For clarity, I'm not forecasting armed insurrection in America because I want it or find it entertaining. The opposite. I just struggle to see how they avoid that in any scenario other than a big Trump win. And even in that scenario it just flips the other way - Trump does everything he says he is going to do and you're going to get armed militias imposing Gilead as they round up Jake Tapper and illegals and 'that guy down the street who looks funny'.
So time to plan a hoilday there. Could be good value soon if lot's of people avoid it. Road trip.
Road trip, you say?
Max will be my navigator.
Plus you're covered in case of blood loss....
A bit of extra insurance always helps.You can never be too careful.
Re farming what happens if those inheriting land can’t raise the IHT liability ?
It’s not like property which would generally be easier to sell .
Farmland is easy enough to sell. Phone the local auctioneers, cash lands in the bank about a month later.
There are lots of reasons why this policy is bad, but this isn't one.
Scenario: Farm is valued at 10k/acre for inheritance tax purposes. Farm is lets say 300 acres, so the bill is £200k (We'll assume the lad owns all the equipment and/or it's all depreciated for the sake of argument). The old Farmer's son sticks 20 acres up for sale, and only gets 5k/acre. A bit extreme, but just putting it out there for the sake of argument... Does the farm now get revalued to 1.5 million so the 200k isn't due ?
If the land is sold in open auction that is the value. It is really a bad idea but totally expected. It will also trash other businesses where succession is important. My ex MP says the first suicide has happened, not sure if that is true. We really have a vile incompetent government with a vile incompetent Prime Minister. But we knew that.
We seem to have a lot of press writing half baked incorrect stories to scare farmers.
It's been badly announced but I don't actually think there are many people at all who understand what the changes are yet alone the actual impact it has on people.
I don't know what happened to my previous post so will state it here whilst affirming that what Labour are doing is badly announcing things and not thinking them through. Expect more of this. Large majorities lead to bad governance. Ergo... The Private Schools body is suing the Govt over VAT on School fees.. the Govt is being challenged over Winter Fuel Allowance
I hope the Telegraph are bashing those liberal lefty lawyers using judicial review to challenge the elected will of the people on WFA.
I hear there is a rumour that a fox killing lawyer is going to try and take a case to the Supreme Court. To limit the "wrong kind of judicial challenge"
Great Jumping Jolyon, the Suburban Samurai with a Baseball Bat.
Ha.
I think it was on this website that the kimono crusader was referred to the Max Bialystock of the judicial review (or words to that effect). It amused me greatly - and every time he comes up in conversation it reminds me of that great musical (even though I was notionally supportive of some of actions he and his organisation took on).
I think it was I who called him the Max Bialystock of the English Bar.
Although to mix up the comedy, I could imagine him declaiming “ Did Magna Carta die in vain?”
A poor jobs report rides in just as latest polls show some good news for Harris .
How much effect this has hard to tell as most polling won’t have time to include that in its fieldwork before the election .
Whether mitigations such as the two hurricanes and Boeing strike can moderate some of the impact , Harris will hope so.
OTOH this is good news for Reeves !
I’d rather Reeves had some bad news ! The timing of the hurricanes was bad as it was just before data is collated . Regardless it’s not good for Harris as she was narrowing the gap on the economy question in polling .
I haven’t changed my mind on Kamala Harris winning comfortably. And I’m looking forward to the elaborate explanations from the polling companies on why they failed to predict the result.
Harris winning comfortably is within the margin of error for the pollsters.
"The error was comparable to past elections and better than some. We do not see the need for an enquiry" "It was within MOE" "There was a late surge" "People didn't make their minds up until the day" "Our methodology was correct but turnout/response rates were low or skewed by nonresponse" "We have adjusted our weights to compensate and are confident we will get it right next time"
No hiding for US pollsters this time round. A comfortable victory for either candidate leaves them with a massive amount of egg on their face. If they're as bad as our polls were (For Lab/Con) at the recent GE then it's basically a landslide either way and they'll be crucified. They need it to be close to preserve their reputation. It might not be !
His musings about executing Liz Cheney by firing squad is quite startling. I do wonder whether Trump will enact his wet dreams and take the ultimate action against anyone he believes have dimished him over the years. The list, I suspect will be incredibly long.
We know he already asked about using American troops against American citizens...
He could be the American Harold Wilson.
You'll have to explain.
The coup plot of 1967? Rhodesia? Or something else?
I am genuinely insulted that you dare compare Harold to Trump.
I haven’t changed my mind on Kamala Harris winning comfortably. And I’m looking forward to the elaborate explanations from the polling companies on why they failed to predict the result.
Harris winning comfortably is within the margin of error for the pollsters.
"The error was comparable to past elections and better than some. We do not see the need for an enquiry" "It was within MOE" "There was a late surge" "People didn't make their minds up until the day" "Our methodology was correct but turnout/response rates were low or skewed by nonresponse" "We have adjusted our weights to compensate and are confident we will get it right next time"
No hiding for US pollsters this time round. A comfortable victory for either candidate leaves them with a massive amount of egg on their face. If they're as bad as our polls were (For Lab/Con) at the recent GE then it's basically a landslide either way and they'll be crucified. They need it to be close to preserve their reputation. It might not be !
Re farming what happens if those inheriting land can’t raise the IHT liability ?
It’s not like property which would generally be easier to sell .
Farmland is easy enough to sell. Phone the local auctioneers, cash lands in the bank about a month later.
There are lots of reasons why this policy is bad, but this isn't one.
Scenario: Farm is valued at 10k/acre for inheritance tax purposes. Farm is lets say 300 acres, so the bill is £200k (We'll assume the lad owns all the equipment and/or it's all depreciated for the sake of argument). The old Farmer's son sticks 20 acres up for sale, and only gets 5k/acre. A bit extreme, but just putting it out there for the sake of argument... Does the farm now get revalued to 1.5 million so the 200k isn't due ?
If the land is sold in open auction that is the value. It is really a bad idea but totally expected. It will also trash other businesses where succession is important. My ex MP says the first suicide has happened, not sure if that is true. We really have a vile incompetent government with a vile incompetent Prime Minister. But we knew that.
We seem to have a lot of press writing half baked incorrect stories to scare farmers.
It's been badly announced but I don't actually think there are many people at all who understand what the changes are yet alone the actual impact it has on people.
There is a story going around (no idea if it's true) on a supposed farmers' fb page describing a suicide which is getting everyone enraged.
I think farmers generally (can) have a very rough time and the suicide rate is very high. That said, governments of the past decades have prioritised mass market affordability of farm produce over farmers' well-being and it is difficult to argue that that has been the wrong policy.
Also it has long been known that buying agricultural land is a good tax avoidance wheeze but, a situation affecting 0.0n% of the farmers, still less of the population is not I believe good grounds for policy-making.
Removing a good tax avoidance wheeze is something that a sensible Government should be doing.
The suicide could be caused by a lot of things with this being the final one of a lot of straws. Farmer suicide is scarily high anyway as it's a lonely business that can feeling never ending..
I don't doubt but it is getting everyone agitated. Plus ISAs are a good tax avoidance wheeze.
An ISA is not tax avoidance.
“Tax avoidance is bending the rules of the tax system to gain a tax advantage, that parliament never intended.” (HMRC, 2015)
"It involves operating within the letter, but not the spirit, of the law".
So in other words it is perfectly legal and this description is designed a) to give The State more power over you at their sole discretion and whim; and b) scare you. Which latter it appears to have done.
Or an understandable reaction by the revenue to rich people's accountants regularly taking the piss.
Re farming what happens if those inheriting land can’t raise the IHT liability ?
It’s not like property which would generally be easier to sell .
Farmland is easy enough to sell. Phone the local auctioneers, cash lands in the bank about a month later.
There are lots of reasons why this policy is bad, but this isn't one.
Scenario: Farm is valued at 10k/acre for inheritance tax purposes. Farm is lets say 300 acres, so the bill is £200k (We'll assume the lad owns all the equipment and/or it's all depreciated for the sake of argument). The old Farmer's son sticks 20 acres up for sale, and only gets 5k/acre. A bit extreme, but just putting it out there for the sake of argument... Does the farm now get revalued to 1.5 million so the 200k isn't due ?
If the land is sold in open auction that is the value. It is really a bad idea but totally expected. It will also trash other businesses where succession is important. My ex MP says the first suicide has happened, not sure if that is true. We really have a vile incompetent government with a vile incompetent Prime Minister. But we knew that.
We seem to have a lot of press writing half baked incorrect stories to scare farmers.
It's been badly announced but I don't actually think there are many people at all who understand what the changes are yet alone the actual impact it has on people.
I don't know what happened to my previous post so will state it here whilst affirming that what Labour are doing is badly announcing things and not thinking them through. Expect more of this. Large majorities lead to bad governance. Ergo... The Private Schools body is suing the Govt over VAT on School fees.. the Govt is being challenged over Winter Fuel Allowance
So two sets of lawyers finding a set of fools willing to pay money on no hope cases because unless I'm mistaking
1) The law they are using for private schools doesn't talk about the cost of it just that its allowed 2) age discrimination doesn't work when you have to be 67 to get the WFA...
The interesting point to my mind is how do the government exempt universities? Both provide education, similar charitable set-up in many cases, an overlap in ages for eighteen year olds etc.
You see that would be a far better approach to the court case - these items (universities) you want exempt shouldn't be exempt is a case I think there would be more chance of winning (and the consequences far more likely to result in the issue going away).
In the case of the private schools, the SEND issue will bring in all kinds of problems, I suspect.
I think it would be fair for Labour to point out that it's a deeply unfair system that requires charity to step in to provide SEND education.
And they've just increased SEND funding by £1 billion, which rather backs them up.
Didn't you know that quite a bit of SEND stuff is provided by specialist private schools to the government?
Re farming what happens if those inheriting land can’t raise the IHT liability ?
It’s not like property which would generally be easier to sell .
Farmland is easy enough to sell. Phone the local auctioneers, cash lands in the bank about a month later.
There are lots of reasons why this policy is bad, but this isn't one.
Scenario: Farm is valued at 10k/acre for inheritance tax purposes. Farm is lets say 300 acres, so the bill is £200k (We'll assume the lad owns all the equipment and/or it's all depreciated for the sake of argument). The old Farmer's son sticks 20 acres up for sale, and only gets 5k/acre. A bit extreme, but just putting it out there for the sake of argument... Does the farm now get revalued to 1.5 million so the 200k isn't due ?
If the land is sold in open auction that is the value. It is really a bad idea but totally expected. It will also trash other businesses where succession is important. My ex MP says the first suicide has happened, not sure if that is true. We really have a vile incompetent government with a vile incompetent Prime Minister. But we knew that.
We seem to have a lot of press writing half baked incorrect stories to scare farmers.
It's been badly announced but I don't actually think there are many people at all who understand what the changes are yet alone the actual impact it has on people.
There is a story going around (no idea if it's true) on a supposed farmers' fb page describing a suicide which is getting everyone enraged.
I think farmers generally (can) have a very rough time and the suicide rate is very high. That said, governments of the past decades have prioritised mass market affordability of farm produce over farmers' well-being and it is difficult to argue that that has been the wrong policy.
Also it has long been known that buying agricultural land is a good tax avoidance wheeze but, a situation affecting 0.0n% of the farmers, still less of the population is not I believe good grounds for policy-making.
Removing a good tax avoidance wheeze is something that a sensible Government should be doing.
The suicide could be caused by a lot of things with this being the final one of a lot of straws. Farmer suicide is scarily high anyway as it's a lonely business that can feeling never ending..
I don't doubt but it is getting everyone agitated. Plus ISAs are a good tax avoidance wheeze.
An ISA is not tax avoidance.
“Tax avoidance is bending the rules of the tax system to gain a tax advantage, that parliament never intended.” (HMRC, 2015)
"It involves operating within the letter, butnot the spirit, of the law".
So in other words it is perfectly legal and this description is designed a) to give The State more power over you at their sole discretion and whim; and b) scare you. Which latter it appears to have done.
If the State doesn't want you to use ISA's, it has the power to stop you.
But it doesn't.
I'll ignore the apostrophe shocker but presumably they could do this by passing a law, not some HMRC bod deciding they didn't like the cut of your jib.
I haven’t changed my mind on Kamala Harris winning comfortably. And I’m looking forward to the elaborate explanations from the polling companies on why they failed to predict the result.
Harris winning comfortably is within the margin of error for the pollsters.
"The error was comparable to past elections and better than some. We do not see the need for an enquiry" "It was within MOE" "There was a late surge" "People didn't make their minds up until the day" "Our methodology was correct but turnout/response rates were low or skewed by nonresponse" "We have adjusted our weights to compensate and are confident we will get it right next time"
They won't be feeling so safe when 80,000,000 Democrats start a class action for the mental anguish suffered...
I haven’t changed my mind on Kamala Harris winning comfortably. And I’m looking forward to the elaborate explanations from the polling companies on why they failed to predict the result.
Harris winning comfortably is within the margin of error for the pollsters.
"The error was comparable to past elections and better than some. We do not see the need for an enquiry" "It was within MOE" "There was a late surge" "People didn't make their minds up until the day" "Our methodology was correct but turnout/response rates were low or skewed by nonresponse" "We have adjusted our weights to compensate and are confident we will get it right next time"
Re farming what happens if those inheriting land can’t raise the IHT liability ?
It’s not like property which would generally be easier to sell .
Farmland is easy enough to sell. Phone the local auctioneers, cash lands in the bank about a month later.
There are lots of reasons why this policy is bad, but this isn't one.
Scenario: Farm is valued at 10k/acre for inheritance tax purposes. Farm is lets say 300 acres, so the bill is £200k (We'll assume the lad owns all the equipment and/or it's all depreciated for the sake of argument). The old Farmer's son sticks 20 acres up for sale, and only gets 5k/acre. A bit extreme, but just putting it out there for the sake of argument... Does the farm now get revalued to 1.5 million so the 200k isn't due ?
If the land is sold in open auction that is the value. It is really a bad idea but totally expected. It will also trash other businesses where succession is important. My ex MP says the first suicide has happened, not sure if that is true. We really have a vile incompetent government with a vile incompetent Prime Minister. But we knew that.
We seem to have a lot of press writing half baked incorrect stories to scare farmers.
It's been badly announced but I don't actually think there are many people at all who understand what the changes are yet alone the actual impact it has on people.
There is a story going around (no idea if it's true) on a supposed farmers' fb page describing a suicide which is getting everyone enraged.
I think farmers generally (can) have a very rough time and the suicide rate is very high. That said, governments of the past decades have prioritised mass market affordability of farm produce over farmers' well-being and it is difficult to argue that that has been the wrong policy.
Also it has long been known that buying agricultural land is a good tax avoidance wheeze but, a situation affecting 0.0n% of the farmers, still less of the population is not I believe good grounds for policy-making.
Removing a good tax avoidance wheeze is something that a sensible Government should be doing.
The suicide could be caused by a lot of things with this being the final one of a lot of straws. Farmer suicide is scarily high anyway as it's a lonely business that can feeling never ending..
I don't doubt but it is getting everyone agitated. Plus ISAs are a good tax avoidance wheeze.
An ISA is not tax avoidance.
“Tax avoidance is bending the rules of the tax system to gain a tax advantage, that parliament never intended.” (HMRC, 2015)
"It involves operating within the letter, butnot the spirit, of the law".
So in other words it is perfectly legal and this description is designed a) to give The State more power over you at their sole discretion and whim; and b) scare you. Which latter it appears to have done.
If the State doesn't want you to use ISA's, it has the power to stop you.
But it doesn't.
I'll ignore the apostrophe shocker but presumably they could do this by passing a law, not some HMRC bod deciding they didn't like the cut of your jib.
Sorry. Was distracted from checking the post by afternoon tea arriving.
Re farming what happens if those inheriting land can’t raise the IHT liability ?
It’s not like property which would generally be easier to sell .
Farmland is easy enough to sell. Phone the local auctioneers, cash lands in the bank about a month later.
There are lots of reasons why this policy is bad, but this isn't one.
Scenario: Farm is valued at 10k/acre for inheritance tax purposes. Farm is lets say 300 acres, so the bill is £200k (We'll assume the lad owns all the equipment and/or it's all depreciated for the sake of argument). The old Farmer's son sticks 20 acres up for sale, and only gets 5k/acre. A bit extreme, but just putting it out there for the sake of argument... Does the farm now get revalued to 1.5 million so the 200k isn't due ?
If the land is sold in open auction that is the value. It is really a bad idea but totally expected. It will also trash other businesses where succession is important. My ex MP says the first suicide has happened, not sure if that is true. We really have a vile incompetent government with a vile incompetent Prime Minister. But we knew that.
We seem to have a lot of press writing half baked incorrect stories to scare farmers.
It's been badly announced but I don't actually think there are many people at all who understand what the changes are yet alone the actual impact it has on people.
There is a story going around (no idea if it's true) on a supposed farmers' fb page describing a suicide which is getting everyone enraged.
I think farmers generally (can) have a very rough time and the suicide rate is very high. That said, governments of the past decades have prioritised mass market affordability of farm produce over farmers' well-being and it is difficult to argue that that has been the wrong policy.
Also it has long been known that buying agricultural land is a good tax avoidance wheeze but, a situation affecting 0.0n% of the farmers, still less of the population is not I believe good grounds for policy-making.
Removing a good tax avoidance wheeze is something that a sensible Government should be doing.
The suicide could be caused by a lot of things with this being the final one of a lot of straws. Farmer suicide is scarily high anyway as it's a lonely business that can feeling never ending..
I don't doubt but it is getting everyone agitated. Plus ISAs are a good tax avoidance wheeze.
An ISA is not tax avoidance.
“Tax avoidance is bending the rules of the tax system to gain a tax advantage, that parliament never intended.” (HMRC, 2015)
"It involves operating within the letter, but not the spirit, of the law".
So in other words it is perfectly legal and this description is designed a) to give The State more power over you at their sole discretion and whim; and b) scare you. Which latter it appears to have done.
Or an understandable reaction by the revenue to rich people's accountants regularly taking the piss.
Re farming what happens if those inheriting land can’t raise the IHT liability ?
It’s not like property which would generally be easier to sell .
Farmland is easy enough to sell. Phone the local auctioneers, cash lands in the bank about a month later.
There are lots of reasons why this policy is bad, but this isn't one.
Scenario: Farm is valued at 10k/acre for inheritance tax purposes. Farm is lets say 300 acres, so the bill is £200k (We'll assume the lad owns all the equipment and/or it's all depreciated for the sake of argument). The old Farmer's son sticks 20 acres up for sale, and only gets 5k/acre. A bit extreme, but just putting it out there for the sake of argument... Does the farm now get revalued to 1.5 million so the 200k isn't due ?
If the land is sold in open auction that is the value. It is really a bad idea but totally expected. It will also trash other businesses where succession is important. My ex MP says the first suicide has happened, not sure if that is true. We really have a vile incompetent government with a vile incompetent Prime Minister. But we knew that.
We seem to have a lot of press writing half baked incorrect stories to scare farmers.
It's been badly announced but I don't actually think there are many people at all who understand what the changes are yet alone the actual impact it has on people.
Well it was just a part of the budget rather than an announcement as such wasn’t it? The media will do what they will do.
The likes of Sky News and BBC are getting hysterical. No one worried about farmer welfare when the supermarkets were screwing down on the price of milk and food in the past to the detriment of small producers. I wonder if this is all a consequence of the lack of enthusiasm for Labour in the period up to the election. The media have been running around like a pack of wolves since then. Maybe it is a reaction to their inability in the earlier years to call out Johnson and co, or maybe it's a leach over from the atmosphere/media in the US?
Did you see Beth Rigby's 'interview' with Rachel this week? Rigby asked a question then talked over Rachel as she tried to answer. Over and again. She's a gobshite that does the public a disservice because her interviewees cannot get a word in edgeways.
His musings about executing Liz Cheney by firing squad is quite startling. I do wonder whether Trump will enact his wet dreams and take the ultimate action against anyone he believes have dimished him over the years. The list, I suspect will be incredibly long.
We know he already asked about using American troops against American citizens...
He could be the American Harold Wilson.
You'll have to explain.
The coup plot of 1967? Rhodesia? Or something else?
I am genuinely insulted that you dare compare Harold to Trump.
Yeah comparing the smartest UK Prime Minister of modern times with the stupidest US President doesn't really add up.
I haven’t changed my mind on Kamala Harris winning comfortably. And I’m looking forward to the elaborate explanations from the polling companies on why they failed to predict the result.
Harris winning comfortably is within the margin of error for the pollsters.
"The error was comparable to past elections and better than some. We do not see the need for an enquiry" "It was within MOE" "There was a late surge" "People didn't make their minds up until the day" "Our methodology was correct but turnout/response rates were low or skewed by nonresponse" "We have adjusted our weights to compensate and are confident we will get it right next time"
They won't be feeling so safe when 80,000,000 Democrats start a class action for the mental anguish suffered...
Can we join the class action too Marquee? My nerves are shredded.
His musings about executing Liz Cheney by firing squad is quite startling. I do wonder whether Trump will enact his wet dreams and take the ultimate action against anyone he believes have dimished him over the years. The list, I suspect will be incredibly long.
We know he already asked about using American troops against American citizens...
He could be the American Harold Wilson.
You'll have to explain.
The coup plot of 1967? Rhodesia? Or something else?
I am genuinely insulted that you dare compare Harold to Trump.
Re farming what happens if those inheriting land can’t raise the IHT liability ?
It’s not like property which would generally be easier to sell .
Farmland is easy enough to sell. Phone the local auctioneers, cash lands in the bank about a month later.
There are lots of reasons why this policy is bad, but this isn't one.
Scenario: Farm is valued at 10k/acre for inheritance tax purposes. Farm is lets say 300 acres, so the bill is £200k (We'll assume the lad owns all the equipment and/or it's all depreciated for the sake of argument). The old Farmer's son sticks 20 acres up for sale, and only gets 5k/acre. A bit extreme, but just putting it out there for the sake of argument... Does the farm now get revalued to 1.5 million so the 200k isn't due ?
If the land is sold in open auction that is the value. It is really a bad idea but totally expected. It will also trash other businesses where succession is important. My ex MP says the first suicide has happened, not sure if that is true. We really have a vile incompetent government with a vile incompetent Prime Minister. But we knew that.
We seem to have a lot of press writing half baked incorrect stories to scare farmers.
It's been badly announced but I don't actually think there are many people at all who understand what the changes are yet alone the actual impact it has on people.
I don't know what happened to my previous post so will state it here whilst affirming that what Labour are doing is badly announcing things and not thinking them through. Expect more of this. Large majorities lead to bad governance. Ergo... The Private Schools body is suing the Govt over VAT on School fees.. the Govt is being challenged over Winter Fuel Allowance
So two sets of lawyers finding a set of fools willing to pay money on no hope cases because unless I'm mistaking
1) The law they are using for private schools doesn't talk about the cost of it just that its allowed 2) age discrimination doesn't work when you have to be 67 to get the WFA...
The interesting point to my mind is how do the government exempt universities? Both provide education, similar charitable set-up in many cases, an overlap in ages for eighteen year olds etc.
You see that would be a far better approach to the court case - these items (universities) you want exempt shouldn't be exempt is a case I think there would be more chance of winning (and the consequences far more likely to result in the issue going away).
In the case of the private schools, the SEND issue will bring in all kinds of problems, I suspect.
