IHT is the most just tax of them all. Why do you think it's positive people should be handed money rather than earning it? Don't you think it's good for society that people spend their money rather than hoarding it?
The Tory policy on IHT is the most hypocritical of all. All this talk of "get on your bike" and "pull yourself up by your bootstraps", yet, at the end of the day, they are dedicated to ensuring that the rich have every advantage possible so the poor can never catch on with them.
It's clear to anyone with an ounce of fairness that we need greater inheritance taxes and income tax, plus luxury taxes and wealth taxes to tackle mass inequality.
Absolutely, Mr. PB. Let us really go for it. Never mind inheritance tax for the moment, let us go for income tax. What is a fair rate? I suggest above about £52k p.a. (i.e. twice the median wage) income tax should be levied at 95%. Anyone with assets valued above £500k should pay a wealth tax of 1% p.a. on the total sum.
Coming back to inheritance tax, let us follow the Dr. Palmer's prescription. Levy it at 100%.
Don't be silly.
You can't do that because the right have ensured the free movement of capital, good and labour, making it impossible for any government to establish left-wing tax or wealth redistributon policies.
I am the one being silly? Surely, Mr. PB, if we left the EU then there would be scope for a real left wing government to introduce proper redistributive taxes, and exchange controls, and exit visas.
Indeed, and that's why precisely I've become increasingly Eurosceptic over the few couple of years (particularly as I've drifted further to the left).
But I don't see leaving the EU as sufficient, and it could easily be replaced with a more damaging free trade agreement.
I actually support IHT - and certainly think it should apply to huge farms worth millions - but we should be honest that it hits upper middle class people as well as the rich.
I don't feel maintaining IHT and closing tax loopholes are mutually exclusive things.
There's another interesting IHT anomaly which I found out at the same time as the farmland one. We all know that gifts to charities and cognate bodies sich as universities and museums are IHT free - but so too are gifts to political parties: to quote HMRC, "any UK political party that has at least two members elected to the House of Commons or has 1 elected member, but the party received at least 150,000 votes".
The taxes that should be raised are those on companies like Amazon that pay little or no UK tax at all, by offshoring earnings.
Amazon is a bad example because they don't make any profit. They're a giant company that seemingly exists to destroy other companies business models and profit margins.
Coming back a little to the point about IHT and farms, does anyone have an informed opinion on how much (or how little) farmland prices are distorted upwards by IHT relief? I'd be genuinely interested. I'm not thinking of land on the edges of towns etc. (though presumably that too gets IHT relief, rather oddly)
I believe the IHT relief isn't very significant (because there are so many other ways of avoiding that tax) - a bigger factor is the CGT rollover relief, which does influence behaviour quite considerably IMO.
Incidentally, I love the way lefties talk about taxation and pricing of assets (about which they invariably know nothing), without ever once wondering who would actually buy these assets if the proposed punitive tax regimes were introduced.
The same applies to Ed Miliband's bonkers proposals on making it unattractive for housebuilding companies to buy land. Quite how anyone with half a brain, let alone an economics-related degree from Oxford, could possibly put this forward as a way of increasing the numbers of houses built is a mystery.
I actually support IHT - and certainly think it should apply to huge farms worth millions - but we should be honest that it hits upper middle class people as well as the rich.
I don't feel maintaining IHT and closing tax loopholes are mutually exclusive things.
There's another interesting IHT anomaly which I found out at the same time as the farmland one. We all know that gifts to charities and cognate bodies sich as universities and museums are IHT free - but so too are gifts to political parties: to quote HMRC, "any UK political party that has at least two members elected to the House of Commons or has 1 elected member, but the party received at least 150,000 votes".
Bit cheeky of them ...
Sounds like another stitch-up from the established parties. The worst case of this is in the Coalition agreement, where the Tories and the Lib Dems agreed that Lords would be appointed until the upper house reflected the votes at the last election. UKIP wrote to the PM saying "great, we'll have our 24 Lords then, thank you very much". Cameron responded saying he just wouldn't do it in their case. You'd think someone that eloquently (and rightly) argues for British values would believe in the concept of fairness a bit more. But then you think of his views individual rights and civil liberties, and realises he needs some lessons on British values himself.
IHT on farms would destroy family farming. I have a farmer friend whose family have been farming in Leicestershire since medival times, possibly longer. He has 1000 acres and 2000 sheep, as well as some other farming interests. Farming land here goes for about £10 K per acre, so nominally he has a million pounds in assets, but because sheep and arable farming does not pay well he earns not much more than median national wage (though his living costs are lower as he eats mostly his own food, has no mortgage and never goes on holiday as he has to work every day). He can only pass on his farm to his son as a viable unit if it stays the same size.
IHT on farms would make them unsellable. They would only be viable as agribusiness run by faceless corporations, as these would be immune to IHT.
Capital gains tax on converting agricultural land to building land (here about £500 k per acre) I could go along with, but not IHT on farms.
The super rich who are buying up the flats near Charles and SeanT are not Leicestershire farmers, they are overseas investors or London property speculators.
I actually support IHT - and certainly think it should apply to huge farms worth millions - but we should be honest that it hits upper middle class people as well as the rich.
I don't feel maintaining IHT and closing tax loopholes are mutually exclusive things.
Sounds like another stitch-up from the established parties. The worst case of this is in the Coalition agreement, where the Tories and the Lib Dems agreed that Lords would be appointed until the upper house reflected the votes at the last election. UKIP wrote to the PM saying "great, we'll have our 24 Lords then, thank you very much". Cameron responded saying he just wouldn't do it in their case. You'd think someone that eloquently (and rightly) argues for British values would believe in the concept of fairness a bit more. But then you think of his views individual rights and civil liberties, and realises he needs some lessons on British values himself.
Er, no. The coalition agreement did not state that the make-up of the Lords should be exactly proportional even for tiny minority parties with just a 3% vote share. You are making that up. In any case that was proposed as a transitional arrangement towards the reform which wasn't in the end agreed.
