19 Cadogan Street Glasgow G2 6QQ
Thanks - I've tried emailing that address, but a week on I've had no response yet. But looking at the small print you shouldn't expect a response within 8 weeks.
Step Two When a complaint can’t be resolved quickly or you aren’t happy with the initial resolution our Customer Relations team are here to help you. This is a dedicated team who will carry out an independent review for you and they act with full authority of our Chief Executive.
We’ll contact you to tell you who will own your complaint and how long you can expect to wait for a decision. We will write to you with our view within eight weeks from the date you first complained – this is known as a ‘final decision’ letter.
The email address is CustomerRelationsExec@esure.com or you can write to;
Customer Relations esure The Equinox 19 Cadogan Street Glasgow G2 6QQ
@Cookie try emailing david.mcmillan@esure.com He is the CEO.
Yep, that will likely go to his PA, and from there to the head of customer support.
Surprisingly few irate customers actually work out who to email.
9 times out of 10 it goes via the PA to the executive customer service team who are normally excellent at sorting it out but I have had 2 or 3 occasions when the CEO has actually responded, much to my surprise and when that happens it has been a really bonus. I once complained about Disneyland in Paris. Quite a few rides weren't working and were boarded up, but really I didn't care that much as it was just one day of a holiday and we were just there for our daughter. My complaint got nowhere so I emailed the CEO and she responded personally. I got £400 towards my holiday costs and vouchers for 2 tickets and refreshments for another visit. I assume she thought we had made a special trip. Still surprised she didn't pass it down the line, or even see the email in the first place. Most I assume are intercepted by a PA.
This place is brilliant. Thanks for all the useful suggestions on getting in touch with esure. In the meantime, Twitter has worked, at least initially - a human got back to me within 30 minutes. We'll see what transpires from that. Fallback position is CEO or marketing director as suggested here! Many thanks to all of you.
Nice to see Suella Braverman's strategy being called out for the fascist and unConservative bollocks it is.
Damian Green. lol
Is he wrong?
Your inner fascist is poking out
Parliament must be sovereign, in the end. If you consider that fascism then fuck knows how you’d cope with actual, you know, fascism
You’re just petulantly upset that Sunak’s stupid reshuffle turned out to be a disaster - as predicted by some on here, at the time
If you don't realise that politicians demanding that they be allowed to do what the hell they like regardless of the law, without any restraints on their power, without any ability of the citizen to hold them to account is precisely the road to tyranny, it is you being petulant and ignorant. Braverman's second demand in that Telegraph article is the most dangerous, unconservative and frankly astonishing thing for a lawyer and former A-G to say.
It is the frustrated wail of a toddler screaming "I want, I must get".
Sovereigns must be subject to the rule of law, in the end. That is what the Civil War was about. It is what much of British politics has been about since then. If the Tory party fails to understand this in order to placate the frustrations and ego of a second-rate lawyer turned third-rate politician with no competence, ability or achievements to her name then it deserves to be - and I hope will be - obliterated.
Oh give over. I'm not a toddler, I do understand the Separation of Powers. Executive, Judiciary. Legislature. I've read my Montesquieu (or at least the relevant bits in English)
However, the ability to protect a nation's borders and stop unwanted people coming in is fundamental to a government, it is the job of the elected Executive to decide this, the elected Legislature to enact this, and the apppointed Judiciary to police but not obstruct. Stopping the government protecting the borders via legal constraints is like the Supreme Court deciding an elected government and parliament does not have the power to declare war because the ECHR doesn't like it. Would you approve of that?
It seems to me we have a judiciary which is overly political, overly pro-active, and overly obeisant to endless international laws some of which it seems to conjure out of thin air
Braverman is right. Overrule the judges
Our executive is not elected. It is appointed by the sovereign. By convention the sovereign appoints members of the elected House of Commons to lead the executive on his behalf but, as you have pointed out just this week, the sovereign can and does also appoint unelected peers to the executive. So what you are actually saying is that the appointed executive should not be obstructed by the unelected judiciary.
You got an example of the judiciary conjuring a law out of thin air? I'd be fascinated to read that.
The common law is essentially judge made. Though largely a very long time ago.
Hmm...I wish the regime in Iran is as fragile as the thread header indicates but I see little evidence of it. The protests of last year have faded away.
The Ayatollahs are a deeply repulsive regime with an ethical code I find repugnant but thinking that they are going to disappear seems wishful thinking to me.
Step Two When a complaint can’t be resolved quickly or you aren’t happy with the initial resolution our Customer Relations team are here to help you. This is a dedicated team who will carry out an independent review for you and they act with full authority of our Chief Executive.
We’ll contact you to tell you who will own your complaint and how long you can expect to wait for a decision. We will write to you with our view within eight weeks from the date you first complained – this is known as a ‘final decision’ letter.
The email address is CustomerRelationsExec@esure.com or you can write to;
Customer Relations esure The Equinox 19 Cadogan Street Glasgow G2 6QQ
Thanks - I've tried emailing that address, but a week on I've had no response yet. But looking at the small print you shouldn't expect a response within 8 weeks.
You should definitely expect an initial response within 8 weeks. But if they don't respond at all within that period, or respond but don't resolve the complaint to your satisfaction, the FOS will take the complaint from there.
Okay, here's my STOP THE BOATS theory. The majority of voters think this is a real priority, regardless of whether they support the Rwanda scheme or not. So far so good, However, it's now damaging the Tories in the polls. And the reason for this is that voters think there are lots of other priorities as well, but all they hear about from Sunak and others is 'stop the boats' - the PM even holds a special press conference about it. It's become an obsession, as if nothing else matters, at the expense of other priorities.
In conclusion: single issue parties aren't popular with the voters. The Tories need to broaden their repertoire, because folk are getting a bit fed up with the government wittering on about boats and nothing much else (apart from the occasional pothole interjection).
I don't disagree with any of this. But I'd also add that while stop the boats is a priority for voters, the Conservatives evidently aren't stopping the boats. They've ramped up the importance of one issue that they either have no intention of doing anything about or are terrible at doing so. People who want the boats stopped are increasingly bemused about why the Conservatives aren't doing so.
Yeah I agree with all that
I think some form of Rwanda is worth trying - and remember, WE HAVEN’T ACTUALLY TRIED IT YET - because deterrence might work. I see all the flaws with Rwanda but no one has any better idea. Which is why other countries are reaching a similar conclusion - Rwanda
However the government are so inept they have managed to get all the bad vibes of packing poor asylum seekers off to Kigali while all the time they’ve sent not one person to Kigali - thus infuriating both sides while doing nothing
It’s another example of Cookie’s Law. This government makes right wing noises but actually behaves more like an incompetent left wing government, ensuring the contempt of all
Cookie's Law is very real. My itchy conspiracy believing side is constantly telling me that it's intentional - Rishi and Hunt intend both to lose the election and marginalise the right for a generation. Of course I also realise that the two of them being utterly incompetent is as likely a reason.
Surely Rishi and Hunt and Cameron need to win to marginalise the right for a generation? If they lose the right will take back the Conservative party with a vengeance
Do you support Braverman wanting to withdraw us from all international law and put us alongside Russia and Belarus?
I can state unequivocally that is not acceptable for our Country in any circumstances and is shameful
Braverman and others need to join Reform UK or even the BNP
No but 28% of voters do (more than the 19-22% still backing the Tories on latest polls), as do 54% of Conservative voters and 55% of Leave voters and 49% of voters over 65
That poll is the ECHR which a clear majority do not want to leave, but if you had listened to the judgment it is not just the ECHR but other international treaties that Braverman also wants to disregard placing us alongside Russia and Belarus
You very definitely lean to the right and the nuance of your posts is that is where your sympathises are
Fortunately, there are a majority of current conservatives mps who reject Braverman and her nasty ill conceived ideas and, of course, more importantly the public who are understandbly looking at the riven and torn conservative party and saying 'no thanks' despite the bland Starmer who really has few answers other than he and labour are all that is left
Unfortunately not enough people even realize that only Russia and Belarus are not in the ECHR . Sunak is becoming totally obsessed with the Rwanda policy and will do anything to revive it .
