Labour's '10 Point Plan' to get £7.5 billion from Tax Avoidance ... To answer the question Harriet wouldn't answer Marr 'No, Labour would not change the law regarding the tax avoidance used by the Miliband family'.....
Can anyone explain what use a register of beneficial ownership would be in jurisdictions which permit pure purpose trusts of indefinite duration? The whole point is that the trustees lack beneficial ownership, not that someone else has it. The UK is bound to recognise the validity of such trusts under the Hague Convention, scheduled to the Recognition of Trusts Act 1987.
How are UKIP 'burying' a private poll? Surely the point of a private poll is that it's private. I don't remember them revealing any private polling that showed them winning anything. Are all private polls of all parties that show them not ahead somewhere being 'buried'?
Parties bury private polls all the time. Mike had a story about the lib dems burying some a while back.
I suspect this was funded by Alan Brown, and if not, therefore, an official UKIP pol.
To answer the question Harriet wouldn't answer Marr 'No, Labour would not change the law regarding the tax avoidance used by the Miliband family'.....
snip.
snip....
Indeed, who needs the EU to wreck the City of London, just elect Miliband.
So what do you think three more bank holidays is going to do to the economy? The Tories have doubled the national debt and totally failed to bring down the structural deficit and they're acting like they've just won the lottery and have cash to splash. The fact that such a shower is the 'economic responsibility' option in this election is deeply depressing.
The tories have not doubled the national debt. They inherited a broken economy and a deficit of £160 billion and spending out of control. Labour have opposed all the subsequent and inevitable spending cuts. And it was Labour who increased spending by 50% in real terms over 10 years, after inheriting in their turn an economy where spending was under control.
http://www.economicsuk.com/blog/002089.html#more ''I was not alone in saying the coalition has been good for growth. Several distinguished economists, including Patrick Minford of the Cardiff Business School, Nicholas Oulton of the LSE, Costas Milas of Liverpool and Jagjit Chadha of the University of Kent took the same view, and for similar reasons. Minford argued that the coalition had achieved a balance between deficit reduction and destabilising the economy, Oulton that “austerity has been greatly exaggerated” and Chadha that “sound money” deficit reduction had created the room for aggressive quantitative easing by the Bank of England,''
''Indeed, the pattern of growth during this parliament was not, as is often said, that growth stopped as soon as the coalition started implementing austerity, roughly two-thirds of which it inherited from Labour. Growth in non-oil gross domestic product, the best undistorted measure of economic activity, exceeded 2% in both 2010 and 2011, only slowing to 1% in 2012 – the height of the euro crisis – before picking up again''
''Both Miliband and David Cameron have found themselves up against other leaders from the smaller parties, most of whom blithely wave away the need for austerity, knowing they will not have to carry the can if Britain goes into the next downturn with the deficit still large and government debt rising. The SNP’s Nicola Sturgeon is the worst but not the only offender in this.''
To answer the question Harriet wouldn't answer Marr 'No, Labour would not change the law regarding the tax avoidance used by the Miliband family'.....
I foresee some cracking red tape in that e.g. "Disguised" self employment.
snip
I am not saying they shouldn't be looked at e.g. the hereditary element of non-dom status seems ridiculous, but so far Ed's approach to things appears this broad brush poorly thought out ban it.
He is taking his bad vs bad, black vs white approach to a lot of this stuff, and as a result it is ban non-doms (despite there by a large number of people who aren't tax dodging in the UK), ban ZHC (despite a large number of people actually wanting them and likely to result in a less flexible labour market), etc.
The Tories say that most of the measures have already been announced either by them or the coalition.
To anyone with a braincell, do not watch it , 3 losers haranguing someone they don't like with a useless buffoon as ringmaster. You will have more fun cutting your toes off, just a shouting match. Can only be good for SNP as people see how nasty the unionists really are, what they lack in style and charisma they make up for in noise levels.
LOL after the way you spoke to me this morning (FPT), its hilarious to hear you complain about people being nasty. Couldn't make it up.
Difference is I am not whining about it , I am happy to take it as well as give it.
FTP - MalcolmG "I live in Ayrshire , I did live in Hampshire some years ago , spent a year in the Winchester Royal Hotel which was very pleasant and also had a house in Alresford and was in Chandler's Ford as well. Also lived in Little Gaddesden and Hemel Hempstead at other times. Was around a big recession though and lost my shirt, had to give away my house in Alresford which whilst a bad decision was only thing I could do at the time. Hampshire was very nice but busy, Alresford was superb place to live."
Malcolm, can't talk for long as I'm in the middle of cooking Sunday roast (duck breasts in plum sauce, since you ask) but I live in rural Hampshire too. I was born and brought up here.
I absolutely love it. Alresford is one of my favourite places. I'm sorry to hear you lost your house.
You may have heard of a little place called Odiham? Very similar, in the north of the county.
Great choice of village - have cousins living there
Is that a proposal, or are you referring to the three volunteering days?
Yes, that's exactly what I'm referring too. It's as bad as Labour's VAT cut, a naked bribe that is utterly economically destructive.
Not really.
People benefit from being able to help a cause they like (obviously need procedures to ensure it's a real cause)
Society benefits from increased volunteering / contribution to community spirit
Businesses benefit from increased morale and hence happier/more productive staff, offset by the cost of paying them.
Our family firm gives people up to a week off for volunteering on a matched basis (ie if they volunteer 1 day of holiday, we will give them 1 extra day of paid volunteering leave so the cause gets 2 days work, but it only costs the volunteer 1 day of holiday). We feel that a strong philanthropic culture among the staff attracts the type of employees we want and improves morale/productivity.
The Tories seem to be getting quite a bang for their buck over this batty £1,000,000 IHT scam. Just listening to Cameron saying 'most people regard their homes as their most precious possession' (he neglected to mention that the owner of that possession would by that stage be dead) made me feel nauseous.
An average married person can leave his/her entire estate to his husband/wife tax free. When he/she dies he/she can leave his/her children £650,000 tax free.
