Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Predicting GE2015 – my session with YouGov’s Joe Twyman
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Predicting GE2015 – my session with YouGov’s Joe Twyman
politicalbetting.com is proudly powered by WordPress
with "Neat!" theme. Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Wouldn't Richard Branson just leave it directly to his grandkids?
They used to be called the Rolling Irish Settlement Trust - essentially the settlor leaves it to a Trust for the benefit of his grandchildren (life interest) and their grandchildren (for value)*.
I don't think they work anymore, but this isn't an area of law I'm particularly familiar with.
* With a remainder clause in the event that their grandchildren have no issue or their issue no issue.
On who pays VAT:
If VAT was eliminated, how much do you think BP would reduce the price of petrol? By the full 20%, or by the minimum it needs to?
In my view, in a freeish market, agents charge the maximum they can get away with for their product. Of this proportion, the government takes a cut in many cases. The business gets to keep the remainder, but can offset VAT it pays against VAT it has been charged by suppliers, broadly speaking with the result that there is only a 20% charge on the "value added" between the raw material and the final consumer good.
UK consumers can claim back the equivalent of VAT when they buy product overseas provided, of course, that they declare all these goods and pay VAT on them when they re-enter the UK.
Once again, the government is capturing a portion of the increase in the economic value of the country as a whole
The first half of your post I can believe.
The second half took me by surprise.
Why on Earth would someone that supports good governance want to move power from the former to the latter?
Tim Fortescue was a senior whip in Ted Heath's government. Here he is talking about how they operated at that time:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ll1eyFGMHMU
Not really the same would apply to them or whoever it is left to
Basically the original inheritance only gets taxed once the recipient has had chance to make from it, once the recipient dies it is taxed, but any money made from it is not
So self made man leaves kid 250m
Govt takes nothing
Kids are worth 500m when they die
Govt taxes 250m of it at whatever rate is decided on
Also think that those whose will is affected by inheritance tax should be able to choose a charity to donate it ( from a restricted choice of govt approved charities)
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c6a5e582-05d6-11e4-8b94-00144feab7de.html#axzz36t3yqc7K
No one loses the family home or has to cripple themselves finding tax to stay in it, and everyone can inherit a goodly sum without the idiots at Westminster getting their hands on it and giving it to pet projects.
Or tax wealth over two million pounds, excluding primary home at 1% per annum and scrap IHT.
I do feel a little sorry for Ingenious, because IMHO, they actually had a real business rather than just the dodgy schemes that other people were trying to flog.
Should be value to back any at bigger than 2/1 I suppose
Was Getty Images a product of his hard work, his family money, his mother's contacts, his brilliant idea, luck or a combination of all of them? And in what proportion?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getty_images
A 95 year old dyedwoolie suddenly wants to move from rural Norfolk to central Kensington. I wonder why?
Osborne is certainly clamping down aggressively and systematically.
The principle behind my idea was that successful people should be able to leave all what they earn to their kids, but without creating a society where generations can rest on their laurels because of it
The tax system needs to be consistent
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7200c822-05cb-11e4-9baa-00144feab7de.html#axzz36tAjlRlQ
None of this is to suggest that cuts are popular, only that they are unpopular in the way flu jabs are unpopular. People do not rise up against things they suspect are unavoidable. At some indistinct point around the turn of the decade, they concluded that the years of bounty were over and some kind of reckoning was on its way....
...
The lesson of this is more troubling for the left than they appear to grasp. It is that politicians can cut spending without everything falling apart. They can remain electorally competitive and the country can remain functional.
http://www.euractiv.com/files/infographic-who-who-european-parliament
Socrates - I think you underestimate the low cunning of British political parties - I can perfectly well imagine their excluding a fringe party from a committee chair, just as I can imagine them fiddling the pairing system by pairing the same MPs with two different parties (as really happened 92-97). Westminster has more virtues than it's generally given credit for, but perfect fairness is not one of them.
Let's say he was left 100m, he leaves 300m... Of that 300m, 100m is taxed (that being his fathers effort) the 200m he made (his effort) , isn't
In particular in figure 7 you can see that a significant proportion of wealth is tied up in pension assets and only a minority of wealth is in real estate.
Figures 4 and 5 are interesting in that they show that income and wealth are not as aligned as you might think.
Still doesn't get round the double taxation issue. It's basically social engineering & creates an incentive for people to leave their wealth offshore.
Also yes I didn't say it was a perfect system it was just an idea that came to me years ago, happy to be shot down
It's gits with holiday homes and pied a terres that need to cough up.
These people are like the Bourbons.
