Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The afternoon Marf on the dementia bonus for GPs

124»

Comments

  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098

    AndyJS said:



    No, the reason you don't hear about what they're doing is because the NCA choose not to publicise their activities for operational reasons.

    I wish that were true, Mr Watcher. However, if they were really putting away big time villains said criminals would be appearing in the courts and they are not. So my conclusion stands, and please don't give me all the tripe about disruption instead of prosecution. That was the the excuse in the Regional Crime Squad/NCIS days and it was tripe then as the Home Office found when they pushed for figures and facts. So they had a reorganisation and formed the National Crime Squad. That didn't work out any better so they amalgamated them with NCIS and we got SOCA. Still no better, so reorganise again and we now have the National Crime Agency and still a dearth of big time villains locked up, but I am sure mountains of intelligence about their activities.
    Ignorance is bliss.
    And may you long continue in a state of bliss.
  • rcs1000 said:

    Socrates said:

    One for SeanT,

    6000 year old temple found in ukraine.

    http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2014/1022/Archaeologists-find-6-000-year-old-temple-in-Ukraine

    Wonder if that's what putin was after?

    Was he looking for the Holy Grail or the Ark of the Covenant?
    The tea just spilled out of my mouth. Comment of the month.
    "Russian ultra-nationalists. I hate these guys."

    Woman: "This is how we say goodbye in Ukraine" [kisses Indy]

    Putin: "And this is how we say goodbye in Russia!" [punches Indy in the face]

    :)
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,950
    Mr. Speedy, but Napoleon was into classical history as well. He would not, surely, have allowed (let alone designed) the changing of a city to obscure the location of Alexander the Great?

    Mr. JS, yet another reason why our Serjeant should be an ex-military chap (or perhaps ex-police) rather than a civil servant.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,693

    FPT
    ......
    If we want a meritocratic society, there should be a £50,000 lifetime allowance for inheritances and anything above that taxed at 100% unless left to a charity.

    UKIP are attracting more socialists each day.
    No its not socialism. If it was socialism, leaving it to charity to stop the state getting hold of it and misusing it would not be allowed.
    It's socialist not to allow the passing of the family home to the next generation. It's a fundamental human instinct, and one of the basic foundations of a property owning democracy.

    I'd have more sympathy with your argument if you'd exempted the family home of the deceased, and just applied the IHT to their other assets.
    There might be a respectable argument that the lifetime allowance was say £200,000 ie equates to the UK average home price.

    However I don't see why if Daddy owns a vast mansion and 40,000 acres then you as offspring should have the right to get it free of charge and live off the income it generates.

    Particuarly as in many such cases Daddy only got it because he was the descendent of a ruthless exploitative mill or mine owner or the descendent of were cronies of William I when he disposessed the Saxons or Henry VIII when he looted the monasteries and handed the land out to their mates.
    I don't see it as any of my business, and certainly not of the State. I certainly wouldn't want to try and scour history for controversies to justify what would amount to a legalised land grab.

    I do agree that it's irresponsible parenting to give everything to your kids on a plate, for nothing. However, that's their decision.
  • James Bethell @JimBethell
    http://dailym.ai/12afGpK << well done #ukip, you're making the racist calypso song fandango worst every hour of this story.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Smarmeron said:

    Racism is fear, children are born without it, and learn it as they grow.
    It's why adults are usually blinkered, we have so many fears that we become irrational.
    Death is just natures way of trying to keep a little sanity in the universe.

    Quite. Good post. Some dark views on here.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,880
    Surprising to see Mori with such a big pro EU lead in their poll today. The sun/yougov figures this week show the IN side ahead by only 40%-39% on present poll numbers, although by 55%-24% if the EU is reformed
    http://yougov.co.uk/news/categories/politics/
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,693
    rcs1000 said:

    FPT
    ......
    If we want a meritocratic society, there should be a £50,000 lifetime allowance for inheritances and anything above that taxed at 100% unless left to a charity.

    UKIP are attracting more socialists each day.
    No its not socialism. If it was socialism, leaving it to charity to stop the state getting hold of it and misusing it would not be allowed.
    It's socialist not to allow the passing of the family home to the next generation. It's a fundamental human instinct, and one of the basic foundations of a property owning democracy.

    I'd have more sympathy with your argument if you'd exempted the family home of the deceased, and just applied the IHT to their other assets.
    I'd have more sympathy if people actually lived in the houses their parents passed onto them
    Plenty do.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    I have decided on a wild punt, SNP to take either Edinburgh North & Leith or Edinburgh East. I will be putting £10 on one or the other.
  • Socrates said:


    I would have thought it was. I agree young children don't do it, but I wouldn't be surprised if group identity and defensiveness kick in with adolescence. It's only natural that people do it on visible differences. I think it takes an enlightened mind to overcome those instincts.

    Not racism as such, more tribalism. Which why football supporters are so tribal. Why the young are drawn to gangs etc..
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited October 2014
    AndyJS said:

    Final 4 for the Tory Boston & Skegness selection:

    Paul Bristow, Karen Buckley, Tim Clark, Matt Warman.

    http://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2014/10/the-final-four-in-the-boston-and-skegness-selection-are-named.html

    None of them impressive, but it wouldn't make any difference, the writing is on the wall for the Tories in Boston and from looking at the final four I think they already know it. They are like a big white flag.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @chrisshipitv: Blimey. Bookmaker @WilliamHillPLC slash odds on @UKIP being largest single party after 2015 election from 80/1 to 25/1

    rumour this is based on a National poll due this evening...
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    "Leaders committed cardinal sin, opened borders let them in."

    Gosh, I hadn't realised it said that. Not clever at all.


  • GrandioseGrandiose Posts: 2,323

    FPT
    ......
    If we want a meritocratic society, there should be a £50,000 lifetime allowance for inheritances and anything above that taxed at 100% unless left to a charity.

    UKIP are attracting more socialists each day.
    No its not socialism. If it was socialism, leaving it to charity to stop the state getting hold of it and misusing it would not be allowed.
    It's socialist not to allow the passing of the family home to the next generation. It's a fundamental human instinct, and one of the basic foundations of a property owning democracy.

    I'd have more sympathy with your argument if you'd exempted the family home of the deceased, and just applied the IHT to their other assets.
    There might be a respectable argument that the lifetime allowance was say £200,000 ie equates to the UK average home price.