I think it would be fair for Labour to point out that it's a deeply unfair system that requires charity to step in to provide SEND education.
And they've just increased SEND funding by £1 billion, which rather backs them up.
Didn't you know that quite a bit of SEND stuff is provided by specialist private schools to the government?
Some of that sounds an absolute racket. I appreciate there's a need for extra support but the fees some councils pay...
Re farming what happens if those inheriting land can’t raise the IHT liability ?
It’s not like property which would generally be easier to sell .
Farmland is easy enough to sell. Phone the local auctioneers, cash lands in the bank about a month later.
There are lots of reasons why this policy is bad, but this isn't one.
Scenario: Farm is valued at 10k/acre for inheritance tax purposes. Farm is lets say 300 acres, so the bill is £200k (We'll assume the lad owns all the equipment and/or it's all depreciated for the sake of argument). The old Farmer's son sticks 20 acres up for sale, and only gets 5k/acre. A bit extreme, but just putting it out there for the sake of argument... Does the farm now get revalued to 1.5 million so the 200k isn't due ?
If the land is sold in open auction that is the value. It is really a bad idea but totally expected. It will also trash other businesses where succession is important. My ex MP says the first suicide has happened, not sure if that is true. We really have a vile incompetent government with a vile incompetent Prime Minister. But we knew that.
We seem to have a lot of press writing half baked incorrect stories to scare farmers.
It's been badly announced but I don't actually think there are many people at all who understand what the changes are yet alone the actual impact it has on people.
I don't know what happened to my previous post so will state it here whilst affirming that what Labour are doing is badly announcing things and not thinking them through. Expect more of this. Large majorities lead to bad governance. Ergo... The Private Schools body is suing the Govt over VAT on School fees.. the Govt is being challenged over Winter Fuel Allowance
So two sets of lawyers finding a set of fools willing to pay money on no hope cases because unless I'm mistaking
1) The law they are using for private schools doesn't talk about the cost of it just that its allowed 2) age discrimination doesn't work when you have to be 67 to get the WFA...
The interesting point to my mind is how do the government exempt universities? Both provide education, similar charitable set-up in many cases, an overlap in ages for eighteen year olds etc.
All taxation has to put actual boundaries where there are in reality merging styles of entity. VAT on chocolate biscuits but not chocolate cakes comes to mind.
Re farming what happens if those inheriting land can’t raise the IHT liability ?
It’s not like property which would generally be easier to sell .
Farmland is easy enough to sell. Phone the local auctioneers, cash lands in the bank about a month later.
There are lots of reasons why this policy is bad, but this isn't one.
Scenario: Farm is valued at 10k/acre for inheritance tax purposes. Farm is lets say 300 acres, so the bill is £200k (We'll assume the lad owns all the equipment and/or it's all depreciated for the sake of argument). The old Farmer's son sticks 20 acres up for sale, and only gets 5k/acre. A bit extreme, but just putting it out there for the sake of argument... Does the farm now get revalued to 1.5 million so the 200k isn't due ?
If the land is sold in open auction that is the value. It is really a bad idea but totally expected. It will also trash other businesses where succession is important. My ex MP says the first suicide has happened, not sure if that is true. We really have a vile incompetent government with a vile incompetent Prime Minister. But we knew that.
We seem to have a lot of press writing half baked incorrect stories to scare farmers.
It's been badly announced but I don't actually think there are many people at all who understand what the changes are yet alone the actual impact it has on people.
I don't know what happened to my previous post so will state it here whilst affirming that what Labour are doing is badly announcing things and not thinking them through. Expect more of this. Large majorities lead to bad governance. Ergo... The Private Schools body is suing the Govt over VAT on School fees.. the Govt is being challenged over Winter Fuel Allowance
So two sets of lawyers finding a set of fools willing to pay money on no hope cases because unless I'm mistaking
1) The law they are using for private schools doesn't talk about the cost of it just that its allowed 2) age discrimination doesn't work when you have to be 67 to get the WFA...
The interesting point to my mind is how do the government exempt universities? Both provide education, similar charitable set-up in many cases, an overlap in ages for eighteen year olds etc.
You see that would be a far better approach to the court case - these items (universities) you want exempt shouldn't be exempt is a case I think there would be more chance of winning (and the consequences far more likely to result in the issue going away).
In the case of the private schools, the SEND issue will bring in all kinds of problems, I suspect.
I think it would be fair for Labour to point out that it's a deeply unfair system that requires charity to step in to provide SEND education.
And they've just increased SEND funding by £1 billion, which rather backs them up.
Didn't you know that quite a bit of SEND stuff is provided by specialist private schools to the government?
There are thousands of private businesses and charities that provide services to and behalf of the government. Are you proposing that their other customers don't pay tax either?
Re farming what happens if those inheriting land can’t raise the IHT liability ?
It’s not like property which would generally be easier to sell .
Farmland is easy enough to sell. Phone the local auctioneers, cash lands in the bank about a month later.
There are lots of reasons why this policy is bad, but this isn't one.
Scenario: Farm is valued at 10k/acre for inheritance tax purposes. Farm is lets say 300 acres, so the bill is £200k (We'll assume the lad owns all the equipment and/or it's all depreciated for the sake of argument). The old Farmer's son sticks 20 acres up for sale, and only gets 5k/acre. A bit extreme, but just putting it out there for the sake of argument... Does the farm now get revalued to 1.5 million so the 200k isn't due ?
If the land is sold in open auction that is the value. It is really a bad idea but totally expected. It will also trash other businesses where succession is important. My ex MP says the first suicide has happened, not sure if that is true. We really have a vile incompetent government with a vile incompetent Prime Minister. But we knew that.
We seem to have a lot of press writing half baked incorrect stories to scare farmers.
It's been badly announced but I don't actually think there are many people at all who understand what the changes are yet alone the actual impact it has on people.
I don't know what happened to my previous post so will state it here whilst affirming that what Labour are doing is badly announcing things and not thinking them through. Expect more of this. Large majorities lead to bad governance. Ergo... The Private Schools body is suing the Govt over VAT on School fees.. the Govt is being challenged over Winter Fuel Allowance
So two sets of lawyers finding a set of fools willing to pay money on no hope cases because unless I'm mistaking
1) The law they are using for private schools doesn't talk about the cost of it just that its allowed 2) age discrimination doesn't work when you have to be 67 to get the WFA...
The interesting point to my mind is how do the government exempt universities? Both provide education, similar charitable set-up in many cases, an overlap in ages for eighteen year olds etc.
All taxation has to put actual boundaries where there are in reality merging styles of entity. VAT on chocolate biscuits but not chocolate cakes comes to mind.
If it's about encouraging health we should obviously have 60% VAT on Triple Chocolate Brownies, and I hate to think what on Millionaire's Shortcake .
His musings about executing Liz Cheney by firing squad is quite startling. I do wonder whether Trump will enact his wet dreams and take the ultimate action against anyone he believes have dimished him over the years. The list, I suspect will be incredibly long.
We know he already asked about using American troops against American citizens...
He could be the American Harold Wilson.
You'll have to explain.
The coup plot of 1967? Rhodesia? Or something else?
I am genuinely insulted that you dare compare Harold to Trump.
His musings about executing Liz Cheney by firing squad is quite startling. I do wonder whether Trump will enact his wet dreams and take the ultimate action against anyone he believes have dimished him over the years. The list, I suspect will be incredibly long.
We know he already asked about using American troops against American citizens...
He could be the American Harold Wilson.
You'll have to explain.
The coup plot of 1967? Rhodesia? Or something else?
I am genuinely insulted that you dare compare Harold to Trump.
'kin hell! That is quite mad. You've lost the plot. You'll have to add Callaghan, Thatcher and even Councillor Major to that naughty step.
Using the military to resolve sectarian violence is somewhat different to using the military to assassinate those dissenting voices of legitimate political opponents.
Re farming what happens if those inheriting land can’t raise the IHT liability ?
It’s not like property which would generally be easier to sell .
Farmland is easy enough to sell. Phone the local auctioneers, cash lands in the bank about a month later.
There are lots of reasons why this policy is bad, but this isn't one.
Scenario: Farm is valued at 10k/acre for inheritance tax purposes. Farm is lets say 300 acres, so the bill is £200k (We'll assume the lad owns all the equipment and/or it's all depreciated for the sake of argument). The old Farmer's son sticks 20 acres up for sale, and only gets 5k/acre. A bit extreme, but just putting it out there for the sake of argument... Does the farm now get revalued to 1.5 million so the 200k isn't due ?
If the land is sold in open auction that is the value. It is really a bad idea but totally expected. It will also trash other businesses where succession is important. My ex MP says the first suicide has happened, not sure if that is true. We really have a vile incompetent government with a vile incompetent Prime Minister. But we knew that.
We seem to have a lot of press writing half baked incorrect stories to scare farmers.
It's been badly announced but I don't actually think there are many people at all who understand what the changes are yet alone the actual impact it has on people.
Well it was just a part of the budget rather than an announcement as such wasn’t it? The media will do what they will do.
The likes of Sky News and BBC are getting hysterical. No one worried about farmer welfare when the supermarkets were screwing down on the price of milk and food in the past to the detriment of small producers. I wonder if this is all a consequence of the lack of enthusiasm for Labour in the period up to the election. The media have been running around like a pack of wolves since then. Maybe it is a reaction to their inability in the earlier years to call out Johnson and co, or maybe it's a leach over from the atmosphere/media in the US?
Did you see Beth Rigby's 'interview' with Rachel this week? Rigby asked a question then talked over Rachel as she tried to answer. Over and again. She's a gobshite that does the public a disservice because her interviewees cannot get a word in edgeways.
I'm no fan of Rachel Reeves. But quite, let the woman make her case. Beth Rigby and Kay Burley have used this approach for years. They were particulalry egregious during covid.
His musings about executing Liz Cheney by firing squad is quite startling. I do wonder whether Trump will enact his wet dreams and take the ultimate action against anyone he believes have dimished him over the years. The list, I suspect will be incredibly long.
We know he already asked about using American troops against American citizens...
He could be the American Harold Wilson.
You'll have to explain.
The coup plot of 1967? Rhodesia? Or something else?
I am genuinely insulted that you dare compare Harold to Trump.
A council is considering a city centre ban on cyclists to protect pedestrians, with fines for people who do not comply.
Birmingham City council has become the latest local authority to discuss barring cyclists from pedestrian-only areas to curb anti-social cycling.
A report by the council’s regulation and community safety executives has raised concerns that food and parcel couriers on e-bikes, travelling “at speed and without care for pedestrians”, pose a particular danger to the public in areas of high footfall.
The report, published earlier this month, proposes extending the city’s public spaces protection order to encompass cycling. The move would add it to a list of anti-social behaviours that includes graffiti, street drinking, large gatherings, and excessive noise.
The report said cycling could be “restricted by time periods” or banned outright, with the issue being put to a public consultation.
I'm surprised that this has taken so long to hit the national media. Telegraph article in the Telegraph; more rounded piece in the Groan; I have not checked the Daily Wail. Disabled charities on my network (TBF this is focused on active travel, of course) have been contacting Birmingham Council with their concerns for 2-3 weeks, as it will impact their members / supporters / clients who use cycles or adapted cycles as their mobility aid, and cannot walk, who will be targeted for harassment by Council or BID officers (this happens routinely), who are never trained properly. This is Council Officers as Jesus: Pick up your Mobility Aid and Walk.
TLDR: I don't see this happening, because BCCs evidence does not support the claims. Cycling has been normal in Brum City Centre for 50-70 years, and the Council Report specifically - as mentioned by @Big_G_NorthWales - talks about food delivery and parcel couriers travelling at high speed, probably on mopeds not pedal-cycles, and mini van style cargo bikes (think Postman Pat)also at speed.
The former are a problem of supply chain and business regulation, with laws in place that can manage it, and the latter can be regulated. The way Scotland does it is by treating delivery riders as Street Traders needing a licence. The current UK Govt, unlike the last one, will get onto that. As a PSPO it needs one against ASB, not a ban on things that the Council's evidence do not identify as a problem.
One problem is the PSPO process, which legally requires evidence, but practically they can be pushed though with none, and are set up to be almost impossible to stop. The only one I have ever seen stopped was the Mansfield one about 5 years ago, where 5 locals targeted by it threatened a High Court legal action and forced them to moderate it. The Mansfield one was in reaction to a couple of occasions where kids had been wheelying around the outdoor market, and Captain Mainwaring jerked his knee.
The PSPO process needs reform to address problems and not address prejudices. At present these style of PSPO tend to exist in Reform type, or Blue Rinse type, coastal towns, or in fairly leafy country places. And one or two places where LD or Lab have gone local populist.
There already exist good inclusive models in Leicester, and to an extent Coventry, which Brum can follow. If they try and persist, I think they are big enough to get a challenge - but we shall see. I think they will take a via media.
I was part of a group that seriously curtailed a PSPO trying to regulate all public speaking and bring under civil law what was supposed to be criminal public order issues. It was mainly (entirely) done at the behest of some activist lgbt groups who couldn't cope with a Christian preacher saying things they disliked. Anyway the flaccid council dropped it when it hit resistance and a threat of judicial review.
"I was willing to bite my tongue over an energy policy that perpetuates demand for petrol and diesel by freezing fuel duty, while at the same curtailing domestic supply by killing the North Sea industry. The result of this mix is to worsen the trade deficit, and to import more oil with a higher carbon footprint."
Re farming what happens if those inheriting land can’t raise the IHT liability ?
It’s not like property which would generally be easier to sell .
Farmland is easy enough to sell. Phone the local auctioneers, cash lands in the bank about a month later.
There are lots of reasons why this policy is bad, but this isn't one.
Scenario: Farm is valued at 10k/acre for inheritance tax purposes. Farm is lets say 300 acres, so the bill is £200k (We'll assume the lad owns all the equipment and/or it's all depreciated for the sake of argument). The old Farmer's son sticks 20 acres up for sale, and only gets 5k/acre. A bit extreme, but just putting it out there for the sake of argument... Does the farm now get revalued to 1.5 million so the 200k isn't due ?
If the land is sold in open auction that is the value. It is really a bad idea but totally expected. It will also trash other businesses where succession is important. My ex MP says the first suicide has happened, not sure if that is true. We really have a vile incompetent government with a vile incompetent Prime Minister. But we knew that.
We seem to have a lot of press writing half baked incorrect stories to scare farmers.
It's been badly announced but I don't actually think there are many people at all who understand what the changes are yet alone the actual impact it has on people.
I don't know what happened to my previous post so will state it here whilst affirming that what Labour are doing is badly announcing things and not thinking them through. Expect more of this. Large majorities lead to bad governance. Ergo... The Private Schools body is suing the Govt over VAT on School fees.. the Govt is being challenged over Winter Fuel Allowance
So two sets of lawyers finding a set of fools willing to pay money on no hope cases because unless I'm mistaking
1) The law they are using for private schools doesn't talk about the cost of it just that its allowed 2) age discrimination doesn't work when you have to be 67 to get the WFA...
The interesting point to my mind is how do the government exempt universities? Both provide education, similar charitable set-up in many cases, an overlap in ages for eighteen year olds etc.
You see that would be a far better approach to the court case - these items (universities) you want exempt shouldn't be exempt is a case I think there would be more chance of winning (and the consequences far more likely to result in the issue going away).
In the case of the private schools, the SEND issue will bring in all kinds of problems, I suspect.
I think it would be fair for Labour to point out that it's a deeply unfair system that requires charity to step in to provide SEND education.
And they've just increased SEND funding by £1 billion, which rather backs them up.
Didn't you know that quite a bit of SEND stuff is provided by specialist private schools to the government?
There are thousands of private businesses and charities that provide services to and behalf of the government. Are you proposing that their other customers don't pay tax either?
Great news for Sodexo, Amey, Fujitsu (lol).
In the case of childrens' homes, there's a massive scandal of councils having to pay private providers through the nose for places, because there isn't the capacity to build and run them in-house. Brief intro here:
Re farming what happens if those inheriting land can’t raise the IHT liability ?
It’s not like property which would generally be easier to sell .
Farmland is easy enough to sell. Phone the local auctioneers, cash lands in the bank about a month later.
There are lots of reasons why this policy is bad, but this isn't one.
Scenario: Farm is valued at 10k/acre for inheritance tax purposes. Farm is lets say 300 acres, so the bill is £200k (We'll assume the lad owns all the equipment and/or it's all depreciated for the sake of argument). The old Farmer's son sticks 20 acres up for sale, and only gets 5k/acre. A bit extreme, but just putting it out there for the sake of argument... Does the farm now get revalued to 1.5 million so the 200k isn't due ?
If the land is sold in open auction that is the value. It is really a bad idea but totally expected. It will also trash other businesses where succession is important. My ex MP says the first suicide has happened, not sure if that is true. We really have a vile incompetent government with a vile incompetent Prime Minister. But we knew that.
We seem to have a lot of press writing half baked incorrect stories to scare farmers.
It's been badly announced but I don't actually think there are many people at all who understand what the changes are yet alone the actual impact it has on people.
Well it was just a part of the budget rather than an announcement as such wasn’t it? The media will do what they will do.
The likes of Sky News and BBC are getting hysterical. No one worried about farmer welfare when the supermarkets were screwing down on the price of milk and food in the past to the detriment of small producers. I wonder if this is all a consequence of the lack of enthusiasm for Labour in the period up to the election. The media have been running around like a pack of wolves since then. Maybe it is a reaction to their inability in the earlier years to call out Johnson and co, or maybe it's a leach over from the atmosphere/media in the US?
Did you see Beth Rigby's 'interview' with Rachel this week? Rigby asked a question then talked over Rachel as she tried to answer. Over and again. She's a gobshite that does the public a disservice because her interviewees cannot get a word in edgeways.
That's been a standard "interviewing technique" for years.
Strange that you haven't been upset with it previously.
His musings about executing Liz Cheney by firing squad is quite startling. I do wonder whether Trump will enact his wet dreams and take the ultimate action against anyone he believes have dimished him over the years. The list, I suspect will be incredibly long.
We know he already asked about using American troops against American citizens...
He could be the American Harold Wilson.
You'll have to explain.
The coup plot of 1967? Rhodesia? Or something else?
I am genuinely insulted that you dare compare Harold to Trump.
Resigns from government owing to encroaching dementia ? That's all I can come up with.
Re farming what happens if those inheriting land can’t raise the IHT liability ?
It’s not like property which would generally be easier to sell .
Farmland is easy enough to sell. Phone the local auctioneers, cash lands in the bank about a month later.
There are lots of reasons why this policy is bad, but this isn't one.
Scenario: Farm is valued at 10k/acre for inheritance tax purposes. Farm is lets say 300 acres, so the bill is £200k (We'll assume the lad owns all the equipment and/or it's all depreciated for the sake of argument). The old Farmer's son sticks 20 acres up for sale, and only gets 5k/acre. A bit extreme, but just putting it out there for the sake of argument... Does the farm now get revalued to 1.5 million so the 200k isn't due ?
If the land is sold in open auction that is the value. It is really a bad idea but totally expected. It will also trash other businesses where succession is important. My ex MP says the first suicide has happened, not sure if that is true. We really have a vile incompetent government with a vile incompetent Prime Minister. But we knew that.
We seem to have a lot of press writing half baked incorrect stories to scare farmers.
It's been badly announced but I don't actually think there are many people at all who understand what the changes are yet alone the actual impact it has on people.
Well it was just a part of the budget rather than an announcement as such wasn’t it? The media will do what they will do.
The likes of Sky News and BBC are getting hysterical. No one worried about farmer welfare when the supermarkets were screwing down on the price of milk and food in the past to the detriment of small producers. I wonder if this is all a consequence of the lack of enthusiasm for Labour in the period up to the election. The media have been running around like a pack of wolves since then. Maybe it is a reaction to their inability in the earlier years to call out Johnson and co, or maybe it's a leach over from the atmosphere/media in the US?
Did you see Beth Rigby's 'interview' with Rachel this week? Rigby asked a question then talked over Rachel as she tried to answer. Over and again. She's a gobshite that does the public a disservice because her interviewees cannot get a word in edgeways.
That's been a standard "interviewing technique" for years.
Strange that you haven't been upset with it previously.
Re farming what happens if those inheriting land can’t raise the IHT liability ?
It’s not like property which would generally be easier to sell .
Farmland is easy enough to sell. Phone the local auctioneers, cash lands in the bank about a month later.
There are lots of reasons why this policy is bad, but this isn't one.
Scenario: Farm is valued at 10k/acre for inheritance tax purposes. Farm is lets say 300 acres, so the bill is £200k (We'll assume the lad owns all the equipment and/or it's all depreciated for the sake of argument). The old Farmer's son sticks 20 acres up for sale, and only gets 5k/acre. A bit extreme, but just putting it out there for the sake of argument... Does the farm now get revalued to 1.5 million so the 200k isn't due ?
If the land is sold in open auction that is the value. It is really a bad idea but totally expected. It will also trash other businesses where succession is important. My ex MP says the first suicide has happened, not sure if that is true. We really have a vile incompetent government with a vile incompetent Prime Minister. But we knew that.
We seem to have a lot of press writing half baked incorrect stories to scare farmers.
It's been badly announced but I don't actually think there are many people at all who understand what the changes are yet alone the actual impact it has on people.
Well it was just a part of the budget rather than an announcement as such wasn’t it? The media will do what they will do.
The likes of Sky News and BBC are getting hysterical. No one worried about farmer welfare when the supermarkets were screwing down on the price of milk and food in the past to the detriment of small producers. I wonder if this is all a consequence of the lack of enthusiasm for Labour in the period up to the election. The media have been running around like a pack of wolves since then. Maybe it is a reaction to their inability in the earlier years to call out Johnson and co, or maybe it's a leach over from the atmosphere/media in the US?
Did you see Beth Rigby's 'interview' with Rachel this week? Rigby asked a question then talked over Rachel as she tried to answer. Over and again. She's a gobshite that does the public a disservice because her interviewees cannot get a word in edgeways.
I'm no fan of Rachel Reeves. But quite, let the woman make her case. Beth Rigby and Kay Burley have used this approach for years. They were particulalry egregious during covid.
My kids keep asking anxiously what will happen if Trump wins. I tell them that their lives won’t change, that we’ll have to try to stand up for others who are more vulnerable, but that we ourselves will be fine. The last two words I only say in my head: “For now.”
Re farming what happens if those inheriting land can’t raise the IHT liability ?
It’s not like property which would generally be easier to sell .
Farmland is easy enough to sell. Phone the local auctioneers, cash lands in the bank about a month later.
There are lots of reasons why this policy is bad, but this isn't one.
Scenario: Farm is valued at 10k/acre for inheritance tax purposes. Farm is lets say 300 acres, so the bill is £200k (We'll assume the lad owns all the equipment and/or it's all depreciated for the sake of argument). The old Farmer's son sticks 20 acres up for sale, and only gets 5k/acre. A bit extreme, but just putting it out there for the sake of argument... Does the farm now get revalued to 1.5 million so the 200k isn't due ?
If the land is sold in open auction that is the value. It is really a bad idea but totally expected. It will also trash other businesses where succession is important. My ex MP says the first suicide has happened, not sure if that is true. We really have a vile incompetent government with a vile incompetent Prime Minister. But we knew that.
We seem to have a lot of press writing half baked incorrect stories to scare farmers.