The taxes that should be raised are those on companies like Amazon that pay little or no UK tax at all, by offshoring earnings.
Amazon is a bad example because they don't make any profit. They're a giant company that seemingly exists to destroy other companies business models and profit margins.
If it helps the consumer, that's not a bad thing.
I agree that it's good for consumers in the short-term, but I'm not sure it's positive in the long-term. They're gaining monopoly powers in a lot of areas as they crush their competition and their treatment of workers leaves a lot to be desired.
And that's without going into my general problem with giant monolithic companies creating a lack of competition. There really should be a lot more government oversight but, y'know, neoliberalism and Bork leading to a lack of effective competition law.
Seems like a Euros effect on the Lab share, doesn't it?
Which suggests that when EU-related issues are in the news, europhile parties suffer.
Correct.
The other angle is that the liberal-left parties lose more votes to UKIP in PR elections. Since UKIP were in contention everywhere in the Euros, they tilted their message towards people who had previously voted BNP in Labour-friendly areas and managed to get a bit more support from Labour than they had previously. They'd done less of this in Westminster and council campaigns, presumably because most of their best pick-up opportunities under FPTP are from the Tories.
Suarez is now 5/6 with Skybet to leave Liverpool this summer. I hope some of you guys got on at odds against earlier. If, as seems likely, Uraquay are dumped out of the World Cup on Tuesday by either drawing with or losing to Italy, this will free him up to conclude an early deal with Real or Barca, whichever has the fatter wallet.
Coming back a little to the point about IHT and farms, does anyone have an informed opinion on how much (or how little) farmland prices are distorted upwards by IHT relief? I'd be genuinely interested. I'm not thinking of land on the edges of towns etc. (though presumably that too gets IHT relief, rather oddly)
I believe the IHT relief isn't very significant (because there are so many other ways of avoiding that tax) - a bigger factor is the CGT rollover relief, which does influence behaviour quite considerably IMO.
Seems like a Euros effect on the Lab share, doesn't it?
Which suggests that when EU-related issues are in the news, europhile parties suffer.
Correct.
The other angle is that the liberal-left parties lose more votes to UKIP in PR elections. Since UKIP were in contention everywhere in the Euros, they tilted their message towards people who had previously voted BNP in Labour-friendly areas and managed to get a bit more support from Labour than they had previously. They'd done less of this in Westminster and council campaigns, presumably because most of their best pick-up opportunities under FPTP are from the Tories.
It also means that the EU does change people's voting decisions and europhilia is an electoral liability. Labour and the Liberal Democrats should adjust their positions accordingly.
IHT on farms would destroy family farming. I have a farmer friend whose family have been farming in Leicestershire since medival times, possibly longer. He has 1000 acres and 2000 sheep, as well as some other farming interests. Farming land here goes for about £10 K per acre, so nominally he has a million pounds in assets, but because sheep and arable farming does not pay well he earns not much more than median national wage (though his living costs are lower as he eats mostly his own food, has no mortgage and never goes on holiday as he has to work every day). He can only pass on his farm to his son as a viable unit if it stays the same size.
IHT on farms would make them unsellable. They would only be viable as agribusiness run by faceless corporations, as these would be immune to IHT.
Capital gains tax on converting agricultural land to building land (here about £500 k per acre) I could go along with, but not IHT on farms.
The super rich who are buying up the flats near Charles and SeanT are not Leicestershire farmers, they are overseas investors or London property speculators.
I actually support IHT - and certainly think it should apply to huge farms worth millions - but we should be honest that it hits upper middle class people as well as the rich.
I don't feel maintaining IHT and closing tax loopholes are mutually exclusive things.
I have no reason to dispute the effect of IHT on farming families (and indeed hinted as much in my original post). But what did surprise me in particular was that there is IHT relief on land which one does not farm but rents out. On the face of it I could buy lots of farmland, rent it out and never see it, but not pay a penny of IHT when I go, so long as it is used for farming. (I can see the practicality, given that farmers often rent land between each other.) However if Mr Nabavi is correct it does not make much difference to the actual market price.
Sounds like another stitch-up from the established parties. The worst case of this is in the Coalition agreement, where the Tories and the Lib Dems agreed that Lords would be appointed until the upper house reflected the votes at the last election. UKIP wrote to the PM saying "great, we'll have our 24 Lords then, thank you very much". Cameron responded saying he just wouldn't do it in their case. You'd think someone that eloquently (and rightly) argues for British values would believe in the concept of fairness a bit more. But then you think of his views individual rights and civil liberties, and realises he needs some lessons on British values himself.
Er, no. The coalition agreement did not state that the make-up of the Lords should be exactly proportional even for tiny minority parties with just a 3% vote share. You are making that up. In any case that was proposed as a transitional arrangement towards the reform which wasn't in the end agreed.
The precise words of the Coalition Agreement were "In the interim, Lords appointsments will be made with the objective of creating a second chamber that is reflective of the share of the vote secured by the political parties in the last general election."
There was no exclusion for minor parties, so yes, it should should include UKIP. Whether it was a temporary or a long term policy, is irrelevant, as the Government avoided giving them their due seats both temporarily and long term.
I have no reason to dispute the effect of IHT on farming families (and indeed hinted as much in my original post). But what did surprise me in particular was that there is IHT relief on land which one does not farm but rents out. On the face of it I could buy lots of farmland, rent it out and never see it, but not pay a penny of IHT when I go, so long as it is used for farming. (I can see the practicality, given that farmers often rent land between each other.)
I think the IHT relief is limited (to 50%) if the land is rented out, in most circumstances.
