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.
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.
Triodos Bank is another. Worth its weight in gold. Not that it weighs much I suppose.
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.
Well that was a very interesting speed awareness course. A cross section of the Great British public from all 4 corners of the country. It was like taking part in Gogglebox or The Ranganation. Everyone very well behaved and actively contributing. Particularly the chatty Lancastrian grandma in her caravan who geolocated several of the road pictures.
Perhaps we should roll this concept out to lots more crimes and misdemeanours. Shoplifting awareness course. VAT fraud awareness course. Underage drinking awareness course.
Iran like the UK has unelected clergy in their parliament which is shi'ite if you ask me, the UK should stop acting like a theocracy.
That presumes that the Church of England, in the U.K., is a religious organisation.
Is ther me any evidence of that?
They claim a religious dispensation of conscience to disobey the state's own laws on marrying gay and lesbian couples.
Synod this week has voted to approve experimental services of blessing for homosexual couples married in English law
Still not marrying the poor folk, though.
How many more decades will it take?
No need to, they are married in law in a registry office or hotel, what Synod has voted for however is experimental blessing services for homosexual parishioners married in UK law.
As you also know there is strong opposition from evangelicals in particular even to blessings let alone homosexual marriage. As your fellow Scottish Nationalist Kate Forbes has made clear, evangelicals believe homosexual marriage is incompatible with the Bible and scripture (Muslims and the Vatican also believe that)
Missing the point as always. C of E claims to be the State Church but it doesn't go by the State law.
People Polling criticised for having Conservative vote at 19%. Hmm. Then another pollster has it at ... 19%. Then YouGov have it at ... 21%. Key point - there are lots of bad faith actors in polling & academe. What they don't like, so we're clear, is People Polling (proudly!) work for GB News. 12:26 PM · Nov 17, 2023"
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.
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
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?
Doesn't matter. The idea is to save the Tory party foir another generation, and they'll think of some other way of defrauding the UK and its population by then.
Given the struggles of the bottom three a 10 point deduction isn't likely to see them get relegated. My guess is the penalty was given with that in mind.
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
Indeed. You do need to be very careful where the money goes when writing a will, or when doing a deed of variance, not to lose some or all of the 175K allowance. The house has to go specifically to the children.
Iran like the UK has unelected clergy in their parliament which is shi'ite if you ask me, the UK should stop acting like a theocracy.
That presumes that the Church of England, in the U.K., is a religious organisation.
Is ther me any evidence of that?
They claim a religious dispensation of conscience to disobey the state's own laws on marrying gay and lesbian couples.
Synod this week has voted to approve experimental services of blessing for homosexual couples married in English law
Still not marrying the poor folk, though.
How many more decades will it take?
No need to, they are married in law in a registry office or hotel, what Synod has voted for however is experimental blessing services for homosexual parishioners married in UK law.
As you also know there is strong opposition from evangelicals in particular even to blessings let alone homosexual marriage. As your fellow Scottish Nationalist Kate Forbes has made clear, evangelicals believe homosexual marriage is incompatible with the Bible and scripture (Muslims and the Vatican also believe that)
Missing the point as always. C of E claims to be the State Church but it doesn't go by the State law.
Yes it does, the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 exempted the Church of England and every other Christian denomination and religion from having to perform full homosexual marriage services in their place of worship. The C of E has decided to allow experimental services of blessing for married homosexual couples in their Parishes nonetheless but not full marriage.
Adultery is legal in the UK, prostitution in private is legal. Do you think the C of E should also have services of blessing for adulterers and prostitutes and their clients despite there being clearly contrary to scripture on any reading of it?
Iran like the UK has unelected clergy in their parliament which is shi'ite if you ask me, the UK should stop acting like a theocracy.
That presumes that the Church of England, in the U.K., is a religious organisation.
Is ther me any evidence of that?
They claim a religious dispensation of conscience to disobey the state's own laws on marrying gay and lesbian couples.
Synod this week has voted to approve experimental services of blessing for homosexual couples married in English law
Still not marrying the poor folk, though.
How many more decades will it take?
No need to, they are married in law in a registry office or hotel, what Synod has voted for however is experimental blessing services for homosexual parishioners married in UK law.
As you also know there is strong opposition from evangelicals in particular even to blessings let alone homosexual marriage. As your fellow Scottish Nationalist Kate Forbes has made clear, evangelicals believe homosexual marriage is incompatible with the Bible and scripture (Muslims and the Vatican also believe that)
Missing the point as always. C of E claims to be the State Church but it doesn't go by the State law.
Yes it does, the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 exempted the Church of England and every other Christian denomination and religion from having to perform full homosexual marriage services in their place of worship
Still missing the point. The other sects aren't state churches. The C of E is, and it's using religion to opt out of the 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.
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.
I've got just the tiny captain for it
That's bloody funny. Rishi is short - 5ft 6ins - and people have been talking about a ship which is actually a model and so given that Rishi is short you thought it would be very funny to make a joke out of it all. The funny short guy who would fit into a model ship.
That is brilliant.
Looking forward to more jokes along the same lines. 5ft 6ins - the possibilities are endless to make fun of this. You are only bound by your imagination.
Iran like the UK has unelected clergy in their parliament which is shi'ite if you ask me, the UK should stop acting like a theocracy.
That presumes that the Church of England, in the U.K., is a religious organisation.
Is ther me any evidence of that?
They claim a religious dispensation of conscience to disobey the state's own laws on marrying gay and lesbian couples.
Synod this week has voted to approve experimental services of blessing for homosexual couples married in English law
Still not marrying the poor folk, though.
How many more decades will it take?
No need to, they are married in law in a registry office or hotel, what Synod has voted for however is experimental blessing services for homosexual parishioners married in UK law.
As you also know there is strong opposition from evangelicals in particular even to blessings let alone homosexual marriage. As your fellow Scottish Nationalist Kate Forbes has made clear, evangelicals believe homosexual marriage is incompatible with the Bible and scripture (Muslims and the Vatican also believe that)
Missing the point as always. C of E claims to be the State Church but it doesn't go by the State law.
Yes it does, the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 exempted the Church of England and every other Christian denomination and religion from having to perform full homosexual marriage services in their place of worship.
Adultery is legal, prostitution in private is legal. Do you think the C of E should also have services of blessing for adulterers and prostitutes and their clients?
Ah, you added the last bit.
Ask this chap called Jesus Christ. He was rather hot on blessing prostitutes and forgiving adulterers, as I recall.
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?
No matter how much you save into a pension it will not come close to what you could inherit IHT free in retirement for most people.
Your kids also inherit the family home from you too when you die and they are retired
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.
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?
No matter how much you save into a pension it will not come close to what you could inherit IHT free in retirement for most people.
Your kids also inherit the family home from you too when you die and they are retired
And what is Mr and Mrs Cookie supposed to live on? And what about the school fees which you have just spent thei nheritance on?
Iran like the UK has unelected clergy in their parliament which is shi'ite if you ask me, the UK should stop acting like a theocracy.
That presumes that the Church of England, in the U.K., is a religious organisation.
Is ther me any evidence of that?
They claim a religious dispensation of conscience to disobey the state's own laws on marrying gay and lesbian couples.
Synod this week has voted to approve experimental services of blessing for homosexual couples married in English law
Still not marrying the poor folk, though.
How many more decades will it take?
No need to, they are married in law in a registry office or hotel, what Synod has voted for however is experimental blessing services for homosexual parishioners married in UK law.
As you also know there is strong opposition from evangelicals in particular even to blessings let alone homosexual marriage. As your fellow Scottish Nationalist Kate Forbes has made clear, evangelicals believe homosexual marriage is incompatible with the Bible and scripture (Muslims and the Vatican also believe that)
Missing the point as always. C of E claims to be the State Church but it doesn't go by the State law.
Yes it does, the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 exempted the Church of England and every other Christian denomination and religion from having to perform full homosexual marriage services in their place of worship.
Adultery is legal, prostitution in private is legal. Do you think the C of E should also have services of blessing for adulterers and prostitutes and their clients?
Ah, you added the last bit.
Ask this chap called Jesus Christ. He was rather hot on blessing prostitutes and forgiving adulterers, as I recall.
So you are saying the C of E is not Christian?
Christ blessed the sinnner but NOT the sin as you well know. So no Christian church could bless the act of adultery or prostitution
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
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?
No matter how much you save into a pension it will not come close to what you could inherit IHT free in retirement for most people.
Your kids also inherit the family home from you too when you die and they are retired
And what is Mr and Mrs Cookie supposed to live on? And what about the school fees which you have just spent thei nheritance on?
