Bit confused by all these tweets - it appears CON are proposing restricting pension tax relief on those over £150,000 to pay for this IHT thing WTF?????????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bit confused by all these tweets - it appears CON are proposing restricting pension tax relief on those over £150,000 to pay for this IHT thing WTF?????????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
They are gutting their own constituency and gutting their own political arguments against the Mansion Tax with a single idiotic policy.
You have to admire how bad the Tories are. Perhaps Lynton Crosby is a Labour Party plant.
Scotland on Sunday also reporting Clegg trying to do a deal with Ed
I wonder if a Lab/Lib coalition with SNP confidence and supply could work.
You really think that coming from the Scotsman group of newspapers that this isnt a Tory prod to their supporters in Lib/Con seats. The country would not accept Liedems in Government again tbh and anything that suggests otherwise will make their eclipse total. They are going to be a footnote in history in Scotland after May 7th.
Not sure if this has been raised but there was a noble tacit agreement last time that the party which won most seats & votes should get first dibs at trying to form a govt. At least thats how Clegg and LDs portrayed their role.
Providing we get one party winning both seats & votes it would be nice to see the same thing happen again whoever that is. Better for democracy.
Talking of honour please can we be spared the gush about Carswell? He still defected. He still did it at a key time to cause damage and he still forced a by election. Honour might have been quietly resigning the tory whip and standing for ukip in the general election. Fat chance.
Still a million times better than Reckless who deserves every four letter word and more.
The electors of both Clacton and Rochester showed they approved of their MPs' decisions.
"Voting SNP in Scotland gets rid of Cameron every bit as much as voting Labour does."
I don't think it does. I'd guess that whichever of Labour or the Tories gets the most seats will form the government.
Quite simply the Lib Dems will throw in their 30 odd seats behind whichever of those two parties it is.
The SNP will vote against any Conservative Queens Speech.
There is no way that having an SNP MP makes it more likely that there will be a Tory government. I know socialists don't like basic concepts like Arithmetic but on this one, there is no argument you can make. Whatever the Lib Dems do is IRRELEVANT for any SNP/Labour seat. However, the SNP CAN and WILL reduce the Lib Dem numbers and there is no way the Libs will support the Tories again after supporting them cost them 40 odd seats.
The only way Dave can stay in power is if the Labour Party acquiesce to him being PM. I.e. the death of the Labour Party forever.
Are SLab going to bring James Gordon Brown back from the dead again?
All the tax breaks that Cameron is lavishing on the rich has got to help Ed in Scotland. There will surely come a point that they become so angry with the different treatments of the rich and poor that the imperative to do what's necessary to get rid of him becomes overwhelming
What lavishing of what tax breaks? Pension tax breaks are being cut back for the well off. Only a dipstick would ignore where the money is coming from in order to feed his thick prejudice.
The Queen's Speech isn't the be all and end all, there's five years of running the country that follows it. Are the SNP even interested in getting deep into UK domestic policy, do they have any UK wide policies in their manifesto? If not they could take a backseat role and offer confidence and supply to a Lab/Lib coalition, abstaining on most things, which would mean Lab + Lib would just need to outnumber Con + DUP + UKIP.
Bit confused by all these tweets - it appears CON are proposing restricting pension tax relief on those over £150,000 to pay for this IHT thing WTF?????????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
'restricting pension tax relief' = tax increase, meaning lower net income. Reducing IHT means a tax decrease, meaning less tax on the estate.
But will the decrease on pension tax relief not mean that the assets subject to IHT will be smaller than otherwise?
How does this amount to anything other than sleight of hand?
This is analogous to Obamacare - the story was subsidized premiums for the needy by the young and the better off (remember how it would reduce costs by $2500). What was never said was that to achieve lower premiums, deductibles and co-pays for the folks on Obamacare would be almost nose bleed high.
Bit confused by all these tweets - it appears CON are proposing restricting pension tax relief on those over £150,000 to pay for this IHT thing WTF?????????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Headline analysis: CON message getting over well as LAB campaign descends into incoherence LAB doing well in London but no enthusiasm for LAB elsewhere in England Opposition to SNP arrogance grows in Scotland - SNP set to significantly underperform current polls LD doing well in their own seats
Latest projection (change from Tues 07 April): CON 311 +1 LAB 264 +2 LD 34 +2 SNP 18 -5 PC 3 GRN 1 UKIP 1 NI 18
Mike won't like that (311-264-12 = 35 - potential loss £700)
Sorry this is garbage, SNP is running strong. seems like wishful thinking on your part to me
Mike faces even bigger losses then if this projection is made realistic
Go Justin Rose- will be in the final tee off tomorrow. I love watching the Masters on weekends- Peter Allis is an institution.