"The public can be unfair and in this case they are being harsh on the Labour leader. A variety of personalities have been tenants at Number 10 since the first prime minister, Sir Robert Walpole. He was spectacularly corrupt. Those who followed him have included drunks, charlatans, procrastinators, paranoids and bullies. More than a few idiots have occupied the highest office in the land and so have some characters who were unhinged. Mr Miliband is better equipped to be prime minister than quite a lot of those who have been prime minister. Compared with previous occupants of the office, he would be above average for intelligence and temperament.
He is often abused as "weird", which strikes me as particularly unjust. Of course he's weird. He's the leader of a political party. By definition, he's weird. You have to be bloody peculiar to join a political party these days, never mind to lead one. But he'd be no odder as prime minister than a lot of other people who have ruled Britain. Winston Churchill saved his country – between bouts of depression he called "the black dog" and gargantuan consumption of alcohol. He was a great man, but he'd not be my definition of normal. Margaret Thatcher was extremely weird. So, in a different way, was Tony Blair. That didn't stop either of them winning three elections in a row."
"His fundamental failure has been one of salesmanship. He has not persuaded the voters to think of him differently. He has produced policies that are individually popular but too few of which are regarded as deliverable. He has got a story about how Britain could be but he has yet to find a way of telling that story that enough Britons find convincing. And he has not got all that much time left.
I suspect one of the reasons he has not mastered the salesmanship dimension of modern politics is because he despises it. He cut his political teeth in Gordon Brown's inner circle. Like his old boss, Mr Miliband believes that politics is "a battle of ideas", and so long as he arms himself with enough of them he ought to win against a Tory party he regards as ideologically beached. His interest in ideas is admirable, just as it was in Mr Brown. But it is a huge weakness – in the case of Mr Brown it was a fatal one – not to deal with the fact that modern politics is also a battle of presentation and perceptions."
Seems like a Euros effect on the Lab share, doesn't it?
Which suggests that when EU-related issues are in the news, europhile parties suffer.
Correct.
The other angle is that the liberal-left parties lose more votes to UKIP in PR elections. Since UKIP were in contention everywhere in the Euros, they tilted their message towards people who had previously voted BNP in Labour-friendly areas and managed to get a bit more support from Labour than they had previously. They'd done less of this in Westminster and council campaigns, presumably because most of their best pick-up opportunities under FPTP are from the Tories.
It also means that the EU does change people's voting decisions and europhilia is an electoral liability. Labour and the Liberal Democrats should adjust their positions accordingly.
We don't have evidence either way on the effect on Westminster, but I'd have thought sounding more Eurosceptic would win votes in the short-term.
The difficulty is if they then get into power and have to either go back on their electoral positions, which obviously causes trust issues, or actually implement them, which they think, rightly or wrongly, will be bad for things that people care more about like employment.
Edit to add: The above conundrum is why the parties always support EU referendums, apart from ones that they actually have the power to implement.
But most of all (as noted earlier) we should toast the Red Army for their demolition of Amy Group Centre in the Bagration campaign. This was arguably Germany's biggest defeat of the war, destroying more divisions than the six month Stalingrad campaign in just a month.There is an excellent account here:
Afternoon all. Well it's a lovely late June day and I won't spoil it by lobbing my thoughts into the topic of the thread. I will however be raising a glass later to Lucius Aemilius Paullus Macedonicus and his decisive victory at the first Battle of Pydna on this day in 168BC.
Indeed. Another decisive victory on this day (if that is the word) is the sinking of Admiral Tryon's Med Fleet flagship HMS Victoria, and the death of Tryon amongst many others, when it was rammed by HMS Camperdown when the two columns of ships, one turning radius apart, reversed course by turning inwards under Tryon's explicit and repeated orders (despite querying by his subordinates). This is of course the true story behind the incident in the film Kind Hearts and Coronets.
No it's not, it balances things out and prevents elites owning more and more wealth while the rest are excluded.
Cobblers. The elites can avoid IHT completely, while the main burden falls on those with modest estates, who are ignorant, elderly, unworldly or unlucky...
Thats an argument to reform it to abolish the loopholes so it hits the elites, not its abolition.
How costly would it be for Scotland to transition to independence Answer is not very much, so much for the dud Coalition x12 numbers.
Our report essentially shows that the Scottish government has put in place a timetable for transition that is demanding but feasible. We can say with some confidence that Scotland’s immediate set-up costs are likely to be constrained –we suggest around £200 million in one-off costs to create its own versions of a few but big and important existing UK department capabilities. http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/how-costly-would-it-be-for-scotland-to-transition-to-independence/
Do you actually believe that £200m figure, Mr. G? Just thinking about tax, welfare, SMoD, driver and vehicle licensing, do you really believe that can be set up for £200 million?
Hurst , many of these things are already in place and I certainly trust LSE far more than the fantasy figures put out by Alexander as being the coalition guess at the costs. I am sure some services will remain shared initially at least so no cost there, others will either already be in place or will cost substantially less than what a similar UK function would require. Given we will own all the infrastructure and have a share of UK assets , much of it will be covered.
Student debt delays marriage and harms affordable marriage formation, the unmarried 30s are not our voters, really feel this was a big mistake and societally wrong for the young to be burdened with debt.
I think this is a really good point. It's one I've been mulling over recently, and it's made me requestion my support of tuition fees.
Another related one is that it means that working class people will find it harder to become rich. Because if they use a degree to do it - the main mechanism, let's be honest - they'll lose half the premium from higher education. On the one hand it's better that formerly poor, now good income graduates pay for their education than the continuously poor. On the other hand, if kids that grow up in poor families do the right thing but still only make it to middle income levels, that's not as good an advert for educating yourself and working hard to other low income kids.
The rich pay taxes too and more than their fair share, no reason they shouldn't have their children's education paid too, provided they are smart enough and deserving of it. The problem is Labour encouraged the excessive growth of the university sector as they are a Labour interest group, a means to hide unemployment and brainwashing purposes. The university sector needs slimming and competition.
IHT is a daft tax for the reasons outlined, would be a great tax for the Conservatives to announce the abolition of just before the election, fiscally neutral too. Not just economically and morally right but a real booby trap for labour.