The school fees came from one inheritance from one grannie, the other inheritance to support living costs in retirement came from the inheritance from the other grannie for the Cookies.
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.
I've got just the tiny captain for it
That's bloody funny. Rishi is short - 5ft 6ins - and people have been talking about a ship which is actually a model and so given that Rishi is short you thought it would be very funny to make a joke out of it all. The funny short guy who would fit into a model ship.
That is brilliant.
Looking forward to more jokes along the same lines. 5ft 6ins - the possibilities are endless to make fun of this. You are only bound by your imagination.
Iran like the UK has unelected clergy in their parliament which is shi'ite if you ask me, the UK should stop acting like a theocracy.
That presumes that the Church of England, in the U.K., is a religious organisation.
Is ther me any evidence of that?
They claim a religious dispensation of conscience to disobey the state's own laws on marrying gay and lesbian couples.
Synod this week has voted to approve experimental services of blessing for homosexual couples married in English law
Still not marrying the poor folk, though.
How many more decades will it take?
No need to, they are married in law in a registry office or hotel, what Synod has voted for however is experimental blessing services for homosexual parishioners married in UK law.
As you also know there is strong opposition from evangelicals in particular even to blessings let alone homosexual marriage. As your fellow Scottish Nationalist Kate Forbes has made clear, evangelicals believe homosexual marriage is incompatible with the Bible and scripture (Muslims and the Vatican also believe that)
Missing the point as always. C of E claims to be the State Church but it doesn't go by the State law.
Yes it does, the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 exempted the Church of England and every other Christian denomination and religion from having to perform full homosexual marriage services in their place of worship.
Adultery is legal, prostitution in private is legal. Do you think the C of E should also have services of blessing for adulterers and prostitutes and their clients?
Ah, you added the last bit.
Ask this chap called Jesus Christ. He was rather hot on blessing prostitutes and forgiving adulterers, as I recall.
So you are saying the C of E is not Christian?
Christ blessed the sinnner but NOT the sin as you well know. So no Christian church could bless the act of adultery or prostitution
YOu said "services of blessing for adulterers and prostitutes", cvarefully cut and pasted before you go backi and change it.
I used the same: blessing prostitutes and forgiving adulterers.
Now you're saying something completely different and claiming it was alweays about that. Believe me, that doesn't win any arguments.
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.
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.
I've got just the tiny captain for it
That's bloody funny. Rishi is short - 5ft 6ins - and people have been talking about a ship which is actually a model and so given that Rishi is short you thought it would be very funny to make a joke out of it all. The funny short guy who would fit into a model ship.
That is brilliant.
Looking forward to more jokes along the same lines. 5ft 6ins - the possibilities are endless to make fun of this. You are only bound by your imagination.
Thanks for your ongoing attention.
Can't wait for the next one. Really on tenterhooks. I love a good joke, me.
F1: backed Sainz at 7 each way for fastest in qualifying. Suspect it'll be between Verstappen and the Ferraris. At Monza, also high speed, Sainz got pole.
I just met my Labour friend in Sussex who said that Starmer was a tedious tactical triangulator. He expects him to be a massive disappointment in office. He says Labour haven't got a chance of creating better prosperity or getting a grip on immigration. He's so disillusioned he's thinking of abstaining or voting Lib Dem as he likes Ed Daveys smile.
You should go out into the streets and hear what people are saying. It's enlightening. They're just not fans.
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.
I've got just the tiny captain for it
That's bloody funny. Rishi is short - 5ft 6ins - and people have been talking about a ship which is actually a model and so given that Rishi is short you thought it would be very funny to make a joke out of it all. The funny short guy who would fit into a model ship.
That is brilliant.
Looking forward to more jokes along the same lines. 5ft 6ins - the possibilities are endless to make fun of this. You are only bound by your imagination.
Thanks for your ongoing attention.
Can't wait for the next one. Really on tenterhooks. I love a good joke, me.
I recommend Harburn Hobbies in Leith Walk, Edinburgh, if you want some little model people to sit on your monitor to remind yourself of the joke.
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.
I've got just the tiny captain for it
That's bloody funny. Rishi is short - 5ft 6ins - and people have been talking about a ship which is actually a model and so given that Rishi is short you thought it would be very funny to make a joke out of it all. The funny short guy who would fit into a model ship.
That is brilliant.
Looking forward to more jokes along the same lines. 5ft 6ins - the possibilities are endless to make fun of this. You are only bound by your imagination.
Thanks for your ongoing attention.
Can't wait for the next one. Really on tenterhooks. I love a good joke, me.
I’ll add politicians who hoor themselves for photo opportunities shouldn’t have the piss ripped out of them to your growing list of hobby horses.
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
Your version of Conservatism is very much apres moi le deluge.
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.
I've got just the tiny captain for it
"Wait! The Germans' nick-name for me is 'the Little Man'??"
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?
No matter how much you save into a pension it will not come close to what you could inherit IHT free in retirement for most people.
Your kids also inherit the family home from you too when you die and they are retired
And what is Mr and Mrs Cookie supposed to live on? And what about the school fees which you have just spent thei nheritance on?
The school fees came from one inheritance from one grannie, the other inheritance to support living costs in retirement came from the inheritance from the other grannie for the Cookies.
Well this is all well and good (though as I said, a very peculiar set up) for those of us whose parents are rich and who don't have siblings or cousins. But for most people it strikes me as a little sub-optimal.
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.
I've got just the tiny captain for it
That's bloody funny. Rishi is short - 5ft 6ins - and people have been talking about a ship which is actually a model and so given that Rishi is short you thought it would be very funny to make a joke out of it all. The funny short guy who would fit into a model ship.
That is brilliant.
Looking forward to more jokes along the same lines. 5ft 6ins - the possibilities are endless to make fun of this. You are only bound by your imagination.
Thanks for your ongoing attention.
Can't wait for the next one. Really on tenterhooks. I love a good joke, me.
I’ll add politicians who hoor themselves for photo opportunities shouldn’t have the piss ripped out of them to your growing list of hobby horses.
Iran like the UK has unelected clergy in their parliament which is shi'ite if you ask me, the UK should stop acting like a theocracy.
That presumes that the Church of England, in the U.K., is a religious organisation.
Is ther me any evidence of that?
They claim a religious dispensation of conscience to disobey the state's own laws on marrying gay and lesbian couples.
Synod this week has voted to approve experimental services of blessing for homosexual couples married in English law
Still not marrying the poor folk, though.
How many more decades will it take?
No need to, they are married in law in a registry office or hotel, what Synod has voted for however is experimental blessing services for homosexual parishioners married in UK law.
As you also know there is strong opposition from evangelicals in particular even to blessings let alone homosexual marriage. As your fellow Scottish Nationalist Kate Forbes has made clear, evangelicals believe homosexual marriage is incompatible with the Bible and scripture (Muslims and the Vatican also believe that)
Missing the point as always. C of E claims to be the State Church but it doesn't go by the State law.
Yes it does, the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 exempted the Church of England and every other Christian denomination and religion from having to perform full homosexual marriage services in their place of worship.
Adultery is legal, prostitution in private is legal. Do you think the C of E should also have services of blessing for adulterers and prostitutes and their clients?
Ah, you added the last bit.
Ask this chap called Jesus Christ. He was rather hot on blessing prostitutes and forgiving adulterers, as I recall.
So you are saying the C of E is not Christian?
Christ blessed the sinnner but NOT the sin as you well know. So no Christian church could bless the act of adultery or prostitution
YOu said "services of blessing for adulterers and prostitutes", cvarefully cut and pasted before you go backi and change it.
I used the same: blessing prostitutes and forgiving adulterers.
Now you're saying something completely different and claiming it was alweays about that. Believe me, that doesn't win any arguments.
You cannot bless the act of prostitution and adultery and be a Christian compliant with the Bible.
Even blessings for homosexual couples only bless their unions and love and commitment for each other, they don't bless acts of homosexual sex and holy matrimony remains reserved for heterosexual couples
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?
Doesn't matter. The idea is to save the Tory party foir another generation, and they'll think of some other way of defrauding the UK and its population by then.
But who will vote for this? I've voted Tory more often than not. And I stand to benefit massively from it. And I wouldn't vote for it. It's stupid. If even I can't be persuaded to vote Tory on the basis of this policy, who will?
I just met my Labour friend in Sussex who said that Starmer was a tedious tactical triangulator. He expects him to be a massive disappointment in office. He says Labour haven't got a chance of creating better prosperity or getting a grip on immigration. He's so disillusioned he's thinking of abstaining or voting Lib Dem as he likes Ed Daveys smile.
