The main reason public sector productivity is so poor is the inability to move unproductive people out. The ultimate tool for increasing output per worker is to shit can the least productive ones which is something that private sector businesses do all the time. Until that attitude is brought to the public sector no amount of "investment" will help. The lazy and the feckless are attracted to the public sector because they know once they're in it's impossible to be removed regardless of how shit they are at the job.
Change this and suddenly public sector productivity will shoot up as those lazy buggers start to fear for their next salary.
If you really fail to perform then you can still be moved out of a public sector role. Plus if you aren't even productive enough for the public sector you certainly won't be for the private sector which means you just end up with a higher welfare and UC bill to support them
The welfare bill will be lower than keeping them in a salaried role. It may also force them to find their level, delivery driving or shelf filling etc...
Not necessarily, depends on the wage, a low public sector wage may not be much higher than the welfare bill.
Delivery driving for example often has very demanding targets so they may not be able to do that either. Indeed the targets are often a disaster in my view, frequently we get delivery drivers ring the bell and dump parcels on the door 5 secs later rather than wait for us to pick them up. Targets which don't include quality of service are equally poor
I was listening to a presentation into a study on Couriers in cities, and the issues around them going everywhere in a huge rush.
One stat cited by someone there was that where they had worked 100 or 200 deliveries were allocated for an 8 hour shift. The business model, and regulation thereof, is problematic.
One reason cited for high powered e-mopeds (eg Sur-Rons or hacked e-cycles) was that the legal ones just weren't fast enough. Without getting into this vs that, it is an relevant question for all of us, I think.
I'll post a link to the video when it is published.
There was a Chris Evans story about always trying to get one particular motorcycle courier who was a lot faster than the rest. So remember to ask for Damon Hill.
A couple of days ago my Deliveroo chap turned up in a 24-plate Transit.
Without doubt one of the worst thread headers TSE has ever done.
No party wins general elections without shoring up their core vote first and for Tories they include private school parents and farmers. Voters also want a choice not an echo, if you want to hammer farmers with inheritance tax and hit private school parents with VAT you vote Labour anyway and if the Tories don't stand up for farmers and private school parents they will leak voters to Reform and the LDs who will.
Plus 57% of voters oppose the hated tractor tax anyway
Not to mention VAT on school fees will just reduce the scholarships they provide and hit smaller schools most making them even more exclusive. While we need family farms to produce our food, you can't make food from houses. Most farms may be asset rich but they are income poor
If you are asset rich but income poor, you can get a mortgage or similar sort of loan. It’s not difficult.
We need houses to live in. You can’t make houses from food (pace Hansel & Gretel).
Can you explain how you pay a mortgage from a poor income. The whole point is they will need to sell at least part of farm to pay it so making it even poorer income etc. Idiocy thought up by morons. It should be tax applied when any sale is made , inheriting land is worth nothing unless you sell.
How can the land be worth so much if it is impossible to generate any income from it?
Inheriting any possession is worth nothing unless you sell.
You should only pay when you sell , up till then you have zero cash/income passed on. Not beyond teh wit of man to devise a scheme where they get tax when that asset or another one in it's place is sold and profit made. Whreas saying those fields are worth 3M hand over cash please is insane.
Yay, @malcolmg and I actually agree on something (there maybe more things who knows?)!
So here is the thing for those that wish to buy Starmer's pack of lies on this subject: Farmers may be asset rich (land buildings equipment), but the reality is that when the elderly farmer dies there is no spare cash to pay the tax bill as farm incomes are now so low. The next generation will be forced to sell, meaning that their income is now even lower.
Given that the return on farming assets is 0.5%, i.e. sharply negative in real terms, and you can get 4% in a bank with negligible risk, forcing them to sell their unproductive assets is actually doing them a favour. They may have to part with 20% of it, but they'd still put their money to far better use than in a value-destroying farm, and be better off in about five years.
Actually 0.5% probably overstates the return, as the assets are probably recorded at historic cost and it's an industry average, while family farms are less productive even than the dire industry mean. So they might be better off after 4 years or less.
Then you may be wondering why there is no fresh milk.
“Berkeley Professor Says Even His ‘Outstanding’ Students With 4.0 GPAs Aren’t Getting Any Job Offers — ‘I Suspect This Trend Is Irreversible’”
“The professor hypothesizes that even people starting college today will find themselves in a bit of a bind 4 years down road when they are looking for employment.”
This is going to devastate the entire university sector. As I predicted
We've been hiring for a few IT posts recently. And we're seeing a glut of both bootcamp people and regular graduates & masters students. The supply side still seems to be in a 2020/2021 'gold rush' mode (which kind of aligns for when recent grad's would have been half-looking at the job market to make a final degree decision) and the demand side is in a 'woahhhhh there!' one.
Not especially seeing any effect of AI on hiring (other than LLM generated CV's, which are grim reading).
Seems to be paucity of really experienced/knowledgeable developers. Keep finding people who have worked for long periods of time in various role. But have huge gaps in knowledge....
Anecdotally, a lot of people are hunkering down just now - unless they know the writing is on the wall. If they have a 'safe' job then jumping ship looks quite risky in the current market.
PB is becoming a class ridden shithole. The very jobs you rich fuckers denigrate, the jobs you think are only fit for the the lazy and feckless, are the jobs you feckers won't do. You need someone to deliver your Hello Fresh food box because you're too fucking lazy to go to the shop yourself. You need someone to wipe your elderly parents arse because you certainly ain't going to do it. You're far too busy being important lawyers and bankers and financiers and fancy project managers to realise that having tossers doing the menial stuff means you get to have your new Apple iWank delivered by a minimum wage courier at a time and place of your choosing, so you can carry on doing the important stuff instead of having to meet poor people in shopping centres. I'd flounce, but I'm too lazy and feckless. And no one would notice anyway 🤡
Please don't flounce. What a fantastic post.
We need common people such as yourself on here to remind us why we decided not to go the manual labour/leave school at 16 route and instead worked hard, achieved good jobs through hard work (albeit not breaking paving stones kind of hard work - yuk) and are now generally happy looking down on the rabble of which you form such an important part.
So please stay.
Most people work hard, and some people work very hard. Wages are not decided by morality or effort but by supply or demand. If this was the 19th century you'd be down a mine dying at 35 from pneumoconiosis.
In the words of the police chief - "There are areas of the city, we need to be perfectly honest here, where I would advise people who wear a kippah or are openly gay to be more careful.”
Tricky one. They certainly were being perfectly honest. To be perfectly honest a West Ham fan with a Hammers tattoo on his forehead should be more careful going into the Shed.
Not to say there is a value judgment in either case. One would hope they then went on to say "... and this is something we are working to address." Or some such.
One would hope.
It's a tricky one for me as it causes an error in my liberal-metropolitan-values module, the one that espouses tolerance and lives and works with and is friends with all manner of people from all walks of life.
Yet also increasingly feels under threat from people from different cultures who don't share my world view.
But the only people really speaking up about it are the far right, with whom I don't share a world view, either.
What else marks them out as far right.
Just google anything Farage has said or done on the subject over the last decade. Submitted for your approval is the 'turning point' poster, his comments describing muslims as a 'fifth column' and his spirited defence of Enoch Powell. Hardly a plea for tolerance and understanding. And Reform's record on, say, trans rights, doesn't suggest they'll be particularly keen on the LGBT community, either.
The problem is with news like the quote posted above happening in Berlin, people like me are going to keep sticking our head in the sand because we're too damn liberal to support the far right and don't want to raise our heads above the parapet and say "hang on, this is wrong" for fear of being lumped in with them.
And so it continues to fester, year by year...
The assassination of Pim Fortuyn probably set the cause of anti-immigration liberalism back at least a decade.
I feel like I'm in the minority here, in that I don't see why agricultural land should benefit from any special IHT rules compared to other family owned industries, e.g. engineering. Maybe there is a case that capital invested in productive capacity should be treated differently, but I can see difficulties in defining it and personally don't believe it should be treated any differently to money in the bank, or residential property.
There is a separate issue of land being transferred from being UK-family owned to foreign individuals or investment funds. Again, we haven't worried about it for any other industry and I don't see why agricultural land should be different. Actually I am worried about this, but my concern is across the board, not solely agriculture.
There is another issue that currently food production appears to be uneconomic in the country. Should we be concerned about food security? If we are then we should take steps to ensure that farmers get a fair return. But, again, why should we be more concerned about food than (say) energy, or steel production? There's no reason for farming to be singled out for special protection, in my view. However I would note (as an opponent of Brexit) that we now have an opportunity to do something about all those things except none of the pro-Brexit people appear to be proposing anything, which I find odd.
You are rather missing the point already made by a number if us that no genuine family businesses should be paying IHT. Farmers happen to be the main point of discussion but Cyclefree, JJ and myself have all spoken about other family firms as well.
The whole basis of the IHT tax raid on businesses is flawed and will lead to businesses going bust.
Why should a family firm or farm be exempt from the same taxes everyone else has to pay? You could, perhaps, make a case that IHT shouldn’t apply to anyone. But what’s the justification for carving out farmers as deserving of special privilege?
Farmers with significant land holdings are some of the wealthiest people in the country: One of them appeared on Good Morning Britain yesterday morning who had attended a £30k/year private school followed by a £40k/year sixth form. Why should her family be able to evade paying the taxes that practically every other family in the country has to?
Plus how many times are we going to hear Lab trot (geddit?) out the phrase "to fund the NHS"? As Cyclefree noted, not every bloody thing in this country should be structured around the NHS which, as readers will be aware I believe, is a useless, not fit for purpose organisation as interested in killing people as mending their broken legs.
How about farmers pay their taxes so we can fund our armed forces to deal with Russia?
Farmers have done quite well out of Ukraine; wheat prices went up 50% during the start of the invasion.
Other sectors got whacked with a windfall tax when that happened...
Hmm, I'd guess more than offset by energy and fertiliser costs. Would be interesting to see the net figure.
If you're not an arable farmer, that would be a negative net.
Jeez, you really don't have a clue.
Are you saying non-arable farms benefitted from Ukraine ?
I would say it’s not easy to answer, as what hits one part of industry has knock on whilst some pressures on sheep farming like environmental, can be regional not strictly national. Bad weather at the wrong time is a big hit, can be hit and miss regional how happens as well. I think it’s 40% of agricultural land is considered as only being suitable for growing grass, so this can be localised land use on uplands. We only seriously do sheep. Cows went before I was born. The pigs I remember were not for industry but for very local and neighbours. Anything with pork in it, pies and rolls, and my Dad can’t resist it. And few years ago I wasn’t paying much attention to sheep farming. But. Cost of feed going up in 2020s has been the biggest hit on us. 2020s has made fertiliser a lot more expensive and there’s knock on across all farming industry from it. Sheep can be fussy what they eat, so can’t just stay grazing in same place as they eaten it. I have also seen stats saying UK consumers eating less lamb, it’s probably curry becoming UK favourite meal that helps balance lamb consumption roast lamb dinner not as popular. Our stats show we haven’t changed stock rates, but what likely happened in lots of farming, if you can’t afford things because of feed and winter housing etc you get rid of stock. Sheep gets all glowed up thinking it’s going to meet ram, but ends up in abattoirs. [insert crying sheep with eyeliner running emoji] Hope this helps explain.
In the words of the police chief - "There are areas of the city, we need to be perfectly honest here, where I would advise people who wear a kippah or are openly gay to be more careful.”
Tricky one. They certainly were being perfectly honest. To be perfectly honest a West Ham fan with a Hammers tattoo on his forehead should be more careful going into the Shed.
Not to say there is a value judgment in either case. One would hope they then went on to say "... and this is something we are working to address." Or some such.
One would hope.
It's a tricky one for me as it causes an error in my liberal-metropolitan-values module, the one that espouses tolerance and lives and works with and is friends with all manner of people from all walks of life.
Yet also increasingly feels under threat from people from different cultures who don't share my world view.
But the only people really speaking up about it are the far right, with whom I don't share a world view, either.
What else marks them out as far right.
Just google anything Farage has said or done on the subject over the last decade. Submitted for your approval is the 'turning point' poster, his comments describing muslims as a 'fifth column' and his spirited defence of Enoch Powell. Hardly a plea for tolerance and understanding. And Reform's record on, say, trans rights, doesn't suggest they'll be particularly keen on the LGBT community, either.
The problem is with news like the quote posted above happening in Berlin, people like me are going to keep sticking our head in the sand because we're too damn liberal to support the far right and don't want to raise our heads above the parapet and say "hang on, this is wrong" for fear of being lumped in with them.
And so it continues to fester, year by year...
I don't think it's particularly far right to be pro or anti LBGTWHDGJH+.
I think there's an, um, vigorous debate around sports and prisons but I'm sure that either position is not unique to one side or the other.
One reason cited for high powered e-mopeds (eg Sur-Rons or hacked e-cycles) was that the legal ones just weren't fast enough. Without getting into this vs that, it is an relevant question for all of us, I think.
This is the kind of situation that arises when the relevant government department is fast asleep. Delivery riders use juiced-up Surrons and the like because the legal alternative is awful.
Buy an over powered e-bike and just get going.. or... go the legal route; pay twice as much for a 50cc equivalent electric scooter that is limited to 28mph, apply for your provisional licence, do your CBT day (£150-200, needs repeating every two years), pay possibly thousands for insurance, get an approved helmet, etc, etc.
A 1KW e-bike can be had for about £1200. A road-legal scooter is going have an all-in price of £4000-6000 depending on the insurance costs, for a machine that's slower than the e-bike. No brainer.
The main reason public sector productivity is so poor is the inability to move unproductive people out. The ultimate tool for increasing output per worker is to shit can the least productive ones which is something that private sector businesses do all the time. Until that attitude is brought to the public sector no amount of "investment" will help. The lazy and the feckless are attracted to the public sector because they know once they're in it's impossible to be removed regardless of how shit they are at the job.
Change this and suddenly public sector productivity will shoot up as those lazy buggers start to fear for their next salary.
To broaden the point, where's the incentive to sack people who aren't performing - where is the incentive to perform at all? The money comes from Government grant, so the incentive is actually to fail, because failing services get more money thrown at them. The NHS has been very successful at failing for years. An efficient, high performance public service would see its budget reduced the next year.
What we really need is a total reordering of incentives within the public sector, where possible based on the money following the user, and the user having choice. If hospitals and schools had to attract patients and pupils to get funding, all the perverse incentives would be reversed and the services grow better and more efficient.
I'm plowing thru (I know, I know ) Abby Innes's "Late Soviet Britain" and she makes a very convincing case as to why that simply doesn't work. Basically if you run the public sector like the private sector you lose control due to the principle-agent problem, so to regain control you impose authorities, regulators, targets etc, and you end up with a brundlefly hybrid with the disadvantages of both, lying on the lab floor pleading to be killed.
It sounds good in theory. It isn't in practice. And we have about forty years of evidence for that now.
I don't know what 'the principle agent problem' is - if I did I could opine. I'd say 'losing control' is a feature not a bug - Whitehall controlling things appears to be at the root of most of the problems we face, and has been for more than 5 decades.
As for practice, of course we don't have 40 years of experience. Market based reforms haven't taken place in our public services, even at pilot level as far as I'm aware.
PB is becoming a class ridden shithole. The very jobs you rich fuckers denigrate, the jobs you think are only fit for the the lazy and feckless, are the jobs you feckers won't do. You need someone to deliver your Hello Fresh food box because you're too fucking lazy to go to the shop yourself. You need someone to wipe your elderly parents arse because you certainly ain't going to do it. You're far too busy being important lawyers and bankers and financiers and fancy project managers to realise that having tossers doing the menial stuff means you get to have your new Apple iWank delivered by a minimum wage courier at a time and place of your choosing, so you can carry on doing the important stuff instead of having to meet poor people in shopping centres. I'd flounce, but I'm too lazy and feckless. And no one would notice anyway 🤡
Please don't flounce. What a fantastic post.
We need common people such as yourself on here to remind us why we decided not to go the manual labour/leave school at 16 route and instead worked hard, achieved good jobs through hard work (albeit not breaking paving stones kind of hard work - yuk) and are now generally happy looking down on the rabble of which you form such an important part.
So please stay.
Most people work hard, and some people work very hard. Wages are not decided by morality or effort but by supply or demand. If this was the 19th century you'd be down a mine dying at 35 from pneumoconiosis.
In the words of the police chief - "There are areas of the city, we need to be perfectly honest here, where I would advise people who wear a kippah or are openly gay to be more careful.”
Tricky one. They certainly were being perfectly honest. To be perfectly honest a West Ham fan with a Hammers tattoo on his forehead should be more careful going into the Shed.
Not to say there is a value judgment in either case. One would hope they then went on to say "... and this is something we are working to address." Or some such.
One would hope.
It's a tricky one for me as it causes an error in my liberal-metropolitan-values module, the one that espouses tolerance and lives and works with and is friends with all manner of people from all walks of life.
Yet also increasingly feels under threat from people from different cultures who don't share my world view.
But the only people really speaking up about it are the far right, with whom I don't share a world view, either.
What else marks them out as far right.
Just google anything Farage has said or done on the subject over the last decade. Submitted for your approval is the 'turning point' poster, his comments describing muslims as a 'fifth column' and his spirited defence of Enoch Powell. Hardly a plea for tolerance and understanding. And Reform's record on, say, trans rights, doesn't suggest they'll be particularly keen on the LGBT community, either.
The problem is with news like the quote posted above happening in Berlin, people like me are going to keep sticking our head in the sand because we're too damn liberal to support the far right and don't want to raise our heads above the parapet and say "hang on, this is wrong" for fear of being lumped in with them.
And so it continues to fester, year by year...
The assassination of Pim Fortuyn probably set the cause of anti-immigration liberalism back at least a decade.
He wasn't anti-immigration, just that he had a different answer to the question of the toleration of intolerance. He was an gay man, living openly, with gay immigrant partner.
PB is becoming a class ridden shithole. The very jobs you rich fuckers denigrate, the jobs you think are only fit for the the lazy and feckless, are the jobs you feckers won't do. You need someone to deliver your Hello Fresh food box because you're too fucking lazy to go to the shop yourself. You need someone to wipe your elderly parents arse because you certainly ain't going to do it. You're far too busy being important lawyers and bankers and financiers and fancy project managers to realise that having tossers doing the menial stuff means you get to have your new Apple iWank delivered by a minimum wage courier at a time and place of your choosing, so you can carry on doing the important stuff instead of having to meet poor people in shopping centres. I'd flounce, but I'm too lazy and feckless. And no one would notice anyway 🤡
Please don't flounce. What a fantastic post.
We need common people such as yourself on here to remind us why we decided not to go the manual labour/leave school at 16 route and instead worked hard, achieved good jobs through hard work (albeit not breaking paving stones kind of hard work - yuk) and are now generally happy looking down on the rabble of which you form such an important part.
So please stay.
Most people work hard, and some people work very hard. Wages are not decided by morality or effort but by supply or demand. If this was the 19th century you'd be down a mine dying at 35 from pneumoconiosis.
Yeah and if my aunt had ****.....
So your aunt is trans, we should discuss this more.
“Berkeley Professor Says Even His ‘Outstanding’ Students With 4.0 GPAs Aren’t Getting Any Job Offers — ‘I Suspect This Trend Is Irreversible’”
“The professor hypothesizes that even people starting college today will find themselves in a bit of a bind 4 years down road when they are looking for employment.”
This is going to devastate the entire university sector. As I predicted
We've been hiring for a few IT posts recently. And we're seeing a glut of both bootcamp people and regular graduates & masters students. The supply side still seems to be in a 2020/2021 'gold rush' mode (which kind of aligns for when recent grad's would have been half-looking at the job market to make a final degree decision) and the demand side is in a 'woahhhhh there!' one.
Not especially seeing any effect of AI on hiring (other than LLM generated CV's, which are grim reading).
Tsch - bringing facts to a Leon opinion rant.
Leon has arrived and is using racial epithets. Time to go elsewhere.
Good grief. I was mocking the famously ignorant quote by the Duke of Edinburgh, not actually dissing the Koreans
Having just spent two weeks there, in Korea - unlike you - I can vouch they are wonderful, gifted, hospitable people, who make excellent food - who just need to get a move on with that fertility rate before all their schools shut
I feel like I'm in the minority here, in that I don't see why agricultural land should benefit from any special IHT rules compared to other family owned industries, e.g. engineering. Maybe there is a case that capital invested in productive capacity should be treated differently, but I can see difficulties in defining it and personally don't believe it should be treated any differently to money in the bank, or residential property.
There is a separate issue of land being transferred from being UK-family owned to foreign individuals or investment funds. Again, we haven't worried about it for any other industry and I don't see why agricultural land should be different. Actually I am worried about this, but my concern is across the board, not solely agriculture.
There is another issue that currently food production appears to be uneconomic in the country. Should we be concerned about food security? If we are then we should take steps to ensure that farmers get a fair return. But, again, why should we be more concerned about food than (say) energy, or steel production? There's no reason for farming to be singled out for special protection, in my view. However I would note (as an opponent of Brexit) that we now have an opportunity to do something about all those things except none of the pro-Brexit people appear to be proposing anything, which I find odd.
You are rather missing the point already made by a number if us that no genuine family businesses should be paying IHT. Farmers happen to be the main point of discussion but Cyclefree, JJ and myself have all spoken about other family firms as well.