That's very Eurocentric. Do you share the view of Josep Borrell that Europe is a "garden" compared to the "jungle" of the rest of the world?
This place is brilliant. Thanks for all the useful suggestions on getting in touch with esure. In the meantime, Twitter has worked, at least initially - a human got back to me within 30 minutes. We'll see what transpires from that. Fallback position is CEO or marketing director as suggested here! Many thanks to all of you.
That is what we are here for. My request for help will be coming in shortly.
Okay, here's my STOP THE BOATS theory. The majority of voters think this is a real priority, regardless of whether they support the Rwanda scheme or not. So far so good, However, it's now damaging the Tories in the polls. And the reason for this is that voters think there are lots of other priorities as well, but all they hear about from Sunak and others is 'stop the boats' - the PM even holds a special press conference about it. It's become an obsession, as if nothing else matters, at the expense of other priorities.
In conclusion: single issue parties aren't popular with the voters. The Tories need to broaden their repertoire, because folk are getting a bit fed up with the government wittering on about boats and nothing much else (apart from the occasional pothole interjection).
I don't disagree with any of this. But I'd also add that while stop the boats is a priority for voters, the Conservatives evidently aren't stopping the boats. They've ramped up the importance of one issue that they either have no intention of doing anything about or are terrible at doing so. People who want the boats stopped are increasingly bemused about why the Conservatives aren't doing so.
Yeah I agree with all that
I think some form of Rwanda is worth trying - and remember, WE HAVEN’T ACTUALLY TRIED IT YET - because deterrence might work. I see all the flaws with Rwanda but no one has any better idea. Which is why other countries are reaching a similar conclusion - Rwanda
However the government are so inept they have managed to get all the bad vibes of packing poor asylum seekers off to Kigali while all the time they’ve sent not one person to Kigali - thus infuriating both sides while doing nothing
It’s another example of Cookie’s Law. This government makes right wing noises but actually behaves more like an incompetent left wing government, ensuring the contempt of all
Cookie's Law is very real. My itchy conspiracy believing side is constantly telling me that it's intentional - Rishi and Hunt intend both to lose the election and marginalise the right for a generation. Of course I also realise that the two of them being utterly incompetent is as likely a reason.
Surely Rishi and Hunt and Cameron need to win to marginalise the right for a generation? If they lose the right will take back the Conservative party with a vengeance
And you will end up in opposition for at least a decade. Which I suspect you are smart enough to realise.
Most likely but not certain.
If the economy is poor even a rightwinger can win, as Thatcher beat the more centrist Callaghan in 1979.
Remember too Corbyn was considered an unelectable leftwinger in 2017 too but got a hung parliament and nearly became PM.
Most of the time the more centrist party may win and win clearly but 20-30% of the time it doesn't
People support the abolition of inheritance tax even if they are never going to pay it themselves. Its about fairness. Taxing the dead is absolutely unfair when you have paid taxes all your life. It will be difficult for Labour to overturn it. Its a sort if 45p tax trap like McDoom set.
Periodic reminder that inheritance tax taxes the living on unearned income. The dead, being dead, do not pay. The living, in most cases, already do not pay due to the exemptions and the loopholes for those inclined to find them.
As it stands,* I'll land a substantial inheritance one day due to my good judgement in having parents with a house in the south east (I haven't looked into it, but I suspect we'll actually not be charged due to the exemptions) but I really don't see why I should be handed a few £100k tax free that I have done nothing to deserve, while I get taxed etc on the money I work for.
*my parents are, unfortunately, loathe to spend money, despite having pretty comfortable pensions - getting them to even shell out for useful modifications to their home as they're getting old or paying for more than the cheapest care services is hard. It may all go on care home costs, of course, which is also fine with me (I just hope they use the money to have the best possible final years).
Yes, I agree. And squareroot's point reminds me of the third reason I can't get too excited about the proposed cut in inheritance tax - despite, as I said, it being worth about nine years' net wages to me - I simply don't believe it wouldn't be immediately reversed. It'll be of any use only to those few unlucky people whose parents die in the short period between the cut and Labour getting around to reversing it.
All taxes are unfair in some way. But we need to raise money somehow. Inheritance tax strikes me as less iniquitous than most.
I’m at the other end of the argument. It can’t, surely, be many years now before my heirs and assigns have the bother of clearing up my, and my wife’s, affairs, notifying everyone who matters (including, in my case pb) and clearing out the house for sale. And when they do sell it, unless something very spectacular has has happened to the property market, it will sell for a great deal more than we paid for it. A rise which we have done nothing to deserve. What we have given our children is a good education, which has enabled them to earn a good living themselves, and, I hope, a moral code which results in them treating those around them with respect. Why, then, should they benefit from an increase in the value of something to which neither we nor they have contributed?
To enable a more prosperous future for your grand and great? grandchildren. Life is difficult enough as it is, I will not begrudge anyone who benefits from inheritance. What will the Gov't do with the money anyway ? Spaff it on cancellation costs for a HS2 contractual supplier ?
My view is that it's better for people to have money when they start working, rather than having to wait 30 years for their relatives to drop off, before gaining a windfall.
I am going to inherit a lot, over the next ten years, in all likelihood, but at the age of 56, it's of limited use.
That's why it's better to put the available sums into the pockets of workers.
It's no wonder young people aren't voting Conservative.
If you look at 1979, when Margaret Thatcher won over young people, it's because she was absolutely on their side of getting on against the stultifying practices of ideological councils and trade unions.
Because of the rise in inflation, fiscal drag means the government is taking far more income tax than was anticipated in 2021, when the rate freeze was announced. By far the best thing the government could do would be to raise the personal allowance and higher rate threshold by 10-15% each. And, that would be unlikely to be reversed by an incoming Labour government.
Even getting a few thousand extra a year however in income would not ultimately match getting a house worth £350-£700k IHT tax free (and most homes south of Watford are within that band)
Why would one wish to wait thirty years to hit the jackpot when a rich relative dies, rather than earn this money in one's 20's, 30's, and 40's.
As if you used a calculator you would work out it would make you richer in the longer term, assuming you weren't run over by a bus beforehand and house prices didn't collapse completely to inherit say a £500k house from your parents IHT free in a few decades (or much earlier if you get a big inheritance from a grandparent) even if you have to pay a bit more in income tax and NI on your earnings now
It's pretty cold comfort to inherit a lot, as one approaches retirement, rather than to have money when it is of most to you.
And, about 50% of people will never inherit anything of significance. It is far better to motivate people to work hard, rather than turn them into drones waiting for a windfall.
Absolutely. For most of my life I could have done with more money. I now have far more than I can spend in the rest of my life (I turn 69 in a few days) yet I got a small inheritance this year on the death of my father. Pointless.
Okay, here's my STOP THE BOATS theory. The majority of voters think this is a real priority, regardless of whether they support the Rwanda scheme or not. So far so good, However, it's now damaging the Tories in the polls. And the reason for this is that voters think there are lots of other priorities as well, but all they hear about from Sunak and others is 'stop the boats' - the PM even holds a special press conference about it. It's become an obsession, as if nothing else matters, at the expense of other priorities.
In conclusion: single issue parties aren't popular with the voters. The Tories need to broaden their repertoire, because folk are getting a bit fed up with the government wittering on about boats and nothing much else (apart from the occasional pothole interjection).
I don't disagree with any of this. But I'd also add that while stop the boats is a priority for voters, the Conservatives evidently aren't stopping the boats. They've ramped up the importance of one issue that they either have no intention of doing anything about or are terrible at doing so. People who want the boats stopped are increasingly bemused about why the Conservatives aren't doing so.
Yeah I agree with all that
I think some form of Rwanda is worth trying - and remember, WE HAVEN’T ACTUALLY TRIED IT YET - because deterrence might work. I see all the flaws with Rwanda but no one has any better idea. Which is why other countries are reaching a similar conclusion - Rwanda
However the government are so inept they have managed to get all the bad vibes of packing poor asylum seekers off to Kigali while all the time they’ve sent not one person to Kigali - thus infuriating both sides while doing nothing
It’s another example of Cookie’s Law. This government makes right wing noises but actually behaves more like an incompetent left wing government, ensuring the contempt of all
Cookie's Law is very real. My itchy conspiracy believing side is constantly telling me that it's intentional - Rishi and Hunt intend both to lose the election and marginalise the right for a generation. Of course I also realise that the two of them being utterly incompetent is as likely a reason.