IHT on farms would make them unsellable. They would only be viable as agribusiness run by faceless corporations, as these would be immune to IHT.
This is a valid point. Large corporations are grossly undertaxed. The solution is to tax all large companies above a certain turnover threshold on their UK turnover. Subsidiary companies majority or wholly owned would be considered part of the parent company for the purpose of this tax. This would sort out the companies offshoring their profits too.
No it's not, it balances things out and prevents elites owning more and more wealth while the rest are excluded.
Cobblers. The elites can avoid IHT completely, while the main burden falls on those with modest estates, who are ignorant, elderly, unworldly or unlucky...
Thats an argument to reform it to abolish the loopholes so it hits the elites, not its abolition.
Maybe so, but playing whack a mole with loopholes is never going to produce a "fair" result. So wouldn't it be better for everyone (save lawyers and accountants) to follow Australia and just dump the whole thing?
Student debt delays marriage and harms affordable marriage formation, the unmarried 30s are not our voters, really feel this was a big mistake and societally wrong for the young to be burdened with debt.
I think this is a really good point. It's one I've been mulling over recently, and it's made me requestion my support of tuition fees.
Another related one is that it means that working class people will find it harder to become rich. Because if they use a degree to do it - the main mechanism, let's be honest - they'll lose half the premium from higher education. On the one hand it's better that formerly poor, now good income graduates pay for their education than the continuously poor. On the other hand, if kids that grow up in poor families do the right thing but still only make it to middle income levels, that's not as good an advert for educating yourself and working hard to other low income kids.
The rich pay taxes too and more than their fair share, no reason they shouldn't have their children's education paid too, provided they are smart enough and deserving of it. The problem is Labour encouraged the excessive growth of the university sector as they are a Labour interest group, a means to hide unemployment and brainwashing purposes. The university sector needs slimming and competition.
Excellent post , plenty of troughing in the sector.
I am not an expert on this but my understanding is that the very considerable tax advantages given to farm land kept the market liquid during the credit crunch where prices really did not fall and there were a very large number of cash transactions. I am aware of a large Edinburgh firm who got to the point that nearly 90% of their transactions involving farm and estate related properties were for cash and who suffered nothing like the sort of downturn that those dependent on the domestic market did.
I think that the original reason for this was as per Mr Sox, namely that it was thought necessary to keep farming units together at a viable size and level of efficiency. This does not mean that it has not been greatly abused, however.
One of the problems with the world economy, not just that of the UK, is the rapidly growing disparity of wealth. Without going all socialist about it I think we need to give much more thought about how and why this is happening. One of the reasons, hinted at a little incoherently by a think tank linked to on here recently, is that the wealthy actually pay much lower levels of tax than the declared rates indicate whilst the less well paid pay exactly what is on the tin.
A major cause of this, in my opinion, is the transfer of wealth between generations with minimal or no tax at all. Many of these substantial gains have never been taxed because our tax system is largely transactional and those that simply hold their ever increasing holdings will not trigger a taxable event.
Because of this I am tempted by the idea of a wealth tax but there are very considerable problems. The wealthy and their wealth are mobile. Competition between states can cause great distortions as we have already seen in Corporation Tax. Measuring wealth, as opposed to identifying transactions, is difficult and potentially expensive. But land is (a) difficult to hide and (b) impossible to move. If we are to have something like a wealth tax it really has to be the starting point.
No it's not, it balances things out and prevents elites owning more and more wealth while the rest are excluded.
Cobblers. The elites can avoid IHT completely, while the main burden falls on those with modest estates, who are ignorant, elderly, unworldly or unlucky...
Thats an argument to reform it to abolish the loopholes so it hits the elites, not its abolition.
Maybe so, but playing whack a mole with loopholes is never going to produce a "fair" result. So wouldn't it be better for everyone (save lawyers and accountants) to follow Australia and just dump the whole thing?
The obvious thing would be to abolish it and tax the recipients on the income instead.
On a related note, I think the political battle of the 21st century will be increasingly left-wing governments vs unelected super-rich, powerful capitalist minority and the entrenched right-wing institutions that support them.
We're already seeing a few cracks in the facade (e.g. increasing inequality, increasingly giant corporations, hugely profitable companies that use mass automation to employ few staff like Google, the rise and rise of private schools, demonisation of immigrants, use of freedom of capital for mass tax avoidance and capital flight, increasing cost of living, squeeze on welfare spending) but the issues are not yet quite widespread enough to cause serious problems. Give it a few decades.
IHT is a daft tax for the reasons outlined, would be a great tax for the Conservatives to announce the abolition of just before the election, fiscally neutral too. Not just economically and morally right but a real booby trap for labour.
Yeah, the Conservatives should announce a tax cut for millionaires just before the election. That would be a real booby trap for Labour, that one.
On a related note, I think the political battle of the 21st century will be increasingly left-wing governments vs unelected super-rich, powerful capitalist minority and the entrenched right-wing institutions that support them.
We're already seeing a few cracks in the facade (e.g. increasing inequality, increasingly giant corporations, hugely profitable companies that use mass automation to employ few staff like Google, the rise and rise of private schools, demonisation of immigrants, use of freedom of capital for mass tax avoidance and capital flight, increasing cost of living, squeeze on welfare spending) but the issues are not yet quite widespread enough to cause serious problems. Give it a few decades.
What you are talking about is a battle between those who, like me, are working hard to build and maintain businesses - and those of you on the Left who find it easier to steal my money rather then make your own.
Well you can just bugger off. I'll keep my own money and pay people what they are worth when they are worth it - thanks very much all the same.
On a related note, I think the political battle of the 21st century will be increasingly left-wing governments vs unelected super-rich, powerful capitalist minority and the entrenched right-wing institutions that support them.