It's been badly announced but I don't actually think there are many people at all who understand what the changes are yet alone the actual impact it has on people.
Well it was just a part of the budget rather than an announcement as such wasn’t it? The media will do what they will do.
The likes of Sky News and BBC are getting hysterical. No one worried about farmer welfare when the supermarkets were screwing down on the price of milk and food in the past to the detriment of small producers. I wonder if this is all a consequence of the lack of enthusiasm for Labour in the period up to the election. The media have been running around like a pack of wolves since then. Maybe it is a reaction to their inability in the earlier years to call out Johnson and co, or maybe it's a leach over from the atmosphere/media in the US?
Did you see Beth Rigby's 'interview' with Rachel this week? Rigby asked a question then talked over Rachel as she tried to answer. Over and again. She's a gobshite that does the public a disservice because her interviewees cannot get a word in edgeways.
That's been a standard "interviewing technique" for years.
Strange that you haven't been upset with it previously.
Eh? I've commented on it several times. Long before this government came to power.
Why is nobody in media even mentioning that £1m IHT agriculture relief is in addition to the £1m IHT relief any (married) person gets when leaving property to children.
ie If you live on a farm and want to leave it to your son you pay no IHT on the first £2m (assuming you are / were married and spouse not using their exemption for anything else).
Was listening to lengthy debate hosted by Chorley on R5L yesterday with farmers complaining - going on about almost all farms are worth over £1m - at no point did anyone say farmers can leave £2m tax free.
Why not? Hopeless media reporting - nobody appears to have even the most basic understanding of how tax system works.
Let's get real. It appears no political journalist has the faintest idea.
How many people even on this website (one of the most informed places for political debate) were aware of this?
I'm sure I read it can go up to £3m if there's a home on the farm.
The likes of Clarkson, pretending he cares about other people, when it's actually his inheritance plans that have been affected, will moan. But if the policy doesn't effect many in practice, the outrage from the kind of family farmers people actually care about, will disappear over time.
In her budget speech Reeves made the direct claim that three-quarters of farms would be unaffected by the inheritance tax changes. Since then there's been a lot of sound and fury suggesting that this was not true, and that small family farms will have to be sold.
If Reeves has misled the House on this it should be a very big deal. I would expect her to be forced to come grovelling to the House to correct the record, at the very least.
Can anyone definitively show that Reeves misled the House?
If Reeves was being truthful then I do not think that expecting the largest quarter of farms to pay 20% IHT is problematic. Those at the bottom of that range will only pay 20% on a small fraction of the farm, and so the IHT bill will be modest. The very largest farms - the top eighth or so - should be large enough enterprises that they can pay the larger IHT due.
There isn't 100% tax relief on inheritance (capital acquisitions) tax on farmland or businesses in Ireland, but I believe much more farmland in Ireland is owner-occupied than in Britain. If Irish family farms can pay a form of IHT, then so can the largest quarter of British family farms.
Suspect there are a few things going on.
Part is the fear that everyone has of Inheritance Tax. We hear the FORTY PERCENT (which for most people is a huge rate) but not the (above a threshold that is pretty high so most of your estate won't be touched by it).
Part of it is the real, but impossible to quantify, emotional attachment of a family to a patch of land. Which, right now, feels like another luxury the nation can't afford to indulge.
Partly, it's shit-stirring by the opposition and their chunk of the media. Which may not be nice, bit is part of the game.
But also, there's an awkard point which I think Dan the Taxman made. If you have a farm, and the value of that farm is over £2 million, and that capital and the sweat equity of the farmers isn't producing enough profit to support this much tax once a generation... It's not a great business. And that's a horrible thing to say to people who work harder than I do for less reward. But it's where we are. And as with some other things the nation ducks, it boils down to a simple question. Do we want Britain to be a productive place, with all the benefits that entails, or not?
Farming is not a high reward per unit capital industry.
However, the government has spent vast amounts of time, effort etc on making sure that you can't use that capital (the land) for much else.
So if the farmers stop farming, then the asset (the land) won't be used for more productive (more GDP uses).
So that argument doesn't work.
How about some of these houses we're supposed to be building?
What average dwelling density are we looking at ?
2 million dwellings at 13/acre ~= 150,000 acres of farmland needed. You'll need some roads and infrastructure (More land) but also there might be conversions and upwards build elsewhere (less land).
The estimate for farmland looks to be 40 million acres. So that only affects 0.3% of farmland. However you cook the numbers the truth is most farmland isn't going to be used for housing any time soon.
Following on from this excellent post, let's look at a couple of real-world examples - and the densities are not that good.
My home 'town', Cambourne, is fairly self-contained, except for employment (we are somewhat of a dormitory town). But aside from that it is perfectly possible to live here whilst rarely going anywhere else - we have shops, a library, doctor's surgery, pub, parks, etc, etc. It is, in my view, a good place to live, and offers a reasonable quality of life.
Cambourne (original) is 400 hectares (~1,000 acres_ and has about 4,300 houses, and has a population of 12-13,000 people.
That gives a density of 10-11 houses per hectare, or 4-5 per acre. That includes all infrastructure.
As another example, let us look at the new Waterbeach development, currently being built. This is 293 hectares (~725 acres), and will have 6,500 homes. This gives a density of 22 houses per hectare, or 9 per acre. This leads me to question what they are going to lose when building to double the density.
We risk cramming more and more houses into smaller and smaller space, and creating not very nice places to live.
Are there odds on him calling Kamala a c*** by next Tuesday? You just know he does it in private anyway.
I don't think he is that vulgar. Non-drinking, non-smoking/drug-taking.
Plus of that age. I don't think it is in his vernacular.
But we can have a bet if you would like.
Lol, a man who calls his opponents stupid bastards, scum and garbage, mentions the size of a famous sportsman's cock & does an impersonation of a disabled journalist during speeches, and boasts about grabbing women by the pussy isn't 'that vulgar'. A judgment for the ages.
His musings about executing Liz Cheney by firing squad is quite startling. I do wonder whether Trump will enact his wet dreams and take the ultimate action against anyone he believes have dimished him over the years. The list, I suspect will be incredibly long.
Are we at peak derangement yet? He's not literally calling to shoot people by firing squad, in the same way he's not literarily having a fascist rally in Maddison square garden, or going to literally have a bloodbath.
This is bonkers stuff. But, once you have convinced yourself the man is a fascist you can convince yourself all his utterances can be interrelated in the worse possible bad faith way.
A council is considering a city centre ban on cyclists to protect pedestrians, with fines for people who do not comply.
Birmingham City council has become the latest local authority to discuss barring cyclists from pedestrian-only areas to curb anti-social cycling.
A report by the council’s regulation and community safety executives has raised concerns that food and parcel couriers on e-bikes, travelling “at speed and without care for pedestrians”, pose a particular danger to the public in areas of high footfall.
The report, published earlier this month, proposes extending the city’s public spaces protection order to encompass cycling. The move would add it to a list of anti-social behaviours that includes graffiti, street drinking, large gatherings, and excessive noise.
The report said cycling could be “restricted by time periods” or banned outright, with the issue being put to a public consultation.
I'm surprised that this has taken so long to hit the national media. Telegraph article in the Telegraph; more rounded piece in the Groan; I have not checked the Daily Wail. Disabled charities on my network (TBF this is focused on active travel, of course) have been contacting Birmingham Council with their concerns for 2-3 weeks, as it will impact their members / supporters / clients who use cycles or adapted cycles as their mobility aid, and cannot walk, who will be targeted for harassment by Council or BID officers (this happens routinely), who are never trained properly. This is Council Officers as Jesus: Pick up your Mobility Aid and Walk.
TLDR: I don't see this happening, because BCCs evidence does not support the claims. Cycling has been normal in Brum City Centre for 50-70 years, and the Council Report specifically - as mentioned by @Big_G_NorthWales - talks about food delivery and parcel couriers travelling at high speed, probably on mopeds not pedal-cycles, and mini van style cargo bikes (think Postman Pat)also at speed.
The former are a problem of supply chain and business regulation, with laws in place that can manage it, and the latter can be regulated. The way Scotland does it is by treating delivery riders as Street Traders needing a licence. The current UK Govt, unlike the last one, will get onto that. As a PSPO it needs one against ASB, not a ban on things that the Council's evidence do not identify as a problem.
One problem is the PSPO process, which legally requires evidence, but practically they can be pushed though with none, and are set up to be almost impossible to stop. The only one I have ever seen stopped was the Mansfield one about 5 years ago, where 5 locals targeted by it threatened a High Court legal action and forced them to moderate it. The Mansfield one was in reaction to a couple of occasions where kids had been wheelying around the outdoor market, and Captain Mainwaring jerked his knee.
The PSPO process needs reform to address problems and not address prejudices. At present these style of PSPO tend to exist in Reform type, or Blue Rinse type, coastal towns, or in fairly leafy country places. And one or two places where LD or Lab have gone local populist.
There already exist good inclusive models in Leicester, and to an extent Coventry, which Brum can follow. If they try and persist, I think they are big enough to get a challenge - but we shall see. I think they will take a via media.
I was part of a group that seriously curtailed a PSPO trying to regulate all public speaking and bring under civil law what was supposed to be criminal public order issues. It was mainly (entirely) done at the behest of some activist lgbt groups who couldn't cope with a Christian preacher saying things they disliked. Anyway the flaccid council dropped it when it hit resistance and a threat of judicial review.
The problem is the lack of interest in enforcement.
In my view, as a start, there needs to be a crackdown on the illegal eBikes. The local cycle lanes are becoming unusable due to people doing 30mph+ with electric motorcycles.
To start with, the batteries are nearly always unsafe.
Then there's the thuggish behaviour towards actual cyclists - I've sen them blast past children on bikes, missing them by millimetres.
Re farming what happens if those inheriting land can’t raise the IHT liability ?
It’s not like property which would generally be easier to sell .
Farmland is easy enough to sell. Phone the local auctioneers, cash lands in the bank about a month later.
There are lots of reasons why this policy is bad, but this isn't one.
Scenario: Farm is valued at 10k/acre for inheritance tax purposes. Farm is lets say 300 acres, so the bill is £200k (We'll assume the lad owns all the equipment and/or it's all depreciated for the sake of argument). The old Farmer's son sticks 20 acres up for sale, and only gets 5k/acre. A bit extreme, but just putting it out there for the sake of argument... Does the farm now get revalued to 1.5 million so the 200k isn't due ?
If the land is sold in open auction that is the value. It is really a bad idea but totally expected. It will also trash other businesses where succession is important. My ex MP says the first suicide has happened, not sure if that is true. We really have a vile incompetent government with a vile incompetent Prime Minister. But we knew that.
We seem to have a lot of press writing half baked incorrect stories to scare farmers.
It's been badly announced but I don't actually think there are many people at all who understand what the changes are yet alone the actual impact it has on people.
Well it was just a part of the budget rather than an announcement as such wasn’t it? The media will do what they will do.
The likes of Sky News and BBC are getting hysterical. No one worried about farmer welfare when the supermarkets were screwing down on the price of milk and food in the past to the detriment of small producers. I wonder if this is all a consequence of the lack of enthusiasm for Labour in the period up to the election. The media have been running around like a pack of wolves since then. Maybe it is a reaction to their inability in the earlier years to call out Johnson and co, or maybe it's a leach over from the atmosphere/media in the US?
Did you see Beth Rigby's 'interview' with Rachel this week? Rigby asked a question then talked over Rachel as she tried to answer. Over and again. She's a gobshite that does the public a disservice because her interviewees cannot get a word in edgeways.
That's been a standard "interviewing technique" for years.
Strange that you haven't been upset with it previously.
Exactly correct on the interview style.
Who was the first one to popularise it? I'm inclined to go with Humphries or Paxman. Terribly exciting at the time, but probably a bad thing once the initial thrill has worn off.
Lots of discussion on IHT; one of the questions I keep pondering is why it still exists.
It's absolutely hated, and raises very little revenue; 0.7% of government income.
For example, Jeremy Hunt used £10bln to cut NI by 2%. He could have abolished IHT instead and had £2.5bln left to play with.
Surely the smart politics would have been to ditch IHT entirely, rather than a modest reduction in NI which virtually everyone forgot about 24hrs later.
There are lots of advantages to wiping out a tax entirely rather than changing rates - the government would save the cost revenue collection, lots of people would save the cost of employing the tax planning parasites*, it would knock the bottom out of all the known dodges like buying farmland (with the amusing side effect of burning the fingers of those most egregiously attempting to tax dodge in this way as asset values drop back to their true levels).
Why on earth didn't he do it? If nothing else, he would have gone down in history as the chancellor who abolished IHT, and it's hard to imaging that would be an unpopular legacy.
*Maybe they could become social care workers, instead of us having to import millions of Nigerians
Re farming what happens if those inheriting land can’t raise the IHT liability ?
It’s not like property which would generally be easier to sell .
Farmland is easy enough to sell. Phone the local auctioneers, cash lands in the bank about a month later.
There are lots of reasons why this policy is bad, but this isn't one.
Scenario: Farm is valued at 10k/acre for inheritance tax purposes. Farm is lets say 300 acres, so the bill is £200k (We'll assume the lad owns all the equipment and/or it's all depreciated for the sake of argument). The old Farmer's son sticks 20 acres up for sale, and only gets 5k/acre. A bit extreme, but just putting it out there for the sake of argument... Does the farm now get revalued to 1.5 million so the 200k isn't due ?
If the land is sold in open auction that is the value. It is really a bad idea but totally expected. It will also trash other businesses where succession is important. My ex MP says the first suicide has happened, not sure if that is true. We really have a vile incompetent government with a vile incompetent Prime Minister. But we knew that.
We seem to have a lot of press writing half baked incorrect stories to scare farmers.
It's been badly announced but I don't actually think there are many people at all who understand what the changes are yet alone the actual impact it has on people.
I don't know what happened to my previous post so will state it here whilst affirming that what Labour are doing is badly announcing things and not thinking them through. Expect more of this. Large majorities lead to bad governance. Ergo... The Private Schools body is suing the Govt over VAT on School fees.. the Govt is being challenged over Winter Fuel Allowance
I hope the Telegraph are bashing those liberal lefty lawyers using judicial review to challenge the elected will of the people on WFA.
I hear there is a rumour that a fox killing lawyer is going to try and take a case to the Supreme Court. To limit the "wrong kind of judicial challenge"
Great Jumping Jolyon, the Suburban Samurai with a Baseball Bat.
Ha.
I think it was on this website that the kimono crusader was referred to the Max Bialystock of the judicial review (or words to that effect). It amused me greatly - and every time he comes up in conversation it reminds me of that great musical (even though I was notionally supportive of some of actions he and his organisation took on).
I think it was I who called him the Max Bialystock of the English Bar.
Although to mix up the comedy, I could imagine him declaiming “ Did Magna Carta die in vain?”
Thank you so much for doing so - cheers me up no end. "Then along came Jolyon"
A council is considering a city centre ban on cyclists to protect pedestrians, with fines for people who do not comply.
Birmingham City council has become the latest local authority to discuss barring cyclists from pedestrian-only areas to curb anti-social cycling.
A report by the council’s regulation and community safety executives has raised concerns that food and parcel couriers on e-bikes, travelling “at speed and without care for pedestrians”, pose a particular danger to the public in areas of high footfall.
The report, published earlier this month, proposes extending the city’s public spaces protection order to encompass cycling. The move would add it to a list of anti-social behaviours that includes graffiti, street drinking, large gatherings, and excessive noise.
The report said cycling could be “restricted by time periods” or banned outright, with the issue being put to a public consultation.
I'm surprised that this has taken so long to hit the national media. Telegraph article in the Telegraph; more rounded piece in the Groan; I have not checked the Daily Wail. Disabled charities on my network (TBF this is focused on active travel, of course) have been contacting Birmingham Council with their concerns for 2-3 weeks, as it will impact their members / supporters / clients who use cycles or adapted cycles as their mobility aid, and cannot walk, who will be targeted for harassment by Council or BID officers (this happens routinely), who are never trained properly. This is Council Officers as Jesus: Pick up your Mobility Aid and Walk.
TLDR: I don't see this happening, because BCCs evidence does not support the claims. Cycling has been normal in Brum City Centre for 50-70 years, and the Council Report specifically - as mentioned by @Big_G_NorthWales - talks about food delivery and parcel couriers travelling at high speed, probably on mopeds not pedal-cycles, and mini van style cargo bikes (think Postman Pat)also at speed.
The former are a problem of supply chain and business regulation, with laws in place that can manage it, and the latter can be regulated. The way Scotland does it is by treating delivery riders as Street Traders needing a licence. The current UK Govt, unlike the last one, will get onto that. As a PSPO it needs one against ASB, not a ban on things that the Council's evidence do not identify as a problem.
One problem is the PSPO process, which legally requires evidence, but practically they can be pushed though with none, and are set up to be almost impossible to stop. The only one I have ever seen stopped was the Mansfield one about 5 years ago, where 5 locals targeted by it threatened a High Court legal action and forced them to moderate it. The Mansfield one was in reaction to a couple of occasions where kids had been wheelying around the outdoor market, and Captain Mainwaring jerked his knee.
The PSPO process needs reform to address problems and not address prejudices. At present these style of PSPO tend to exist in Reform type, or Blue Rinse type, coastal towns, or in fairly leafy country places. And one or two places where LD or Lab have gone local populist.
There already exist good inclusive models in Leicester, and to an extent Coventry, which Brum can follow. If they try and persist, I think they are big enough to get a challenge - but we shall see. I think they will take a via media.
I was part of a group that seriously curtailed a PSPO trying to regulate all public speaking and bring under civil law what was supposed to be criminal public order issues. It was mainly (entirely) done at the behest of some activist lgbt groups who couldn't cope with a Christian preacher saying things they disliked. Anyway the flaccid council dropped it when it hit resistance and a threat of judicial review.
The problem is the lack of interest in enforcement.
In my view, as a start, there needs to be a crackdown on the illegal eBikes. The local cycle lanes are becoming unusable due to people doing 30mph+ with electric motorcycles.
To start with, the batteries are nearly always unsafe.
Then there's the thuggish behaviour towards actual cyclists - I've sen them blast past children on bikes, missing them by millimetres.
Almost always unlawful motorcycles. Some police forces have become quite good and can spot and confiscate these bikes routinely. Most certainly a police matter, the unlocked unlawful ones are pretty easy to spot.
Re farming what happens if those inheriting land can’t raise the IHT liability ?
It’s not like property which would generally be easier to sell .
Farmland is easy enough to sell. Phone the local auctioneers, cash lands in the bank about a month later.
There are lots of reasons why this policy is bad, but this isn't one.
Scenario: Farm is valued at 10k/acre for inheritance tax purposes. Farm is lets say 300 acres, so the bill is £200k (We'll assume the lad owns all the equipment and/or it's all depreciated for the sake of argument). The old Farmer's son sticks 20 acres up for sale, and only gets 5k/acre. A bit extreme, but just putting it out there for the sake of argument... Does the farm now get revalued to 1.5 million so the 200k isn't due ?
If the land is sold in open auction that is the value. It is really a bad idea but totally expected. It will also trash other businesses where succession is important. My ex MP says the first suicide has happened, not sure if that is true. We really have a vile incompetent government with a vile incompetent Prime Minister. But we knew that.
We seem to have a lot of press writing half baked incorrect stories to scare farmers.
It's been badly announced but I don't actually think there are many people at all who understand what the changes are yet alone the actual impact it has on people.
There is a story going around (no idea if it's true) on a supposed farmers' fb page describing a suicide which is getting everyone enraged.
I think farmers generally (can) have a very rough time and the suicide rate is very high. That said, governments of the past decades have prioritised mass market affordability of farm produce over farmers' well-being and it is difficult to argue that that has been the wrong policy.
Also it has long been known that buying agricultural land is a good tax avoidance wheeze but, a situation affecting 0.0n% of the farmers, still less of the population is not I believe good grounds for policy-making.
Removing a good tax avoidance wheeze is something that a sensible Government should be doing.
The suicide could be caused by a lot of things with this being the final one of a lot of straws. Farmer suicide is scarily high anyway as it's a lonely business that can feeling never ending..
I don't doubt but it is getting everyone agitated. Plus ISAs are a good tax avoidance wheeze.
An ISA is not tax avoidance.
“Tax avoidance is bending the rules of the tax system to gain a tax advantage, that parliament never intended.” (HMRC, 2015)
"It involves operating within the letter, but not the spirit, of the law".
So in other words it is perfectly legal and this description is designed a) to give The State more power over you at their sole discretion and whim; and b) scare you. Which latter it appears to have done.
Or an understandable reaction by the revenue to rich people's accountants regularly taking the piss.
Nothing in that link (which both Mighty Alex and I used) says anything about it not being legal.
By "do not work" I presume they mean they aren't tax avoidance but are, rather, illegal.
You've clearly not followed all those stories about tax advisers who sold tax avoidance schemes as 'perfectly legal', only for their clients to loses court cases against HMRC... and have to repay millions ?
The guidance was intended to prevent more such embarrassments. Accountants (reputable ones, at least) now tend to run such schemes by the revenue, before marketing them to innocent punters.
Why is nobody in media even mentioning that £1m IHT agriculture relief is in addition to the £1m IHT relief any (married) person gets when leaving property to children.
ie If you live on a farm and want to leave it to your son you pay no IHT on the first £2m (assuming you are / were married and spouse not using their exemption for anything else).
Was listening to lengthy debate hosted by Chorley on R5L yesterday with farmers complaining - going on about almost all farms are worth over £1m - at no point did anyone say farmers can leave £2m tax free.
Why not? Hopeless media reporting - nobody appears to have even the most basic understanding of how tax system works.
Let's get real. It appears no political journalist has the faintest idea.
How many people even on this website (one of the most informed places for political debate) were aware of this?
I'm sure I read it can go up to £3m if there's a home on the farm.
The likes of Clarkson, pretending he cares about other people, when it's actually his inheritance plans that have been affected, will moan. But if the policy doesn't effect many in practice, the outrage from the kind of family farmers people actually care about, will disappear over time.
In her budget speech Reeves made the direct claim that three-quarters of farms would be unaffected by the inheritance tax changes. Since then there's been a lot of sound and fury suggesting that this was not true, and that small family farms will have to be sold.
If Reeves has misled the House on this it should be a very big deal. I would expect her to be forced to come grovelling to the House to correct the record, at the very least.
Can anyone definitively show that Reeves misled the House?
If Reeves was being truthful then I do not think that expecting the largest quarter of farms to pay 20% IHT is problematic. Those at the bottom of that range will only pay 20% on a small fraction of the farm, and so the IHT bill will be modest. The very largest farms - the top eighth or so - should be large enough enterprises that they can pay the larger IHT due.
There isn't 100% tax relief on inheritance (capital acquisitions) tax on farmland or businesses in Ireland, but I believe much more farmland in Ireland is owner-occupied than in Britain. If Irish family farms can pay a form of IHT, then so can the largest quarter of British family farms.
Suspect there are a few things going on.
Part is the fear that everyone has of Inheritance Tax. We hear the FORTY PERCENT (which for most people is a huge rate) but not the (above a threshold that is pretty high so most of your estate won't be touched by it).
Part of it is the real, but impossible to quantify, emotional attachment of a family to a patch of land. Which, right now, feels like another luxury the nation can't afford to indulge.
Partly, it's shit-stirring by the opposition and their chunk of the media. Which may not be nice, bit is part of the game.