    However I don't see why if Daddy owns a vast mansion and 40,000 acres then you as offspring should have the right to get it free of charge and live off the income it generates.

    Particuarly as in many such cases Daddy only got it because he was the descendent of a ruthless exploitative mill or mine owner or the descendent of were cronies of William I when he disposessed the Saxons or Henry VIII when he looted the monasteries and handed the land out to their mates.
    I don't see it as any of my business, and certainly not of the State. I certainly wouldn't want to try and scour history for controversies to justify what would amount to a legalised land grab.

    I do agree that it's irresponsible parenting to give everything to your kids on a plate, for nothing. However, that's their decision.
    Are you proposing the cap at £50,000, £200,000 or higher?

    If it's a case of "Particuarly as in many such cases Daddy only got it because he was the descendent of a ruthless exploitative mill or mine owner", that must be at most 0.1% of homes. If it's a "vast mansion and 40,000 acres" that's probably 0.01% of homes.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    Scott_P said:

    @chrisshipitv: Blimey. Bookmaker @WilliamHillPLC slash odds on @UKIP being largest single party after 2015 election from 80/1 to 25/1

    rumour this is based on a National poll due this evening...

    Is he overreacting a little?
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Green selections, Milton Keynes:

    North: Jennifer Marklew
    South: Samantha Pancheri

    http://mk.greenparty.org.uk/your-candidates.html
  • Mike Smithson ‏@MSmithsonPB

    I can confirm that there'll be a ComRes Rochester poll out at 10pm. I understand it's been funded by a UKIP donor
  • OT

    The new law on carrier bags came into force in Scotland on Monday. Any single use bag must now be charged for at 5p a time.

    Now I understand the reasoning behind this but what I find pretty strange is that it doesn't just apply to plastic bags. It applies to all bags including paper ones as long as the have a handle.

    I thought the whole point of this law was supposed to be to get rid of the waste of single use plastic bags which are then thrown away and take a huge amount of time to rot down. Why on earth in that case does it apply to paper bags as well?
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 4,042

    Quincel said:

    FPT
    ......
    If we want a meritocratic society, there should be a £50,000 lifetime allowance for inheritances and anything above that taxed at 100% unless left to a charity.

    UKIP are attracting more socialists each day.
    No its not socialism. If it was socialism, leaving it to charity to stop the state getting hold of it and misusing it would not be allowed.
    It's socialist not to allow the passing of the family home to the next generation. It's a fundamental human instinct, and one of the basic foundations of a property owning democracy.

    I'd have more sympathy with your argument if you'd exempted the family home of the deceased, and just applied the IHT to their other assets.
    I'm not sure many people would define socialism as "Blocking basic human instincts", for various reasons. For starters, lots of basic human instincts should be blocked (racism is an obvious example). Secondly, many definitions of capitalism would also not allow large-scale inheritance. Lest we forget that a fundamental tenet of capitalism is competition, of wealth being fought for and earned, etc etc. Adam Smith, for example, strongly disapproved of rent-seeking and other methods whereby wealth begat wealth.
    Most people work hard their whole lives for what they have. I believe they should be able to choose what they do with that, and not have it all confiscated from them upon death by the state. Thus making the toils of their lives utterly pointless.

    The desire to build and pass on a legacy to your children is as reasonable as other human needs, such as companionship, self-worth, community and appreciation. To rob a family of a home, that might have been within their family for generations, only for someone wealthy to immediately buy it off them and live in it would be an injustice.
    Fundamentally Stereo has it right. It seems unfair for the giver to be taxed on their hard work, it seems unfair for the receiver to not be taxed on income with no hard work. There is no 'clean' and right answer.

    Personally I'm more bothered by the latter, partially because I don't see it as bad a precedent as others do. If I give £100,000 to my employee they pay income tax, if I give it to a company they pay taxes. Not only does practically every other transfer of money involve tax being levied, but it raises the question as to what the deceased could have done with the money whilst alive and not been taxed. If they would have been taxed on it whilst giving it to whomever they gave it to anyway - personally I don't really see why IHT should be felt as so sharp. But I appreciate others feel very differently.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    TGOHF said:

    Socrates said:



    Racism is a basic human instinct? What an odd point of view. Young children aren't racist -it's learned behaviour.

    I would have thought it was. I agree young children don't do it, but I wouldn't be surprised if group identity and defensiveness kick in with adolescence. It's only natural that people do it on visible differences. I think it takes an enlightened mind to overcome those instincts.
    Dearie me... kippers at large...
    The debate about whether people are naturally pure or naturally prone to sin is as old as civilization itself.
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    taffys said:

    ''Does anyone know what benefit Muslim immigration actually brings. That does not involve food or music. ''

    UKIP posters talk far more about islam based issues than they do about Europe. And yet getting out of Europe will do nothing to solve this. Neither will any UKIP policy.

    UKIP is a proxy for a large swathe of opinion that, whilst not wanting to appear racist, wants muslims to get the f8ck out.

    The EU's rules on free movement mean that once non-EU citizens have been granted the right to settle in one EU country, they can then move anywhere else in the EU. Most of the UK's Somali population has come from Holland.
    Sean_F said:

    taffys said:

    ''Does anyone know what benefit Muslim immigration actually brings. That does not involve food or music. ''

    UKIP posters talk far more about islam based issues than they do about Europe. And yet getting out of Europe will do nothing to solve this. Neither will any UKIP policy.

    UKIP is a proxy for a large swathe of opinion that, whilst not wanting to appear racist, wants muslims to get the f8ck out.