When I was on the Scoring Committee at The Masters I used to sit next to him in the refreshment tent just to listen to him. He's great.
Speith could be in trouble on 18.
Great round by Phil, Rory and Tiger.
I have a feeling - think is too strong - that Speith might not win.
Tim- exalted company or what. Scoring the Masters. Speith has played utterly sublimely, but has fallen apart in the last 2 holes. That is Augusta. I wouldn't want big Phil close behind too. The course suits big swinging lefties.
Apart from footballers ... do people earning over £150k a year actually say '* me!'? I can well believe that many people live in houses that suddenly come within the current IHT regime. I have always thought that the iniquitous thing about IHT is that (a) you are dead when you pay it and (b) you could be run over by a bus on the way to see your accountant about your tax affairs.
I'm not sure that IHT particularly affects the old and rich. By definition (see above) you are dead and decaying when your estate pays it. The beneficiaries are the young and indebted offspring.
Apart from footballers ... do people earning over £150k a year actually say '* me!'? I can well believe that many people live in houses that suddenly come within the current IHT regime. I have always thought that the iniquitous thing about IHT is that (a) you are dead when you pay it and (b) you could be run over by a bus on the way to see your accountant about your tax affairs.
I'm not sure that IHT particularly affects the old and rich. By definition (see above) you are dead and decaying when your estate pays it. The beneficiaries are the young and indebted offspring.
If Labour really wanted to encourage redistribution they would treat it as income and tax the recipient.
Part 1 of the equation, requiring the Tories to take 2% off UKIP may be taking place, but Part 2 , involving the LibDems taking 2% off Labour also has to happen before Dave & Co. have any chance of winning the GE. Meanwhile, Chris Hanretty & Others' latest 2015 UK Parliamentary Election Forecast shows Labour on 277 seats, just 4 seats behind the Tories on 281. Interestingly, this projection also shows UKIP winning just one very lonely seat, in sharp contrast to some of the smartest bettors on PB.com who rate the Purples a buy on 5 seats.
The notion that UKIP might only get 1 seat has got me worried. Back in March 2013 I got, via beards, £200 on at 8/1 with Hills that UKIP would get more than one seat. This has been my big banker - guaranteed winnings it seemed. Alas that might not be the case.
I have a feeling that a shock defeat of Nigel Farage could be the story of election night.
I also got a text today from a close friend who (although a life-long sympathesiser) has only just joined the Conservatives in the past 12 months. He lives in Tonbridge and is getting a lot of encouragement (pressure?) from his local association to get actively involved and help in Rochester and Strood.
The Tories really are throwing absolutely everything at Reckless. He is hated.
Good lord
It's as if things that actually happen don't count on here
So what?! They threw absolutely everything at him last time... He won at a canter
The Tory candidate is/was useless , she had to be replaced in a hustings this week by Damian green, while Reckless has been a solid Ukip mp , speaking authoritavely on national TV
I'm reporting what I've been told, I'm sorry if you don't like it.
Haha Jesus that is a boiler plate PB smart arse reply!
I neither like or dislike it I pay little attention to it
Mike based his recommendation of opposing reckless in the by election on his Tory sources telling him they were really up for it and wanted to win really badly... And they hated reckless. I based my betting on the fact that Ukip also really wanted it. So what? They both wanted to win and tried really hard
Why would you place any importance on that? It was irrelevant before and proven to be so.
"Voting SNP in Scotland gets rid of Cameron every bit as much as voting Labour does."
I don't think it does. I'd guess that whichever of Labour or the Tories gets the most seats will form the government.
Quite simply the Lib Dems will throw in their 30 odd seats behind whichever of those two parties it is.
The SNP will vote against any Conservative Queens Speech.
There is no way that having an SNP MP makes it more likely that there will be a Tory government. I know socialists don't like basic concepts like Arithmetic but on this one, there is no argument you can make. Whatever the Lib Dems do is IRRELEVANT for any SNP/Labour seat. However, the SNP CAN and WILL reduce the Lib Dem numbers and there is no way the Libs will support the Tories again after supporting them cost them 40 odd seats.
The only way Dave can stay in power is if the Labour Party acquiesce to him being PM. I.e. the death of the Labour Party forever.