Of the remaining £350,000 the state takes 40%. If you don't like paying tax you can give it to a charity of your choice completely free of tax. The likely age of these average 'children' will be between 60-70 and from a £1,000,000 estate two children will receive £430,000 each
If anyone doesn't think Tory values stink then I suggest they are sociopaths.
According to Yougov's Election Map, UKIP are going to win
Clacton, Thurrock, Thanet (South) and Grimsby.
@JohnO You win the bet if UKIP get 4 or fewer MPs.
By Grimsby is that Great Grimsby? UKIP haven't been ahead in any of the Ashcroft polls there so not sure why that'd be expected?
2010 Lab 33 Ukip 6
2014 poll Lab 38 Ukip 26
2015 poll Lab 35 Ukip 34
Looks like it could be quite close to me
Labour will win Grimsby quite comfortably around the 2014 poll figures
I distinctly remember you dismissing UKIP being a good bet there at 16-1 too.
I've now got a happy position on this seat.
does not matter whether they are 16-1 or 3-1 they wont win and they are losing bets
If anyone wants an example of someone who doesn't understand betting and shouldn't comment on it, Mark. senior has just provided one there
At least he isn't making up bets he hasn't had I guess
Not entirely fair - he might in theory have been suggesting it would be a good one to lay if the price is now 3-1 vs your in-price of 16-1. I'd certainly look at it as a very good return if you can do that, because I suspect (w/o knowing the constituency particularly well if at all) that it is unlikely to be a winner.
According to Yougov's Election Map, UKIP are going to win
Clacton, Thurrock, Thanet (South) and Grimsby.
@JohnO You win the bet if UKIP get 4 or fewer MPs.
By Grimsby is that Great Grimsby? UKIP haven't been ahead in any of the Ashcroft polls there so not sure why that'd be expected?
2010 Lab 33 Ukip 6
2014 poll Lab 38 Ukip 26
2015 poll Lab 35 Ukip 34
Looks like it could be quite close to me
Labour will win Grimsby quite comfortably around the 2014 poll figures
I distinctly remember you dismissing UKIP being a good bet there at 16-1 too.
I've now got a happy position on this seat.
does not matter whether they are 16-1 or 3-1 they wont win and they are losing bets
If anyone wants an example of someone who doesn't understand betting and shouldn't comment on it, Mark. senior has just provided one there
At least he isn't making up bets he hasn't had I guess
Not entirely fair - he might in theory have been suggesting it would be a good one to lay if the price is now 3-1 vs your in-price of 16-1. I'd certainly look at it as a very good return if you can do that, because I suspect (w/o knowing the constituency particularly well if at all) that it is unlikely to be a winner.
Of course trading to give a guaranteed profit is sensible betting
Is that a proposal, or are you referring to the three volunteering days?
Yes, that's exactly what I'm referring too. It's as bad as Labour's VAT cut, a naked bribe that is utterly economically destructive.
Not really.
People benefit from being able to help a cause they like (obviously need procedures to ensure it's a real cause)
Society benefits from increased volunteering / contribution to community spirit
Businesses benefit from increased morale and hence happier/more productive staff, offset by the cost of paying them.
Our family firm gives people up to a week off for volunteering on a matched basis (ie if they volunteer 1 day of holiday, we will give them 1 extra day of paid volunteering leave so the cause gets 2 days work, but it only costs the volunteer 1 day of holiday). We feel that a strong philanthropic culture among the staff attracts the type of employees we want and improves morale/productivity.
On what planet is it a good idea right now to hit the UK economy with a £6.9billion bill? The idea is so utterly preposterous it crosses the border from economic incompetence to genuine malice.
I'm expecting Mark Reckless to get back in Rochester & Strood if he gets the support from UKIP. The danger for him is that Nigel Farage will demand too much priority for Thanet South. Those on the ground could perhaps comment on the relative effort in these two seats.
Sandy She often comments on conservativehome, an Oxbridge educated freelance musician I gather, but she is from Durham and writes well
From Durham!?! Her accent certainly isn't!
I was born in Durham City, and, apart from about five years in Cambridge and London, have lived here all my life. But I don’t have a Northern accent (my dad didn’t, my mum’s is slight, and Radio 4 is a constant in their house).
There is a big difference between not having a Durham accent and talking like a Sloan.
My mother and her sisters, born and brought up in rural Hertfordshire were taught, as the daughters of an upwardly mobile farmimg/milling family, to “talk proper”. And they did. Their brothers, on the other hand, who went on the farm with their father "as soon as" spoke with “rural” accents. (I always thought the late Bernard Miles, in his “Chiltern monolgues” sounded like my favourite uncle).) However I spent some time with both my mother and her younger sister in their last days and they both "re-developed” some of their childhood accent. Odd.
Is that a proposal, or are you referring to the three volunteering days?
Yes, that's exactly what I'm referring too. It's as bad as Labour's VAT cut, a naked bribe that is utterly economically destructive.
Not really.
People benefit from being able to help a cause they like (obviously need procedures to ensure it's a real cause)
Society benefits from increased volunteering / contribution to community spirit
Businesses benefit from increased morale and hence happier/more productive staff, offset by the cost of paying them.
Our family firm gives people up to a week off for volunteering on a matched basis (ie if they volunteer 1 day of holiday, we will give them 1 extra day of paid volunteering leave so the cause gets 2 days work, but it only costs the volunteer 1 day of holiday). We feel that a strong philanthropic culture among the staff attracts the type of employees we want and improves morale/productivity.
On what planet is it a good idea right now to hit the UK economy with a £6.9billion bill? The idea is so utterly preposterous it crosses the border from economic incompetence to genuine malice.
When is a £6.9 billion bill not a £6.9 billion bill? When it only applies to larger companies and the public sector and hasn't included the output of those people spending their three days doing something a bit more productive than gardening.
Some interesting thoughts on tax here, including some stand-out facts:
1. "..taking the system as a whole, including regressive VAT, as well as income and property taxes, the poorest tenth of households pay 43% of their income in tax, while the top tenth pay 35%."