    The EU's rules on free movement mean that once non-EU citizens have been granted the right to settle in one EU country, they can then move anywhere else in the EU. Most of the UK's Somali population has come from Holland.
    I didn't know that. If we were talking about tax, that'd be called a loophole.
    If they have 'been granted the right to settle' does that mean they have Dutch passports?
    Assuming they are not Dutch citizens, why do they get the right to come here without a visa? My wife, when she was a south African citizen with indefinite right to remain in the UK, still needed a visa to go to France or Spain.
    Thats my point 'assuming'.
    We are not in Schengen which would give non EU citizens the right of movement, although does that then give them the right to stay? So is it a fact rather than an assertion, since your example contradicts it?
    I simply ask the question. According to this
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/netherlands/1479533/Frustrated-Somalis-flee-Holland-for-the-freedom-of-Britain.html
    they are Dutch citizens - sometimes long standing, not just transient refugees and non citizens. It seems many are very industrious and entreprenurial. Buit irresective of that, it would 'seem' that the movement relates to formal Dutch citizens.
  • Mike Smithson ‏@MSmithsonPB

    I can confirm that there'll be a ComRes Rochester poll out at 10pm. I understand it's been funded by a UKIP donor

    Interesting(?)
  • Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB
    I can confirm that there'll be a ComRes Rochester poll out at 10pm. I understand it's been funded by a UKIP donor

    hmm.... will they release all the questions asked?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,880
    New Survey USA Georgia poll today shows Michelle Nunn (D) leading David Perdue (G) in Georgia 46%-44%. While the Democrats are likely to lose the Senate the GOP may not make the net 6 gains they need for a majority if they lose this seat. That could well give Kansas Independent Greg Orman the balance of power
    http://www.11alive.com/story/news/politics/2014/10/22/surveyusa-poll-october-21/17658441/
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited October 2014

    John Rentoul ‏@JohnRentoul

    Stand by for ComRes constituency phone poll in Rochester & Strood at 10pm tonight.

    Hmmmm....now what makes me think this has been ever so slightly leaked?
    Indeed.

    All I will say is that at the Euros, ComRes massively overstated UKIP.

    So if they follow that trend, it'll push out the Tory price, so the possibility of backing the Tories as a trade later on.
    God thats more desperate than I am for a bird!

    The primary returns tmrw will trump any opinion poll I reckon though.

  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,693

    FPT
    ......
    If we want a meritocratic society, there should be a £50,000 lifetime allowance for inheritances and anything above that taxed at 100% unless left to a charity.

    UKIP are attracting more socialists each day.
    No its not socialism. If it was socialism, leaving it to charity to stop the state getting hold of it and misusing it would not be allowed.
    It's socialist not to allow the passing of the family home to the next generation. It's a fundamental human instinct, and one of the basic foundations of a property owning democracy.

    I'd have more sympathy with your argument if you'd exempted the family home of the deceased, and just applied the IHT to their other assets.
    Inheritance tax is a difficult one. From the point of view of the person giving, supporting and providing for your family is a really basic and fundamental desire for your money. To have the government butting in, especially at the point of your death, feels like a particularly harsh intrusion.

    But from the point of view of the person receiving, it's just a (potentially) huge chunk of unearned money. Getting that 100% intact, but then having to pay tax on the money you actually go out and earn for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, seems really strange. It's also a huge, really clear driver of inequality- especially once you get up to the super-rich, where whole empires can change hands without anybody ever having a chance to earn their way to getting a fraction of it.

    Overall, the latter perspective is much more persuasive to me, but I can definitely see why inheritance tax is so unpopular. I do think that an exemption for a single home (maybe up to a certain value?) would be a good idea if the threshold was ever significantly lowered.
    I basically don't have a problem with people choosing what to do with their money, assets, homes or businesses. Lots of those that inherit with little responsible parenting have blown it, and come a cropper, and I don't think most families are like that. The super rich can easily side-step IHT, so it tends to hit the middle/upper middle class. That's rightly seen as unfair.

    Several Western countries have already abolished it, from memory. Socialist Sweden is one.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    It applies to all bags including paper ones as long as the have a handle.

    The cost of every takeaway goes up by 5p.

    In Scotland that could be a lot of money.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,834
    Smarmeron said:

    Racism is fear, children are born without it, and learn it as they grow.

    But the question is, do they learn it from their elders or from experience?

    Mr. Speedy, what a wibbling little weasel. I've never liked Umunna. I'd rather have Miliband as PM than him.

    Mind you, Miliband's done a kosher hokey-kokey himself. He is a Jew, but he isn't, but he thinks he'll be the first Jewish Prime Minister (just a century or so after Disraeli, but he was a Conservative, so presumably he doesn't count).

    That's why Farage is liked, or at least something new. He cocks stuff up, but he also speaks plainly instead of using wonkspeak or trying desperately not to tread on any toes.

    Edited extra bit: Mr. 1000, arguably.

    Ptolemy stole the corpse from Perdiccas. Ptolemy's kingdom was the longest lasting as an independent state, after which the body was taken by Caesar to Rome. Whilst there, Rome enjoyed its greatest period of prosperity, but the body was lost, and the Dark Ages ensued.

    I once suggested the hunt for Alexander's remains as a thriller storyline to Mr. T (who had asked for suggestions).

    A recent find nearish Thessalonica[sp] is imagined by locals to be his resting place. I think it unlikely, but there we are.

    It's probably under a carpark somewhere.
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098

    FPT
    ......
    If we want a meritocratic society, there should be a £50,000 lifetime allowance for inheritances and anything above that taxed at 100% unless left to a charity.

    UKIP are attracting more socialists each day.
    No its not socialism. If it was socialism, leaving it to charity to stop the state getting hold of it and misusing it would not be allowed.
    It's socialist not to allow the passing of the family home to the next generation. It's a fundamental human instinct, and one of the basic foundations of a property owning democracy.

    I'd have more sympathy with your argument if you'd exempted the family home of the deceased, and just applied the IHT to their other assets.
    There might be a respectable argument that the lifetime allowance was say £200,000 ie equates to the UK average home price.

    However I don't see why if Daddy owns a vast mansion and 40,000 acres then you as offspring should have the right to get it free of charge and live off the income it generates.

    Particuarly as in many such cases Daddy only got it because he was the descendent of a ruthless exploitative mill or mine owner or the descendent of were cronies of William I when he disposessed the Saxons or Henry VIII when he looted the monasteries and handed the land out to their mates.
    I don't see it as any of my business, and certainly not of the State. I certainly wouldn't want to try and scour history for controversies to justify what would amount to a legalised land grab.