You should go out into the streets and hear what people are saying. It's enlightening. They're just not fans.
And, now, off to Cornwall xx
This is why I'm pretty sure the next Parliament plays out like 74-79 and it will be a one term Labour government...
Although having said that the Tories seem to be doing a good job of ensuring they'll be out of the game for at least a decade with the way their behaving.
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
Your version of Conservatism is very much apres moi le deluge.
Very appropriate expression, especially this sort of Deluge
Iran like the UK has unelected clergy in their parliament which is shi'ite if you ask me, the UK should stop acting like a theocracy.
That presumes that the Church of England, in the U.K., is a religious organisation.
Is ther me any evidence of that?
They claim a religious dispensation of conscience to disobey the state's own laws on marrying gay and lesbian couples.
Synod this week has voted to approve experimental services of blessing for homosexual couples married in English law
Still not marrying the poor folk, though.
How many more decades will it take?
No need to, they are married in law in a registry office or hotel, what Synod has voted for however is experimental blessing services for homosexual parishioners married in UK law.
As you also know there is strong opposition from evangelicals in particular even to blessings let alone homosexual marriage. As your fellow Scottish Nationalist Kate Forbes has made clear, evangelicals believe homosexual marriage is incompatible with the Bible and scripture (Muslims and the Vatican also believe that)
Missing the point as always. C of E claims to be the State Church but it doesn't go by the State law.
Yes it does, the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 exempted the Church of England and every other Christian denomination and religion from having to perform full homosexual marriage services in their place of worship.
Adultery is legal, prostitution in private is legal. Do you think the C of E should also have services of blessing for adulterers and prostitutes and their clients?
Ah, you added the last bit.
Ask this chap called Jesus Christ. He was rather hot on blessing prostitutes and forgiving adulterers, as I recall.
So you are saying the C of E is not Christian?
Christ blessed the sinnner but NOT the sin as you well know. So no Christian church could bless the act of adultery or prostitution
YOu said "services of blessing for adulterers and prostitutes", cvarefully cut and pasted before you go backi and change it.
I used the same: blessing prostitutes and forgiving adulterers.
Now you're saying something completely different and claiming it was alweays about that. Believe me, that doesn't win any arguments.
You cannot bless the act of prostitution and adultery and be a Christian compliant with the Bible.
Even blessings for homosexual couples only bless their unions and love and commitment for each other, they don't bless acts of homosexual sex and holy matrimony remains reserved for heterosexual couples
"And thus spake Sunil unto his PB disciples: 'Know ye that the Lord God was never married to the mother of His only begotten son!'" - Psunils, 17.11.23
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?
Doesn't matter. The idea is to save the Tory party foir another generation, and they'll think of some other way of defrauding the UK and its population by then.
But who will vote for this? I've voted Tory more often than not. And I stand to benefit massively from it. And I wouldn't vote for it. It's stupid. If even I can't be persuaded to vote Tory on the basis of this policy, who will?
Given how obsessed HYUFD is with it, and also how obsessed the DM is with it, I rather think a lot of Tories will. Even if they'd personally be much better off with lower NI.
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
Your version of Conservatism is very much apres moi le deluge.
No it is just proper Toryism, not socialism or pure free market liberalism.
Indeed 55% of voters and 70% of Tory voters would abolish IHT completely (as nations like Sweden and Canada and Australia, Israel, NZ and Singapore have done)
Given the struggles of the bottom three a 10 point deduction isn't likely to see them get relegated. My guess is the penalty was given with that in mind.
They are playing ok so the 10 point penalty shouldn’t be terminal in itself - the bigger problem for them is that they now face legal action from teams that were relegated which, with Everton’s financial problems, could put them into bankruptcy as it’s unlikely their proposed new buyers (regardless of their own financial questions) would be prepared to take that extra financial risk on. If they go into administration then it would likely be another 9 point penalty as given to Portsmouth which really would doom them.
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.
I've got just the tiny captain for it
That's bloody funny. Rishi is short - 5ft 6ins - and people have been talking about a ship which is actually a model and so given that Rishi is short you thought it would be very funny to make a joke out of it all. The funny short guy who would fit into a model ship.
That is brilliant.
Looking forward to more jokes along the same lines. 5ft 6ins - the possibilities are endless to make fun of this. You are only bound by your imagination.
Thanks for your ongoing attention.
Can't wait for the next one. Really on tenterhooks. I love a good joke, me.
I’ll add politicians who hoor themselves for photo opportunities shouldn’t have the piss ripped out of them to your growing list of hobby horses.
At least have the courage of your convictions. The guy is 5ft 6ins, you made fun of that fact. Go with it rather than try to platitude "all politicians" your way out of it.
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.
I've got just the tiny captain for it
That's bloody funny. Rishi is short - 5ft 6ins - and people have been talking about a ship which is actually a model and so given that Rishi is short you thought it would be very funny to make a joke out of it all. The funny short guy who would fit into a model ship.
That is brilliant.
Looking forward to more jokes along the same lines. 5ft 6ins - the possibilities are endless to make fun of this. You are only bound by your imagination.
Thanks for your ongoing attention.
Can't wait for the next one. Really on tenterhooks. I love a good joke, me.
I’ll add politicians who hoor themselves for photo opportunities shouldn’t have the piss ripped out of them to your growing list of hobby horses.
Go on, do one about the colour of his skin next.
We are truly one nation when whiny righties play the race card on zero evidence.
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'.
Your first paragraph is easy to accept, even for those of us who seldom vote Conservative.
Your second paragraph is also correct as far as it goes, although it paints only a part of the picture.
The more fundamental problem is that the Party has issues that can really only be resolved by a period in Opposition. The question is how long?
The danger is that the pending shallacking could render the Party ineffective as an Opposition and too feeble to regenerate itself. If you believe in democracy, this isn't really desireable.
Iran like the UK has unelected clergy in their parliament which is shi'ite if you ask me, the UK should stop acting like a theocracy.
That presumes that the Church of England, in the U.K., is a religious organisation.
Is ther me any evidence of that?
They claim a religious dispensation of conscience to disobey the state's own laws on marrying gay and lesbian couples.
Synod this week has voted to approve experimental services of blessing for homosexual couples married in English law
Still not marrying the poor folk, though.
How many more decades will it take?
No need to, they are married in law in a registry office or hotel, what Synod has voted for however is experimental blessing services for homosexual parishioners married in UK law.
As you also know there is strong opposition from evangelicals in particular even to blessings let alone homosexual marriage. As your fellow Scottish Nationalist Kate Forbes has made clear, evangelicals believe homosexual marriage is incompatible with the Bible and scripture (Muslims and the Vatican also believe that)
Missing the point as always. C of E claims to be the State Church but it doesn't go by the State law.
Yes it does, the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 exempted the Church of England and every other Christian denomination and religion from having to perform full homosexual marriage services in their place of worship.
Adultery is legal, prostitution in private is legal. Do you think the C of E should also have services of blessing for adulterers and prostitutes and their clients?
Ah, you added the last bit.
Ask this chap called Jesus Christ. He was rather hot on blessing prostitutes and forgiving adulterers, as I recall.
So you are saying the C of E is not Christian?
Christ blessed the sinnner but NOT the sin as you well know. So no Christian church could bless the act of adultery or prostitution
YOu said "services of blessing for adulterers and prostitutes", cvarefully cut and pasted before you go backi and change it.
I used the same: blessing prostitutes and forgiving adulterers.
Now you're saying something completely different and claiming it was alweays about that. Believe me, that doesn't win any arguments.
You cannot bless the act of prostitution and adultery and be a Christian compliant with the Bible.
Have you ever met a "Christian compliant with the Bible"? One who sold all his possessions and gave the money to the poor? Someone who didn't give any thought to what would happen to him tomorrow? Someone who walked away and left his father's corpse to be buried by the dead?
You know sometimes I even suspect Jesus may not have been a Conservative.
Is there much to think about when choosing a primary school for your 5 year old? I’ve just visited one, and wouldn’t know a good from bad (OFSTED visited yesterday so should get an idea from that)
It’s the nearest one to our house, the only one within walking distance, most local kids go there… that’s enough in my book I think
Iran like the UK has unelected clergy in their parliament which is shi'ite if you ask me, the UK should stop acting like a theocracy.
That presumes that the Church of England, in the U.K., is a religious organisation.
Is ther me any evidence of that?
They claim a religious dispensation of conscience to disobey the state's own laws on marrying gay and lesbian couples.