The whole basis of the IHT tax raid on businesses is flawed and will lead to businesses going bust.
Businesses who only exist because of a tax loophole the rest of us don't have deserve to go bust.
This (a different) Uber driver, meanwhile, is texting as she drives.
OTOH, Uber is a massive boon for travelers in Paris. Remember when it was basically impossible to get a cab in Paris, coz it was a classic closed shop, like gondolas in Venice? I do. Hour long queues at Gare Montparnasse etc
Now you can just summon an Uber. C'est fantastique
I feel like I'm in the minority here, in that I don't see why agricultural land should benefit from any special IHT rules compared to other family owned industries, e.g. engineering. Maybe there is a case that capital invested in productive capacity should be treated differently, but I can see difficulties in defining it and personally don't believe it should be treated any differently to money in the bank, or residential property.
There is a separate issue of land being transferred from being UK-family owned to foreign individuals or investment funds. Again, we haven't worried about it for any other industry and I don't see why agricultural land should be different. Actually I am worried about this, but my concern is across the board, not solely agriculture.
There is another issue that currently food production appears to be uneconomic in the country. Should we be concerned about food security? If we are then we should take steps to ensure that farmers get a fair return. But, again, why should we be more concerned about food than (say) energy, or steel production? There's no reason for farming to be singled out for special protection, in my view. However I would note (as an opponent of Brexit) that we now have an opportunity to do something about all those things except none of the pro-Brexit people appear to be proposing anything, which I find odd.
You are rather missing the point already made by a number if us that no genuine family businesses should be paying IHT. Farmers happen to be the main point of discussion but Cyclefree, JJ and myself have all spoken about other family firms as well.
The whole basis of the IHT tax raid on businesses is flawed and will lead to businesses going bust.
Why should a family firm or farm be exempt from the same taxes everyone else has to pay? You could, perhaps, make a case that IHT shouldn’t apply to anyone. But what’s the justification for carving out farmers as deserving of special privilege?
Farmers with significant land holdings are some of the wealthiest people in the country: One of them appeared on Good Morning Britain yesterday morning who had attended a £30k/year private school followed by a £40k/year sixth form. Why should her family be able to evade paying the taxes that practically every other family in the country has to?
Because inheriting a house, savings, quoted shareholdings artworks is essentially inheriting a windfall.
Inheriting business property is inheriting the assets needed to make the business work. And sure, you could just sell out to a bigger entity, but concentrating the ownership of businesses in fewer hands may be counterproductive,
In the words of the police chief - "There are areas of the city, we need to be perfectly honest here, where I would advise people who wear a kippah or are openly gay to be more careful.”
Tricky one. They certainly were being perfectly honest. To be perfectly honest a West Ham fan with a Hammers tattoo on his forehead should be more careful going into the Shed.
Not to say there is a value judgment in either case. One would hope they then went on to say "... and this is something we are working to address." Or some such.
One would hope.
It's a tricky one for me as it causes an error in my liberal-metropolitan-values module, the one that espouses tolerance and lives and works with and is friends with all manner of people from all walks of life.
Yet also increasingly feels under threat from people from different cultures who don't share my world view.
But the only people really speaking up about it are the far right, with whom I don't share a world view, either.
What else marks them out as far right.
Just google anything Farage has said or done on the subject over the last decade. Submitted for your approval is the 'turning point' poster, his comments describing muslims as a 'fifth column' and his spirited defence of Enoch Powell. Hardly a plea for tolerance and understanding. And Reform's record on, say, trans rights, doesn't suggest they'll be particularly keen on the LGBT community, either.
The problem is with news like the quote posted above happening in Berlin, people like me are going to keep sticking our head in the sand because we're too damn liberal to support the far right and don't want to raise our heads above the parapet and say "hang on, this is wrong" for fear of being lumped in with them.
And so it continues to fester, year by year...
Farage is not far right, he's not even particularly hard right. He's a mildly ethnocentric populist with a dash of demagogue. He is also democratic, law abiding, and generally quite courteous. If he is as bad as we get in Britain - in terms of the world's alt.rightwards swing - we should count ourselves lucky
PB is becoming a class ridden shithole. The very jobs you rich fuckers denigrate, the jobs you think are only fit for the the lazy and feckless, are the jobs you feckers won't do. You need someone to deliver your Hello Fresh food box because you're too fucking lazy to go to the shop yourself. You need someone to wipe your elderly parents arse because you certainly ain't going to do it. You're far too busy being important lawyers and bankers and financiers and fancy project managers to realise that having tossers doing the menial stuff means you get to have your new Apple iWank delivered by a minimum wage courier at a time and place of your choosing, so you can carry on doing the important stuff instead of having to meet poor people in shopping centres. I'd flounce, but I'm too lazy and feckless. And no one would notice anyway 🤡
Please don't flounce. What a fantastic post.
We need common people such as yourself on here to remind us why we decided not to go the manual labour/leave school at 16 route and instead worked hard, achieved good jobs through hard work (albeit not breaking paving stones kind of hard work - yuk) and are now generally happy looking down on the rabble of which you form such an important part.
So please stay.
Most people work hard, and some people work very hard. Wages are not decided by morality or effort but by supply or demand. If this was the 19th century you'd be down a mine dying at 35 from pneumoconiosis.
Yeah and if my aunt had ****.....
So your aunt is trans, we should discuss this more.
I went to see her (not the crash one) last night. She was 90 last month and yesterday was a very challenging day trying to get her to use a smartphone.
She has a look that would wither cactii so I wouldn't dare suggest she was anything other than all woman (the old fashioned kind).
One reason cited for high powered e-mopeds (eg Sur-Rons or hacked e-cycles) was that the legal ones just weren't fast enough. Without getting into this vs that, it is an relevant question for all of us, I think.
This is the kind of situation that arises when the relevant government department is fast asleep. Delivery riders use juiced-up Surrons and the like because the legal alternative is awful.
Buy an over powered e-bike and just get going.. or... go the legal route; pay twice as much for a 50cc equivalent electric scooter that is limited to 28mph, apply for your provisional licence, do your CBT day (£150-200, needs repeating every two years), pay possibly thousands for insurance, get an approved helmet, etc, etc.
A 1KW e-bike can be had for about £1200. A road-legal scooter is going have an all-in price of £4000-6000 depending on the insurance costs, for a machine that's slower than the e-bike. No brainer.
This (a different) Uber driver, meanwhile, is texting as she drives.
OTOH, Uber is a massive boon for travelers in Paris. Remember when it was basically impossible to get a cab in Paris, coz it was a classic closed shop, like gondolas in Venice? I do. Hour long queues at Gare Montparnasse etc
Now you can just summon an Uber. C'est fantastique
Yes true. Although the normal cabs seem to have given up on that horrendous queue by the side of GdN and were swarming in front of the station instead.
I feel like I'm in the minority here, in that I don't see why agricultural land should benefit from any special IHT rules compared to other family owned industries, e.g. engineering. Maybe there is a case that capital invested in productive capacity should be treated differently, but I can see difficulties in defining it and personally don't believe it should be treated any differently to money in the bank, or residential property.
There is a separate issue of land being transferred from being UK-family owned to foreign individuals or investment funds. Again, we haven't worried about it for any other industry and I don't see why agricultural land should be different. Actually I am worried about this, but my concern is across the board, not solely agriculture.
There is another issue that currently food production appears to be uneconomic in the country. Should we be concerned about food security? If we are then we should take steps to ensure that farmers get a fair return. But, again, why should we be more concerned about food than (say) energy, or steel production? There's no reason for farming to be singled out for special protection, in my view. However I would note (as an opponent of Brexit) that we now have an opportunity to do something about all those things except none of the pro-Brexit people appear to be proposing anything, which I find odd.
You are rather missing the point already made by a number if us that no genuine family businesses should be paying IHT. Farmers happen to be the main point of discussion but Cyclefree, JJ and myself have all spoken about other family firms as well.
The whole basis of the IHT tax raid on businesses is flawed and will lead to businesses going bust.
Businesses who only exist because of a tax loophole the rest of us don't have deserve to go bust.
And then when you no longer have choice to buy British in the supermarket, nations lost its food security, and uplands environments literally falling apart everywhere, far too late for yourself and this Labour government to realise how short sighted and ignorant that decision you just expressed has been. Still, at least you should be smiling and overjoyed, as you are clearly winning this one and going to get your way.
In the words of the police chief - "There are areas of the city, we need to be perfectly honest here, where I would advise people who wear a kippah or are openly gay to be more careful.”
Tricky one. They certainly were being perfectly honest. To be perfectly honest a West Ham fan with a Hammers tattoo on his forehead should be more careful going into the Shed.
Not to say there is a value judgment in either case. One would hope they then went on to say "... and this is something we are working to address." Or some such.
One would hope.
It's a tricky one for me as it causes an error in my liberal-metropolitan-values module, the one that espouses tolerance and lives and works with and is friends with all manner of people from all walks of life.
Yet also increasingly feels under threat from people from different cultures who don't share my world view.
But the only people really speaking up about it are the far right, with whom I don't share a world view, either.
What else marks them out as far right.
Just google anything Farage has said or done on the subject over the last decade. Submitted for your approval is the 'turning point' poster, his comments describing muslims as a 'fifth column' and his spirited defence of Enoch Powell. Hardly a plea for tolerance and understanding. And Reform's record on, say, trans rights, doesn't suggest they'll be particularly keen on the LGBT community, either.
The problem is with news like the quote posted above happening in Berlin, people like me are going to keep sticking our head in the sand because we're too damn liberal to support the far right and don't want to raise our heads above the parapet and say "hang on, this is wrong" for fear of being lumped in with them.
And so it continues to fester, year by year...
The assassination of Pim Fortuyn probably set the cause of anti-immigration liberalism back at least a decade.
He wasn't anti-immigration, just that he had a different answer to the question of the toleration of intolerance. He was an gay man, living openly, with gay immigrant partner.
It's the difference between the migration of people and the migration of peoples.
I feel like I'm in the minority here, in that I don't see why agricultural land should benefit from any special IHT rules compared to other family owned industries, e.g. engineering. Maybe there is a case that capital invested in productive capacity should be treated differently, but I can see difficulties in defining it and personally don't believe it should be treated any differently to money in the bank, or residential property.
There is a separate issue of land being transferred from being UK-family owned to foreign individuals or investment funds. Again, we haven't worried about it for any other industry and I don't see why agricultural land should be different. Actually I am worried about this, but my concern is across the board, not solely agriculture.
There is another issue that currently food production appears to be uneconomic in the country. Should we be concerned about food security? If we are then we should take steps to ensure that farmers get a fair return. But, again, why should we be more concerned about food than (say) energy, or steel production? There's no reason for farming to be singled out for special protection, in my view. However I would note (as an opponent of Brexit) that we now have an opportunity to do something about all those things except none of the pro-Brexit people appear to be proposing anything, which I find odd.
You are rather missing the point already made by a number if us that no genuine family businesses should be paying IHT. Farmers happen to be the main point of discussion but Cyclefree, JJ and myself have all spoken about other family firms as well.
The whole basis of the IHT tax raid on businesses is flawed and will lead to businesses going bust.
Businesses who only exist because of a tax loophole the rest of us don't have deserve to go bust.
There was a tacit agreement. You grow the food and maybe get "paid" fuck all and we'll make sure your offspring can do the same.
Which Lab now have torn up. If you can tear up a tacit agreement.
I feel like I'm in the minority here, in that I don't see why agricultural land should benefit from any special IHT rules compared to other family owned industries, e.g. engineering. Maybe there is a case that capital invested in productive capacity should be treated differently, but I can see difficulties in defining it and personally don't believe it should be treated any differently to money in the bank, or residential property.
There is a separate issue of land being transferred from being UK-family owned to foreign individuals or investment funds. Again, we haven't worried about it for any other industry and I don't see why agricultural land should be different. Actually I am worried about this, but my concern is across the board, not solely agriculture.
There is another issue that currently food production appears to be uneconomic in the country. Should we be concerned about food security? If we are then we should take steps to ensure that farmers get a fair return. But, again, why should we be more concerned about food than (say) energy, or steel production? There's no reason for farming to be singled out for special protection, in my view. However I would note (as an opponent of Brexit) that we now have an opportunity to do something about all those things except none of the pro-Brexit people appear to be proposing anything, which I find odd.
You are rather missing the point already made by a number if us that no genuine family businesses should be paying IHT. Farmers happen to be the main point of discussion but Cyclefree, JJ and myself have all spoken about other family firms as well.
The whole basis of the IHT tax raid on businesses is flawed and will lead to businesses going bust.
Businesses who only exist because of a tax loophole the rest of us don't have deserve to go bust.
And then when you no longer have choice to buy British in the supermarket, nations lost its food security, and uplands environments literally falling apart everywhere, far too late for yourself and this Labour government to realise how short sighted and ignorant that decision you just expressed has been. Still, at least you should be smiling and overjoyed, as you are clearly winning this one and going to get your way.
We should subsidise the production of food if that’s the goal we want not give IHT loop holes to already rich people for christ sake. The lack of perspective amongst these “farmers” is ridiculous.
“Berkeley Professor Says Even His ‘Outstanding’ Students With 4.0 GPAs Aren’t Getting Any Job Offers — ‘I Suspect This Trend Is Irreversible’”
“The professor hypothesizes that even people starting college today will find themselves in a bit of a bind 4 years down road when they are looking for employment.”
This is going to devastate the entire university sector. As I predicted
No mention of AI though, so thats something. Currently at Bath more than 90% of our graduates are in work 9 months after graduation.
What do YOU think is underlying this phenomenon?
Difficult to say as I am not in America and not in computing. Maybe companies priorities changed after Covid? Who knows? Demand for pharmacists is still high, so I'm not that worried yet. We also have higher applications than last year, so the Leon message of doom isn't getting out there yet.
I fear you are now borderline delusional
HOWEVER I wish no ill on any PB-er so I hope you're blind denialism turns out right, and my more gloomy analysis is laughably wrong. Then you are free to hurl the stale scones of scorn at me
Which bit of my reply was delusional? Have you any insight into pharmacy that I don't?
This (a different) Uber driver, meanwhile, is texting as she drives.
OTOH, Uber is a massive boon for travelers in Paris. Remember when it was basically impossible to get a cab in Paris, coz it was a classic closed shop, like gondolas in Venice? I do. Hour long queues at Gare Montparnasse etc
Now you can just summon an Uber. C'est fantastique
Also works in countries where you would risk being ripped off or worse by taxi drivers - like Morocco. All those travel-guide admonitions about meters and fares and pre-agreed quotations gone in a flash. Progress!
I feel like I'm in the minority here, in that I don't see why agricultural land should benefit from any special IHT rules compared to other family owned industries, e.g. engineering. Maybe there is a case that capital invested in productive capacity should be treated differently, but I can see difficulties in defining it and personally don't believe it should be treated any differently to money in the bank, or residential property.
There is a separate issue of land being transferred from being UK-family owned to foreign individuals or investment funds. Again, we haven't worried about it for any other industry and I don't see why agricultural land should be different. Actually I am worried about this, but my concern is across the board, not solely agriculture.
There is another issue that currently food production appears to be uneconomic in the country. Should we be concerned about food security? If we are then we should take steps to ensure that farmers get a fair return. But, again, why should we be more concerned about food than (say) energy, or steel production? There's no reason for farming to be singled out for special protection, in my view. However I would note (as an opponent of Brexit) that we now have an opportunity to do something about all those things except none of the pro-Brexit people appear to be proposing anything, which I find odd.
You are rather missing the point already made by a number if us that no genuine family businesses should be paying IHT. Farmers happen to be the main point of discussion but Cyclefree, JJ and myself have all spoken about other family firms as well.
The whole basis of the IHT tax raid on businesses is flawed and will lead to businesses going bust.
Businesses who only exist because of a tax loophole the rest of us don't have deserve to go bust.
There was a tacit agreement. You grow the food and maybe get "paid" fuck all and we'll make sure your offspring can do the same.
Which Lab now have torn up. If you can tear up a tacit agreement.
My heart bleeds for these offspring inheriting substantial assets
The main reason public sector productivity is so poor is the inability to move unproductive people out. The ultimate tool for increasing output per worker is to shit can the least productive ones which is something that private sector businesses do all the time. Until that attitude is brought to the public sector no amount of "investment" will help. The lazy and the feckless are attracted to the public sector because they know once they're in it's impossible to be removed regardless of how shit they are at the job.
Change this and suddenly public sector productivity will shoot up as those lazy buggers start to fear for their next salary.
To broaden the point, where's the incentive to sack people who aren't performing - where is the incentive to perform at all? The money comes from Government grant, so the incentive is actually to fail, because failing services get more money thrown at them. The NHS has been very successful at failing for years. An efficient, high performance public service would see its budget reduced the next year.
What we really need is a total reordering of incentives within the public sector, where possible based on the money following the user, and the user having choice. If hospitals and schools had to attract patients and pupils to get funding, all the perverse incentives would be reversed and the services grow better and more efficient.
I'm plowing thru (I know, I know ) Abby Innes's "Late Soviet Britain" and she makes a very convincing case as to why that simply doesn't work. Basically if you run the public sector like the private sector you lose control due to the principle-agent problem, so to regain control you impose authorities, regulators, targets etc, and you end up with a brundlefly hybrid with the disadvantages of both, lying on the lab floor pleading to be killed.
It sounds good in theory. It isn't in practice. And we have about forty years of evidence for that now.
I don't know what 'the principle agent problem' is - if I did I could opine. I'd say 'losing control' is a feature not a bug - Whitehall controlling things appears to be at the root of most of the problems we face, and has been for more than 5 decades.
As for practice, of course we don't have 40 years of experience. Market based reforms haven't taken place in our public services, even at pilot level as far as I'm aware.
If you outsource a thing to somebody else, that person has their own goals and will deviate from yours over times. You need to prevent them so you end up imposing controls, making a mockery of the outsourcing in the first place.
I was referring to the Thatcher reforms of outsourcing, followed by the Blair reforms of targets etc. We tried it. It didn't work. We tried to make it better. We made it worse. By the time we got to Covid it got out-and-out corrupt. And we keep saying "more bureaucracy will fix it!" It won't. And we keep saying "make it behave like the private sector!". And it doesn't
They're trying to change the facts on the ground before Trump comes in for The Deal.
Obvs.
Yes, but it means that the pressure on Ukraine to accept the Deal will be irresistible. Korea it is
Korea it isn't. Whatever happens.
It will likely be a frozen war, an arimistice, roughly along the front lines as they stand, when the deal is made
As happened in Korea
1) Korea started as a genuine civil war, not an invasion. Millions on both sides migrated in opposite directions, and ended in territories they wanted to fight for. 2) The US was, of course, directly involved in the fighting. 3) Unlike Ukraine - where there have already been several ceasefires, followed by further Russian aggression, the Panmunjom settlement has lasted 70 years. 4) The US was willing to station substantial armed forces there for those seven decades to ensure the settlement. 5) The border something like a seventh as long as Russia/Ukraine, is largely mountainous, and readily policeable and defencible. 6) The opposing great power (China) has no territorial ambitions on the south. Inlike, of course, Russia.
Apart from that, it's similar-ish, if you squint.
It's a brutal bloody war involving Russia, China and the USA all in a foreign country, close to Russia/China - just like Korea. It's also two systems fighting each other by proxy, just like Korea
It will likely end in an armistice because both sides are exhausted and running out of men, and both sides have nukes and perhaps the only way you can now win this war is with nukes: and no one will use nukes. As happened in Korea
Do the people involved have slitty eyes and eat a lot of bibimbap? No. Well done for pointing out that crucial geopolitical difference
FWIW I think the only alternative to Korea ,now, is outright Russian victory
No, Russia is losing.
How come, you might reasonably ask, when it's advancing and Trump has just been elected? Well, a bit* like how Germany was losing in early 1918, even though it was advancing and Russia had just withdrawn from the war.
Put simply, it's not advancing much at all, despite the numpty BBC headline. The article itself reveals a different story. So far in 2024, Russia has gained 2700km2. That's an area roughly the size of Staffordshire. In 11 months. In a country larger than France. At a cost of hundreds of thousands of casualties. That is not winning, unless it's grinding Ukraine down even faster, which doesn't appear to be the case.
In early 2022, the average casualty was a 22 year-old regular soldier; last year it was a 31-year old Wagner mercenary (presumably mostly ex-prison); this year the average casualty is a 38-year old contract volunteer with little training: people desperate for the (high) pay and signing on bonuses - but that sort of person can't be found in sufficient numbers indefinitely. This is not a sustainable model, particularly when Russia is losing over a thousand soldiers a day (some might return: these are far from all being deaths but many/most won't).
Plus, Russia is running out of equipment. As noted in the article below, the war is costing Russia materiel much faster than they can replace it. So far, they've been able to make good out of reserves but that's unlikely to last through 2025 - another reason for the push now to try to gain themselves a breathing space.
To beat Russia, Ukraine does not need to occupy Moscow, it needs to break Putin's government or exhaust his army to the point of mutiny or other ineffectiveness. There are viable ways to both next year if Europe and other allies continue to stand by Ukraine.
