Of course, what she hasn't considered is the problem of the same income being taxed twice, and she's out with the fairies when she says "At a stroke all the wheezes, cheats and exemptions would be swept away", but, still...
As I noted on that thread, it takes a special kind of genius to advocate taxing birthday presents.
Richard - sorry that is entirely bonkers
1) It's still double taxation whether at death or while someone is alive 2) How would the Revenue actually collect this tax? It sounds like the large chunk of people like myself who are PAYE only, would suddenly have to start filling in self-assessment forms for a start. Surely would be pretty easy to evade as well. 3) I can't believe any politician would be stupid enough to advocate this but if they did they would surely be labelled "The Grinch who taxed Christmas" 4) Suppose I go down the pub with a friend. I buy him a drink. he then buys me a drink. Do we now both have to pay tax on this?
It would certainly be good to iron out the anomaly arising from the "normal expenditure out of income" exemption, whereby if I give my son £20,000 it is taxable in the event of my death, but a billionaire can give his son an allowance of £20,000 a month or more, if he can afford it without cramping his lifestyle, and those payments are exempt.
But that would mean the same income is taxed twice.
But so is my £20,000, if I have diligently saved it out of income rather than inherited it.
Or even if I have inherited it, come to think of it.
I used to enjoy attending PB.com functions, then held at the National Liberal Club, until they were attended by a couple of individuals I seriously dislike and who were difficult to avoid in small gatherings such as these. Hopefully they will both be absent from the planned get together at Ilkley.
Didn't you organise a PBC Barbeque at the National Liberal Club some years ago?
For all those attending Dirty Dicks tonight, enjoy the fun, and get home safely (even if it is via a short trip the the south coast) ; )
You're confusing me with another, now rarely heard from poster ...... that's a quid you owe the PB.com social fund.
I proposed and I think organised the first NLC event (were there several?), though I'm hazy about it now - my uncle was a member (before he drifted off to UKIP) and I launched my first book there too. I hope I wasn't one of the people PfP was avoiding... Apologies that I can't make it tonight.
Funnily enough, that's where OGH launched HIS first book too iirc and please rest assured Nick, you are most certainly NOT either of the "disliked two".
Crikey, Dr. P and OGH thought that the NLC was a good place from which to launch books. It must really have come up in the world.
In the early 70s my oppo was an old boy of some public school which entitled him to free and automatic membership, so when on leave we used to drop in from time to time. What a dump! The booze was poor, the food worse, the service execrable, the billiard tables were untrue and all the cues were twisted.
So I wonder what has turned it around. Surly not the massive increase in party members all kicking in their subs?
“There will,”[Salmond’s chief spin-doctor] Gunn’s email concluded, “be no more access from the first minister to DC Thomson publications.” As well as the Sunday Post, these include the Dundee Courier and Aberdeen Press & Journal. Given Salmond’s touchiness about cartoons, presumably the ban extends to the Beano too.
The Eye overlooked the wider implications of the point that Darling is shown as an advocate (Anglice, barrister) in court, and that Salmond is shown as the pannel (Anglice, defendant), accused of a crime. The issue here is that Darling really is an advocate in actual life, which implies that Salmond really is accused of a crime. It's a grey area, but the cartoon is undoubtedly more offensive than the article likes to claim.
No, the article did address that:
A more exact analogy might have had the two men as rival barristers, rather than Salmond in the dock; but cartoonists will be cartoonists and the gist was clear: each side had to convince the jury of public opinion.
The cartoonist unerringly picked the party most likely to take offence.....
They hope a strong performance in the EU Parliament elections will pressure Labour to commit to hold an in/out referendum after the 2015 election.
Yes, and the Conservatives hope that a vote for them will help them to their goal of renegotiation, to cover the points listed, and an In/Out referendum.
So your complaint that the Conservatives are being dishonest is a load of bunkum. Both UKIP and the Tories are saying 'Vote for us to help further our aims, which are as follows..'. Neither is saying 'Vote for us and we can guarantee that our handful of MEPs can deliver exactly what you want'.
(The only difference is that the UKIP hope is absolutely barmy, if it really is that Labour will offer a referendum)
I am in two minds about IHT . I don't like tax in general , the state takes too much and wastes too much. But if you are to raise some money for the state then it is better done on unearned income and would therefore like to see a FAIR IHT in place and lower income tax. However IHT is not fair ,there are so many exemptions including the ridiculous gifts out of income if it doesn't affect your standard of living clause and ,worse of all, the exemptions for business inheritance and farm lands. Plus any non- domicile (note not the same as a non resident but much easier to claim) will not pay it either. It needs shaking up and simplifying imo
Max Clifford will now have plenty of time to reflect on which careers he can squash with his vast bank of stories the tabloids were warned off publishing....
By-elections, anybody?
Clifford brokered stories for 'Kiss and Tell' footballer shaggers, or set up 'relationships' for Z listers. Do you really think he's got dirt on high end politicians? Seriously?
He doesn't need dirt on politicians - it will magically get invented. Remember the hideousness of the Nadine Milroy-Sloan story?
I'm amazed the media gave him any time after that particular mess. I'm not particularly fond of the Hamiltons, but that entire episode must have been hell.
I must admit I've never understood the 'taxing the same money twice" issue. Isn't all money taxed multiple times?
Say I go to work and get paid £1m. Imagine (for the sake of easier calculations) we have a 10% flat tax, I take home £900k. I then pay my gardener £20k a year, and they pay £2k tax. I spend £100k on a supercar, the car salesman pays £10k tax. And so on. Even though I'm taxed on the income, so is everyone else I give it to.
It seems to me this is no different to taxing inheritance, what am I missing?
I was pondering the ridiculousness of a UKIP government earlier. Then I remembered we live in a country that gorges itself on reality TV and voted Ant and Dec the greatest double act ever. V for Vendetta territory.
By which I do not mean UKIP who are harmless buffoons, but a likely sleepwalk into nightmare via disillusionment, disenfranchisement and fear.
As I noted on that thread, it takes a special kind of genius to advocate taxing birthday presents.
True, but I am surprised that the left in general don't advocate changing inheritance tax so that it is charged as income of the recipient, perhaps after an allowance of a few thousand. It's certainly an arguable proposition, and I believe is how it works in some other countries.
Argueable, but impractical, as parents would just seek to transfer assets to children in various ways, in which they don't bother at the moment.
Who is adamant that Cameron would renege on the commitment?
On this thread, Bobafett and anotherDave.
On any random ConHome or Telegraph comments thread, a whole stream of UKIP nutters, usually in comments laced with words like 'lying' and 'LibLabCon'.
You can see why: if they do actually admit the truth that Cameron is neither lying nor untrustworthy, and that therefore there would be a referendum under Cameron, it completely blows their world-view out of the water.
This isn't a dichotomous situation though. I think Cameron would probably offer a referendum with a majority, but it's not cast-iron. There are always events that could emerge that change it. There are also the possibilities of (a) the Tories not getting a majority and (b) the Tories getting a majority and changing leader.
The concept that Cameron wouldn't offer an in out referendum is one of the most deluded and unbalanced positions in modern political thinking.
If Cameron had a majority after 2015 and the Tory party had campaigned on a 2017 In Out referendum he would have no option but to offer one. Failure to offer the in out referendum would cause his back benchers to do the following:
1 Letters to chair of 22 - thus triggering a leadership election 2 Rebel and defeat the government in cahoots with the opposition on many bills, including I suspect, budget measures 3 Support or instigate a no confidence motion
The number of EU skeptic Tory MPs is plenty large enough to bring down any Tory administration with a smallish majority, which is the very best Cameroon could hope for. There is no way he would be able to avoid an in out referendum and remain in power.