Surely Rishi and Hunt and Cameron need to win to marginalise the right for a generation? If they lose the right will take back the Conservative party with a vengeance
Do you support Braverman wanting to withdraw us from all international law and put us alongside Russia and Belarus?
I can state unequivocally that is not acceptable for our Country in any circumstances and is shameful
Braverman and others need to join Reform UK or even the BNP
No but 28% of voters do (more than the 19-22% still backing the Tories on latest polls), as do 54% of Conservative voters and 55% of Leave voters and 49% of voters over 65
That poll is the ECHR which a clear majority do not want to leave, but if you had listened to the judgment it is not just the ECHR but other international treaties that Braverman also wants to disregard placing us alongside Russia and Belarus
You very definitely lean to the right and the nuance of your posts is that is where your sympathises are
Fortunately, there are a majority of current conservatives mps who reject Braverman and her nasty ill conceived ideas and, of course, more importantly the public who are understandbly looking at the riven and torn conservative party and saying 'no thanks' despite the bland Starmer who really has few answers other than he and labour are all that is left
Unfortunately not enough people even realize that only Russia and Belarus are not in the ECHR . Sunak is becoming totally obsessed with the Rwanda policy and will do anything to revive it .
That's very Eurocentric. Do you share the view of Josep Borrell that Europe is a "garden" compared to the "jungle" of the rest of the world?
Okay, here's my STOP THE BOATS theory. The majority of voters think this is a real priority, regardless of whether they support the Rwanda scheme or not. So far so good, However, it's now damaging the Tories in the polls. And the reason for this is that voters think there are lots of other priorities as well, but all they hear about from Sunak and others is 'stop the boats' - the PM even holds a special press conference about it. It's become an obsession, as if nothing else matters, at the expense of other priorities.
In conclusion: single issue parties aren't popular with the voters. The Tories need to broaden their repertoire, because folk are getting a bit fed up with the government wittering on about boats and nothing much else (apart from the occasional pothole interjection).
I don't disagree with any of this. But I'd also add that while stop the boats is a priority for voters, the Conservatives evidently aren't stopping the boats. They've ramped up the importance of one issue that they either have no intention of doing anything about or are terrible at doing so. People who want the boats stopped are increasingly bemused about why the Conservatives aren't doing so.
Yeah I agree with all that
I think some form of Rwanda is worth trying - and remember, WE HAVEN’T ACTUALLY TRIED IT YET - because deterrence might work. I see all the flaws with Rwanda but no one has any better idea. Which is why other countries are reaching a similar conclusion - Rwanda
However the government are so inept they have managed to get all the bad vibes of packing poor asylum seekers off to Kigali while all the time they’ve sent not one person to Kigali - thus infuriating both sides while doing nothing
It’s another example of Cookie’s Law. This government makes right wing noises but actually behaves more like an incompetent left wing government, ensuring the contempt of all
Cookie's Law is very real. My itchy conspiracy believing side is constantly telling me that it's intentional - Rishi and Hunt intend both to lose the election and marginalise the right for a generation. Of course I also realise that the two of them being utterly incompetent is as likely a reason.
Surely Rishi and Hunt and Cameron need to win to marginalise the right for a generation? If they lose the right will take back the Conservative party with a vengeance
Do you support Braverman wanting to withdraw us from all international law and put us alongside Russia and Belarus?
To be fair, I don't think she is suggesting we should withdraw from all international law - only the laws she wants to break.
That reminds me of a witness quote from the PO investigation, where an internal audit was described as 'entirely objective' ... about the 'positive bits'.
People support the abolition of inheritance tax even if they are never going to pay it themselves. Its about fairness. Taxing the dead is absolutely unfair when you have paid taxes all your life. It will be difficult for Labour to overturn it. Its a sort if 45p tax trap like McDoom set.
Periodic reminder that inheritance tax taxes the living on unearned income. The dead, being dead, do not pay. The living, in most cases, already do not pay due to the exemptions and the loopholes for those inclined to find them.
As it stands,* I'll land a substantial inheritance one day due to my good judgement in having parents with a house in the south east (I haven't looked into it, but I suspect we'll actually not be charged due to the exemptions) but I really don't see why I should be handed a few £100k tax free that I have done nothing to deserve, while I get taxed etc on the money I work for.
*my parents are, unfortunately, loathe to spend money, despite having pretty comfortable pensions - getting them to even shell out for useful modifications to their home as they're getting old or paying for more than the cheapest care services is hard. It may all go on care home costs, of course, which is also fine with me (I just hope they use the money to have the best possible final years).
Yes, I agree. And squareroot's point reminds me of the third reason I can't get too excited about the proposed cut in inheritance tax - despite, as I said, it being worth about nine years' net wages to me - I simply don't believe it wouldn't be immediately reversed. It'll be of any use only to those few unlucky people whose parents die in the short period between the cut and Labour getting around to reversing it.
All taxes are unfair in some way. But we need to raise money somehow. Inheritance tax strikes me as less iniquitous than most.
I’m at the other end of the argument. It can’t, surely, be many years now before my heirs and assigns have the bother of clearing up my, and my wife’s, affairs, notifying everyone who matters (including, in my case pb) and clearing out the house for sale. And when they do sell it, unless something very spectacular has has happened to the property market, it will sell for a great deal more than we paid for it. A rise which we have done nothing to deserve. What we have given our children is a good education, which has enabled them to earn a good living themselves, and, I hope, a moral code which results in them treating those around them with respect. Why, then, should they benefit from an increase in the value of something to which neither we nor they have contributed?
To enable a more prosperous future for your grand and great? grandchildren. Life is difficult enough as it is, I will not begrudge anyone who benefits from inheritance. What will the Gov't do with the money anyway ? Spaff it on cancellation costs for a HS2 contractual supplier ?
My view is that it's better for people to have money when they start working, rather than having to wait 30 years for their relatives to drop off, before gaining a windfall.
I am going to inherit a lot, over the next ten years, in all likelihood, but at the age of 56, it's of limited use.
That's why it's better to put the available sums into the pockets of workers.
It's no wonder young people aren't voting Conservative.
If you look at 1979, when Margaret Thatcher won over young people, it's because she was absolutely on their side of getting on against the stultifying practices of ideological councils and trade unions.
Because of the rise in inflation, fiscal drag means the government is taking far more income tax than was anticipated in 2021, when the rate freeze was announced. By far the best thing the government could do would be to raise the personal allowance and higher rate threshold by 10-15% each. And, that would be unlikely to be reversed by an incoming Labour government.
Even getting a few thousand extra a year however in income would not ultimately match getting a house worth £350-£700k IHT tax free (and most homes south of Watford are within that band)
Why would one wish to wait thirty years to hit the jackpot when a rich relative dies, rather than earn this money in one's 20's, 30's, and 40's.
As if you used a calculator you would work out it would make you richer in the longer term, assuming you weren't run over by a bus beforehand and house prices didn't collapse completely to inherit say a £500k house from your parents IHT free in a few decades (or much earlier if you get a big inheritance from a grandparent) even if you have to pay a bit more in income tax and NI on your earnings now
It's pretty cold comfort to inherit a lot, as one approaches retirement, rather than to have money when it is of most to you.
And, about 50% of people will never inherit anything of significance. It is far better to motivate people to work hard, rather than turn them into drones waiting for a windfall.
Arguably retirement is when it is most of use to you as you are no longer earning a wage at work, you only have a pension to rely on income wise other than any wealth you have inherited or shares or rental income for the few who are landlords.
Given the average house price is nearly £300k in the UK as a whole (and far more in London and the home counties) most will now inherit a significant sum
Okay, here's my STOP THE BOATS theory. The majority of voters think this is a real priority, regardless of whether they support the Rwanda scheme or not. So far so good, However, it's now damaging the Tories in the polls. And the reason for this is that voters think there are lots of other priorities as well, but all they hear about from Sunak and others is 'stop the boats' - the PM even holds a special press conference about it. It's become an obsession, as if nothing else matters, at the expense of other priorities.