I feel like I'm in the minority here, in that I don't see why agricultural land should benefit from any special IHT rules compared to other family owned industries, e.g. engineering. Maybe there is a case that capital invested in productive capacity should be treated differently, but I can see difficulties in defining it and personally don't believe it should be treated any differently to money in the bank, or residential property.
There is a separate issue of land being transferred from being UK-family owned to foreign individuals or investment funds. Again, we haven't worried about it for any other industry and I don't see why agricultural land should be different. Actually I am worried about this, but my concern is across the board, not solely agriculture.
There is another issue that currently food production appears to be uneconomic in the country. Should we be concerned about food security? If we are then we should take steps to ensure that farmers get a fair return. But, again, why should we be more concerned about food than (say) energy, or steel production? There's no reason for farming to be singled out for special protection, in my view. However I would note (as an opponent of Brexit) that we now have an opportunity to do something about all those things except none of the pro-Brexit people appear to be proposing anything, which I find odd.
You are rather missing the point already made by a number if us that no genuine family businesses should be paying IHT. Farmers happen to be the main point of discussion but Cyclefree, JJ and myself have all spoken about other family firms as well.
The whole basis of the IHT tax raid on businesses is flawed and will lead to businesses going bust.
Businesses who only exist because of a tax loophole the rest of us don't have deserve to go bust.
And then when you no longer have choice to buy British in the supermarket, nations lost its food security, and uplands environments literally falling apart everywhere, far too late for yourself and this Labour government to realise how short sighted and ignorant that decision you just expressed has been. Still, at least you should be smiling and overjoyed, as you are clearly winning this one and going to get your way.
We should subsidise the production of food if that’s the goal we want not give IHT loop holes to already rich people for christ sake. The lack of perspective amongst these “farmers” is ridiculous.
They aren't rich in income terms, the average farmer earns average wage at best.
No point subsidising production of food if the state confiscates half the land needed to produce it too
I feel like I'm in the minority here, in that I don't see why agricultural land should benefit from any special IHT rules compared to other family owned industries, e.g. engineering. Maybe there is a case that capital invested in productive capacity should be treated differently, but I can see difficulties in defining it and personally don't believe it should be treated any differently to money in the bank, or residential property.
There is a separate issue of land being transferred from being UK-family owned to foreign individuals or investment funds. Again, we haven't worried about it for any other industry and I don't see why agricultural land should be different. Actually I am worried about this, but my concern is across the board, not solely agriculture.
There is another issue that currently food production appears to be uneconomic in the country. Should we be concerned about food security? If we are then we should take steps to ensure that farmers get a fair return. But, again, why should we be more concerned about food than (say) energy, or steel production? There's no reason for farming to be singled out for special protection, in my view. However I would note (as an opponent of Brexit) that we now have an opportunity to do something about all those things except none of the pro-Brexit people appear to be proposing anything, which I find odd.
You are rather missing the point already made by a number if us that no genuine family businesses should be paying IHT. Farmers happen to be the main point of discussion but Cyclefree, JJ and myself have all spoken about other family firms as well.
The whole basis of the IHT tax raid on businesses is flawed and will lead to businesses going bust.
Why should a family firm or farm be exempt from the same taxes everyone else has to pay? You could, perhaps, make a case that IHT shouldn’t apply to anyone. But what’s the justification for carving out farmers as deserving of special privilege?
Farmers with significant land holdings are some of the wealthiest people in the country: One of them appeared on Good Morning Britain yesterday morning who had attended a £30k/year private school followed by a £40k/year sixth form. Why should her family be able to evade paying the taxes that practically every other family in the country has to?
Because inheriting a house, savings, quoted shareholdings artworks is essentially inheriting a windfall.
Inheriting business property is inheriting the assets needed to make the business work. And sure, you could just sell out to a bigger entity, but concentrating the ownership of businesses in fewer hands may be counterproductive,
Inheriting a profitable business is also a windfall, if it generates surplus profit after paying for the labour to run it.
I feel like I'm in the minority here, in that I don't see why agricultural land should benefit from any special IHT rules compared to other family owned industries, e.g. engineering. Maybe there is a case that capital invested in productive capacity should be treated differently, but I can see difficulties in defining it and personally don't believe it should be treated any differently to money in the bank, or residential property.
There is a separate issue of land being transferred from being UK-family owned to foreign individuals or investment funds. Again, we haven't worried about it for any other industry and I don't see why agricultural land should be different. Actually I am worried about this, but my concern is across the board, not solely agriculture.
There is another issue that currently food production appears to be uneconomic in the country. Should we be concerned about food security? If we are then we should take steps to ensure that farmers get a fair return. But, again, why should we be more concerned about food than (say) energy, or steel production? There's no reason for farming to be singled out for special protection, in my view. However I would note (as an opponent of Brexit) that we now have an opportunity to do something about all those things except none of the pro-Brexit people appear to be proposing anything, which I find odd.
You are rather missing the point already made by a number if us that no genuine family businesses should be paying IHT. Farmers happen to be the main point of discussion but Cyclefree, JJ and myself have all spoken about other family firms as well.
The whole basis of the IHT tax raid on businesses is flawed and will lead to businesses going bust.
Why should a family firm or farm be exempt from the same taxes everyone else has to pay? You could, perhaps, make a case that IHT shouldn’t apply to anyone. But what’s the justification for carving out farmers as deserving of special privilege?
Farmers with significant land holdings are some of the wealthiest people in the country: One of them appeared on Good Morning Britain yesterday morning who had attended a £30k/year private school followed by a £40k/year sixth form. Why should her family be able to evade paying the taxes that practically every other family in the country has to?
This was explained to you on the previous thread by the ever brilliant @Cyclefree: agricultural land is a tool of the trade; a house is not.
I feel like I'm in the minority here, in that I don't see why agricultural land should benefit from any special IHT rules compared to other family owned industries, e.g. engineering. Maybe there is a case that capital invested in productive capacity should be treated differently, but I can see difficulties in defining it and personally don't believe it should be treated any differently to money in the bank, or residential property.
There is a separate issue of land being transferred from being UK-family owned to foreign individuals or investment funds. Again, we haven't worried about it for any other industry and I don't see why agricultural land should be different. Actually I am worried about this, but my concern is across the board, not solely agriculture.
There is another issue that currently food production appears to be uneconomic in the country. Should we be concerned about food security? If we are then we should take steps to ensure that farmers get a fair return. But, again, why should we be more concerned about food than (say) energy, or steel production? There's no reason for farming to be singled out for special protection, in my view. However I would note (as an opponent of Brexit) that we now have an opportunity to do something about all those things except none of the pro-Brexit people appear to be proposing anything, which I find odd.
You are rather missing the point already made by a number if us that no genuine family businesses should be paying IHT. Farmers happen to be the main point of discussion but Cyclefree, JJ and myself have all spoken about other family firms as well.
The whole basis of the IHT tax raid on businesses is flawed and will lead to businesses going bust.
Businesses who only exist because of a tax loophole the rest of us don't have deserve to go bust.
And then when you no longer have choice to buy British in the supermarket, nations lost its food security, and uplands environments literally falling apart everywhere, far too late for yourself and this Labour government to realise how short sighted and ignorant that decision you just expressed has been. Still, at least you should be smiling and overjoyed, as you are clearly winning this one and going to get your way.
We should subsidise the production of food if that’s the goal we want not give IHT loop holes to already rich people for christ sake. The lack of perspective amongst these “farmers” is ridiculous.
They aren't rich in income terms, the average farmer earns average wage at best.
No point subsidising production of food if the state confiscates half the land needed to produce it too
If we subsidise production then there would be no problem paying a loan for the IHT. There is no “confiscation”.
I am absolutely sick of rich people crying because they have substantial assets but no income. Get a grip.
I feel like I'm in the minority here, in that I don't see why agricultural land should benefit from any special IHT rules compared to other family owned industries, e.g. engineering. Maybe there is a case that capital invested in productive capacity should be treated differently, but I can see difficulties in defining it and personally don't believe it should be treated any differently to money in the bank, or residential property.
There is a separate issue of land being transferred from being UK-family owned to foreign individuals or investment funds. Again, we haven't worried about it for any other industry and I don't see why agricultural land should be different. Actually I am worried about this, but my concern is across the board, not solely agriculture.
There is another issue that currently food production appears to be uneconomic in the country. Should we be concerned about food security? If we are then we should take steps to ensure that farmers get a fair return. But, again, why should we be more concerned about food than (say) energy, or steel production? There's no reason for farming to be singled out for special protection, in my view. However I would note (as an opponent of Brexit) that we now have an opportunity to do something about all those things except none of the pro-Brexit people appear to be proposing anything, which I find odd.
You are rather missing the point already made by a number if us that no genuine family businesses should be paying IHT. Farmers happen to be the main point of discussion but Cyclefree, JJ and myself have all spoken about other family firms as well.
The whole basis of the IHT tax raid on businesses is flawed and will lead to businesses going bust.
Businesses who only exist because of a tax loophole the rest of us don't have deserve to go bust.
And then when you no longer have choice to buy British in the supermarket, nations lost its food security, and uplands environments literally falling apart everywhere, far too late for yourself and this Labour government to realise how short sighted and ignorant that decision you just expressed has been. Still, at least you should be smiling and overjoyed, as you are clearly winning this one and going to get your way.
We should subsidise the production of food if that’s the goal we want not give IHT loop holes to already rich people for christ sake. The lack of perspective amongst these “farmers” is ridiculous.
Like anyone can walk in and do, like queues forming to walk in and do it. People want to be YouTubers, or on government payroll in offices being unproductive yet paid monthly wage, where’s the queue to not be rich, but live poor simple life full of hard work and dedication?
If you no longer have any woodtwiddlers cause the skills and interest to do it you killed off don’t expect to get any woodtwiddled.
Torsten's Bell tweet is idiotic. Agricultural land is a tool of a trade. A house is not.
What has been less noticed is that the tax changes affect all family owned businesses. Not just farms. So the idea that this is just about closing off a loophole is nonsense. It is a tax change which will harm all family owned businesses. What is the justification for doing so?
The answers are all over the place: one minute it's "well very few will be affected" and the next "well the NHS will collapse without the money". These are incoherent and inconsistent. And frankly - though I imagine I will get a lot of grief for saying so - I don't think the purpose of our economy or tax policy should be to keep the NHS afloat. Even if it were other Budget decisions completely undermine that anyway - not least the NIC changes which will harm GP surgeries and care homes. A proper social care policy would do more to help the NHS than anything else - but on that we have once again got tumbleweed and a tax change which will, if anything, make matters worse.
On social care it could be even worse than you describe. The current plan seems to be set a mechanism to allow higher/fairer levels of pay across the whole sector, yet with no indication whatsoever how local councils will fund the whacking increase in fees required.
Laura K claims there is a big meeting scheduled for this coming Monday between chancellor, PM and NHS ministers to finally thrash this out.
I expect more tumbleweed sadly.
I know you, like me, are knee deep in this.
An illustration of the waste:
My father is still at home with regular carer visits. He falls from time to time. Inevitable given his condition. No biggee. Check he's OK, help him up on sofa and make him a cuppa you might think.
But no. The carers will not apply common sense. They immediately call 999. Ambulance is booked but may be 4 - 6 hours. Dad expected to sit on floor for all this time, waiting to be helped up.So I (in another part of the country) get a call from the care agency, looking to be relieved. WTF do they expect me to do? I ring around best I can and - with luck - get a neighbour on phone who goes and helps him up. So I tell carer to cancel the ambulance. 'No' I'm told they can't do that. So now we have an ambulance coming at some point for an emergency which never existed. This has happened six times over last couple of months.
What a waste of time for the ambulance service. How many times is this scenario being played out across the country?
It's about discretion. A relative was working in care facility. She lifted a patient, by herself. Just off the bed, patient still over the bed. 6 inches or so. The patient was a little old lady. My relative likes to bench far more than the patients weight, at the gym. Risk to patient zero. Risk to my relative zero. Patient was in distress.....
Fired of course.
This is a huge issue. I have the same with ambulances being called.
The crew tell me they spend half the day dealing with this kind of stuff. No wonder wait times are 8 hours etc etc.
Agencies refuse to pick people off the floor. I even have equipment which I use myself to get relative off floor (i can provide details if anyone is interested).
They wont use that.
I assume this is all to do with modern insurance and risk and legal liability and all that shite.
"Staff should not be reliant on informal assessments to determine a resident’s needs."
The problem we are going to have is if everyone needs 2:1 care because that's what the plan says, we won't have anywhere near enough people to do it. What then? Sign here and the state will 'take care' of you?
In the words of the police chief - "There are areas of the city, we need to be perfectly honest here, where I would advise people who wear a kippah or are openly gay to be more careful.”
Tricky one. They certainly were being perfectly honest. To be perfectly honest a West Ham fan with a Hammers tattoo on his forehead should be more careful going into the Shed.
Not to say there is a value judgment in either case. One would hope they then went on to say "... and this is something we are working to address." Or some such.
One would hope.
It's a tricky one for me as it causes an error in my liberal-metropolitan-values module, the one that espouses tolerance and lives and works with and is friends with all manner of people from all walks of life.
Yet also increasingly feels under threat from people from different cultures who don't share my world view.
But the only people really speaking up about it are the far right, with whom I don't share a world view, either.
What else marks them out as far right.
Just google anything Farage has said or done on the subject over the last decade. Submitted for your approval is the 'turning point' poster, his comments describing muslims as a 'fifth column' and his spirited defence of Enoch Powell. Hardly a plea for tolerance and understanding. And Reform's record on, say, trans rights, doesn't suggest they'll be particularly keen on the LGBT community, either.
The problem is with news like the quote posted above happening in Berlin, people like me are going to keep sticking our head in the sand because we're too damn liberal to support the far right and don't want to raise our heads above the parapet and say "hang on, this is wrong" for fear of being lumped in with them.
And so it continues to fester, year by year...
Farage is not far right, he's not even particularly hard right. He's a mildly ethnocentric populist with a dash of demagogue. He is also democratic, law abiding, and generally quite courteous. If he is as bad as we get in Britain - in terms of the world's alt.rightwards swing - we should count ourselves lucky
I feel like I'm in the minority here, in that I don't see why agricultural land should benefit from any special IHT rules compared to other family owned industries, e.g. engineering. Maybe there is a case that capital invested in productive capacity should be treated differently, but I can see difficulties in defining it and personally don't believe it should be treated any differently to money in the bank, or residential property.
There is a separate issue of land being transferred from being UK-family owned to foreign individuals or investment funds. Again, we haven't worried about it for any other industry and I don't see why agricultural land should be different. Actually I am worried about this, but my concern is across the board, not solely agriculture.
There is another issue that currently food production appears to be uneconomic in the country. Should we be concerned about food security? If we are then we should take steps to ensure that farmers get a fair return. But, again, why should we be more concerned about food than (say) energy, or steel production? There's no reason for farming to be singled out for special protection, in my view. However I would note (as an opponent of Brexit) that we now have an opportunity to do something about all those things except none of the pro-Brexit people appear to be proposing anything, which I find odd.
You are rather missing the point already made by a number if us that no genuine family businesses should be paying IHT. Farmers happen to be the main point of discussion but Cyclefree, JJ and myself have all spoken about other family firms as well.
The whole basis of the IHT tax raid on businesses is flawed and will lead to businesses going bust.
Businesses who only exist because of a tax loophole the rest of us don't have deserve to go bust.
And then when you no longer have choice to buy British in the supermarket, nations lost its food security, and uplands environments literally falling apart everywhere, far too late for yourself and this Labour government to realise how short sighted and ignorant that decision you just expressed has been. Still, at least you should be smiling and overjoyed, as you are clearly winning this one and going to get your way.
We should subsidise the production of food if that’s the goal we want not give IHT loop holes to already rich people for christ sake. The lack of perspective amongst these “farmers” is ridiculous.
Like anyone can walk in and do, like queues forming to walk in and do it. People want to be YouTubers, or on government payroll in offices being unproductive yet paid monthly wage, where’s the queue to not be rich, but live poor simple life full of hard work and dedication?
If you no longer have any woodtwiddlers cause the skills and interest to do it you killed off don’t expect to get any woodtwiddled.
I don’t disagree with any of that but inheritance tax has nothing to do with it.
In the words of the police chief - "There are areas of the city, we need to be perfectly honest here, where I would advise people who wear a kippah or are openly gay to be more careful.”
Tricky one. They certainly were being perfectly honest. To be perfectly honest a West Ham fan with a Hammers tattoo on his forehead should be more careful going into the Shed.
Not to say there is a value judgment in either case. One would hope they then went on to say "... and this is something we are working to address." Or some such.
One would hope.
It's a tricky one for me as it causes an error in my liberal-metropolitan-values module, the one that espouses tolerance and lives and works with and is friends with all manner of people from all walks of life.
Yet also increasingly feels under threat from people from different cultures who don't share my world view.
But the only people really speaking up about it are the far right, with whom I don't share a world view, either.
What else marks them out as far right.
Just google anything Farage has said or done on the subject over the last decade. Submitted for your approval is the 'turning point' poster, his comments describing muslims as a 'fifth column' and his spirited defence of Enoch Powell. Hardly a plea for tolerance and understanding. And Reform's record on, say, trans rights, doesn't suggest they'll be particularly keen on the LGBT community, either.
The problem is with news like the quote posted above happening in Berlin, people like me are going to keep sticking our head in the sand because we're too damn liberal to support the far right and don't want to raise our heads above the parapet and say "hang on, this is wrong" for fear of being lumped in with them.
And so it continues to fester, year by year...
Farage is not far right, he's not even particularly hard right. He's a mildly ethnocentric populist with a dash of demagogue. He is also democratic, law abiding, and generally quite courteous. If he is as bad as we get in Britain - in terms of the world's alt.rightwards swing - we should count ourselves lucky
Dunno. He is the acceptable face of - to use a maddening phrase - a basket of deplorables that always come out of the woodwork in support of him.
Remember the 'racist' guy who went around canvassing for him in Clacton who turned out to be an actor? The alarming bit of that was the filming of some of the other Reform canvassers who were agreeing with him.
This is a longstanding thing, UKIP collapsed under the weight of its own fruitcakery. And remember Roger Helmer MEP, a man Farage was quite happy to have on his team at the time? The brothel creeping perv who thought homophobia was 'propaganda' and didn't exist, and had interesting views on women's complicity in being raped, particularly given his own night-time proclivities.
I could point to others, but you get my point. Farage is the acceptable face. The people he travels with are not my kind of people. Farage if elected wouldn't run the country single handedly, and I fear the type of people who'd end up running the country if he was.
Of course, I don't think the trajectory we're currently on where everyone sticks their head in the sand and pretends, say, discrimination against jews and women and queers isn't getting worse is sustainable, either.
Pim Fortuyn was an interesting one. A man twenty years ahead of his time, in many respects.
I feel like I'm in the minority here, in that I don't see why agricultural land should benefit from any special IHT rules compared to other family owned industries, e.g. engineering. Maybe there is a case that capital invested in productive capacity should be treated differently, but I can see difficulties in defining it and personally don't believe it should be treated any differently to money in the bank, or residential property.
There is a separate issue of land being transferred from being UK-family owned to foreign individuals or investment funds. Again, we haven't worried about it for any other industry and I don't see why agricultural land should be different. Actually I am worried about this, but my concern is across the board, not solely agriculture.
There is another issue that currently food production appears to be uneconomic in the country. Should we be concerned about food security? If we are then we should take steps to ensure that farmers get a fair return. But, again, why should we be more concerned about food than (say) energy, or steel production? There's no reason for farming to be singled out for special protection, in my view. However I would note (as an opponent of Brexit) that we now have an opportunity to do something about all those things except none of the pro-Brexit people appear to be proposing anything, which I find odd.
You are rather missing the point already made by a number if us that no genuine family businesses should be paying IHT. Farmers happen to be the main point of discussion but Cyclefree, JJ and myself have all spoken about other family firms as well.
The whole basis of the IHT tax raid on businesses is flawed and will lead to businesses going bust.
Businesses who only exist because of a tax loophole the rest of us don't have deserve to go bust.
This isn’t that.
Let’s say you have a profitable engineering business generating £1 million in EBITDA per year. Modestly leveraged (say) to fund purchase of new equipment.
The business likely has cash flow of £0.5m (£1m - £0.15m in interest - £0.2m in tax - something for working capital). Probably half the cash flow goes to paying down debt, and the rest is retained in the business for future growth.
It’s probably worth about £10m as a company. Owner dies and there is a £4m tax liability. That’s tough to fund through borrowing. So the company get sold to US Corp or to Smily Private Equity.
And the economy has weakened its basis for growth.
That’s why you should have entrepreneurs relief - the country is better off for having valuable small businesses. And farms should be treated just the same.
I feel like I'm in the minority here, in that I don't see why agricultural land should benefit from any special IHT rules compared to other family owned industries, e.g. engineering. Maybe there is a case that capital invested in productive capacity should be treated differently, but I can see difficulties in defining it and personally don't believe it should be treated any differently to money in the bank, or residential property.
There is a separate issue of land being transferred from being UK-family owned to foreign individuals or investment funds. Again, we haven't worried about it for any other industry and I don't see why agricultural land should be different. Actually I am worried about this, but my concern is across the board, not solely agriculture.