They hope a strong performance in the EU Parliament elections will pressure Labour to commit to hold an in/out referendum after the 2015 election.
Yes, and the Conservatives hope that a vote for them will help them to their goal of renegotiation, to cover the points listed, and an In/Out referendum.
So your complaint that the Conservatives are being dishonest is a load of bunkum. UKIP and the Tories are saying 'Vote for us to help further our aims, which are as follows..'. Neither is saying 'Vote for us and we can guarantee that our handful of MEPs can deliver exactly what you want'.
(The only difference is that the UKIP hope is absolutely barmy, if it really is that Labour will offer a referendum).
Looking at the actions rather than the rhetoric of the Conservative Party we see that they have voted against an in/out referendum during this parliament. They have made no effort whatsoever to repatriate powers from the EU>UK during this parliament. They have passed powers from UK>EU during this parliament, and intend to pass more.
With regard to the EU Election, the Conservatives have made explicit pledges which are blatantly dishonest.
We've had four years of Conservatives in government, and no referendum. An offer from Labour would be more credible.
As I noted on that thread, it takes a special kind of genius to advocate taxing birthday presents.
True, but I am surprised that the left in general don't advocate changing inheritance tax so that it is charged as income of the recipient, perhaps after an allowance of a few thousand. It's certainly an arguable proposition, and I believe is how it works in some other countries.
It would certainly be good to iron out the anomaly arising from the "normal expenditure out of income" exemption, whereby if I give my son £20,000 it is taxable in the event of my death, but a billionaire can give his son an allowance of £20,000 a month or more, if he can afford it without cramping his lifestyle, and those payments are exempt.
The problem with IHT is there are numerous reliefs against it, so that in theory no-one should have to pay it. However, the super-wealthy are best placed to take advantage of the reliefs, meaning the burden falls on the modestly wealthy, and mostly on the innumerate, the ill, the confused, the secretive, the unlucky.
Says someone who is currently in the process of filling in an IHT400, plus voluminous schedules (60 pages of detailed questions and calculations).
Anyone who is over 50, and modestly wealthy, should take a long hard look at it, and reflect on the job which will unavoidable fall on their heirs and successors, and start planning now to make their job easier...
When he was found guilty all the experts I heard on tv/ radio, said he would get 2 years max for each (as had to be sentenced under old rules) and likely to have them run concurrently and be out in a year.
So I presume the judge has still sentenced him for up to 2 year for each, but said that each has to run consecutively? Still only going to be 4 really though.
It would certainly be good to iron out the anomaly arising from the "normal expenditure out of income" exemption, whereby if I give my son £20,000 it is taxable in the event of my death, but a billionaire can give his son an allowance of £20,000 a month or more, if he can afford it without cramping his lifestyle, and those payments are exempt.
But that would mean the same income is taxed twice.
Gifts are non-taxable on the recipient (certain chargeable transfers excluded).
I am in two minds about IHT . I don't like tax in general , the state takes too much and wastes too much. But if you are to raise some money for the state then it is better done on unearned income and would therefore like to see a FAIR IHT in place and lower income tax. However IHT is not fair ,there are so many exemptions including the ridiculous gifts out of income if it doesn't affect your standard of living clause and ,worse of all, the exemptions for business inheritance and farm lands. Plus any non- domicile (note not the same as a non resident but much easier to claim) will not pay it either. It needs shaking up and simplifying imo
Non-dom is much harder to claim, certainly if your domicile of origin was England and Wales, etc...
I was pondering the ridiculousness of a UKIP government earlier. Then I remembered we live in a country that gorges itself on reality TV and voted Ant and Dec the greatest double act ever. V for Vendetta territory.
By which I do not mean UKIP who are harmless buffoons, but a likely sleepwalk into nightmare via disillusionment, disenfranchisement and fear.
It's been a while but lest we forget - as the political class wants it forgotten - children's commissioner's report into the level of violence, especially sexual violence, being perpetrated in the ever growing gang-ruled parts of the cities.
“There will,”[Salmond’s chief spin-doctor] Gunn’s email concluded, “be no more access from the first minister to DC Thomson publications.” As well as the Sunday Post, these include the Dundee Courier and Aberdeen Press & Journal. Given Salmond’s touchiness about cartoons, presumably the ban extends to the Beano too.
The Eye overlooked the wider implications of the point that Darling is shown as an advocate (Anglice, barrister) in court, and that Salmond is shown as the pannel (Anglice, defendant), accused of a crime. The issue here is that Darling really is an advocate in actual life, which implies that Salmond really is accused of a crime. It's a grey area, but the cartoon is undoubtedly more offensive than the article likes to claim.
Carnyx, that truth will not diminish Carlotta's glee at a smear of Alex Salmond.
I was pondering the ridiculousness of a UKIP government earlier. Then I remembered we live in a country that gorges itself on reality TV and voted Ant and Dec the greatest double act ever. V for Vendetta territory.
By which I do not mean UKIP who are harmless buffoons, but a likely sleepwalk into nightmare via disillusionment, disenfranchisement and fear.
It's been a while but lest we forget - as the political class wants it forgotten - children's commissioner's report into the level of violence, especially sexual violence, being perpetrated in the ever growing gang-ruled parts of the cities.
They hope a strong performance in the EU Parliament elections will pressure Labour to commit to hold an in/out referendum after the 2015 election.
Yes, and the Conservatives hope that a vote for them will help them to their goal of renegotiation, to cover the points listed, and an In/Out referendum.
So your complaint that the Conservatives are being dishonest is a load of bunkum. Both UKIP and the Tories are saying 'Vote for us to help further our aims, which are as follows..'. Neither is saying 'Vote for us and we can guarantee that our handful of MEPs can deliver exactly what you want'.
(The only difference is that the UKIP hope is absolutely barmy, if it really is that Labour will offer a referendum)
Ukip's best chance of getting UK out of the monster state is by taking 2/3 Con voters away from Con and 1/3 Lab voters away from Lab.
“There will,”[Salmond’s chief spin-doctor] Gunn’s email concluded, “be no more access from the first minister to DC Thomson publications.” As well as the Sunday Post, these include the Dundee Courier and Aberdeen Press & Journal. Given Salmond’s touchiness about cartoons, presumably the ban extends to the Beano too.
The Eye overlooked the wider implications of the point that Darling is shown as an advocate (Anglice, barrister) in court, and that Salmond is shown as the pannel (Anglice, defendant), accused of a crime. The issue here is that Darling really is an advocate in actual life, which implies that Salmond really is accused of a crime. It's a grey area, but the cartoon is undoubtedly more offensive than the article likes to claim.
The last newspaper to be issued with a fatwa over cartoons had supposedly published offensive cartoons of Mohammed. I'm not sure that even Alex Salmond would place himself in that company, nor should you regard it as a comfortable precedent.
Max Clifford will now have plenty of time to reflect on which careers he can squash with his vast bank of stories the tabloids were warned off publishing....
By-elections, anybody?
Not sure about that, but I imagine Clifford will eventually publish his own "kiss and tell" memories on the many celeb's he's represented over the years.
“There will,”[Salmond’s chief spin-doctor] Gunn’s email concluded, “be no more access from the first minister to DC Thomson publications.” As well as the Sunday Post, these include the Dundee Courier and Aberdeen Press & Journal. Given Salmond’s touchiness about cartoons, presumably the ban extends to the Beano too.
The Eye overlooked the wider implications of the point that Darling is shown as an advocate (Anglice, barrister) in court, and that Salmond is shown as the pannel (Anglice, defendant), accused of a crime. The issue here is that Darling really is an advocate in actual life, which implies that Salmond really is accused of a crime. It's a grey area, but the cartoon is undoubtedly more offensive than the article likes to claim.