We're already seeing a few cracks in the facade (e.g. increasing inequality, increasingly giant corporations, hugely profitable companies that use mass automation to employ few staff like Google, the rise and rise of private schools, demonisation of immigrants, use of freedom of capital for mass tax avoidance and capital flight, increasing cost of living, squeeze on welfare spending) but the issues are not yet quite widespread enough to cause serious problems. Give it a few decades.
What you are talking about is a battle between those who, like me, are working hard to build and maintain businesses - and those of you on the Left who find it easier to steal my money rather then make your own.
Well you can just bugger off. I'll keep my own money and pay people what they are worth when they are worth it - thanks very much all the same.
Ah, a typical naive capitalist. Don't worry, you'll understand what I mean one day, assuming you have some empathy and you're willing to see beyond your narrow world view.
On a related note, I think the political battle of the 21st century will be increasingly left-wing governments vs unelected super-rich, powerful capitalist minority and the entrenched right-wing institutions that support them.
We're already seeing a few cracks in the facade (e.g. increasing inequality, increasingly giant corporations, hugely profitable companies that use mass automation to employ few staff like Google, the rise and rise of private schools, demonisation of immigrants, use of freedom of capital for mass tax avoidance and capital flight, increasing cost of living, squeeze on welfare spending) but the issues are not yet quite widespread enough to cause serious problems. Give it a few decades.
What you are talking about is a battle between those who, like me, are working hard to build and maintain businesses - and those of you on the Left who find it easier to steal my money rather then make your own.
Well you can just bugger off. I'll keep my own money and pay people what they are worth when they are worth it - thanks very much all the same.
Ah, a typical naive capitalist. Don't worry, you'll understand what I mean one day, assuming you have some empathy and you're willing to see beyond your narrow world view.
What? "Come the revolution!" you mean? When people like me are put up against the wall and shot?
But most of all (as noted earlier) we should toast the Red Army for their demolition of Amy Group Centre in the Bagration campaign. This was arguably Germany's biggest defeat of the war, destroying more divisions than the six month Stalingrad campaign in just a month.There is an excellent account here:
Afternoon all. Well it's a lovely late June day and I won't spoil it by lobbing my thoughts into the topic of the thread. I will however be raising a glass later to Lucius Aemilius Paullus Macedonicus and his decisive victory at the first Battle of Pydna on this day in 168BC.
Indeed. Another decisive victory on this day (if that is the word) is the sinking of Admiral Tryon's Med Fleet flagship HMS Victoria, and the death of Tryon amongst many others, when it was rammed by HMS Camperdown when the two columns of ships, one turning radius apart, reversed course by turning inwards under Tryon's explicit and repeated orders (despite querying by his subordinates). This is of course the true story behind the incident in the film Kind Hearts and Coronets.
Sounds like another stitch-up from the established parties. The worst case of this is in the Coalition agreement, where the Tories and the Lib Dems agreed that Lords would be appointed until the upper house reflected the votes at the last election. UKIP wrote to the PM saying "great, we'll have our 24 Lords then, thank you very much". Cameron responded saying he just wouldn't do it in their case. You'd think someone that eloquently (and rightly) argues for British values would believe in the concept of fairness a bit more. But then you think of his views individual rights and civil liberties, and realises he needs some lessons on British values himself.
Er, no. The coalition agreement did not state that the make-up of the Lords should be exactly proportional even for tiny minority parties with just a 3% vote share. You are making that up. In any case that was proposed as a transitional arrangement towards the reform which wasn't in the end agreed.
The precise words of the Coalition Agreement were "In the interim, Lords appointsments will be made with the objective of creating a second chamber that is reflective of the share of the vote secured by the political parties in the last general election."
There was no exclusion for minor parties, so yes, it should should include UKIP. Whether it was a temporary or a long term policy, is irrelevant, as the Government avoided giving them their due seats both temporarily and long term.
You don't seriously think that's meant to include anyone other than the main three, do you?
No it's not, it balances things out and prevents elites owning more and more wealth while the rest are excluded.
Cobblers. The elites can avoid IHT completely, while the main burden falls on those with modest estates, who are ignorant, elderly, unworldly or unlucky...
Thats an argument to reform it to abolish the loopholes so it hits the elites, not its abolition.
Maybe so, but playing whack a mole with loopholes is never going to produce a "fair" result. So wouldn't it be better for everyone (save lawyers and accountants) to follow Australia and just dump the whole thing?
The obvious thing would be to abolish it and tax the recipients on the income instead.
Taxing birthday presents, engagement rings and wedding presents doesn't sound like a vote winner to me.
No it's not, it balances things out and prevents elites owning more and more wealth while the rest are excluded.
Cobblers. The elites can avoid IHT completely, while the main burden falls on those with modest estates, who are ignorant, elderly, unworldly or unlucky...
Thats an argument to reform it to abolish the loopholes so it hits the elites, not its abolition.
Maybe so, but playing whack a mole with loopholes is never going to produce a "fair" result. So wouldn't it be better for everyone (save lawyers and accountants) to follow Australia and just dump the whole thing?
The obvious thing would be to abolish it and tax the recipients on the income instead.
Taxing birthday presents, engagement rings and wedding presents doesn't sound like a vote winner to me.
Not my field but if I've got this right they already do tax those things, but only if the giver dies within seven years or something.
No it's not, it balances things out and prevents elites owning more and more wealth while the rest are excluded.
Cobblers. The elites can avoid IHT completely, while the main burden falls on those with modest estates, who are ignorant, elderly, unworldly or unlucky...
Thats an argument to reform it to abolish the loopholes so it hits the elites, not its abolition.
Maybe so, but playing whack a mole with loopholes is never going to produce a "fair" result. So wouldn't it be better for everyone (save lawyers and accountants) to follow Australia and just dump the whole thing?
The obvious thing would be to abolish it and tax the recipients on the income instead.
Taxing birthday presents, engagement rings and wedding presents doesn't sound like a vote winner to me.