Are SLab going to bring James Gordon Brown back from the dead again?
The Necromancer McTernan and the puppet masters in SLAB HQ (To Let) will ensure he makes an appearance before Murphy's abrupt and fizzy end.
Apart from footballers ... do people earning over £150k a year actually say '* me!'? I can well believe that many people live in houses that suddenly come within the current IHT regime. I have always thought that the iniquitous thing about IHT is that (a) you are dead when you pay it and (b) you could be run over by a bus on the way to see your accountant about your tax affairs.
I'm not sure that IHT particularly affects the old and rich. By definition (see above) you are dead and decaying when your estate pays it. The beneficiaries are the young and indebted offspring.
It's (at least) double taxation, and even worse a death tax.
So a four shot advantage for Speith. If he keeps it together against Justin and big Phil he's a real prospect at 22. The BBC coverage of these major golf tournaments is outstanding.
So a four shot advantage for Speith. If he keeps it together against Justin and big Phil he's a real prospect at 22. The BBC coverage of these major golf tournaments is outstanding.
For the US majors, it's NOT BBC coverage. They take the US network feed and do inserts.
For The Open Championship, the US networks take their own equipment and production facilities over there, and don't take BBC coverage, because even after all these years the BBC will not spend what needs to be spent to provide all the cameras, technology etc cover a golf tournament properly. BBC golf coverage has always been lamentable technically. Their commentary team is also lackluster - NONE of this applies to the superb Peter Allis.
The BBC didn't do the Open in HD until about 4 years ago - it's pathetic.
Fun fact - Augusta National was built for $100,000.
Apart from footballers ... do people earning over £150k a year actually say '* me!'? I can well believe that many people live in houses that suddenly come within the current IHT regime. I have always thought that the iniquitous thing about IHT is that (a) you are dead when you pay it and (b) you could be run over by a bus on the way to see your accountant about your tax affairs.
I'm not sure that IHT particularly affects the old and rich. By definition (see above) you are dead and decaying when your estate pays it. The beneficiaries are the young and indebted offspring.
It's (at least) double taxation, and even worse a death tax.
You earn money, on which you pay tax.
You invest it, to create a portfolio.
On portfolio income, you pay tax.
On your demise, your estate is taxed again.
The tax is paid by those who benefit from your estate, not you
Phil, interviewed on CBS as to why he wore that shirt today, which is most un-Phil like.
He said that after spending time with Arnold Palmer this week, who liked to wear that color, he had a premonition.
Guess it worked!
I think the only people more superstitious than sports stars are fans. My friend, a Marxist lecturer has banned me from contacting him 24 hours before a Liverpool match because he believes I jinx the club. And, the only people more superstitious than fans are Jihadis- but that is another topic altogether.
Apart from footballers ... do people earning over £150k a year actually say '* me!'? I can well believe that many people live in houses that suddenly come within the current IHT regime. I have always thought that the iniquitous thing about IHT is that (a) you are dead when you pay it and (b) you could be run over by a bus on the way to see your accountant about your tax affairs.
I'm not sure that IHT particularly affects the old and rich. By definition (see above) you are dead and decaying when your estate pays it. The beneficiaries are the young and indebted offspring.
It's (at least) double taxation, and even worse a death tax.
You earn money, on which you pay tax.
You invest it, to create a portfolio.
On portfolio income, you pay tax.
On your demise, your estate is taxed again.
The tax is paid by those who benefit from your estate, not you
It's a tax on your already doubled taxed estate, regardless of who it's levied on - that's as dishonest as saying the seller of a house pays the real estate fee, not the buyer.
Apart from footballers ... do people earning over £150k a year actually say '* me!'? I can well believe that many people live in houses that suddenly come within the current IHT regime. I have always thought that the iniquitous thing about IHT is that (a) you are dead when you pay it and (b) you could be run over by a bus on the way to see your accountant about your tax affairs.
I'm not sure that IHT particularly affects the old and rich. By definition (see above) you are dead and decaying when your estate pays it. The beneficiaries are the young and indebted offspring.
British people live to around 82 +/- 10, and if they're still together their kids presumably don't inherit until the longer-lived of those are dead, so the beneficiaries we're talking about will usually be getting on a bit themselves.
Phil, interviewed on CBS as to why he wore that shirt today, which is most un-Phil like.
He said that after spending time with Arnold Palmer this week, who liked to wear that color, he had a premonition.