No, the article did address that:
A more exact analogy might have had the two men as rival barristers, rather than Salmond in the dock; but cartoonists will be cartoonists and the gist was clear: each side had to convince the jury of public opinion.
The cartoonist unerringly picked the party most likely to take offence.....
Max Clifford just might have a huge stash of rumour, gossip and facts on the whole gamut of celebrity, from Z Listers all the way up to the Royals. He's effectively ruined, his clients gone, family life in tatters. He seems barmy enough to try and spill some dirt in a knee jerk death roll. I expect a few people are feeling a little nervous, now he's been put away.
I must admit I've never understood the 'taxing the same money twice" issue. Isn't all money taxed multiple times?
Say I go to work and get paid £1m. Imagine (for the sake of easier calculations) we have a 10% flat tax, I take home £900k. I then pay my gardener £20k a year, and they pay £2k tax. I spend £100k on a supercar, the car salesman pays £10k tax. And so on. Even though I'm taxed on the income, so is everyone else I give it to.
It seems to me this is no different to taxing inheritance, what am I missing?
The difference was that paying your son £20K meant no tax paid but giving the gardener meant tax was paid. But hard to compare the two and say your son should pay tax.
@Rodcrosby Assuming one's parents haven't done the sensible thing, and sold the house and bought a 'farm' 7 years before they've popped their clogs, how do you relieve the bricks and mortar one's parents lived in against IHT ?
Max Clifford just might have a huge stash of rumour, gossip and facts on the whole gamut of celebrity, from Z Listers all the way up to the Royals. He's effectively ruined, his clients gone, family life in tatters. He seems barmy enough to try and spill some dirt in a knee jerk death roll. I expect a few people are feeling a little nervous, now he's been put away.
And I'm sure somebody will be willing to pay handsomely for such a book / stories, despite what he has done.
I must admit I've never understood the 'taxing the same money twice" issue. Isn't all money taxed multiple times?
Say I go to work and get paid £1m. Imagine (for the sake of easier calculations) we have a 10% flat tax, I take home £900k. I then pay my gardener £20k a year, and they pay £2k tax. I spend £100k on a supercar, the car salesman pays £10k tax. And so on. Even though I'm taxed on the income, so is everyone else I give it to.
It seems to me this is no different to taxing inheritance, what am I missing?
The difference was that paying your son £20K meant no tax paid but giving the gardener meant tax was paid. But hard to compare the two and say your son should pay tax.
My point is there seems to be a moral objection to taxing money multiple times, but it seems to me we do this the whole time already and no-one objects.
Max Clifford just might have a huge stash of rumour, gossip and facts on the whole gamut of celebrity, from Z Listers all the way up to the Royals. He's effectively ruined, his clients gone, family life in tatters. He seems barmy enough to try and spill some dirt in a knee jerk death roll. I expect a few people are feeling a little nervous, now he's been put away.
And I'm sure somebody will be willing to pay handsomely for such a book / stories, despite what he has done.
I suppose it depends how many of the "celeb's" he's represented made him sign life-long confidentiality agreements.
Given how thick most celeb's are, probably not that many...
When he was in business it wasn't in his interests to spill the beans on his clients as he had a reputation to maintain, but now he's finished he has nothing to lose by telling all.
I must admit I've never understood the 'taxing the same money twice" issue. Isn't all money taxed multiple times?
Say I go to work and get paid £1m. Imagine (for the sake of easier calculations) we have a 10% flat tax, I take home £900k. I then pay my gardener £20k a year, and they pay £2k tax. I spend £100k on a supercar, the car salesman pays £10k tax. And so on. Even though I'm taxed on the income, so is everyone else I give it to.
It seems to me this is no different to taxing inheritance, what am I missing?
The difference was that paying your son £20K meant no tax paid but giving the gardener meant tax was paid. But hard to compare the two and say your son should pay tax.
My point is there seems to be a moral objection to taxing money multiple times, but it seems to me we do this the whole time already and no-one objects.
I think the subtle difference in your example is that it is your choice to be taxed twice(if that is what it is) ie you don't have to pay a gardener or buy a car, but if you die you get taxed twice without a choice in terms of spending it
There are three families in West Sussex that own most of it, have done for centuries and probably always will. Between them those families have probably paid less in Death Duties or Inheritance Tax than the rest of the county, in fact they have probably paid less since the Tax was first introduced by Lloyd George than my neighbour's estate will when, as seems likely, he shuffles off, the perch this year. IHT is a bad tax. It is hard and expensive to collect, easy to evade (if you are rich enough) and raises trivial sums. The main beneficiaries of its continued existence are lawyers, accountants and financial advisers. I know vultures have to eat too, but surely they don't need a government-driven wealth creation scheme.
Max Clifford just might have a huge stash of rumour, gossip and facts on the whole gamut of celebrity, from Z Listers all the way up to the Royals. He's effectively ruined, his clients gone, family life in tatters. He seems barmy enough to try and spill some dirt in a knee jerk death roll. I expect a few people are feeling a little nervous, now he's been put away.
And I'm sure somebody will be willing to pay handsomely for such a book / stories, despite what he has done.
I suppose it depends how many of the "celeb's" he's represented made him sign life-long confidentiality agreements.
Given how thick most celeb's are, probably not that many...
Given he was the broker of stories and acting for them, I would be highly surprised if he doesn't hold all the Aces. Also, there are always ways of getting a story out, with or without "confidentiality" agreements (presuming any such agreement can be held up anyway).
Clifford is ruined, what has he got to lose if somebody wants to throw him a load of money for all the dirt? And some unscrupulous bar-steward will always be willing to do that. Plus, in the days of the interweb, it is easier than ever.
Super injunctions against load of celebs were leaks through many different sources / methods.
I must admit I've never understood the 'taxing the same money twice" issue. Isn't all money taxed multiple times?
Say I go to work and get paid £1m. Imagine (for the sake of easier calculations) we have a 10% flat tax, I take home £900k. I then pay my gardener £20k a year, and they pay £2k tax. I spend £100k on a supercar, the car salesman pays £10k tax. And so on. Even though I'm taxed on the income, so is everyone else I give it to.
It seems to me this is no different to taxing inheritance, what am I missing?
The difference was that paying your son £20K meant no tax paid but giving the gardener meant tax was paid. But hard to compare the two and say your son should pay tax.
My point is there seems to be a moral objection to taxing money multiple times, but it seems to me we do this the whole time already and no-one objects.
I think the subtle difference in your example is that it is your choice to be taxed twice(if that is what it is) ie you don't have to pay a gardener or buy a car, but if you die you get taxed twice without a choice in terms of spending it
Mmm, that might be it. Fair point.
I'm genuinely not trying to make an argument either way, I've just heard this objection many times and simply not understood it.
I expect that there are a lot of nervous celebrities today and a lot of excited newspapers. It would explain why they've made comparatively little of his downfall: they're hoping to land much bigger stories.
I expect that there are a lot of nervous celebrities today and a lot of excited newspapers. It would explain why they've made comparatively little of his downfall: they're hoping to land much bigger stories.
Not just celebrities. Clifford knows where every body is buried and I imagine he has been pretty careful to ensure he has documentary evidence.
Looking at the actions rather than the rhetoric of the Conservative Party we see that they have voted against an in/out referendum during this parliament. They have made no effort whatsoever to repatriate powers from the EU>UK during this parliament. They have passed powers from UK>EU during this parliament, and intend to pass more.
With regard to the EU Election, the Conservatives have made explicit pledges which are blatantly dishonest.
We've had four years of Conservatives in government, and no referendum. An offer from Labour would be more credible.