    I do agree that it's irresponsible parenting to give everything to your kids on a plate, for nothing. However, that's their decision.
    Given that really rich don't actually pass on anything to their children and their children don't actually inherit very much because all the wealth and land is tied up in trusts and God knows what else, the idea of a low limit on inheritance and a 100% tax rate will only hit modest people who have perhaps a house and not much else. Not sure how that would make a fairer society.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    taffys said:

    SNIP

    SNIP.
    Sean_F said:

    taffys said:

    ''Does anyone know what benefit Muslim immigration actually brings. That does not involve food or music. ''

    UKIP posters talk far more about islam based issues than they do about Europe. And yet getting out of Europe will do nothing to solve this. Neither will any UKIP policy.

    UKIP is a proxy for a large swathe of opinion that, whilst not wanting to appear racist, wants muslims to get the f8ck out.

    The EU's rules on free movement mean that once non-EU citizens have been granted the right to settle in one EU country, they can then move anywhere else in the EU. Most of the UK's Somali population has come from Holland.
    I didn't know that. If we were talking about tax, that'd be called a loophole.
    If they have 'been granted the right to settle' does that mean they have Dutch passports?
    Assuming they are not Dutch citizens, why do they get the right to come here without a visa? My wife, when she was a south African citizen with indefinite right to remain in the UK, still needed a visa to go to France or Spain.
    Thats my point 'assuming'.
    We are not in Schengen which would give non EU citizens the right of movement, although does that then give them the right to stay? So is it a fact rather than an assertion, since your example contradicts it?
    I simply ask the question. According to this
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/netherlands/1479533/Frustrated-Somalis-flee-Holland-for-the-freedom-of-Britain.html
    they are Dutch citizens - sometimes long standing, not just transient refugees and non citizens. It seems many are very industrious and entreprenurial. Buit irresective of that, it would 'seem' that the movement relates to formal Dutch citizens.
    The idea that refugees have their status for a few years and then go back home is a myth. It's just another method by which people from poor countries try to get into rich ones. Once they are here, they do everything to stay. It's natural from their perspective, but Western governments are mugs not to realise it.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 4,042
    Grandiose said:

    FPT
    ......
    If we want a meritocratic society, there should be a £50,000 lifetime allowance for inheritances and anything above that taxed at 100% unless left to a charity.

    UKIP are attracting more socialists each day.
    No its not socialism. If it was socialism, leaving it to charity to stop the state getting hold of it and misusing it would not be allowed.
    It's socialist not to allow the passing of the family home to the next generation. It's a fundamental human instinct, and one of the basic foundations of a property owning democracy.

    I'd have more sympathy with your argument if you'd exempted the family home of the deceased, and just applied the IHT to their other assets.
    There might be a respectable argument that the lifetime allowance was say £200,000 ie equates to the UK average home price.

    However I don't see why if Daddy owns a vast mansion and 40,000 acres then you as offspring should have the right to get it free of charge and live off the income it generates.

    Particuarly as in many such cases Daddy only got it because he was the descendent of a ruthless exploitative mill or mine owner or the descendent of were cronies of William I when he disposessed the Saxons or Henry VIII when he looted the monasteries and handed the land out to their mates.
    I don't see it as any of my business, and certainly not of the State. I certainly wouldn't want to try and scour history for controversies to justify what would amount to a legalised land grab.

    I do agree that it's irresponsible parenting to give everything to your kids on a plate, for nothing. However, that's their decision.
    Are you proposing the cap at £50,000, £200,000 or higher?

    If it's a case of "Particuarly as in many such cases Daddy only got it because he was the descendent of a ruthless exploitative mill or mine owner", that must be at most 0.1% of homes. If it's a "vast mansion and 40,000 acres" that's probably 0.01% of homes.
    But a much much greater % of national wealth. Not that these homes are caught at the moment, trust law and tax loopholes make sure of that. One thing almost everyone can agree on, if we could begin our tax system from scratch so people were charged what we 'meant' it would be for the best.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,880
    edited October 2014
    AndyJS Indeed, may now be necessary sadly, I don't think a Mace and sword would do the job unless at close quarters!
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited October 2014

    Mr. Speedy, but Napoleon was into classical history as well. He would not, surely, have allowed (let alone designed) the changing of a city to obscure the location of Alexander the Great?

    Mr. JS, yet another reason why our Serjeant should be an ex-military chap (or perhaps ex-police) rather than a civil servant.

    After centuries of ruin in a mostly abandoned city I don't think that many or any would have known where the tomb was in 1798.
    I actually have a rough idea where it is (or was in the middle ages) since one in my family is in the archaeological profession and I once aspired to join it, hence my knowledge of ancient history and egyptian hieroglyphs.
  • Someone's broken the embargo, tut tut

    Front page of the express says

    "Poll puts UKIP on course for by-election victory"

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B0lBS7ZCIAAOw5d.jpg
  • OT

    The new law on carrier bags came into force in Scotland on Monday. Any single use bag must now be charged for at 5p a time.

    Now I understand the reasoning behind this but what I find pretty strange is that it doesn't just apply to plastic bags. It applies to all bags including paper ones as long as the have a handle.

    I thought the whole point of this law was supposed to be to get rid of the waste of single use plastic bags which are then thrown away and take a huge amount of time to rot down. Why on earth in that case does it apply to paper bags as well?

    Because the real reason is to raise taxes on the back of pious greenism?

  • Scott_P said:

    It applies to all bags including paper ones as long as the have a handle.

    The cost of every takeaway goes up by 5p.

    In Scotland that could be a lot of money.
    A fair bit of revenue for the UK government as well. Although the proceeds (after costs) are supposed to go to local good causes, the 5p is subject to VAT so 1p of every bag goes to the Treasury.
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    Paul Mid Beds says- ''Strangely enough they also speak with a Carribean accent. Presumably if one of them decided to make a record our oh so right on leaders would deem them racist?''
    They speak with the accent of their country. The fact that you think in terms of black and white simply exposes you.
    Singing a crass anti foreigner song in a cod foreign accent is an absurdity only a kipper could defend.
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @david_herdson
    In the vast majority of cases they learn it from their peers. (much the same for choice of football teams)
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited October 2014

    Someone's broken the embargo, tut tut

    Front page of the express says

    "Poll puts UKIP on course for by-election victory"

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B0lBS7ZCIAAOw5d.jpg

    Cameron to join the history books by November 24th?
    Can we have the numbers please?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,950
    Mr. Socrates, Greek myth seems to have both (contradictory) positions, as mankind initially enjoyed a golden age and then devolved to the current state of affairs. On the other hand, gods and men worked to throw out the Titans, destroy monsters and generally establish civilised order over the nature of chaos.
  • HYUFD said:

    Surprising to see Mori with such a big pro EU lead in their poll today. The sun/yougov figures this week show the IN side ahead by only 40%-39% on present poll numbers, although by 55%-24% if the EU is reformed
    http://yougov.co.uk/news/categories/politics/

    Nothing really to write home about given that 63% of the respondents wanted a relationship with the EU that is not on the table and never will be as long as we remain a member.
  • Grandiose said:

    FPT
    ......
    If we want a meritocratic society, there should be a £50,000 lifetime allowance for inheritances and anything above that taxed at 100% unless left to a charity.