2. "..with rebates and council tax benefit taken into account, the poorest tenth of households now pay almost 6% of their income in council tax, against 1.39% for the richest tenth."
Is that a proposal, or are you referring to the three volunteering days?
Yes, that's exactly what I'm referring too. It's as bad as Labour's VAT cut, a naked bribe that is utterly economically destructive.
Not really.
People benefit from being able to help a cause they like (obviously need procedures to ensure it's a real cause)
Society benefits from increased volunteering / contribution to community spirit
Businesses benefit from increased morale and hence happier/more productive staff, offset by the cost of paying them.
Our family firm gives people up to a week off for volunteering on a matched basis (ie if they volunteer 1 day of holiday, we will give them 1 extra day of paid volunteering leave so the cause gets 2 days work, but it only costs the volunteer 1 day of holiday). We feel that a strong philanthropic culture among the staff attracts the type of employees we want and improves morale/productivity.
On what planet is it a good idea right now to hit the UK economy with a £6.9billion bill? The idea is so utterly preposterous it crosses the border from economic incompetence to genuine malice.
The Citizens Advice Bureau of which I was, until recently, a Trusteee benefitted from the "donated" time of two trustees, one from a bank, one from some other financial institution. Both were given time off, or time off in lieu if their volunteering was in the evening, up to a sensible limit, for the time they spend on CAB activities. As mamagers in their 40’s they were very useful.
The Tories seem to be getting quite a bang for their buck over this batty £1,000,000 IHT scam. Just listening to Cameron saying 'most people regard their homes as their most precious possession' (he neglected to mention that the owner of that possession would by that stage be dead) made me feel nauseous. An average married person can leave his/her entire estate to his husband/wife tax free. When he/she dies he/she can leave his/her children £650,000 tax free. Of the remaining £350,000 the state takes 40%. If you don't like paying tax you can give it to a charity of your choice completely free of tax. The likely age of these average 'children' will be between 60-70 and from a £1,000,000 estate two children will receive £430,000 each
What about an unmarried couple in a house worth £425,000 with 0 of savings? They could on 2nd death pay £40,000 in IHT. The house would have to be sold unless a mortgage could be taken out by the children. The very rich can use "spare cash" to be invested in ways that take them outside IHT, it is the mid range home owners in the south that are getting hit.
Is that a proposal, or are you referring to the three volunteering days?
Yes, that's exactly what I'm referring too. It's as bad as Labour's VAT cut, a naked bribe that is utterly economically destructive.
Not really.
People benefit from being able to help a cause they like (obviously need procedures to ensure it's a real cause)
Society benefits from increased volunteering / contribution to community spirit
Businesses benefit from increased morale and hence happier/more productive staff, offset by the cost of paying them.
Our family firm gives people up to a week off for volunteering on a matched basis (ie if they volunteer 1 day of holiday, we will give them 1 extra day of paid volunteering leave so the cause gets 2 days work, but it only costs the volunteer 1 day of holiday). We feel that a strong philanthropic culture among the staff attracts the type of employees we want and improves morale/productivity.
On what planet is it a good idea right now to hit the UK economy with a £6.9billion bill? The idea is so utterly preposterous it crosses the border from incompetence to genuine malice.
It would not be that much. Bank holidays close the entire company down; in this case, and especially as it is only applicable to large companies, the company should be able to continue fine. Perhaps it would be best to compare it to the cost of a sick say; although this should be less as it can be planned in advance.
As a rough and ready calculation, an employee choosing to do this every year for nine years would be the same cost as the statutory minimum maternity leave for one child of six weeks at 90% pay (6*5*0.9) = 27 days; or nine years of this scheme. But occasional planned day absences should be much easier to cope with than long maternity leave, and that is the value of absolute minimum maternity leave.
My biggest problem with this is if the volunteering being done is actually worthwhile; then again, who am I to judge what is worthwhile?
Some interesting thoughts on tax here, including some stand-out facts:
1. "..taking the system as a whole, including regressive VAT, as well as income and property taxes, the poorest tenth of households pay 43% of their income in tax, while the top tenth pay 35%."
2. "..with rebates and council tax benefit taken into account, the poorest tenth of households now pay almost 6% of their income in council tax, against 1.39% for the richest tenth."
Selective facts from the leading left-wing newspaper.
Whenever anyone starts quoting 'percentages' I sniff a rat.
The Tories seem to be getting quite a bang for their buck over this batty £1,000,000 IHT scam. Just listening to Cameron saying 'most people regard their homes as their most precious possession' (he neglected to mention that the owner of that possession would by that stage be dead) made me feel nauseous.
An average married person can leave his/her entire estate to his husband/wife tax free. When he/she dies he/she can leave his/her children £650,000 tax free.
Of the remaining £350,000 the state takes 40%. If you don't like paying tax you can give it to a charity of your choice completely free of tax. The likely age of these average 'children' will be between 60-70 and from a £1,000,000 estate two children will receive £430,000 each
If anyone doesn't think Tory values stink then I suggest they are sociopaths.
Roger, have you taken the trouble to establish how this tax cut is funded?
It's funded entirely at the expense of the highest earning 1%.
Why do you think these redistribution values stink?
I'm expecting Mark Reckless to get back in Rochester & Strood if he gets the support from UKIP. The danger for him is that Nigel Farage will demand too much priority for Thanet South. Those on the ground could perhaps comment on the relative effort in these two seats.
Following a 'donate' link on a UKIP email, I did notice that there were specific options to donate to South Thanet and Thurrock.
After the Heywood near-miss result there was a story that when Messrs Carswell and Reckless defected there was an agreement that they would get the full support of the national party. That may well have included resources for the GE campaign as well as the by-election.
The Tories seem to be getting quite a bang for their buck over this batty £1,000,000 IHT scam. Just listening to Cameron saying 'most people regard their homes as their most precious possession' (he neglected to mention that the owner of that possession would by that stage be dead) made me feel nauseous.
An average married person can leave his/her entire estate to his husband/wife tax free. When he/she dies he/she can leave his/her children £650,000 tax free.