But also, there's an awkard point which I think Dan the Taxman made. If you have a farm, and the value of that farm is over £2 million, and that capital and the sweat equity of the farmers isn't producing enough profit to support this much tax once a generation... It's not a great business. And that's a horrible thing to say to people who work harder than I do for less reward. But it's where we are. And as with some other things the nation ducks, it boils down to a simple question. Do we want Britain to be a productive place, with all the benefits that entails, or not?
Farming is not a high reward per unit capital industry.
However, the government has spent vast amounts of time, effort etc on making sure that you can't use that capital (the land) for much else.
So if the farmers stop farming, then the asset (the land) won't be used for more productive (more GDP uses).
So that argument doesn't work.
How about some of these houses we're supposed to be building?
What average dwelling density are we looking at ?
2 million dwellings at 13/acre ~= 150,000 acres of farmland needed. You'll need some roads and infrastructure (More land) but also there might be conversions and upwards build elsewhere (less land).
The estimate for farmland looks to be 40 million acres. So that only affects 0.3% of farmland. However you cook the numbers the truth is most farmland isn't going to be used for housing any time soon.
Following on from this excellent post, let's look at a couple of real-world examples - and the densities are not that good.
My home 'town', Cambourne, is fairly self-contained, except for employment (we are somewhat of a dormitory town). But aside from that it is perfectly possible to live here whilst rarely going anywhere else - we have shops, a library, doctor's surgery, pub, parks, etc, etc. It is, in my view, a good place to live, and offers a reasonable quality of life.
Cambourne (original) is 400 hectares (~1,000 acres_ and has about 4,300 houses, and has a population of 12-13,000 people.
That gives a density of 10-11 houses per hectare, or 4-5 per acre. That includes all infrastructure.
As another example, let us look at the new Waterbeach development, currently being built. This is 293 hectares (~725 acres), and will have 6,500 homes. This gives a density of 22 houses per hectare, or 9 per acre. This leads me to question what they are going to lose when building to double the density.
We risk cramming more and more houses into smaller and smaller space, and creating not very nice places to live.
In Marden, in Kent, they built like this. Houses that are so mean and narrow, your shoulders feel pinched together looking at them. And fence fires from BBQ in the tiny gardens are a thing - patios, basically.
Strangely everyone hates them. And campaigns about not having more.
Lots of discussion on IHT; one of the questions I keep pondering is why it still exists.
It's absolutely hated, and raises very little revenue; 0.7% of government income.
For example, Jeremy Hunt used £10bln to cut NI by 2%. He could have abolished IHT instead and had £2.5bln left to play with.
Surely the smart politics would have been to ditch IHT entirely, rather than a modest reduction in NI which virtually everyone forgot about 24hrs later.
There are lots of advantages to wiping out a tax entirely rather than changing rates - the government would save the cost revenue collection, lots of people would save the cost of employing the tax planning parasites*, it would knock the bottom out of all the known dodges like buying farmland (with the amusing side effect of burning the fingers of those most egregiously attempting to tax dodge in this way as asset values drop back to their true levels).
Why on earth didn't he do it? If nothing else, he would have gone down in history as the chancellor who abolished IHT, and it's hard to imaging that would be an unpopular legacy.
*Maybe they could become social care workers, instead of us having to import millions of Nigerians
The late great Nigel Lawson used to identify a tax for repeal in almost every budget as a part of his ongoing simplification campaign, sadly not only abandoned but reversed by his successors. Broad, simple taxes without loopholes that do not distort investment decisions are clearly the best and what we should aspire to.
Hey. Where are the hourly updates from the PB Tories on UK gilt yields?
C'mon guys, you all out on the piss already? It's only 1.30pm!!
UK 10 year Gilt Yield 4.46
Nope. 4.388!
Thrilling this, isn't it?
It's a veritable rollercoaster, and a good practice run for the US results for the rest of the month.
It's a shame they won't announce the Conservative leadership election results one Conservative association at a time. It could make the thing more exciting.
Are there odds on him calling Kamala a c*** by next Tuesday? You just know he does it in private anyway.
I don't think he is that vulgar. Non-drinking, non-smoking/drug-taking.
Plus of that age. I don't think it is in his vernacular.
But we can have a bet if you would like.
Lol, a man who calls his opponents stupid bastards, scum and garbage, mentions the size of a famous sportsman's cock & does an impersonation of a disabled journalist during speeches, and boasts about grabbing women by the pussy isn't 'that vulgar'. A judgment for the ages.
His musings about executing Liz Cheney by firing squad is quite startling. I do wonder whether Trump will enact his wet dreams and take the ultimate action against anyone he believes have dimished him over the years. The list, I suspect will be incredibly long.
Are we at peak derangement yet? He's not literally calling to shoot people by firing squad, in the same way he's not literarily having a fascist rally in Maddison square garden, or going to literally have a bloodbath.
This is bonkers stuff. But, once you have convinced yourself the man is a fascist you can convince yourself all his utterances can be interrelated in the worse possible bad faith way.
It is an interesting phenomenon to see many/most of PB so deranged.
I can't really understand it. Don't like his policies on immigration by all means, but going off on one because he says he wants to deport illegal immigrants (while no doubt sipping their chai latte from one of *those* mugs) is super strange.
I think it's fear. Some people need to channel their otherwise illogical and unfounded fears into a concrete form. That way they can rail against Trump, who in this case is the manifestation of their fears and take comfort, either in his eventual defeat, or in the solidarity they find from others who think the same.
Otherwise the whole nazi/fascist/sending troops to kill Americans thing is not really fathomable.
Re farming what happens if those inheriting land can’t raise the IHT liability ?
It’s not like property which would generally be easier to sell .
Farmland is easy enough to sell. Phone the local auctioneers, cash lands in the bank about a month later.
There are lots of reasons why this policy is bad, but this isn't one.
Scenario: Farm is valued at 10k/acre for inheritance tax purposes. Farm is lets say 300 acres, so the bill is £200k (We'll assume the lad owns all the equipment and/or it's all depreciated for the sake of argument). The old Farmer's son sticks 20 acres up for sale, and only gets 5k/acre. A bit extreme, but just putting it out there for the sake of argument... Does the farm now get revalued to 1.5 million so the 200k isn't due ?
If the land is sold in open auction that is the value. It is really a bad idea but totally expected. It will also trash other businesses where succession is important. My ex MP says the first suicide has happened, not sure if that is true. We really have a vile incompetent government with a vile incompetent Prime Minister. But we knew that.
We seem to have a lot of press writing half baked incorrect stories to scare farmers.
It's been badly announced but I don't actually think there are many people at all who understand what the changes are yet alone the actual impact it has on people.
There is a story going around (no idea if it's true) on a supposed farmers' fb page describing a suicide which is getting everyone enraged.
I think farmers generally (can) have a very rough time and the suicide rate is very high. That said, governments of the past decades have prioritised mass market affordability of farm produce over farmers' well-being and it is difficult to argue that that has been the wrong policy.
Also it has long been known that buying agricultural land is a good tax avoidance wheeze but, a situation affecting 0.0n% of the farmers, still less of the population is not I believe good grounds for policy-making.
Removing a good tax avoidance wheeze is something that a sensible Government should be doing.
The suicide could be caused by a lot of things with this being the final one of a lot of straws. Farmer suicide is scarily high anyway as it's a lonely business that can feeling never ending..
I don't doubt but it is getting everyone agitated. Plus ISAs are a good tax avoidance wheeze.
An ISA is not tax avoidance.
“Tax avoidance is bending the rules of the tax system to gain a tax advantage, that parliament never intended.” (HMRC, 2015)
"It involves operating within the letter, but not the spirit, of the law".
So in other words it is perfectly legal and this description is designed a) to give The State more power over you at their sole discretion and whim; and b) scare you. Which latter it appears to have done.
Or an understandable reaction by the revenue to rich people's accountants regularly taking the piss.
Nothing in that link (which both Mighty Alex and I used) says anything about it not being legal.
By "do not work" I presume they mean they aren't tax avoidance but are, rather, illegal.
You've clearly not followed all those stories about tax advisers who sold tax avoidance schemes as 'perfectly legal', only for their clients to loses court cases against HMRC... and have to repay millions ?
The guidance was intended to prevent more such embarrassments. Accountants (reputable ones, at least) now tend to run such schemes by the revenue, before marketing them to innocent punters.
Tax avoidance is legal; tax evasion is illegal. Sometimes it is not clear which a particular scheme is because it's pushing the line on something where the law is unclear or open to interpretation. That lack of clarity does not imply legality.
Are there odds on him calling Kamala a c*** by next Tuesday? You just know he does it in private anyway.
I don't think he is that vulgar. Non-drinking, non-smoking/drug-taking.
Plus of that age. I don't think it is in his vernacular.
But we can have a bet if you would like.
Lol, a man who calls his opponents stupid bastards, scum and garbage, mentions the size of a famous sportsman's cock & does an impersonation of a disabled journalist during speeches, and boasts about grabbing women by the pussy isn't 'that vulgar'. A judgment for the ages.
His musings about executing Liz Cheney by firing squad is quite startling. I do wonder whether Trump will enact his wet dreams and take the ultimate action against anyone he believes have dimished him over the years. The list, I suspect will be incredibly long.
Are we at peak derangement yet? He's not literally calling to shoot people by firing squad, in the same way he's not literarily having a fascist rally in Maddison square garden, or going to literally have a bloodbath.
This is bonkers stuff. But, once you have convinced yourself the man is a fascist you can convince yourself all his utterances can be interrelated in the worse possible bad faith way.
"Let's see how she feels when the guns are trained on her face..."
Yep, perfectly normal political discourse.
"Bad, sick, people... radical lunatics... if necessary, should even be handled by the military.."
Hey. Where are the hourly updates from the PB Tories on UK gilt yields?
C'mon guys, you all out on the piss already? It's only 1.30pm!!
UK 10 year Gilt Yield 4.46
Nope. 4.388!
Thrilling this, isn't it?
Sorry - I was spreading fake news by mistake. The FT website seems to be quoting the midday figure.
I wouldn't worry, my point is that the hourly updates were... a bit silly. (And they've ground to a halt now for reasons that I can't quite put my finger on...)
A council is considering a city centre ban on cyclists to protect pedestrians, with fines for people who do not comply.
Birmingham City council has become the latest local authority to discuss barring cyclists from pedestrian-only areas to curb anti-social cycling.
A report by the council’s regulation and community safety executives has raised concerns that food and parcel couriers on e-bikes, travelling “at speed and without care for pedestrians”, pose a particular danger to the public in areas of high footfall.
The report, published earlier this month, proposes extending the city’s public spaces protection order to encompass cycling. The move would add it to a list of anti-social behaviours that includes graffiti, street drinking, large gatherings, and excessive noise.
The report said cycling could be “restricted by time periods” or banned outright, with the issue being put to a public consultation.
I'm surprised that this has taken so long to hit the national media. Telegraph article in the Telegraph; more rounded piece in the Groan; I have not checked the Daily Wail. Disabled charities on my network (TBF this is focused on active travel, of course) have been contacting Birmingham Council with their concerns for 2-3 weeks, as it will impact their members / supporters / clients who use cycles or adapted cycles as their mobility aid, and cannot walk, who will be targeted for harassment by Council or BID officers (this happens routinely), who are never trained properly. This is Council Officers as Jesus: Pick up your Mobility Aid and Walk.
TLDR: I don't see this happening, because BCCs evidence does not support the claims. Cycling has been normal in Brum City Centre for 50-70 years, and the Council Report specifically - as mentioned by @Big_G_NorthWales - talks about food delivery and parcel couriers travelling at high speed, probably on mopeds not pedal-cycles, and mini van style cargo bikes (think Postman Pat)also at speed.
The former are a problem of supply chain and business regulation, with laws in place that can manage it, and the latter can be regulated. The way Scotland does it is by treating delivery riders as Street Traders needing a licence. The current UK Govt, unlike the last one, will get onto that. As a PSPO it needs one against ASB, not a ban on things that the Council's evidence do not identify as a problem.
One problem is the PSPO process, which legally requires evidence, but practically they can be pushed though with none, and are set up to be almost impossible to stop. The only one I have ever seen stopped was the Mansfield one about 5 years ago, where 5 locals targeted by it threatened a High Court legal action and forced them to moderate it. The Mansfield one was in reaction to a couple of occasions where kids had been wheelying around the outdoor market, and Captain Mainwaring jerked his knee.
The PSPO process needs reform to address problems and not address prejudices. At present these style of PSPO tend to exist in Reform type, or Blue Rinse type, coastal towns, or in fairly leafy country places. And one or two places where LD or Lab have gone local populist.
There already exist good inclusive models in Leicester, and to an extent Coventry, which Brum can follow. If they try and persist, I think they are big enough to get a challenge - but we shall see. I think they will take a via media.
I was part of a group that seriously curtailed a PSPO trying to regulate all public speaking and bring under civil law what was supposed to be criminal public order issues. It was mainly (entirely) done at the behest of some activist lgbt groups who couldn't cope with a Christian preacher saying things they disliked. Anyway the flaccid council dropped it when it hit resistance and a threat of judicial review.
The problem is the lack of interest in enforcement.
In my view, as a start, there needs to be a crackdown on the illegal eBikes. The local cycle lanes are becoming unusable due to people doing 30mph+ with electric motorcycles.
To start with, the batteries are nearly always unsafe.
Then there's the thuggish behaviour towards actual cyclists - I've sen them blast past children on bikes, missing them by millimetres.
Almost always unlawful motorcycles. Some police forces have become quite good and can spot and confiscate these bikes routinely. Most certainly a police matter, the unlocked unlawful ones are pretty easy to spot.
Indeed. But in many areas there has been a definite unwillingness to deal with it.
I've have been told that the Reasons Why Not include
- "The Community wouldn't like it." - as in targeting minority communities. - "Potential for violence, requires excessive resources" - "Unclear regulation' - aka we don't want to know.
Personally, I would have a unit out - testing and removing the batteries from non-compliant bikes. They can pedal home....
Re farming what happens if those inheriting land can’t raise the IHT liability ?
It’s not like property which would generally be easier to sell .
Farmland is easy enough to sell. Phone the local auctioneers, cash lands in the bank about a month later.
There are lots of reasons why this policy is bad, but this isn't one.
Scenario: Farm is valued at 10k/acre for inheritance tax purposes. Farm is lets say 300 acres, so the bill is £200k (We'll assume the lad owns all the equipment and/or it's all depreciated for the sake of argument). The old Farmer's son sticks 20 acres up for sale, and only gets 5k/acre. A bit extreme, but just putting it out there for the sake of argument... Does the farm now get revalued to 1.5 million so the 200k isn't due ?
If the land is sold in open auction that is the value. It is really a bad idea but totally expected. It will also trash other businesses where succession is important. My ex MP says the first suicide has happened, not sure if that is true. We really have a vile incompetent government with a vile incompetent Prime Minister. But we knew that.
We seem to have a lot of press writing half baked incorrect stories to scare farmers.
It's been badly announced but I don't actually think there are many people at all who understand what the changes are yet alone the actual impact it has on people.
There is a story going around (no idea if it's true) on a supposed farmers' fb page describing a suicide which is getting everyone enraged.
I think farmers generally (can) have a very rough time and the suicide rate is very high. That said, governments of the past decades have prioritised mass market affordability of farm produce over farmers' well-being and it is difficult to argue that that has been the wrong policy.
Also it has long been known that buying agricultural land is a good tax avoidance wheeze but, a situation affecting 0.0n% of the farmers, still less of the population is not I believe good grounds for policy-making.
Removing a good tax avoidance wheeze is something that a sensible Government should be doing.
The suicide could be caused by a lot of things with this being the final one of a lot of straws. Farmer suicide is scarily high anyway as it's a lonely business that can feeling never ending..
I don't doubt but it is getting everyone agitated. Plus ISAs are a good tax avoidance wheeze.
An ISA is not tax avoidance.
“Tax avoidance is bending the rules of the tax system to gain a tax advantage, that parliament never intended.” (HMRC, 2015)
"It involves operating within the letter, but not the spirit, of the law".
So in other words it is perfectly legal and this description is designed a) to give The State more power over you at their sole discretion and whim; and b) scare you. Which latter it appears to have done.
Or an understandable reaction by the revenue to rich people's accountants regularly taking the piss.
Nothing in that link (which both Mighty Alex and I used) says anything about it not being legal.
By "do not work" I presume they mean they aren't tax avoidance but are, rather, illegal.
You've clearly not followed all those stories about tax advisers who sold tax avoidance schemes as 'perfectly legal', only for their clients to loses court cases against HMRC... and have to repay millions ?
The guidance was intended to prevent more such embarrassments. Accountants (reputable ones, at least) now tend to run such schemes by the revenue, before marketing them to innocent punters.
Those schemes, as the website makes clear, weren't actually tax avoidance. They were illegal. ISAs are a way of avoiding tax. Let's call it "tax avoidance". ISAs are a form of tax avoidance. Gifting money to relatives and then living seven years is another.
Those other schemes were illegal activities. They weren't a way of avoiding tax or tax avoidance, but were represented as being so.
There is a difference I had thought one such as yourself, with such a keen mind, would readily be able to appreciate.
Lots of discussion on IHT; one of the questions I keep pondering is why it still exists.
It's absolutely hated, and raises very little revenue; 0.7% of government income.
For example, Jeremy Hunt used £10bln to cut NI by 2%. He could have abolished IHT instead and had £2.5bln left to play with.
Surely the smart politics would have been to ditch IHT entirely, rather than a modest reduction in NI which virtually everyone forgot about 24hrs later.
There are lots of advantages to wiping out a tax entirely rather than changing rates - the government would save the cost revenue collection, lots of people would save the cost of employing the tax planning parasites*, it would knock the bottom out of all the known dodges like buying farmland (with the amusing side effect of burning the fingers of those most egregiously attempting to tax dodge in this way as asset values drop back to their true levels).
Why on earth didn't he do it? If nothing else, he would have gone down in history as the chancellor who abolished IHT, and it's hard to imaging that would be an unpopular legacy.
*Maybe they could become social care workers, instead of us having to import millions of Nigerians
Remove IHT and when the next Government comes along do you tax the money as income received or a capital gain.
That's why you leave IHT because with it removed other options become available that would be worse...
Re farming what happens if those inheriting land can’t raise the IHT liability ?
It’s not like property which would generally be easier to sell .
Farmland is easy enough to sell. Phone the local auctioneers, cash lands in the bank about a month later.
There are lots of reasons why this policy is bad, but this isn't one.
Scenario: Farm is valued at 10k/acre for inheritance tax purposes. Farm is lets say 300 acres, so the bill is £200k (We'll assume the lad owns all the equipment and/or it's all depreciated for the sake of argument). The old Farmer's son sticks 20 acres up for sale, and only gets 5k/acre. A bit extreme, but just putting it out there for the sake of argument... Does the farm now get revalued to 1.5 million so the 200k isn't due ?
If the land is sold in open auction that is the value. It is really a bad idea but totally expected. It will also trash other businesses where succession is important. My ex MP says the first suicide has happened, not sure if that is true. We really have a vile incompetent government with a vile incompetent Prime Minister. But we knew that.
We seem to have a lot of press writing half baked incorrect stories to scare farmers.
It's been badly announced but I don't actually think there are many people at all who understand what the changes are yet alone the actual impact it has on people.
Well it was just a part of the budget rather than an announcement as such wasn’t it? The media will do what they will do.
The likes of Sky News and BBC are getting hysterical. No one worried about farmer welfare when the supermarkets were screwing down on the price of milk and food in the past to the detriment of small producers. I wonder if this is all a consequence of the lack of enthusiasm for Labour in the period up to the election. The media have been running around like a pack of wolves since then. Maybe it is a reaction to their inability in the earlier years to call out Johnson and co, or maybe it's a leach over from the atmosphere/media in the US?
Did you see Beth Rigby's 'interview' with Rachel this week? Rigby asked a question then talked over Rachel as she tried to answer. Over and again. She's a gobshite that does the public a disservice because her interviewees cannot get a word in edgeways.
That's been a standard "interviewing technique" for years.
Strange that you haven't been upset with it previously.
Yes, it is odd that these things now seem to be beyond the pale when prior to the start of July they were just part and parcel of political life.
A council is considering a city centre ban on cyclists to protect pedestrians, with fines for people who do not comply.
Birmingham City council has become the latest local authority to discuss barring cyclists from pedestrian-only areas to curb anti-social cycling.
A report by the council’s regulation and community safety executives has raised concerns that food and parcel couriers on e-bikes, travelling “at speed and without care for pedestrians”, pose a particular danger to the public in areas of high footfall.
The report, published earlier this month, proposes extending the city’s public spaces protection order to encompass cycling. The move would add it to a list of anti-social behaviours that includes graffiti, street drinking, large gatherings, and excessive noise.
The report said cycling could be “restricted by time periods” or banned outright, with the issue being put to a public consultation.
I'm surprised that this has taken so long to hit the national media. Telegraph article in the Telegraph; more rounded piece in the Groan; I have not checked the Daily Wail. Disabled charities on my network (TBF this is focused on active travel, of course) have been contacting Birmingham Council with their concerns for 2-3 weeks, as it will impact their members / supporters / clients who use cycles or adapted cycles as their mobility aid, and cannot walk, who will be targeted for harassment by Council or BID officers (this happens routinely), who are never trained properly. This is Council Officers as Jesus: Pick up your Mobility Aid and Walk.
TLDR: I don't see this happening, because BCCs evidence does not support the claims. Cycling has been normal in Brum City Centre for 50-70 years, and the Council Report specifically - as mentioned by @Big_G_NorthWales - talks about food delivery and parcel couriers travelling at high speed, probably on mopeds not pedal-cycles, and mini van style cargo bikes (think Postman Pat)also at speed.
The former are a problem of supply chain and business regulation, with laws in place that can manage it, and the latter can be regulated. The way Scotland does it is by treating delivery riders as Street Traders needing a licence. The current UK Govt, unlike the last one, will get onto that. As a PSPO it needs one against ASB, not a ban on things that the Council's evidence do not identify as a problem.
One problem is the PSPO process, which legally requires evidence, but practically they can be pushed though with none, and are set up to be almost impossible to stop. The only one I have ever seen stopped was the Mansfield one about 5 years ago, where 5 locals targeted by it threatened a High Court legal action and forced them to moderate it. The Mansfield one was in reaction to a couple of occasions where kids had been wheelying around the outdoor market, and Captain Mainwaring jerked his knee.
The PSPO process needs reform to address problems and not address prejudices. At present these style of PSPO tend to exist in Reform type, or Blue Rinse type, coastal towns, or in fairly leafy country places. And one or two places where LD or Lab have gone local populist.
There already exist good inclusive models in Leicester, and to an extent Coventry, which Brum can follow. If they try and persist, I think they are big enough to get a challenge - but we shall see. I think they will take a via media.
I was part of a group that seriously curtailed a PSPO trying to regulate all public speaking and bring under civil law what was supposed to be criminal public order issues. It was mainly (entirely) done at the behest of some activist lgbt groups who couldn't cope with a Christian preacher saying things they disliked. Anyway the flaccid council dropped it when it hit resistance and a threat of judicial review.
The problem is the lack of interest in enforcement.
In my view, as a start, there needs to be a crackdown on the illegal eBikes. The local cycle lanes are becoming unusable due to people doing 30mph+ with electric motorcycles.