    UKIP are attracting more socialists each day.
    No its not socialism. If it was socialism, leaving it to charity to stop the state getting hold of it and misusing it would not be allowed.
    It's socialist not to allow the passing of the family home to the next generation. It's a fundamental human instinct, and one of the basic foundations of a property owning democracy.

    I'd have more sympathy with your argument if you'd exempted the family home of the deceased, and just applied the IHT to their other assets.
    There might be a respectable argument that the lifetime allowance was say £200,000 ie equates to the UK average home price.

    However I don't see why if Daddy owns a vast mansion and 40,000 acres then you as offspring should have the right to get it free of charge and live off the income it generates.

    Particuarly as in many such cases Daddy only got it because he was the descendent of a ruthless exploitative mill or mine owner or the descendent of were cronies of William I when he disposessed the Saxons or Henry VIII when he looted the monasteries and handed the land out to their mates.
    I don't see it as any of my business, and certainly not of the State. I certainly wouldn't want to try and scour history for controversies to justify what would amount to a legalised land grab.

    I do agree that it's irresponsible parenting to give everything to your kids on a plate, for nothing. However, that's their decision.
    Are you proposing the cap at £50,000, £200,000 or higher?

    If it's a case of "Particuarly as in many such cases Daddy only got it because he was the descendent of a ruthless exploitative mill or mine owner", that must be at most 0.1% of homes. If it's a "vast mansion and 40,000 acres" that's probably 0.01% of homes.
    but about 70% of the UKs land.....
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    edited October 2014
    Quincel said:

    Quincel said:

    FPT
    ......
    If we want a meritocratic society, there should be a £50,000 lifetime allowance for inheritances and anything above that taxed at 100% unless left to a charity.

    UKIP are attracting more socialists each day.
    No its not socialism. If it was socialism, leaving it to charity to stop the state getting hold of it and misusing it would not be allowed.
    It's socialist not to allow the passing of the family home to the next generation. It's a fundamental human instinct, and one of the basic foundations of a property owning democracy.

    Most people work hard their whole lives for what they have. I believe they should be able to choose what they do with that, and not have it all confiscated from them upon death by the state. Thus making the toils of their lives utterly pointless.

    The desire to build and pass on a legacy to your children is as reasonable as other human needs, such as companionship, self-worth, community and appreciation. To rob a family of a home, that might have been within their family for generations, only for someone wealthy to immediately buy it off them and live in it would be an injustice.
    Fundamentally Stereo has it right. It seems unfair for the giver to be taxed on their hard work, it seems unfair for the receiver to not be taxed on income with no hard work. There is no 'clean' and right answer.

    Personally I'm more bothered by the latter, partially because I don't see it as bad a precedent as others do. If I give £100,000 to my employee they pay income tax, if I give it to a company they pay taxes. Not only does practically every other transfer of money involve tax being levied, but it raises the question as to what the deceased could have done with the money whilst alive and not been taxed. If they would have been taxed on it whilst giving it to whomever they gave it to anyway - personally I don't really see why IHT should be felt as so sharp. But I appreciate others feel very differently.
    If I choose to buy a house with the money that you gave me as my employer, there's no reason why My estate should be taxed on that sum again.
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    Speedy said:

    AndyJS said:

    Final 4 for the Tory Boston & Skegness selection:

    Paul Bristow, Karen Buckley, Tim Clark, Matt Warman.

    http://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2014/10/the-final-four-in-the-boston-and-skegness-selection-are-named.html

    None of them impressive, but it wouldn't make any difference, the writing is on the wall for the Tories in Boston and from looking at the final four I think they already know it. They are like a big white flag.
    As I have pointed out before there are likely to be 2 rival UKIP candidates in Boston/Skegness so the chances of their winning is much reduced
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 4,042

    Quincel said:

    Quincel said:

    FPT
    ......
    If we want a meritocratic society, there should be a £50,000 lifetime allowance for inheritances and anything above that taxed at 100% unless left to a charity.

    UKIP are attracting more socialists each day.
    No its not socialism. If it was socialism, leaving it to charity to stop the state getting hold of it and misusing it would not be allowed.
    It's socialist not to allow the passing of the family home to the next generation. It's a fundamental human instinct, and one of the basic foundations of a property owning democracy.

    Most people work hard their whole lives for what they have. I believe they should be able to choose what they do with that, and not have it all confiscated from them upon death by the state. Thus making the toils of their lives utterly pointless.

    The desire to build and pass on a legacy to your children is as reasonable as other human needs, such as companionship, self-worth, community and appreciation. To rob a family of a home, that might have been within their family for generations, only for someone wealthy to immediately buy it off them and live in it would be an injustice.
    Fundamentally Stereo has it right. It seems unfair for the giver to be taxed on their hard work, it seems unfair for the receiver to not be taxed on income with no hard work. There is no 'clean' and right answer.

    Personally I'm more bothered by the latter, partially because I don't see it as bad a precedent as others do. If I give £100,000 to my employee they pay income tax, if I give it to a company they pay taxes. Not only does practically every other transfer of money involve tax being levied, but it raises the question as to what the deceased could have done with the money whilst alive and not been taxed. If they would have been taxed on it whilst giving it to whomever they gave it to anyway - personally I don't really see why IHT should be felt as so sharp. But I appreciate others feel very differently.
    If I choose to buy a house with the money that you gave me as my employer, there's no reason why My estate should be taxed on that sum again.
    There's stamp duty on buying the house, ie when it is transferred from one person to the other. I'd be up for shifting the tax from the estate to the recipients, though.
  • rcs1000 said:

    FPT
    ......
    If we want a meritocratic society, there should be a £50,000 lifetime allowance for inheritances and anything above that taxed at 100% unless left to a charity.