Of the remaining £350,000 the state takes 40%. If you don't like paying tax you can give it to a charity of your choice completely free of tax. The likely age of these average 'children' will be between 60-70 and from a £1,000,000 estate two children will receive £430,000 each
If anyone doesn't think Tory values stink then I suggest they are sociopaths.
"My mother and her sisters, born and brought up in rural Hertfordshire were taught, as the daughters of an upwardly mobile farmimg/milling family, to “talk proper”. And they did. Their brothers, on the other hand, who went on the farm with their father "as soon as" spoke with “rural” accents. (I always thought the late Bernard Miles, in his “Chiltern monolgues” sounded like my favourite uncle).)"
I used to live on the farm of Alf Sherrin (it was a Millfield House) His Somerset accent was so pronounced it was quite impossible to believe that not only was Ned his brother but that they were both brought up on the same farm
Is that a proposal, or are you referring to the three volunteering days?
Yes, that's exactly what I'm referring too. It's as bad as Labour's VAT cut, a naked bribe that is utterly economically destructive.
Not really.
People benefit from being able to help a cause they like (obviously need procedures to ensure it's a real cause)
Society benefits from increased volunteering / contribution to community spirit
Businesses benefit from increased morale and hence happier/more productive staff, offset by the cost of paying them.
Our family firm gives people up to a week off for volunteering on a matched basis (ie if they volunteer 1 day of holiday, we will give them 1 extra day of paid volunteering leave so the cause gets 2 days work, but it only costs the volunteer 1 day of holiday). We feel that a strong philanthropic culture among the staff attracts the type of employees we want and improves morale/productivity.
On what planet is it a good idea right now to hit the UK economy with a £6.9billion bill? The idea is so utterly preposterous it crosses the border from economic incompetence to genuine malice.
Some interesting thoughts on tax here, including some stand-out facts:
1. "..taking the system as a whole, including regressive VAT, as well as income and property taxes, the poorest tenth of households pay 43% of their income in tax, while the top tenth pay 35%."
2. "..with rebates and council tax benefit taken into account, the poorest tenth of households now pay almost 6% of their income in council tax, against 1.39% for the richest tenth."
I'd like to see tax fall for all groups. That would clearly require a genuine effort to cut government spending.
The Tories seem to be getting quite a bang for their buck over this batty £1,000,000 IHT scam. Just listening to Cameron saying 'most people regard their homes as their most precious possession' (he neglected to mention that the owner of that possession would by that stage be dead) made me feel nauseous.
An average married person can leave his/her entire estate to his husband/wife tax free. When he/she dies he/she can leave his/her children £650,000 tax free.
Of the remaining £350,000 the state takes 40%. If you don't like paying tax you can give it to a charity of your choice completely free of tax. The likely age of these average 'children' will be between 60-70 and from a £1,000,000 estate two children will receive £430,000 each
If anyone doesn't think Tory values stink then I suggest they are sociopaths.
Roger, have you taken the trouble to establish how this tax cut is funded?
It's funded entirely at the expense of the highest earning 1%.
Why do you think these redistribution values stink?
Of course it is not funded entirely at the expense of the highest earning 1% . No treasury income raised by taxation is ring fenced in such a way . The money being raised from the highest earning 1% could instead be used to increase payments to the disabled for example but of course that would not benefit Cameron , Osborne and their rich mates .
The Tories seem to be getting quite a bang for their buck over this batty £1,000,000 IHT scam. Just listening to Cameron saying 'most people regard their homes as their most precious possession' (he neglected to mention that the owner of that possession would by that stage be dead) made me feel nauseous.
An average married person can leave his/her entire estate to his husband/wife tax free. When he/she dies he/she can leave his/her children £650,000 tax free.
Of the remaining £350,000 the state takes 40%. If you don't like paying tax you can give it to a charity of your choice completely free of tax. The likely age of these average 'children' will be between 60-70 and from a £1,000,000 estate two children will receive £430,000 each
If anyone doesn't think Tory values stink then I suggest they are sociopaths.
Roger, have you taken the trouble to establish how this tax cut is funded?
It's funded entirely at the expense of the highest earning 1%.
Why do you think these redistribution values stink?
Of course it is not funded entirely at the expense of the highest earning 1% . No treasury income raised by taxation is ring fenced in such a way . The money being raised from the highest earning 1% could instead be used to increase payments to the disabled for example but of course that would not benefit Cameron , Osborne and their rich mates .
What about an unmarried couple in a house worth £425,000 with 0 of savings? They could on 2nd death pay £40,000 in IHT. The house would have to be sold unless a mortgage could be taken out by the children.
A good point. If unmarried parents need special provision (which I fully support) give IHT exemptions to unmarried parents and bring them into line with married ones. This is not an attempt to fix an anomaly but a method to give tax relief to people who are least likely to need it
Some interesting thoughts on tax here, including some stand-out facts:
1. "..taking the system as a whole, including regressive VAT, as well as income and property taxes, the poorest tenth of households pay 43% of their income in tax, while the top tenth pay 35%."
2. "..with rebates and council tax benefit taken into account, the poorest tenth of households now pay almost 6% of their income in council tax, against 1.39% for the richest tenth."
You need to add in tax credits and other benefits. When you do so only the top 40% of households are net financial contributors to the state, and only the top 10% of households are substantial net contributors.
To see whether a system is "progressive" in tax/benefits you need to look over the whole picture.
Incidently the most regressive taxes are the ones on tobacco. 50% of single mums on benefits smoke, averaging 10% of their income on the deadly weed.
What about an unmarried couple in a house worth £425,000 with 0 of savings? They could on 2nd death pay £40,000 in IHT. The house would have to be sold unless a mortgage could be taken out by the children.
A good point. If unmarried parents need special provision (which I fully support) give IHT exemptions to unmarried parents and bring them into line with married ones. This is not an attempt to fix an anomaly but a method to give tax relief to people who are least likely to need it
Surely the vast majority of elderly house owners ....... couples my & my wifes age ....... have children who are already house owners. The people who are suffering from the gross mis-management of the housing market are our ...... and their ...... grandchildren.