Guess it worked!
I think the only people more superstitious than sports stars are fans. My friend, a Marxist lecturer has banned me from contacting him 24 hours before a Liverpool match because he believes I jinx the club. And, the only people more superstitious than fans are Jihadis- but that is another topic altogether.
I smiled when I read 'marxist lecherer' - then realized I'd misread it. :-)
Seems like Lab and Con are both confident they won't be getting a majority. At this point they're throwing out whatever stupid, expensive shit comes into their heads safe in the knowledge that they'll have a good excuse for not actually doing it.
Seems like Lab and Con are both confident they won't be getting a majority. At this point they're throwing out whatever stupid, expensive shit comes into their heads safe in the knowledge that they'll have a good excuse for not actually doing it.
Yep. They are joining in the minor parties game of fantasy politics.
Seems like Lab and Con are both confident they won't be getting a majority. At this point they're throwing out whatever stupid, expensive shit comes into their heads safe in the knowledge that they'll have a good excuse for not actually doing it.
Yep. They are joining in the minor parties game of fantasy politics.
Bugger the deficit. We want unicorns (or owls!).
So is this the modern equivalent of a 'chicken in every pot'?
2. Ed hates the Governor of the Bank of England, not fit to be PM
If a Brit had become the Governor of the Bank of Canada [ or whatever he/she is called ], would that person get special tax privilege compared to Canadian residents ?
Seems like Lab and Con are both confident they won't be getting a majority. At this point they're throwing out whatever stupid, expensive shit comes into their heads safe in the knowledge that they'll have a good excuse for not actually doing it.
Yep. They are joining in the minor parties game of fantasy politics.
Bugger the deficit. We want unicorns (or owls!).
Agree. It's a sad day when the two serious parties start acting like the LibDems.
2. Ed hates the Governor of the Bank of England, not fit to be PM
If a Brit had become the Governor of the Bank of Canada [ or whatever he/she is called ], would that person get special tax privilege compared to Canadian residents ?
So why should it be different here ?
I think non-dom status depends on how many days a year you spend in the UK. If a Canadian resident spends less than (90 days for example, if that is the limit) in the UK in a tax year, he/she is a Canadian resident for tax purposes..
It's a perfectly reasonable situation - assuming I have it right.
Seems like Lab and Con are both confident they won't be getting a majority. At this point they're throwing out whatever stupid, expensive shit comes into their heads safe in the knowledge that they'll have a good excuse for not actually doing it.
Yep. They are joining in the minor parties game of fantasy politics.
Bugger the deficit. We want unicorns (or owls!).
Labour need to better Dave's latest bribe now. PA to 20k
Apart from footballers ... do people earning over £150k a year actually say '* me!'? I can well believe that many people live in houses that suddenly come within the current IHT regime. I have always thought that the iniquitous thing about IHT is that (a) you are dead when you pay it and (b) you could be run over by a bus on the way to see your accountant about your tax affairs.
I'm not sure that IHT particularly affects the old and rich. By definition (see above) you are dead and decaying when your estate pays it. The beneficiaries are the young and indebted offspring.
Pretty much the majority earning 150k a year is a public sector employee. Council bosses, social services rulers, doctors, civil servants, dentists, council HR, police chiefs, Quango bosses, it;s all private. Sure the top 2 or 3 people in your average private sector employee earns a good wage but most earn well south of 150k.
Clever move - the number of people earning over £150k must be absolutely miniscule - less than 1% I would imagine. And they will almost all vote Con anyway.
Whereas far, far, far more people live in houses worth more than £325k. The average house price in many areas is above that.
OK, couples already get £650k allowance but many people get divorced etc (or are single) so substantial number do not get the double allowance.
Also note: Like the £325k at present, the £175k extra allowance will also be transferrable where spouse already dead (and dead pre introduction of the allowance).
So a four shot advantage for Speith. If he keeps it together against Justin and big Phil he's a real prospect at 22. The BBC coverage of these major golf tournaments is outstanding.
The great hope of English Golf shouldn't be 34 with one major in the tank and living off a 4th place at the Open 15 years ago.
So a four shot advantage for Speith. If he keeps it together against Justin and big Phil he's a real prospect at 22. The BBC coverage of these major golf tournaments is outstanding.
For the US majors, it's NOT BBC coverage. They take the US network feed and do inserts.