Synod this week has voted to approve experimental services of blessing for homosexual couples married in English law
Still not marrying the poor folk, though.
How many more decades will it take?
No need to, they are married in law in a registry office or hotel, what Synod has voted for however is experimental blessing services for homosexual parishioners married in UK law.
As you also know there is strong opposition from evangelicals in particular even to blessings let alone homosexual marriage. As your fellow Scottish Nationalist Kate Forbes has made clear, evangelicals believe homosexual marriage is incompatible with the Bible and scripture (Muslims and the Vatican also believe that)
Missing the point as always. C of E claims to be the State Church but it doesn't go by the State law.
Yes it does, the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 exempted the Church of England and every other Christian denomination and religion from having to perform full homosexual marriage services in their place of worship.
Adultery is legal, prostitution in private is legal. Do you think the C of E should also have services of blessing for adulterers and prostitutes and their clients?
Ah, you added the last bit.
Ask this chap called Jesus Christ. He was rather hot on blessing prostitutes and forgiving adulterers, as I recall.
So you are saying the C of E is not Christian?
Christ blessed the sinnner but NOT the sin as you well know. So no Christian church could bless the act of adultery or prostitution
YOu said "services of blessing for adulterers and prostitutes", cvarefully cut and pasted before you go backi and change it.
I used the same: blessing prostitutes and forgiving adulterers.
Now you're saying something completely different and claiming it was alweays about that. Believe me, that doesn't win any arguments.
You cannot bless the act of prostitution and adultery and be a Christian compliant with the Bible.
Have you ever met a "Christian compliant with the Bible"? One who sold all his possessions and gave the money to the poor? Someone who didn't give any thought to what would happen to him tomorrow? Someone who walked away and left his father's corpse to be buried by the dead?
You know sometimes I even suspect Jesus may not have been a Conservative.
Have you seen the inheritance his father has lined for Jesus?
Is there much to think about when choosing a primary school for your 5 year old? I’ve just visited one, and wouldn’t know a good from bad (OFSTED visited yesterday so should get an idea from that)
It’s the nearest one to our house, the only one within walking distance, most local kids go there… that’s enough in my book I think
Ask them about their gender books and sex education policy.
Is there much to think about when choosing a primary school for your 5 year old? I’ve just visited one, and wouldn’t know a good from bad (OFSTED visited yesterday so should get an idea from that)
It’s the nearest one to our house, the only one within walking distance, most local kids go there… that’s enough in my book I think
Good god, are you trying to provoke a @ydoethur explosion?
Is there much to think about when choosing a primary school for your 5 year old? I’ve just visited one, and wouldn’t know a good from bad (OFSTED visited yesterday so should get an idea from that)
It’s the nearest one to our house, the only one within walking distance, most local kids go there… that’s enough in my book I think
Ask them about their gender books and sex education policy.
Do they have a library. Does it look like it has some actual care and attention?
Is there much to think about when choosing a primary school for your 5 year old? I’ve just visited one, and wouldn’t know a good from bad (OFSTED visited yesterday so should get an idea from that)
It’s the nearest one to our house, the only one within walking distance, most local kids go there… that’s enough in my book I think
Is there much to think about when choosing a primary school for your 5 year old? I’ve just visited one, and wouldn’t know a good from bad (OFSTED visited yesterday so should get an idea from that)
It’s the nearest one to our house, the only one within walking distance, most local kids go there… that’s enough in my book I think
Iran like the UK has unelected clergy in their parliament which is shi'ite if you ask me, the UK should stop acting like a theocracy.
That presumes that the Church of England, in the U.K., is a religious organisation.
Is ther me any evidence of that?
They claim a religious dispensation of conscience to disobey the state's own laws on marrying gay and lesbian couples.
Synod this week has voted to approve experimental services of blessing for homosexual couples married in English law
Still not marrying the poor folk, though.
How many more decades will it take?
No need to, they are married in law in a registry office or hotel, what Synod has voted for however is experimental blessing services for homosexual parishioners married in UK law.
As you also know there is strong opposition from evangelicals in particular even to blessings let alone homosexual marriage. As your fellow Scottish Nationalist Kate Forbes has made clear, evangelicals believe homosexual marriage is incompatible with the Bible and scripture (Muslims and the Vatican also believe that)
Missing the point as always. C of E claims to be the State Church but it doesn't go by the State law.
Yes it does, the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 exempted the Church of England and every other Christian denomination and religion from having to perform full homosexual marriage services in their place of worship.
Adultery is legal, prostitution in private is legal. Do you think the C of E should also have services of blessing for adulterers and prostitutes and their clients?
Ah, you added the last bit.
Ask this chap called Jesus Christ. He was rather hot on blessing prostitutes and forgiving adulterers, as I recall.
So you are saying the C of E is not Christian?
Christ blessed the sinnner but NOT the sin as you well know. So no Christian church could bless the act of adultery or prostitution
YOu said "services of blessing for adulterers and prostitutes", cvarefully cut and pasted before you go backi and change it.
I used the same: blessing prostitutes and forgiving adulterers.
Now you're saying something completely different and claiming it was alweays about that. Believe me, that doesn't win any arguments.
You cannot bless the act of prostitution and adultery and be a Christian compliant with the Bible.
Have you ever met a "Christian compliant with the Bible"? One who sold all his possessions and gave the money to the poor? Someone who didn't give any thought to what would happen to him tomorrow? Someone who walked away and left his father's corpse to be buried by the dead?
You know sometimes I even suspect Jesus may not have been a Conservative.
Have you seen the inheritance his father has lined for Jesus?
On stability, generally: Over the years I have learned much from Colin McEvedy's little Penguin atlases. But I bought one mostly because I wanted to see what he would say about this failed prediction in the 1982 edition of The Penguin Atlas of Recent History: "And so it has continued for the last thirty years. Stalin's successors have tried hard to appear less cold-blooded than he, but under pressure -- as when the Hungarians tried to leave the Soviet camp in 1956 or, twelve years later when the Czechs tried to liberalize their regime -- they have reacted every bit as ruthlessly. The ideological gulf remains unbridged; there has been detente, but no rapprochement.
Whether the situation is comfortable or not, it is certainly stable." (p. 88)
Until, a few years later, it wasn't.
So I don't see anything implausible about Alanbrooke's argument in the header.
And what did McEvedy say about that prediction in the 2002 edition? Nothing. Which did not surprise me, but did disappoint me.
(For the record: In 1982 I did think that the USSR would, eventually, collapse of its own internal contradictions, but if asked when I would have guessed that -- at best -- it would be in twenty years.)
Is there much to think about when choosing a primary school for your 5 year old? I’ve just visited one, and wouldn’t know a good from bad (OFSTED visited yesterday so should get an idea from that)
It’s the nearest one to our house, the only one within walking distance, most local kids go there… that’s enough in my book I think
Visit a few, if you have choice locally, and get a feel for them. Osfted isn't the be-all-end-all, nor are progress/performance.
However if that doesn't give you a strong preference, don't underestimate how helpful walking distance will be for seven years of school runs. Results and Ofsteds wax and wane, teachers and heads come and go but schools generally stay in the same location.
"How David Cameron tried to make his fortune with cash from China Former prime minister, now the UK’s top diplomat, sought hundreds of millions of dollars from CIC for his UK-China fund"
Is there much to think about when choosing a primary school for your 5 year old? I’ve just visited one, and wouldn’t know a good from bad (OFSTED visited yesterday so should get an idea from that)
It’s the nearest one to our house, the only one within walking distance, most local kids go there… that’s enough in my book I think
Ask them about their gender books and sex education policy.
You know, outside my children’s playschool they have a rainbow flag poster with something like “Everyone deserves love, respect, empathy…” etc etc written on it, and I have been close to asking why it’s necessary for 2-4 year olds to see it. It feels a bit like politicising courtesy/softening them up for later life, but I’ve not said anything.
The headmaster of the school I visited must be 1/10 to be gay, so I’d struggle to ask what you suggest even more than if he were not, for fear of my son not getting the 50/50 calls because of it.
Iran like the UK has unelected clergy in their parliament which is shi'ite if you ask me, the UK should stop acting like a theocracy.
That presumes that the Church of England, in the U.K., is a religious organisation.
Is ther me any evidence of that?
They claim a religious dispensation of conscience to disobey the state's own laws on marrying gay and lesbian couples.
Synod this week has voted to approve experimental services of blessing for homosexual couples married in English law
Still not marrying the poor folk, though.
How many more decades will it take?