In conclusion: single issue parties aren't popular with the voters. The Tories need to broaden their repertoire, because folk are getting a bit fed up with the government wittering on about boats and nothing much else (apart from the occasional pothole interjection).
I don't disagree with any of this. But I'd also add that while stop the boats is a priority for voters, the Conservatives evidently aren't stopping the boats. They've ramped up the importance of one issue that they either have no intention of doing anything about or are terrible at doing so. People who want the boats stopped are increasingly bemused about why the Conservatives aren't doing so.
Yeah I agree with all that
I think some form of Rwanda is worth trying - and remember, WE HAVEN’T ACTUALLY TRIED IT YET - because deterrence might work. I see all the flaws with Rwanda but no one has any better idea. Which is why other countries are reaching a similar conclusion - Rwanda
However the government are so inept they have managed to get all the bad vibes of packing poor asylum seekers off to Kigali while all the time they’ve sent not one person to Kigali - thus infuriating both sides while doing nothing
It’s another example of Cookie’s Law. This government makes right wing noises but actually behaves more like an incompetent left wing government, ensuring the contempt of all
Cookie's Law is very real. My itchy conspiracy believing side is constantly telling me that it's intentional - Rishi and Hunt intend both to lose the election and marginalise the right for a generation. Of course I also realise that the two of them being utterly incompetent is as likely a reason.
Surely Rishi and Hunt and Cameron need to win to marginalise the right for a generation? If they lose the right will take back the Conservative party with a vengeance
Do you support Braverman wanting to withdraw us from all international law and put us alongside Russia and Belarus?
I can state unequivocally that is not acceptable for our Country in any circumstances and is shameful
Braverman and others need to join Reform UK or even the BNP
No but 28% of voters do (more than the 19-22% still backing the Tories on latest polls), as do 54% of Conservative voters and 55% of Leave voters and 49% of voters over 65
That poll is the ECHR which a clear majority do not want to leave, but if you had listened to the judgment it is not just the ECHR but other international treaties that Braverman also wants to disregard placing us alongside Russia and Belarus
You very definitely lean to the right and the nuance of your posts is that is where your sympathises are
Fortunately, there are a majority of current conservatives mps who reject Braverman and her nasty ill conceived ideas and, of course, more importantly the public who are understandbly looking at the riven and torn conservative party and saying 'no thanks' despite the bland Starmer who really has few answers other than he and labour are all that is left
Unfortunately not enough people even realize that only Russia and Belarus are not in the ECHR . Sunak is becoming totally obsessed with the Rwanda policy and will do anything to revive it .
That's very Eurocentric. Do you share the view of Josep Borrell that Europe is a "garden" compared to the "jungle" of the rest of the world?
The SC ruling wasn’t based on just the ECHR . The UK would also have to leave all the other conventions. And yes compared to most of the rest of the world Europe is a garden !
People support the abolition of inheritance tax even if they are never going to pay it themselves. Its about fairness. Taxing the dead is absolutely unfair when you have paid taxes all your life. It will be difficult for Labour to overturn it. Its a sort if 45p tax trap like McDoom set.
Think of it as taxing those who get the inheritance, not those who left it. Obviously the dead person can't be taxed. They're dead.
Ok, so change the rules so the beneficiaries get taxed, rather than (as present) the estate.
Conceptually, that would be the simplest way of doing it: treat it as income and adjust income tax bands as necessary. But I doubt that would be popular either in reality as it'd shove most people getting an inheritance that year into the 45p band.
Labour should just oppose it and campaign on the personal benefits that Sunak and Hunt would themselves get.
I'm not, as a rule, in favour of that kind of ad hom targeting but I do think it'd be valid in this case because it demonstrates the gross unfairness of a massive tax bung to the wealthiest, when those most in need are having benefits tightened still further.
The main problem with inheritance tax is that it seems to be a doddle for people like the Sunak's to avoid. Nobody expects their estate to pay 40% tax on their wealth of however many billions it is.
If you really want a tax of 40% per generation on all assets then it might be easier to do that a little bit at a time every year, rather than all in one go on whatever escapes the inheritance tax planning loopholes.
Average age of a mother at birth of first child is around 30 years, so an annual asset taxation rate of ~1.3% would raise as much as inheritance tax would do (without the loopholes). Is that more or less unfair as a tax?
Approximate average tax paid by estate sizes:
£400k - £1m - 10-12% £1m - £2m rising from 12% to 25% towards £2m £2m-£5m - 25% £5m -£10m declining from 25% towards 15%
People support the abolition of inheritance tax even if they are never going to pay it themselves. Its about fairness. Taxing the dead is absolutely unfair when you have paid taxes all your life. It will be difficult for Labour to overturn it. Its a sort if 45p tax trap like McDoom set.
Think of it as taxing those who get the inheritance, not those who left it. Obviously the dead person can't be taxed. They're dead.
The fruits of their labour is being confiscated
It discourages prudence and saving
That's 'tax is theft' language. Tax is not theft, it's how money is raised by a nation for communal purposes. It's key to civilization and progress. One of the great inventions. Right up there with the wheel.
People support the abolition of inheritance tax even if they are never going to pay it themselves. Its about fairness. Taxing the dead is absolutely unfair when you have paid taxes all your life. It will be difficult for Labour to overturn it. Its a sort if 45p tax trap like McDoom set.
Think of it as taxing those who get the inheritance, not those who left it. Obviously the dead person can't be taxed. They're dead.
The fruits of their labour is being confiscated
It discourages prudence and saving
That's 'tax is theft' language. Tax is not theft, it's how money is raised by a nation for communal purposes. It's key to civilization and progress. One of the great inventions. Right up there with the wheel.
Nation? Civilization? That’s far-right talk, that is.
Are Rishi and Hunt aware that the BBC Licence Fee is due to increase by 9% on 1st April? Yes NINE % - that is not a typo.
Forget about the issue of abolishing it - how is the public going to react to this?
Note ITV has just announced its advertising revenue will fall by 8% this year. And the BBC is going to get a 9% increase which will hugely increase its already massively dominant position?
Will they be addressing this in the Autumn Statement? Before anyone responds to the contrary it is defined as a tax by the Govt and included in forecast tax and expenditure totals by the OBR.
People support the abolition of inheritance tax even if they are never going to pay it themselves. Its about fairness. Taxing the dead is absolutely unfair when you have paid taxes all your life. It will be difficult for Labour to overturn it. Its a sort if 45p tax trap like McDoom set.
Periodic reminder that inheritance tax taxes the living on unearned income. The dead, being dead, do not pay. The living, in most cases, already do not pay due to the exemptions and the loopholes for those inclined to find them.
As it stands,* I'll land a substantial inheritance one day due to my good judgement in having parents with a house in the south east (I haven't looked into it, but I suspect we'll actually not be charged due to the exemptions) but I really don't see why I should be handed a few £100k tax free that I have done nothing to deserve, while I get taxed etc on the money I work for.
*my parents are, unfortunately, loathe to spend money, despite having pretty comfortable pensions - getting them to even shell out for useful modifications to their home as they're getting old or paying for more than the cheapest care services is hard. It may all go on care home costs, of course, which is also fine with me (I just hope they use the money to have the best possible final years).
Yes, I agree. And squareroot's point reminds me of the third reason I can't get too excited about the proposed cut in inheritance tax - despite, as I said, it being worth about nine years' net wages to me - I simply don't believe it wouldn't be immediately reversed. It'll be of any use only to those few unlucky people whose parents die in the short period between the cut and Labour getting around to reversing it.
All taxes are unfair in some way. But we need to raise money somehow. Inheritance tax strikes me as less iniquitous than most.