@Richard_Tyndall What would you reckon the "basics" should consist of?
A basic welfare safety net, defence, legal framework for contracts, criminal law enforcement and protection, international treaties and agreements/foreign affairs, border controls, maintenance of a framework and standards for a free at the point of delivery health service but not running it, the same for education, large scale infrastructure projects.
Probably other stuff as I am just writing these as I think of them. But a fraction of what is done now when it comes to actually 'running' stuff.
Whether you think wages should be increased or in-work handouts should be cut, or a combination of the two, it's definitely one of things that needs reform. Lefties moan about supermarkets paying too little but it's just the market in jobs, almost anyone can stack shelves so it doesn't demand much of a wage. Whereas if Gordon Brown's prison of benefits (a pay rise wouldn't help anyway because the person's benefits will be cut proportionately) disappeared slowly everyone's wages would rise in line with the general cost of living.
@Richard_Tyndall Thanks, I was just curious. At the extreme end, some might say it should be down to making an enforcing laws, and maintaining forces to defend the country. Everything else after that depends on how you feel I suppose.
@Richard_Tyndall What would you reckon the "basics" should consist of?
A basic welfare safety net, defence, legal framework for contracts, criminal law enforcement and protection, international treaties and agreements/foreign affairs, border controls, maintenance of a framework and standards for a free at the point of delivery health service but not running it, the same for education, large scale infrastructure projects.
Probably other stuff as I am just writing these as I think of them. But a fraction of what is done now when it comes to actually 'running' stuff.
In 1906, we managed to get by with government spending of 6% of GDP. And I would argue that civil society was stronger then. We also has genuinely free trade with the rest of the world.
@Richard_Tyndall Thanks, I was just curious. At the extreme end, some might say it should be down to making an enforcing laws, and maintaining forces to defend the country. Everything else after that depends on how you feel I suppose.
I don't buy into the US version of Libertarianism where the state is the 'enemy'. The state is a useful tool which can make our lives better if tightly controlled. British Libertarians - at least those I work with in the Libertarian Alliance - tend to have a harder time arguing their case because we don't hold to the cut and dried idea of almost all government being bad. It means we have to work with shades of grey and all have slightly different ideas of how far the government should be involved in our lives.
A free at the point of delivery health service for example I think is the sign of an advanced healthy society. I just think there are loads of examples from around the world where it is done better than the NHS.
@Richard_Tyndall What would you reckon the "basics" should consist of?
A basic welfare safety net, defence, legal framework for contracts, criminal law enforcement and protection, international treaties and agreements/foreign affairs, border controls, maintenance of a framework and standards for a free at the point of delivery health service but not running it, the same for education, large scale infrastructure projects.
Probably other stuff as I am just writing these as I think of them. But a fraction of what is done now when it comes to actually 'running' stuff.
In 1906, we managed to get by with government spending of 6% of GDP. And I would argue that civil society was stronger then. We also has genuinely free trade with the rest of the world.
Agree. Though I do feel that a basic free at point of delivery health service is an advance on the situation in 1906. But generally I agree with you.
Taxes are supposed to try to help to even things out between rich and poor. There couldn't be a more inequitable unredistributive tax than this one.
Cameron is a cynical disgrace
Oh....Get over yourself why don't you. Typical left wing always think they can spend other people's money better than they can do themselves. Taxes are not for that by the way which is probably one of the reasons why the left always leave the country in an economic disaster when they are finally turfed out of office.
Incidently the most regressive taxes are the ones on tobacco. 50% of single mums on benefits smoke, averaging 10% of their income on the deadly weed.
Is that definitely true? Its disgusting IMO if it is.
Smoking while pregnant or smoking in front of kids is utterly vile.
The very highest smoking rate is homeless men. With a pack of fags now £8 ish that is quite a dent in income. Smoking rates are inversely associated with social class.
I supect that alcohol and gambling taxes also are very regressive.
What I really want to know is how will Labour fine people for doing something that is perfectly legal under the rules that they themselves set and administer?
Is that a proposal, or are you referring to the three volunteering days?
Yes, that's exactly what I'm referring too. It's as bad as Labour's VAT cut, a naked bribe that is utterly economically destructive.
Not really.
People benefit from being able to help a cause they like (obviously need procedures to ensure it's a real cause)
Society benefits from increased volunteering / contribution to community spirit
Businesses benefit from increased morale and hence happier/more productive staff, offset by the cost of paying them.
Our family firm gives people up to a week off for volunteering on a matched basis (ie if they volunteer 1 day of holiday, we will give them 1 extra day of paid volunteering leave so the cause gets 2 days work, but it only costs the volunteer 1 day of holiday). We feel that a strong philanthropic culture among the staff attracts the type of employees we want and improves morale/productivity.
On what planet is it a good idea right now to hit the UK economy with a £6.9billion bill? The idea is so utterly preposterous it crosses the border from economic incompetence to genuine malice.
When is a £6.9 billion bill not a £6.9 billion bill? When it only applies to larger companies and the public sector and hasn't included the output of those people spending their three days doing something a bit more productive than gardening.
Let's be serious, our Government is incapable of organising the proverbial piss-up; the idea that this volunteer army can be marshaled to create any benefit worth the name is not worthy of consideration.
Incidently the most regressive taxes are the ones on tobacco. 50% of single mums on benefits smoke, averaging 10% of their income on the deadly weed.
Is that definitely true? Its disgusting IMO if it is.
Smoking while pregnant or smoking in front of kids is utterly vile.
The very highest smoking rate is homeless men. With a pack of fags now £8 ish that is quite a dent in income. Smoking rates are inversely associated with social class.
I supect that alcohol and gambling taxes also are very regressive.
Had to shake my head in regard to one of those recent documentaries following those round on benefits. They interviewed one man who visited a food bank while he chain smoked outside. That's the problem free food which meant he could get his ciggies of course.
Some interesting thoughts on tax here, including some stand-out facts:
1. "..taking the system as a whole, including regressive VAT, as well as income and property taxes, the poorest tenth of households pay 43% of their income in tax, while the top tenth pay 35%."