To start with, the batteries are nearly always unsafe.
Then there's the thuggish behaviour towards actual cyclists - I've sen them blast past children on bikes, missing them by millimetres.
Almost always unlawful motorcycles. Some police forces have become quite good and can spot and confiscate these bikes routinely. Most certainly a police matter, the unlocked unlawful ones are pretty easy to spot.
I've been seeing some action on dodgy batteries, for a start.
Re farming what happens if those inheriting land can’t raise the IHT liability ?
It’s not like property which would generally be easier to sell .
Farmland is easy enough to sell. Phone the local auctioneers, cash lands in the bank about a month later.
There are lots of reasons why this policy is bad, but this isn't one.
Scenario: Farm is valued at 10k/acre for inheritance tax purposes. Farm is lets say 300 acres, so the bill is £200k (We'll assume the lad owns all the equipment and/or it's all depreciated for the sake of argument). The old Farmer's son sticks 20 acres up for sale, and only gets 5k/acre. A bit extreme, but just putting it out there for the sake of argument... Does the farm now get revalued to 1.5 million so the 200k isn't due ?
If the land is sold in open auction that is the value. It is really a bad idea but totally expected. It will also trash other businesses where succession is important. My ex MP says the first suicide has happened, not sure if that is true. We really have a vile incompetent government with a vile incompetent Prime Minister. But we knew that.
We seem to have a lot of press writing half baked incorrect stories to scare farmers.
It's been badly announced but I don't actually think there are many people at all who understand what the changes are yet alone the actual impact it has on people.
There is a story going around (no idea if it's true) on a supposed farmers' fb page describing a suicide which is getting everyone enraged.
I think farmers generally (can) have a very rough time and the suicide rate is very high. That said, governments of the past decades have prioritised mass market affordability of farm produce over farmers' well-being and it is difficult to argue that that has been the wrong policy.
Also it has long been known that buying agricultural land is a good tax avoidance wheeze but, a situation affecting 0.0n% of the farmers, still less of the population is not I believe good grounds for policy-making.
Removing a good tax avoidance wheeze is something that a sensible Government should be doing.
The suicide could be caused by a lot of things with this being the final one of a lot of straws. Farmer suicide is scarily high anyway as it's a lonely business that can feeling never ending..
I don't doubt but it is getting everyone agitated. Plus ISAs are a good tax avoidance wheeze.
An ISA is not tax avoidance.
“Tax avoidance is bending the rules of the tax system to gain a tax advantage, that parliament never intended.” (HMRC, 2015)
"It involves operating within the letter, but not the spirit, of the law".
So in other words it is perfectly legal and this description is designed a) to give The State more power over you at their sole discretion and whim; and b) scare you. Which latter it appears to have done.
Or an understandable reaction by the revenue to rich people's accountants regularly taking the piss.
Nothing in that link (which both Mighty Alex and I used) says anything about it not being legal.
By "do not work" I presume they mean they aren't tax avoidance but are, rather, illegal.
You've clearly not followed all those stories about tax advisers who sold tax avoidance schemes as 'perfectly legal', only for their clients to loses court cases against HMRC... and have to repay millions ?
The guidance was intended to prevent more such embarrassments. Accountants (reputable ones, at least) now tend to run such schemes by the revenue, before marketing them to innocent punters.
Tax avoidance is legal; tax evasion is illegal. Sometimes it is not clear which a particular scheme is because it's pushing the line on something where the law is unclear or open to interpretation. That lack of clarity does not imply legality.
The HMRC website is saying that some schemes are legal but not "within the spirit of the law". Whatever tf that means, legally.
A council is considering a city centre ban on cyclists to protect pedestrians, with fines for people who do not comply.
Birmingham City council has become the latest local authority to discuss barring cyclists from pedestrian-only areas to curb anti-social cycling.
A report by the council’s regulation and community safety executives has raised concerns that food and parcel couriers on e-bikes, travelling “at speed and without care for pedestrians”, pose a particular danger to the public in areas of high footfall.
The report, published earlier this month, proposes extending the city’s public spaces protection order to encompass cycling. The move would add it to a list of anti-social behaviours that includes graffiti, street drinking, large gatherings, and excessive noise.
The report said cycling could be “restricted by time periods” or banned outright, with the issue being put to a public consultation.
I'm surprised that this has taken so long to hit the national media. Telegraph article in the Telegraph; more rounded piece in the Groan; I have not checked the Daily Wail. Disabled charities on my network (TBF this is focused on active travel, of course) have been contacting Birmingham Council with their concerns for 2-3 weeks, as it will impact their members / supporters / clients who use cycles or adapted cycles as their mobility aid, and cannot walk, who will be targeted for harassment by Council or BID officers (this happens routinely), who are never trained properly. This is Council Officers as Jesus: Pick up your Mobility Aid and Walk.
TLDR: I don't see this happening, because BCCs evidence does not support the claims. Cycling has been normal in Brum City Centre for 50-70 years, and the Council Report specifically - as mentioned by @Big_G_NorthWales - talks about food delivery and parcel couriers travelling at high speed, probably on mopeds not pedal-cycles, and mini van style cargo bikes (think Postman Pat)also at speed.
The former are a problem of supply chain and business regulation, with laws in place that can manage it, and the latter can be regulated. The way Scotland does it is by treating delivery riders as Street Traders needing a licence. The current UK Govt, unlike the last one, will get onto that. As a PSPO it needs one against ASB, not a ban on things that the Council's evidence do not identify as a problem.
One problem is the PSPO process, which legally requires evidence, but practically they can be pushed though with none, and are set up to be almost impossible to stop. The only one I have ever seen stopped was the Mansfield one about 5 years ago, where 5 locals targeted by it threatened a High Court legal action and forced them to moderate it. The Mansfield one was in reaction to a couple of occasions where kids had been wheelying around the outdoor market, and Captain Mainwaring jerked his knee.
The PSPO process needs reform to address problems and not address prejudices. At present these style of PSPO tend to exist in Reform type, or Blue Rinse type, coastal towns, or in fairly leafy country places. And one or two places where LD or Lab have gone local populist.
There already exist good inclusive models in Leicester, and to an extent Coventry, which Brum can follow. If they try and persist, I think they are big enough to get a challenge - but we shall see. I think they will take a via media.
I was part of a group that seriously curtailed a PSPO trying to regulate all public speaking and bring under civil law what was supposed to be criminal public order issues. It was mainly (entirely) done at the behest of some activist lgbt groups who couldn't cope with a Christian preacher saying things they disliked. Anyway the flaccid council dropped it when it hit resistance and a threat of judicial review.
The problem is the lack of interest in enforcement.
In my view, as a start, there needs to be a crackdown on the illegal eBikes. The local cycle lanes are becoming unusable due to people doing 30mph+ with electric motorcycles.
To start with, the batteries are nearly always unsafe.
Then there's the thuggish behaviour towards actual cyclists - I've sen them blast past children on bikes, missing them by millimetres.
It is one of the issues in our local town that the Police really are not doing a great deal about.
It is only a few people but these electric bikes are a menace. Especially the way they are driven.
Are there odds on him calling Kamala a c*** by next Tuesday? You just know he does it in private anyway.
I don't think he is that vulgar. Non-drinking, non-smoking/drug-taking.
Plus of that age. I don't think it is in his vernacular.
But we can have a bet if you would like.
Lol, a man who calls his opponents stupid bastards, scum and garbage, mentions the size of a famous sportsman's cock & does an impersonation of a disabled journalist during speeches, and boasts about grabbing women by the pussy isn't 'that vulgar'. A judgment for the ages.
His musings about executing Liz Cheney by firing squad is quite startling. I do wonder whether Trump will enact his wet dreams and take the ultimate action against anyone he believes have dimished him over the years. The list, I suspect will be incredibly long.
Are we at peak derangement yet? He's not literally calling to shoot people by firing squad, in the same way he's not literarily having a fascist rally in Maddison square garden, or going to literally have a bloodbath.
This is bonkers stuff. But, once you have convinced yourself the man is a fascist you can convince yourself all his utterances can be interrelated in the worse possible bad faith way.
It is an interesting phenomenon to see many/most of PB so deranged.
I can't really understand it. Don't like his policies on immigration by all means, but going off on one because he says he wants to deport illegal immigrants (while no doubt sipping their chai latte from one of *those* mugs) is super strange.
I think it's fear. Some people need to channel their otherwise illogical and unfounded fears into a concrete form. That way they can rail against Trump, who in this case is the manifestation of their fears and take comfort, either in his eventual defeat, or in the solidarity they find from others who think the same.
Otherwise the whole nazi/fascist/sending troops to kill Americans thing is not really fathomable.
The reference is Trump's own utterances. He's not known as a man of high comedic irony. I'll take his threats as fact rather than as humourous asides.
Are there odds on him calling Kamala a c*** by next Tuesday? You just know he does it in private anyway.
I don't think he is that vulgar. Non-drinking, non-smoking/drug-taking.
Plus of that age. I don't think it is in his vernacular.
But we can have a bet if you would like.
Lol, a man who calls his opponents stupid bastards, scum and garbage, mentions the size of a famous sportsman's cock & does an impersonation of a disabled journalist during speeches, and boasts about grabbing women by the pussy isn't 'that vulgar'. A judgment for the ages.
His musings about executing Liz Cheney by firing squad is quite startling. I do wonder whether Trump will enact his wet dreams and take the ultimate action against anyone he believes have dimished him over the years. The list, I suspect will be incredibly long.
Are we at peak derangement yet? He's not literally calling to shoot people by firing squad, in the same way he's not literarily having a fascist rally in Maddison square garden, or going to literally have a bloodbath.
This is bonkers stuff. But, once you have convinced yourself the man is a fascist you can convince yourself all his utterances can be interrelated in the worse possible bad faith way.
It is an interesting phenomenon to see many/most of PB so deranged.
I can't really understand it. Don't like his policies on immigration by all means, but going off on one because he says he wants to deport illegal immigrants (while no doubt sipping their chai latte from one of *those* mugs) is super strange.
I think it's fear. Some people need to channel their otherwise illogical and unfounded fears into a concrete form. That way they can rail against Trump, who in this case is the manifestation of their fears and take comfort, either in his eventual defeat, or in the solidarity they find from others who think the same.
Otherwise the whole nazi/fascist/sending troops to kill Americans thing is not really fathomable.
If you think most of PB is deranged; perhaps they're the 'normal' ones and it is your view on matters that is 'deranged' ?
Have been away overseas for a week and not been following budget.
Having returned and spoken to friends and acquaintances, been quite taken aback by hostility to the budget. General view seems to be that Labour have reverted, and are dealing out punishment beatings to every sector they dislike: farmers, businesses, those hoping to pass on assets to children, etc. Meanwhile copious bungs to their friends in the public sector.
Whether this is fair comment I don't know. But I wonder if it's a consequence of Starmer failing to create a positive narrative for what Labour is trying to do (unlike Blair and New Labour). Instead we seem to have 70's style old Labour.
Re farming what happens if those inheriting land can’t raise the IHT liability ?
It’s not like property which would generally be easier to sell .
Farmland is easy enough to sell. Phone the local auctioneers, cash lands in the bank about a month later.
There are lots of reasons why this policy is bad, but this isn't one.
Scenario: Farm is valued at 10k/acre for inheritance tax purposes. Farm is lets say 300 acres, so the bill is £200k (We'll assume the lad owns all the equipment and/or it's all depreciated for the sake of argument). The old Farmer's son sticks 20 acres up for sale, and only gets 5k/acre. A bit extreme, but just putting it out there for the sake of argument... Does the farm now get revalued to 1.5 million so the 200k isn't due ?
If the land is sold in open auction that is the value. It is really a bad idea but totally expected. It will also trash other businesses where succession is important. My ex MP says the first suicide has happened, not sure if that is true. We really have a vile incompetent government with a vile incompetent Prime Minister. But we knew that.
We seem to have a lot of press writing half baked incorrect stories to scare farmers.
It's been badly announced but I don't actually think there are many people at all who understand what the changes are yet alone the actual impact it has on people.
There is a story going around (no idea if it's true) on a supposed farmers' fb page describing a suicide which is getting everyone enraged.
I think farmers generally (can) have a very rough time and the suicide rate is very high. That said, governments of the past decades have prioritised mass market affordability of farm produce over farmers' well-being and it is difficult to argue that that has been the wrong policy.
Also it has long been known that buying agricultural land is a good tax avoidance wheeze but, a situation affecting 0.0n% of the farmers, still less of the population is not I believe good grounds for policy-making.
Removing a good tax avoidance wheeze is something that a sensible Government should be doing.
The suicide could be caused by a lot of things with this being the final one of a lot of straws. Farmer suicide is scarily high anyway as it's a lonely business that can feeling never ending..
I don't doubt but it is getting everyone agitated. Plus ISAs are a good tax avoidance wheeze.
An ISA is not tax avoidance.
“Tax avoidance is bending the rules of the tax system to gain a tax advantage, that parliament never intended.” (HMRC, 2015)
"It involves operating within the letter, but not the spirit, of the law".
So in other words it is perfectly legal and this description is designed a) to give The State more power over you at their sole discretion and whim; and b) scare you. Which latter it appears to have done.
Or an understandable reaction by the revenue to rich people's accountants regularly taking the piss.
Nothing in that link (which both Mighty Alex and I used) says anything about it not being legal.
By "do not work" I presume they mean they aren't tax avoidance but are, rather, illegal.
You've clearly not followed all those stories about tax advisers who sold tax avoidance schemes as 'perfectly legal', only for their clients to loses court cases against HMRC... and have to repay millions ?
The guidance was intended to prevent more such embarrassments. Accountants (reputable ones, at least) now tend to run such schemes by the revenue, before marketing them to innocent punters.
Tax avoidance is legal; tax evasion is illegal. Sometimes it is not clear which a particular scheme is because it's pushing the line on something where the law is unclear or open to interpretation. That lack of clarity does not imply legality.
The HMRC website is saying that some schemes are legal but not "within the spirit of the law". Whatever tf that means, legally.
Link please? that doesn't sound like the thing HMRC says...
A council is considering a city centre ban on cyclists to protect pedestrians, with fines for people who do not comply.
Birmingham City council has become the latest local authority to discuss barring cyclists from pedestrian-only areas to curb anti-social cycling.
A report by the council’s regulation and community safety executives has raised concerns that food and parcel couriers on e-bikes, travelling “at speed and without care for pedestrians”, pose a particular danger to the public in areas of high footfall.
The report, published earlier this month, proposes extending the city’s public spaces protection order to encompass cycling. The move would add it to a list of anti-social behaviours that includes graffiti, street drinking, large gatherings, and excessive noise.
The report said cycling could be “restricted by time periods” or banned outright, with the issue being put to a public consultation.
I'm surprised that this has taken so long to hit the national media. Telegraph article in the Telegraph; more rounded piece in the Groan; I have not checked the Daily Wail. Disabled charities on my network (TBF this is focused on active travel, of course) have been contacting Birmingham Council with their concerns for 2-3 weeks, as it will impact their members / supporters / clients who use cycles or adapted cycles as their mobility aid, and cannot walk, who will be targeted for harassment by Council or BID officers (this happens routinely), who are never trained properly. This is Council Officers as Jesus: Pick up your Mobility Aid and Walk.
TLDR: I don't see this happening, because BCCs evidence does not support the claims. Cycling has been normal in Brum City Centre for 50-70 years, and the Council Report specifically - as mentioned by @Big_G_NorthWales - talks about food delivery and parcel couriers travelling at high speed, probably on mopeds not pedal-cycles, and mini van style cargo bikes (think Postman Pat)also at speed.
The former are a problem of supply chain and business regulation, with laws in place that can manage it, and the latter can be regulated. The way Scotland does it is by treating delivery riders as Street Traders needing a licence. The current UK Govt, unlike the last one, will get onto that. As a PSPO it needs one against ASB, not a ban on things that the Council's evidence do not identify as a problem.
One problem is the PSPO process, which legally requires evidence, but practically they can be pushed though with none, and are set up to be almost impossible to stop. The only one I have ever seen stopped was the Mansfield one about 5 years ago, where 5 locals targeted by it threatened a High Court legal action and forced them to moderate it. The Mansfield one was in reaction to a couple of occasions where kids had been wheelying around the outdoor market, and Captain Mainwaring jerked his knee.
The PSPO process needs reform to address problems and not address prejudices. At present these style of PSPO tend to exist in Reform type, or Blue Rinse type, coastal towns, or in fairly leafy country places. And one or two places where LD or Lab have gone local populist.
There already exist good inclusive models in Leicester, and to an extent Coventry, which Brum can follow. If they try and persist, I think they are big enough to get a challenge - but we shall see. I think they will take a via media.
I was part of a group that seriously curtailed a PSPO trying to regulate all public speaking and bring under civil law what was supposed to be criminal public order issues. It was mainly (entirely) done at the behest of some activist lgbt groups who couldn't cope with a Christian preacher saying things they disliked. Anyway the flaccid council dropped it when it hit resistance and a threat of judicial review.
The problem is the lack of interest in enforcement.
In my view, as a start, there needs to be a crackdown on the illegal eBikes. The local cycle lanes are becoming unusable due to people doing 30mph+ with electric motorcycles.
To start with, the batteries are nearly always unsafe.
Then there's the thuggish behaviour towards actual cyclists - I've sen them blast past children on bikes, missing them by millimetres.
I'm certainly with you on that, and most of the enforcement type activities done recently by eg City of London police.
Re farming what happens if those inheriting land can’t raise the IHT liability ?
It’s not like property which would generally be easier to sell .
Farmland is easy enough to sell. Phone the local auctioneers, cash lands in the bank about a month later.
There are lots of reasons why this policy is bad, but this isn't one.
Scenario: Farm is valued at 10k/acre for inheritance tax purposes. Farm is lets say 300 acres, so the bill is £200k (We'll assume the lad owns all the equipment and/or it's all depreciated for the sake of argument). The old Farmer's son sticks 20 acres up for sale, and only gets 5k/acre. A bit extreme, but just putting it out there for the sake of argument... Does the farm now get revalued to 1.5 million so the 200k isn't due ?
If the land is sold in open auction that is the value. It is really a bad idea but totally expected. It will also trash other businesses where succession is important. My ex MP says the first suicide has happened, not sure if that is true. We really have a vile incompetent government with a vile incompetent Prime Minister. But we knew that.
We seem to have a lot of press writing half baked incorrect stories to scare farmers.
It's been badly announced but I don't actually think there are many people at all who understand what the changes are yet alone the actual impact it has on people.
There is a story going around (no idea if it's true) on a supposed farmers' fb page describing a suicide which is getting everyone enraged.
I think farmers generally (can) have a very rough time and the suicide rate is very high. That said, governments of the past decades have prioritised mass market affordability of farm produce over farmers' well-being and it is difficult to argue that that has been the wrong policy.
Also it has long been known that buying agricultural land is a good tax avoidance wheeze but, a situation affecting 0.0n% of the farmers, still less of the population is not I believe good grounds for policy-making.
Removing a good tax avoidance wheeze is something that a sensible Government should be doing.
The suicide could be caused by a lot of things with this being the final one of a lot of straws. Farmer suicide is scarily high anyway as it's a lonely business that can feeling never ending..
I don't doubt but it is getting everyone agitated. Plus ISAs are a good tax avoidance wheeze.
An ISA is not tax avoidance.
“Tax avoidance is bending the rules of the tax system to gain a tax advantage, that parliament never intended.” (HMRC, 2015)
"It involves operating within the letter, but not the spirit, of the law".
So in other words it is perfectly legal and this description is designed a) to give The State more power over you at their sole discretion and whim; and b) scare you. Which latter it appears to have done.
Or an understandable reaction by the revenue to rich people's accountants regularly taking the piss.
Nothing in that link (which both Mighty Alex and I used) says anything about it not being legal.
By "do not work" I presume they mean they aren't tax avoidance but are, rather, illegal.
You've clearly not followed all those stories about tax advisers who sold tax avoidance schemes as 'perfectly legal', only for their clients to loses court cases against HMRC... and have to repay millions ?
The guidance was intended to prevent more such embarrassments. Accountants (reputable ones, at least) now tend to run such schemes by the revenue, before marketing them to innocent punters.
Tax avoidance is legal; tax evasion is illegal. Sometimes it is not clear which a particular scheme is because it's pushing the line on something where the law is unclear or open to interpretation. That lack of clarity does not imply legality.
The HMRC website is saying that some schemes are legal but not "within the spirit of the law". Whatever tf that means, legally.
Link please? that doesn't sound like the thing HMRC says...
A council is considering a city centre ban on cyclists to protect pedestrians, with fines for people who do not comply.
Birmingham City council has become the latest local authority to discuss barring cyclists from pedestrian-only areas to curb anti-social cycling.
A report by the council’s regulation and community safety executives has raised concerns that food and parcel couriers on e-bikes, travelling “at speed and without care for pedestrians”, pose a particular danger to the public in areas of high footfall.
The report, published earlier this month, proposes extending the city’s public spaces protection order to encompass cycling. The move would add it to a list of anti-social behaviours that includes graffiti, street drinking, large gatherings, and excessive noise.
The report said cycling could be “restricted by time periods” or banned outright, with the issue being put to a public consultation.
I'm surprised that this has taken so long to hit the national media. Telegraph article in the Telegraph; more rounded piece in the Groan; I have not checked the Daily Wail. Disabled charities on my network (TBF this is focused on active travel, of course) have been contacting Birmingham Council with their concerns for 2-3 weeks, as it will impact their members / supporters / clients who use cycles or adapted cycles as their mobility aid, and cannot walk, who will be targeted for harassment by Council or BID officers (this happens routinely), who are never trained properly. This is Council Officers as Jesus: Pick up your Mobility Aid and Walk.
TLDR: I don't see this happening, because BCCs evidence does not support the claims. Cycling has been normal in Brum City Centre for 50-70 years, and the Council Report specifically - as mentioned by @Big_G_NorthWales - talks about food delivery and parcel couriers travelling at high speed, probably on mopeds not pedal-cycles, and mini van style cargo bikes (think Postman Pat)also at speed.
The former are a problem of supply chain and business regulation, with laws in place that can manage it, and the latter can be regulated. The way Scotland does it is by treating delivery riders as Street Traders needing a licence. The current UK Govt, unlike the last one, will get onto that. As a PSPO it needs one against ASB, not a ban on things that the Council's evidence do not identify as a problem.
One problem is the PSPO process, which legally requires evidence, but practically they can be pushed though with none, and are set up to be almost impossible to stop. The only one I have ever seen stopped was the Mansfield one about 5 years ago, where 5 locals targeted by it threatened a High Court legal action and forced them to moderate it. The Mansfield one was in reaction to a couple of occasions where kids had been wheelying around the outdoor market, and Captain Mainwaring jerked his knee.
The PSPO process needs reform to address problems and not address prejudices. At present these style of PSPO tend to exist in Reform type, or Blue Rinse type, coastal towns, or in fairly leafy country places. And one or two places where LD or Lab have gone local populist.
There already exist good inclusive models in Leicester, and to an extent Coventry, which Brum can follow. If they try and persist, I think they are big enough to get a challenge - but we shall see. I think they will take a via media.
I was part of a group that seriously curtailed a PSPO trying to regulate all public speaking and bring under civil law what was supposed to be criminal public order issues. It was mainly (entirely) done at the behest of some activist lgbt groups who couldn't cope with a Christian preacher saying things they disliked. Anyway the flaccid council dropped it when it hit resistance and a threat of judicial review.
