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.
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.
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.
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.
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/
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
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..
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
''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.
''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.
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/
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.
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.
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.
''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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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):
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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"...
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)
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
Putin: "And this is how we say goodbye in Russia!" [punches Indy in the face]
Mr. JS, yet another reason why our Serjeant should be an ex-military chap (or perhaps ex-police) rather than a civil servant.
I do agree that it's irresponsible parenting to give everything to your kids on a plate, for nothing. However, that's their decision.
http://dailym.ai/12afGpK << well done #ukip, you're making the racist calypso song fandango worst every hour of this story.
http://yougov.co.uk/news/categories/politics/
rumour this is based on a National poll due this evening...
Gosh, I hadn't realised it said that. Not clever at all.
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.
North: Jennifer Marklew
South: Samantha Pancheri
http://mk.greenparty.org.uk/your-candidates.html
I can confirm that there'll be a ComRes Rochester poll out at 10pm. I understand it's been funded by a UKIP donor
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?
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.
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.
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?
http://www.11alive.com/story/news/politics/2014/10/22/surveyusa-poll-october-21/17658441/
The primary returns tmrw will trump any opinion poll I reckon though.
Several Western countries have already abolished it, from memory. Socialist Sweden is one.
In Scotland that could be a lot of money.
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.
Front page of the express says
"Poll puts UKIP on course for by-election victory"
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B0lBS7ZCIAAOw5d.jpg
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.
In the vast majority of cases they learn it from their peers. (much the same for choice of football teams)
Can we have the numbers please?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Three-Works-Distributism-G-Chesterton/dp/1449511228
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.
This sort of thing just reinforces the message that is leading people to vote UKIP
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.
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"...
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)
If you have a Lads account, nice big arb
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.
https://twitter.com/RashidNix
The LDs are currently on 196:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dFkzTjFrRmJRN3F6ODBTTEs4NGFhcUE#gid=0
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.
Perhaps the novels of Evelyn Waugh would have turned out quite differently though...
UKIP 40
CON 31
LAB 25
LD 2
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. 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.
Robin Brant @robindbrant · 2m 2 minutes ago
Standby @GHollingbery for a challenging opinion poll snapshot from Rochester
Robin Brant @robindbrant 47s47 seconds ago
ComRes has UKIP 43%, Conservative 30%, Labour 21%, Green 3%, Lib Dem 3% in latest Rochester opinion poll.
Rochester & Strood poll (ComRes):
UKIP - 43%
CON - 30%
LAB - 21%
GRN - 3%
LDEM - 3%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochester_and_Strood_by-election,_2014#Polling