For The Open Championship, the US networks take their own equipment and production facilities over there, and don't take BBC coverage, because even after all these years the BBC will not spend what needs to be spent to provide all the cameras, technology etc cover a golf tournament properly. BBC golf coverage has always been lamentable technically. Their commentary team is also lackluster - NONE of this applies to the superb Peter Allis.
The BBC didn't do the Open in HD until about 4 years ago - it's pathetic.
Fun fact - Augusta National was built for $100,000.
BBC and US Networks have very different narratives to their coverage. The BBC insist on following certain matches around the course and focus all their attention on those. The US Networks focus on covering as many shots as possible. It;s far better the way the US does it. The BBC seem to rely on Aliss and the hope that will draw the audience in. I'm not so sure it will.
Clever move - the number of people earning over £150k must be absolutely miniscule - less than 1% I would imagine. And they will almost all vote Con anyway
Why the hell would they vote Con when 95% of them are public sector employees and often the spouses of Labourites and former Labourite MPs/MSPs/Councillors?
Clever move - the number of people earning over £150k must be absolutely miniscule - less than 1% I would imagine. And they will almost all vote Con anyway
Why the hell would they vote Con when 95% of them are public sector employees and often the spouses of Labourites and former Labourite MPs/MSPs/Councillors?
I don't think 95% of them are public sector employees - I suspect well, well, well under 50% are. Probably about 10%.
In any case it really doesn't matter - it's a tiny, tiny number of people - so how they vote doesn't matter.
They aren't going to switch their vote from Con to Lab over this - when Lab will re-introduce the 50% tax rate.
Clever move - the number of people earning over £150k must be absolutely miniscule - less than 1% I would imagine. And they will almost all vote Con anyway
Why the hell would they vote Con when 95% of them are public sector employees and often the spouses of Labourites and former Labourite MPs/MSPs/Councillors?
You mean aside from a fair chunk of the people working in the city and most successful small business owners.
Clever move - the number of people earning over £150k must be absolutely miniscule - less than 1% I would imagine. And they will almost all vote Con anyway
Why the hell would they vote Con when 95% of them are public sector employees and often the spouses of Labourites and former Labourite MPs/MSPs/Councillors?
I don't think 95% of them are public sector employees - I suspect well, well, well under 50% are. Probably about 10%.
I instinctively think that Dair is much closer with the numbers. It'd be interesting if there were relevant statistics somewhere but it's 430am and my Google-fu expires at midnight.
So a four shot advantage for Speith. If he keeps it together against Justin and big Phil he's a real prospect at 22. The BBC coverage of these major golf tournaments is outstanding.
For the US majors, it's NOT BBC coverage. They take the US network feed and do inserts.
For The Open Championship, the US networks take their own equipment and production facilities over there, and don't take BBC coverage, because even after all these years the BBC will not spend what needs to be spent to provide all the cameras, technology etc cover a golf tournament properly. BBC golf coverage has always been lamentable technically. Their commentary team is also lackluster - NONE of this applies to the superb Peter Allis.
The BBC didn't do the Open in HD until about 4 years ago - it's pathetic.
Fun fact - Augusta National was built for $100,000.
BBC cricket coverage was the same. They have great commentators, but technically it was crap. They were still only filming from one end years after other broadcasters had gone to both ends, and it was only when (and because of) C4 winning the rights for home internationals that we got Hawkeye, Snicko, Hotspot.
Clever move - the number of people earning over £150k must be absolutely miniscule - less than 1% I would imagine. And they will almost all vote Con anyway
Why the hell would they vote Con when 95% of them are public sector employees and often the spouses of Labourites and former Labourite MPs/MSPs/Councillors?
I don't think 95% of them are public sector employees - I suspect well, well, well under 50% are. Probably about 10%.
I instinctively think that Dair is much closer with the numbers. It'd be interesting if there were relevant statistics somewhere but it's 430am and my Google-fu expires at midnight.
I overestimated - in fact 4% are public sector employees.
9,000 people in the public sector earn over £142,500.
Clever move - the number of people earning over £150k must be absolutely miniscule - less than 1% I would imagine. And they will almost all vote Con anyway
Why the hell would they vote Con when 95% of them are public sector employees and often the spouses of Labourites and former Labourite MPs/MSPs/Councillors?
I don't think 95% of them are public sector employees - I suspect well, well, well under 50% are. Probably about 10%.
I instinctively think that Dair is much closer with the numbers. It'd be interesting if there were relevant statistics somewhere but it's 430am and my Google-fu expires at midnight.