The problem is the lack of interest in enforcement.
In my view, as a start, there needs to be a crackdown on the illegal eBikes. The local cycle lanes are becoming unusable due to people doing 30mph+ with electric motorcycles.
To start with, the batteries are nearly always unsafe.
Then there's the thuggish behaviour towards actual cyclists - I've sen them blast past children on bikes, missing them by millimetres.
It is one of the issues in our local town that the Police really are not doing a great deal about.
It is only a few people but these electric bikes are a menace. Especially the way they are driven.
Half the economic activity of Manchester seemed to be Deliveroo riders on electric bikes when I went there the last couple of times.
His musings about executing Liz Cheney by firing squad is quite startling. I do wonder whether Trump will enact his wet dreams and take the ultimate action against anyone he believes have dimished him over the years. The list, I suspect will be incredibly long.
We know he already asked about using American troops against American citizens...
He could be the American Harold Wilson.
You'll have to explain.
The coup plot of 1967? Rhodesia? Or something else?
I am genuinely insulted that you dare compare Harold to Trump.
Re farming what happens if those inheriting land can’t raise the IHT liability ?
It’s not like property which would generally be easier to sell .
Farmland is easy enough to sell. Phone the local auctioneers, cash lands in the bank about a month later.
There are lots of reasons why this policy is bad, but this isn't one.
Scenario: Farm is valued at 10k/acre for inheritance tax purposes. Farm is lets say 300 acres, so the bill is £200k (We'll assume the lad owns all the equipment and/or it's all depreciated for the sake of argument). The old Farmer's son sticks 20 acres up for sale, and only gets 5k/acre. A bit extreme, but just putting it out there for the sake of argument... Does the farm now get revalued to 1.5 million so the 200k isn't due ?
If the land is sold in open auction that is the value. It is really a bad idea but totally expected. It will also trash other businesses where succession is important. My ex MP says the first suicide has happened, not sure if that is true. We really have a vile incompetent government with a vile incompetent Prime Minister. But we knew that.
We seem to have a lot of press writing half baked incorrect stories to scare farmers.
It's been badly announced but I don't actually think there are many people at all who understand what the changes are yet alone the actual impact it has on people.
Well it was just a part of the budget rather than an announcement as such wasn’t it? The media will do what they will do.
The likes of Sky News and BBC are getting hysterical. No one worried about farmer welfare when the supermarkets were screwing down on the price of milk and food in the past to the detriment of small producers. I wonder if this is all a consequence of the lack of enthusiasm for Labour in the period up to the election. The media have been running around like a pack of wolves since then. Maybe it is a reaction to their inability in the earlier years to call out Johnson and co, or maybe it's a leach over from the atmosphere/media in the US?
Did you see Beth Rigby's 'interview' with Rachel this week? Rigby asked a question then talked over Rachel as she tried to answer. Over and again. She's a gobshite that does the public a disservice because her interviewees cannot get a word in edgeways.
That's been a standard "interviewing technique" for years.
Strange that you haven't been upset with it previously.
Yes, it is odd that these things now seem to be beyond the pale when prior to the start of July they were just part and parcel of political life.
Says who? I've said similarly many times before. I hate her 'style' regardless of who she is interviewing.
Re farming what happens if those inheriting land can’t raise the IHT liability ?
It’s not like property which would generally be easier to sell .
Farmland is easy enough to sell. Phone the local auctioneers, cash lands in the bank about a month later.
There are lots of reasons why this policy is bad, but this isn't one.
Scenario: Farm is valued at 10k/acre for inheritance tax purposes. Farm is lets say 300 acres, so the bill is £200k (We'll assume the lad owns all the equipment and/or it's all depreciated for the sake of argument). The old Farmer's son sticks 20 acres up for sale, and only gets 5k/acre. A bit extreme, but just putting it out there for the sake of argument... Does the farm now get revalued to 1.5 million so the 200k isn't due ?
If the land is sold in open auction that is the value. It is really a bad idea but totally expected. It will also trash other businesses where succession is important. My ex MP says the first suicide has happened, not sure if that is true. We really have a vile incompetent government with a vile incompetent Prime Minister. But we knew that.
We seem to have a lot of press writing half baked incorrect stories to scare farmers.
It's been badly announced but I don't actually think there are many people at all who understand what the changes are yet alone the actual impact it has on people.
There is a story going around (no idea if it's true) on a supposed farmers' fb page describing a suicide which is getting everyone enraged.
I think farmers generally (can) have a very rough time and the suicide rate is very high. That said, governments of the past decades have prioritised mass market affordability of farm produce over farmers' well-being and it is difficult to argue that that has been the wrong policy.
Also it has long been known that buying agricultural land is a good tax avoidance wheeze but, a situation affecting 0.0n% of the farmers, still less of the population is not I believe good grounds for policy-making.
Removing a good tax avoidance wheeze is something that a sensible Government should be doing.
The suicide could be caused by a lot of things with this being the final one of a lot of straws. Farmer suicide is scarily high anyway as it's a lonely business that can feeling never ending..
I don't doubt but it is getting everyone agitated. Plus ISAs are a good tax avoidance wheeze.
An ISA is not tax avoidance.
“Tax avoidance is bending the rules of the tax system to gain a tax advantage, that parliament never intended.” (HMRC, 2015)
"It involves operating within the letter, but not the spirit, of the law".
So in other words it is perfectly legal and this description is designed a) to give The State more power over you at their sole discretion and whim; and b) scare you. Which latter it appears to have done.
Or an understandable reaction by the revenue to rich people's accountants regularly taking the piss.
Nothing in that link (which both Mighty Alex and I used) says anything about it not being legal.
By "do not work" I presume they mean they aren't tax avoidance but are, rather, illegal.
You've clearly not followed all those stories about tax advisers who sold tax avoidance schemes as 'perfectly legal', only for their clients to loses court cases against HMRC... and have to repay millions ?
The guidance was intended to prevent more such embarrassments. Accountants (reputable ones, at least) now tend to run such schemes by the revenue, before marketing them to innocent punters.
Tax avoidance is legal; tax evasion is illegal. Sometimes it is not clear which a particular scheme is because it's pushing the line on something where the law is unclear or open to interpretation. That lack of clarity does not imply legality.
That's the point, though. A financial adviser simply describing something as "tax avoidance" doesn't make it legal. Where the boundaries lie is often unclear - but it's usually pretty obvious to a taxpayer if they're entering into a scheme with the intention of avoiding tax. All the revenue is saying (albeit somewhat forcefully) is that honest belief that you're entering into a legal avoidance scheme doesn't exempt you from potential penalties if it's not legal.
If it's pre-approved by them then you're in the clear.
Reeves was left with £18 billion less headroom in her spending plans after the OBR made a whopping error in its projections for public sector net financial liabilities. According to Bloomberg, the quango originally found the headroom in 2028-2029 to be £62 billion. It was then corrected to just £43.9 billion.
Beth Rigby, so what you are saying Prime Minster (when it wasn't exactly what they said), is pathetic gotcha making. No idea why nobody watches Sky News anymore.
I remember when they had people like Tim Marshall, Sam Kiley, Jeff Randall....
Lots of discussion on IHT; one of the questions I keep pondering is why it still exists.
It's absolutely hated, and raises very little revenue; 0.7% of government income.
For example, Jeremy Hunt used £10bln to cut NI by 2%. He could have abolished IHT instead and had £2.5bln left to play with.
Surely the smart politics would have been to ditch IHT entirely, rather than a modest reduction in NI which virtually everyone forgot about 24hrs later.
There are lots of advantages to wiping out a tax entirely rather than changing rates - the government would save the cost revenue collection, lots of people would save the cost of employing the tax planning parasites*, it would knock the bottom out of all the known dodges like buying farmland (with the amusing side effect of burning the fingers of those most egregiously attempting to tax dodge in this way as asset values drop back to their true levels).
Why on earth didn't he do it? If nothing else, he would have gone down in history as the chancellor who abolished IHT, and it's hard to imaging that would be an unpopular legacy.
*Maybe they could become social care workers, instead of us having to import millions of Nigerians
Remove IHT and when the next Government comes along do you tax the money as income received or a capital gain.
That's why you leave IHT because with it removed other options become available that would be worse...
Yup - and this is why I can't abide all the whinging about IHT. As I understand It is a lax regime, with high thresholds and low rates and full of ways of getting round it.
However, I am quite attracted to the idea of getting rid of it and simply treating inheritances as a capital gain (or income if put inside a trust of which you are a beneficiary). I have no doubt there are sensible reasons why to not do it like that. But, ultimately what is an inheritance if not a massive capital gain? It is not like a gambling win.
A council is considering a city centre ban on cyclists to protect pedestrians, with fines for people who do not comply.
Birmingham City council has become the latest local authority to discuss barring cyclists from pedestrian-only areas to curb anti-social cycling.
A report by the council’s regulation and community safety executives has raised concerns that food and parcel couriers on e-bikes, travelling “at speed and without care for pedestrians”, pose a particular danger to the public in areas of high footfall.
The report, published earlier this month, proposes extending the city’s public spaces protection order to encompass cycling. The move would add it to a list of anti-social behaviours that includes graffiti, street drinking, large gatherings, and excessive noise.
The report said cycling could be “restricted by time periods” or banned outright, with the issue being put to a public consultation.
I'm surprised that this has taken so long to hit the national media. Telegraph article in the Telegraph; more rounded piece in the Groan; I have not checked the Daily Wail. Disabled charities on my network (TBF this is focused on active travel, of course) have been contacting Birmingham Council with their concerns for 2-3 weeks, as it will impact their members / supporters / clients who use cycles or adapted cycles as their mobility aid, and cannot walk, who will be targeted for harassment by Council or BID officers (this happens routinely), who are never trained properly. This is Council Officers as Jesus: Pick up your Mobility Aid and Walk.
TLDR: I don't see this happening, because BCCs evidence does not support the claims. Cycling has been normal in Brum City Centre for 50-70 years, and the Council Report specifically - as mentioned by @Big_G_NorthWales - talks about food delivery and parcel couriers travelling at high speed, probably on mopeds not pedal-cycles, and mini van style cargo bikes (think Postman Pat)also at speed.
The former are a problem of supply chain and business regulation, with laws in place that can manage it, and the latter can be regulated. The way Scotland does it is by treating delivery riders as Street Traders needing a licence. The current UK Govt, unlike the last one, will get onto that. As a PSPO it needs one against ASB, not a ban on things that the Council's evidence do not identify as a problem.
One problem is the PSPO process, which legally requires evidence, but practically they can be pushed though with none, and are set up to be almost impossible to stop. The only one I have ever seen stopped was the Mansfield one about 5 years ago, where 5 locals targeted by it threatened a High Court legal action and forced them to moderate it. The Mansfield one was in reaction to a couple of occasions where kids had been wheelying around the outdoor market, and Captain Mainwaring jerked his knee.
The PSPO process needs reform to address problems and not address prejudices. At present these style of PSPO tend to exist in Reform type, or Blue Rinse type, coastal towns, or in fairly leafy country places. And one or two places where LD or Lab have gone local populist.
There already exist good inclusive models in Leicester, and to an extent Coventry, which Brum can follow. If they try and persist, I think they are big enough to get a challenge - but we shall see. I think they will take a via media.
I was part of a group that seriously curtailed a PSPO trying to regulate all public speaking and bring under civil law what was supposed to be criminal public order issues. It was mainly (entirely) done at the behest of some activist lgbt groups who couldn't cope with a Christian preacher saying things they disliked. Anyway the flaccid council dropped it when it hit resistance and a threat of judicial review.
The problem is the lack of interest in enforcement.
In my view, as a start, there needs to be a crackdown on the illegal eBikes. The local cycle lanes are becoming unusable due to people doing 30mph+ with electric motorcycles.
To start with, the batteries are nearly always unsafe.
Then there's the thuggish behaviour towards actual cyclists - I've sen them blast past children on bikes, missing them by millimetres.
Almost always unlawful motorcycles. Some police forces have become quite good and can spot and confiscate these bikes routinely. Most certainly a police matter, the unlocked unlawful ones are pretty easy to spot.
Indeed. But in many areas there has been a definite unwillingness to deal with it.
I've have been told that the Reasons Why Not include
- "The Community wouldn't like it." - as in targeting minority communities. - "Potential for violence, requires excessive resources" - "Unclear regulation' - aka we don't want to know.
Personally, I would have a unit out - testing and removing the batteries from non-compliant bikes. They can pedal home....
There is a widespread assumption that the type of individual using e-bicycles (or illegal e-motorcycles) for food delivery are some of the people coming across on the small boats. Hence the intense hostility from some quite unpleasant individuals, and therefore well-meaning lefties are instinctively defensive about the issue.
My local police have been pro-active about illegal e-motorcycles, which is good. But there is an inevitable tension here because there so relaxed about the danger posed by the unlawful behaviour of drivers of conventional vehicles, who tend to be richer (and whiter). Purely on the collision stats, it does feel like discrimination tbh.
A council is considering a city centre ban on cyclists to protect pedestrians, with fines for people who do not comply.
Birmingham City council has become the latest local authority to discuss barring cyclists from pedestrian-only areas to curb anti-social cycling.
A report by the council’s regulation and community safety executives has raised concerns that food and parcel couriers on e-bikes, travelling “at speed and without care for pedestrians”, pose a particular danger to the public in areas of high footfall.
The report, published earlier this month, proposes extending the city’s public spaces protection order to encompass cycling. The move would add it to a list of anti-social behaviours that includes graffiti, street drinking, large gatherings, and excessive noise.
The report said cycling could be “restricted by time periods” or banned outright, with the issue being put to a public consultation.
I'm surprised that this has taken so long to hit the national media. Telegraph article in the Telegraph; more rounded piece in the Groan; I have not checked the Daily Wail. Disabled charities on my network (TBF this is focused on active travel, of course) have been contacting Birmingham Council with their concerns for 2-3 weeks, as it will impact their members / supporters / clients who use cycles or adapted cycles as their mobility aid, and cannot walk, who will be targeted for harassment by Council or BID officers (this happens routinely), who are never trained properly. This is Council Officers as Jesus: Pick up your Mobility Aid and Walk.
TLDR: I don't see this happening, because BCCs evidence does not support the claims. Cycling has been normal in Brum City Centre for 50-70 years, and the Council Report specifically - as mentioned by @Big_G_NorthWales - talks about food delivery and parcel couriers travelling at high speed, probably on mopeds not pedal-cycles, and mini van style cargo bikes (think Postman Pat)also at speed.
The former are a problem of supply chain and business regulation, with laws in place that can manage it, and the latter can be regulated. The way Scotland does it is by treating delivery riders as Street Traders needing a licence. The current UK Govt, unlike the last one, will get onto that. As a PSPO it needs one against ASB, not a ban on things that the Council's evidence do not identify as a problem.
One problem is the PSPO process, which legally requires evidence, but practically they can be pushed though with none, and are set up to be almost impossible to stop. The only one I have ever seen stopped was the Mansfield one about 5 years ago, where 5 locals targeted by it threatened a High Court legal action and forced them to moderate it. The Mansfield one was in reaction to a couple of occasions where kids had been wheelying around the outdoor market, and Captain Mainwaring jerked his knee.
The PSPO process needs reform to address problems and not address prejudices. At present these style of PSPO tend to exist in Reform type, or Blue Rinse type, coastal towns, or in fairly leafy country places. And one or two places where LD or Lab have gone local populist.
There already exist good inclusive models in Leicester, and to an extent Coventry, which Brum can follow. If they try and persist, I think they are big enough to get a challenge - but we shall see. I think they will take a via media.
I was part of a group that seriously curtailed a PSPO trying to regulate all public speaking and bring under civil law what was supposed to be criminal public order issues. It was mainly (entirely) done at the behest of some activist lgbt groups who couldn't cope with a Christian preacher saying things they disliked. Anyway the flaccid council dropped it when it hit resistance and a threat of judicial review.
The problem is the lack of interest in enforcement.
In my view, as a start, there needs to be a crackdown on the illegal eBikes. The local cycle lanes are becoming unusable due to people doing 30mph+ with electric motorcycles.
To start with, the batteries are nearly always unsafe.
Then there's the thuggish behaviour towards actual cyclists - I've sen them blast past children on bikes, missing them by millimetres.
It is one of the issues in our local town that the Police really are not doing a great deal about.
It is only a few people but these electric bikes are a menace. Especially the way they are driven.
Are the electric cyclists all left wingers? That's two tier justice in action.
A council is considering a city centre ban on cyclists to protect pedestrians, with fines for people who do not comply.
Birmingham City council has become the latest local authority to discuss barring cyclists from pedestrian-only areas to curb anti-social cycling.
A report by the council’s regulation and community safety executives has raised concerns that food and parcel couriers on e-bikes, travelling “at speed and without care for pedestrians”, pose a particular danger to the public in areas of high footfall.
The report, published earlier this month, proposes extending the city’s public spaces protection order to encompass cycling. The move would add it to a list of anti-social behaviours that includes graffiti, street drinking, large gatherings, and excessive noise.
The report said cycling could be “restricted by time periods” or banned outright, with the issue being put to a public consultation.
I'm surprised that this has taken so long to hit the national media. Telegraph article in the Telegraph; more rounded piece in the Groan; I have not checked the Daily Wail. Disabled charities on my network (TBF this is focused on active travel, of course) have been contacting Birmingham Council with their concerns for 2-3 weeks, as it will impact their members / supporters / clients who use cycles or adapted cycles as their mobility aid, and cannot walk, who will be targeted for harassment by Council or BID officers (this happens routinely), who are never trained properly. This is Council Officers as Jesus: Pick up your Mobility Aid and Walk.
TLDR: I don't see this happening, because BCCs evidence does not support the claims. Cycling has been normal in Brum City Centre for 50-70 years, and the Council Report specifically - as mentioned by @Big_G_NorthWales - talks about food delivery and parcel couriers travelling at high speed, probably on mopeds not pedal-cycles, and mini van style cargo bikes (think Postman Pat)also at speed.
The former are a problem of supply chain and business regulation, with laws in place that can manage it, and the latter can be regulated. The way Scotland does it is by treating delivery riders as Street Traders needing a licence. The current UK Govt, unlike the last one, will get onto that. As a PSPO it needs one against ASB, not a ban on things that the Council's evidence do not identify as a problem.
One problem is the PSPO process, which legally requires evidence, but practically they can be pushed though with none, and are set up to be almost impossible to stop. The only one I have ever seen stopped was the Mansfield one about 5 years ago, where 5 locals targeted by it threatened a High Court legal action and forced them to moderate it. The Mansfield one was in reaction to a couple of occasions where kids had been wheelying around the outdoor market, and Captain Mainwaring jerked his knee.
The PSPO process needs reform to address problems and not address prejudices. At present these style of PSPO tend to exist in Reform type, or Blue Rinse type, coastal towns, or in fairly leafy country places. And one or two places where LD or Lab have gone local populist.
There already exist good inclusive models in Leicester, and to an extent Coventry, which Brum can follow. If they try and persist, I think they are big enough to get a challenge - but we shall see. I think they will take a via media.
I was part of a group that seriously curtailed a PSPO trying to regulate all public speaking and bring under civil law what was supposed to be criminal public order issues. It was mainly (entirely) done at the behest of some activist lgbt groups who couldn't cope with a Christian preacher saying things they disliked. Anyway the flaccid council dropped it when it hit resistance and a threat of judicial review.
The problem is the lack of interest in enforcement.
In my view, as a start, there needs to be a crackdown on the illegal eBikes. The local cycle lanes are becoming unusable due to people doing 30mph+ with electric motorcycles.
To start with, the batteries are nearly always unsafe.
Then there's the thuggish behaviour towards actual cyclists - I've sen them blast past children on bikes, missing them by millimetres.
Almost always unlawful motorcycles. Some police forces have become quite good and can spot and confiscate these bikes routinely. Most certainly a police matter, the unlocked unlawful ones are pretty easy to spot.
The wrong type of cyclists? Should all cyclists be preceded by a man carrying a red flag? That would slow them down. As a pedestrian, I find fast-pedalling cyclists more of a hazard as the effort often keeps their heads down so they are not looking out for people crossing the road. At least ebikers are generally looking where they are going.
Are there odds on him calling Kamala a c*** by next Tuesday? You just know he does it in private anyway.
I don't think he is that vulgar. Non-drinking, non-smoking/drug-taking.
Plus of that age. I don't think it is in his vernacular.
But we can have a bet if you would like.
Lol, a man who calls his opponents stupid bastards, scum and garbage, mentions the size of a famous sportsman's cock & does an impersonation of a disabled journalist during speeches, and boasts about grabbing women by the pussy isn't 'that vulgar'. A judgment for the ages.
His musings about executing Liz Cheney by firing squad is quite startling. I do wonder whether Trump will enact his wet dreams and take the ultimate action against anyone he believes have dimished him over the years. The list, I suspect will be incredibly long.
Are we at peak derangement yet? He's not literally calling to shoot people by firing squad, in the same way he's not literarily having a fascist rally in Maddison square garden, or going to literally have a bloodbath.
This is bonkers stuff. But, once you have convinced yourself the man is a fascist you can convince yourself all his utterances can be interrelated in the worse possible bad faith way.
It is an interesting phenomenon to see many/most of PB so deranged.
I can't really understand it. Don't like his policies on immigration by all means, but going off on one because he says he wants to deport illegal immigrants (while no doubt sipping their chai latte from one of *those* mugs) is super strange.
I think it's fear. Some people need to channel their otherwise illogical and unfounded fears into a concrete form. That way they can rail against Trump, who in this case is the manifestation of their fears and take comfort, either in his eventual defeat, or in the solidarity they find from others who think the same.
Otherwise the whole nazi/fascist/sending troops to kill Americans thing is not really fathomable.
If you think most of PB is deranged; perhaps they're the 'normal' ones and it is your view on matters that is 'deranged' ?
Yes could be. I mean my - well-documented on here - position is that I don't think that Trump is a nazi, nor that he is a threat to "American democracy", nor that he will do very much damage in office beyond at the margin because the paraphernalia of the US state and constitution is powerful and has those famous checks and balances which would prevent any individual from subverting it or them.
Any egregious example of what he has done or what he is feared as doing has been done countless times in other democracies the world over from time immemorial.
I have also said he is a laugh at, not laugh with kind of guy whose pronouncements are just extraordinary, but then that's America.
What I do respect is almost half (perhaps more) of the American voting public have decided that he's their man and it irritates me that people on PB in their typical bien pensant, Guardian letter-writing, oh aren't they all ghastly way, seem to think they know better.
And every time someone does call him a nazi or whatnot (not on PB, obvs, because no one cares) it serves to solidify the support he has.
Re farming what happens if those inheriting land can’t raise the IHT liability ?
It’s not like property which would generally be easier to sell .
Farmland is easy enough to sell. Phone the local auctioneers, cash lands in the bank about a month later.
There are lots of reasons why this policy is bad, but this isn't one.
Scenario: Farm is valued at 10k/acre for inheritance tax purposes. Farm is lets say 300 acres, so the bill is £200k (We'll assume the lad owns all the equipment and/or it's all depreciated for the sake of argument). The old Farmer's son sticks 20 acres up for sale, and only gets 5k/acre. A bit extreme, but just putting it out there for the sake of argument... Does the farm now get revalued to 1.5 million so the 200k isn't due ?