I’m at the other end of the argument. It can’t, surely, be many years now before my heirs and assigns have the bother of clearing up my, and my wife’s, affairs, notifying everyone who matters (including, in my case pb) and clearing out the house for sale. And when they do sell it, unless something very spectacular has has happened to the property market, it will sell for a great deal more than we paid for it. A rise which we have done nothing to deserve. What we have given our children is a good education, which has enabled them to earn a good living themselves, and, I hope, a moral code which results in them treating those around them with respect. Why, then, should they benefit from an increase in the value of something to which neither we nor they have contributed?
To enable a more prosperous future for your grand and great? grandchildren. Life is difficult enough as it is, I will not begrudge anyone who benefits from inheritance. What will the Gov't do with the money anyway ? Spaff it on cancellation costs for a HS2 contractual supplier ?
My view is that it's better for people to have money when they start working, rather than having to wait 30 years for their relatives to drop off, before gaining a windfall.
I am going to inherit a lot, over the next ten years, in all likelihood, but at the age of 56, it's of limited use.
That's why it's better to put the available sums into the pockets of workers.
It's no wonder young people aren't voting Conservative.
If you look at 1979, when Margaret Thatcher won over young people, it's because she was absolutely on their side of getting on against the stultifying practices of ideological councils and trade unions.
Because of the rise in inflation, fiscal drag means the government is taking far more income tax than was anticipated in 2021, when the rate freeze was announced. By far the best thing the government could do would be to raise the personal allowance and higher rate threshold by 10-15% each. And, that would be unlikely to be reversed by an incoming Labour government.
Even getting a few thousand extra a year however in income would not ultimately match getting a house worth £350-£700k IHT tax free (and most homes south of Watford are within that band)
Why would one wish to wait thirty years to hit the jackpot when a rich relative dies, rather than earn this money in one's 20's, 30's, and 40's.
As if you used a calculator you would work out it would make you richer in the longer term, assuming you weren't run over by a bus beforehand and house prices didn't collapse completely to inherit say a £500k house from your parents IHT free in a few decades (or much earlier if you get a big inheritance from a grandparent) even if you have to pay a bit more in income tax and NI on your earnings now
It's pretty cold comfort to inherit a lot, as one approaches retirement, rather than to have money when it is of most to you.
And, about 50% of people will never inherit anything of significance. It is far better to motivate people to work hard, rather than turn them into drones waiting for a windfall.
Arguably retirement is when it is most of use to you as you are no longer earning a wage at work, you only have a pension to rely on income wise other than any wealth you have inherited or shares or rental income for the few who are landlords.
Given the average house price is nearly £300k in the UK as a whole (and far more in London and the home counties) most will now inherit a significant sum
I suppose it depends upon your circumstances. For those of us able to plan for our retirement we aren't paying a mortgage, don't commute and pay for lunch at work everyday anymore etc, etc so costs are less and can take 25% from our pension if we wish and probably have a pot of money as well as our pension.
Others of course are much poorer and the reduction in income on retirement could be critical, particularly if they are renting and weren't able to save a nest egg.
However, as a rule, it is the latter group who are much more unlikely to inherit a sum of money that attracts inheritance tax, so the group for whom a cut in IHT or increase in the starting band would be most beneficial don't get it anyway.
People support the abolition of inheritance tax even if they are never going to pay it themselves. Its about fairness. Taxing the dead is absolutely unfair when you have paid taxes all your life. It will be difficult for Labour to overturn it. Its a sort if 45p tax trap like McDoom set.
Think of it as taxing those who get the inheritance, not those who left it. Obviously the dead person can't be taxed. They're dead.
The fruits of their labour is being confiscated
It discourages prudence and saving
Having the old save beyond their needs is not any good for the economy. It (to be clear, surplus never to be spent money) would be far more productively used by the younger generations and help grow the economy.
Governments should support and incentivise saving for people to afford retirement in security, but it is also fine for government to penalise saving beyond that level, it serves no public good.
Okay, here's my STOP THE BOATS theory. The majority of voters think this is a real priority, regardless of whether they support the Rwanda scheme or not. So far so good, However, it's now damaging the Tories in the polls. And the reason for this is that voters think there are lots of other priorities as well, but all they hear about from Sunak and others is 'stop the boats' - the PM even holds a special press conference about it. It's become an obsession, as if nothing else matters, at the expense of other priorities.
In conclusion: single issue parties aren't popular with the voters. The Tories need to broaden their repertoire, because folk are getting a bit fed up with the government wittering on about boats and nothing much else (apart from the occasional pothole interjection).
I don't disagree with any of this. But I'd also add that while stop the boats is a priority for voters, the Conservatives evidently aren't stopping the boats. They've ramped up the importance of one issue that they either have no intention of doing anything about or are terrible at doing so. People who want the boats stopped are increasingly bemused about why the Conservatives aren't doing so.
Yeah I agree with all that
I think some form of Rwanda is worth trying - and remember, WE HAVEN’T ACTUALLY TRIED IT YET - because deterrence might work. I see all the flaws with Rwanda but no one has any better idea. Which is why other countries are reaching a similar conclusion - Rwanda
However the government are so inept they have managed to get all the bad vibes of packing poor asylum seekers off to Kigali while all the time they’ve sent not one person to Kigali - thus infuriating both sides while doing nothing
It’s another example of Cookie’s Law. This government makes right wing noises but actually behaves more like an incompetent left wing government, ensuring the contempt of all
Cookie's Law is very real. My itchy conspiracy believing side is constantly telling me that it's intentional - Rishi and Hunt intend both to lose the election and marginalise the right for a generation. Of course I also realise that the two of them being utterly incompetent is as likely a reason.
Surely Rishi and Hunt and Cameron need to win to marginalise the right for a generation? If they lose the right will take back the Conservative party with a vengeance
And you will end up in opposition for at least a decade. Which I suspect you are smart enough to realise.
Most likely but not certain.
If the economy is poor even a rightwinger can win, as Thatcher beat the more centrist Callaghan in 1979.
Remember too Corbyn was considered an unelectable leftwinger in 2017 too but got a hung parliament and nearly became PM.
Most of the time the more centrist party may win and win clearly but 20-30% of the time it doesn't
I think it depends how right you go. If it is someone like Braverman you are toast. Someone more centre right then the odds move back towards you.
After 2 hours 48 minutes of waiting on hold to Esure, I've just been cut off. I can think of nothing for it but to join twitter.
I sometimes think that if a political party pledged to enact a statutory obligation for service providers to answer the telephone within a reasonable period, they would be rewarded with a landslide victory.
Careful - if you use the 's' word you risk Sunil posting his bloody joke again.
Compliance!
Due to having fessed up to suffering from excessive boredom during Lockdown, PB's resident flint-knapper @Leon was commissioned by CCHQ to knap the perfect sculpture of Boris Johnson! Finally able to take a break from knapping strangely shaped sex-toys, he accepted the work in a heartbeat, and got to sculpting the same day. Arduous work, but he felt that, over the course of several weeks of almost continuous knapping, that he got it almost completely spot on with just a little bit more required.
However, @Leon had found that he had knapped so meticulously that his hands were thoroughly knackered and sore. He wondered about taking some time off in order to finish off his masterpiece at a later date. Boris's office phoned him back reasonably promptly, but to @Leon's horror, he was told in no uncertain terms that he would lose his fee if he stopped work!
OMG even BBC says Israel has tampered with evidence, manipulated video, lied to the public and provided no evidence that al-Shifa Hospital was a command centre for Hamas.
Then goes on to say the downgrading of Hamas Command Centre to a Node has serious consequences in terms of international law
I can see the National Flegship re-emerging at this rate. Shappsie won't object.
I want one of these.
Or two. Or the whole fleet. Because cool.
Vaguely comforting that the most modern(istic) warships still require a gun.
Do they have slightly different anchor arrangements on the prow?
I don't know, sorry. I assumed that one had just retracted it more. Or it could be the situation where later ships in the class look different to the earlier ones, but since one is #2 and the other is #4, I assume not.
Are Rishi and Hunt aware that the BBC Licence Fee is due to increase by 9% on 1st April? Yes NINE % - that is not a typo.
Forget about the issue of abolishing it - how is the public going to react to this?
Note ITV has just announced its advertising revenue will fall by 8% this year. And the BBC is going to get a 9% increase which will hugely increase its already massively dominant position?