No need to, they are married in law in a registry office or hotel, what Synod has voted for however is experimental blessing services for homosexual parishioners married in UK law.
As you also know there is strong opposition from evangelicals in particular even to blessings let alone homosexual marriage. As your fellow Scottish Nationalist Kate Forbes has made clear, evangelicals believe homosexual marriage is incompatible with the Bible and scripture (Muslims and the Vatican also believe that)
Missing the point as always. C of E claims to be the State Church but it doesn't go by the State law.
Yes it does, the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 exempted the Church of England and every other Christian denomination and religion from having to perform full homosexual marriage services in their place of worship.
Adultery is legal, prostitution in private is legal. Do you think the C of E should also have services of blessing for adulterers and prostitutes and their clients?
Ah, you added the last bit.
Ask this chap called Jesus Christ. He was rather hot on blessing prostitutes and forgiving adulterers, as I recall.
So you are saying the C of E is not Christian?
Christ blessed the sinnner but NOT the sin as you well know. So no Christian church could bless the act of adultery or prostitution
YOu said "services of blessing for adulterers and prostitutes", cvarefully cut and pasted before you go backi and change it.
I used the same: blessing prostitutes and forgiving adulterers.
Now you're saying something completely different and claiming it was alweays about that. Believe me, that doesn't win any arguments.
You cannot bless the act of prostitution and adultery and be a Christian compliant with the Bible.
Have you ever met a "Christian compliant with the Bible"? One who sold all his possessions and gave the money to the poor? Someone who didn't give any thought to what would happen to him tomorrow? Someone who walked away and left his father's corpse to be buried by the dead?
You know sometimes I even suspect Jesus may not have been a Conservative.
Have you seen the inheritance his father has lined for Jesus?
Is there much to think about when choosing a primary school for your 5 year old? I’ve just visited one, and wouldn’t know a good from bad (OFSTED visited yesterday so should get an idea from that)
It’s the nearest one to our house, the only one within walking distance, most local kids go there… that’s enough in my book I think
Look at the Secondary school that it feeds to, and also the outdoor playing area.
Proximity matters a lot. Not just for the school run, but also you will find that having the child's friends nearby good for socialising, for parents as well as the little one.
Is there much to think about when choosing a primary school for your 5 year old? I’ve just visited one, and wouldn’t know a good from bad (OFSTED visited yesterday so should get an idea from that)
It’s the nearest one to our house, the only one within walking distance, most local kids go there… that’s enough in my book I think
Ask them about their gender books and sex education policy.
You know, outside my children’s playschool they have a rainbow flag poster with something like “Everyone deserves love, respect, empathy…” etc etc written on it, and I have been close to asking why it’s necessary for 2-4 year olds to see it. It feels a bit like politicising courtesy/softening them up for later life, but I’ve not said anything.
The headmaster of the school I visited must be 1/10 to be gay, so I’d struggle to ask what you suggest even more than if he were not, for fear of my son not getting the 50/50 calls because of it.
I doubt 2 to 4 year olds would understand what the rainbow flag means . The sentiment love, respect , empathy is lovely but I doubt they’d understand things like respect , empathy at that age .
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.
I've got just the tiny captain for it
That's bloody funny. Rishi is short - 5ft 6ins - and people have been talking about a ship which is actually a model and so given that Rishi is short you thought it would be very funny to make a joke out of it all. The funny short guy who would fit into a model ship.
That is brilliant.
Looking forward to more jokes along the same lines. 5ft 6ins - the possibilities are endless to make fun of this. You are only bound by your imagination.
Thanks for your ongoing attention.
Can't wait for the next one. Really on tenterhooks. I love a good joke, me.
I recommend Harburn Hobbies in Leith Walk, Edinburgh, if you want some little model people to sit on your monitor to remind yourself of the joke.
The new 8mm scale from GW might be most appropriate. Quite a bit smaller than the OO gauge models sold by Harburn Hobbies..
Iran like the UK has unelected clergy in their parliament which is shi'ite if you ask me, the UK should stop acting like a theocracy.
That presumes that the Church of England, in the U.K., is a religious organisation.
Is ther me any evidence of that?
They claim a religious dispensation of conscience to disobey the state's own laws on marrying gay and lesbian couples.
Synod this week has voted to approve experimental services of blessing for homosexual couples married in English law
Still not marrying the poor folk, though.
How many more decades will it take?
No need to, they are married in law in a registry office or hotel, what Synod has voted for however is experimental blessing services for homosexual parishioners married in UK law.
As you also know there is strong opposition from evangelicals in particular even to blessings let alone homosexual marriage. As your fellow Scottish Nationalist Kate Forbes has made clear, evangelicals believe homosexual marriage is incompatible with the Bible and scripture (Muslims and the Vatican also believe that)
Missing the point as always. C of E claims to be the State Church but it doesn't go by the State law.
Yes it does, the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 exempted the Church of England and every other Christian denomination and religion from having to perform full homosexual marriage services in their place of worship.
Adultery is legal, prostitution in private is legal. Do you think the C of E should also have services of blessing for adulterers and prostitutes and their clients?
Ah, you added the last bit.
Ask this chap called Jesus Christ. He was rather hot on blessing prostitutes and forgiving adulterers, as I recall.
So you are saying the C of E is not Christian?
Christ blessed the sinnner but NOT the sin as you well know. So no Christian church could bless the act of adultery or prostitution
YOu said "services of blessing for adulterers and prostitutes", cvarefully cut and pasted before you go backi and change it.
I used the same: blessing prostitutes and forgiving adulterers.
Now you're saying something completely different and claiming it was alweays about that. Believe me, that doesn't win any arguments.
You cannot bless the act of prostitution and adultery and be a Christian compliant with the Bible.
Have you ever met a "Christian compliant with the Bible"? One who sold all his possessions and gave the money to the poor? Someone who didn't give any thought to what would happen to him tomorrow? Someone who walked away and left his father's corpse to be buried by the dead?
You know sometimes I even suspect Jesus may not have been a Conservative.
Catholic priests for example live in a house provided by the church and have only pocket money. Nuns and monks sell all their possessions before entering a monastery or convent and often do work with foodbanks, homeless shelters, the sick, prisoners etc as do priests.
Though of course that was for those who wanted to be true disciples, Jesus himself was originally a carpenter and as in the parable of the talents he wanted others to do well in their chosen field and save and invest profitably but also give charity to the poor.
Overall Christianity is probably conservative socially, left leaning economically.
The Old Testament however alone is a firmly ERG text
Is there much to think about when choosing a primary school for your 5 year old? I’ve just visited one, and wouldn’t know a good from bad (OFSTED visited yesterday so should get an idea from that)
It’s the nearest one to our house, the only one within walking distance, most local kids go there… that’s enough in my book I think
You visited. Did the kids look happy to be there - were they enjoying school? Secondly, did the teachers look happy (for want of a better word) to be working there? If so, and the Ofsted report is okay, I reckon it's fine.
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?
Doesn't matter. The idea is to save the Tory party foir another generation, and they'll think of some other way of defrauding the UK and its population by then.
But who will vote for this? I've voted Tory more often than not. And I stand to benefit massively from it. And I wouldn't vote for it. It's stupid. If even I can't be persuaded to vote Tory on the basis of this policy, who will?
There is a weird generational thing going on though. My parents, who didn't benefit from much inheritance at all, would instictively view it as an unfair double tax as some posters on here do, whereas I think it is a very fair and, in the current fiscal climate, necessary tax despite being a likely significant beneficiary at some point in the future.
The very amateur and totally unqualified psychologist in me wonders if to my parents generation, the provision of an inheritance is part of their self validation and a recognition of their work. So changes in how it is taxed are not seen as a functional question of how best to raise money as a society but as an attack on their self-worth and achievements.
Iran like the UK has unelected clergy in their parliament which is shi'ite if you ask me, the UK should stop acting like a theocracy.
That presumes that the Church of England, in the U.K., is a religious organisation.
Is ther me any evidence of that?
They claim a religious dispensation of conscience to disobey the state's own laws on marrying gay and lesbian couples.
Synod this week has voted to approve experimental services of blessing for homosexual couples married in English law
Still not marrying the poor folk, though.
How many more decades will it take?
No need to, they are married in law in a registry office or hotel, what Synod has voted for however is experimental blessing services for homosexual parishioners married in UK law.
As you also know there is strong opposition from evangelicals in particular even to blessings let alone homosexual marriage. As your fellow Scottish Nationalist Kate Forbes has made clear, evangelicals believe homosexual marriage is incompatible with the Bible and scripture (Muslims and the Vatican also believe that)
Missing the point as always. C of E claims to be the State Church but it doesn't go by the State law.