Not my field but if I've got this right they already do tax those things, but only if the giver dies within seven years or something.
Only if the giver's estate is over a given value too. On your proposal, every proud parent would have to gross up the cost of helping a child put down the deposit on their first house.
Sounds like another stitch-up from the established parties. The worst case of this is in the Coalition agreement, where the Tories and the Lib Dems agreed that Lords would be appointed until the upper house reflected the votes at the last election. UKIP wrote to the PM saying "great, we'll have our 24 Lords then, thank you very much". Cameron responded saying he just wouldn't do it in their case. You'd think someone that eloquently (and rightly) argues for British values would believe in the concept of fairness a bit more. But then you think of his views individual rights and civil liberties, and realises he needs some lessons on British values himself.
Er, no. The coalition agreement did not state that the make-up of the Lords should be exactly proportional even for tiny minority parties with just a 3% vote share. You are making that up. In any case that was proposed as a transitional arrangement towards the reform which wasn't in the end agreed.
The precise words of the Coalition Agreement were "In the interim, Lords appointsments will be made with the objective of creating a second chamber that is reflective of the share of the vote secured by the political parties in the last general election."
There was no exclusion for minor parties, so yes, it should should include UKIP. Whether it was a temporary or a long term policy, is irrelevant, as the Government avoided giving them their due seats both temporarily and long term.
You don't seriously think that's meant to include anyone other than the main three, do you?
I accept the three established parties are lying manipulators, so they probably meant it to apply just to themselves, but the agreement states the parties in general, so any fair reading of it would mean everyone.
No it's not, it balances things out and prevents elites owning more and more wealth while the rest are excluded.
Cobblers. The elites can avoid IHT completely, while the main burden falls on those with modest estates, who are ignorant, elderly, unworldly or unlucky...
Thats an argument to reform it to abolish the loopholes so it hits the elites, not its abolition.
Maybe so, but playing whack a mole with loopholes is never going to produce a "fair" result. So wouldn't it be better for everyone (save lawyers and accountants) to follow Australia and just dump the whole thing?
The obvious thing would be to abolish it and tax the recipients on the income instead.
Taxing birthday presents, engagement rings and wedding presents doesn't sound like a vote winner to me.
Not my field but if I've got this right they already do tax those things, but only if the giver dies within seven years or something.
Only if the giver's estate is over a given value too. On your proposal, every proud parent would have to gross up the cost of helping a child put down the deposit on their first house.
Over a certain threshold, yes. Obviously once it had been through an actual political process you'd have all kinds of silly exemptions, for example the UK would presumably have tax breaks for buying a house. That's how it works in Japan, with the stipulation that to get that tax break it has to be a reasonably new house, ensuring that everything has to be knocked down every 30 years and rebuilt again to keep the political contributions coming in from the construction industry.
Student debt delays marriage and harms affordable marriage formation, the unmarried 30s are not our voters, really feel this was a big mistake and societally wrong for the young to be burdened with debt.
I think this is a really good point. It's one I've been mulling over recently, and it's made me requestion my support of tuition fees.
Another related one is that it means that working class people will find it harder to become rich. Because if they use a degree to do it - the main mechanism, let's be honest - they'll lose half the premium from higher education. On the one hand it's better that formerly poor, now good income graduates pay for their education than the continuously poor. On the other hand, if kids that grow up in poor families do the right thing but still only make it to middle income levels, that's not as good an advert for educating yourself and working hard to other low income kids.
The rich pay taxes too and more than their fair share, no reason they shouldn't have their children's education paid too, provided they are smart enough and deserving of it. The problem is Labour encouraged the excessive growth of the university sector as they are a Labour interest group, a means to hide unemployment and brainwashing purposes. The university sector needs slimming and competition.
Given the coming wave of automation, the bulk of the next generation will need to be educated beyond secondary school. The idea that we can remain competitive as an economy with only 20% of people going on to further education is a highly anachronistic one.
That said, I accept there's a lot of waste in the sector and a lot of poor or even useless courses. More competitive pressure is needed.
No it's not, it balances things out and prevents elites owning more and more wealth while the rest are excluded.
Cobblers. The elites can avoid IHT completely, while the main burden falls on those with modest estates, who are ignorant, elderly, unworldly or unlucky...
Thats an argument to reform it to abolish the loopholes so it hits the elites, not its abolition.
Maybe so, but playing whack a mole with loopholes is never going to produce a "fair" result. So wouldn't it be better for everyone (save lawyers and accountants) to follow Australia and just dump the whole thing?
The obvious thing would be to abolish it and tax the recipients on the income instead.
Taxing birthday presents, engagement rings and wedding presents doesn't sound like a vote winner to me.
If you put in a reasonable threshold (say 10k) and allowed people to spread out the tax liability of the gift over a reasonable period (5 years), it need not hit the vast majority of those.
Sounds like another stitch-up from the established parties. The worst case of this is in the Coalition agreement, where the Tories and the Lib Dems agreed that Lords would be appointed until the upper house reflected the votes at the last election. UKIP wrote to the PM saying "great, we'll have our 24 Lords then, thank you very much". Cameron responded saying he just wouldn't do it in their case. You'd think someone that eloquently (and rightly) argues for British values would believe in the concept of fairness a bit more. But then you think of his views individual rights and civil liberties, and realises he needs some lessons on British values himself.
Er, no. The coalition agreement did not state that the make-up of the Lords should be exactly proportional even for tiny minority parties with just a 3% vote share. You are making that up. In any case that was proposed as a transitional arrangement towards the reform which wasn't in the end agreed.
The precise words of the Coalition Agreement were "In the interim, Lords appointsments will be made with the objective of creating a second chamber that is reflective of the share of the vote secured by the political parties in the last general election."
There was no exclusion for minor parties, so yes, it should should include UKIP. Whether it was a temporary or a long term policy, is irrelevant, as the Government avoided giving them their due seats both temporarily and long term.