If the land is sold in open auction that is the value. It is really a bad idea but totally expected. It will also trash other businesses where succession is important. My ex MP says the first suicide has happened, not sure if that is true. We really have a vile incompetent government with a vile incompetent Prime Minister. But we knew that.
We seem to have a lot of press writing half baked incorrect stories to scare farmers.
It's been badly announced but I don't actually think there are many people at all who understand what the changes are yet alone the actual impact it has on people.
There is a story going around (no idea if it's true) on a supposed farmers' fb page describing a suicide which is getting everyone enraged.
I think farmers generally (can) have a very rough time and the suicide rate is very high. That said, governments of the past decades have prioritised mass market affordability of farm produce over farmers' well-being and it is difficult to argue that that has been the wrong policy.
Also it has long been known that buying agricultural land is a good tax avoidance wheeze but, a situation affecting 0.0n% of the farmers, still less of the population is not I believe good grounds for policy-making.
Removing a good tax avoidance wheeze is something that a sensible Government should be doing.
The suicide could be caused by a lot of things with this being the final one of a lot of straws. Farmer suicide is scarily high anyway as it's a lonely business that can feeling never ending..
I don't doubt but it is getting everyone agitated. Plus ISAs are a good tax avoidance wheeze.
An ISA is not tax avoidance.
“Tax avoidance is bending the rules of the tax system to gain a tax advantage, that parliament never intended.” (HMRC, 2015)
"It involves operating within the letter, but not the spirit, of the law".
So in other words it is perfectly legal and this description is designed a) to give The State more power over you at their sole discretion and whim; and b) scare you. Which latter it appears to have done.
Or an understandable reaction by the revenue to rich people's accountants regularly taking the piss.
Nothing in that link (which both Mighty Alex and I used) says anything about it not being legal.
By "do not work" I presume they mean they aren't tax avoidance but are, rather, illegal.
You've clearly not followed all those stories about tax advisers who sold tax avoidance schemes as 'perfectly legal', only for their clients to loses court cases against HMRC... and have to repay millions ?
The guidance was intended to prevent more such embarrassments. Accountants (reputable ones, at least) now tend to run such schemes by the revenue, before marketing them to innocent punters.
Tax avoidance is legal; tax evasion is illegal. Sometimes it is not clear which a particular scheme is because it's pushing the line on something where the law is unclear or open to interpretation. That lack of clarity does not imply legality.
The HMRC website is saying that some schemes are legal but not "within the spirit of the law". Whatever tf that means, legally.
Presumably refers to the inevitable changing of tax rules to close loopholes. Some of these avoidance schemes can be very expensive to unwind, if the law changes. If your tax advisers have been taking the piss, you're taking that risk.
I am starting to feel more bullish on Harris’ chances again.
The fundamentals are in her favour, IMHO. The enthusiasm gap, the GOTV operation, the lead among female voters, the polls showing (I think) a general uptick in support among latino/black voters, the Puerto Rico stuff. That’s not to say that it’s not still ridiculously close. But I think she will get through on the day, if I had to guess. It might not be a particularly convincing win (at the moment the most likely is she wins WI/PA/MI route and no more), but I think it will be a win. NC and AZ as wildcards, though I think I’d narrowly favour Trump there.
A council is considering a city centre ban on cyclists to protect pedestrians, with fines for people who do not comply.
Birmingham City council has become the latest local authority to discuss barring cyclists from pedestrian-only areas to curb anti-social cycling.
A report by the council’s regulation and community safety executives has raised concerns that food and parcel couriers on e-bikes, travelling “at speed and without care for pedestrians”, pose a particular danger to the public in areas of high footfall.
The report, published earlier this month, proposes extending the city’s public spaces protection order to encompass cycling. The move would add it to a list of anti-social behaviours that includes graffiti, street drinking, large gatherings, and excessive noise.
The report said cycling could be “restricted by time periods” or banned outright, with the issue being put to a public consultation.
I'm surprised that this has taken so long to hit the national media. Telegraph article in the Telegraph; more rounded piece in the Groan; I have not checked the Daily Wail. Disabled charities on my network (TBF this is focused on active travel, of course) have been contacting Birmingham Council with their concerns for 2-3 weeks, as it will impact their members / supporters / clients who use cycles or adapted cycles as their mobility aid, and cannot walk, who will be targeted for harassment by Council or BID officers (this happens routinely), who are never trained properly. This is Council Officers as Jesus: Pick up your Mobility Aid and Walk.
TLDR: I don't see this happening, because BCCs evidence does not support the claims. Cycling has been normal in Brum City Centre for 50-70 years, and the Council Report specifically - as mentioned by @Big_G_NorthWales - talks about food delivery and parcel couriers travelling at high speed, probably on mopeds not pedal-cycles, and mini van style cargo bikes (think Postman Pat)also at speed.
The former are a problem of supply chain and business regulation, with laws in place that can manage it, and the latter can be regulated. The way Scotland does it is by treating delivery riders as Street Traders needing a licence. The current UK Govt, unlike the last one, will get onto that. As a PSPO it needs one against ASB, not a ban on things that the Council's evidence do not identify as a problem.
One problem is the PSPO process, which legally requires evidence, but practically they can be pushed though with none, and are set up to be almost impossible to stop. The only one I have ever seen stopped was the Mansfield one about 5 years ago, where 5 locals targeted by it threatened a High Court legal action and forced them to moderate it. The Mansfield one was in reaction to a couple of occasions where kids had been wheelying around the outdoor market, and Captain Mainwaring jerked his knee.
The PSPO process needs reform to address problems and not address prejudices. At present these style of PSPO tend to exist in Reform type, or Blue Rinse type, coastal towns, or in fairly leafy country places. And one or two places where LD or Lab have gone local populist.
There already exist good inclusive models in Leicester, and to an extent Coventry, which Brum can follow. If they try and persist, I think they are big enough to get a challenge - but we shall see. I think they will take a via media.
I was part of a group that seriously curtailed a PSPO trying to regulate all public speaking and bring under civil law what was supposed to be criminal public order issues. It was mainly (entirely) done at the behest of some activist lgbt groups who couldn't cope with a Christian preacher saying things they disliked. Anyway the flaccid council dropped it when it hit resistance and a threat of judicial review.
The problem is the lack of interest in enforcement.
In my view, as a start, there needs to be a crackdown on the illegal eBikes. The local cycle lanes are becoming unusable due to people doing 30mph+ with electric motorcycles.
To start with, the batteries are nearly always unsafe.
Then there's the thuggish behaviour towards actual cyclists - I've sen them blast past children on bikes, missing them by millimetres.
I'm certainly with you on that, and most of the enforcement type activities done recently by eg City of London police.
The difference between the City of London police and the Met is pretty stark.
Beth Rigby, so what you are saying Prime Minster (when it wasn't exactly what they said), is pathetic gotcha making. No idea why nobody watches Sky News anymore.
I remember when they had people like Tim Marshall, Sam Kiley, Jeff Randall....
They seemed to take an active decision to go low brow and anti-Government (I had thought anti-Tory but the election has show that the “gotcha” stuff is just anti-Government) when they were once very credible. Ironically they seemed to get worse when they lost Murdoch…
Re farming what happens if those inheriting land can’t raise the IHT liability ?
It’s not like property which would generally be easier to sell .
Farmland is easy enough to sell. Phone the local auctioneers, cash lands in the bank about a month later.
There are lots of reasons why this policy is bad, but this isn't one.
Scenario: Farm is valued at 10k/acre for inheritance tax purposes. Farm is lets say 300 acres, so the bill is £200k (We'll assume the lad owns all the equipment and/or it's all depreciated for the sake of argument). The old Farmer's son sticks 20 acres up for sale, and only gets 5k/acre. A bit extreme, but just putting it out there for the sake of argument... Does the farm now get revalued to 1.5 million so the 200k isn't due ?
If the land is sold in open auction that is the value. It is really a bad idea but totally expected. It will also trash other businesses where succession is important. My ex MP says the first suicide has happened, not sure if that is true. We really have a vile incompetent government with a vile incompetent Prime Minister. But we knew that.
We seem to have a lot of press writing half baked incorrect stories to scare farmers.
It's been badly announced but I don't actually think there are many people at all who understand what the changes are yet alone the actual impact it has on people.
There is a story going around (no idea if it's true) on a supposed farmers' fb page describing a suicide which is getting everyone enraged.
I think farmers generally (can) have a very rough time and the suicide rate is very high. That said, governments of the past decades have prioritised mass market affordability of farm produce over farmers' well-being and it is difficult to argue that that has been the wrong policy.
Also it has long been known that buying agricultural land is a good tax avoidance wheeze but, a situation affecting 0.0n% of the farmers, still less of the population is not I believe good grounds for policy-making.
Removing a good tax avoidance wheeze is something that a sensible Government should be doing.
The suicide could be caused by a lot of things with this being the final one of a lot of straws. Farmer suicide is scarily high anyway as it's a lonely business that can feeling never ending..
I don't doubt but it is getting everyone agitated. Plus ISAs are a good tax avoidance wheeze.
An ISA is not tax avoidance.
“Tax avoidance is bending the rules of the tax system to gain a tax advantage, that parliament never intended.” (HMRC, 2015)
"It involves operating within the letter, but not the spirit, of the law".
So in other words it is perfectly legal and this description is designed a) to give The State more power over you at their sole discretion and whim; and b) scare you. Which latter it appears to have done.
Or an understandable reaction by the revenue to rich people's accountants regularly taking the piss.
Nothing in that link (which both Mighty Alex and I used) says anything about it not being legal.
By "do not work" I presume they mean they aren't tax avoidance but are, rather, illegal.
You've clearly not followed all those stories about tax advisers who sold tax avoidance schemes as 'perfectly legal', only for their clients to loses court cases against HMRC... and have to repay millions ?
The guidance was intended to prevent more such embarrassments. Accountants (reputable ones, at least) now tend to run such schemes by the revenue, before marketing them to innocent punters.
Tax avoidance is legal; tax evasion is illegal. Sometimes it is not clear which a particular scheme is because it's pushing the line on something where the law is unclear or open to interpretation. That lack of clarity does not imply legality.
The HMRC website is saying that some schemes are legal but not "within the spirit of the law". Whatever tf that means, legally.
Link please? that doesn't sound like the thing HMRC says...
It involves operating within the letter, but not the spirit, of the law.
Its basically a warning shot to contractors (and others) not to be gulled into bogus tax avoidance schemes. The Loan charge legislation should be enough to put people off.
Re farming what happens if those inheriting land can’t raise the IHT liability ?
It’s not like property which would generally be easier to sell .
Farmland is easy enough to sell. Phone the local auctioneers, cash lands in the bank about a month later.
There are lots of reasons why this policy is bad, but this isn't one.
Scenario: Farm is valued at 10k/acre for inheritance tax purposes. Farm is lets say 300 acres, so the bill is £200k (We'll assume the lad owns all the equipment and/or it's all depreciated for the sake of argument). The old Farmer's son sticks 20 acres up for sale, and only gets 5k/acre. A bit extreme, but just putting it out there for the sake of argument... Does the farm now get revalued to 1.5 million so the 200k isn't due ?
If the land is sold in open auction that is the value. It is really a bad idea but totally expected. It will also trash other businesses where succession is important. My ex MP says the first suicide has happened, not sure if that is true. We really have a vile incompetent government with a vile incompetent Prime Minister. But we knew that.
We seem to have a lot of press writing half baked incorrect stories to scare farmers.
It's been badly announced but I don't actually think there are many people at all who understand what the changes are yet alone the actual impact it has on people.
There is a story going around (no idea if it's true) on a supposed farmers' fb page describing a suicide which is getting everyone enraged.
I think farmers generally (can) have a very rough time and the suicide rate is very high. That said, governments of the past decades have prioritised mass market affordability of farm produce over farmers' well-being and it is difficult to argue that that has been the wrong policy.
Also it has long been known that buying agricultural land is a good tax avoidance wheeze but, a situation affecting 0.0n% of the farmers, still less of the population is not I believe good grounds for policy-making.
Removing a good tax avoidance wheeze is something that a sensible Government should be doing.
The suicide could be caused by a lot of things with this being the final one of a lot of straws. Farmer suicide is scarily high anyway as it's a lonely business that can feeling never ending..
I don't doubt but it is getting everyone agitated. Plus ISAs are a good tax avoidance wheeze.
An ISA is not tax avoidance.
“Tax avoidance is bending the rules of the tax system to gain a tax advantage, that parliament never intended.” (HMRC, 2015)
"It involves operating within the letter, but not the spirit, of the law".
So in other words it is perfectly legal and this description is designed a) to give The State more power over you at their sole discretion and whim; and b) scare you. Which latter it appears to have done.
Or an understandable reaction by the revenue to rich people's accountants regularly taking the piss.
Nothing in that link (which both Mighty Alex and I used) says anything about it not being legal.
By "do not work" I presume they mean they aren't tax avoidance but are, rather, illegal.
You've clearly not followed all those stories about tax advisers who sold tax avoidance schemes as 'perfectly legal', only for their clients to loses court cases against HMRC... and have to repay millions ?
The guidance was intended to prevent more such embarrassments. Accountants (reputable ones, at least) now tend to run such schemes by the revenue, before marketing them to innocent punters.
Tax avoidance is legal; tax evasion is illegal. Sometimes it is not clear which a particular scheme is because it's pushing the line on something where the law is unclear or open to interpretation. That lack of clarity does not imply legality.
That's the point, though. A financial adviser simply describing something as "tax avoidance" doesn't make it legal. Where the boundaries lie is often unclear - but it's usually pretty obvious to a taxpayer if they're entering into a scheme with the intention of avoiding tax. All the revenue is saying (albeit somewhat forcefully) is that honest belief that you're entering into a legal avoidance scheme doesn't exempt you from potential penalties if it's not legal.
If it's pre-approved by them then you're in the clear.
Exactly. No one is saying all tax advisors have it right. I am saying that tax avoidance is legal, that tax evasion is illegal, and that the HMRC has weasel words on its website designed to scare people.
Buying agricultural land as a tax avoidance wheeze is just the same as gifting possessions hoping to live for another seven years, or taking out an ISA.
I think it was @Mexicanpete who said that the govt should close down "tax avoidance wheezes".
One feature of the Budget is how few of the different predictions re tax increases actually happened - instead Reeves got the vast majority of additional tax from Employers NI.
This was a smart move - as we've seen with farmers as soon as you do something specific that really hits a particular group then a massive row follows.
This suggests to me that if she has to put up taxes again in future years she'll just put it all on Employers NI. The public don't see it on their payslip, they don't really understand it and nobody takes a really substantial hit.
It’s seen as kicking people when they’re down, and taking another chunk out of what has already been taxed.
Someone who bought a house for 30 grand in 1980 that is now worth 500,000 did not pay tax on the extra 470,000. I would argue that a better approach on inheritance tax would be universality - tax all inheritance at a low rate of a few percent, whether its 1000 inherited or 10,000,000. But then I am a big fan of flat tax rates any way.
A council is considering a city centre ban on cyclists to protect pedestrians, with fines for people who do not comply.
Birmingham City council has become the latest local authority to discuss barring cyclists from pedestrian-only areas to curb anti-social cycling.
A report by the council’s regulation and community safety executives has raised concerns that food and parcel couriers on e-bikes, travelling “at speed and without care for pedestrians”, pose a particular danger to the public in areas of high footfall.
The report, published earlier this month, proposes extending the city’s public spaces protection order to encompass cycling. The move would add it to a list of anti-social behaviours that includes graffiti, street drinking, large gatherings, and excessive noise.
The report said cycling could be “restricted by time periods” or banned outright, with the issue being put to a public consultation.
I'm surprised that this has taken so long to hit the national media. Telegraph article in the Telegraph; more rounded piece in the Groan; I have not checked the Daily Wail. Disabled charities on my network (TBF this is focused on active travel, of course) have been contacting Birmingham Council with their concerns for 2-3 weeks, as it will impact their members / supporters / clients who use cycles or adapted cycles as their mobility aid, and cannot walk, who will be targeted for harassment by Council or BID officers (this happens routinely), who are never trained properly. This is Council Officers as Jesus: Pick up your Mobility Aid and Walk.
TLDR: I don't see this happening, because BCCs evidence does not support the claims. Cycling has been normal in Brum City Centre for 50-70 years, and the Council Report specifically - as mentioned by @Big_G_NorthWales - talks about food delivery and parcel couriers travelling at high speed, probably on mopeds not pedal-cycles, and mini van style cargo bikes (think Postman Pat)also at speed.
The former are a problem of supply chain and business regulation, with laws in place that can manage it, and the latter can be regulated. The way Scotland does it is by treating delivery riders as Street Traders needing a licence. The current UK Govt, unlike the last one, will get onto that. As a PSPO it needs one against ASB, not a ban on things that the Council's evidence do not identify as a problem.
One problem is the PSPO process, which legally requires evidence, but practically they can be pushed though with none, and are set up to be almost impossible to stop. The only one I have ever seen stopped was the Mansfield one about 5 years ago, where 5 locals targeted by it threatened a High Court legal action and forced them to moderate it. The Mansfield one was in reaction to a couple of occasions where kids had been wheelying around the outdoor market, and Captain Mainwaring jerked his knee.
The PSPO process needs reform to address problems and not address prejudices. At present these style of PSPO tend to exist in Reform type, or Blue Rinse type, coastal towns, or in fairly leafy country places. And one or two places where LD or Lab have gone local populist.
There already exist good inclusive models in Leicester, and to an extent Coventry, which Brum can follow. If they try and persist, I think they are big enough to get a challenge - but we shall see. I think they will take a via media.
I was part of a group that seriously curtailed a PSPO trying to regulate all public speaking and bring under civil law what was supposed to be criminal public order issues. It was mainly (entirely) done at the behest of some activist lgbt groups who couldn't cope with a Christian preacher saying things they disliked. Anyway the flaccid council dropped it when it hit resistance and a threat of judicial review.
The problem is the lack of interest in enforcement.
In my view, as a start, there needs to be a crackdown on the illegal eBikes. The local cycle lanes are becoming unusable due to people doing 30mph+ with electric motorcycles.
To start with, the batteries are nearly always unsafe.
Then there's the thuggish behaviour towards actual cyclists - I've sen them blast past children on bikes, missing them by millimetres.
It is one of the issues in our local town that the Police really are not doing a great deal about.
It is only a few people but these electric bikes are a menace. Especially the way they are driven.
Are the electric cyclists all left wingers? That's two tier justice in action.
I don't think most eBikers are Catholic (NI joke).
Re farming what happens if those inheriting land can’t raise the IHT liability ?
It’s not like property which would generally be easier to sell .
Farmland is easy enough to sell. Phone the local auctioneers, cash lands in the bank about a month later.
There are lots of reasons why this policy is bad, but this isn't one.
Scenario: Farm is valued at 10k/acre for inheritance tax purposes. Farm is lets say 300 acres, so the bill is £200k (We'll assume the lad owns all the equipment and/or it's all depreciated for the sake of argument). The old Farmer's son sticks 20 acres up for sale, and only gets 5k/acre. A bit extreme, but just putting it out there for the sake of argument... Does the farm now get revalued to 1.5 million so the 200k isn't due ?
If the land is sold in open auction that is the value. It is really a bad idea but totally expected. It will also trash other businesses where succession is important. My ex MP says the first suicide has happened, not sure if that is true. We really have a vile incompetent government with a vile incompetent Prime Minister. But we knew that.
We seem to have a lot of press writing half baked incorrect stories to scare farmers.
It's been badly announced but I don't actually think there are many people at all who understand what the changes are yet alone the actual impact it has on people.
There is a story going around (no idea if it's true) on a supposed farmers' fb page describing a suicide which is getting everyone enraged.
I think farmers generally (can) have a very rough time and the suicide rate is very high. That said, governments of the past decades have prioritised mass market affordability of farm produce over farmers' well-being and it is difficult to argue that that has been the wrong policy.
Also it has long been known that buying agricultural land is a good tax avoidance wheeze but, a situation affecting 0.0n% of the farmers, still less of the population is not I believe good grounds for policy-making.
Removing a good tax avoidance wheeze is something that a sensible Government should be doing.
The suicide could be caused by a lot of things with this being the final one of a lot of straws. Farmer suicide is scarily high anyway as it's a lonely business that can feeling never ending..
I don't doubt but it is getting everyone agitated. Plus ISAs are a good tax avoidance wheeze.
An ISA is not tax avoidance.
“Tax avoidance is bending the rules of the tax system to gain a tax advantage, that parliament never intended.” (HMRC, 2015)
"It involves operating within the letter, but not the spirit, of the law".
So in other words it is perfectly legal and this description is designed a) to give The State more power over you at their sole discretion and whim; and b) scare you. Which latter it appears to have done.
Or an understandable reaction by the revenue to rich people's accountants regularly taking the piss.
Nothing in that link (which both Mighty Alex and I used) says anything about it not being legal.
By "do not work" I presume they mean they aren't tax avoidance but are, rather, illegal.
You've clearly not followed all those stories about tax advisers who sold tax avoidance schemes as 'perfectly legal', only for their clients to loses court cases against HMRC... and have to repay millions ?
The guidance was intended to prevent more such embarrassments. Accountants (reputable ones, at least) now tend to run such schemes by the revenue, before marketing them to innocent punters.
Tax avoidance is legal; tax evasion is illegal. Sometimes it is not clear which a particular scheme is because it's pushing the line on something where the law is unclear or open to interpretation. That lack of clarity does not imply legality.
The HMRC website is saying that some schemes are legal but not "within the spirit of the law". Whatever tf that means, legally.
Presumably refers to the inevitable changing of tax rules to close loopholes. Some of these avoidance schemes can be very expensive to unwind, if the law changes. If your tax advisers have been taking the piss, you're taking that risk.
I think a good rule o thumb if you're going to chance your arm with one of these schemes, umbrella companies or whatever is to make sure the fees aren't too high and keep the tax for a bit should you have to pay it back.
A council is considering a city centre ban on cyclists to protect pedestrians, with fines for people who do not comply.
Birmingham City council has become the latest local authority to discuss barring cyclists from pedestrian-only areas to curb anti-social cycling.
A report by the council’s regulation and community safety executives has raised concerns that food and parcel couriers on e-bikes, travelling “at speed and without care for pedestrians”, pose a particular danger to the public in areas of high footfall.
The report, published earlier this month, proposes extending the city’s public spaces protection order to encompass cycling. The move would add it to a list of anti-social behaviours that includes graffiti, street drinking, large gatherings, and excessive noise.
The report said cycling could be “restricted by time periods” or banned outright, with the issue being put to a public consultation.
I'm surprised that this has taken so long to hit the national media. Telegraph article in the Telegraph; more rounded piece in the Groan; I have not checked the Daily Wail. Disabled charities on my network (TBF this is focused on active travel, of course) have been contacting Birmingham Council with their concerns for 2-3 weeks, as it will impact their members / supporters / clients who use cycles or adapted cycles as their mobility aid, and cannot walk, who will be targeted for harassment by Council or BID officers (this happens routinely), who are never trained properly. This is Council Officers as Jesus: Pick up your Mobility Aid and Walk.