There is another issue that currently food production appears to be uneconomic in the country. Should we be concerned about food security? If we are then we should take steps to ensure that farmers get a fair return. But, again, why should we be more concerned about food than (say) energy, or steel production? There's no reason for farming to be singled out for special protection, in my view. However I would note (as an opponent of Brexit) that we now have an opportunity to do something about all those things except none of the pro-Brexit people appear to be proposing anything, which I find odd.
You are rather missing the point already made by a number if us that no genuine family businesses should be paying IHT. Farmers happen to be the main point of discussion but Cyclefree, JJ and myself have all spoken about other family firms as well.
The whole basis of the IHT tax raid on businesses is flawed and will lead to businesses going bust.
Businesses who only exist because of a tax loophole the rest of us don't have deserve to go bust.
This isn’t that.
Let’s say you have a profitable engineering business generating £1 million in EBITDA per year. Modestly leveraged (say) to fund purchase of new equipment.
The business likely has cash flow of £0.5m (£1m - £0.15m in interest - £0.2m in tax - something for working capital). Probably half the cash flow goes to paying down debt, and the rest is retained in the business for future growth.
It’s probably worth about £10m as a company. Owner dies and there is a £4m tax liability. That’s tough to fund through borrowing. So the company get sold to US Corp or to Smily Private Equity.
And the economy has weakened its basis for growth.
That’s why you should have entrepreneurs relief - the country is better off for having valuable small businesses. And farms should be treated just the same.
If the farm is incorporated do the shareholders benefit from the same reliefs?
I feel like I'm in the minority here, in that I don't see why agricultural land should benefit from any special IHT rules compared to other family owned industries, e.g. engineering. Maybe there is a case that capital invested in productive capacity should be treated differently, but I can see difficulties in defining it and personally don't believe it should be treated any differently to money in the bank, or residential property.
There is a separate issue of land being transferred from being UK-family owned to foreign individuals or investment funds. Again, we haven't worried about it for any other industry and I don't see why agricultural land should be different. Actually I am worried about this, but my concern is across the board, not solely agriculture.
There is another issue that currently food production appears to be uneconomic in the country. Should we be concerned about food security? If we are then we should take steps to ensure that farmers get a fair return. But, again, why should we be more concerned about food than (say) energy, or steel production? There's no reason for farming to be singled out for special protection, in my view. However I would note (as an opponent of Brexit) that we now have an opportunity to do something about all those things except none of the pro-Brexit people appear to be proposing anything, which I find odd.
You are rather missing the point already made by a number if us that no genuine family businesses should be paying IHT. Farmers happen to be the main point of discussion but Cyclefree, JJ and myself have all spoken about other family firms as well.
The whole basis of the IHT tax raid on businesses is flawed and will lead to businesses going bust.
Businesses who only exist because of a tax loophole the rest of us don't have deserve to go bust.
This isn’t that.
Let’s say you have a profitable engineering business generating £1 million in EBITDA per year. Modestly leveraged (say) to fund purchase of new equipment.
The business likely has cash flow of £0.5m (£1m - £0.15m in interest - £0.2m in tax - something for working capital). Probably half the cash flow goes to paying down debt, and the rest is retained in the business for future growth.
It’s probably worth about £10m as a company. Owner dies and there is a £4m tax liability. That’s tough to fund through borrowing. So the company get sold to US Corp or to Smily Private Equity.
And the economy has weakened its basis for growth.
That’s why you should have entrepreneurs relief - the country is better off for having valuable small businesses. And farms should be treated just the same.
NB. Point of order: Business asset relief means you pay 20%, not 40% IIRC. Plus you get £1million in tax free allowance?
I feel like I'm in the minority here, in that I don't see why agricultural land should benefit from any special IHT rules compared to other family owned industries, e.g. engineering. Maybe there is a case that capital invested in productive capacity should be treated differently, but I can see difficulties in defining it and personally don't believe it should be treated any differently to money in the bank, or residential property.
There is a separate issue of land being transferred from being UK-family owned to foreign individuals or investment funds. Again, we haven't worried about it for any other industry and I don't see why agricultural land should be different. Actually I am worried about this, but my concern is across the board, not solely agriculture.
There is another issue that currently food production appears to be uneconomic in the country. Should we be concerned about food security? If we are then we should take steps to ensure that farmers get a fair return. But, again, why should we be more concerned about food than (say) energy, or steel production? There's no reason for farming to be singled out for special protection, in my view. However I would note (as an opponent of Brexit) that we now have an opportunity to do something about all those things except none of the pro-Brexit people appear to be proposing anything, which I find odd.
You are rather missing the point already made by a number if us that no genuine family businesses should be paying IHT. Farmers happen to be the main point of discussion but Cyclefree, JJ and myself have all spoken about other family firms as well.
The whole basis of the IHT tax raid on businesses is flawed and will lead to businesses going bust.
Why should a family firm or farm be exempt from the same taxes everyone else has to pay? You could, perhaps, make a case that IHT shouldn’t apply to anyone. But what’s the justification for carving out farmers as deserving of special privilege?
Farmers with significant land holdings are some of the wealthiest people in the country: One of them appeared on Good Morning Britain yesterday morning who had attended a £30k/year private school followed by a £40k/year sixth form. Why should her family be able to evade paying the taxes that practically every other family in the country has to?
Because inheriting a house, savings, quoted shareholdings artworks is essentially inheriting a windfall.
Inheriting business property is inheriting the assets needed to make the business work. And sure, you could just sell out to a bigger entity, but concentrating the ownership of businesses in fewer hands may be counterproductive,
Inheriting a profitable business is also a windfall, if it generates surplus profit after paying for the labour to run it.
It’s the golden goose fable
Let them keep the surplus profit and tax them on it
Plus how many times are we going to hear Lab trot (geddit?) out the phrase "to fund the NHS"? As Cyclefree noted, not every bloody thing in this country should be structured around the NHS which, as readers will be aware I believe, is a useless, not fit for purpose organisation as interested in killing people as mending their broken legs.
How about farmers pay their taxes so we can fund our armed forces to deal with Russia?
Farmers have done quite well out of Ukraine; wheat prices went up 50% during the start of the invasion.
Other sectors got whacked with a windfall tax when that happened...
Hmm, I'd guess more than offset by energy and fertiliser costs. Would be interesting to see the net figure.
If you're not an arable farmer, that would be a negative net.
Jeez, you really don't have a clue.
Are you saying non-arable farms benefitted from Ukraine ?
I would say it’s not easy to answer, as what hits one part of industry has knock on whilst some pressures on sheep farming like environmental, can be regional not strictly national. Bad weather at the wrong time is a big hit, can be hit and miss regional how happens as well. I think it’s 40% of agricultural land is considered as only being suitable for growing grass, so this can be localised land use on uplands. We only seriously do sheep. Cows went before I was born. The pigs I remember were not for industry but for very local and neighbours. Anything with pork in it, pies and rolls, and my Dad can’t resist it. And few years ago I wasn’t paying much attention to sheep farming. But. Cost of feed going up in 2020s has been the biggest hit on us. 2020s has made fertiliser a lot more expensive and there’s knock on across all farming industry from it. Sheep can be fussy what they eat, so can’t just stay grazing in same place as they eaten it. I have also seen stats saying UK consumers eating less lamb, it’s probably curry becoming UK favourite meal that helps balance lamb consumption roast lamb dinner not as popular. Our stats show we haven’t changed stock rates, but what likely happened in lots of farming, if you can’t afford things because of feed and winter housing etc you get rid of stock. Sheep gets all glowed up thinking it’s going to meet ram, but ends up in abattoirs. [insert crying sheep with eyeliner running emoji] Hope this helps explain.
Yes, thanks. I was just saying that if you weren't in arable, then Ukraine was unlikely to have helped with anything like windfall profits on grain prices. That seems to be the case.
I feel like I'm in the minority here, in that I don't see why agricultural land should benefit from any special IHT rules compared to other family owned industries, e.g. engineering. Maybe there is a case that capital invested in productive capacity should be treated differently, but I can see difficulties in defining it and personally don't believe it should be treated any differently to money in the bank, or residential property.
There is a separate issue of land being transferred from being UK-family owned to foreign individuals or investment funds. Again, we haven't worried about it for any other industry and I don't see why agricultural land should be different. Actually I am worried about this, but my concern is across the board, not solely agriculture.
There is another issue that currently food production appears to be uneconomic in the country. Should we be concerned about food security? If we are then we should take steps to ensure that farmers get a fair return. But, again, why should we be more concerned about food than (say) energy, or steel production? There's no reason for farming to be singled out for special protection, in my view. However I would note (as an opponent of Brexit) that we now have an opportunity to do something about all those things except none of the pro-Brexit people appear to be proposing anything, which I find odd.
You are rather missing the point already made by a number if us that no genuine family businesses should be paying IHT. Farmers happen to be the main point of discussion but Cyclefree, JJ and myself have all spoken about other family firms as well.
The whole basis of the IHT tax raid on businesses is flawed and will lead to businesses going bust.
Businesses who only exist because of a tax loophole the rest of us don't have deserve to go bust.
There was a tacit agreement. You grow the food and maybe get "paid" fuck all and we'll make sure your offspring can do the same.
Which Lab now have torn up. If you can tear up a tacit agreement.
My heart bleeds for these offspring inheriting substantial assets
They're trying to change the facts on the ground before Trump comes in for The Deal.
Obvs.
Yes, but it means that the pressure on Ukraine to accept the Deal will be irresistible. Korea it is
Korea it isn't. Whatever happens.
It will likely be a frozen war, an arimistice, roughly along the front lines as they stand, when the deal is made
As happened in Korea
1) Korea started as a genuine civil war, not an invasion. Millions on both sides migrated in opposite directions, and ended in territories they wanted to fight for. 2) The US was, of course, directly involved in the fighting. 3) Unlike Ukraine - where there have already been several ceasefires, followed by further Russian aggression, the Panmunjom settlement has lasted 70 years. 4) The US was willing to station substantial armed forces there for those seven decades to ensure the settlement. 5) The border something like a seventh as long as Russia/Ukraine, is largely mountainous, and readily policeable and defencible. 6) The opposing great power (China) has no territorial ambitions on the south. Inlike, of course, Russia.
Apart from that, it's similar-ish, if you squint.
It's a brutal bloody war involving Russia, China and the USA all in a foreign country, close to Russia/China - just like Korea. It's also two systems fighting each other by proxy, just like Korea
It will likely end in an armistice because both sides are exhausted and running out of men, and both sides have nukes and perhaps the only way you can now win this war is with nukes: and no one will use nukes. As happened in Korea
Do the people involved have slitty eyes and eat a lot of bibimbap? No. Well done for pointing out that crucial geopolitical difference
FWIW I think the only alternative to Korea ,now, is outright Russian victory
No, Russia is losing.
How come, you might reasonably ask, when it's advancing and Trump has just been elected? Well, a bit* like how Germany was losing in early 1918, even though it was advancing and Russia had just withdrawn from the war.
Put simply, it's not advancing much at all, despite the numpty BBC headline. The article itself reveals a different story. So far in 2024, Russia has gained 2700km2. That's an area roughly the size of Staffordshire. In 11 months. In a country larger than France. At a cost of hundreds of thousands of casualties. That is not winning, unless it's grinding Ukraine down even faster, which doesn't appear to be the case.
In early 2022, the average casualty was a 22 year-old regular soldier; last year it was a 31-year old Wagner mercenary (presumably mostly ex-prison); this year the average casualty is a 38-year old contract volunteer with little training: people desperate for the (high) pay and signing on bonuses - but that sort of person can't be found in sufficient numbers indefinitely. This is not a sustainable model, particularly when Russia is losing over a thousand soldiers a day (some might return: these are far from all being deaths but many/most won't).
Plus, Russia is running out of equipment. As noted in the article below, the war is costing Russia materiel much faster than they can replace it. So far, they've been able to make good out of reserves but that's unlikely to last through 2025 - another reason for the push now to try to gain themselves a breathing space.
To beat Russia, Ukraine does not need to occupy Moscow, it needs to break Putin's government or exhaust his army to the point of mutiny or other ineffectiveness. There are viable ways to both next year if Europe and other allies continue to stand by Ukraine.
They're trying to change the facts on the ground before Trump comes in for The Deal.
Obvs.
Yes, but it means that the pressure on Ukraine to accept the Deal will be irresistible. Korea it is
Korea it isn't. Whatever happens.
It will likely be a frozen war, an arimistice, roughly along the front lines as they stand, when the deal is made
As happened in Korea
1) Korea started as a genuine civil war, not an invasion. Millions on both sides migrated in opposite directions, and ended in territories they wanted to fight for. 2) The US was, of course, directly involved in the fighting. 3) Unlike Ukraine - where there have already been several ceasefires, followed by further Russian aggression, the Panmunjom settlement has lasted 70 years. 4) The US was willing to station substantial armed forces there for those seven decades to ensure the settlement. 5) The border something like a seventh as long as Russia/Ukraine, is largely mountainous, and readily policeable and defencible. 6) The opposing great power (China) has no territorial ambitions on the south. Inlike, of course, Russia.
Apart from that, it's similar-ish, if you squint.
It's a brutal bloody war involving Russia, China and the USA all in a foreign country, close to Russia/China - just like Korea. It's also two systems fighting each other by proxy, just like Korea
It will likely end in an armistice because both sides are exhausted and running out of men, and both sides have nukes and perhaps the only way you can now win this war is with nukes: and no one will use nukes. As happened in Korea
Do the people involved have slitty eyes and eat a lot of bibimbap? No. Well done for pointing out that crucial geopolitical difference
FWIW I think the only alternative to Korea ,now, is outright Russian victory
No, Russia is losing.
How come, you might reasonably ask, when it's advancing and Trump has just been elected? Well, a bit* like how Germany was losing in early 1918, even though it was advancing and Russia had just withdrawn from the war.
Put simply, it's not advancing much at all, despite the numpty BBC headline. The article itself reveals a different story. So far in 2024, Russia has gained 2700km2. That's an area roughly the size of Staffordshire. In 11 months. In a country larger than France. At a cost of hundreds of thousands of casualties. That is not winning, unless it's grinding Ukraine down even faster, which doesn't appear to be the case.
In early 2022, the average casualty was a 22 year-old regular soldier; last year it was a 31-year old Wagner mercenary (presumably mostly ex-prison); this year the average casualty is a 38-year old contract volunteer with little training: people desperate for the (high) pay and signing on bonuses - but that sort of person can't be found in sufficient numbers indefinitely. This is not a sustainable model, particularly when Russia is losing over a thousand soldiers a day (some might return: these are far from all being deaths but many/most won't).
Plus, Russia is running out of equipment. As noted in the article below, the war is costing Russia materiel much faster than they can replace it. So far, they've been able to make good out of reserves but that's unlikely to last through 2025 - another reason for the push now to try to gain themselves a breathing space.
To beat Russia, Ukraine does not need to occupy Moscow, it needs to break Putin's government or exhaust his army to the point of mutiny or other ineffectiveness. There are viable ways to both next year if Europe and other allies continue to stand by Ukraine.
That is so well-explained.
The Institute for the Study of War report paints a quite different picture to that headline.
Logistics are not everything, just almost everything. If Russia is losing men and equipment at rates that are irreplaceable, then Russia loses the war.
I feel like I'm in the minority here, in that I don't see why agricultural land should benefit from any special IHT rules compared to other family owned industries, e.g. engineering. Maybe there is a case that capital invested in productive capacity should be treated differently, but I can see difficulties in defining it and personally don't believe it should be treated any differently to money in the bank, or residential property.
There is a separate issue of land being transferred from being UK-family owned to foreign individuals or investment funds. Again, we haven't worried about it for any other industry and I don't see why agricultural land should be different. Actually I am worried about this, but my concern is across the board, not solely agriculture.
There is another issue that currently food production appears to be uneconomic in the country. Should we be concerned about food security? If we are then we should take steps to ensure that farmers get a fair return. But, again, why should we be more concerned about food than (say) energy, or steel production? There's no reason for farming to be singled out for special protection, in my view. However I would note (as an opponent of Brexit) that we now have an opportunity to do something about all those things except none of the pro-Brexit people appear to be proposing anything, which I find odd.
You are rather missing the point already made by a number if us that no genuine family businesses should be paying IHT. Farmers happen to be the main point of discussion but Cyclefree, JJ and myself have all spoken about other family firms as well.
The whole basis of the IHT tax raid on businesses is flawed and will lead to businesses going bust.
Businesses who only exist because of a tax loophole the rest of us don't have deserve to go bust.
And then when you no longer have choice to buy British in the supermarket, nations lost its food security, and uplands environments literally falling apart everywhere, far too late for yourself and this Labour government to realise how short sighted and ignorant that decision you just expressed has been. Still, at least you should be smiling and overjoyed, as you are clearly winning this one and going to get your way.
We should subsidise the production of food if that’s the goal we want not give IHT loop holes to already rich people for christ sake. The lack of perspective amongst these “farmers” is ridiculous.
Like anyone can walk in and do, like queues forming to walk in and do it. People want to be YouTubers, or on government payroll in offices being unproductive yet paid monthly wage, where’s the queue to not be rich, but live poor simple life full of hard work and dedication?
If you no longer have any woodtwiddlers cause the skills and interest to do it you killed off don’t expect to get any woodtwiddled.
I don’t disagree with any of that but inheritance tax has nothing to do with it.
Its. Got. Everything. To. Do. With. It.
There are actually people out there who say, in public, I have to pay IHT on my house, why shouldn’t they on their farm.
And it’s not actually called IHT is it, it’s APR. If you are going to claim there is no difference?
…but then want to keep wood twiddling alive you decide tomorrow morning a plan to help them keep their shack in the woods with their twiddling table, would your call your scheme IHT? No. You would be upset when people scrapped your scheme calling it IHT, and killed wood twiddling.
I feel like I'm in the minority here, in that I don't see why agricultural land should benefit from any special IHT rules compared to other family owned industries, e.g. engineering. Maybe there is a case that capital invested in productive capacity should be treated differently, but I can see difficulties in defining it and personally don't believe it should be treated any differently to money in the bank, or residential property.
There is a separate issue of land being transferred from being UK-family owned to foreign individuals or investment funds. Again, we haven't worried about it for any other industry and I don't see why agricultural land should be different. Actually I am worried about this, but my concern is across the board, not solely agriculture.
There is another issue that currently food production appears to be uneconomic in the country. Should we be concerned about food security? If we are then we should take steps to ensure that farmers get a fair return. But, again, why should we be more concerned about food than (say) energy, or steel production? There's no reason for farming to be singled out for special protection, in my view. However I would note (as an opponent of Brexit) that we now have an opportunity to do something about all those things except none of the pro-Brexit people appear to be proposing anything, which I find odd.
You are rather missing the point already made by a number if us that no genuine family businesses should be paying IHT. Farmers happen to be the main point of discussion but Cyclefree, JJ and myself have all spoken about other family firms as well.
The whole basis of the IHT tax raid on businesses is flawed and will lead to businesses going bust.
Businesses who only exist because of a tax loophole the rest of us don't have deserve to go bust.
This isn’t that.
Let’s say you have a profitable engineering business generating £1 million in EBITDA per year. Modestly leveraged (say) to fund purchase of new equipment.
The business likely has cash flow of £0.5m (£1m - £0.15m in interest - £0.2m in tax - something for working capital). Probably half the cash flow goes to paying down debt, and the rest is retained in the business for future growth.
It’s probably worth about £10m as a company. Owner dies and there is a £4m tax liability. That’s tough to fund through borrowing. So the company get sold to US Corp or to Smily Private Equity.
And the economy has weakened its basis for growth.
That’s why you should have entrepreneurs relief - the country is better off for having valuable small businesses. And farms should be treated just the same.
If the farm is incorporated do the shareholders benefit from the same reliefs?
I’m neither a farmer or a business owner, so approaching from first principles.
I feel like I'm in the minority here, in that I don't see why agricultural land should benefit from any special IHT rules compared to other family owned industries, e.g. engineering. Maybe there is a case that capital invested in productive capacity should be treated differently, but I can see difficulties in defining it and personally don't believe it should be treated any differently to money in the bank, or residential property.
There is a separate issue of land being transferred from being UK-family owned to foreign individuals or investment funds. Again, we haven't worried about it for any other industry and I don't see why agricultural land should be different. Actually I am worried about this, but my concern is across the board, not solely agriculture.
There is another issue that currently food production appears to be uneconomic in the country. Should we be concerned about food security? If we are then we should take steps to ensure that farmers get a fair return. But, again, why should we be more concerned about food than (say) energy, or steel production? There's no reason for farming to be singled out for special protection, in my view. However I would note (as an opponent of Brexit) that we now have an opportunity to do something about all those things except none of the pro-Brexit people appear to be proposing anything, which I find odd.
You are rather missing the point already made by a number if us that no genuine family businesses should be paying IHT. Farmers happen to be the main point of discussion but Cyclefree, JJ and myself have all spoken about other family firms as well.
The whole basis of the IHT tax raid on businesses is flawed and will lead to businesses going bust.
Why should a family firm or farm be exempt from the same taxes everyone else has to pay? You could, perhaps, make a case that IHT shouldn’t apply to anyone. But what’s the justification for carving out farmers as deserving of special privilege?
Farmers with significant land holdings are some of the wealthiest people in the country: One of them appeared on Good Morning Britain yesterday morning who had attended a £30k/year private school followed by a £40k/year sixth form. Why should her family be able to evade paying the taxes that practically every other family in the country has to?