You don't seriously think that's meant to include anyone other than the main three, do you?
I accept the three established parties are lying manipulators, so they probably meant it to apply just to themselves, but the agreement states the parties in general, so any fair reading of it would mean everyone.
The Makar's gift, for instance, was presumably tax-free (even if not what these parties had had in mind):
I have no reason to dispute the effect of IHT on farming families (and indeed hinted as much in my original post). But what did surprise me in particular was that there is IHT relief on land which one does not farm but rents out. On the face of it I could buy lots of farmland, rent it out and never see it, but not pay a penny of IHT when I go, so long as it is used for farming. (I can see the practicality, given that farmers often rent land between each other.)
I think the IHT relief is limited (to 50%) if the land is rented out, in most circumstances.
IHT is a daft tax for the reasons outlined, would be a great tax for the Conservatives to announce the abolition of just before the election, fiscally neutral too. Not just economically and morally right but a real booby trap for labour.
Yeah, the Conservatives should announce a tax cut for millionaires just before the election. That would be a real booby trap for Labour, that one.
Labour will tax the dead - sounds a real vote winner.
I think that the original reason for this was as per Mr Sox, namely that it was thought necessary to keep farming units together at a viable size and level of efficiency. This does not mean that it has not been greatly abused, however.
One of the problems with the world economy, not just that of the UK, is the rapidly growing disparity of wealth. Without going all socialist about it I think we need to give much more thought about how and why this is happening. One of the reasons, hinted at a little incoherently by a think tank linked to on here recently, is that the wealthy actually pay much lower levels of tax than the declared rates indicate whilst the less well paid pay exactly what is on the tin.
A major cause of this, in my opinion, is the transfer of wealth between generations with minimal or no tax at all. Many of these substantial gains have never been taxed because our tax system is largely transactional and those that simply hold their ever increasing holdings will not trigger a taxable event.
Because of this I am tempted by the idea of a wealth tax but there are very considerable problems. The wealthy and their wealth are mobile. Competition between states can cause great distortions as we have already seen in Corporation Tax. Measuring wealth, as opposed to identifying transactions, is difficult and potentially expensive. But land is (a) difficult to hide and (b) impossible to move. If we are to have something like a wealth tax it really has to be the starting point.
Good point,
One other reason I suggested a land tax with a much higher rate for individuals or entities that owned more than 200 acres or £0.5million worth of land (to reduce the rate paid by those with lower holdings) is that land cannot escape and go overseas.
Similarly I proposed that large corporations should be taxed on turnover because that cannot be evaded in the way profit taxation can be. (there may have to be differential rates for certain trades such as jewellry that would otherwise be disproportionately hit but it could be done)
I don't know why Geoff M is getting cross. He and other SMEs will benefit by a much more level playing field and lower business taxes at the expense of large corporation by measures such as this.
As to the squeals about inheritance tax, in many cases this is just the wailing of VIs who don't want to have to get on their bike like the rest of us because they are cushioned by inherited wealth (ie they live off the work of others) and don't want to lose such privileges. It would never happen but I think there is a good argument for no person to be allowed to receive more than £50,000 from inheritances in a lifetime.
Disappointing race in most regards. Writing up the post-race now.
Mr. Jim, I can think of shorter words to describe him. I do wonder, though, whether he's genuinely such a condescending cretin, or whether he's actually taking the piss.
Dear , Dear only you could come up with that viewpoint. Cameron is too scared to debate so Salmond has said he will debate the monkey. Darling will get slaughtered.
ha ha , pathetic , he is only the leader of the UK, not really involved in it being broken up right enough. It should really be a Labour back bencher who is sent out to keep the UK intact. Really convincing argument there.
PS , only Obama was convinced by Cameron's begging to help, the other two chased the big jessie.
Comments
But I don't see leaving the EU as sufficient, and it could easily be replaced with a more damaging free trade agreement.
Bit cheeky of them ...
Incidentally, I love the way lefties talk about taxation and pricing of assets (about which they invariably know nothing), without ever once wondering who would actually buy these assets if the proposed punitive tax regimes were introduced.
The same applies to Ed Miliband's bonkers proposals on making it unattractive for housebuilding companies to buy land. Quite how anyone with half a brain, let alone an economics-related degree from Oxford, could possibly put this forward as a way of increasing the numbers of houses built is a mystery.
IHT on farms would make them unsellable. They would only be viable as agribusiness run by faceless corporations, as these would be immune to IHT.
Capital gains tax on converting agricultural land to building land (here about £500 k per acre) I could go along with, but not IHT on farms.
The super rich who are buying up the flats near Charles and SeanT are not Leicestershire farmers, they are overseas investors or London property speculators.
And that's without going into my general problem with giant monolithic companies creating a lack of competition. There really should be a lot more government oversight but, y'know, neoliberalism and Bork leading to a lack of effective competition law.
The other angle is that the liberal-left parties lose more votes to UKIP in PR elections. Since UKIP were in contention everywhere in the Euros, they tilted their message towards people who had previously voted BNP in Labour-friendly areas and managed to get a bit more support from Labour than they had previously. They'd done less of this in Westminster and council campaigns, presumably because most of their best pick-up opportunities under FPTP are from the Tories.
If, as seems likely, Uraquay are dumped out of the World Cup on Tuesday by either drawing with or losing to Italy, this will free him up to conclude an early deal with Real or Barca, whichever has the fatter wallet.
There was no exclusion for minor parties, so yes, it should should include UKIP. Whether it was a temporary or a long term policy, is irrelevant, as the Government avoided giving them their due seats both temporarily and long term.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/22/ed-miliband-popularity-poll-rating
"The public can be unfair and in this case they are being harsh on the Labour leader. A variety of personalities have been tenants at Number 10 since the first prime minister, Sir Robert Walpole. He was spectacularly corrupt. Those who followed him have included drunks, charlatans, procrastinators, paranoids and bullies. More than a few idiots have occupied the highest office in the land and so have some characters who were unhinged. Mr Miliband is better equipped to be prime minister than quite a lot of those who have been prime minister. Compared with previous occupants of the office, he would be above average for intelligence and temperament.