What utter, unmitigated garbage. For a start, this is a coalition, not a Conservative government. Have you not noticed this? Secondly the Conservatives have never promised a referendum in this parliament - why should they, since the policy is to try renegotation first? And thirdly, virtually all Conservative MPs (without a single dissenter, although there might have been a handful absent, and a few wanted an amendment to hold the referendum earlier) voted for James Wharton's referendum bill. That bill is identical to what they will pass if they have a majority in the next parliament.
You are living in a fantasy world. The only effect of UKIP doing well would be to make a Labour government more likely, which will take the country in diametrically opposite direction to what you want, and which will scupper the very referendum you claim to want. It's completely bonkers, but, if that's what you want, good luck with it, and I hope you enjoy the ever-closer union, loony-left social policy, and economic damage which results from a Miliband government.
"He applies his own standards and code of conduct when deciding what stories to take on. He says that while he has broken scandals on politicians, he could have broken 30 or 40 more, but held back because he did not think what they were doing was wrong."
I must admit I've never understood the 'taxing the same money twice" issue. Isn't all money taxed multiple times?
Say I go to work and get paid £1m. Imagine (for the sake of easier calculations) we have a 10% flat tax, I take home £900k. I then pay my gardener £20k a year, and they pay £2k tax. I spend £100k on a supercar, the car salesman pays £10k tax. And so on. Even though I'm taxed on the income, so is everyone else I give it to.
It seems to me this is no different to taxing inheritance, what am I missing?
The difference was that paying your son £20K meant no tax paid but giving the gardener meant tax was paid. But hard to compare the two and say your son should pay tax.
My point is there seems to be a moral objection to taxing money multiple times, but it seems to me we do this the whole time already and no-one objects.
I think the subtle difference in your example is that it is your choice to be taxed twice(if that is what it is) ie you don't have to pay a gardener or buy a car, but if you die you get taxed twice without a choice in terms of spending it
Hmm, but if you ever spend it on anything, you'll probably pay tax again in the end, unless you squander your entire inheritance on food, newspapers and baby clothes.
I must admit I've never understood the 'taxing the same money twice" issue. Isn't all money taxed multiple times?
Say I go to work and get paid £1m. Imagine (for the sake of easier calculations) we have a 10% flat tax, I take home £900k. I then pay my gardener £20k a year, and they pay £2k tax. I spend £100k on a supercar, the car salesman pays £10k tax. And so on. Even though I'm taxed on the income, so is everyone else I give it to.
It seems to me this is no different to taxing inheritance, what am I missing?
The difference was that paying your son £20K meant no tax paid but giving the gardener meant tax was paid. But hard to compare the two and say your son should pay tax.
My point is there seems to be a moral objection to taxing money multiple times, but it seems to me we do this the whole time already and no-one objects.
I think the subtle difference in your example is that it is your choice to be taxed twice(if that is what it is) ie you don't have to pay a gardener or buy a car, but if you die you get taxed twice without a choice in terms of spending it
Hmm, but if you ever spend it on anything, you'll probably pay tax again in the end, unless you squander your entire inheritance on food, newspapers and baby clothes.
"He applies his own standards and code of conduct when deciding what stories to take on. He says that while he has broken scandals on politicians, he could have broken 30 or 40 more, but held back because he did not think what they were doing was wrong."
I must admit I've never understood the 'taxing the same money twice" issue. Isn't all money taxed multiple times?
Say I go to work and get paid £1m. Imagine (for the sake of easier calculations) we have a 10% flat tax, I take home £900k. I then pay my gardener £20k a year, and they pay £2k tax. I spend £100k on a supercar, the car salesman pays £10k tax. And so on. Even though I'm taxed on the income, so is everyone else I give it to.
It seems to me this is no different to taxing inheritance, what am I missing?
The difference was that paying your son £20K meant no tax paid but giving the gardener meant tax was paid. But hard to compare the two and say your son should pay tax.
My point is there seems to be a moral objection to taxing money multiple times, but it seems to me we do this the whole time already and no-one objects.
I think the subtle difference in your example is that it is your choice to be taxed twice(if that is what it is) ie you don't have to pay a gardener or buy a car, but if you die you get taxed twice without a choice in terms of spending it
Hmm, but if you ever spend it on anything, you'll probably pay tax again in the end, unless you squander your entire inheritance on food, newspapers and baby clothes.
or party memberships ! Who was it that said I spent 25% of my pension on wine ,women and gambling and squandered the rest on an annuity!!
Seriously though many people do not spend lumps of money and have no intention of spending it in the commercial sense . The use of this money is not for material things but for peace of mind to know its there
Who is adamant that Cameron would renege on the commitment?
On this thread, Bobafett and anotherDave.
On any random ConHome or Telegraph comments thread, a whole stream of UKIP nutters, usually in comments laced with words like 'lying' and 'LibLabCon'.
You can see why: if they do actually admit the truth that Cameron is neither lying nor untrustworthy, and that therefore there would be a referendum under Cameron, it completely blows their world-view out of the water.
This isn't a dichotomous situation though. I think Cameron would probably offer a referendum with a majority, but it's not cast-iron. There are always events that could emerge that change it. There are also the possibilities of (a) the Tories not getting a majority and (b) the Tories getting a majority and changing leader.
The concept that Cameron wouldn't offer an in out referendum is one of the most deluded and unbalanced positions in modern political thinking.
If Cameron had a majority after 2015 and the Tory party had campaigned on a 2017 In Out referendum he would have no option but to offer one. Failure to offer the in out referendum would cause his back benchers to do the following:
1 Letters to chair of 22 - thus triggering a leadership election 2 Rebel and defeat the government in cahoots with the opposition on many bills, including I suspect, budget measures 3 Support or instigate a no confidence motion
The number of EU skeptic Tory MPs is plenty large enough to bring down any Tory administration with a smallish majority, which is the very best Cameroon could hope for. There is no way he would be able to avoid an in out referendum and remain in power.
Yet the number of pro-EU Tory MPs would probably be enough to keep him in if he pulled a Major and called a leadership election. In addition, a terrorist attack, or a foreign policy crisis, or a delay in EU negotiations could all be used as a way to punt a referendum into the longer grass, while not cancelling it entirely. And the eurosceptics would be on a lot weaker ground if UKIP collapsed at the next general election, as Richard Nabavi thinks they should do willingly. A week is a long time in politics, so three years is an age.
I am not interested in Max Clifford one way or the other but am curious to know why a consecutive sentence was given in this case . I rarely hear of such sentences . How is it decided ?
"He applies his own standards and code of conduct when deciding what stories to take on. He says that while he has broken scandals on politicians, he could have broken 30 or 40 more, but held back because he did not think what they were doing was wrong."
"And he sometimes works for free as in the case of a contestant on gameshow the Weakest Link who turned out to be a call girl.
She turned to Max Clifford for help with tabloid harassment. He didn't charge her because he felt sorry for her. "
I bet he got his moneys worth!
'He applies his own standards and code of conduct when deciding what stories to take on'
He took anything on then.
Judge Leonard - 'added that he believed Clifford indecently assaulted a 12-year-old girl in Spain, though a prosecution could not be brought in this country for that alleged crime as it took place in 1983, before it would come under UK jurisdiction.'
There are three families in West Sussex that own most of it, have done for centuries and probably always will. Between them those families have probably paid less in Death Duties or Inheritance Tax than the rest of the county, in fact they have probably paid less since the Tax was first introduced by Lloyd George than my neighbour's estate will when, as seems likely, he shuffles off, the perch this year. IHT is a bad tax. It is hard and expensive to collect, easy to evade (if you are rich enough) and raises trivial sums. The main beneficiaries of its continued existence are lawyers, accountants and financial advisers. I know vultures have to eat too, but surely they don't need a government-driven wealth creation scheme.
That's a pretty good summary of what is wrong with IHT.
Forget about all the arcane stuff about double taxation, the problem is that it is avoided by those it is supposedly intended to target.