This was explained to you on the previous thread by the ever brilliant @Cyclefree: agricultural land is a tool of the trade; a house is not.
Edinburgh landlords beg to differ. And agricultural land, like housing before, is now being used as a store of wealth for the rich.
The debate here on PB has now extended to IHT, CGT on businesses more generally and the whole thing is clearly a mess. I'm now minded to move the other way and get rid of these kind of taxes (farms included) altogether.
The solution is to make the supply chain responsible for illegally modified e-bikes.
If you sell a bike that *can* be modified to be illegal, you get done.
That's not very practical, to be honest. All e-bikes can be modified, they're not complex machines. Certainly manufacturers could make it harder, but all that will do is make it a bit more expensive to do.
To give an example, speed restrictors on e-bikes work using a sensor that counts rotations of the wheel. The same one that drives the speedo. All it does is send pulses to the bike's Control Unit, the closer the pulses the faster the wheel is spinning. To defeat that all you have to do is install a mod unit that filters out half of the pulses. £5 worth of parts and you've doubled the restriction speed.
Can that be blocked, technically? Yes. Use an encrypted data connection between the sensor and the CU. That probably quadruples the cost of the sensor system and just means modders will move on to hacking the CU itself. And in a few months complete unrestricted 'replacement' CUs will pop up on Aliexpress for £50.
I feel like I'm in the minority here, in that I don't see why agricultural land should benefit from any special IHT rules compared to other family owned industries, e.g. engineering. Maybe there is a case that capital invested in productive capacity should be treated differently, but I can see difficulties in defining it and personally don't believe it should be treated any differently to money in the bank, or residential property.
There is a separate issue of land being transferred from being UK-family owned to foreign individuals or investment funds. Again, we haven't worried about it for any other industry and I don't see why agricultural land should be different. Actually I am worried about this, but my concern is across the board, not solely agriculture.
There is another issue that currently food production appears to be uneconomic in the country. Should we be concerned about food security? If we are then we should take steps to ensure that farmers get a fair return. But, again, why should we be more concerned about food than (say) energy, or steel production? There's no reason for farming to be singled out for special protection, in my view. However I would note (as an opponent of Brexit) that we now have an opportunity to do something about all those things except none of the pro-Brexit people appear to be proposing anything, which I find odd.
You are rather missing the point already made by a number if us that no genuine family businesses should be paying IHT. Farmers happen to be the main point of discussion but Cyclefree, JJ and myself have all spoken about other family firms as well.
The whole basis of the IHT tax raid on businesses is flawed and will lead to businesses going bust.
Businesses who only exist because of a tax loophole the rest of us don't have deserve to go bust.
This isn’t that.
Let’s say you have a profitable engineering business generating £1 million in EBITDA per year. Modestly leveraged (say) to fund purchase of new equipment.
The business likely has cash flow of £0.5m (£1m - £0.15m in interest - £0.2m in tax - something for working capital). Probably half the cash flow goes to paying down debt, and the rest is retained in the business for future growth.
It’s probably worth about £10m as a company. Owner dies and there is a £4m tax liability. That’s tough to fund through borrowing. So the company get sold to US Corp or to Smily Private Equity.
And the economy has weakened its basis for growth.
That’s why you should have entrepreneurs relief - the country is better off for having valuable small businesses. And farms should be treated just the same.
NB. Point of order: Business asset relief means you pay 20%, not 40% IIRC. Plus you get £1million in tax free allowance?
I originally put £2-4m but simplified it (but cut out my assumed leverage of £3M).
But the principle is the same. If you have to find £0.1m in interest (£2m IHT bill) and £0.2m in capital repayments) it eats up all your growth capex budget.
I feel like I'm in the minority here, in that I don't see why agricultural land should benefit from any special IHT rules compared to other family owned industries, e.g. engineering. Maybe there is a case that capital invested in productive capacity should be treated differently, but I can see difficulties in defining it and personally don't believe it should be treated any differently to money in the bank, or residential property.
There is a separate issue of land being transferred from being UK-family owned to foreign individuals or investment funds. Again, we haven't worried about it for any other industry and I don't see why agricultural land should be different. Actually I am worried about this, but my concern is across the board, not solely agriculture.
There is another issue that currently food production appears to be uneconomic in the country. Should we be concerned about food security? If we are then we should take steps to ensure that farmers get a fair return. But, again, why should we be more concerned about food than (say) energy, or steel production? There's no reason for farming to be singled out for special protection, in my view. However I would note (as an opponent of Brexit) that we now have an opportunity to do something about all those things except none of the pro-Brexit people appear to be proposing anything, which I find odd.
You are rather missing the point already made by a number if us that no genuine family businesses should be paying IHT. Farmers happen to be the main point of discussion but Cyclefree, JJ and myself have all spoken about other family firms as well.
The whole basis of the IHT tax raid on businesses is flawed and will lead to businesses going bust.
Why should a family firm or farm be exempt from the same taxes everyone else has to pay? You could, perhaps, make a case that IHT shouldn’t apply to anyone. But what’s the justification for carving out farmers as deserving of special privilege?
Farmers with significant land holdings are some of the wealthiest people in the country: One of them appeared on Good Morning Britain yesterday morning who had attended a £30k/year private school followed by a £40k/year sixth form. Why should her family be able to evade paying the taxes that practically every other family in the country has to?
This was explained to you on the previous thread by the ever brilliant @Cyclefree: agricultural land is a tool of the trade; a house is not.
This is not a convincing argument. Agricultural land is an asset worth many £millions, which has actual rental value. If you can rent the land, then it’s more than just a “tool of the trade” - it’s an income generating asset.
Every other estate that seeks to pass on income generating assets in their will has to pay inheritance tax. Why should farmers be any different?
The Institute for the Study of War report paints a quite different picture to that headline.
Logistics are not everything, just almost everything. If Russia is losing men and equipment at rates that are irreplaceable, then Russia loses the war.
Hasn't Russia lost 7000 out of its 5000 tanks though ?
I feel like I'm in the minority here, in that I don't see why agricultural land should benefit from any special IHT rules compared to other family owned industries, e.g. engineering. Maybe there is a case that capital invested in productive capacity should be treated differently, but I can see difficulties in defining it and personally don't believe it should be treated any differently to money in the bank, or residential property.
There is a separate issue of land being transferred from being UK-family owned to foreign individuals or investment funds. Again, we haven't worried about it for any other industry and I don't see why agricultural land should be different. Actually I am worried about this, but my concern is across the board, not solely agriculture.
There is another issue that currently food production appears to be uneconomic in the country. Should we be concerned about food security? If we are then we should take steps to ensure that farmers get a fair return. But, again, why should we be more concerned about food than (say) energy, or steel production? There's no reason for farming to be singled out for special protection, in my view. However I would note (as an opponent of Brexit) that we now have an opportunity to do something about all those things except none of the pro-Brexit people appear to be proposing anything, which I find odd.
You are rather missing the point already made by a number if us that no genuine family businesses should be paying IHT. Farmers happen to be the main point of discussion but Cyclefree, JJ and myself have all spoken about other family firms as well.
The whole basis of the IHT tax raid on businesses is flawed and will lead to businesses going bust.
Businesses who only exist because of a tax loophole the rest of us don't have deserve to go bust.
And then when you no longer have choice to buy British in the supermarket, nations lost its food security, and uplands environments literally falling apart everywhere, far too late for yourself and this Labour government to realise how short sighted and ignorant that decision you just expressed has been. Still, at least you should be smiling and overjoyed, as you are clearly winning this one and going to get your way.
We should subsidise the production of food if that’s the goal we want not give IHT loop holes to already rich people for christ sake. The lack of perspective amongst these “farmers” is ridiculous.
They aren't rich in income terms, the average farmer earns average wage at best.
No point subsidising production of food if the state confiscates half the land needed to produce it too
If we subsidise production then there would be no problem paying a loan for the IHT. There is no “confiscation”.
I am absolutely sick of rich people crying because they have substantial assets but no income. Get a grip.
I am absolutely sick of left wing class warriors like you and the useless Labour government you support destroying family farms and small businesses and hitting pensioners to fund huge increases for leftwing train drivers and NHS GPs.
The cost to subsidise production would arguably be even more than the revenue raised from IHT on farms, making the measure even more pointless anyway
They're trying to change the facts on the ground before Trump comes in for The Deal.
Obvs.
Yes, but it means that the pressure on Ukraine to accept the Deal will be irresistible. Korea it is
Korea it isn't. Whatever happens.
It will likely be a frozen war, an arimistice, roughly along the front lines as they stand, when the deal is made
As happened in Korea
1) Korea started as a genuine civil war, not an invasion. Millions on both sides migrated in opposite directions, and ended in territories they wanted to fight for. 2) The US was, of course, directly involved in the fighting. 3) Unlike Ukraine - where there have already been several ceasefires, followed by further Russian aggression, the Panmunjom settlement has lasted 70 years. 4) The US was willing to station substantial armed forces there for those seven decades to ensure the settlement. 5) The border something like a seventh as long as Russia/Ukraine, is largely mountainous, and readily policeable and defencible. 6) The opposing great power (China) has no territorial ambitions on the south. Inlike, of course, Russia.
Apart from that, it's similar-ish, if you squint.
It's a brutal bloody war involving Russia, China and the USA all in a foreign country, close to Russia/China - just like Korea. It's also two systems fighting each other by proxy, just like Korea
It will likely end in an armistice because both sides are exhausted and running out of men, and both sides have nukes and perhaps the only way you can now win this war is with nukes: and no one will use nukes. As happened in Korea
Do the people involved have slitty eyes and eat a lot of bibimbap? No. Well done for pointing out that crucial geopolitical difference
FWIW I think the only alternative to Korea ,now, is outright Russian victory
No, Russia is losing.
How come, you might reasonably ask, when it's advancing and Trump has just been elected? Well, a bit* like how Germany was losing in early 1918, even though it was advancing and Russia had just withdrawn from the war.
Put simply, it's not advancing much at all, despite the numpty BBC headline. The article itself reveals a different story. So far in 2024, Russia has gained 2700km2. That's an area roughly the size of Staffordshire. In 11 months. In a country larger than France. At a cost of hundreds of thousands of casualties. That is not winning, unless it's grinding Ukraine down even faster, which doesn't appear to be the case.
In early 2022, the average casualty was a 22 year-old regular soldier; last year it was a 31-year old Wagner mercenary (presumably mostly ex-prison); this year the average casualty is a 38-year old contract volunteer with little training: people desperate for the (high) pay and signing on bonuses - but that sort of person can't be found in sufficient numbers indefinitely. This is not a sustainable model, particularly when Russia is losing over a thousand soldiers a day (some might return: these are far from all being deaths but many/most won't).
Plus, Russia is running out of equipment. As noted in the article below, the war is costing Russia materiel much faster than they can replace it. So far, they've been able to make good out of reserves but that's unlikely to last through 2025 - another reason for the push now to try to gain themselves a breathing space.
To beat Russia, Ukraine does not need to occupy Moscow, it needs to break Putin's government or exhaust his army to the point of mutiny or other ineffectiveness. There are viable ways to both next year if Europe and other allies continue to stand by Ukraine.
That's very eloquent, but, unfortunately, Ukraine is running out of soldiers, as they are all dead
Looking at business property generally, suppose you have a business worth £3m. That £3m comprises premises, plant and machinery, goodwill etc.
£2m of that gets taxed at 20% ie £400,000. That’s quite a stiff entry fee for the next generation to operate that business.
Getting a business worth £2.6m for nowt, such a hardship.
Bit arbitrary though: if the family has a habit of having children at twenty the government gets twice as much tax than if the family tends to have children at forty.
In the words of the police chief - "There are areas of the city, we need to be perfectly honest here, where I would advise people who wear a kippah or are openly gay to be more careful.”
Tricky one. They certainly were being perfectly honest. To be perfectly honest a West Ham fan with a Hammers tattoo on his forehead should be more careful going into the Shed.
Not to say there is a value judgment in either case. One would hope they then went on to say "... and this is something we are working to address." Or some such.
One would hope.
It's a tricky one for me as it causes an error in my liberal-metropolitan-values module, the one that espouses tolerance and lives and works with and is friends with all manner of people from all walks of life.
Yet also increasingly feels under threat from people from different cultures who don't share my world view.
But the only people really speaking up about it are the far right, with whom I don't share a world view, either.
What else marks them out as far right.
Just google anything Farage has said or done on the subject over the last decade. Submitted for your approval is the 'turning point' poster, his comments describing muslims as a 'fifth column' and his spirited defence of Enoch Powell. Hardly a plea for tolerance and understanding. And Reform's record on, say, trans rights, doesn't suggest they'll be particularly keen on the LGBT community, either.
The problem is with news like the quote posted above happening in Berlin, people like me are going to keep sticking our head in the sand because we're too damn liberal to support the far right and don't want to raise our heads above the parapet and say "hang on, this is wrong" for fear of being lumped in with them.
And so it continues to fester, year by year...
Farage is not far right, he's not even particularly hard right. He's a mildly ethnocentric populist with a dash of demagogue. He is also democratic, law abiding, and generally quite courteous. If he is as bad as we get in Britain - in terms of the world's alt.rightwards swing - we should count ourselves lucky
A gateway drug ?
Perhaps, but to my mind he is quite firm on keeping Reform within the Pale of Acceptability; he knows Britain won't vote for outrught Fash (unless things go seriously mad), and he isn't that anyway
It's more that the Overton Window has shifted so far a trad populist rightwinger like Farage can be painted as Hitler manque. It's nuts. It also does no one any favours, as we won't have the vocab to persuade voters of the danger when a real Fascist hoves into view
For contrast, Nick Griffin was proper far right, and truly odious
The solution is to make the supply chain responsible for illegally modified e-bikes.
If you sell a bike that *can* be modified to be illegal, you get done.
That's not very practical, to be honest. All e-bikes can be modified, they're not complex machines. Certainly manufacturers could make it harder, but all that will do is make it a bit more expensive to do.
To give an example, speed restrictors on e-bikes work using a sensor that counts rotations of the wheel. The same one that drives the speedo. All it does is send pulses to the bike's Control Unit, the closer the pulses the faster the wheel is spinning. To defeat that all you have to do is install a mod unit that filters out half of the pulses. £5 worth of parts and you've doubled the restriction speed.
Can that be blocked, technically? Yes. Use an encrypted data connection between the sensor and the CU. That probably quadruples the cost of the sensor system and just means modders will move on to hacking the CU itself. And in a few months complete unrestricted 'replacement' CUs will pop up on Aliexpress for £50.
And yet hacking the encryption on Sky boxes is a small issue.
Almost as if it was in Sky’s interest to minimise that.
Make it a problem for the retailers and strangely, the manufacturers will start fighting the modders, rather than encouraging them.
Further evidence of the mediocrity of this government.
'Schools should cut down on museums and theatre trips and remove references in lessons to middle class activities like skiing holidays a government curriculum review will be held.'
I feel like I'm in the minority here, in that I don't see why agricultural land should benefit from any special IHT rules compared to other family owned industries, e.g. engineering. Maybe there is a case that capital invested in productive capacity should be treated differently, but I can see difficulties in defining it and personally don't believe it should be treated any differently to money in the bank, or residential property.
There is a separate issue of land being transferred from being UK-family owned to foreign individuals or investment funds. Again, we haven't worried about it for any other industry and I don't see why agricultural land should be different. Actually I am worried about this, but my concern is across the board, not solely agriculture.
There is another issue that currently food production appears to be uneconomic in the country. Should we be concerned about food security? If we are then we should take steps to ensure that farmers get a fair return. But, again, why should we be more concerned about food than (say) energy, or steel production? There's no reason for farming to be singled out for special protection, in my view. However I would note (as an opponent of Brexit) that we now have an opportunity to do something about all those things except none of the pro-Brexit people appear to be proposing anything, which I find odd.
You are rather missing the point already made by a number if us that no genuine family businesses should be paying IHT. Farmers happen to be the main point of discussion but Cyclefree, JJ and myself have all spoken about other family firms as well.
The whole basis of the IHT tax raid on businesses is flawed and will lead to businesses going bust.
Businesses who only exist because of a tax loophole the rest of us don't have deserve to go bust.
This isn’t that.
Let’s say you have a profitable engineering business generating £1 million in EBITDA per year. Modestly leveraged (say) to fund purchase of new equipment.
The business likely has cash flow of £0.5m (£1m - £0.15m in interest - £0.2m in tax - something for working capital). Probably half the cash flow goes to paying down debt, and the rest is retained in the business for future growth.
It’s probably worth about £10m as a company. Owner dies and there is a £4m tax liability. That’s tough to fund through borrowing. So the company get sold to US Corp or to Smily Private Equity.
And the economy has weakened its basis for growth.
That’s why you should have entrepreneurs relief - the country is better off for having valuable small businesses. And farms should be treated just the same.
NB. Point of order: Business asset relief means you pay 20%, not 40% IIRC. Plus you get £1million in tax free allowance?
I originally put £2-4m but simplified it (but cut out my assumed leverage of £3M).
But the principle is the same. If you have to find £0.1m in interest (£2m IHT bill) and £0.2m in capital repayments) it eats up all your growth capex budget.
They're trying to change the facts on the ground before Trump comes in for The Deal.
Obvs.
Yes, but it means that the pressure on Ukraine to accept the Deal will be irresistible. Korea it is
Korea it isn't. Whatever happens.
It will likely be a frozen war, an arimistice, roughly along the front lines as they stand, when the deal is made
As happened in Korea
1) Korea started as a genuine civil war, not an invasion. Millions on both sides migrated in opposite directions, and ended in territories they wanted to fight for. 2) The US was, of course, directly involved in the fighting. 3) Unlike Ukraine - where there have already been several ceasefires, followed by further Russian aggression, the Panmunjom settlement has lasted 70 years. 4) The US was willing to station substantial armed forces there for those seven decades to ensure the settlement. 5) The border something like a seventh as long as Russia/Ukraine, is largely mountainous, and readily policeable and defencible. 6) The opposing great power (China) has no territorial ambitions on the south. Inlike, of course, Russia.
Apart from that, it's similar-ish, if you squint.
It's a brutal bloody war involving Russia, China and the USA all in a foreign country, close to Russia/China - just like Korea. It's also two systems fighting each other by proxy, just like Korea
It will likely end in an armistice because both sides are exhausted and running out of men, and both sides have nukes and perhaps the only way you can now win this war is with nukes: and no one will use nukes. As happened in Korea
Do the people involved have slitty eyes and eat a lot of bibimbap? No. Well done for pointing out that crucial geopolitical difference
FWIW I think the only alternative to Korea ,now, is outright Russian victory
No, Russia is losing.
How come, you might reasonably ask, when it's advancing and Trump has just been elected? Well, a bit* like how Germany was losing in early 1918, even though it was advancing and Russia had just withdrawn from the war.
Put simply, it's not advancing much at all, despite the numpty BBC headline. The article itself reveals a different story. So far in 2024, Russia has gained 2700km2. That's an area roughly the size of Staffordshire. In 11 months. In a country larger than France. At a cost of hundreds of thousands of casualties. That is not winning, unless it's grinding Ukraine down even faster, which doesn't appear to be the case.
In early 2022, the average casualty was a 22 year-old regular soldier; last year it was a 31-year old Wagner mercenary (presumably mostly ex-prison); this year the average casualty is a 38-year old contract volunteer with little training: people desperate for the (high) pay and signing on bonuses - but that sort of person can't be found in sufficient numbers indefinitely. This is not a sustainable model, particularly when Russia is losing over a thousand soldiers a day (some might return: these are far from all being deaths but many/most won't).
Plus, Russia is running out of equipment. As noted in the article below, the war is costing Russia materiel much faster than they can replace it. So far, they've been able to make good out of reserves but that's unlikely to last through 2025 - another reason for the push now to try to gain themselves a breathing space.
To beat Russia, Ukraine does not need to occupy Moscow, it needs to break Putin's government or exhaust his army to the point of mutiny or other ineffectiveness. There are viable ways to both next year if Europe and other allies continue to stand by Ukraine.
That's very eloquent, but, unfortunately, Ukraine is running out of soldiers, as they are all dead
Russia has to keep its ratio of losses to Ukrainian losses, no higher than three to one. Russia’s losses are well above that.
Further evidence of the mediocrity of this government.
'Schools should cut down on museums and theatre trips and remove references in lessons to middle class activities like skiing holidays a government curriculum review will be held.'
The government's education/curriculum reivew is a Woke Disaster in the making. They've got the most insane Woke twats from academe advising them, proper Britain-haters and "post-colonialist gender studies" experts
I feel like I'm in the minority here, in that I don't see why agricultural land should benefit from any special IHT rules compared to other family owned industries, e.g. engineering. Maybe there is a case that capital invested in productive capacity should be treated differently, but I can see difficulties in defining it and personally don't believe it should be treated any differently to money in the bank, or residential property.
There is a separate issue of land being transferred from being UK-family owned to foreign individuals or investment funds. Again, we haven't worried about it for any other industry and I don't see why agricultural land should be different. Actually I am worried about this, but my concern is across the board, not solely agriculture.