He is often abused as "weird", which strikes me as particularly unjust. Of course he's weird. He's the leader of a political party. By definition, he's weird. You have to be bloody peculiar to join a political party these days, never mind to lead one. But he'd be no odder as prime minister than a lot of other people who have ruled Britain. Winston Churchill saved his country – between bouts of depression he called "the black dog" and gargantuan consumption of alcohol. He was a great man, but he'd not be my definition of normal. Margaret Thatcher was extremely weird. So, in a different way, was Tony Blair. That didn't stop either of them winning three elections in a row."
"His fundamental failure has been one of salesmanship. He has not persuaded the voters to think of him differently. He has produced policies that are individually popular but too few of which are regarded as deliverable. He has got a story about how Britain could be but he has yet to find a way of telling that story that enough Britons find convincing. And he has not got all that much time left.
I suspect one of the reasons he has not mastered the salesmanship dimension of modern politics is because he despises it. He cut his political teeth in Gordon Brown's inner circle. Like his old boss, Mr Miliband believes that politics is "a battle of ideas", and so long as he arms himself with enough of them he ought to win against a Tory party he regards as ideologically beached. His interest in ideas is admirable, just as it was in Mr Brown. But it is a huge weakness – in the case of Mr Brown it was a fatal one – not to deal with the fact that modern politics is also a battle of presentation and perceptions."
The difficulty is if they then get into power and have to either go back on their electoral positions, which obviously causes trust issues, or actually implement them, which they think, rightly or wrongly, will be bad for things that people care more about like employment.
Edit to add: The above conundrum is why the parties always support EU referendums, apart from ones that they actually have the power to implement.
http://www.historynet.com/operation-bagration-soviet-offensive-of-1944.htm
Socialists are just too cowardly to ask to take it off you when you are alive. Chickens.
I think that the original reason for this was as per Mr Sox, namely that it was thought necessary to keep farming units together at a viable size and level of efficiency. This does not mean that it has not been greatly abused, however.
One of the problems with the world economy, not just that of the UK, is the rapidly growing disparity of wealth. Without going all socialist about it I think we need to give much more thought about how and why this is happening. One of the reasons, hinted at a little incoherently by a think tank linked to on here recently, is that the wealthy actually pay much lower levels of tax than the declared rates indicate whilst the less well paid pay exactly what is on the tin.
A major cause of this, in my opinion, is the transfer of wealth between generations with minimal or no tax at all. Many of these substantial gains have never been taxed because our tax system is largely transactional and those that simply hold their ever increasing holdings will not trigger a taxable event.
Because of this I am tempted by the idea of a wealth tax but there are very considerable problems. The wealthy and their wealth are mobile. Competition between states can cause great distortions as we have already seen in Corporation Tax. Measuring wealth, as opposed to identifying transactions, is difficult and potentially expensive. But land is (a) difficult to hide and (b) impossible to move. If we are to have something like a wealth tax it really has to be the starting point.
We're already seeing a few cracks in the facade (e.g. increasing inequality, increasingly giant corporations, hugely profitable companies that use mass automation to employ few staff like Google, the rise and rise of private schools, demonisation of immigrants, use of freedom of capital for mass tax avoidance and capital flight, increasing cost of living, squeeze on welfare spending) but the issues are not yet quite widespread enough to cause serious problems. Give it a few decades.
Well you can just bugger off. I'll keep my own money and pay people what they are worth when they are worth it - thanks very much all the same.
(And we won't talk about the catching)
Get stuffed.
That said, I accept there's a lot of waste in the sector and a lot of poor or even useless courses. More competitive pressure is needed.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/first-scots-makar-morgan-left-almost-1m-to-the-snp.14105224
The definition of fair taxation is a tax paid by other people.
Fighters of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (Isis) captured Rutba, 90 miles (150km) east of Jordan's border, officials said.
They earlier seized a border crossing to Syria and two towns in western Iraq as they advance towards Baghdad."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-27960142
One other reason I suggested a land tax with a much higher rate for individuals or entities that owned more than 200 acres or £0.5million worth of land (to reduce the rate paid by those with lower holdings) is that land cannot escape and go overseas.
Similarly I proposed that large corporations should be taxed on turnover because that cannot be evaded in the way profit taxation can be. (there may have to be differential rates for certain trades such as jewellry that would otherwise be disproportionately hit but it could be done)
I don't know why Geoff M is getting cross. He and other SMEs will benefit by a much more level playing field and lower business taxes at the expense of large corporation by measures such as this.
As to the squeals about inheritance tax, in many cases this is just the wailing of VIs who don't want to have to get on their bike like the rest of us because they are cushioned by inherited wealth (ie they live off the work of others) and don't want to lose such privileges. It would never happen but I think there is a good argument for no person to be allowed to receive more than £50,000 from inheritances in a lifetime.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10918012/Ukip-voters-feel-disconnected-because-they-cant-send-emails-Chuka-Umunna-says.html
Disappointing race in most regards. Writing up the post-race now.
Mr. Jim, I can think of shorter words to describe him. I do wonder, though, whether he's genuinely such a condescending cretin, or whether he's actually taking the piss.
Why all this discussion of extra taxation as though that is some sort of inevitability?
How about the government simply not spending as much and letting people spend their own money?
Eck could only keep running away for so long...
Who else without a vote does Eck want to debate?
Obama?
The Queen?
His best mate Putin perhaps?
PS , only Obama was convinced by Cameron's begging to help, the other two chased the big jessie.
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/austria-post-race-analysis.html
The outrage bus would explode if this was written in the UK
http://kickerdaily.com/racist-blog-about-filipino-infestation-in-singapore-provokes-outrage/#comment-16980