I would abolish it and see it replaced by something else, such as a Land Value Tax.
There are three families in West Sussex that own most of it, have done for centuries and probably always will. Between them those families have probably paid less in Death Duties or Inheritance Tax than the rest of the county, in fact they have probably paid less since the Tax was first introduced by Lloyd George than my neighbour's estate will when, as seems likely, he shuffles off, the perch this year. IHT is a bad tax. It is hard and expensive to collect, easy to evade (if you are rich enough) and raises trivial sums. The main beneficiaries of its continued existence are lawyers, accountants and financial advisers. I know vultures have to eat too, but surely they don't need a government-driven wealth creation scheme.
That's a pretty good summary of what is wrong with IHT.
Forget about all the arcane stuff about double taxation, the problem is that it is avoided by those it is supposedly intended to target.
I would abolish it and see it replaced by something else, such as a Land Value Tax.
Yes that may be the simplest and fairest way to raise revenue
Sky News are going in quite hard on Clarkson. Comparing him with Carol Thatcher, who was dropped from the BBC for her remarks about a tennis player, and Big Ron for his comments on Desailly, which ruined his profile. Maybe Clarkson has finally run out of luck.
Caol & Mallaig by-election, Highland Council - Result: IND HOLD
Ind (Thompson) 39% (n/a) SNP 30.4% (+15.5) Ind 22.5% (n/a) UKIP 5.6% (n/a) Christian 2.6% (+1.0)
That is a terrific performance by the SNP in Charlie Kennedy's seat: up over 20 points on our 2007 performance. Not a bad showing by the UKIP candidate either. It is not often they get nearly 6% in Scottish elections.
Sky News are going in quite hard on Clarkson. Comparing him with Carol Thatcher, who was dropped from the BBC for her remarks about a tennis player, and Big Ron for his comments on Desailly, which ruined his profile. Maybe Clarkson has finally run out of luck.
Max Clifford may come to Clarkson's rescue . now yesterday's news
Hmm, Cammo calls Nige a chicken, leaves him open to major attacks if the PM blocks Nige from the debates, or even a PM vs Nige debate before the official campaign period. Seems like a stupid comment and will only rile Ukip supporters further, and they already dislike the PM intensely.
Was out for most of the day, just caught up with the US jobs figures. What a complete and utter joke. Employment fell by 70k and the headline unemployment rate only went down because 800k people left the labour market. The absolute employment rate in the US is touching multi-year lows right now. Phantom statistics ahoy...
Sky News are going in quite hard on Clarkson. Comparing him with Carol Thatcher, who was dropped from the BBC for her remarks about a tennis player, and Big Ron for his comments on Desailly, which ruined his profile. Maybe Clarkson has finally run out of luck.
Max Clifford may come to Clarkson's rescue . now yesterday's news
Sky would like to damage Clarkson, which would damage the BBC and Top Gear, a big competitor with Sky.
It's impossible to advise, without knowing more of the circs, ages, value, total estate, etc., which you probably don't want to share here anyway. IANAL.
However, in general
1) sell and downsize (or rent even), distribute surplus cash to heirs, survive 7 years...
2) Make use of the £3000 annual allowance for gifts, plus gifts out of income if possible.
Hmm, Cammo calls Nige a chicken, leaves him open to major attacks if the PM blocks Nige from the debates, or even a PM vs Nige debate before the official campaign period. Seems like a stupid comment and will only rile Ukip supporters further, and they already dislike the PM intensely.
PM knows nothing he does will endear him to kippers so there isn't much of a downside.
Could this be a black swan for the Euros? Isolationism may be about to go out of fashion.
No doubt the most successful direct action movement in history will be out in force proving that waving placards in a city thousands of miles away terrifies tyrants everywhere.
The last newspaper to be issued with a fatwa over cartoons had supposedly published offensive cartoons of Mohammed. I'm not sure that even Alex Salmond would place himself in that company, nor should you regard it as a comfortable precedent.
“There will,”[Salmond’s chief spin-doctor] Gunn’s email concluded, “be no more access from the first minister to DC Thomson publications.” As well as the Sunday Post, these include the Dundee Courier and Aberdeen Press & Journal. Given Salmond’s touchiness about cartoons, presumably the ban extends to the Beano too.
The Eye overlooked the wider implications of the point that Darling is shown as an advocate (Anglice, barrister) in court, and that Salmond is shown as the pannel (Anglice, defendant), accused of a crime. The issue here is that Darling really is an advocate in actual life, which implies that Salmond really is accused of a crime. It's a grey area, but the cartoon is undoubtedly more offensive than the article likes to claim.
The last newspaper to be issued with a fatwa over cartoons had supposedly published offensive cartoons of Mohammed. I'm not sure that even Alex Salmond would place himself in that company, nor should you regard it as a comfortable precedent.
It's not as if Mr Salmond is trying to close down the debate - he is just wanting a fair one. DC Thomson are well known to have a unionist editorial policy and one might be forgiven for thinking it germane to the fact that even when the cartoon overtly tried to show the jury of public opinion, which should by definition be fair and balanced court, it still couldn't resist the temptation to mess it up. Even the Eye dimly realised that there was something odd about not portraying Mr Salmond as the opposing advocate.
I am all in favour of robust debate, and a single cartoon is, to put it, merely an anecdote rather than evidence, but it is a good example of a wider pattern of the general failure of the Scottish media (with a few exceptions) to make any serious attempt at balance by giving the anti-indy side and its main members as much of a scrutiny as they are doing to the pro-indy side (and it's no argument to say that this is inevitable as No is the status quo, because we all know things are going to change whatever happens). It's the media's loss as I now buy half the newspapers I used to.
What is fascinating is how some of the same issues are arising over the otherwise very different UKIP and the discussions sometimes uncannily similar to what we saw months ago about Scotland. The PBer who said that indyref woudl be a dry run for Brexit had a point.
Here are six cities in the UK. Which ones are the best to live in, according to their own residents? The results may surprise you.
Belfast Cardiff Glasgow London Manchester Newcastle
Spoiler: London came in last place.
They missed out the best UK city (well certainly the best English) of course!
Most coastline and beaches, most golf courses, most and best public parks, two international airports close by, vibrant cultural scene, world-class architecture and public art, superior road and rail networks, three national parks within an hour or so's drive, and so on and so forth...
Could this be a black swan for the Euros? Isolationism may be about to go out of fashion.
If Ukraine does "kick off" for real then the equity markets will take a pummeling. I'm glad that I'm heavy on gold and cash at the moment.
Agreed. We may be about to suffer some serious economic disruption. One advantage Europe has is that this is going to escalate into spring/summer rather than winter. Gas is likely to play a part in this.
"He applies his own standards and code of conduct when deciding what stories to take on. He says that while he has broken scandals on politicians, he could have broken 30 or 40 more, but held back because he did not think what they were doing was wrong."
"And he sometimes works for free as in the case of a contestant on gameshow the Weakest Link who turned out to be a call girl.
She turned to Max Clifford for help with tabloid harassment. He didn't charge her because he felt sorry for her. "
I bet he got his moneys worth!
'He applies his own standards and code of conduct when deciding what stories to take on'
He took anything on then.
Judge Leonard - 'added that he believed Clifford indecently assaulted a 12-year-old girl in Spain, though a prosecution could not be brought in this country for that alleged crime as it took place in 1983, before it would come under UK jurisdiction.'
Caol & Mallaig by-election, Highland Council - Result: IND HOLD
Ind (Thompson) 39% (n/a) SNP 30.4% (+15.5) Ind 22.5% (n/a) UKIP 5.6% (n/a) Christian 2.6% (+1.0)
That is a terrific performance by the SNP in Charlie Kennedy's seat: up over 20 points on our 2007 performance. Not a bad showing by the UKIP candidate either. It is not often they get nearly 6% in Scottish elections.