2. "..with rebates and council tax benefit taken into account, the poorest tenth of households now pay almost 6% of their income in council tax, against 1.39% for the richest tenth."
You need to add in tax credits and other benefits. When you do so only the top 40% of households are net financial contributors to the state, and only the top 10% of households are substantial net contributors.
To see whether a system is "progressive" in tax/benefits you need to look over the whole picture.
Incidently the most regressive taxes are the ones on tobacco. 50% of single mums on benefits smoke, averaging 10% of their income on the deadly weed.
I think it is useful to look at taxes in isolation, because presumably you could cut social security if you took a lower proportion of the income of the poorest in the first place. It's also a useful corrective to the idea that rates of taxation on the wealthiest are "too high", if they are actually paying a lower rate of tax than the poorest.
The point about tobacco taxes is a good one. When you take that together with council tax then the record of the last Labour government was dire in terms of increasing taxes on the poor and reducing them on the rich.
Incidently the most regressive taxes are the ones on tobacco. 50% of single mums on benefits smoke, averaging 10% of their income on the deadly weed.
Is that definitely true? Its disgusting IMO if it is.
Smoking while pregnant or smoking in front of kids is utterly vile.
The very highest smoking rate is homeless men. With a pack of fags now £8 ish that is quite a dent in income. Smoking rates are inversely associated with social class.
I supect that alcohol and gambling taxes also are very regressive.
I have just checked my figures. Apparently 75% of lone parents on benefits smoke:
Is that a proposal, or are you referring to the three volunteering days?
Yes, that's exactly what I'm referring too. It's as bad as Labour's VAT cut, a naked bribe that is utterly economically destructive.
Not really.
People benefit from being able to help a cause they like (obviously need procedures to ensure it's a real cause)
Society benefits from increased volunteering / contribution to community spirit
Businesses benefit from increased morale and hence happier/more productive staff, offset by the cost of paying them.
Our family firm gives people up to a week off for volunteering on a matched basis (ie if they volunteer 1 day of holiday, we will give them 1 extra day of paid volunteering leave so the cause gets 2 days work, but it only costs the volunteer 1 day of holiday). We feel that a strong philanthropic culture among the staff attracts the type of employees we want and improves morale/productivity.
On what planet is it a good idea right now to hit the UK economy with a £6.9billion bill? The idea is so utterly preposterous it crosses the border from economic incompetence to genuine malice.
When is a £6.9 billion bill not a £6.9 billion bill? When it only applies to larger companies and the public sector and hasn't included the output of those people spending their three days doing something a bit more productive than gardening.
Let's be serious, our Government is incapable of organising the proverbial piss-up; the idea that this volunteer army can be marshaled to create any benefit worth the name is not worthy of consideration.
Taxes are supposed to try to help to even things out between rich and poor.
No they are not. They are to pay for the things society thinks should be provided by the state (and there are a lot of differences of opinion of how much should be). In order to pay for those things in as fair a way as possible the rich should be taxed more for the collective good of society, but the aim is not to even things out (even as that is in part something that occurs, an important distinction I feel). That suggests being rich is some shameful position the government is tasked with correcting.
Is that a proposal, or are you referring to the three volunteering days?
Yes, that's exactly what I'm referring too. It's as bad as Labour's VAT cut, a naked bribe that is utterly economically destructive.
Not really.
People benefit from being able to help a cause they like (obviously need procedures to ensure it's a real cause)
Society benefits from increased volunteering / contribution to community spirit
Businesses benefit from increased morale and hence happier/more productive staff, offset by the cost of paying them.
Our family firm gives people up to a week off for volunteering on a matched basis (ie if they volunteer 1 day of holiday, we will give them 1 extra day of paid volunteering leave so the cause gets 2 days work, but it only costs the volunteer 1 day of holiday). We feel that a strong philanthropic culture among the staff attracts the type of employees we want and improves morale/productivity.
On what planet is it a good idea right now to hit the UK economy with a £6.9billion bill? The idea is so utterly preposterous it crosses the border from economic incompetence to genuine malice.
When is a £6.9 billion bill not a £6.9 billion bill? When it only applies to larger companies and the public sector and hasn't included the output of those people spending their three days doing something a bit more productive than gardening.
Let's be serious, our Government is incapable of organising the proverbial piss-up; the idea that this volunteer army can be marshaled to create any benefit worth the name is not worthy of consideration.
The government isn't marshalling anything.
They are allowing individuals to choose if they want to volunteer, and what they want to volunteer for. Firms are required to give them 3 days paid leave to do so.
Is that a proposal, or are you referring to the three volunteering days?
Yes, that's exactly what I'm referring too. It's as bad as Labour's VAT cut, a naked bribe that is utterly economically destructive.
Not really.
People benefit from being able to help a cause they like (obviously need procedures to ensure it's a real cause)
Society benefits from increased volunteering / contribution to community spirit
Businesses benefit from increased morale and hence happier/more productive staff, offset by the cost of paying them.
Our family firm gives people up to a week off for volunteering on a matched basis (ie if they volunteer 1 day of holiday, we will give them 1 extra day of paid volunteering leave so the cause gets 2 days work, but it only costs the volunteer 1 day of holiday). We feel that a strong philanthropic culture among the staff attracts the type of employees we want and improves morale/productivity.
On what planet is it a good idea right now to hit the UK economy with a £6.9billion bill? The idea is so utterly preposterous it crosses the border from economic incompetence to genuine malice.
When is a £6.9 billion bill not a £6.9 billion bill? When it only applies to larger companies and the public sector and hasn't included the output of those people spending their three days doing something a bit more productive than gardening.
Let's be serious, our Government is incapable of organising the proverbial piss-up; the idea that this volunteer army can be marshaled to create any benefit worth the name is not worthy of consideration.
Mr. Owls, agree entirely. Figure for the NHS plucked from thin air. The only saving grace for the Conservatives is that they actually appear to be reasonably competent (at least compared to Labour) when it comes to the economy.
All the parties appear to be at it.