    UKIP are attracting more socialists each day.
    No its not socialism. If it was socialism, leaving it to charity to stop the state getting hold of it and misusing it would not be allowed.
    It's socialist not to allow the passing of the family home to the next generation. It's a fundamental human instinct, and one of the basic foundations of a property owning democracy.

    I'd have more sympathy with your argument if you'd exempted the family home of the deceased, and just applied the IHT to their other assets.
    There might be a respectable argument that the lifetime allowance was say £200,000 ie equates to the UK average home price.

    However I don't see why if Daddy owns a vast mansion and 40,000 acres then you as offspring should have the right to get it free of charge and live off the income it generates.

    Particuarly as in many such cases Daddy only got it because he was the descendent of a ruthless exploitative mill or mine owner or the descendent of were cronies of William I when he disposessed the Saxons or Henry VIII when he looted the monasteries and handed the land out to their mates.
    I'm beginning to think you and I should start our own political party...
    This would be a good manifesto (if a little long):

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Three-Works-Distributism-G-Chesterton/dp/1449511228
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @montie: Ouch. @BrookesTimes targets Ukip's unholy alliance in the European parliament http://t.co/BK1YPMduwE http://t.co/uqmOy2pMVZ
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100

    Mr. Socrates, Greek myth seems to have both (contradictory) positions, as mankind initially enjoyed a golden age and then devolved to the current state of affairs. On the other hand, gods and men worked to throw out the Titans, destroy monsters and generally establish civilised order over the nature of chaos.

    It's in every middle eastern myth, or in every culture in the world (kinda like the Noah and Gilgamesh), it's Garden of Eden stuff, then aspiring to recreate the lost world.

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,950
    Mr. Speedy, I'm now wondering where my Caesar thought came from. It seems (apart from the Perdiccas theft bit) my knowledge of the subject is lacking, and I stand corrected.

    It still seems baffling to me that it should become lost.

    I've got a beginner's book on hieroglyphs, because a race I might introduce in the future may well use a similar system. Was most surprised to learn it's almost like text-speak, with the lack of vowels.
  • HYUFD said:

    New Survey USA Georgia poll today shows Michelle Nunn (D) leading David Perdue (G) in Georgia 46%-44%. While the Democrats are likely to lose the Senate the GOP may not make the net 6 gains they need for a majority if they lose this seat. That could well give Kansas Independent Greg Orman the balance of power
    http://www.11alive.com/story/news/politics/2014/10/22/surveyusa-poll-october-21/17658441/

    I've backed the None option on Senate control on Betfair as that appears to be value compared to the very low odds on Republican control. As the two independents who currently caucus with Democrats won't count against Democrat numbers for purposes of the bet, I think the current Democrat odds are about right on Betfair.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,880
    RichardTyndall Indeed, the key poll is the 40-39% in favour of IN on current terms, driven almost entirely by the big In lead in Scotland and the In lead in London, the rest of the UK is for Out at present
  • Scott_P said:

    @montie: Ouch. @BrookesTimes targets Ukip's unholy alliance in the European parliament http://t.co/BK1YPMduwE http://t.co/uqmOy2pMVZ

    Since we are going all Godwins Law, I'm sure I recall Der Völkischer Beobachter used to caricature the NSDAP opponents in the same way.

    This sort of thing just reinforces the message that is leading people to vote UKIP
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    If UKIP's margin is big enough with this poll, I may be able to cash out tonight.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100

    Mr. Speedy, I'm now wondering where my Caesar thought came from. It seems (apart from the Perdiccas theft bit) my knowledge of the subject is lacking, and I stand corrected.

    It still seems baffling to me that it should become lost.

    I've got a beginner's book on hieroglyphs, because a race I might introduce in the future may well use a similar system. Was most surprised to learn it's almost like text-speak, with the lack of vowels.

    Most languages start like that, then they progress to simpler forms.
    The east asians though still use the same system though, I think that is the product of China like Rome or Greece being so imposing to its general area, though China still is around us like Egypt was for 5000 years before conquered by the romans.
  • MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 3,651
    edited October 2014
    Speedy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Mr Morris_Dancer,

    Eeek... soon Putin will have all the relics and will be INVINCIBLE. Which will please FalseFlag and LuckyGuy no end.

    Which begs a question, will Boris from Goldeneye make a comeback in future Bond films since he was cryogenically frozen?(He would make a smashing villain with today's internet)

    Things to make you feel old.

    One of the key plot points of GoldenEye is how Trevelyan hates Britain because of his parent's death during the Cossak repatriations at the end of WW2. At the time of the film this seemed a vaguely historically credible excuse. Now if a remake of the film was required, and unless the villain was supposed to be geriatric, it would have to be rescripted as something like "I was adopted in Buenos Aires by a British expat, my real father was a naval officer blown up by Maggie Thatcher"...

  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 5,034
    On inheritance tax:
    Whilst it may be regarded as unfair that some inherit money from their parents, for many, the money they inherit is the least important of all their parents have given them.

    From mine, I got an environment where reading and learning were valued, where I could have any book I wanted, where I was encouraged to believe in my own potential and reach that.

    Sadly, other children in this society don't receive anything like that. In my view, this contributes far more to inequality of opportunity than almost anything else. The money aspect of inheritance is comparatively minor.

    And, of course, what about gifts and benefits received during the life of the parent? If you have a rich parent: holidays abroad, a car, driving lessons, debts cleared, a house bought for you - yet the state only pokes in on the death of the parent. Which implies a trivially easy way around: give to the heirs in advance and be allowed to live there rent-free. A tactic that is occasionally done anyway but would become more widespread in such circumstances (albeit the parent has to live a certain amount of time after the donation).