Hopefully Mr Balls if he becomes Chancellor will carry on the work.
Sadly OGH has done his money of UKIP winning Eastleigh but the cunning old Bedford fox seems to running amok the "Chicken (Shadsy) Run" with the Yellow Peril taking Watford.
Essentially the key to the seat is whether the popular LibDem Mayor, Dorothy Thornhill, decides to throw her hat in the ring. If she runs she wins and if not the seat is TCTC with all three parties in the hunt.
Inflation
Moving aboard
Disbursements
Could/should Osborne have cut earlier and harder??
Waste is still endemic in the public sector, if the tax payers alliance are any guide at all.
If I have a primary residence worth £1m and £10m of other assets, I pay £5m in tax.
If I have a primary residence worth £10m and £1m of other assets, I pay £0.5m in tax.
The friction cost of this transaction (stamp duty) is 7% on the £10m, so £0.7m
Move to Kensington at 95 and you save £3.8m in tax (£5m - £0.5m - £0.7m).
B... Easy enough to make the adjustment
C... You might have a point
D,... Don't know what that means!
I'm sure that there are further big savings to be made without damaging delivery of services. As with supermarkets and other private-sector organizations, you just have to keep at it, year after year, gradually improving efficiency. It's hard work and it requires dedication, persistence and skill. Instead we may get Labour.
That well known bastion of privilege, Australia, did away with IHT some years ago and , aside from wealth management consultants, lawyers and accountants, they don't seem to have felt the lack.
The government is missing a trick here, instead of stacking shelves for some supermarket, the unemployed could be coerced into bottom wiping and feeding duties for the NHS?
Inflation - yes, you can make the adjustment, but that means that they need to outperform inflation on a consistent basis which just lifts the threshold for their own required performance
Disbursements - If they want to give away money, you are deeming it to come from their own efforts rather than inheritance. Let's say, for example, someone didn't like the fact that their father was in the oil business (they're a green nut). So, they decide to give away the £100m they inherit. They also invent some really clever new green technology and make £200m from their own efforts.
So when they die, they leave £200m, of which you are taxing them on £100m. But arguably the £200m is entirely down to their own efforts and the £100m that they inherited has been used for philanthropic purposes.
I've just been watching Keith Vaz and his merry men trying to pin down smoke. Mark Sedwill doing a good imitation of Manuel from Barcelona. Mark Ellis seemed to be the only one on the committee who understands the way the Civil Service filing system works.
The 114 files were probably destroyed but the log that should have told us that didn't. You can misfile a couple but if they were destroyed, there should have been a record of when and on whose orders.
The only thing we can say for sure is that we'll never know now.
Where's Tap?
I think the admin would be ok... It isn't paperwork anymore but a page on a government website
I guess my comeback to the last point is that they should put the money in a bank and forget about it and it will be given away when they say 'so long'
Deep breaths.
It won't be long now before Ed reinstates the principle that the state owes you a living.
I thought I was pretty eurosceptic two months ago, but I have become much more strongly eurosceptic since then. They pay absolutely no notice at all when the entire UK is united against the proposed President of the Commission, and now they have a stitch-up to break their own conventions so the winning party in the UK elections don't get a chairmanship.
Just asking, you would think it would be logical, some of them might even take up nursing as a career?
It appears the black and white furry bear was artificially inseminated earlier this year. Worried Tory PPC's north of the border are said to be avoiding hospitals and surgeries nationwide.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-28212994
As for just putting the money in the bank, then what is the advantage of not taxing it upfront? You're not encouraging them to invest or to spend it, so you are just tying up productive capital in an unproductive way (and subsidising the banks by giving them a source of predictable sticky capital).
Far better to not tax it on transfer, which encourages people to spend or invest - either way it gets the money flowing round the system again and you can generate tax on consumption or on income generated from investment
The National Institute for Economic and Social Research (NIESR) has published it forecast of Q2 2014 GDP growth this afternoon.
Our monthly estimates of GDP suggest that output grew by 0.9 per cent in the three months ending in June after growth of 0.7 per cent in the three months ending in May 2014. The month-on-month dip in the ONS’ latest production estimates is expected to weigh only marginally on the economy’s overall robust performance in 2014 Q2. Based on our estimates, the UK economy is now 3.2 per cent larger than in the same period last year.
Looks as if everyone is ignoring the ONS Index of Production release this morning, even currency traders:
Sterling was within 0.4 percent of its strongest level in almost two years against the 18-nation shared currency after the National Institute of Economic and Social Research said the U.K. economy grew 0.9 percent in the three months through June. That compares with a 0.7 percent expansion the previous month.