Not as mental as Labour's policy of fining people for abiding by the law, though, or spending the bankers' bonus tax seventeen times over.
I thought she played a very sticky wicket pretty well - clearly the SNP haven't a clue about how to find the £7.6bn......much like Osborne on Marr and the NHS £8bn - and both used the same strategy 'you know you can trust me on Scotland/the economy'........
I see Marr asked GO 18 times where the £8bn for the NHS was coming from.
No satisfactory answer.
£12bn welfare savings unexplained.
Means £20bn black hole or Magic Money Tree.
Time for answers methinks otherwise they lose the election IMO
Surely the answers on such questions, from any party, would be the thing lose a party an election? People want all sorts of things to be promised to them, but dislike being told where it is coming from if that means cuts elsewhere or more taxes.
Oh, it's frustrating not to have specificity, but I do actually see where our political class is coming from on such things; they tend to get punished if they go for blunt honesty on such things.
Mr. Owls, agree entirely. Figure for the NHS plucked from thin air. The only saving grace for the Conservatives is that they actually appear to be reasonably competent (at least compared to Labour) when it comes to the economy.
All the parties appear to be at it.
Not as mental as Labour's policy of fining people for abiding by the law, though, or spending the bankers' bonus tax seventeen times over.
Labour are just increasing the fine the Conservatives introduced.
Only Tory values would be to make it a priority to spend £1bn on a policy which the Treasury says would not apply to 90% of estates.
Would not be my value whilst cutting £12bn from welfare and having an £8bn black hole in respect of NHS panic pledge.
It is not spending a billion it is paying for it by removing a pensions tax break from the wealthy. You may not be 'wealthy' but have a house whose value has risen. The IHT threshold has not taken into account house values for some time. The NHS extra spending is based on an official report and cannot be ignored, it comes on top of a period of 20 billion of economies and is spread over 5 years. Those economies will still continue otherwise the 8bn will not be sufficient. I think the IHT comes in around 2017.
Should I ask my parents to give me the marginal value of the Conservative IHT tax break to lay against a Conservative majority in order to achieve a green outcome ?
offshore territories have responded that they are already more transparent than the UK, the US and other “onshore” countries in terms of making available information on beneficial ownership.
bogjohnowls Inheritance Tax is just about the most unpopular tax in the polls along with fuel duty, this will be a vote winner and help win back a few more voters from UKIP. Of course this only takes properties worth up to £1 million out of inheritance tax, properties above that level will still have to pay it
Malcolm I said Sturgeon was the best in the 7 debate.
I just watched it and Scott is correct she was awful , it was a meltdown.
You are to partisan or blind to realty.
Was she awful in the eyes of a 2010 SLABber though? That's what matters.
I can't watch it on my laptop.
Yes probably not. However she would not really acknowledge the 7.6 billion figure from the IFS required for ffa. Also was very obtuse on her requirement for another referendum. The SNP could argue that it was 3 v1 and they ganged up on her. As usual playing the victim.
Comments
Mark. Reckless.
I suspect this was funded by Alan Brown, and if not, therefore, an official UKIP pol.
Labour have opposed all the subsequent and inevitable spending cuts. And it was Labour who increased spending by 50% in real terms over 10 years, after inheriting in their turn an economy where spending was under control.
http://www.economicsuk.com/blog/002089.html#more
''I was not alone in saying the coalition has been good for growth. Several distinguished economists, including Patrick Minford of the Cardiff Business School, Nicholas Oulton of the LSE, Costas Milas of Liverpool and Jagjit Chadha of the University of Kent took the same view, and for similar reasons.
Minford argued that the coalition had achieved a balance between deficit reduction and destabilising the economy, Oulton that “austerity has been greatly exaggerated” and Chadha that “sound money” deficit reduction had created the room for aggressive quantitative easing by the Bank of England,''
''Indeed, the pattern of growth during this parliament was not, as is often said, that growth stopped as soon as the coalition started implementing austerity, roughly two-thirds of which it inherited from Labour. Growth in non-oil gross domestic product, the best undistorted measure of economic activity, exceeded 2% in both 2010 and 2011, only slowing to 1% in 2012 – the height of the euro crisis – before picking up again''
''Both Miliband and David Cameron have found themselves up against other leaders from the smaller parties, most of whom blithely wave away the need for austerity, knowing they will not have to carry the can if Britain goes into the next downturn with the deficit still large and government debt rising. The SNP’s Nicola Sturgeon is the worst but not the only offender in this.''
How nasty. Under Labour you get condemned by inverted snobbery. Get a life.
You might look wise. You might look stupid
I've now got a happy position on this seat.
People benefit from being able to help a cause they like (obviously need procedures to ensure it's a real cause)
Society benefits from increased volunteering / contribution to community spirit
Businesses benefit from increased morale and hence happier/more productive staff, offset by the cost of paying them.
Our family firm gives people up to a week off for volunteering on a matched basis (ie if they volunteer 1 day of holiday, we will give them 1 extra day of paid volunteering leave so the cause gets 2 days work, but it only costs the volunteer 1 day of holiday). We feel that a strong philanthropic culture among the staff attracts the type of employees we want and improves morale/productivity.
At least he isn't making up bets he hasn't had I guess
An average married person can leave his/her entire estate to his husband/wife tax free. When he/she dies he/she can leave his/her children £650,000 tax free.
Of the remaining £350,000 the state takes 40%. If you don't like paying tax you can give it to a charity of your choice completely free of tax. The likely age of these average 'children' will be between 60-70 and from a £1,000,000 estate two children will receive £430,000 each
If anyone doesn't think Tory values stink then I suggest they are sociopaths.
On what planet is it a good idea right now to hit the UK economy with a £6.9billion bill? The idea is so utterly preposterous it crosses the border from economic incompetence to genuine malice.
However I spent some time with both my mother and her younger sister in their last days and they both "re-developed” some of their childhood accent.
Odd.
1. "..taking the system as a whole, including regressive VAT, as well as income and property taxes, the poorest tenth of households pay 43% of their income in tax, while the top tenth pay 35%."