    As it happens, many of the truly rich can work around the inheritance tax laws with trusts; they really only catch the middle classes in any case. Remove inheritance tax and the incentive for such trusts and potentially the feckless children of the rich could inherit the lot directly and blow it, reducing the otherwise entrenched generational inequality. The grandchildren would start from a more level playing field after the feckless heirs squander the lot (having more opportunity to do so if trusts don't have to be set up to bypass the tax)
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    UKIP 45-50% in R&S is 9/2 with Lads and someone wants £374@10/3 on Betfair

    If you have a Lads account, nice big arb
  • GrandioseGrandiose Posts: 2,323

    Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB
    I can confirm that there'll be a ComRes Rochester poll out at 10pm. I understand it's been funded by a UKIP donor

    hmm.... will they release all the questions asked?

    They have to, don't they?

    We had an argument about whether you could not release a poll in its entirety, but there's no doubt you can't pick and choose.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited October 2014
    The Greens have reached 100 candidates chosen for #GE2015 with the selection of Rashid Nix in Dulwich & West Norwood:

    https://twitter.com/RashidNix

    The LDs are currently on 196:

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dFkzTjFrRmJRN3F6ODBTTEs4NGFhcUE#gid=0
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 4,042
    Grandiose said:

    Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB
    I can confirm that there'll be a ComRes Rochester poll out at 10pm. I understand it's been funded by a UKIP donor

    hmm.... will they release all the questions asked?

    They have to, don't they?

    We had an argument about whether you could not release a poll in its entirety, but there's no doubt you can't pick and choose.
    Pretty sure BPC rules say if you release any you must release all.

    On inheritance tax:
    As it happens, many of the truly rich can work around the inheritance tax laws with trusts; they really only catch the middle classes in any case. Remove inheritance tax and the incentive for such trusts and potentially the feckless children of the rich could inherit the lot directly and blow it, reducing the otherwise entrenched generational inequality. The grandchildren would start from a more level playing field after the feckless heirs squander the lot (having more opportunity to do so if trusts don't have to be set up to bypass the tax)

    That's an intriguing idea, actually. Trusts mean trustees, which at this level means professional trustees. Get rid of them and who knows what would happen.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @itvnews: Singer Jamelia tells ITV News Ukip 'are knobs' who 'want me to go home' http://t.co/6Qr0UIV9rB http://t.co/mC6meVTuD6
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,693

    Grandiose said:

    FPT
    ......
    If we want a meritocratic society, there should be a £50,000 lifetime allowance for inheritances and anything above that taxed at 100% unless left to a charity.

    UKIP are attracting more socialists each day.
    No its not socialism. If it was socialism, leaving it to charity to stop the state getting hold of it and misusing it would not be allowed.
    It's socialist not to allow the passing of the family home to the next generation. It's a fundamental human instinct, and one of the basic foundations of a property owning democracy.

    I'd have more sympathy with your argument if you'd exempted the family home of the deceased, and just applied the IHT to their other assets.
    There might be a respectable argument that the lifetime allowance was say £200,000 ie equates to the UK average home pri

    However I don't see why if Daddy owns a vast mansion and 40,000 acres then you as offspring should have the right to get it free of charge and live off the income it generates.

    Particuarly as in many such cases Daddy only got it because he was the descendent of a ruthless exploitative mill or mine owner or the descendent of were cronies of William I when he disposessed the Saxons or Henry VIII when he looted the monasteries and handed the land out to their mates.
    I don't see it as any of my business, and certainly not of the State. I certainly wouldn't want to try and scour history for controversies to justify what would amount to a legalised land grab.

    I do agree that it's irresponsible parenting to give everything to your kids on a plate, for nothing. However, that's their decision.
    Are you proposing the cap at £50,000, £200,000 or higher?

    If it's a case of "Particuarly as in many such cases Daddy only got it because he was the descendent of a ruthless exploitative mill or mine owner", that must be at most 0.1% of homes. If it's a "vast mansion and 40,000 acres" that's probably 0.01% of homes.
    but about 70% of the UKs land.....
    Which would rapidly become owned by overseas Sheikhs, Oligarchs, and multinational corporations if we followed that policy. Not by the little people.

    Call me old fashioned, but personally I'd prefer to see such land and estates under management by the historic families who've been embedded into the community for generations. And for whom it means more than just money.

    They are more often benefactors, investors and pillars of the local community, than they are exploitative. Because it means something to them.
  • On inheritance tax:
    Whilst it may be regarded as unfair that some inherit money from their parents, for many, the money they inherit is the least important of all their parents have given them.

    From mine, I got an environment where reading and learning were valued, where I could have any book I wanted, where I was encouraged to believe in my own potential and reach that.

    Sadly, other children in this society don't receive anything like that. In my view, this contributes far more to inequality of opportunity than almost anything else. The money aspect of inheritance is comparatively minor.

    And, of course, what about gifts and benefits received during the life of the parent? If you have a rich parent: holidays abroad, a car, driving lessons, debts cleared, a house bought for you - yet the state only pokes in on the death of the parent. Which implies a trivially easy way around: give to the heirs in advance and be allowed to live there rent-free. A tactic that is occasionally done anyway but would become more widespread in such circumstances (albeit the parent has to live a certain amount of time after the donation).

    As it happens, many of the truly rich can work around the inheritance tax laws with trusts; they really only catch the middle classes in any case. Remove inheritance tax and the incentive for such trusts and potentially the feckless children of the rich could inherit the lot directly and blow it, reducing the otherwise entrenched generational inequality. The grandchildren would start from a more level playing field after the feckless heirs squander the lot (having more opportunity to do so if trusts don't have to be set up to bypass the tax)

    An excellent post. Saves me writing a mini-screed on this topic.

    Perhaps the novels of Evelyn Waugh would have turned out quite differently though...
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited October 2014
    Scott_P said:

    @itvnews: Singer Jamelia tells ITV News Ukip 'are knobs' who 'want me to go home' http://t.co/6Qr0UIV9rB http://t.co/mC6meVTuD6

    Is she on a night out with them then? I've got mates like that
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Quick reminder of previous poll from Survation:

    UKIP 40
    CON 31
    LAB 25
    LD 2
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,578

    HYUFD said:

    Surprising to see Mori with such a big pro EU lead in their poll today. The sun/yougov figures this week show the IN side ahead by only 40%-39% on present poll numbers, although by 55%-24% if the EU is reformed
    http://yougov.co.uk/news/categories/politics/

    Nothing really to write home about given that 63% of the respondents wanted a relationship with the EU that is not on the table and never will be as long as we remain a member.
    Quite. I personally do think we will ultimately suffer if we are not in the EU and so the fear would probably lead me to vote for In, but it is not the same organization as it was when we joined, or what people in Britain thought they would be getting, and it will never be an organization which people in Britain actually like, because by its very nature it will never stop interfering in things we do not want it to, and we appear to have more of a problem with that than the other nations, even if others are far from fully content.