As a matter of interest, how much effect do you think the community buyouts have had [edit@: on the vote]? Eigg, Knoydart, etc. I knew Eigg before and after the buyout and the difference is astonishing. Must have had some impact on the politics, though if I recall rightly the earlier ones were done without the new buyout legislation so no direct connection with politics. But even being involved with the community buyout must politicise folk.
Here are six cities in the UK. Which ones are the best to live in, according to their own residents? The results may surprise you.
Belfast Cardiff Glasgow London Manchester Newcastle
Spoiler: London came in last place.
They missed out the best UK city (well certainly the best English) of course!
Most coastline and beaches, most golf courses, most and best public parks, two international airports close by, vibrant cultural scene, world-class architecture and public art, superior road and rail networks, three national parks within an hour or so's drive, and so on and so forth...
Here are six cities in the UK. Which ones are the best to live in, according to their own residents? The results may surprise you.
Belfast Cardiff Glasgow London Manchester Newcastle
Spoiler: London came in last place.
They missed out the best UK city (well certainly the best English) of course!
Most coastline and beaches, most golf courses, most and best public parks, two international airports close by, vibrant cultural scene, world-class architecture and public art, superior road and rail networks, three national parks within an hour or so's drive, and so on and so forth...
I can find a map of local groups on the Yes Scotland website, which is a reasonably good match for the one you show, though in a different style and the Glencoe local group appears not to be on yours.
I can't find such a map on the Better Together website, so I don't know how accurate the one used is. They do claim to have a local campaign office in both Aberdeen and Edinburgh, which aren't shown on the map, so it does look like the map you've shared there is cobblers.
However, if I do a search for events on the Better Together website, and put in an Edinburgh postcode, I am given a google maps image which looks similar to the one you've used, except it has a vast number more flags on it.
So I'm afraid that it looks like the comparison you are making is complete and utter cobblers. Maybe the Yes campaign is winning the ground war, but it does its credibility no good by making such easily falsified comparisons.
The last newspaper to be issued with a fatwa over cartoons had supposedly published offensive cartoons of Mohammed. I'm not sure that even Alex Salmond would place himself in that company, nor should you regard it as a comfortable precedent.
It's not as if Mr Salmond is trying to close down the debate - he is just wanting a fair one. DC Thomson are well known to have a unionist editorial policy and one might be forgiven for thinking it germane to the fact that even when the cartoon overtly tried to show the jury of public opinion, which should by definition be fair and balanced court, it still couldn't resist the temptation to mess it up. Even the Eye dimly realised that there was something odd about not portraying Mr Salmond as the opposing advocate.
I am all in favour of robust debate, and a single cartoon is, to put it, merely an anecdote rather than evidence, but it is a good example of a wider pattern of the general failure of the Scottish media (with a few exceptions) to make any serious attempt at balance by giving the anti-indy side and its main members as much of a scrutiny as they are doing to the pro-indy side (and it's no argument to say that this is inevitable as No is the status quo, because we all know things are going to change whatever happens). It's the media's loss as I now buy half the newspapers I used to.
What is fascinating is how some of the same issues are arising over the otherwise very different UKIP and the discussions sometimes uncannily similar to what we saw months ago about Scotland. The PBer who said that indyref woudl be a dry run for Brexit had a point.
Oh come on. As Enoch Powell said, politicians who complain about the media are like sailors complaining about the sea. Thin-skinned politicians in positions of power who seek to use that power to control inferred criticism of themselves (no matter how indirect) deserve all the abuse that they get. Throwing a tantrum because a cartoon doesn't show Alex Salmond in exactly the way that the SNP would like is not just childish, it's indicative of a fundamental intolerance of different points of view.
The last newspaper to be issued with a fatwa over cartoons had supposedly published offensive cartoons of Mohammed. I'm not sure that even Alex Salmond would place himself in that company, nor should you regard it as a comfortable precedent.
What fatwa? All he did was to threaten the withdrawal of the usual horse trading of exclusive stories. Unless you think that the other leaders (none democratically elected as such, unlike Mr S, in terms of a majority party in their assemblies) don't do that?
Actually, I'm not a Nat and I'm not an uncritical supporter of Mr Salmond, and Steve Bell and Martin Rowson are my favourite political cartoonists (both did certain very good cartoons on indy last year). And my beliefs are my own, though I would also remind you that "by their fruits ye shall know them". But I did think that you were uncritical in bringing such a cartoon to our attention without suitable comment.
The relevance of all this to the thread is that the strategy of personal attack on Mr Salmond is not only puerle and undemocratic but also counterproductive because it also does down the people who think he does a better job than anyone else and so on and so forth. And who would like their concerns addressed. This is exactly what is happening with the personal attacks on Mr Farage.
I see Populus say that people feel they have "more to fear from the conduct of big business than the actions of trade unions", by a margin of 49-13. Those who feel strongly agree by 21 to 4. (I'm not sure I agree with either generalisation, bu it's an interesting indication of mood.)
The last newspaper to be issued with a fatwa over cartoons had supposedly published offensive cartoons of Mohammed. I'm not sure that even Alex Salmond would place himself in that company, nor should you regard it as a comfortable precedent.
What fatwa? All he did was to threaten the withdrawal of the usual horse trading of exclusive stories. Unless you think that the other leaders (none democratically elected as such, unlike Mr S, in terms of a majority party in their assemblies) don't do that?
Actually, I'm not a Nat and I'm not an uncritical supporter of Mr Salmond, and Steve Bell and Martin Rowson are my favourite political cartoonists (both did certain very good cartoons on indy last year). And my beliefs are my own, though I would also remind you that "by their fruits ye shall know them". But I did think that you were uncritical in bringing such a cartoon to our attention without suitable comment.
The relevance of all this to the thread is that the strategy of personal attack on Mr Salmond is not only puerle and undemocratic but also counterproductive because it also does down the people who think he does a better job than anyone else and so on and so forth. And who would like their concerns addressed. This is exactly what is happening with the personal attacks on Mr Farage.
Steve Bell used to be really sharp. These days he's about as "alternative" as Adrian Edmundson
The last newspaper to be issued with a fatwa over cartoons had supposedly published offensive cartoons of Mohammed. I'm not sure that even Alex Salmond would place himself in that company, nor should you regard it as a comfortable precedent.
It's not as if Mr Salmond is trying to close down the debate - he is just wanting a fair one. DC Thomson are well known to have a unionist editorial policy and one might be forgiven for thinking it germane to the fact that even when the cartoon overtly tried to show the jury of public opinion, which should by definition be fair and balanced court, it still couldn't resist the temptation to mess it up. Even the Eye dimly realised that there was something odd about not portraying Mr Salmond as the opposing advocate.
I am all in favour of robust debate, and a single cartoon is, to put it, merely an anecdote rather than evidence, but it is a good example of a wider pattern of the general failure of the Scottish media (with a few exceptions) to make any serious attempt at balance by giving the anti-indy side and its main members as much of a scrutiny as they are doing to the pro-indy side (and it's no argument to say that this is inevitable as No is the status quo, because we all know things are going to change whatever happens). It's the media's loss as I now buy half the newspapers I used to.
What is fascinating is how some of the same issues are arising over the otherwise very different UKIP and the discussions sometimes uncannily similar to what we saw months ago about Scotland. The PBer who said that indyref woudl be a dry run for Brexit had a point.
Oh come on. As Enoch Powell said, politicians who complain about the media are like sailors complaining about the sea. Thin-skinned politicians in positions of power who seek to use that power to control inferred criticism of themselves (no matter how indirect) deserve all the abuse that they get. Throwing a tantrum because a cartoon doesn't show Alex Salmond in exactly the way that the SNP would like is not just childish, it's indicative of a fundamental intolerance of different points of view.
