What do you think UKIP will get? How will swingback affect them?
No-one knows, since they are new force. They may rise, they may fall, they may peak too early...
But their impact in seats (unless they start regularly polling 25%) will be a lot less than their impact on votes, so I'm not unduly worried about them concerning the overall predictions...
I'm one of pb's NOMAJers, but even I would be tempted at 999/1 for a Labour overall majority. For that matter, I'd be tempted by 999/1 for a UKIP overall majority.
Six months ago, before Christmas, I was with the vast majority on here (Rod (and possibly antifrank IIRC) in fairness being an exception) who thought the only real issue in 2015 was how large the Labour majority would be.
Since then we have had an improvement in the economy which so far has not helped the tories much although it might yet.
More significantly, we have had the incredible rise and partial fall of UKIP. That has destabilisied what looked a very settled picture and put the result of the next election more up in the air by demonstrating how many dissatisfied floating voters are out there. This is both a threat and an opportunity for the major parties and makes the result more unpredictable.
My guess is still that a Labour majority is the most likely but they have shown themselves to be amazingly inept in their footwork which in a more fluid electorate could do them serious damage. Tory chances, though poor, are certainly improving. I think Cameron scents it which is why he has been so on his mettle at PMQs in the recent past.
I used to think that a massive tax on inherited wealth would be a good answer to encouraging a more equal society without punishing hard working self made wealthy people, but making sure their kids didn't laze about living off the interest.
So 0% inheritance tax on wealth earned by individuals but 50% on inherited wealth for instance?
So Richard Branson can leave all his money to his kids free of tax but they would only be able to leave 50% of that inheritance to their children. The idea being with such a head start they should be able to earn the other 50% themselves.
Is this nonsense?!
Two things come to mind - sure they can be both worked around, but at the cost of significant complexity
(1) Money is fungible - how do you determine what is inherited wealth vs. what is earned. So say that someone inherits 100, earns 50 from salary and earns 50 from interest on inherited money. He spends 150 during the course of his life. The total he leaves to his kids is 50 - but is that inherited money, money earned on an inheritence or salary?
(2) It discourages the development of multi-generational family companies. For instance, I spent today with two German family companies, both in their third generation. They would have been forced to sell if they had been taxed 50% on the transmission to the third generation
They don't have to sell the whole company - just enough equity to pay the tax. Given that families managed by the eldest child of the entrepreneur are managed worse than average, it wouldn't be the end of the world to have someone interested in running the business well rather than someone interested in giving their son a job came into control anyway.
But the obvious question that has to be asked is why the government is entitled to anything? Given that government seems to be primarily a very effective way of squandering money one has to ask how society benefits from them taking even more money and in the process removing one of the big incentives for individuals starting a company in the first place (given that leaving a successful company to ones children is a common factor in putting in all that time and hard work in the first place.)
Governments need money from somewhere, and I think it's more reasonable to put the burden on unearned income rather than earned income. I wouldn't agree with isam's system, but I do think a pretty high, albeit progressive, income tax on money received via gifts or inheritance is reasonable.
Governments might think they need money but that doesn't mean they need as much as they keep trying to steal off us. This system of see how much money you can get and then find stuff to spend it on sums up perfectly what is wrong with our modern system of government.
And that money is not unearned. It was earned by the hard work of the person who set up the company and spent years making it a success - probably working many more hours to do so than someone in paid employment. Along the way they will have paid large sums of money in taxation - again probably far more than they would have done had they simply opted for paid employment.
So once again, why should the government then have the right to steal a large proportion of that company rather than it passing on to the children of the person who did all the hard work in the first place?
I'm all up for reducing the overall size of the state, but unless you're shrinking it to VERY low levels, you're still going to need more money than even a heavy inheritance tax can raise. In that case, I would rather the tax fell on inheritance rather than employment income. Yes, of course it was earned by someone in the first place, but the person receiving the inheritance didn't earn it themselves. As for business owners paying more tax along the way than someone of similar wealth generated through employment income, I'm not convinced that's true once you take account of income tax and national insurance.
As for your language of "steal", it's no more "stealing" than any other tax.
The wealth of such companies is clearly not unearned but it may well be untaxed. Unless the profits have been recognised on the balance sheet it is quite possible for a property based company or a company with significant IP to be sitting on substantial capital gains that have not been taxed. Allowing the shares of such companies to pass to the next generation without taking a cut in those circumstances becomes a form of tax avoidance.
Our society is dangerously unequal and IHT is an admittedly random and ineffective way of addressing that to some extent.
The real problem is that, essentially, IHT is a voluntary tax. there are plenty of ways avoiding it if you want to - the farmland exemption being the most obvious, but lifetime gifts (assuming you trust your children) are another good one.
Socrates: selling a minority stake in a company is virtually impossible unless the minority investor has the ability to force an exit in 3-5 years. Given that people complain that UK companies are short-termist, setting up a system that encourages them to be sold is just crazy
Son of a drug dealer gets to inherit because the state hasn't had a role, son of a bar owner gets it clawed back because the state licence was the source of the wealth?
Stupid statement from you yet again Tim. You really are going off the rails lately. Son of a drug dealer would not be declaring the earnings anyway for paying tax since they come from illegal activities.
If a bar owner only had to pay the tax back equivalent to the cost of the licence I figure they would accept that - I certainly would.
The idea that drug dealers don't declare earnings is amazing in itself, how do you think those public school fees get paid without the laundering?
And the benefit from a state alcohol licence is not the paper it's written on, thought an oil exploration man would realise that.
We are not talking about benefit but cost. The government has a right to sell the licence for however much it wants.
And your example of drug dealers is still stupid because the declared earnings may bear no relation to the actual earnings from drug dealing. More to the point since that drug dealing is currently illegal, until such times as it is legalised and the government chooses to take a tax levy from it, they are, by your argument, currently supporting a system which goes a long way to legitimising an illeglal ativity
Comments
But their impact in seats (unless they start regularly polling 25%) will be a lot less than their impact on votes, so I'm not unduly worried about them concerning the overall predictions...
Out on a date! Wish me luck...
Got another one tomorrow...!
Since then we have had an improvement in the economy which so far has not helped the tories much although it might yet.
More significantly, we have had the incredible rise and partial fall of UKIP. That has destabilisied what looked a very settled picture and put the result of the next election more up in the air by demonstrating how many dissatisfied floating voters are out there. This is both a threat and an opportunity for the major parties and makes the result more unpredictable.
My guess is still that a Labour majority is the most likely but they have shown themselves to be amazingly inept in their footwork which in a more fluid electorate could do them serious damage. Tory chances, though poor, are certainly improving. I think Cameron scents it which is why he has been so on his mettle at PMQs in the recent past.
Socrates: selling a minority stake in a company is virtually impossible unless the minority investor has the ability to force an exit in 3-5 years. Given that people complain that UK companies are short-termist, setting up a system that encourages them to be sold is just crazy
And your example of drug dealers is still stupid because the declared earnings may bear no relation to the actual earnings from drug dealing. More to the point since that drug dealing is currently illegal, until such times as it is legalised and the government chooses to take a tax levy from it, they are, by your argument, currently supporting a system which goes a long way to legitimising an illeglal ativity