There is another issue that currently food production appears to be uneconomic in the country. Should we be concerned about food security? If we are then we should take steps to ensure that farmers get a fair return. But, again, why should we be more concerned about food than (say) energy, or steel production? There's no reason for farming to be singled out for special protection, in my view. However I would note (as an opponent of Brexit) that we now have an opportunity to do something about all those things except none of the pro-Brexit people appear to be proposing anything, which I find odd.
You are rather missing the point already made by a number if us that no genuine family businesses should be paying IHT. Farmers happen to be the main point of discussion but Cyclefree, JJ and myself have all spoken about other family firms as well.
The whole basis of the IHT tax raid on businesses is flawed and will lead to businesses going bust.
Businesses who only exist because of a tax loophole the rest of us don't have deserve to go bust.
There was a tacit agreement. You grow the food and maybe get "paid" fuck all and we'll make sure your offspring can do the same.
Which Lab now have torn up. If you can tear up a tacit agreement.
My heart bleeds for these offspring inheriting substantial assets
That is because you are a twat
That may be so but will anyone think of the poor offspring inheriting substantial assets?!
I feel like I'm in the minority here, in that I don't see why agricultural land should benefit from any special IHT rules compared to other family owned industries, e.g. engineering. Maybe there is a case that capital invested in productive capacity should be treated differently, but I can see difficulties in defining it and personally don't believe it should be treated any differently to money in the bank, or residential property.
There is a separate issue of land being transferred from being UK-family owned to foreign individuals or investment funds. Again, we haven't worried about it for any other industry and I don't see why agricultural land should be different. Actually I am worried about this, but my concern is across the board, not solely agriculture.
There is another issue that currently food production appears to be uneconomic in the country. Should we be concerned about food security? If we are then we should take steps to ensure that farmers get a fair return. But, again, why should we be more concerned about food than (say) energy, or steel production? There's no reason for farming to be singled out for special protection, in my view. However I would note (as an opponent of Brexit) that we now have an opportunity to do something about all those things except none of the pro-Brexit people appear to be proposing anything, which I find odd.
You are rather missing the point already made by a number if us that no genuine family businesses should be paying IHT. Farmers happen to be the main point of discussion but Cyclefree, JJ and myself have all spoken about other family firms as well.
The whole basis of the IHT tax raid on businesses is flawed and will lead to businesses going bust.
Businesses who only exist because of a tax loophole the rest of us don't have deserve to go bust.
This isn’t that.
Let’s say you have a profitable engineering business generating £1 million in EBITDA per year. Modestly leveraged (say) to fund purchase of new equipment.
The business likely has cash flow of £0.5m (£1m - £0.15m in interest - £0.2m in tax - something for working capital). Probably half the cash flow goes to paying down debt, and the rest is retained in the business for future growth.
It’s probably worth about £10m as a company. Owner dies and there is a £4m tax liability. That’s tough to fund through borrowing. So the company get sold to US Corp or to Smily Private Equity.
And the economy has weakened its basis for growth.
That’s why you should have entrepreneurs relief - the country is better off for having valuable small businesses. And farms should be treated just the same.
If the farm is incorporated do the shareholders benefit from the same reliefs?
I’m neither a farmer or a business owner, so approaching from first principles.
But they should be treated the same
Not really. They could incorporate if they wanted to cleanly separate the business from personal assets but I wonder why they don’t want to do that…
The Institute for the Study of War report paints a quite different picture to that headline.
Logistics are not everything, just almost everything. If Russia is losing men and equipment at rates that are irreplaceable, then Russia loses the war.
Hasn't Russia lost 7000 out of its 5000 tanks though ?
Russia still has some tank producing capacity. But it’s no-where near enough to match the current loss rate. Once they’ve burnt through the Soviet legacy stocks their capacity for war-making will radically reduce unless they can find another source of materiel.
Current predictions place this outcome sometime late 2025. This is why the Russians are so belligerent now & are throwing so much at the front - they know their war is unsustainable so they’re hoping for a breakthrough now & failing that the best possible position for a negotiated outcome whilst they still look “strong”. But it’s a threat that can’t last at current loss rates.
China is the wildcard here. They probably have a ton of not great but usable cold-war era tanks & IFVs that could be transferred to Russia if the Chinese leadership so chose. A Russia supplied with Chinese cold war materiel could keep the war going for several more years at least & it’s (understandably) not clear that the Ukrainians will have the will to fight that long.
I feel like I'm in the minority here, in that I don't see why agricultural land should benefit from any special IHT rules compared to other family owned industries, e.g. engineering. Maybe there is a case that capital invested in productive capacity should be treated differently, but I can see difficulties in defining it and personally don't believe it should be treated any differently to money in the bank, or residential property.
There is a separate issue of land being transferred from being UK-family owned to foreign individuals or investment funds. Again, we haven't worried about it for any other industry and I don't see why agricultural land should be different. Actually I am worried about this, but my concern is across the board, not solely agriculture.
There is another issue that currently food production appears to be uneconomic in the country. Should we be concerned about food security? If we are then we should take steps to ensure that farmers get a fair return. But, again, why should we be more concerned about food than (say) energy, or steel production? There's no reason for farming to be singled out for special protection, in my view. However I would note (as an opponent of Brexit) that we now have an opportunity to do something about all those things except none of the pro-Brexit people appear to be proposing anything, which I find odd.
You are rather missing the point already made by a number if us that no genuine family businesses should be paying IHT. Farmers happen to be the main point of discussion but Cyclefree, JJ and myself have all spoken about other family firms as well.
The whole basis of the IHT tax raid on businesses is flawed and will lead to businesses going bust.
Businesses who only exist because of a tax loophole the rest of us don't have deserve to go bust.
And then when you no longer have choice to buy British in the supermarket, nations lost its food security, and uplands environments literally falling apart everywhere, far too late for yourself and this Labour government to realise how short sighted and ignorant that decision you just expressed has been. Still, at least you should be smiling and overjoyed, as you are clearly winning this one and going to get your way.
We should subsidise the production of food if that’s the goal we want not give IHT loop holes to already rich people for christ sake. The lack of perspective amongst these “farmers” is ridiculous.
They aren't rich in income terms, the average farmer earns average wage at best.
No point subsidising production of food if the state confiscates half the land needed to produce it too
If we subsidise production then there would be no problem paying a loan for the IHT. There is no “confiscation”.
I am absolutely sick of rich people crying because they have substantial assets but no income. Get a grip.
I am absolutely sick of left wing class warriors like you and the useless Labour government you support destroying family farms and small businesses and hitting pensioners to fund huge increases for leftwing train drivers and NHS GPs.
The cost to subsidise production would arguably be even more than the revenue raised from IHT on farms, making the measure even more pointless anyway
Will nobody think of the poor farmers with millions of pounds worth of assets?! I am glad that such poor downtrodden people have you to speak for them.
Further evidence of the mediocrity of this government.
'Schools should cut down on museums and theatre trips and remove references in lessons to middle class activities like skiing holidays a government curriculum review will be held.'
The government's education/curriculum reivew is a Woke Disaster in the making. They've got the most insane Woke twats from academe advising them, proper Britain-haters and "post-colonialist gender studies" experts
Locally, a chap working at the library did a series of reading and sing alongs (with guitar) from the various popular kids books. Julia Donaldson featured heavily. Did this on a weekend morning. When the library was basically empty.
After a few weeks, the kids section of the library was full, for his performances.
Not long after, he was told to stop it. Apparently the crowd he was drawing was too middle class and risked excluding non-middle class people.
I feel like I'm in the minority here, in that I don't see why agricultural land should benefit from any special IHT rules compared to other family owned industries, e.g. engineering. Maybe there is a case that capital invested in productive capacity should be treated differently, but I can see difficulties in defining it and personally don't believe it should be treated any differently to money in the bank, or residential property.
There is a separate issue of land being transferred from being UK-family owned to foreign individuals or investment funds. Again, we haven't worried about it for any other industry and I don't see why agricultural land should be different. Actually I am worried about this, but my concern is across the board, not solely agriculture.
There is another issue that currently food production appears to be uneconomic in the country. Should we be concerned about food security? If we are then we should take steps to ensure that farmers get a fair return. But, again, why should we be more concerned about food than (say) energy, or steel production? There's no reason for farming to be singled out for special protection, in my view. However I would note (as an opponent of Brexit) that we now have an opportunity to do something about all those things except none of the pro-Brexit people appear to be proposing anything, which I find odd.
You are rather missing the point already made by a number if us that no genuine family businesses should be paying IHT. Farmers happen to be the main point of discussion but Cyclefree, JJ and myself have all spoken about other family firms as well.
The whole basis of the IHT tax raid on businesses is flawed and will lead to businesses going bust.
Businesses who only exist because of a tax loophole the rest of us don't have deserve to go bust.
This isn’t that.
Let’s say you have a profitable engineering business generating £1 million in EBITDA per year. Modestly leveraged (say) to fund purchase of new equipment.
The business likely has cash flow of £0.5m (£1m - £0.15m in interest - £0.2m in tax - something for working capital). Probably half the cash flow goes to paying down debt, and the rest is retained in the business for future growth.
It’s probably worth about £10m as a company. Owner dies and there is a £4m tax liability. That’s tough to fund through borrowing. So the company get sold to US Corp or to Smily Private Equity.
And the economy has weakened its basis for growth.
That’s why you should have entrepreneurs relief - the country is better off for having valuable small businesses. And farms should be treated just the same.
NB. Point of order: Business asset relief means you pay 20%, not 40% IIRC. Plus you get £1million in tax free allowance?
I originally put £2-4m but simplified it (but cut out my assumed leverage of £3M).
But the principle is the same. If you have to find £0.1m in interest (£2m IHT bill) and £0.2m in capital repayments) it eats up all your growth capex budget.
They're trying to change the facts on the ground before Trump comes in for The Deal.
Obvs.
Yes, but it means that the pressure on Ukraine to accept the Deal will be irresistible. Korea it is
Korea it isn't. Whatever happens.
It will likely be a frozen war, an arimistice, roughly along the front lines as they stand, when the deal is made
As happened in Korea
1) Korea started as a genuine civil war, not an invasion. Millions on both sides migrated in opposite directions, and ended in territories they wanted to fight for. 2) The US was, of course, directly involved in the fighting. 3) Unlike Ukraine - where there have already been several ceasefires, followed by further Russian aggression, the Panmunjom settlement has lasted 70 years. 4) The US was willing to station substantial armed forces there for those seven decades to ensure the settlement. 5) The border something like a seventh as long as Russia/Ukraine, is largely mountainous, and readily policeable and defencible. 6) The opposing great power (China) has no territorial ambitions on the south. Inlike, of course, Russia.
Apart from that, it's similar-ish, if you squint.
It's a brutal bloody war involving Russia, China and the USA all in a foreign country, close to Russia/China - just like Korea. It's also two systems fighting each other by proxy, just like Korea
It will likely end in an armistice because both sides are exhausted and running out of men, and both sides have nukes and perhaps the only way you can now win this war is with nukes: and no one will use nukes. As happened in Korea
Do the people involved have slitty eyes and eat a lot of bibimbap? No. Well done for pointing out that crucial geopolitical difference
FWIW I think the only alternative to Korea ,now, is outright Russian victory
No, Russia is losing.
How come, you might reasonably ask, when it's advancing and Trump has just been elected? Well, a bit* like how Germany was losing in early 1918, even though it was advancing and Russia had just withdrawn from the war.
Put simply, it's not advancing much at all, despite the numpty BBC headline. The article itself reveals a different story. So far in 2024, Russia has gained 2700km2. That's an area roughly the size of Staffordshire. In 11 months. In a country larger than France. At a cost of hundreds of thousands of casualties. That is not winning, unless it's grinding Ukraine down even faster, which doesn't appear to be the case.
In early 2022, the average casualty was a 22 year-old regular soldier; last year it was a 31-year old Wagner mercenary (presumably mostly ex-prison); this year the average casualty is a 38-year old contract volunteer with little training: people desperate for the (high) pay and signing on bonuses - but that sort of person can't be found in sufficient numbers indefinitely. This is not a sustainable model, particularly when Russia is losing over a thousand soldiers a day (some might return: these are far from all being deaths but many/most won't).
Plus, Russia is running out of equipment. As noted in the article below, the war is costing Russia materiel much faster than they can replace it. So far, they've been able to make good out of reserves but that's unlikely to last through 2025 - another reason for the push now to try to gain themselves a breathing space.
To beat Russia, Ukraine does not need to occupy Moscow, it needs to break Putin's government or exhaust his army to the point of mutiny or other ineffectiveness. There are viable ways to both next year if Europe and other allies continue to stand by Ukraine.
That's very eloquent, but, unfortunately, Ukraine is running out of soldiers, as they are all dead
Russia has to keep its ratio of losses to Ukrainian losses, no higher than three to one. Russia’s losses are well above that.
Are they? You're very credulous when it comes to Ukraine. I can recall you reassuring us that the Great Ukrainian Counter-Offensive was about to reach the Sea of Azov. They barely moved an inch, in reality, and at vast expense in men and materiel
No one knows the true toll of Ukrainian soldiers coz the Kyiv govt keeps it quiet (and understandably so, all wartime governments do this) but I can say, from having been there twice during this war, that an awful lack of young men is visible on the streets, and of those you do see, an awful lot are clearly injured, maimed, on crutches
Meanwhile thousands of young men - maybe tens or hundreds of thousands - have illegally fled Ukraine to avoid the draft. I've met a few of them
Recall all the other hopeful lies we've been told about this war
1. Putin has cancer 2. Putin will be overthrown 3. Russia will collapse under sanctions 4. Russia is mutinying 5. etc etc
It's hard to find the truth in the panto of lies, on all sides, but one should be almost as wary of Ukrainian propaganda as Russian propaganda
The solution is to make the supply chain responsible for illegally modified e-bikes.
If you sell a bike that *can* be modified to be illegal, you get done.
That's not very practical, to be honest. All e-bikes can be modified, they're not complex machines. Certainly manufacturers could make it harder, but all that will do is make it a bit more expensive to do.
To give an example, speed restrictors on e-bikes work using a sensor that counts rotations of the wheel. The same one that drives the speedo. All it does is send pulses to the bike's Control Unit, the closer the pulses the faster the wheel is spinning. To defeat that all you have to do is install a mod unit that filters out half of the pulses. £5 worth of parts and you've doubled the restriction speed.
Can that be blocked, technically? Yes. Use an encrypted data connection between the sensor and the CU. That probably quadruples the cost of the sensor system and just means modders will move on to hacking the CU itself. And in a few months complete unrestricted 'replacement' CUs will pop up on Aliexpress for £50.
And yet hacking the encryption on Sky boxes is a small issue.
Almost as if it was in Sky’s interest to minimise that.
Make it a problem for the retailers and strangely, the manufacturers will start fighting the modders, rather than encouraging them.
They're trying to change the facts on the ground before Trump comes in for The Deal.
Obvs.
Yes, but it means that the pressure on Ukraine to accept the Deal will be irresistible. Korea it is
Korea it isn't. Whatever happens.
It will likely be a frozen war, an arimistice, roughly along the front lines as they stand, when the deal is made
As happened in Korea
1) Korea started as a genuine civil war, not an invasion. Millions on both sides migrated in opposite directions, and ended in territories they wanted to fight for. 2) The US was, of course, directly involved in the fighting. 3) Unlike Ukraine - where there have already been several ceasefires, followed by further Russian aggression, the Panmunjom settlement has lasted 70 years. 4) The US was willing to station substantial armed forces there for those seven decades to ensure the settlement. 5) The border something like a seventh as long as Russia/Ukraine, is largely mountainous, and readily policeable and defencible. 6) The opposing great power (China) has no territorial ambitions on the south. Inlike, of course, Russia.
Apart from that, it's similar-ish, if you squint.
It's a brutal bloody war involving Russia, China and the USA all in a foreign country, close to Russia/China - just like Korea. It's also two systems fighting each other by proxy, just like Korea
It will likely end in an armistice because both sides are exhausted and running out of men, and both sides have nukes and perhaps the only way you can now win this war is with nukes: and no one will use nukes. As happened in Korea
Do the people involved have slitty eyes and eat a lot of bibimbap? No. Well done for pointing out that crucial geopolitical difference
FWIW I think the only alternative to Korea ,now, is outright Russian victory
No, Russia is losing.
How come, you might reasonably ask, when it's advancing and Trump has just been elected? Well, a bit* like how Germany was losing in early 1918, even though it was advancing and Russia had just withdrawn from the war.
Put simply, it's not advancing much at all, despite the numpty BBC headline. The article itself reveals a different story. So far in 2024, Russia has gained 2700km2. That's an area roughly the size of Staffordshire. In 11 months. In a country larger than France. At a cost of hundreds of thousands of casualties. That is not winning, unless it's grinding Ukraine down even faster, which doesn't appear to be the case.
In early 2022, the average casualty was a 22 year-old regular soldier; last year it was a 31-year old Wagner mercenary (presumably mostly ex-prison); this year the average casualty is a 38-year old contract volunteer with little training: people desperate for the (high) pay and signing on bonuses - but that sort of person can't be found in sufficient numbers indefinitely. This is not a sustainable model, particularly when Russia is losing over a thousand soldiers a day (some might return: these are far from all being deaths but many/most won't).
Plus, Russia is running out of equipment. As noted in the article below, the war is costing Russia materiel much faster than they can replace it. So far, they've been able to make good out of reserves but that's unlikely to last through 2025 - another reason for the push now to try to gain themselves a breathing space.
To beat Russia, Ukraine does not need to occupy Moscow, it needs to break Putin's government or exhaust his army to the point of mutiny or other ineffectiveness. There are viable ways to both next year if Europe and other allies continue to stand by Ukraine.
They're trying to change the facts on the ground before Trump comes in for The Deal.
Obvs.
Yes, but it means that the pressure on Ukraine to accept the Deal will be irresistible. Korea it is
Korea it isn't. Whatever happens.
It will likely be a frozen war, an arimistice, roughly along the front lines as they stand, when the deal is made
As happened in Korea
1) Korea started as a genuine civil war, not an invasion. Millions on both sides migrated in opposite directions, and ended in territories they wanted to fight for. 2) The US was, of course, directly involved in the fighting. 3) Unlike Ukraine - where there have already been several ceasefires, followed by further Russian aggression, the Panmunjom settlement has lasted 70 years. 4) The US was willing to station substantial armed forces there for those seven decades to ensure the settlement. 5) The border something like a seventh as long as Russia/Ukraine, is largely mountainous, and readily policeable and defencible. 6) The opposing great power (China) has no territorial ambitions on the south. Inlike, of course, Russia.
Apart from that, it's similar-ish, if you squint.
It's a brutal bloody war involving Russia, China and the USA all in a foreign country, close to Russia/China - just like Korea. It's also two systems fighting each other by proxy, just like Korea
It will likely end in an armistice because both sides are exhausted and running out of men, and both sides have nukes and perhaps the only way you can now win this war is with nukes: and no one will use nukes. As happened in Korea
Do the people involved have slitty eyes and eat a lot of bibimbap? No. Well done for pointing out that crucial geopolitical difference
FWIW I think the only alternative to Korea ,now, is outright Russian victory
No, Russia is losing.
How come, you might reasonably ask, when it's advancing and Trump has just been elected? Well, a bit* like how Germany was losing in early 1918, even though it was advancing and Russia had just withdrawn from the war.
Put simply, it's not advancing much at all, despite the numpty BBC headline. The article itself reveals a different story. So far in 2024, Russia has gained 2700km2. That's an area roughly the size of Staffordshire. In 11 months. In a country larger than France. At a cost of hundreds of thousands of casualties. That is not winning, unless it's grinding Ukraine down even faster, which doesn't appear to be the case.
In early 2022, the average casualty was a 22 year-old regular soldier; last year it was a 31-year old Wagner mercenary (presumably mostly ex-prison); this year the average casualty is a 38-year old contract volunteer with little training: people desperate for the (high) pay and signing on bonuses - but that sort of person can't be found in sufficient numbers indefinitely. This is not a sustainable model, particularly when Russia is losing over a thousand soldiers a day (some might return: these are far from all being deaths but many/most won't).
Plus, Russia is running out of equipment. As noted in the article below, the war is costing Russia materiel much faster than they can replace it. So far, they've been able to make good out of reserves but that's unlikely to last through 2025 - another reason for the push now to try to gain themselves a breathing space.
To beat Russia, Ukraine does not need to occupy Moscow, it needs to break Putin's government or exhaust his army to the point of mutiny or other ineffectiveness. There are viable ways to both next year if Europe and other allies continue to stand by Ukraine.
That is so well-explained.
The Institute for the Study of War report paints a quite different picture to that headline.
Logistics are not everything, just almost everything. If Russia is losing men and equipment at rates that are irreplaceable, then Russia loses the war.
Unfortunately not. Russia is drowning Ukraine in Russian/North Korean blood and it can bleed for longer than Ukraine can survive. All Russia has to do is keep going until January 20+6months, sign a ceasefire agreement it has no intention of keeping, rest and recuperate, then have another go in a few years.
I feel like I'm in the minority here, in that I don't see why agricultural land should benefit from any special IHT rules compared to other family owned industries, e.g. engineering. Maybe there is a case that capital invested in productive capacity should be treated differently, but I can see difficulties in defining it and personally don't believe it should be treated any differently to money in the bank, or residential property.