I overestimated - in fact 4% are public sector employees.
9,000 people in the public sector earn over £142,500.
Add in media types (especially the BBC), producers of television commercials, trustifarians and other champagne socialists and you probably get to 10% or so. But none of those are going to change their vote regardless of what the parties policies are.
Clever move - the number of people earning over £150k must be absolutely miniscule - less than 1% I would imagine. And they will almost all vote Con anyway
Why the hell would they vote Con when 95% of them are public sector employees and often the spouses of Labourites and former Labourite MPs/MSPs/Councillors?
I don't think 95% of them are public sector employees - I suspect well, well, well under 50% are. Probably about 10%.
I instinctively think that Dair is much closer with the numbers. It'd be interesting if there were relevant statistics somewhere but it's 430am and my Google-fu expires at midnight.
I overestimated - in fact 4% are public sector employees.
9,000 people in the public sector earn over £142,500.
Really? Nice try. It might be late at night but you're not fooling me into following dodgy links to the BBC/Guardian instead of data from neutral and reputable news sources.
Clever move - the number of people earning over £150k must be absolutely miniscule - less than 1% I would imagine. And they will almost all vote Con anyway
Why the hell would they vote Con when 95% of them are public sector employees and often the spouses of Labourites and former Labourite MPs/MSPs/Councillors?
I don't think 95% of them are public sector employees - I suspect well, well, well under 50% are. Probably about 10%.
I instinctively think that Dair is much closer with the numbers. It'd be interesting if there were relevant statistics somewhere but it's 430am and my Google-fu expires at midnight.
I overestimated - in fact 4% are public sector employees.
9,000 people in the public sector earn over £142,500.
Really? Nice try. It might be late at night but you're not fooling me into following dodgy links to the BBC/Guardian instead of data from neutral and reputable news sources.
I doubt they exist, especially for the first figure, it sounds from reading the article like the BBC has to do a load of FoI requests just to get that figure. It's the sort of number that publicly funded bodies are rather shy about for some reason
Clever move - the number of people earning over £150k must be absolutely miniscule - less than 1% I would imagine. And they will almost all vote Con anyway
Why the hell would they vote Con when 95% of them are public sector employees and often the spouses of Labourites and former Labourite MPs/MSPs/Councillors?
2. Ed hates the Governor of the Bank of England, not fit to be PM
If a Brit had become the Governor of the Bank of Canada [ or whatever he/she is called ], would that person get special tax privilege compared to Canadian residents ?
So why should it be different here ?
I think non-dom status depends on how many days a year you spend in the UK. If a Canadian resident spends less than (90 days for example, if that is the limit) in the UK in a tax year, he/she is a Canadian resident for tax purposes..
It's a perfectly reasonable situation - assuming I have it right.
Sorry ! You are wrong. What you are talking about is Not Resident for Tax purposes - the 183 days rule. That exists in almost all countries.
Non Dom is a peculiarly British scheme. You can even pass it on to your sons but not your daughters.
So Zac Goldsmith became a non Dom simply because his father was a non Dom. He gave it up when he became an MP but his brother is still a non Dom.
2. Ed hates the Governor of the Bank of England, not fit to be PM
If a Brit had become the Governor of the Bank of Canada [ or whatever he/she is called ], would that person get special tax privilege compared to Canadian residents ?
So why should it be different here ?
I think non-dom status depends on how many days a year you spend in the UK. If a Canadian resident spends less than (90 days for example, if that is the limit) in the UK in a tax year, he/she is a Canadian resident for tax purposes..
It's a perfectly reasonable situation - assuming I have it right.
Sorry ! You are wrong. What you are talking about is Not Resident for Tax purposes - the 183 days rule. That exists in almost all countries.
Non Dom is a peculiarly British scheme. You can even pass it on to your sons but not your daughters.
So Zac Goldsmith became a non Dom simply because his father was a non Dom. He gave it up when he became an MP but his brother is still a non Dom.
Yes and no. Lots of countries have rules which don't tax foreign earnings, in my view we would be smart to follow their lead. Trying to assess and tax the foreign earnings of rich people is enormously expensive, and largely ineffectual, and put us at a disadvantage to countries that don't have this tax.
If we want people to come to the UK and spend their money and open their businesses we shouldn't be making them look over their shoulders wondering if we are going to be after their foreign income, what they are making elsewhere should be the business of where they are making that money, not the UK.