Yes it does, the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 exempted the Church of England and every other Christian denomination and religion from having to perform full homosexual marriage services in their place of worship.
Adultery is legal, prostitution in private is legal. Do you think the C of E should also have services of blessing for adulterers and prostitutes and their clients?
Ah, you added the last bit.
Ask this chap called Jesus Christ. He was rather hot on blessing prostitutes and forgiving adulterers, as I recall.
So you are saying the C of E is not Christian?
Christ blessed the sinnner but NOT the sin as you well know. So no Christian church could bless the act of adultery or prostitution
YOu said "services of blessing for adulterers and prostitutes", cvarefully cut and pasted before you go backi and change it.
I used the same: blessing prostitutes and forgiving adulterers.
Now you're saying something completely different and claiming it was alweays about that. Believe me, that doesn't win any arguments.
You cannot bless the act of prostitution and adultery and be a Christian compliant with the Bible.
Have you ever met a "Christian compliant with the Bible"? One who sold all his possessions and gave the money to the poor? Someone who didn't give any thought to what would happen to him tomorrow? Someone who walked away and left his father's corpse to be buried by the dead?
You know sometimes I even suspect Jesus may not have been a Conservative.
Have you seen the inheritance his father has lined for Jesus?
The meek shall inherit the Earth...
Unfortunately, in this world, if not the next, a more accurate prediction would be:
"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—for ever."
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.
... Well I have to try and relate. Much love for the 'enlightenment' and national sovereignty on here. So long as it's ours that is.
Iran like the UK has unelected clergy in their parliament which is shi'ite if you ask me, the UK should stop acting like a theocracy.
That presumes that the Church of England, in the U.K., is a religious organisation.
Is ther me any evidence of that?
They claim a religious dispensation of conscience to disobey the state's own laws on marrying gay and lesbian couples.
Synod this week has voted to approve experimental services of blessing for homosexual couples married in English law
Still not marrying the poor folk, though.
How many more decades will it take?
No need to, they are married in law in a registry office or hotel, what Synod has voted for however is experimental blessing services for homosexual parishioners married in UK law.
As you also know there is strong opposition from evangelicals in particular even to blessings let alone homosexual marriage. As your fellow Scottish Nationalist Kate Forbes has made clear, evangelicals believe homosexual marriage is incompatible with the Bible and scripture (Muslims and the Vatican also believe that)
Missing the point as always. C of E claims to be the State Church but it doesn't go by the State law.
Yes it does, the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 exempted the Church of England and every other Christian denomination and religion from having to perform full homosexual marriage services in their place of worship.
Adultery is legal, prostitution in private is legal. Do you think the C of E should also have services of blessing for adulterers and prostitutes and their clients?
Ah, you added the last bit.
Ask this chap called Jesus Christ. He was rather hot on blessing prostitutes and forgiving adulterers, as I recall.
So you are saying the C of E is not Christian?
Christ blessed the sinnner but NOT the sin as you well know. So no Christian church could bless the act of adultery or prostitution
YOu said "services of blessing for adulterers and prostitutes", cvarefully cut and pasted before you go backi and change it.
I used the same: blessing prostitutes and forgiving adulterers.
Now you're saying something completely different and claiming it was alweays about that. Believe me, that doesn't win any arguments.
You cannot bless the act of prostitution and adultery and be a Christian compliant with the Bible.
Have you ever met a "Christian compliant with the Bible"? One who sold all his possessions and gave the money to the poor? Someone who didn't give any thought to what would happen to him tomorrow? Someone who walked away and left his father's corpse to be buried by the dead?
You know sometimes I even suspect Jesus may not have been a Conservative.
Have you seen the inheritance his father has lined for Jesus?
The meek shall inherit the Earth...
Unfortunately, in this world, if not the next, a more accurate prediction would be:
"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—for ever."
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?
Why not just ban City, Chelsea, Newcastle etc and keep changing the rulers till only the old guard at United and Liverpool can win. Let's face that's really what it's all about. FFP had very little to do with fairness and an awful lot to do with protecting the old elite from competition.
Iran like the UK has unelected clergy in their parliament which is shi'ite if you ask me, the UK should stop acting like a theocracy.
That presumes that the Church of England, in the U.K., is a religious organisation.
Is ther me any evidence of that?
They claim a religious dispensation of conscience to disobey the state's own laws on marrying gay and lesbian couples.
Synod this week has voted to approve experimental services of blessing for homosexual couples married in English law
Still not marrying the poor folk, though.
How many more decades will it take?
No need to, they are married in law in a registry office or hotel, what Synod has voted for however is experimental blessing services for homosexual parishioners married in UK law.
As you also know there is strong opposition from evangelicals in particular even to blessings let alone homosexual marriage. As your fellow Scottish Nationalist Kate Forbes has made clear, evangelicals believe homosexual marriage is incompatible with the Bible and scripture (Muslims and the Vatican also believe that)
Missing the point as always. C of E claims to be the State Church but it doesn't go by the State law.
Yes it does, the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 exempted the Church of England and every other Christian denomination and religion from having to perform full homosexual marriage services in their place of worship.
Adultery is legal, prostitution in private is legal. Do you think the C of E should also have services of blessing for adulterers and prostitutes and their clients?
Ah, you added the last bit.
Ask this chap called Jesus Christ. He was rather hot on blessing prostitutes and forgiving adulterers, as I recall.
So you are saying the C of E is not Christian?
Christ blessed the sinnner but NOT the sin as you well know. So no Christian church could bless the act of adultery or prostitution
YOu said "services of blessing for adulterers and prostitutes", cvarefully cut and pasted before you go backi and change it.
I used the same: blessing prostitutes and forgiving adulterers.
Now you're saying something completely different and claiming it was alweays about that. Believe me, that doesn't win any arguments.
You cannot bless the act of prostitution and adultery and be a Christian compliant with the Bible.
Have you ever met a "Christian compliant with the Bible"? One who sold all his possessions and gave the money to the poor? Someone who didn't give any thought to what would happen to him tomorrow? Someone who walked away and left his father's corpse to be buried by the dead?
You know sometimes I even suspect Jesus may not have been a Conservative.
Have you seen the inheritance his father has lined for Jesus?
The meek shall inherit the Earth...
Unfortunately, in this world, if not the next, a more accurate prediction would be:
"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—for ever."
Just on the US, I happen to have a hunch that Joe won't run, think I've posted as much a few times, but surely ignoring my 'intuition' and going rationally by the evidence available he shouldn't be as long as 1.45 for the Dem Nom, should he? I mean, where is that price coming from?
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?
Doesn't matter. The idea is to save the Tory party foir another generation, and they'll think of some other way of defrauding the UK and its population by then.
But who will vote for this? I've voted Tory more often than not. And I stand to benefit massively from it. And I wouldn't vote for it. It's stupid. If even I can't be persuaded to vote Tory on the basis of this policy, who will?
There is a weird generational thing going on though. My parents, who didn't benefit from much inheritance at all, would instictively view it as an unfair double tax as some posters on here do, whereas I think it is a very fair and, in the current fiscal climate, necessary tax despite being a likely significant beneficiary at some point in the future.
The very amateur and totally unqualified psychologist in me wonders if to my parents generation, the provision of an inheritance is part of their self validation and a recognition of their work. So changes in how it is taxed are not seen as a functional question of how best to raise money as a society but as an attack on their self-worth and achievements.
Even 18-24s back abolishing IHT 42% to 32%, as do 55% of 25-49s, 55% of 50-64s and 57% of over 65s
Iran like the UK has unelected clergy in their parliament which is shi'ite if you ask me, the UK should stop acting like a theocracy.
That presumes that the Church of England, in the U.K., is a religious organisation.
Is ther me any evidence of that?
They claim a religious dispensation of conscience to disobey the state's own laws on marrying gay and lesbian couples.
Synod this week has voted to approve experimental services of blessing for homosexual couples married in English law
Still not marrying the poor folk, though.
How many more decades will it take?
No need to, they are married in law in a registry office or hotel, what Synod has voted for however is experimental blessing services for homosexual parishioners married in UK law.
As you also know there is strong opposition from evangelicals in particular even to blessings let alone homosexual marriage. As your fellow Scottish Nationalist Kate Forbes has made clear, evangelicals believe homosexual marriage is incompatible with the Bible and scripture (Muslims and the Vatican also believe that)
Missing the point as always. C of E claims to be the State Church but it doesn't go by the State law.