TLDR: I don't see this happening, because BCCs evidence does not support the claims. Cycling has been normal in Brum City Centre for 50-70 years, and the Council Report specifically - as mentioned by @Big_G_NorthWales - talks about food delivery and parcel couriers travelling at high speed, probably on mopeds not pedal-cycles, and mini van style cargo bikes (think Postman Pat)also at speed.
The former are a problem of supply chain and business regulation, with laws in place that can manage it, and the latter can be regulated. The way Scotland does it is by treating delivery riders as Street Traders needing a licence. The current UK Govt, unlike the last one, will get onto that. As a PSPO it needs one against ASB, not a ban on things that the Council's evidence do not identify as a problem.
One problem is the PSPO process, which legally requires evidence, but practically they can be pushed though with none, and are set up to be almost impossible to stop. The only one I have ever seen stopped was the Mansfield one about 5 years ago, where 5 locals targeted by it threatened a High Court legal action and forced them to moderate it. The Mansfield one was in reaction to a couple of occasions where kids had been wheelying around the outdoor market, and Captain Mainwaring jerked his knee.
The PSPO process needs reform to address problems and not address prejudices. At present these style of PSPO tend to exist in Reform type, or Blue Rinse type, coastal towns, or in fairly leafy country places. And one or two places where LD or Lab have gone local populist.
There already exist good inclusive models in Leicester, and to an extent Coventry, which Brum can follow. If they try and persist, I think they are big enough to get a challenge - but we shall see. I think they will take a via media.
I was part of a group that seriously curtailed a PSPO trying to regulate all public speaking and bring under civil law what was supposed to be criminal public order issues. It was mainly (entirely) done at the behest of some activist lgbt groups who couldn't cope with a Christian preacher saying things they disliked. Anyway the flaccid council dropped it when it hit resistance and a threat of judicial review.
The problem is the lack of interest in enforcement.
In my view, as a start, there needs to be a crackdown on the illegal eBikes. The local cycle lanes are becoming unusable due to people doing 30mph+ with electric motorcycles.
To start with, the batteries are nearly always unsafe.
Then there's the thuggish behaviour towards actual cyclists - I've sen them blast past children on bikes, missing them by millimetres.
Almost always unlawful motorcycles. Some police forces have become quite good and can spot and confiscate these bikes routinely. Most certainly a police matter, the unlocked unlawful ones are pretty easy to spot.
Indeed. But in many areas there has been a definite unwillingness to deal with it.
I've have been told that the Reasons Why Not include
- "The Community wouldn't like it." - as in targeting minority communities. - "Potential for violence, requires excessive resources" - "Unclear regulation' - aka we don't want to know.
Personally, I would have a unit out - testing and removing the batteries from non-compliant bikes. They can pedal home....
There is a widespread assumption that the type of individual using e-bicycles (or illegal e-motorcycles) for food delivery are some of the people coming across on the small boats. Hence the intense hostility from some quite unpleasant individuals, and therefore well-meaning lefties are instinctively defensive about the issue.
My local police have been pro-active about illegal e-motorcycles, which is good. But there is an inevitable tension here because there so relaxed about the danger posed by the unlawful behaviour of drivers of conventional vehicles, who tend to be richer (and whiter). Purely on the collision stats, it does feel like discrimination tbh.
One issue I have with electric vehicles in general is the combination of speed and silence (or at least either near silence or a noise one doesn’t associate with traffic). There needs to be an international standard to fix that, or else we should go back to a man with a red flag.
One feature of the Budget is how few of the different predictions re tax increases actually happened - instead Reeves got the vast majority of additional tax from Employers NI.
This was a smart move - as we've seen with farmers as soon as you do something specific that really hits a particular group then a massive row follows.
This suggests to me that if she has to put up taxes again in future years she'll just put it all on Employers NI. The public don't see it on their payslip, they don't really understand it and nobody takes a really substantial hit.
The public will, however, notice the outcome of that choice.
Have been away overseas for a week and not been following budget.
Having returned and spoken to friends and acquaintances, been quite taken aback by hostility to the budget. General view seems to be that Labour have reverted, and are dealing out punishment beatings to every sector they dislike: farmers, businesses, those hoping to pass on assets to children, etc. Meanwhile copious bungs to their friends in the public sector.
Whether this is fair comment I don't know. But I wonder if it's a consequence of Starmer failing to create a positive narrative for what Labour is trying to do (unlike Blair and New Labour). Instead we seem to have 70's style old Labour.
Problematic.
Yes Starmer is not New Labour, he and Reeves are just doling out punishment budgets for Tory supporters. Farmers, small businessmen, investors, private school parents, pensioners etc to bung payrises and extra cash to Labour voting union workers and the public sector.
Now from a leftwing perspective you could argue that is just the reverse of what Cameron and Osborne did from 2010 ie hitting Labour voting students with higher tuition fees and cutting the public sector to fund tax cuts for Conservative voting businesses, more choice with free schools etc and support for pensioners and their heirs. Though if employers also cut jobs and cap wages because of the NI rise average voters will also be hit.
Whatever you think of Boris (bar Brexit) and Blair (bar hitting foxhunters) they were generally more unifying. Boris put more money into public services and did not raise tuition fees and Blair did not hit business and farms with big tax rises nor did he attack pensioners incomes
Re farming what happens if those inheriting land can’t raise the IHT liability ?
It’s not like property which would generally be easier to sell .
Farmland is easy enough to sell. Phone the local auctioneers, cash lands in the bank about a month later.
There are lots of reasons why this policy is bad, but this isn't one.
Scenario: Farm is valued at 10k/acre for inheritance tax purposes. Farm is lets say 300 acres, so the bill is £200k (We'll assume the lad owns all the equipment and/or it's all depreciated for the sake of argument). The old Farmer's son sticks 20 acres up for sale, and only gets 5k/acre. A bit extreme, but just putting it out there for the sake of argument... Does the farm now get revalued to 1.5 million so the 200k isn't due ?
If the land is sold in open auction that is the value. It is really a bad idea but totally expected. It will also trash other businesses where succession is important. My ex MP says the first suicide has happened, not sure if that is true. We really have a vile incompetent government with a vile incompetent Prime Minister. But we knew that.
We seem to have a lot of press writing half baked incorrect stories to scare farmers.
It's been badly announced but I don't actually think there are many people at all who understand what the changes are yet alone the actual impact it has on people.
There is a story going around (no idea if it's true) on a supposed farmers' fb page describing a suicide which is getting everyone enraged.
I think farmers generally (can) have a very rough time and the suicide rate is very high. That said, governments of the past decades have prioritised mass market affordability of farm produce over farmers' well-being and it is difficult to argue that that has been the wrong policy.
Also it has long been known that buying agricultural land is a good tax avoidance wheeze but, a situation affecting 0.0n% of the farmers, still less of the population is not I believe good grounds for policy-making.
Removing a good tax avoidance wheeze is something that a sensible Government should be doing.
The suicide could be caused by a lot of things with this being the final one of a lot of straws. Farmer suicide is scarily high anyway as it's a lonely business that can feeling never ending..
I don't doubt but it is getting everyone agitated. Plus ISAs are a good tax avoidance wheeze.
An ISA is not tax avoidance.
“Tax avoidance is bending the rules of the tax system to gain a tax advantage, that parliament never intended.” (HMRC, 2015)
"It involves operating within the letter, but not the spirit, of the law".
So in other words it is perfectly legal and this description is designed a) to give The State more power over you at their sole discretion and whim; and b) scare you. Which latter it appears to have done.
Or an understandable reaction by the revenue to rich people's accountants regularly taking the piss.
Nothing in that link (which both Mighty Alex and I used) says anything about it not being legal.
By "do not work" I presume they mean they aren't tax avoidance but are, rather, illegal.
You've clearly not followed all those stories about tax advisers who sold tax avoidance schemes as 'perfectly legal', only for their clients to loses court cases against HMRC... and have to repay millions ?
The guidance was intended to prevent more such embarrassments. Accountants (reputable ones, at least) now tend to run such schemes by the revenue, before marketing them to innocent punters.
Tax avoidance is legal; tax evasion is illegal. Sometimes it is not clear which a particular scheme is because it's pushing the line on something where the law is unclear or open to interpretation. That lack of clarity does not imply legality.
The HMRC website is saying that some schemes are legal but not "within the spirit of the law". Whatever tf that means, legally.
Presumably refers to the inevitable changing of tax rules to close loopholes. Some of these avoidance schemes can be very expensive to unwind, if the law changes. If your tax advisers have been taking the piss, you're taking that risk.
And some schemes like Property118's are so bad that you go from little change in your tax status to massive bills at various points as your houses were put into the scheme....
Reality is that UK tax law now works through a look through logic so anything done simply to avoid tax is automatically discounted (unless there is money that HMRC can collect on the way such as my example above).
One feature of the Budget is how few of the different predictions re tax increases actually happened - instead Reeves got the vast majority of additional tax from Employers NI.
This was a smart move - as we've seen with farmers as soon as you do something specific that really hits a particular group then a massive row follows.
This suggests to me that if she has to put up taxes again in future years she'll just put it all on Employers NI. The public don't see it on their payslip, they don't really understand it and nobody takes a really substantial hit.
Other than it is horrifically anti-business and anti-growth measure....politically it might be short term better, its another form of fiscal drag, but long term this is a terrible approach. Tax income, tax profits, don't tax turn-over and growth, and also its most effects lower paid end of the jobs spectrum.
A council is considering a city centre ban on cyclists to protect pedestrians, with fines for people who do not comply.
Birmingham City council has become the latest local authority to discuss barring cyclists from pedestrian-only areas to curb anti-social cycling.
A report by the council’s regulation and community safety executives has raised concerns that food and parcel couriers on e-bikes, travelling “at speed and without care for pedestrians”, pose a particular danger to the public in areas of high footfall.
The report, published earlier this month, proposes extending the city’s public spaces protection order to encompass cycling. The move would add it to a list of anti-social behaviours that includes graffiti, street drinking, large gatherings, and excessive noise.
The report said cycling could be “restricted by time periods” or banned outright, with the issue being put to a public consultation.
I'm surprised that this has taken so long to hit the national media. Telegraph article in the Telegraph; more rounded piece in the Groan; I have not checked the Daily Wail. Disabled charities on my network (TBF this is focused on active travel, of course) have been contacting Birmingham Council with their concerns for 2-3 weeks, as it will impact their members / supporters / clients who use cycles or adapted cycles as their mobility aid, and cannot walk, who will be targeted for harassment by Council or BID officers (this happens routinely), who are never trained properly. This is Council Officers as Jesus: Pick up your Mobility Aid and Walk.
TLDR: I don't see this happening, because BCCs evidence does not support the claims. Cycling has been normal in Brum City Centre for 50-70 years, and the Council Report specifically - as mentioned by @Big_G_NorthWales - talks about food delivery and parcel couriers travelling at high speed, probably on mopeds not pedal-cycles, and mini van style cargo bikes (think Postman Pat)also at speed.
The former are a problem of supply chain and business regulation, with laws in place that can manage it, and the latter can be regulated. The way Scotland does it is by treating delivery riders as Street Traders needing a licence. The current UK Govt, unlike the last one, will get onto that. As a PSPO it needs one against ASB, not a ban on things that the Council's evidence do not identify as a problem.
One problem is the PSPO process, which legally requires evidence, but practically they can be pushed though with none, and are set up to be almost impossible to stop. The only one I have ever seen stopped was the Mansfield one about 5 years ago, where 5 locals targeted by it threatened a High Court legal action and forced them to moderate it. The Mansfield one was in reaction to a couple of occasions where kids had been wheelying around the outdoor market, and Captain Mainwaring jerked his knee.
The PSPO process needs reform to address problems and not address prejudices. At present these style of PSPO tend to exist in Reform type, or Blue Rinse type, coastal towns, or in fairly leafy country places. And one or two places where LD or Lab have gone local populist.
There already exist good inclusive models in Leicester, and to an extent Coventry, which Brum can follow. If they try and persist, I think they are big enough to get a challenge - but we shall see. I think they will take a via media.
I was part of a group that seriously curtailed a PSPO trying to regulate all public speaking and bring under civil law what was supposed to be criminal public order issues. It was mainly (entirely) done at the behest of some activist lgbt groups who couldn't cope with a Christian preacher saying things they disliked. Anyway the flaccid council dropped it when it hit resistance and a threat of judicial review.
The problem is the lack of interest in enforcement.
In my view, as a start, there needs to be a crackdown on the illegal eBikes. The local cycle lanes are becoming unusable due to people doing 30mph+ with electric motorcycles.
To start with, the batteries are nearly always unsafe.
Then there's the thuggish behaviour towards actual cyclists - I've sen them blast past children on bikes, missing them by millimetres.
It is one of the issues in our local town that the Police really are not doing a great deal about.
It is only a few people but these electric bikes are a menace. Especially the way they are driven.
Are the electric cyclists all left wingers? That's two tier justice in action.
I don't think most eBikers are Catholic (NI joke).
No they are Martians. Take out guys come from Mars. This can be fact checked.
I am starting to feel more bullish on Harris’ chances again.
The fundamentals are in her favour, IMHO. The enthusiasm gap, the GOTV operation, the lead among female voters, the polls showing (I think) a general uptick in support among latino/black voters, the Puerto Rico stuff. That’s not to say that it’s not still ridiculously close. But I think she will get through on the day, if I had to guess. It might not be a particularly convincing win (at the moment the most likely is she wins WI/PA/MI route and no more), but I think it will be a win. NC and AZ as wildcards, though I think I’d narrowly favour Trump there.
Comments
Although to mix up the comedy, I could imagine him declaiming “ Did Magna Carta die in vain?”
The coup plot of 1967? Rhodesia? Or something else?
I am genuinely insulted that you dare compare Harold to Trump.
And no, it's often not 'perfectly legal' as the guidance goes on to explain:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/tax-avoidance-an-introduction
By "do not work" I presume they mean they aren't tax avoidance but are, rather, illegal.
$700 million (+58%) more than 2020
https://x.com/ianbremmer/status/1852037168295772590
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/aug/14/british-troops-sent-into-northern-ireland-1969
Great news for Sodexo, Amey, Fujitsu (lol).
Using the military to resolve sectarian violence is somewhat different to using the military to assassinate those dissenting voices of legitimate political opponents.
"We know he already asked about using American troops against American citizens..."
C'mon guys, you all out on the piss already? It's only 1.30pm!!
"I was willing to bite my tongue over an energy policy that perpetuates demand for petrol and diesel by freezing fuel duty, while at the same curtailing domestic supply by killing the North Sea industry. The result of this mix is to worsen the trade deficit, and to import more oil with a higher carbon footprint."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/11/01/rachel-reeves-thought-being-clever-punishment-swift/
Trump wins the popular vote but loses the Electoral College: less than 1 in a hundred
There's a graph here:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/#ec-vs-popular-vote
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60676971
(There are longer-read versions in some of Pesto's Rest Is Money podcasts.)
And with the financial engineering involved, I wouldn't be shocked if not much tax is being paid either.
Strange that you haven't been upset with it previously.
4.46
That's all I can come up with.
And that assumes he's elected again.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/01/opinion/donald-trump-dictator-fascism.html
My home 'town', Cambourne, is fairly self-contained, except for employment (we are somewhat of a dormitory town). But aside from that it is perfectly possible to live here whilst rarely going anywhere else - we have shops, a library, doctor's surgery, pub, parks, etc, etc. It is, in my view, a good place to live, and offers a reasonable quality of life.
Cambourne (original) is 400 hectares (~1,000 acres_ and has about 4,300 houses, and has a population of 12-13,000 people.
That gives a density of 10-11 houses per hectare, or 4-5 per acre. That includes all infrastructure.
As another example, let us look at the new Waterbeach development, currently being built. This is 293 hectares (~725 acres), and will have 6,500 homes. This gives a density of 22 houses per hectare, or 9 per acre. This leads me to question what they are going to lose when building to double the density.
We risk cramming more and more houses into smaller and smaller space, and creating not very nice places to live.
This is bonkers stuff. But, once you have convinced yourself the man is a fascist you can convince yourself all his utterances can be interrelated in the worse possible bad faith way.
In my view, as a start, there needs to be a crackdown on the illegal eBikes. The local cycle lanes are becoming unusable due to people doing 30mph+ with electric motorcycles.
To start with, the batteries are nearly always unsafe.
Then there's the thuggish behaviour towards actual cyclists - I've sen them blast past children on bikes, missing them by millimetres.
Thrilling this, isn't it?
It's absolutely hated, and raises very little revenue; 0.7% of government income.
For example, Jeremy Hunt used £10bln to cut NI by 2%. He could have abolished IHT instead and had £2.5bln left to play with.
Surely the smart politics would have been to ditch IHT entirely, rather than a modest reduction in NI which virtually everyone forgot about 24hrs later.
There are lots of advantages to wiping out a tax entirely rather than changing rates - the government would save the cost revenue collection, lots of people would save the cost of employing the tax planning parasites*, it would knock the bottom out of all the known dodges like buying farmland (with the amusing side effect of burning the fingers of those most egregiously attempting to tax dodge in this way as asset values drop back to their true levels).
Why on earth didn't he do it? If nothing else, he would have gone down in history as the chancellor who abolished IHT, and it's hard to imaging that would be an unpopular legacy.
*Maybe they could become social care workers, instead of us having to import millions of Nigerians
Although Kwasi Kwarteng acknowledged the budget with a mild welcome. That is rather disconcerting.
We're screwed!!
The guidance was intended to prevent more such embarrassments. Accountants (reputable ones, at least) now tend to run such schemes by the revenue, before marketing them to innocent punters.
Strangely everyone hates them. And campaigns about not having more.
It's a shame they won't announce the Conservative leadership election results one Conservative association at a time. It could make the thing more exciting.
I can't really understand it. Don't like his policies on immigration by all means, but going off on one because he says he wants to deport illegal immigrants (while no doubt sipping their chai latte from one of *those* mugs) is super strange.
I think it's fear. Some people need to channel their otherwise illogical and unfounded fears into a concrete form. That way they can rail against Trump, who in this case is the manifestation of their fears and take comfort, either in his eventual defeat, or in the solidarity they find from others who think the same.
Otherwise the whole nazi/fascist/sending troops to kill Americans thing is not really fathomable.
Yep, perfectly normal political discourse.
"Bad, sick, people... radical lunatics... if necessary, should even be handled by the military.."
Tell me about the good faith interpretation.
I've have been told that the Reasons Why Not include
- "The Community wouldn't like it." - as in targeting minority communities.
- "Potential for violence, requires excessive resources"
- "Unclear regulation' - aka we don't want to know.
Personally, I would have a unit out - testing and removing the batteries from non-compliant bikes. They can pedal home....
Those other schemes were illegal activities. They weren't a way of avoiding tax or tax avoidance, but were represented as being so.
There is a difference I had thought one such as yourself, with such a keen mind, would readily be able to appreciate.
That's why you leave IHT because with it removed other options become available that would be worse...
There's a lot of ground to make up, however.
It is only a few people but these electric bikes are a menace. Especially the way they are driven.
Having returned and spoken to friends and acquaintances, been quite taken aback by hostility to the budget. General view seems to be that Labour have reverted, and are dealing out punishment beatings to every sector they dislike: farmers, businesses, those hoping to pass on assets to children, etc. Meanwhile copious bungs to their friends in the public sector.
Whether this is fair comment I don't know. But I wonder if it's a consequence of Starmer failing to create a positive narrative for what Labour is trying to do (unlike Blair and New Labour). Instead we seem to have 70's style old Labour.
Problematic.
It involves operating within the letter, but not the spirit, of the law.
Right bundle of laughs isn't it? Classic grim Northern 80s kitchen sink drama, with nukes and a howling wind soundtrack.
A financial adviser simply describing something as "tax avoidance" doesn't make it legal. Where the boundaries lie is often unclear - but it's usually pretty obvious to a taxpayer if they're entering into a scheme with the intention of avoiding tax. All the revenue is saying (albeit somewhat forcefully) is that honest belief that you're entering into a legal avoidance scheme doesn't exempt you from potential penalties if it's not legal.
If it's pre-approved by them then you're in the clear.
Reeves was left with £18 billion less headroom in her spending plans after the OBR made a whopping error in its projections for public sector net financial liabilities. According to Bloomberg, the quango originally found the headroom in 2028-2029 to be £62 billion. It was then corrected to just £43.9 billion.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-11-01/reeves-uk-budget-buffer-was-cut-18-billion-by-obr-correction
I remember when they had people like Tim Marshall, Sam Kiley, Jeff Randall....
However, I am quite attracted to the idea of getting rid of it and simply treating inheritances as a capital gain (or income if put inside a trust of which you are a beneficiary). I have no doubt there are sensible reasons why to not do it like that. But, ultimately what is an inheritance if not a massive capital gain? It is not like a gambling win.
My local police have been pro-active about illegal e-motorcycles, which is good. But there is an inevitable tension here because there so relaxed about the danger posed by the unlawful behaviour of drivers of conventional vehicles, who tend to be richer (and whiter). Purely on the collision stats, it does feel like discrimination tbh.
Any egregious example of what he has done or what he is feared as doing has been done countless times in other democracies the world over from time immemorial.
I have also said he is a laugh at, not laugh with kind of guy whose pronouncements are just extraordinary, but then that's America.
What I do respect is almost half (perhaps more) of the American voting public have decided that he's their man and it irritates me that people on PB in their typical bien pensant, Guardian letter-writing, oh aren't they all ghastly way, seem to think they know better.
And every time someone does call him a nazi or whatnot (not on PB, obvs, because no one cares) it serves to solidify the support he has.
Some of these avoidance schemes can be very expensive to unwind, if the law changes. If your tax advisers have been taking the piss, you're taking that risk.
The fundamentals are in her favour, IMHO. The enthusiasm gap, the GOTV operation, the lead among female voters, the polls showing (I think) a general uptick in support among latino/black voters, the Puerto Rico stuff. That’s not to say that it’s not still ridiculously close. But I think she will get through on the day, if I had to guess. It might not be a particularly convincing win (at the moment the most likely is she wins WI/PA/MI route and no more), but I think it will be a win. NC and AZ as wildcards, though I think I’d narrowly favour Trump there.
I think she’s value.
The Loan charge legislation should be enough to put people off.
Buying agricultural land as a tax avoidance wheeze is just the same as gifting possessions hoping to live for another seven years, or taking out an ISA.
I think it was @Mexicanpete who said that the govt should close down "tax avoidance wheezes".
And I disagreed with this.
This was a smart move - as we've seen with farmers as soon as you do something specific that really hits a particular group then a massive row follows.
This suggests to me that if she has to put up taxes again in future years she'll just put it all on Employers NI. The public don't see it on their payslip, they don't really understand it and nobody takes a really substantial hit.
Now from a leftwing perspective you could argue that is just the reverse of what Cameron and Osborne did from 2010 ie hitting Labour voting students with higher tuition fees and cutting the public sector to fund tax cuts for Conservative voting businesses, more choice with free schools etc and support for pensioners and their heirs. Though if employers also cut jobs and cap wages because of the NI rise average voters will also be hit.
Whatever you think of Boris (bar Brexit) and Blair (bar hitting foxhunters) they were generally more unifying. Boris put more money into public services and did not raise tuition fees and Blair did not hit business and farms with big tax rises nor did he attack pensioners incomes
Reality is that UK tax law now works through a look through logic so anything done simply to avoid tax is automatically discounted (unless there is money that HMRC can collect on the way such as my example above).