Obviously we should not be charging UK citizens on foreign income either, its intrusive, expensive to enforce and largely gets avoided by people that can afford good accountants and lawyers.
2. Ed hates the Governor of the Bank of England, not fit to be PM
If a Brit had become the Governor of the Bank of Canada [ or whatever he/she is called ], would that person get special tax privilege compared to Canadian residents ?
So why should it be different here ?
I think non-dom status depends on how many days a year you spend in the UK. If a Canadian resident spends less than (90 days for example, if that is the limit) in the UK in a tax year, he/she is a Canadian resident for tax purposes..
It's a perfectly Wonable situation - assuming I have it right.
Sorry ! You are wrong. What you are talking about is Not Resident for Tax purposes - the 183 days rule. That exists in almost all countries.
Non Dom is a peculiarly British scheme. You can even pass it on to your sons but not your daughters.
So Zac Goldsmith became a non Dom simply because his father was a non Dom. He gave it up when he became an MP but his brother is still a non Dom.
Yes and no. Lots of countries have rules which don't tax foreign earnings, in my view we would be smart to follow their lead. Trying to assess and tax the foreign earnings of rich people is enormously expensive, and largely ineffectual, and put us at a disadvantage to countries that don't have this tax.
If we want people to come to the UK and spend their money and open their businesses we shouldn't be making them look over their shoulders wondering if we are going to be after their foreign income, what they are making elsewhere should be the business of where they are making that money, not the UK.
Obviously we should not be charging UK citizens on foreign income either, its intrusive, expensive to enforce and largely gets avoided by people that can afford good accountants and lawyers.
Which normal countries don't tax the overseas assets of permanent residents?
2. Ed hates the Governor of the Bank of England, not fit to be PM
If a Brit had become the Governor of the Bank of Canada [ or whatever he/she is called ], would that person get special tax privilege compared to Canadian residents ?
So why should it be different here ?
I think non-dom status depends on how many days a year you spend in the UK. If a Canadian resident spends less than (90 days for example, if that is the limit) in the UK in a tax year, he/she is a Canadian resident for tax purposes..
It's a perfectly Wonable situation - assuming I have it right.
Sorry ! You are wrong. What you are talking about is Not Resident for Tax purposes - the 183 days rule. That exists in almost all countries.
Non Dom is a peculiarly British scheme. You can even pass it on to your sons but not your daughters.
So Zac Goldsmith became a non Dom simply because his father was a non Dom. He gave it up when he became an MP but his brother is still a non Dom.
Yes and no. Lots of countries have rules which don't tax foreign earnings, in my view we would be smart to follow their lead. Trying to assess and tax the foreign earnings of rich people is enormously expensive, and largely ineffectual, and put us at a disadvantage to countries that don't have this tax.
If we want people to come to the UK and spend their money and open their businesses we shouldn't be making them look over their shoulders wondering if we are going to be after their foreign income, what they are making elsewhere should be the business of where they are making that money, not the UK.
Obviously we should not be charging UK citizens on foreign income either, its intrusive, expensive to enforce and largely gets avoided by people that can afford good accountants and lawyers.
Which normal countries don't tax the overseas assets of permanent residents?
Malaysia, Thailand, Philippines, Singapore and a few others don't tax at all on foreign income. Ireland and several others on remittance basis only. A few others have no Capital Gain Tax so investments aren't taxed anyway.
Comments
Bit confused by all these tweets - it appears CON are proposing restricting pension tax relief on those over £150,000 to pay for this IHT thing WTF?????????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
https://twitter.com/ToryTreasury/status/586994596049195008
Ave it = def con f**ked!
You have to admire how bad the Tories are. Perhaps Lynton Crosby is a Labour Party plant.
There is no way that having an SNP MP makes it more likely that there will be a Tory government. I know socialists don't like basic concepts like Arithmetic but on this one, there is no argument you can make. Whatever the Lib Dems do is IRRELEVANT for any SNP/Labour seat. However, the SNP CAN and WILL reduce the Lib Dem numbers and there is no way the Libs will support the Tories again after supporting them cost them 40 odd seats.
The only way Dave can stay in power is if the Labour Party acquiesce to him being PM. I.e. the death of the Labour Party forever.
Are SLab going to bring James Gordon Brown back from the dead again?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11530440/Tories-pledge-inheritance-tax-cut-for-millions.html
It's worse than Labour's crackpot scheme!
Osborne = Brown squared!
But will the decrease on pension tax relief not mean that the assets subject to IHT will be smaller than otherwise?