There is a separate issue of land being transferred from being UK-family owned to foreign individuals or investment funds. Again, we haven't worried about it for any other industry and I don't see why agricultural land should be different. Actually I am worried about this, but my concern is across the board, not solely agriculture.
There is another issue that currently food production appears to be uneconomic in the country. Should we be concerned about food security? If we are then we should take steps to ensure that farmers get a fair return. But, again, why should we be more concerned about food than (say) energy, or steel production? There's no reason for farming to be singled out for special protection, in my view. However I would note (as an opponent of Brexit) that we now have an opportunity to do something about all those things except none of the pro-Brexit people appear to be proposing anything, which I find odd.
You are rather missing the point already made by a number if us that no genuine family businesses should be paying IHT. Farmers happen to be the main point of discussion but Cyclefree, JJ and myself have all spoken about other family firms as well.
The whole basis of the IHT tax raid on businesses is flawed and will lead to businesses going bust.
Businesses who only exist because of a tax loophole the rest of us don't have deserve to go bust.
And then when you no longer have choice to buy British in the supermarket, nations lost its food security, and uplands environments literally falling apart everywhere, far too late for yourself and this Labour government to realise how short sighted and ignorant that decision you just expressed has been. Still, at least you should be smiling and overjoyed, as you are clearly winning this one and going to get your way.
We should subsidise the production of food if that’s the goal we want not give IHT loop holes to already rich people for christ sake. The lack of perspective amongst these “farmers” is ridiculous.
Like anyone can walk in and do, like queues forming to walk in and do it. People want to be YouTubers, or on government payroll in offices being unproductive yet paid monthly wage, where’s the queue to not be rich, but live poor simple life full of hard work and dedication?
If you no longer have any woodtwiddlers cause the skills and interest to do it you killed off don’t expect to get any woodtwiddled.
I don’t disagree with any of that but inheritance tax has nothing to do with it.
Its. Got. Everything. To. Do. With. It.
There are actually people out there who say, in public, I have to pay IHT on my house, why shouldn’t they on their farm.
And it’s not actually called IHT is it, it’s APR. If you are going to claim there is no difference?
…but then want to keep wood twiddling alive you decide tomorrow morning a plan to help them keep their shack in the woods with their twiddling table, would your call your scheme IHT? No. You would be upset when people scrapped your scheme calling it IHT, and killed wood twiddling.
On the contrary, it is called Inheritance Tax.
APR stands for Agricultural Property Relief. i.e. the amount of “relief” (in the form of a reduced rate) you get on your inheritance tax. Until now the relief was set at 100% (so 0% IHT) , after the Reeve changes it will be 50% (so 20% IHT at current IHT rates).
I feel like I'm in the minority here, in that I don't see why agricultural land should benefit from any special IHT rules compared to other family owned industries, e.g. engineering. Maybe there is a case that capital invested in productive capacity should be treated differently, but I can see difficulties in defining it and personally don't believe it should be treated any differently to money in the bank, or residential property.
There is a separate issue of land being transferred from being UK-family owned to foreign individuals or investment funds. Again, we haven't worried about it for any other industry and I don't see why agricultural land should be different. Actually I am worried about this, but my concern is across the board, not solely agriculture.
There is another issue that currently food production appears to be uneconomic in the country. Should we be concerned about food security? If we are then we should take steps to ensure that farmers get a fair return. But, again, why should we be more concerned about food than (say) energy, or steel production? There's no reason for farming to be singled out for special protection, in my view. However I would note (as an opponent of Brexit) that we now have an opportunity to do something about all those things except none of the pro-Brexit people appear to be proposing anything, which I find odd.
You are rather missing the point already made by a number if us that no genuine family businesses should be paying IHT. Farmers happen to be the main point of discussion but Cyclefree, JJ and myself have all spoken about other family firms as well.
The whole basis of the IHT tax raid on businesses is flawed and will lead to businesses going bust.
Businesses who only exist because of a tax loophole the rest of us don't have deserve to go bust.
There was a tacit agreement. You grow the food and maybe get "paid" fuck all and we'll make sure your offspring can do the same.
Which Lab now have torn up. If you can tear up a tacit agreement.
My heart bleeds for these offspring inheriting substantial assets
That is because you are a twat
That may be so but will anyone think of the poor offspring inheriting substantial assets?!
Those substantial assets have intrinsic and onerous liabilities, held until the assets are realised
I feel like I'm in the minority here, in that I don't see why agricultural land should benefit from any special IHT rules compared to other family owned industries, e.g. engineering. Maybe there is a case that capital invested in productive capacity should be treated differently, but I can see difficulties in defining it and personally don't believe it should be treated any differently to money in the bank, or residential property.
There is a separate issue of land being transferred from being UK-family owned to foreign individuals or investment funds. Again, we haven't worried about it for any other industry and I don't see why agricultural land should be different. Actually I am worried about this, but my concern is across the board, not solely agriculture.
There is another issue that currently food production appears to be uneconomic in the country. Should we be concerned about food security? If we are then we should take steps to ensure that farmers get a fair return. But, again, why should we be more concerned about food than (say) energy, or steel production? There's no reason for farming to be singled out for special protection, in my view. However I would note (as an opponent of Brexit) that we now have an opportunity to do something about all those things except none of the pro-Brexit people appear to be proposing anything, which I find odd.
You are rather missing the point already made by a number if us that no genuine family businesses should be paying IHT. Farmers happen to be the main point of discussion but Cyclefree, JJ and myself have all spoken about other family firms as well.
The whole basis of the IHT tax raid on businesses is flawed and will lead to businesses going bust.
Businesses who only exist because of a tax loophole the rest of us don't have deserve to go bust.
There was a tacit agreement. You grow the food and maybe get "paid" fuck all and we'll make sure your offspring can do the same.
Which Lab now have torn up. If you can tear up a tacit agreement.
My heart bleeds for these offspring inheriting substantial assets
That is because you are a twat
That may be so but will anyone think of the poor offspring inheriting substantial assets?!
Those substantial assets have intrinsic and onerous liabilities, held until the assets are realised
The solution is to make the supply chain responsible for illegally modified e-bikes.
If you sell a bike that *can* be modified to be illegal, you get done.
That's not very practical, to be honest. All e-bikes can be modified, they're not complex machines. Certainly manufacturers could make it harder, but all that will do is make it a bit more expensive to do.
To give an example, speed restrictors on e-bikes work using a sensor that counts rotations of the wheel. The same one that drives the speedo. All it does is send pulses to the bike's Control Unit, the closer the pulses the faster the wheel is spinning. To defeat that all you have to do is install a mod unit that filters out half of the pulses. £5 worth of parts and you've doubled the restriction speed.
Can that be blocked, technically? Yes. Use an encrypted data connection between the sensor and the CU. That probably quadruples the cost of the sensor system and just means modders will move on to hacking the CU itself. And in a few months complete unrestricted 'replacement' CUs will pop up on Aliexpress for £50.
And yet hacking the encryption on Sky boxes is a small issue.
Almost as if it was in Sky’s interest to minimise that.
Make it a problem for the retailers and strangely, the manufacturers will start fighting the modders, rather than encouraging them.
Further evidence of the mediocrity of this government.
'Schools should cut down on museums and theatre trips and remove references in lessons to middle class activities like skiing holidays a government curriculum review will be held.'
The government's education/curriculum reivew is a Woke Disaster in the making. They've got the most insane Woke twats from academe advising them, proper Britain-haters and "post-colonialist gender studies" experts
Locally, a chap working at the library did a series of reading and sing alongs (with guitar) from the various popular kids books. Julia Donaldson featured heavily. Did this on a weekend morning. When the library was basically empty.
After a few weeks, the kids section of the library was full, for his performances.
Not long after, he was told to stop it. Apparently the crowd he was drawing was too middle class and risked excluding non-middle class people.
It's so depressing. And of course "middle class" is often Woke code for "white, educated, aspirational" - it's a dismal message to send to kids, for multiple reasons
I feel like I'm in the minority here, in that I don't see why agricultural land should benefit from any special IHT rules compared to other family owned industries, e.g. engineering. Maybe there is a case that capital invested in productive capacity should be treated differently, but I can see difficulties in defining it and personally don't believe it should be treated any differently to money in the bank, or residential property.
There is a separate issue of land being transferred from being UK-family owned to foreign individuals or investment funds. Again, we haven't worried about it for any other industry and I don't see why agricultural land should be different. Actually I am worried about this, but my concern is across the board, not solely agriculture.
There is another issue that currently food production appears to be uneconomic in the country. Should we be concerned about food security? If we are then we should take steps to ensure that farmers get a fair return. But, again, why should we be more concerned about food than (say) energy, or steel production? There's no reason for farming to be singled out for special protection, in my view. However I would note (as an opponent of Brexit) that we now have an opportunity to do something about all those things except none of the pro-Brexit people appear to be proposing anything, which I find odd.
You are rather missing the point already made by a number if us that no genuine family businesses should be paying IHT. Farmers happen to be the main point of discussion but Cyclefree, JJ and myself have all spoken about other family firms as well.
The whole basis of the IHT tax raid on businesses is flawed and will lead to businesses going bust.
Businesses who only exist because of a tax loophole the rest of us don't have deserve to go bust.
There was a tacit agreement. You grow the food and maybe get "paid" fuck all and we'll make sure your offspring can do the same.
Which Lab now have torn up. If you can tear up a tacit agreement.
My heart bleeds for these offspring inheriting substantial assets
That is because you are a twat
That may be so but will anyone think of the poor offspring inheriting substantial assets?!
Those substantial assets have intrinsic and onerous liabilities, held until the assets are realised
In which case the farm will have a small net worth, and therefore not be liable for IHT.
Further evidence of the mediocrity of this government.
'Schools should cut down on museums and theatre trips and remove references in lessons to middle class activities like skiing holidays a government curriculum review will be held.'
The government's education/curriculum reivew is a Woke Disaster in the making. They've got the most insane Woke twats from academe advising them, proper Britain-haters and "post-colonialist gender studies" experts
Locally, a chap working at the library did a series of reading and sing alongs (with guitar) from the various popular kids books. Julia Donaldson featured heavily. Did this on a weekend morning. When the library was basically empty.
After a few weeks, the kids section of the library was full, for his performances.
Not long after, he was told to stop it. Apparently the crowd he was drawing was too middle class and risked excluding non-middle class people.
It's so depressing. And of course "middle class" is often Woke code for "white, educated, aspirational" - it's a dismal message to send to kids, for multiple reasons
The crowd wasn't much more than 50% white. And many of those wouldn't be British. This is a nice bit of West London - full of immigrants (and second generation) from all over the place.
I feel like I'm in the minority here, in that I don't see why agricultural land should benefit from any special IHT rules compared to other family owned industries, e.g. engineering. Maybe there is a case that capital invested in productive capacity should be treated differently, but I can see difficulties in defining it and personally don't believe it should be treated any differently to money in the bank, or residential property.
There is a separate issue of land being transferred from being UK-family owned to foreign individuals or investment funds. Again, we haven't worried about it for any other industry and I don't see why agricultural land should be different. Actually I am worried about this, but my concern is across the board, not solely agriculture.
There is another issue that currently food production appears to be uneconomic in the country. Should we be concerned about food security? If we are then we should take steps to ensure that farmers get a fair return. But, again, why should we be more concerned about food than (say) energy, or steel production? There's no reason for farming to be singled out for special protection, in my view. However I would note (as an opponent of Brexit) that we now have an opportunity to do something about all those things except none of the pro-Brexit people appear to be proposing anything, which I find odd.
You are rather missing the point already made by a number if us that no genuine family businesses should be paying IHT. Farmers happen to be the main point of discussion but Cyclefree, JJ and myself have all spoken about other family firms as well.
The whole basis of the IHT tax raid on businesses is flawed and will lead to businesses going bust.
Businesses who only exist because of a tax loophole the rest of us don't have deserve to go bust.
And then when you no longer have choice to buy British in the supermarket, nations lost its food security, and uplands environments literally falling apart everywhere, far too late for yourself and this Labour government to realise how short sighted and ignorant that decision you just expressed has been. Still, at least you should be smiling and overjoyed, as you are clearly winning this one and going to get your way.
We should subsidise the production of food if that’s the goal we want not give IHT loop holes to already rich people for christ sake. The lack of perspective amongst these “farmers” is ridiculous.
They aren't rich in income terms, the average farmer earns average wage at best.
No point subsidising production of food if the state confiscates half the land needed to produce it too
If we subsidise production then there would be no problem paying a loan for the IHT. There is no “confiscation”.
I am absolutely sick of rich people crying because they have substantial assets but no income. Get a grip.
I am absolutely sick of left wing class warriors like you and the useless Labour government you support destroying family farms and small businesses and hitting pensioners to fund huge increases for leftwing train drivers and NHS GPs.
The cost to subsidise production would arguably be even more than the revenue raised from IHT on farms, making the measure even more pointless anyway
Will nobody think of the poor farmers with millions of pounds worth of assets?! I am glad that such poor downtrodden people have you to speak for them.
They are the backbone of our nation providing food for us all, working in all weathers for often little income. Those assets are what they use to provide food not weekly trips to the Maldives and regular Michelin starred meals,
I feel like I'm in the minority here, in that I don't see why agricultural land should benefit from any special IHT rules compared to other family owned industries, e.g. engineering. Maybe there is a case that capital invested in productive capacity should be treated differently, but I can see difficulties in defining it and personally don't believe it should be treated any differently to money in the bank, or residential property.
There is a separate issue of land being transferred from being UK-family owned to foreign individuals or investment funds. Again, we haven't worried about it for any other industry and I don't see why agricultural land should be different. Actually I am worried about this, but my concern is across the board, not solely agriculture.
There is another issue that currently food production appears to be uneconomic in the country. Should we be concerned about food security? If we are then we should take steps to ensure that farmers get a fair return. But, again, why should we be more concerned about food than (say) energy, or steel production? There's no reason for farming to be singled out for special protection, in my view. However I would note (as an opponent of Brexit) that we now have an opportunity to do something about all those things except none of the pro-Brexit people appear to be proposing anything, which I find odd.
You are rather missing the point already made by a number if us that no genuine family businesses should be paying IHT. Farmers happen to be the main point of discussion but Cyclefree, JJ and myself have all spoken about other family firms as well.
The whole basis of the IHT tax raid on businesses is flawed and will lead to businesses going bust.
Businesses who only exist because of a tax loophole the rest of us don't have deserve to go bust.
There was a tacit agreement. You grow the food and maybe get "paid" fuck all and we'll make sure your offspring can do the same.
Which Lab now have torn up. If you can tear up a tacit agreement.
My heart bleeds for these offspring inheriting substantial assets
That is because you are a twat
That may be so but will anyone think of the poor offspring inheriting substantial assets?!
Those substantial assets have intrinsic and onerous liabilities, held until the assets are realised
In which case the farm will have a small net worth, and therefore not be liable for IHT.
The farm will be assessed at the value of the land plus buildings and equipment.
So we should convert all farms in solar farms, with a side order of gambling on getting planning permission?
That combination of uses would probably get the highest return on agricultural land, at the moment.
Further evidence of the mediocrity of this government.
'Schools should cut down on museums and theatre trips and remove references in lessons to middle class activities like skiing holidays a government curriculum review will be held.'
The government's education/curriculum reivew is a Woke Disaster in the making. They've got the most insane Woke twats from academe advising them, proper Britain-haters and "post-colonialist gender studies" experts
I actually despise them now, I even think Corbyn and McDonnell would have been better. Yes they might have hit big corporates a bit more and been a bit more anti Israel and still removed the remaining hereditary peers from the Lords but they didn't hate our farmers, small businesses and pensioners as much as this one does and McDonnell at least had some vague intellectual traints unlike the philistine and woke Starmer and Reeves
One reason cited for high powered e-mopeds (eg Sur-Rons or hacked e-cycles) was that the legal ones just weren't fast enough. Without getting into this vs that, it is an relevant question for all of us, I think.
This is the kind of situation that arises when the relevant government department is fast asleep. Delivery riders use juiced-up Surrons and the like because the legal alternative is awful.
Buy an over powered e-bike and just get going.. or... go the legal route; pay twice as much for a 50cc equivalent electric scooter that is limited to 28mph, apply for your provisional licence, do your CBT day (£150-200, needs repeating every two years), pay possibly thousands for insurance, get an approved helmet, etc, etc.
A 1KW e-bike can be had for about £1200. A road-legal scooter is going have an all-in price of £4000-6000 depending on the insurance costs, for a machine that's slower than the e-bike. No brainer.
The solution is to make the supply chain responsible for illegally modified e-bikes.
If you sell a bike that *can* be modified to be illegal, you get done.
Or change the law so what is illegal becomes legal, or at least some of them.
My only experience of ebikes is they have completely replaced classic bicycles for Deliveroo. Probably most are legal or legal-ish. Otoh, if I'd had a series of phones nicked by masked men on ebikes, my perspective would be different.
What slightly concerns me is that some of the opposition comes from the pedal cycle purists. If too fast is too fast, it should not matter if the machine is battery-assisted or cost £2,000 (after government subsidy) for legs only.
I feel like I'm in the minority here, in that I don't see why agricultural land should benefit from any special IHT rules compared to other family owned industries, e.g. engineering. Maybe there is a case that capital invested in productive capacity should be treated differently, but I can see difficulties in defining it and personally don't believe it should be treated any differently to money in the bank, or residential property.
There is a separate issue of land being transferred from being UK-family owned to foreign individuals or investment funds. Again, we haven't worried about it for any other industry and I don't see why agricultural land should be different. Actually I am worried about this, but my concern is across the board, not solely agriculture.
There is another issue that currently food production appears to be uneconomic in the country. Should we be concerned about food security? If we are then we should take steps to ensure that farmers get a fair return. But, again, why should we be more concerned about food than (say) energy, or steel production? There's no reason for farming to be singled out for special protection, in my view. However I would note (as an opponent of Brexit) that we now have an opportunity to do something about all those things except none of the pro-Brexit people appear to be proposing anything, which I find odd.
You are rather missing the point already made by a number if us that no genuine family businesses should be paying IHT. Farmers happen to be the main point of discussion but Cyclefree, JJ and myself have all spoken about other family firms as well.
The whole basis of the IHT tax raid on businesses is flawed and will lead to businesses going bust.
Businesses who only exist because of a tax loophole the rest of us don't have deserve to go bust.
And then when you no longer have choice to buy British in the supermarket, nations lost its food security, and uplands environments literally falling apart everywhere, far too late for yourself and this Labour government to realise how short sighted and ignorant that decision you just expressed has been. Still, at least you should be smiling and overjoyed, as you are clearly winning this one and going to get your way.
We should subsidise the production of food if that’s the goal we want not give IHT loop holes to already rich people for christ sake. The lack of perspective amongst these “farmers” is ridiculous.
They aren't rich in income terms, the average farmer earns average wage at best.
No point subsidising production of food if the state confiscates half the land needed to produce it too
If we subsidise production then there would be no problem paying a loan for the IHT. There is no “confiscation”.
I am absolutely sick of rich people crying because they have substantial assets but no income. Get a grip.
I am absolutely sick of left wing class warriors like you and the useless Labour government you support destroying family farms and small businesses and hitting pensioners to fund huge increases for leftwing train drivers and NHS GPs.
The cost to subsidise production would arguably be even more than the revenue raised from IHT on farms, making the measure even more pointless anyway
Will nobody think of the poor farmers with millions of pounds worth of assets?! I am glad that such poor downtrodden people have you to speak for them.
They are the backbone of our nation providing food for us all, working in all weathers for often little income. Those assets are what they use to provide food not weekly trips to the Maldives and regular Michelin starred meals,
Usual leftwing class warrior crap from you
Like I said, I am glad these poor people have you to stand up for their interests. I am not sure what they would do without you.
Further evidence of the mediocrity of this government.
'Schools should cut down on museums and theatre trips and remove references in lessons to middle class activities like skiing holidays a government curriculum review will be held.'
The government's education/curriculum reivew is a Woke Disaster in the making. They've got the most insane Woke twats from academe advising them, proper Britain-haters and "post-colonialist gender studies" experts
Locally, a chap working at the library did a series of reading and sing alongs (with guitar) from the various popular kids books. Julia Donaldson featured heavily. Did this on a weekend morning. When the library was basically empty.
After a few weeks, the kids section of the library was full, for his performances.
Not long after, he was told to stop it. Apparently the crowd he was drawing was too middle class and risked excluding non-middle class people.
It's so depressing. And of course "middle class" is often Woke code for "white, educated, aspirational" - it's a dismal message to send to kids, for multiple reasons
The crowd wasn't much more than 50% white. And many of those wouldn't be British. This is a nice bit of West London - full of immigrants (and second generation) from all over the place.
I feel like I'm in the minority here, in that I don't see why agricultural land should benefit from any special IHT rules compared to other family owned industries, e.g. engineering. Maybe there is a case that capital invested in productive capacity should be treated differently, but I can see difficulties in defining it and personally don't believe it should be treated any differently to money in the bank, or residential property.
There is a separate issue of land being transferred from being UK-family owned to foreign individuals or investment funds. Again, we haven't worried about it for any other industry and I don't see why agricultural land should be different. Actually I am worried about this, but my concern is across the board, not solely agriculture.