Will they be addressing this in the Autumn Statement? Before anyone responds to the contrary it is defined as a tax by the Govt and included in forecast tax and expenditure totals by the OBR.
I can see the National Flegship re-emerging at this rate. Shappsie won't object.
I want one of these.
Or two. Or the whole fleet. Because cool.
Vaguely comforting that the most modern(istic) warships still require a gun.
Do they have slightly different anchor arrangements on the prow?
I don't know, sorry. I assumed that one had just retracted it more. Or it could be the situation where later ships in the class look different to the earlier ones, but since one is #2 and the other is #4, I assume not.
OMG even BBC says Israel has tampered with evidence, manipulated video, lied to the public and provided no evidence that al-Shifa Hospital was a command centre for Hamas.
Then goes on to say the downgrading of Hamas Command Centre to a Node has serious consequences in terms of international law
Israel knows the US will support it whatever it does. So it will do whatever it wants.
Of course there will be all kinds of telephone calls, statements and visits by the US. But it doesn't matter. Israel knows that whatever they continue to do, the US will not withdraw its support.
On my way back to Devon. Surrey friend’s elation at DC’s return has rapidly evaporated with the latest doubling down on Rwanda, which she thinks is morally bankrupt and utterly disgusting + their latest onslaught against those with mental health disabilities on benefits.
I can see the National Flegship re-emerging at this rate. Shappsie won't object.
I want one of these.
Or two. Or the whole fleet. Because cool.
Vaguely comforting that the most modern(istic) warships still require a gun.
Do they have slightly different anchor arrangements on the prow?
I don't know, sorry. I assumed that one had just retracted it more. Or it could be the situation where later ships in the class look different to the earlier ones, but since one is #2 and the other is #4, I assume not.
If Hunt wants to do anything on IHT he should abolish the separate £175k allowance for homes to children and increase the basic allowance from £325k to £500k. Because:
- Little cost as most estates get £500k allowance anyway - Everyone treated the same so much fairer - Good headline as most people don't understand the separate £175k allowance
I can see the National Flegship re-emerging at this rate. Shappsie won't object.
I want one of these.
Or two. Or the whole fleet. Because cool.
Vaguely comforting that the most modern(istic) warships still require a gun.
Do they have slightly different anchor arrangements on the prow?
I don't know, sorry. I assumed that one had just retracted it more. Or it could be the situation where later ships in the class look different to the earlier ones, but since one is #2 and the other is #4, I assume not.
That’s not a cool flagship
This is a cool flagship
And having it as a small model on a plinth will save on both crew and maintenance.
OMG even BBC says Israel has tampered with evidence, manipulated video, lied to the public and provided no evidence that al-Shifa Hospital was a command centre for Hamas.
Then goes on to say the downgrading of Hamas Command Centre to a Node has serious consequences in terms of international law
Israel knows the US will support it whatever it does. So it will do whatever it wants.
Of course there will be all kinds of telephone calls, statements and visits by the US. But it doesn't matter. Israel knows that whatever they continue to do, the US will not withdraw its support.
And it will go on and on and on.
At the end of this terrible situation, however it ends, will Netanyahu and Ismail Haniyeh be charged with war crimes?
I can see the National Flegship re-emerging at this rate. Shappsie won't object.
I want one of these.
Or two. Or the whole fleet. Because cool.
Vaguely comforting that the most modern(istic) warships still require a gun.
Do they have slightly different anchor arrangements on the prow?
I don't know, sorry. I assumed that one had just retracted it more. Or it could be the situation where later ships in the class look different to the earlier ones, but since one is #2 and the other is #4, I assume not.
People support the abolition of inheritance tax even if they are never going to pay it themselves. Its about fairness. Taxing the dead is absolutely unfair when you have paid taxes all your life. It will be difficult for Labour to overturn it. Its a sort if 45p tax trap like McDoom set.
Periodic reminder that inheritance tax taxes the living on unearned income. The dead, being dead, do not pay. The living, in most cases, already do not pay due to the exemptions and the loopholes for those inclined to find them.
As it stands,* I'll land a substantial inheritance one day due to my good judgement in having parents with a house in the south east (I haven't looked into it, but I suspect we'll actually not be charged due to the exemptions) but I really don't see why I should be handed a few £100k tax free that I have done nothing to deserve, while I get taxed etc on the money I work for.
*my parents are, unfortunately, loathe to spend money, despite having pretty comfortable pensions - getting them to even shell out for useful modifications to their home as they're getting old or paying for more than the cheapest care services is hard. It may all go on care home costs, of course, which is also fine with me (I just hope they use the money to have the best possible final years).
Yes, I agree. And squareroot's point reminds me of the third reason I can't get too excited about the proposed cut in inheritance tax - despite, as I said, it being worth about nine years' net wages to me - I simply don't believe it wouldn't be immediately reversed. It'll be of any use only to those few unlucky people whose parents die in the short period between the cut and Labour getting around to reversing it.
All taxes are unfair in some way. But we need to raise money somehow. Inheritance tax strikes me as less iniquitous than most.
I’m at the other end of the argument. It can’t, surely, be many years now before my heirs and assigns have the bother of clearing up my, and my wife’s, affairs, notifying everyone who matters (including, in my case pb) and clearing out the house for sale. And when they do sell it, unless something very spectacular has has happened to the property market, it will sell for a great deal more than we paid for it. A rise which we have done nothing to deserve. What we have given our children is a good education, which has enabled them to earn a good living themselves, and, I hope, a moral code which results in them treating those around them with respect. Why, then, should they benefit from an increase in the value of something to which neither we nor they have contributed?
To enable a more prosperous future for your grand and great? grandchildren. Life is difficult enough as it is, I will not begrudge anyone who benefits from inheritance. What will the Gov't do with the money anyway ? Spaff it on cancellation costs for a HS2 contractual supplier ?
My view is that it's better for people to have money when they start working, rather than having to wait 30 years for their relatives to drop off, before gaining a windfall.
I am going to inherit a lot, over the next ten years, in all likelihood, but at the age of 56, it's of limited use.
That's why it's better to put the available sums into the pockets of workers.
It's no wonder young people aren't voting Conservative.
If you look at 1979, when Margaret Thatcher won over young people, it's because she was absolutely on their side of getting on against the stultifying practices of ideological councils and trade unions.
Because of the rise in inflation, fiscal drag means the government is taking far more income tax than was anticipated in 2021, when the rate freeze was announced. By far the best thing the government could do would be to raise the personal allowance and higher rate threshold by 10-15% each. And, that would be unlikely to be reversed by an incoming Labour government.
Even getting a few thousand extra a year however in income would not ultimately match getting a house worth £350-£700k IHT tax free (and most homes south of Watford are within that band)
Why would one wish to wait thirty years to hit the jackpot when a rich relative dies, rather than earn this money in one's 20's, 30's, and 40's.
As if you used a calculator you would work out it would make you richer in the longer term, assuming you weren't run over by a bus beforehand and house prices didn't collapse completely to inherit say a £500k house from your parents IHT free in a few decades (or much earlier if you get a big inheritance from a grandparent) even if you have to pay a bit more in income tax and NI on your earnings now
It's pretty cold comfort to inherit a lot, as one approaches retirement, rather than to have money when it is of most to you.
And, about 50% of people will never inherit anything of significance. It is far better to motivate people to work hard, rather than turn them into drones waiting for a windfall.
Arguably retirement is when it is most of use to you as you are no longer earning a wage at work, you only have a pension to rely on income wise other than any wealth you have inherited or shares or rental income for the few who are landlords.
Given the average house price is nearly £300k in the UK as a whole (and far more in London and the home counties) most will now inherit a significant sum
I suppose it depends upon your circumstances. For those of us able to plan for our retirement we aren't paying a mortgage, don't commute and pay for lunch at work everyday anymore etc, etc so costs are less and can take 25% from our pension if we wish and probably have a pot of money as well as our pension.
Others of course are much poorer and the reduction in income on retirement could be critical, particularly if they are renting and weren't able to save a nest egg.