Yes it does, the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 exempted the Church of England and every other Christian denomination and religion from having to perform full homosexual marriage services in their place of worship.
Adultery is legal, prostitution in private is legal. Do you think the C of E should also have services of blessing for adulterers and prostitutes and their clients?
Ah, you added the last bit.
Ask this chap called Jesus Christ. He was rather hot on blessing prostitutes and forgiving adulterers, as I recall.
So you are saying the C of E is not Christian?
Christ blessed the sinnner but NOT the sin as you well know. So no Christian church could bless the act of adultery or prostitution
YOu said "services of blessing for adulterers and prostitutes", cvarefully cut and pasted before you go backi and change it.
I used the same: blessing prostitutes and forgiving adulterers.
Now you're saying something completely different and claiming it was alweays about that. Believe me, that doesn't win any arguments.
You cannot bless the act of prostitution and adultery and be a Christian compliant with the Bible.
Have you ever met a "Christian compliant with the Bible"? One who sold all his possessions and gave the money to the poor? Someone who didn't give any thought to what would happen to him tomorrow? Someone who walked away and left his father's corpse to be buried by the dead?
You know sometimes I even suspect Jesus may not have been a Conservative.
Catholic priests for example live in a house provided by the church and have only pocket money. Nuns and monks sell all their possessions before entering a monastery or convent and often do work with foodbanks, homeless shelters, the sick, prisoners etc as do priests.
Though of course that was for those who wanted to be true disciples, Jesus himself was originally a carpenter and as in the parable of the talents he wanted others to do well in their chosen field and save and invest profitably but also give charity to the poor.
Presumably there's some way of distinguishing between the bits of the Bible that apply only to "true disciples" and the ones that apply to the other (non-true) believers? I'd recommend for clarity they should be printed in a different coloured ink or something.
One final thought on inheritance tax. The net worth of the median household is £302,500, so they would be unaffected by any change. It's not until you reach somewhere between the top 15-20%, that net wealth reaches £1m, meaning most households below that level would be unaffected, due to double relief for married couples, and main residence relief for lineal descendants. Some single person households, and some households without lineal descendants, below that level, would benefit from scrapping/cutting IHT, but the number would not be huge. Conversely, some households above that level have already structured their affairs to avoid IHT.
Scrapping IHT would deliver a very big benefit to a small section of the population. Raising income tax thresholds would deliver a much smaller benefit, but it would go to every income tax payer. That is a lot fairer.
On stability, generally: Over the years I have learned much from Colin McEvedy's little Penguin atlases. But I bought one mostly because I wanted to see what he would say about this failed prediction in the 1982 edition of The Penguin Atlas of Recent History: "And so it has continued for the last thirty years. Stalin's successors have tried hard to appear less cold-blooded than he, but under pressure -- as when the Hungarians tried to leave the Soviet camp in 1956 or, twelve years later when the Czechs tried to liberalize their regime -- they have reacted every bit as ruthlessly. The ideological gulf remains unbridged; there has been detente, but no rapprochement.
Whether the situation is comfortable or not, it is certainly stable." (p. 88)
Until, a few years later, it wasn't.
So I don't see anything implausible about Alanbrooke's argument in the header.
And what did McEvedy say about that prediction in the 2002 edition? Nothing. Which did not surprise me, but did disappoint me.
(For the record: In 1982 I did think that the USSR would, eventually, collapse of its own internal contradictions, but if asked when I would have guessed that -- at best -- it would be in twenty years.)
I think in 1982, though I wasn't commenting on geopolitics at the time (unless being upset at the arrival of my younger brother counts), most people would have said that China had the less stable dictatorship, and yet that persists in China, while it fell in the USSR.
Though the USSR lasted about 74 years, which China has only just reached since 1949. I'm sure there are interesting lessons to learn about why the USSR collapsed but China didn't follow suit.
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?
Doesn't matter. The idea is to save the Tory party foir another generation, and they'll think of some other way of defrauding the UK and its population by then.
But who will vote for this? I've voted Tory more often than not. And I stand to benefit massively from it. And I wouldn't vote for it. It's stupid. If even I can't be persuaded to vote Tory on the basis of this policy, who will?
There is a weird generational thing going on though. My parents, who didn't benefit from much inheritance at all, would instictively view it as an unfair double tax as some posters on here do, whereas I think it is a very fair and, in the current fiscal climate, necessary tax despite being a likely significant beneficiary at some point in the future.
The very amateur and totally unqualified psychologist in me wonders if to my parents generation, the provision of an inheritance is part of their self validation and a recognition of their work. So changes in how it is taxed are not seen as a functional question of how best to raise money as a society but as an attack on their self-worth and achievements.
Even 18-24s back abolishing IHT 42% to 32%, as do 55% of 25-49s, 55% of 50-64s and 57% of over 65s
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?
Doesn't matter. The idea is to save the Tory party foir another generation, and they'll think of some other way of defrauding the UK and its population by then.
But who will vote for this? I've voted Tory more often than not. And I stand to benefit massively from it. And I wouldn't vote for it. It's stupid. If even I can't be persuaded to vote Tory on the basis of this policy, who will?
There is a weird generational thing going on though. My parents, who didn't benefit from much inheritance at all, would instictively view it as an unfair double tax as some posters on here do, whereas I think it is a very fair and, in the current fiscal climate, necessary tax despite being a likely significant beneficiary at some point in the future.
The very amateur and totally unqualified psychologist in me wonders if to my parents generation, the provision of an inheritance is part of their self validation and a recognition of their work. So changes in how it is taxed are not seen as a functional question of how best to raise money as a society but as an attack on their self-worth and achievements.
Even 18-24s back abolishing IHT 42% to 32%, as do 55% of 25-49s, 55% of 50-64s and 57% of over 65s
You're completely obfuscating the point that lots of those people think - very wrongly - they are in line to pay IHT, when they aren't at all. For one thing, a lot of people don't realise that 325K isn't the limit on most families.
One final thought on inheritance tax. The net worth of the median household is £302,500, so they would be unaffected by any change. It's not until you reach somewhere between the top 15-20%, that net wealth reaches £1m, meaning most households below that level would be unaffected, due to double relief for married couples, and main residence relief for lineal descendants. Some single person households, and some households without lineal descendants, below that level, would benefit from scrapping/cutting IHT, but the number would not be huge. Conversely, some households above that level have already structured their affairs to avoid IHT.
Scrapping IHT would deliver a very big benefit to a small section of the population. Raising income tax thresholds would deliver a much smaller benefit, but it would go to every income tax payer. That is a lot fairer.
The average house is now worth £362k according to Rightmove ie above the IHT threshold.
What is 'fair' is based on your perspective. An unemployed single mother on benefits aged 55 would benefit more from an IHT cut if her elderly parents live in a £1.5m home in Surrey for example than a banker earning 6 figures would benefit from an income tax cut
Just on the US, I happen to have a hunch that Joe won't run, think I've posted as much a few times, but surely ignoring my 'intuition' and going rationally by the evidence available he shouldn't be as long as 1.45 for the Dem Nom, should he? I mean, where is that price coming from?
Instinct and previous Betfair markets, but no information, suggest to me Newson donors and/or campaign backing him to position himself as the default emergency candidate. Very cheap at a few hundred k.
Just on the US, I happen to have a hunch that Joe won't run, think I've posted as much a few times, but surely ignoring my 'intuition' and going rationally by the evidence available he shouldn't be as long as 1.45 for the Dem Nom, should he? I mean, where is that price coming from?
I have a similar hunch. The last few times I’ve heard him speak he sounds incredibly frail, no bloopers or signs of dementia, just that papery thin tone from a very old person, possibly in a sickbed. I can’t believe that this doesn’t have something to do with his ratings in face of reasonably good economic figures, people just think he couldn’t or shouldn’t do 4 more years.
U know who otoh sound full of vim and vigour even when spouting incoherent fascistic rubbish.
One final thought on inheritance tax. The net worth of the median household is £302,500, so they would be unaffected by any change. It's not until you reach somewhere between the top 15-20%, that net wealth reaches £1m, meaning most households below that level would be unaffected, due to double relief for married couples, and main residence relief for lineal descendants. Some single person households, and some households without lineal descendants, below that level, would benefit from scrapping/cutting IHT, but the number would not be huge. Conversely, some households above that level have already structured their affairs to avoid IHT.
Scrapping IHT would deliver a very big benefit to a small section of the population. Raising income tax thresholds would deliver a much smaller benefit, but it would go to every income tax payer. That is a lot fairer.