There is another issue that currently food production appears to be uneconomic in the country. Should we be concerned about food security? If we are then we should take steps to ensure that farmers get a fair return. But, again, why should we be more concerned about food than (say) energy, or steel production? There's no reason for farming to be singled out for special protection, in my view. However I would note (as an opponent of Brexit) that we now have an opportunity to do something about all those things except none of the pro-Brexit people appear to be proposing anything, which I find odd.
You are rather missing the point already made by a number if us that no genuine family businesses should be paying IHT. Farmers happen to be the main point of discussion but Cyclefree, JJ and myself have all spoken about other family firms as well.
The whole basis of the IHT tax raid on businesses is flawed and will lead to businesses going bust.
Businesses who only exist because of a tax loophole the rest of us don't have deserve to go bust.
There was a tacit agreement. You grow the food and maybe get "paid" fuck all and we'll make sure your offspring can do the same.
Which Lab now have torn up. If you can tear up a tacit agreement.
My heart bleeds for these offspring inheriting substantial assets
That is because you are a twat
That may be so but will anyone think of the poor offspring inheriting substantial assets?!
Those substantial assets have intrinsic and onerous liabilities, held until the assets are realised
In which case the farm will have a small net worth, and therefore not be liable for IHT.
So we should convert all farms in solar farms, with a side order of gambling on getting planning permission?
That combination of uses would probably get the highest return on agricultural land, at the moment.
To take this to an absurd place - if every farmer did that the wholesale price of electricity at (solar) noon on a sunny summer or spring day would be colossally negative. And food inflation would be through the roof.
Looking at business property generally, suppose you have a business worth £3m. That £3m comprises premises, plant and machinery, goodwill etc.
£2m of that gets taxed at 20% ie £400,000. That’s quite a stiff entry fee for the next generation to operate that business.
Getting a business worth £2.6m for nowt, such a hardship.
You are not getting it, now you are 400K in debt , you are running at a loss and so the factory folds and you have nothing , workers are all on benefits, no more taxes being paid , your suppliers have to cut back and so on. Are you pretending to be Bart Simpson.
What makes this clip high art is the air of “I can’t believe I have to explain these obvious facts to you, you half-sentient monkey person.” And it’s done in service of a flat Earth-quality argument. It’s like saying “For the last time: Babies happen when the daddy pees into the mommy’s belly button, that’s just science, crack a fucking book, you troglodyte.”
I feel like I'm in the minority here, in that I don't see why agricultural land should benefit from any special IHT rules compared to other family owned industries, e.g. engineering. Maybe there is a case that capital invested in productive capacity should be treated differently, but I can see difficulties in defining it and personally don't believe it should be treated any differently to money in the bank, or residential property.
There is a separate issue of land being transferred from being UK-family owned to foreign individuals or investment funds. Again, we haven't worried about it for any other industry and I don't see why agricultural land should be different. Actually I am worried about this, but my concern is across the board, not solely agriculture.
There is another issue that currently food production appears to be uneconomic in the country. Should we be concerned about food security? If we are then we should take steps to ensure that farmers get a fair return. But, again, why should we be more concerned about food than (say) energy, or steel production? There's no reason for farming to be singled out for special protection, in my view. However I would note (as an opponent of Brexit) that we now have an opportunity to do something about all those things except none of the pro-Brexit people appear to be proposing anything, which I find odd.
You are rather missing the point already made by a number if us that no genuine family businesses should be paying IHT. Farmers happen to be the main point of discussion but Cyclefree, JJ and myself have all spoken about other family firms as well.
The whole basis of the IHT tax raid on businesses is flawed and will lead to businesses going bust.
Businesses who only exist because of a tax loophole the rest of us don't have deserve to go bust.
This isn’t that.
Let’s say you have a profitable engineering business generating £1 million in EBITDA per year. Modestly leveraged (say) to fund purchase of new equipment.
The business likely has cash flow of £0.5m (£1m - £0.15m in interest - £0.2m in tax - something for working capital). Probably half the cash flow goes to paying down debt, and the rest is retained in the business for future growth.
It’s probably worth about £10m as a company. Owner dies and there is a £4m tax liability. That’s tough to fund through borrowing. So the company get sold to US Corp or to Smily Private Equity.
And the economy has weakened its basis for growth.
That’s why you should have entrepreneurs relief - the country is better off for having valuable small businesses. And farms should be treated just the same.
NB. Point of order: Business asset relief means you pay 20%, not 40% IIRC. Plus you get £1million in tax free allowance?
I originally put £2-4m but simplified it (but cut out my assumed leverage of £3M).
But the principle is the same. If you have to find £0.1m in interest (£2m IHT bill) and £0.2m in capital repayments) it eats up all your growth capex budget.
They're trying to change the facts on the ground before Trump comes in for The Deal.
Obvs.
Yes, but it means that the pressure on Ukraine to accept the Deal will be irresistible. Korea it is
Korea it isn't. Whatever happens.
It will likely be a frozen war, an arimistice, roughly along the front lines as they stand, when the deal is made
As happened in Korea
1) Korea started as a genuine civil war, not an invasion. Millions on both sides migrated in opposite directions, and ended in territories they wanted to fight for. 2) The US was, of course, directly involved in the fighting. 3) Unlike Ukraine - where there have already been several ceasefires, followed by further Russian aggression, the Panmunjom settlement has lasted 70 years. 4) The US was willing to station substantial armed forces there for those seven decades to ensure the settlement. 5) The border something like a seventh as long as Russia/Ukraine, is largely mountainous, and readily policeable and defencible. 6) The opposing great power (China) has no territorial ambitions on the south. Inlike, of course, Russia.
Apart from that, it's similar-ish, if you squint.
It's a brutal bloody war involving Russia, China and the USA all in a foreign country, close to Russia/China - just like Korea. It's also two systems fighting each other by proxy, just like Korea
It will likely end in an armistice because both sides are exhausted and running out of men, and both sides have nukes and perhaps the only way you can now win this war is with nukes: and no one will use nukes. As happened in Korea
Do the people involved have slitty eyes and eat a lot of bibimbap? No. Well done for pointing out that crucial geopolitical difference
FWIW I think the only alternative to Korea ,now, is outright Russian victory
No, Russia is losing.
How come, you might reasonably ask, when it's advancing and Trump has just been elected? Well, a bit* like how Germany was losing in early 1918, even though it was advancing and Russia had just withdrawn from the war.
Put simply, it's not advancing much at all, despite the numpty BBC headline. The article itself reveals a different story. So far in 2024, Russia has gained 2700km2. That's an area roughly the size of Staffordshire. In 11 months. In a country larger than France. At a cost of hundreds of thousands of casualties. That is not winning, unless it's grinding Ukraine down even faster, which doesn't appear to be the case.
In early 2022, the average casualty was a 22 year-old regular soldier; last year it was a 31-year old Wagner mercenary (presumably mostly ex-prison); this year the average casualty is a 38-year old contract volunteer with little training: people desperate for the (high) pay and signing on bonuses - but that sort of person can't be found in sufficient numbers indefinitely. This is not a sustainable model, particularly when Russia is losing over a thousand soldiers a day (some might return: these are far from all being deaths but many/most won't).
Plus, Russia is running out of equipment. As noted in the article below, the war is costing Russia materiel much faster than they can replace it. So far, they've been able to make good out of reserves but that's unlikely to last through 2025 - another reason for the push now to try to gain themselves a breathing space.
To beat Russia, Ukraine does not need to occupy Moscow, it needs to break Putin's government or exhaust his army to the point of mutiny or other ineffectiveness. There are viable ways to both next year if Europe and other allies continue to stand by Ukraine.
That's very eloquent, but, unfortunately, Ukraine is running out of soldiers, as they are all dead
Russia has to keep its ratio of losses to Ukrainian losses, no higher than three to one. Russia’s losses are well above that.
Are they? You're very credulous when it comes to Ukraine. I can recall you reassuring us that the Great Ukrainian Counter-Offensive was about to reach the Sea of Azov. They barely moved an inch, in reality, and at vast expense in men and materiel
No one knows the true toll of Ukrainian soldiers coz the Kyiv govt keeps it quiet (and understandably so, all wartime governments do this) but I can say, from having been there twice during this war, that an awful lack of young men is visible on the streets, and of those you do see, an awful lot are clearly injured, maimed, on crutches
Meanwhile thousands of young men - maybe tens or hundreds of thousands - have illegally fled Ukraine to avoid the draft. I've met a few of them
Recall all the other hopeful lies we've been told about this war
1. Putin has cancer 2. Putin will be overthrown 3. Russia will collapse under sanctions 4. Russia is mutinying 5. etc etc
It's hard to find the truth in the panto of lies, on all sides, but one should be almost as wary of Ukrainian propaganda as Russian propaganda
You’re just as credulous on the other side. You’ve been predicting imminent Russian victory since the war began. At one point, you were predicting that Putin would use nukes. You think that Putin is a man who can be trusted to adhere to a peace treaty.
No one disputes that Ukraine is suffering. But, so is Russia.
Russians are not some unbeatable race of super-soldiers, like Fremen.
Comments
It's all been done before....
Or more likely, that the price has gone up a bit.
Farmers with significant land holdings are some of the wealthiest people in the country: One of them appeared on Good Morning Britain yesterday morning who had attended a £30k/year private school followed by a £40k/year sixth form. Why should her family be able to evade paying the taxes that practically every other family in the country has to?
We only seriously do sheep. Cows went before I was born. The pigs I remember were not for industry but for very local and neighbours. Anything with pork in it, pies and rolls, and my Dad can’t resist it. And few years ago I wasn’t paying much attention to sheep farming. But. Cost of feed going up in 2020s has been the biggest hit on us. 2020s has made fertiliser a lot more expensive and there’s knock on across all farming industry from it. Sheep can be fussy what they eat, so can’t just stay grazing in same place as they eaten it. I have also seen stats saying UK consumers eating less lamb, it’s probably curry becoming UK favourite meal that helps balance lamb consumption roast lamb dinner not as popular.
Our stats show we haven’t changed stock rates, but what likely happened in lots of farming, if you can’t afford things because of feed and winter housing etc you get rid of stock. Sheep gets all glowed up thinking it’s going to meet ram, but ends up in abattoirs. [insert crying sheep with eyeliner running emoji]
Hope this helps explain.
I think there's an, um, vigorous debate around sports and prisons but I'm sure that either position is not unique to one side or the other.
But, if we can, parking gender, what else.
Buy an over powered e-bike and just get going.. or... go the legal route; pay twice as much for a 50cc equivalent electric scooter that is limited to 28mph, apply for your provisional licence, do your CBT day (£150-200, needs repeating every two years), pay possibly thousands for insurance, get an approved helmet, etc, etc.
A 1KW e-bike can be had for about £1200. A road-legal scooter is going have an all-in price of £4000-6000 depending on the insurance costs, for a machine that's slower than the e-bike. No brainer.
As for practice, of course we don't have 40 years of experience. Market based reforms haven't taken place in our public services, even at pilot level as far as I'm aware.
Having just spent two weeks there, in Korea - unlike you - I can vouch they are wonderful, gifted, hospitable people, who make excellent food - who just need to get a move on with that fertility rate before all their schools shut
Now you can just summon an Uber. C'est fantastique
Inheriting business property is inheriting the assets needed to make the business work. And sure, you could just sell out to a bigger entity, but concentrating the ownership of businesses in fewer hands may be counterproductive,
She has a look that would wither cactii so I wouldn't dare suggest she was anything other than all woman (the old fashioned kind).
The solution is to make the supply chain responsible for illegally modified e-bikes.
If you sell a bike that *can* be modified to be illegal, you get done.
Still, at least you should be smiling and overjoyed, as you are clearly winning this one and going to get your way.
Which Lab now have torn up. If you can tear up a tacit agreement.
If you outsource a thing to somebody else, that person has their own goals and will deviate from yours over times. You need to prevent them so you end up imposing controls, making a mockery of the outsourcing in the first place.
I was referring to the Thatcher reforms of outsourcing, followed by the Blair reforms of targets etc. We tried it. It didn't work. We tried to make it better. We made it worse. By the time we got to Covid it got out-and-out corrupt. And we keep saying "more bureaucracy will fix it!" It won't. And we keep saying "make it behave like the private sector!". And it doesn't
How come, you might reasonably ask, when it's advancing and Trump has just been elected? Well, a bit* like how Germany was losing in early 1918, even though it was advancing and Russia had just withdrawn from the war.
Put simply, it's not advancing much at all, despite the numpty BBC headline. The article itself reveals a different story. So far in 2024, Russia has gained 2700km2. That's an area roughly the size of Staffordshire. In 11 months. In a country larger than France. At a cost of hundreds of thousands of casualties. That is not winning, unless it's grinding Ukraine down even faster, which doesn't appear to be the case.
In early 2022, the average casualty was a 22 year-old regular soldier; last year it was a 31-year old Wagner mercenary (presumably mostly ex-prison); this year the average casualty is a 38-year old contract volunteer with little training: people desperate for the (high) pay and signing on bonuses - but that sort of person can't be found in sufficient numbers indefinitely. This is not a sustainable model, particularly when Russia is losing over a thousand soldiers a day (some might return: these are far from all being deaths but many/most won't).
Plus, Russia is running out of equipment. As noted in the article below, the war is costing Russia materiel much faster than they can replace it. So far, they've been able to make good out of reserves but that's unlikely to last through 2025 - another reason for the push now to try to gain themselves a breathing space.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/11/14/russia-war-putin-economy-weapons-production-labor-shortage-demographics/
To beat Russia, Ukraine does not need to occupy Moscow, it needs to break Putin's government or exhaust his army to the point of mutiny or other ineffectiveness. There are viable ways to both next year if Europe and other allies continue to stand by Ukraine.
No point subsidising production of food if the state confiscates half the land needed to produce it too
£2m of that gets taxed at 20% ie £400,000. That’s quite a stiff entry fee for the next generation to operate that business.
I am absolutely sick of rich people crying because they have substantial assets but no income. Get a grip.
If you no longer have any woodtwiddlers cause the skills and interest to do it you killed off don’t expect to get any woodtwiddled.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy872ppryp2o
"Staff should not be reliant on informal assessments to determine a resident’s needs."
The problem we are going to have is if everyone needs 2:1 care because that's what the plan says, we won't have anywhere near enough people to do it. What then? Sign here and the state will 'take care' of you?
Remember the 'racist' guy who went around canvassing for him in Clacton who turned out to be an actor? The alarming bit of that was the filming of some of the other Reform canvassers who were agreeing with him.
This is a longstanding thing, UKIP collapsed under the weight of its own fruitcakery. And remember Roger Helmer MEP, a man Farage was quite happy to have on his team at the time? The brothel creeping perv who thought homophobia was 'propaganda' and didn't exist, and had interesting views on women's complicity in being raped, particularly given his own night-time proclivities.
I could point to others, but you get my point. Farage is the acceptable face. The people he travels with are not my kind of people. Farage if elected wouldn't run the country single handedly, and I fear the type of people who'd end up running the country if he was.
Of course, I don't think the trajectory we're currently on where everyone sticks their head in the sand and pretends, say, discrimination against jews and women and queers isn't getting worse is sustainable, either.
Pim Fortuyn was an interesting one. A man twenty years ahead of his time, in many respects.
Let’s say you have a profitable engineering business generating £1 million in EBITDA per year. Modestly leveraged (say) to fund purchase of new equipment.
The business likely has cash flow of £0.5m (£1m - £0.15m in interest - £0.2m in tax - something for working capital). Probably half the cash flow goes to paying down debt, and the rest is retained in the business for future growth.
It’s probably worth about £10m as a company. Owner dies and there is a £4m tax liability. That’s tough to fund through borrowing. So the company get sold to US Corp or to Smily Private Equity.
And the economy has weakened its basis for growth.
That’s why you should have entrepreneurs relief - the country is better off for having valuable small businesses. And farms should be treated just the same.
Let them keep the surplus profit and tax them on it
Or kill the golden goose by imposing IHT
I was just saying that if you weren't in arable, then Ukraine was unlikely to have helped with anything like windfall profits on grain prices. That seems to be the case.
The Institute for the Study of War report paints a quite different picture to that headline.
Logistics are not everything, just almost everything. If Russia is losing men and equipment at rates that are irreplaceable, then Russia loses the war.
There are actually people out there who say, in public, I have to pay IHT on my house, why shouldn’t they on their farm.
And it’s not actually called IHT is it, it’s APR. If you are going to claim there is no difference?
…but then want to keep wood twiddling alive you decide tomorrow morning a plan to help them keep their shack in the woods with their twiddling table, would your call your scheme IHT? No. You would be upset when people scrapped your scheme calling it IHT, and killed wood twiddling.
But they should be treated the same
The debate here on PB has now extended to IHT, CGT on businesses more generally and the whole thing is clearly a mess. I'm now minded to move the other way and get rid of these kind of taxes (farms included) altogether.
To give an example, speed restrictors on e-bikes work using a sensor that counts rotations of the wheel. The same one that drives the speedo. All it does is send pulses to the bike's Control Unit, the closer the pulses the faster the wheel is spinning. To defeat that all you have to do is install a mod unit that filters out half of the pulses. £5 worth of parts and you've doubled the restriction speed.
Can that be blocked, technically? Yes. Use an encrypted data connection between the sensor and the CU. That probably quadruples the cost of the sensor system and just means modders will move on to hacking the CU itself. And in a few months complete unrestricted 'replacement' CUs will pop up on Aliexpress for £50.
But the principle is the same. If you have to find £0.1m in interest (£2m IHT bill) and £0.2m in capital repayments) it eats up all your growth capex budget.
Every other estate that seeks to pass on income generating assets in their will has to pay inheritance tax. Why should farmers be any different?
The cost to subsidise production would arguably be even more than the revenue raised from IHT on farms, making the measure even more pointless anyway
This is a tax on the tools of the trade.
It's more that the Overton Window has shifted so far a trad populist rightwinger like Farage can be painted as Hitler manque. It's nuts. It also does no one any favours, as we won't have the vocab to persuade voters of the danger when a real Fascist hoves into view
For contrast, Nick Griffin was proper far right, and truly odious
Almost as if it was in Sky’s interest to minimise that.
Make it a problem for the retailers and strangely, the manufacturers will start fighting the modders, rather than encouraging them.
'Schools should cut down on museums and theatre trips and remove references in lessons to middle class activities like skiing holidays a government curriculum review will be held.'
https://x.com/SophiaSleigh/status/1859215458395656486
Current predictions place this outcome sometime late 2025. This is why the Russians are so belligerent now & are throwing so much at the front - they know their war is unsustainable so they’re hoping for a breakthrough now & failing that the best possible position for a negotiated outcome whilst they still look “strong”. But it’s a threat that can’t last at current loss rates.
China is the wildcard here. They probably have a ton of not great but usable cold-war era tanks & IFVs that could be transferred to Russia if the Chinese leadership so chose. A Russia supplied with Chinese cold war materiel could keep the war going for several more years at least & it’s (understandably) not clear that the Ukrainians will have the will to fight that long.
After a few weeks, the kids section of the library was full, for his performances.
Not long after, he was told to stop it. Apparently the crowd he was drawing was too middle class and risked excluding non-middle class people.
If so I assume Starmer has given approval
No one knows the true toll of Ukrainian soldiers coz the Kyiv govt keeps it quiet (and understandably so, all wartime governments do this) but I can say, from having been there twice during this war, that an awful lack of young men is visible on the streets, and of those you do see, an awful lot are clearly injured, maimed, on crutches
Meanwhile thousands of young men - maybe tens or hundreds of thousands - have illegally fled Ukraine to avoid the draft. I've met a few of them
Recall all the other hopeful lies we've been told about this war
1. Putin has cancer
2. Putin will be overthrown
3. Russia will collapse under sanctions
4. Russia is mutinying
5. etc etc
It's hard to find the truth in the panto of lies, on all sides, but one should be almost as wary of Ukrainian propaganda as Russian propaganda
https://jetpower.co.uk/jet-assisted-mountain-bike/
APR stands for Agricultural Property Relief. i.e. the amount of “relief” (in the form of a reduced rate) you get on your inheritance tax. Until now the relief was set at 100% (so 0% IHT) , after the Reeve changes it will be 50% (so 20% IHT at current IHT rates).
Senator Tillman asked the US Navy to jump to the end of the battleship arms race. I intend to do the same.
Usual leftwing class warrior crap from you
So we should convert all farms in solar farms, with a side order of gambling on getting planning permission?
That combination of uses would probably get the highest return on agricultural land, at the moment.
My only experience of ebikes is they have completely replaced classic bicycles for Deliveroo. Probably most are legal or legal-ish. Otoh, if I'd had a series of phones nicked by masked men on ebikes, my perspective would be different.
What slightly concerns me is that some of the opposition comes from the pedal cycle purists. If too fast is too fast, it should not matter if the machine is battery-assisted or cost £2,000 (after government subsidy) for legs only.
https://imightbewrong.substack.com/p/activists-continue-to-murder-left
What makes this clip high art is the air of “I can’t believe I have to explain these obvious facts to you, you half-sentient monkey person.” And it’s done in service of a flat Earth-quality argument. It’s like saying “For the last time: Babies happen when the daddy pees into the mommy’s belly button, that’s just science, crack a fucking book, you troglodyte.”
No one disputes that Ukraine is suffering. But, so is Russia.
Russians are not some unbeatable race of super-soldiers, like Fremen.