However, as a rule, it is the latter group who are much more unlikely to inherit a sum of money that attracts inheritance tax, so the group for whom a cut in IHT or increase in the starting band would be most beneficial don't get it anyway.
Yes but you were probably comfortably in the top 10% of earners with a well above average sized pension and sizeable savings.
Now most people entering retirement will find the income they get from their pension, including the state pension and any private workplace pension they had, will be significantly less than the income they got from their salary when working. Especially with final salary pensions now closed for all but a few in the civil service and public sector.
So even if the average pensioner owns their property, has paid off their mortgage and does not rent they won't have a significant income from their pension alone unless topped up with an inheritance
I can see the National Flegship re-emerging at this rate. Shappsie won't object.
I want one of these.
Or two. Or the whole fleet. Because cool.
Vaguely comforting that the most modern(istic) warships still require a gun.
Do they have slightly different anchor arrangements on the prow?
I don't know, sorry. I assumed that one had just retracted it more. Or it could be the situation where later ships in the class look different to the earlier ones, but since one is #2 and the other is #4, I assume not.
If Hunt wants to do anything on IHT he should abolish the separate £175k allowance for homes to children and increase the basic allowance from £325k to £500k. Because:
- Little cost as most estates get £500k allowance anyway - Everyone treated the same so much fairer - Good headline as most people don't understand the separate £175k allowance
Well I had to look it up and at my age I'm not exactly uninterested in the matter
Are Rishi and Hunt aware that the BBC Licence Fee is due to increase by 9% on 1st April? Yes NINE % - that is not a typo.
Forget about the issue of abolishing it - how is the public going to react to this?
Note ITV has just announced its advertising revenue will fall by 8% this year. And the BBC is going to get a 9% increase which will hugely increase its already massively dominant position?
Will they be addressing this in the Autumn Statement? Before anyone responds to the contrary it is defined as a tax by the Govt and included in forecast tax and expenditure totals by the OBR.
The single most regressive tax of all.
It has been raised by plenty of people. One can only assume these incompetent morons are happy for us to have more money leeched off us for this crap.
People support the abolition of inheritance tax even if they are never going to pay it themselves. Its about fairness. Taxing the dead is absolutely unfair when you have paid taxes all your life. It will be difficult for Labour to overturn it. Its a sort if 45p tax trap like McDoom set.
Periodic reminder that inheritance tax taxes the living on unearned income. The dead, being dead, do not pay. The living, in most cases, already do not pay due to the exemptions and the loopholes for those inclined to find them.
As it stands,* I'll land a substantial inheritance one day due to my good judgement in having parents with a house in the south east (I haven't looked into it, but I suspect we'll actually not be charged due to the exemptions) but I really don't see why I should be handed a few £100k tax free that I have done nothing to deserve, while I get taxed etc on the money I work for.
*my parents are, unfortunately, loathe to spend money, despite having pretty comfortable pensions - getting them to even shell out for useful modifications to their home as they're getting old or paying for more than the cheapest care services is hard. It may all go on care home costs, of course, which is also fine with me (I just hope they use the money to have the best possible final years).
Yes, I agree. And squareroot's point reminds me of the third reason I can't get too excited about the proposed cut in inheritance tax - despite, as I said, it being worth about nine years' net wages to me - I simply don't believe it wouldn't be immediately reversed. It'll be of any use only to those few unlucky people whose parents die in the short period between the cut and Labour getting around to reversing it.
All taxes are unfair in some way. But we need to raise money somehow. Inheritance tax strikes me as less iniquitous than most.
I’m at the other end of the argument. It can’t, surely, be many years now before my heirs and assigns have the bother of clearing up my, and my wife’s, affairs, notifying everyone who matters (including, in my case pb) and clearing out the house for sale. And when they do sell it, unless something very spectacular has has happened to the property market, it will sell for a great deal more than we paid for it. A rise which we have done nothing to deserve. What we have given our children is a good education, which has enabled them to earn a good living themselves, and, I hope, a moral code which results in them treating those around them with respect. Why, then, should they benefit from an increase in the value of something to which neither we nor they have contributed?
To enable a more prosperous future for your grand and great? grandchildren. Life is difficult enough as it is, I will not begrudge anyone who benefits from inheritance. What will the Gov't do with the money anyway ? Spaff it on cancellation costs for a HS2 contractual supplier ?
My view is that it's better for people to have money when they start working, rather than having to wait 30 years for their relatives to drop off, before gaining a windfall.
I am going to inherit a lot, over the next ten years, in all likelihood, but at the age of 56, it's of limited use.
That's why it's better to put the available sums into the pockets of workers.
It's no wonder young people aren't voting Conservative.
If you look at 1979, when Margaret Thatcher won over young people, it's because she was absolutely on their side of getting on against the stultifying practices of ideological councils and trade unions.
Because of the rise in inflation, fiscal drag means the government is taking far more income tax than was anticipated in 2021, when the rate freeze was announced. By far the best thing the government could do would be to raise the personal allowance and higher rate threshold by 10-15% each. And, that would be unlikely to be reversed by an incoming Labour government.
Even getting a few thousand extra a year however in income would not ultimately match getting a house worth £350-£700k IHT tax free (and most homes south of Watford are within that band)
Why would one wish to wait thirty years to hit the jackpot when a rich relative dies, rather than earn this money in one's 20's, 30's, and 40's.
As if you used a calculator you would work out it would make you richer in the longer term, assuming you weren't run over by a bus beforehand and house prices didn't collapse completely to inherit say a £500k house from your parents IHT free in a few decades (or much earlier if you get a big inheritance from a grandparent) even if you have to pay a bit more in income tax and NI on your earnings now
It's pretty cold comfort to inherit a lot, as one approaches retirement, rather than to have money when it is of most to you.
And, about 50% of people will never inherit anything of significance. It is far better to motivate people to work hard, rather than turn them into drones waiting for a windfall.
Arguably retirement is when it is most of use to you as you are no longer earning a wage at work, you only have a pension to rely on income wise other than any wealth you have inherited or shares or rental income for the few who are landlords.
Given the average house price is nearly £300k in the UK as a whole (and far more in London and the home counties) most will now inherit a significant sum
I suppose it depends upon your circumstances. For those of us able to plan for our retirement we aren't paying a mortgage, don't commute and pay for lunch at work everyday anymore etc, etc so costs are less and can take 25% from our pension if we wish and probably have a pot of money as well as our pension.
Others of course are much poorer and the reduction in income on retirement could be critical, particularly if they are renting and weren't able to save a nest egg.
However, as a rule, it is the latter group who are much more unlikely to inherit a sum of money that attracts inheritance tax, so the group for whom a cut in IHT or increase in the starting band would be most beneficial don't get it anyway.
Yes but you were probably comfortably in the top 10% of earners with a well above average sized pension and sizeable savings.
Now most people entering retirement will find the income they get from their pension, including the state pension and any private workplace pension they had, will be significantly less than the income they got from their salary when working. Especially with final salary pensions now closed for all but a few in the civil service and public sector.
So even if the average pensioner owns their property, has paid off their mortgage and does not rent they won't have a significant income from their pension alone unless topped up with an inheritance
But surely that is an argument for structuring things so that they can save during their lifetime, rather than so those of us who are lucky enough to have rich parents can afford to retire? If nothing else, your arrangement only works for one generation. If I can only retire on the money handed down from my parents, what do my kids do when their turn comes?
Comments
Perhaps feathers or massive "Medical Supplies" labels count as actual medical supplies in Gaza
https://twitter.com/AlanRMacLeod/status/1725161683910267143
https://www.esure.com/about/complaints-management
Step Two
When a complaint can’t be resolved quickly or you aren’t happy with the initial resolution our Customer Relations team are here to help you. This is a dedicated team who will carry out an independent review for you and they act with full authority of our Chief Executive.
We’ll contact you to tell you who will own your complaint and how long you can expect to wait for a decision. We will write to you with our view within eight weeks from the date you first complained – this is known as a ‘final decision’ letter.
The email address is CustomerRelationsExec@esure.com or you can write to;
Customer Relations
esure
The Equinox
19 Cadogan Street
Glasgow
G2 6QQ
For many people, pressuring them to return to work is the LAST thing they need. It should be an informed decision between patient and mental health practitioners not some servant of this wicked Conservative callous machine.