Powell as right, and normally I'd have ignored it. But I did think the cartoon was fundamentally intolerant of a different point of view in itself. Withdrawing the next two or three promised exsclusives is hardly a fatwa or a tantrum - it's the everyday horsetrading.
Here are six cities in the UK. Which ones are the best to live in, according to their own residents? The results may surprise you.
Belfast Cardiff Glasgow London Manchester Newcastle
Spoiler: London came in last place.
They missed out the best UK city (well certainly the best English) of course!
Most coastline and beaches, most golf courses, most and best public parks, two international airports close by, vibrant cultural scene, world-class architecture and public art, superior road and rail networks, three national parks within an hour or so's drive, and so on and so forth...
Liverpool?
Aye, the Pool of Life...
Very disappointed with you Mr Crosby - why have you not posted any more of Liverpool's architectural delights? like this one:
The last newspaper to be issued with a fatwa over cartoons had supposedly published offensive cartoons of Mohammed. I'm not sure that even Alex Salmond would place himself in that company, nor should you regard it as a comfortable precedent.
What fatwa? All he did was to threaten the withdrawal of the usual horse trading of exclusive stories. Unless you think that the other leaders (none democratically elected as such, unlike Mr S, in terms of a majority party in their assemblies) don't do that?
Actually, I'm not a Nat and I'm not an uncritical supporter of Mr Salmond, and Steve Bell and Martin Rowson are my favourite political cartoonists (both did certain very good cartoons on indy last year). And my beliefs are my own, though I would also remind you that "by their fruits ye shall know them". But I did think that you were uncritical in bringing such a cartoon to our attention without suitable comment.
The relevance of all this to the thread is that the strategy of personal attack on Mr Salmond is not only puerle and undemocratic but also counterproductive because it also does down the people who think he does a better job than anyone else and so on and so forth. And who would like their concerns addressed. This is exactly what is happening with the personal attacks on Mr Farage.
Steve Bell used to be really sharp. These days he's about as "alternative" as Adrian Edmundson
As a matter of interest, when would you say the change happened?
Throwing a tantrum because a cartoon doesn't show Alex Salmond in exactly the way that the SNP would like is not just childish, it's indicative of a fundamental intolerance of different points of view.
The last newspaper to be issued with a fatwa over cartoons had supposedly published offensive cartoons of Mohammed. I'm not sure that even Alex Salmond would place himself in that company, nor should you regard it as a comfortable precedent.
It's not as if Mr Salmond is trying to close down the debate - he is just wanting a fair one. DC Thomson are well known to have a unionist editorial policy and one might be forgiven for thinking it germane to the fact that even when the cartoon overtly tried to show the jury of public opinion, which should by definition be fair and balanced court, it still couldn't resist the temptation to mess it up. Even the Eye dimly realised that there was something odd about not portraying Mr Salmond as the opposing advocate.
I am all in favour of robust debate, and a single cartoon is, to put it, merely an anecdote rather than evidence, but it is a good example of a wider pattern of the general failure of the Scottish media (with a few exceptions) to make any serious attempt at balance by giving the anti-indy side and its main members as much of a scrutiny as they are doing to the pro-indy side (and it's no argument to say that this is inevitable as No is the status quo, because we all know things are going to change whatever happens). It's the media's loss as I now buy half the newspapers I used to.
What is fascinating is how some of the same issues are arising over the otherwise very different UKIP and the discussions sometimes uncannily similar to what we saw months ago about Scotland. The PBer who said that indyref woudl be a dry run for Brexit had a point.
Oh come on. As Enoch Powell said, politicians who complain about the media are like sailors complaining about the sea. Thin-skinned politicians in positions of power who seek to use that power to control inferred criticism of themselves (no matter how indirect) deserve all the abuse that they get. Throwing a tantrum because a cartoon doesn't show Alex Salmond in exactly the way that the SNP would like is not just childish, it's indicative of a fundamental intolerance of different points of view.
Powell as right, and normally I'd have ignored it. But I did think the cartoon was fundamentally intolerant of a different point of view in itself. Withdrawing the next two or three promised exsclusives is hardly a fatwa or a tantrum - it's the everyday horsetrading.
We'll have to disagree. The cartoon to me is anodyne to the point of being uninteresting. If the SNP thinks that is sufficient to justify a withdrawal of engagement, to me it shows a fundamental hostility to pluralism in the media.
Comments
1) It's still double taxation whether at death or while someone is alive
2) How would the Revenue actually collect this tax? It sounds like the large chunk of people like myself who are PAYE only, would suddenly have to start filling in self-assessment forms for a start. Surely would be pretty easy to evade as well.
3) I can't believe any politician would be stupid enough to advocate this but if they did they would surely be labelled "The Grinch who taxed Christmas"
4) Suppose I go down the pub with a friend. I buy him a drink. he then buys me a drink. Do we now both have to pay tax on this?
Or even if I have inherited it, come to think of it.
Ah the default Xmas present of the 1970s. Apart from denim aftershave. Those were the days....
In the early 70s my oppo was an old boy of some public school which entitled him to free and automatic membership, so when on leave we used to drop in from time to time. What a dump! The booze was poor, the food worse, the service execrable, the billiard tables were untrue and all the cues were twisted.
So I wonder what has turned it around. Surly not the massive increase in party members all kicking in their subs?
A more exact analogy might have had the two men as rival barristers, rather than Salmond in the dock; but cartoonists will be cartoonists and the gist was clear: each side had to convince the jury of public opinion.
The cartoonist unerringly picked the party most likely to take offence.....
So your complaint that the Conservatives are being dishonest is a load of bunkum. Both UKIP and the Tories are saying 'Vote for us to help further our aims, which are as follows..'. Neither is saying 'Vote for us and we can guarantee that our handful of MEPs can deliver exactly what you want'.
(The only difference is that the UKIP hope is absolutely barmy, if it really is that Labour will offer a referendum)
However IHT is not fair ,there are so many exemptions including the ridiculous gifts out of income if it doesn't affect your standard of living clause and ,worse of all, the exemptions for business inheritance and farm lands. Plus any non- domicile (note not the same as a non resident but much easier to claim) will not pay it either.
It needs shaking up and simplifying imo
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2004/feb/07/weekend.deabirkett
http://www.guardianlies.com/section 6/page51.html
I'm amazed the media gave him any time after that particular mess. I'm not particularly fond of the Hamiltons, but that entire episode must have been hell.
Say I go to work and get paid £1m. Imagine (for the sake of easier calculations) we have a 10% flat tax, I take home £900k. I then pay my gardener £20k a year, and they pay £2k tax. I spend £100k on a supercar, the car salesman pays £10k tax. And so on. Even though I'm taxed on the income, so is everyone else I give it to.
It seems to me this is no different to taxing inheritance, what am I missing?
V for Vendetta territory.
By which I do not mean UKIP who are harmless buffoons, but a likely sleepwalk into nightmare via disillusionment, disenfranchisement and fear.
If Cameron had a majority after 2015 and the Tory party had campaigned on a 2017 In Out referendum he would have no option but to offer one. Failure to offer the in out referendum would cause his back benchers to do the following:
1 Letters to chair of 22 - thus triggering a leadership election
2 Rebel and defeat the government in cahoots with the opposition on many bills, including I suspect, budget measures
3 Support or instigate a no confidence motion
The number of EU skeptic Tory MPs is plenty large enough to bring down any Tory administration with a smallish majority, which is the very best Cameroon could hope for. There is no way he would be able to avoid an in out referendum and remain in power.
With regard to the EU Election, the Conservatives have made explicit pledges which are blatantly dishonest.