It is about 4% of deaths that lead to an inheritance tax charge.
Is there much to think about when choosing a primary school for your 5 year old? I’ve just visited one, and wouldn’t know a good from bad (OFSTED visited yesterday so should get an idea from that)
It’s the nearest one to our house, the only one within walking distance, most local kids go there… that’s enough in my book I think
Yep. Totally the right mindset. You probably don't need my blessing but you have it anyway.
One final thought on inheritance tax. The net worth of the median household is £302,500, so they would be unaffected by any change. It's not until you reach somewhere between the top 15-20%, that net wealth reaches £1m, meaning most households below that level would be unaffected, due to double relief for married couples, and main residence relief for lineal descendants. Some single person households, and some households without lineal descendants, below that level, would benefit from scrapping/cutting IHT, but the number would not be huge. Conversely, some households above that level have already structured their affairs to avoid IHT.
Scrapping IHT would deliver a very big benefit to a small section of the population. Raising income tax thresholds would deliver a much smaller benefit, but it would go to every income tax payer. That is a lot fairer.
The average house is now worth £362k according to Rightmove ie above the IHT threshold.
What is 'fair' is based on your perspective. An unemployed single mother on benefits aged 55 would benefit more from an IHT cut if her elderly parents live in a £1.5m home in Surrey for example than a banker earning 6 figures would benefit from an income tax cut
Comments
Perhaps we should roll this concept out to lots more crimes and misdemeanours. Shoplifting awareness course. VAT fraud awareness course. Underage drinking awareness course.
People Polling criticised for having Conservative vote at 19%. Hmm. Then another pollster has it at ... 19%. Then YouGov have it at ... 21%. Key point - there are lots of bad faith actors in polling & academe. What they don't like, so we're clear, is People Polling (proudly!) work for GB News.
12:26 PM · Nov 17, 2023"
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1725490658037674244
My dad was on one of the KGV class. Much smaller, but even 14" guns were pretty massive.
Adultery is legal in the UK, prostitution in private is legal. Do you think the C of E should also have services of blessing for adulterers and prostitutes and their clients despite there being clearly contrary to scripture on any reading of it?
That is brilliant.
Looking forward to more jokes along the same lines. 5ft 6ins - the possibilities are endless to make fun of this. You are only bound by your imagination.
Ask this chap called Jesus Christ. He was rather hot on blessing prostitutes and forgiving adulterers, as I recall.
So you are saying the C of E is not Christian?
Your kids also inherit the family home from you too when you die and they are retired
200,000 tons and up to 24 x 18” guns.
Like the H3…. But much madder.
I used the same: blessing prostitutes and forgiving adulterers.
Now you're saying something completely different and claiming it was alweays about that. Believe me, that doesn't win any arguments.
Edit: or is it Habakkuk? I can never remember which is the Biblical version and which the artificial iceberg.
Betting PostF1: backed Sainz at 7 each way for fastest in qualifying. Suspect it'll be between Verstappen and the Ferraris. At Monza, also high speed, Sainz got pole.
https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2023/11/las-vegas-pre-qualifying-2023.html
You should go out into the streets and hear what people are saying. It's enlightening. They're just not fans.
And, now, off to Cornwall xx
Even blessings for homosexual couples only bless their unions and love and commitment for each other, they don't bless acts of homosexual sex and holy matrimony remains reserved for heterosexual couples
Although having said that the Tories seem to be doing a good job of ensuring they'll be out of the game for at least a decade with the way their behaving.
https://www.catchpoleandrye.com/products/lavatories/metal-cisterns/the-deluge-high-level/
Indeed 55% of voters and 70% of Tory voters would abolish IHT completely (as nations like Sweden and Canada and Australia, Israel, NZ and Singapore have done)
https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/our-news/press-releases/yougov-poll-shows-majority-of-public-now-supports-scrapping-iht-and-even-a-majority-of-labour-voters-oppose-raising-the-current-40-iht-rate
Your second paragraph is also correct as far as it goes, although it paints only a part of the picture.
The more fundamental problem is that the Party has issues that can really only be resolved by a period in Opposition. The question is how long?
The danger is that the pending shallacking could render the Party ineffective as an Opposition and too feeble to regenerate itself. If you believe in democracy, this isn't really desireable.
You know sometimes I even suspect Jesus may not have been a Conservative.
It’s the nearest one to our house, the only one within walking distance, most local kids go there… that’s enough in my book I think
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/nov/15/barton-house-what-happened-and-what-is-bristol-council-doing-about-it
"And so it has continued for the last thirty years. Stalin's successors have tried hard to appear less cold-blooded than he, but under pressure -- as when the Hungarians tried to leave the Soviet camp in 1956 or, twelve years later when the Czechs tried to liberalize their regime -- they have reacted every bit as ruthlessly. The ideological gulf remains unbridged; there has been detente, but no rapprochement.
Whether the situation is comfortable or not, it is certainly stable." (p. 88)
Until, a few years later, it wasn't.
So I don't see anything implausible about Alanbrooke's argument in the header.
And what did McEvedy say about that prediction in the 2002 edition? Nothing. Which did not surprise me, but did disappoint me.
(For the record: In 1982 I did think that the USSR would, eventually, collapse of its own internal contradictions, but if asked when I would have guessed that -- at best -- it would be in twenty years.)
However if that doesn't give you a strong preference, don't underestimate how helpful walking distance will be for seven years of school runs. Results and Ofsteds wax and wane, teachers and heads come and go but schools generally stay in the same location.
"How David Cameron tried to make his fortune with cash from China
Former prime minister, now the UK’s top diplomat, sought hundreds of millions of dollars from CIC for his UK-China fund"
https://www.ft.com/content/c1adc439-1847-4229-8e7c-486dccf6f5b9
The headmaster of the school I visited must be 1/10 to be gay, so I’d struggle to ask what you suggest even more than if he were not, for fear of
my son not getting the 50/50 calls because of it.
Hard-line dictatorships never fall. Until they do.
Here’s a picture for you though.
Proximity matters a lot. Not just for the school run, but also you will find that having the child's friends nearby good for socialising, for parents as well as the little one.
Just to head off any synthetic outrage at the pass, it’s Vanilla making Rishi look small.
Though of course that was for those who wanted to be true disciples, Jesus himself was originally a carpenter and as in the parable of the talents he wanted others to do well in their chosen field and save and invest profitably but also give charity to the poor.
Overall Christianity is probably conservative socially, left leaning economically.
The Old Testament however alone is a firmly ERG text
The very amateur and totally unqualified psychologist in me wonders if to my parents generation, the provision of an inheritance is part of their self validation and a recognition of their work. So changes in how it is taxed are not seen as a functional question of how best to raise money as a society but as an attack on their self-worth and achievements.
"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—for ever."
Well I have to try and relate. Much love for the 'enlightenment' and national sovereignty on here. So long as it's ours that is.
https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/our-news/press-releases/yougov-poll-shows-majority-of-public-now-supports-scrapping-iht-and-even-a-majority-of-labour-voters-oppose-raising-the-current-40-iht-rate
One final thought on inheritance tax. The net worth of the median household is £302,500, so they would be unaffected by any change. It's not until you reach somewhere between the top 15-20%, that net wealth reaches £1m, meaning most households below that level would be unaffected, due to double relief for married couples, and main residence relief for lineal descendants. Some single person households, and some households without lineal descendants, below that level, would benefit from scrapping/cutting IHT, but the number would not be huge. Conversely, some households above that level have already structured their affairs to avoid IHT.
Scrapping IHT would deliver a very big benefit to a small section of the population. Raising income tax thresholds would deliver a much smaller benefit, but it would go to every income tax payer. That is a lot fairer.
Though the USSR lasted about 74 years, which China has only just reached since 1949. I'm sure there are interesting lessons to learn about why the USSR collapsed but China didn't follow suit.
1) Scrap IHT and put 1.5p on Income Tax
2) Scrap IHT and increase Council Tax by 15%
3) Scrap IHT and increase fuel duty by 33%
Of course in isolation people don't like taxes.
What is 'fair' is based on your perspective. An unemployed single mother on benefits aged 55 would benefit more from an IHT cut if her elderly parents live in a £1.5m home in Surrey for example than a banker earning 6 figures would benefit from an income tax cut
https://www.rightmove.co.uk/news/house-price-index/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-europe-67453626
U know who otoh sound full of vim and vigour even when spouting incoherent fascistic rubbish.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/inheritance-tax-statistics-commentary/inheritance-tax-statistics-commentary
NEW THREAD
You're deliberately fiddling the facts again.