Hold on to those pounds, Malcolm. You'll need them on your September holiday.
He will never be Prime Minister.
Politicians answer, If he said he supported the strike, the papers would have been full of "Ed in unions pocket" If he condemns the strike, he alienates a lot of voters, and gives Cameron ammunition.
They all do it.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/07/team-scotlands-commonwealth-games-uniforms-are-a-headache-waiting-to-happen/
It is the result of a properly held election.
Demanding elected posts on the basis of back room deals is entitlement politics.
If I became a member of a local golf club and then spent my entire resources on campaigning for it to be closed down, I wouldn't expect to be elected an Officer of the club.
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Why can't they store your "inherited amount/date" for a long time?
The notion that he is there to represent outr iinterests is risible.
It's a fudge, but it beats the "answering a completely different question" routine that Cameron uses. That really grates for me. (Y.M.M.V.)
Yes too true. But in reality all Brown (and Darling) was doing was stalling for time. Propping up the economy - creating a false economy really - with spending that we could not afford and adding to the deficit, so that the nation was insulated from the effects until the election.
Lets not forget that Darlings last budget did not spell out departmental spending, either immediately or for the next 3 years. All the talk about cutting the deficit was wishful thinking.
One can only look at the graph depicting the chronic weakness of the recovery since Osborne was allowed free reign to derail the more substantial one built up by Labour in 2010 and sigh.
The relevant comparison is not the "2008-" recession with that in 1920-24.
It is UK versus its main competitors today.
And the story is that the UK is experiencing the highest growth rate in the G7 at the same time as achieving the highest rate of fiscal consolidation.
Compare this to Gordon's little bounce in late 2009-early 2010 when the UK growth rate was the second lowest in the G7 and what little there was came from extended government spending and panic monetary expansion.
But don't worry too much, Ben. This is year three stuff.
Browns figures were helped by house price inflation. At least that has been sorted.
The ladies look like nurses and the men look like they are trying to take the mick out of kilt wearing
I have the greatest respect for them as well. but there are a lot of Jobs being done by nursing auxiliaries that they could do?
Think of the savings?
I can't believe anyone even has the nerve to argue this is fair. Partisanship knows no bounds it seems.
You've got the wrong end of the decade.
Even the European Greens can see how unfair this is. I don't agree with their policies but they at least believe in democracy. Unlike the EPP, PES and ALDE eurofederalist scum.
It's not just Labour that has some answering to do. The Liberal Democrats are giving a big middle finger to British voters and liberal democracy by going along with this.
How many extra houses above need have we built? The ones that will bring down our housing deficit.
Quite why the Left are so completely uninterested in, indeed actively hostile to, improved efficiency is one of life's enduring mysteries. The funny thing is that if you look at any Labour-supporting website, you'll find lots and lots of discussion about how the left should adapt to the constraints of reduced expenditure, yet there is virtually no discussion at all of the most obvious answer, namely how we get the efficiency improvements in the public sector which the private sector has achieved.
Only Frank Field seems to get it, but no-one in Labour listens to him:
http://www.frankfield.com/franks-blog/blog.aspx?b=51
Trying to do both creates a conflict which can only be resolved by giving primacy to the ballot.
And if the ballot is decisive it is better not to annoy the voters to such an extent that they are prepared to abandon convention.
I can only hope that College doesn't have to get Herman Rompuy to sign off on his pension and allowances package.
Automation of the nursing wards might be problematic? We lag behind the world in that, and robotics.
Needs to be cheap labour then?
The problem is with social housing. Find a business model to support and the tower blocks will climb to the skies, Smarmy.
Small flaw in the social housing side. The councils have to sell property the occupier wishes to buy, and at a discount price.
They are then supposed to build one new house for every one sold.
I think I spot a small economic problem?
Essentially you are giving the purchaser the developer's profit margin. Arguably you shouldn't give them all of it as there should be some return on social capital, but you're not selling below replacement cost
@Charles
Depends on the average discount when the occupier decides to buy? It could just be as easy as the council tax payer handing them a wad of cash?
Even council tenants can work out the time to buy at the best time. (Usually just before gran passes off to eternal slumber is good).
http://damianpmcbride.tumblr.com/post/91150464979/have-you-no-sense-of-decency-harriet
Thought it was meant to be all cut and thrust in London , with all those high talented Go Getters arriving from all over the globe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCem9EZb-YA
Tories for Damian McBride?
The world is truly full of miracles. :-)
British Muslims fighting for the enemy in Syria instead
Think I'll watch eggheads instead!!
It would be daft to sell below replacement cost, so I'm assuming someone has done the math.