    EU leaders at times display utter and pretty undisguised contempt for any hint of a changing relationship, and make only the flimsiest of verbal concessions without any concrete action to back them up when they are forced to acknowledge concerns, so there is zero hope of any meaningful reform. The question therefore becomes whether it is worth staying In as a sullen member, or to break free, and if we suffer for it, face a punishing cost to return if that is even possible.

    The idea of us getting the sorts of reform that the British want, which is pretty significant even if not all are at the most extreme end, is patently ridiculous and barely even worth discussing, there is no equivalent to DevoMax to be offered at the last stage - and unlike with the IndyRef, the EU Leaders seem more prepared to accept a UK exit rather than concede the sorts of things the UK wants, that is that the cost of keeping us in could be too high in the end - so it really should just be a simple issue of whether the many downsides of EU membership for our national sovereignty, among other issues, as it currently exists and as it will without doubt increase, outweigh the benefits of membership/is not as bad as the cost of lack of membership. If it were reformed I'd be much firmer in favour of staying in, but it never will be to the extent we truly want, it will be cosmetic, so the decision should be judged on the more basic question in my opinion.
    HYUFD said:

    That could well give Kansas Independent Greg Orman the balance of power

    Do we know how independent an Independent this Orman is? I'd read somewhere another independent senator caucuses with the Democrats, which at the least would indicate a general political leaning even if not total loyalty clearly.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    Appetizer:
    Robin Brant @robindbrant · 2m 2 minutes ago
    Standby @GHollingbery for a challenging opinion poll snapshot from Rochester
  • KentRisingKentRising Posts: 2,917
    Scott_P said:

    @itvnews: Singer Jamelia tells ITV News Ukip 'are knobs' who 'want me to go home' http://t.co/6Qr0UIV9rB http://t.co/mC6meVTuD6

    Maybe they just think Birmingham needs more of her joie de vivre?

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,880
    Toryupnorth Sounds a shrewd move
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,693
    isam said:

    Scott_P said:

    @itvnews: Singer Jamelia tells ITV News Ukip 'are knobs' who 'want me to go home' http://t.co/6Qr0UIV9rB http://t.co/mC6meVTuD6

    Is she on a night out with them then? #tweetingfromthepubtoilet
    No comment from Sam Smith. Perhaps he had money on his mind.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    isam said:

    Is she on a night out with them then?

    You could read the link maybe
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    30 days till Cameron faces leadership challenge.

    Robin Brant ‏@robindbrant 47s47 seconds ago
    ComRes has UKIP 43%, Conservative 30%, Labour 21%, Green 3%, Lib Dem 3% in latest Rochester opinion poll.
  • New Thread
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    Britain Elects ‏@britainelects 38s39 seconds ago
    Rochester & Strood poll (ComRes):
    UKIP - 43%
    CON - 30%
    LAB - 21%
    GRN - 3%
    LDEM - 3%
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,578
    AndyJS said:

    The Greens have reached 100 candidates chosen for #GE2015 with the selection of Rashid Nix in Dulwich & West Norwood:

    https://twitter.com/RashidNix

    The LDs are currently on 196:

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dFkzTjFrRmJRN3F6ODBTTEs4NGFhcUE#gid=0

    Seems very low from the LDs - is that sort of selection rate atypical at this stage? Because it seems like it should be, this close in, even if unlike in previous years constituencies had the luxury of knowing how much time they had.
  • isam said:

    Scott_P said:

    @itvnews: Singer Jamelia tells ITV News Ukip 'are knobs' who 'want me to go home' http://t.co/6Qr0UIV9rB http://t.co/mC6meVTuD6

    Is she on a night out with them then? I've got mates like that
    Birmingham?
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    isam said:

    Scott_P said:

    @itvnews: Singer Jamelia tells ITV News Ukip 'are knobs' who 'want me to go home' http://t.co/6Qr0UIV9rB http://t.co/mC6meVTuD6

    Is she on a night out with them then? I've got mates like that
    Myleene Klass gave a more supportive comment in that article. I'd call that a win for UKIP.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,693

    On inheritance tax:
    Whilst it may be regarded as unfair that some inherit money from their parents, for many, the money they inherit is the least important of all their parents have given them.

    From mine, I got an environment where reading and learning were valued, where I could have any book I wanted, where I was encouraged to believe in my own potential and reach that.

    Sadly, other children in this society don't receive anything like that. In my view, this contributes far more to inequality of opportunity than almost anything else. The money aspect of inheritance is comparatively minor.

    And, of course, what about gifts and benefits received during the life of the parent? If you have a rich parent: holidays abroad, a car, driving lessons, debts cleared, a house bought for you - yet the state only pokes in on the death of the parent. Which implies a trivially easy way around: give to the heirs in advance and be allowed to live there rent-free. A tactic that is occasionally done anyway but would become more widespread in such circumstances (albeit the parent has to live a certain amount of time after the donation).

    As it happens, many of the truly rich can work around the inheritance tax laws with trusts; they really only catch the middle classes in any case. Remove inheritance tax and the incentive for such trusts and potentially the feckless children of the rich could inherit the lot directly and blow it, reducing the otherwise entrenched generational inequality. The grandchildren would start from a more level playing field after the feckless heirs squander the lot (having more opportunity to do so if trusts don't have to be set up to bypass the tax)

    Excellent post. Said far better than I ever could.
  • weejonnieweejonnie Posts: 3,820
    Tories (-40%) lost much more than Labour (-25%). Lib-dem wipeout (-80%)
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    MikeK said:

    Britain Elects ‏@britainelects 38s39 seconds ago
    Rochester & Strood poll (ComRes):
    UKIP - 43%
    CON - 30%
    LAB - 21%
    GRN - 3%
    LDEM - 3%

    Very little movement from the Survation poll.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochester_and_Strood_by-election,_2014#Polling
This discussion has been closed.