How does this amount to anything other than sleight of hand?
This is analogous to Obamacare - the story was subsidized premiums for the needy by the young and the better off (remember how it would reduce costs by $2500). What was never said was that to achieve lower premiums, deductibles and co-pays for the folks on Obamacare would be almost nose bleed high.
I love watching the Masters on weekends- Peter Allis is an institution.
Goodnight!
Also have a £12bn black hole in benefit cuts less the £0.5bn they have outlined
Circs £20Bn MMT and counting
Speith could be in trouble on 18.
Great round by Phil, Rory and Tiger - and Justin too.
I have a feeling - think is too strong - that Speith might not win.
Speith has played utterly sublimely, but has fallen apart in the last 2 holes. That is Augusta. I wouldn't want big Phil close behind too. The course suits big swinging lefties.
I can well believe that many people live in houses that suddenly come within the current IHT regime.
I have always thought that the iniquitous thing about IHT is that (a) you are dead when you pay it and (b) you could be run over by a bus on the way to see your accountant about your tax affairs.
I'm not sure that IHT particularly affects the old and rich. By definition (see above) you are dead and decaying when your estate pays it. The beneficiaries are the young and indebted offspring.
I neither like or dislike it I pay little attention to it
Mike based his recommendation of opposing reckless in the by election on his Tory sources telling him they were really up for it and wanted to win really badly... And they hated reckless. I based my betting on the fact that Ukip also really wanted it. So what? They both wanted to win and tried really hard
Why would you place any importance on that? It was irrelevant before and proven to be so.
The Necromancer McTernan and the puppet masters in SLAB HQ (To Let) will ensure he makes an appearance before Murphy's abrupt and fizzy end.
You earn money, on which you pay tax.
You invest it, to create a portfolio.
On portfolio income, you pay tax.
On your demise, your estate is taxed again.
The BBC coverage of these major golf tournaments is outstanding.
He said that after spending time with Arnold Palmer this week, who liked to wear that color, he had a premonition.
Guess it worked!
For The Open Championship, the US networks take their own equipment and production facilities over there, and don't take BBC coverage, because even after all these years the BBC will not spend what needs to be spent to provide all the cameras, technology etc cover a golf tournament properly. BBC golf coverage has always been lamentable technically. Their commentary team is also lackluster - NONE of this applies to the superb Peter Allis.
The BBC didn't do the Open in HD until about 4 years ago - it's pathetic.
Fun fact - Augusta National was built for $100,000.
And, the only people more superstitious than fans are Jihadis- but that is another topic altogether.
Any death tax is wrong.
Bugger the deficit. We want unicorns (or owls!).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11529177/The-bullying-behind-the-SNPs-smiles.html
Ducks and covers
So why should it be different here ?
It's a perfectly reasonable situation - assuming I have it right.
Whereas far, far, far more people live in houses worth more than £325k. The average house price in many areas is above that.
OK, couples already get £650k allowance but many people get divorced etc (or are single) so substantial number do not get the double allowance.
Also note: Like the £325k at present, the £175k extra allowance will also be transferrable where spouse already dead (and dead pre introduction of the allowance).
In any case it really doesn't matter - it's a tiny, tiny number of people - so how they vote doesn't matter.
They aren't going to switch their vote from Con to Lab over this - when Lab will re-introduce the 50% tax rate.
It'd be interesting if there were relevant statistics somewhere but it's 430am and my Google-fu expires at midnight.
BBC cricket coverage was the same. They have great commentators, but technically it was crap. They were still only filming from one end years after other broadcasters had gone to both ends, and it was only when (and because of) C4 winning the rights for home internationals that we got Hawkeye, Snicko, Hotspot.
9,000 people in the public sector earn over £142,500.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11319918
236,000 people in total earn over £150,000.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/jan/27/how-many-pay-top-rate-of-income-tax-uk
It just could be possible.
Non Dom is a peculiarly British scheme. You can even pass it on to your sons but not your daughters.
So Zac Goldsmith became a non Dom simply because his father was a non Dom. He gave it up when he became an MP but his brother is still a non Dom.
If we want people to come to the UK and spend their money and open their businesses we shouldn't be making them look over their shoulders wondering if we are going to be after their foreign income, what they are making elsewhere should be the business of where they are making that money, not the UK.
Obviously we should not be charging UK citizens on foreign income either, its intrusive, expensive to enforce and largely gets avoided by people that can afford good accountants and lawyers.