For some it will be the final straw to push them over the edge.
Presumably that would suit this Nasty Party. Force them into suicide then they don’t have to pay for their care, a word which once upon a time actually meant something to this now morally bankrupt and downright evil manifestation of conservatism.
For those that inherit it is a wodge of unearned income so again best time to tax rather than on their earned income.
And any claim that it is a tax on taxed money is true, but then so are a lot of taxes eg Vat, stamp duty on a property, etc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IRkvtf5h3c
Are they desperate to make sure it's not cancelled?
I can state unequivocally that is not acceptable for our Country in any circumstances and is shameful
Braverman and others need to join Reform UK or even the BNP
*Except on Friday, where it is T-shirt, jeans and trainers
The UK is pretty generous compared to some OECD nations in both providing non contributory unemployment benefits and not time limiting them. All that is being proposed is those who refuse job offers after 6 months lose benefits
So, no. It’s you who needs to get out more and start listening to the people who make up the majority of this country who are going to give the tories a kicking at the election, the like of which has never been seen.
Don’t believe me? Let’s see who is proved right.
'You say you're short of oxygen, well, 21% of the contents of these boxes is pure O baby!'
The question of why should some benefit from large inheritances tax free is well why should it be taxed? Ultimately the state has a balance of raising income to meet expenditure.
To be clear, I'm not talking about Forest, who are owned by someone who is DEFINITELY NOT an organised crime kingpin.
There's nothing new here, of course, but I'd honestly say that as cultural institutions (and football fandom being one of our greatest artefacts of intangible cultural heritages) they deserve a little more scrutiny, if not protection, than other businesses.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_records_and_statistics_in_England
Look at https://www.esuregroup.com/who-we-are/our-board/ for other board members
I normally find emailing the ceo works.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/11/15/672b8/2
As I say, she has gone from some elation over DC to now near-despair at her party.
What a godawful cock-up of a government they are. A nasty rabble of clueless, utterly corrupt, reprobates.
Have a nice day everyone
xx
Clue: it wasn't Thatch.
I agree Netanyahu's messaging is generally poor, but there are some signs that the strategy - make Gazans fear Israel more than they fear Hamas, and hate Hamas more than they hate Israel - is starting to work.
The election is lost for a number of reasons, not least the cost of living crisis which is a result of paying for covid and the Ukrananian war caused energy shock. Whichever government was in power when that hit would be paying the price electorally. Add in 13 years in power leading to a tired party and a decent opposition.
But please tone down the bile. Otherwise I'll picture you in your 'never kissed a Tory' T-shirt banging on about 'Tory scum'.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/67448714
Surprisingly few irate customers actually work out who to email.
I just don't see the half-baked Rwanda scheme as any sort of hill to die upon.
You very definitely lean to the right and the nuance of your posts is that is where your sympathises are
Fortunately, there are a majority of current conservatives mps who reject Braverman and her nasty ill conceived ideas and, of course, more importantly the public who are understandbly looking at the riven and torn conservative party and saying 'no thanks' despite the bland Starmer who really has few answers other than he and labour are all that is left
And, about 50% of people will never inherit anything of significance. It is far better to motivate people to work hard, rather than turn them into drones waiting for a windfall.
It discourages prudence and saving
If you really want a tax of 40% per generation on all assets then it might be easier to do that a little bit at a time every year, rather than all in one go on whatever escapes the inheritance tax planning loopholes.
Average age of a mother at birth of first child is around 30 years, so an annual asset taxation rate of ~1.3% would raise as much as inheritance tax would do (without the loopholes). Is that more or less unfair as a tax?
In the meantime, Twitter has worked, at least initially - a human got back to me within 30 minutes. We'll see what transpires from that. Fallback position is CEO or marketing director as suggested here! Many thanks to all of you.
The economy, whilst not exactly roaring away, has problems that we could only aspire to: https://iranwire.com/en/economy/108674-a-dark-year-for-irans-economy-two-predictions-for-2023/#:~:text=Iran's economic growth rate in 2023 will reach,growth of about 3% this year and next. In the longer run if we are successful in reducing our dependency on oil they might have problems but right now they look pretty stable.
The Ayatollahs are a deeply repulsive regime with an ethical code I find repugnant but thinking that they are going to disappear seems wishful thinking to me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yStnZl5gKMk
If the economy is poor even a rightwinger can win, as Thatcher beat the more centrist Callaghan in 1979.
Remember too Corbyn was considered an unelectable leftwinger in 2017 too but got a hung parliament and nearly became PM.
Most of the time the more centrist party may win and win clearly but 20-30% of the time it doesn't
Given the average house price is nearly £300k in the UK as a whole (and far more in London and the home counties) most will now inherit a significant sum
£400k - £1m - 10-12%
£1m - £2m rising from 12% to 25% towards £2m
£2m-£5m - 25%
£5m -£10m declining from 25% towards 15%
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/inheritance-tax-statistics-commentary/inheritance-tax-statistics-commentary
Inheritance tax works fine at up to about the £5m level. Beyond that we need wealth taxes.
Forget about the issue of abolishing it - how is the public going to react to this?
Note ITV has just announced its advertising revenue will fall by 8% this year. And the BBC is going to get a 9% increase which will hugely increase its already massively dominant position?
Will they be addressing this in the Autumn Statement? Before anyone responds to the contrary it is defined as a tax by the Govt and included in forecast tax and expenditure totals by the OBR.
Others of course are much poorer and the reduction in income on retirement could be critical, particularly if they are renting and weren't able to save a nest egg.
However, as a rule, it is the latter group who are much more unlikely to inherit a sum of money that attracts inheritance tax, so the group for whom a cut in IHT or increase in the starting band would be most beneficial don't get it anyway.
Governments should support and incentivise saving for people to afford retirement in security, but it is also fine for government to penalise saving beyond that level, it serves no public good.
Due to having fessed up to suffering from excessive boredom during Lockdown, PB's resident flint-knapper @Leon was commissioned by CCHQ to knap the perfect sculpture of Boris Johnson! Finally able to take a break from knapping strangely shaped sex-toys, he accepted the work in a heartbeat, and got to sculpting the same day. Arduous work, but he felt that, over the course of several weeks of almost continuous knapping, that he got it almost completely spot on with just a little bit more required.
However, @Leon had found that he had knapped so meticulously that his hands were thoroughly knackered and sore. He wondered about taking some time off in order to finish off his masterpiece at a later date. Boris's office phoned him back reasonably promptly, but to @Leon's horror, he was told in no uncertain terms that he would lose his fee if he stopped work!
"Why?" asked @Leon on the phone incredulously.
"Simple!" Boris's underling replied. "You're not entitled to any..." He paused for effect. "...Statue-Tory Sick Pay!"
I thank you!
They both hide behind children.
I still don't doubt that it will tighten a bit when the election is called, but starting to wonder where the floor is now for the Conservatives.
Then goes on to say the downgrading of Hamas Command Centre to a Node has serious consequences in terms of international law
https://twitter.com/broseph_stalin/status/1725481914562121794
This is a cool flagship
IDF Propaganda is shockingly poor
Israel knows the US will support it whatever it does. So it will do whatever it wants.
Of course there will be all kinds of telephone calls, statements and visits by the US. But it doesn't matter. Israel knows that whatever they continue to do, the US will not withdraw its support.
And it will go on and on and on.
https://x.com/paddypower/status/1725504334635335799?s=46
- Little cost as most estates get £500k allowance anyway
- Everyone treated the same so much fairer
- Good headline as most people don't understand the separate £175k allowance
Now most people entering retirement will find the income they get from their pension, including the state pension and any private workplace pension they had, will be significantly less than the income they got from their salary when working. Especially with final salary pensions now closed for all but a few in the civil service and public sector.
So even if the average pensioner owns their property, has paid off their mortgage and does not rent they won't have a significant income from their pension alone unless topped up with an inheritance
Suella = Everton
If nothing else, your arrangement only works for one generation. If I can only retire on the money handed down from my parents, what do my kids do when their turn comes?