We've had four years of Conservatives in government, and no referendum. An offer from Labour would be more credible.
Says someone who is currently in the process of filling in an IHT400, plus voluminous schedules (60 pages of detailed questions and calculations).
Anyone who is over 50, and modestly wealthy, should take a long hard look at it, and reflect on the job which will unavoidable fall on their heirs and successors, and start planning now to make their job easier...
Hopefully, no tax to pay, btw!
When he was found guilty all the experts I heard on tv/ radio, said he would get 2 years max for each (as had to be sentenced under old rules) and likely to have them run concurrently and be out in a year.
So I presume the judge has still sentenced him for up to 2 year for each, but said that each has to run consecutively? Still only going to be 4 really though.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/nov/26/gangs-sexual-violence-warzones
Unless I've missed it Cameron, Clegg, Miliband and Johnson have yet to say one word about 1000s of gang-rapes within a few miles of westminster.
That's the kind of country we live in.
UKIP want it forgotten?
This idea that UKIP are somehow not part of the political class is rather hilarious.
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/inheritancetax/iht400.pdf
http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-time-for-lib-dems-to-ditch-hs2-for-alternative-hs1-extension-39626.html
Given how thick most celeb's are, probably not that many...
When he was in business it wasn't in his interests to spill the beans on his clients as he had a reputation to maintain, but now he's finished he has nothing to lose by telling all.
There are three families in West Sussex that own most of it, have done for centuries and probably always will. Between them those families have probably paid less in Death Duties or Inheritance Tax than the rest of the county, in fact they have probably paid less since the Tax was first introduced by Lloyd George than my neighbour's estate will when, as seems likely, he shuffles off, the perch this year. IHT is a bad tax. It is hard and expensive to collect, easy to evade (if you are rich enough) and raises trivial sums. The main beneficiaries of its continued existence are lawyers, accountants and financial advisers. I know vultures have to eat too, but surely they don't need a government-driven wealth creation scheme.
Clifford is ruined, what has he got to lose if somebody wants to throw him a load of money for all the dirt? And some unscrupulous bar-steward will always be willing to do that. Plus, in the days of the interweb, it is easier than ever.
Super injunctions against load of celebs were leaks through many different sources / methods.
I'm genuinely not trying to make an argument either way, I've just heard this objection many times and simply not understood it.
You are living in a fantasy world. The only effect of UKIP doing well would be to make a Labour government more likely, which will take the country in diametrically opposite direction to what you want, and which will scupper the very referendum you claim to want. It's completely bonkers, but, if that's what you want, good luck with it, and I hope you enjoy the ever-closer union, loony-left social policy, and economic damage which results from a Miliband government.
'These Far Left egg-chucking protesters look like they need a good wash,' says Farage
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/473646/These-Far-Left-egg-chucking-protesters-look-like-they-need-a-good-wash-says-Farage
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1485789.stm
How much of this is BS, who knows.
She turned to Max Clifford for help with tabloid harassment. He didn't charge her because he felt sorry for her. "
I bet he got his moneys worth!
Seriously though many people do not spend lumps of money and have no intention of spending it in the commercial sense . The use of this money is not for material things but for peace of mind to know its there
He took anything on then.
Judge Leonard - 'added that he believed Clifford indecently assaulted a 12-year-old girl in Spain, though a prosecution could not be brought in this country for that alleged crime as it took place in 1983, before it would come under UK jurisdiction.'
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/472422/Cheryl-Prudham-Mother-of-nine-on-38-000-benefits-pregnant-again-with-twins
Has she not heard of the pill !
Forget about all the arcane stuff about double taxation, the problem is that it is avoided by those it is supposedly intended to target.
I would abolish it and see it replaced by something else, such as a Land Value Tax.
Maybe Clarkson has finally run out of luck.
Ind (Thompson) 39% (n/a)
SNP 30.4% (+15.5)
Ind 22.5% (n/a)
UKIP 5.6% (n/a)
Christian 2.6% (+1.0)
That is a terrific performance by the SNP in Charlie Kennedy's seat: up over 20 points on our 2007 performance. Not a bad showing by the UKIP candidate either. It is not often they get nearly 6% in Scottish elections.
PS do Moscow still do those glorious tank parades?
Why do kippers dislike the Tories (and Cameron) more than Lab?
https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/t1.0-9/10171784_642675939143750_4919084132977358966_n.jpg
It's impossible to advise, without knowing more of the circs, ages, value, total estate, etc., which you probably don't want to share here anyway. IANAL.
However, in general
1) sell and downsize (or rent even), distribute surplus cash to heirs, survive 7 years...
2) Make use of the £3000 annual allowance for gifts, plus gifts out of income if possible.
3) Have a look at this
http://www.mckieandco.com/IHT_Conference_Lecture_Notes_14.05.10.pdf
in particular Section 4.1.1 onwards. "The undivided share."
4) Take professional advice.
Belfast
Cardiff
Glasgow
London
Manchester
Newcastle
Spoiler: London came in last place.
http://knowmore.washingtonpost.com/2014/03/10/which-european-cities-are-the-most-satisfying-to-live-in/
But note that even the best UK city came miles down the list. The top places went to:
1. Aalborg, Denmark
2. Hamburg, Germany
3. Zurich, Switzerland
Could this be a black swan for the Euros? Isolationism may be about to go out of fashion.
I am all in favour of robust debate, and a single cartoon is, to put it, merely an anecdote rather than evidence, but it is a good example of a wider pattern of the general failure of the Scottish media (with a few exceptions) to make any serious attempt at balance by giving the anti-indy side and its main members as much of a scrutiny as they are doing to the pro-indy side (and it's no argument to say that this is inevitable as No is the status quo, because we all know things are going to change whatever happens). It's the media's loss as I now buy half the newspapers I used to.
What is fascinating is how some of the same issues are arising over the otherwise very different UKIP and the discussions sometimes uncannily similar to what we saw months ago about Scotland. The PBer who said that indyref woudl be a dry run for Brexit had a point.
Most coastline and beaches, most golf courses, most and best public parks, two international airports close by, vibrant cultural scene, world-class architecture and public art, superior road and rail networks, three national parks within an hour or so's drive, and so on and so forth...
http://www.private-eye.co.uk/current_issue.php?issue=1365
Or not......
I can't find such a map on the Better Together website, so I don't know how accurate the one used is. They do claim to have a local campaign office in both Aberdeen and Edinburgh, which aren't shown on the map, so it does look like the map you've shared there is cobblers.
However, if I do a search for events on the Better Together website, and put in an Edinburgh postcode, I am given a google maps image which looks similar to the one you've used, except it has a vast number more flags on it.
So I'm afraid that it looks like the comparison you are making is complete and utter cobblers. Maybe the Yes campaign is winning the ground war, but it does its credibility no good by making such easily falsified comparisons.
(Hamburg, to be fair, is nice for a long weekend, as is Copenhagen)
Actually, I'm not a Nat and I'm not an uncritical supporter of Mr Salmond, and Steve Bell and Martin Rowson are my favourite political cartoonists (both did certain very good cartoons on indy last year). And my beliefs are my own, though I would also remind you that "by their fruits ye shall know them". But I did think that you were uncritical in bringing such a cartoon to our attention without suitable comment.
The relevance of all this to the thread is that the strategy of personal attack on Mr Salmond is not only puerle and undemocratic but also counterproductive because it also does down the people who think he does a better job than anyone else and so on and so forth. And who would like their concerns addressed. This is exactly what is happening with the personal attacks on Mr Farage.
http://populusltd.cmail3.com/t/ViewEmail/r/A8F49EFC5E4273212540EF23F30FEDED/2310BFDBA32787670B3A73003FEB3522
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5163/5381897419_cfedb08277.jpg