2. "..with rebates and council tax benefit taken into account, the poorest tenth of households now pay almost 6% of their income in council tax, against 1.39% for the richest tenth."
As a rough and ready calculation, an employee choosing to do this every year for nine years would be the same cost as the statutory minimum maternity leave for one child of six weeks at 90% pay (6*5*0.9) = 27 days; or nine years of this scheme. But occasional planned day absences should be much easier to cope with than long maternity leave, and that is the value of absolute minimum maternity leave.
My biggest problem with this is if the volunteering being done is actually worthwhile; then again, who am I to judge what is worthwhile?
Whenever anyone starts quoting 'percentages' I sniff a rat.
It's funded entirely at the expense of the highest earning 1%.
Why do you think these redistribution values stink?
After the Heywood near-miss result there was a story that when Messrs Carswell and Reckless defected there was an agreement that they would get the full support of the national party. That may well have included resources for the GE campaign as well as the by-election.
Entirely.
It's taking (again) from those who have earned it and giving to those who haven't!
Is Osborne Darling in disguise?!
I'm voting UKIP (the party which care for Additional Rate tax payers)!
Forward with Farage!!
"My mother and her sisters, born and brought up in rural Hertfordshire were taught, as the daughters of an upwardly mobile farmimg/milling family, to “talk proper”. And they did. Their brothers, on the other hand, who went on the farm with their father "as soon as" spoke with “rural” accents. (I always thought the late Bernard Miles, in his “Chiltern monolgues” sounded like my favourite uncle).)"
I used to live on the farm of Alf Sherrin (it was a Millfield House) His Somerset accent was so pronounced it was quite impossible to believe that not only was Ned his brother but that they were both brought up on the same farm
http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/taxpayers_alliance_calls_for_urgent_action_on_spending_to_pave_the_way_for_real_and_lasting_tax_reform
I don't know, that's just not the way I operate. Caution is for the weak!
Note down the time and the place!
I agree with Mark Senior go LD!!!!
(Can't the starting point be £200,000pa?)
Many thanks for the suggestions.
'Why do you think these redistribution values stink?'
Like most Champagne Socialists he does the faux outrage bit whilst protecting his own assets via trusts, deeds of variation etc.
What about an unmarried couple in a house worth £425,000 with 0 of savings? They could on 2nd death pay £40,000 in IHT. The house would have to be sold unless a mortgage could be taken out by the children.
A good point. If unmarried parents need special provision (which I fully support) give IHT exemptions to unmarried parents and bring them into line with married ones. This is not an attempt to fix an anomaly but a method to give tax relief to people who are least likely to need it
To see whether a system is "progressive" in tax/benefits you need to look over the whole picture.
Incidently the most regressive taxes are the ones on tobacco. 50% of single mums on benefits smoke, averaging 10% of their income on the deadly weed.
Cameron is a cynical disgrace
Nobs
What would you reckon the "basics" should consist of?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b05p5hz6/sunday-politics-scotland-12042015
Smoking while pregnant or smoking in front of kids is utterly vile.
Probably other stuff as I am just writing these as I think of them. But a fraction of what is done now when it comes to actually 'running' stuff.
"Supermarket workers have to claim £11bn benefits, charity says"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32272817
Whether you think wages should be increased or in-work handouts should be cut, or a combination of the two, it's definitely one of things that needs reform. Lefties moan about supermarkets paying too little but it's just the market in jobs, almost anyone can stack shelves so it doesn't demand much of a wage. Whereas if Gordon Brown's prison of benefits (a pay rise wouldn't help anyway because the person's benefits will be cut proportionately) disappeared slowly everyone's wages would rise in line with the general cost of living.
Thanks, I was just curious. At the extreme end, some might say it should be down to making an enforcing laws, and maintaining forces to defend the country.
Everything else after that depends on how you feel I suppose.
Ever smoked yourself perchance?
A free at the point of delivery health service for example I think is the sign of an advanced healthy society. I just think there are loads of examples from around the world where it is done better than the NHS.
Typical left wing always think they can spend other people's money better than they can do themselves. Taxes are not for that by the way which is probably one of the reasons why the left always leave the country in an economic disaster when they are finally turfed out of office.
I supect that alcohol and gambling taxes also are very regressive.
The point about tobacco taxes is a good one. When you take that together with council tax then the record of the last Labour government was dire in terms of increasing taxes on the poor and reducing them on the rich.
ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_82.pdf
Reference 5
I just watched it and Scott is correct she was awful , it was a meltdown.
You are to partisan or blind to realty.
I can't watch it on my laptop.
They are allowing individuals to choose if they want to volunteer, and what they want to volunteer for. Firms are required to give them 3 days paid leave to do so.
No satisfactory answer.
£12bn welfare savings unexplained.
Means £20bn black hole or Magic Money Tree.
Time for answers methinks otherwise they lose the election IMO
The 3 days' paid volunteering leave is daft.
Mr. Owls, agree entirely. Figure for the NHS plucked from thin air. The only saving grace for the Conservatives is that they actually appear to be reasonably competent (at least compared to Labour) when it comes to the economy.
All the parties appear to be at it.
Not as mental as Labour's policy of fining people for abiding by the law, though, or spending the bankers' bonus tax seventeen times over.
Oh, it's frustrating not to have specificity, but I do actually see where our political class is coming from on such things; they tend to get punished if they go for blunt honesty on such things.
No satisfactory answer.*
* No, it won't.
Certainly is.
Only Tory values would be to make it a priority to spend £1bn on a policy which the Treasury says would not apply to 90% of estates.
Would not be my value whilst cutting £12bn from welfare and having an £8bn black hole in respect of NHS panic pledge.
The IHT threshold has not taken into account house values for some time.
The NHS extra spending is based on an official report and cannot be ignored, it comes on top of a period of 20 billion of economies and is spread over 5 years. Those economies will still continue otherwise the 8bn will not be sufficient. I think the IHT comes in around 2017.
Should I ask my parents to give me the marginal value of the Conservative IHT tax break to lay against a Conservative majority in order to achieve a green outcome
https://twitter.com/SkyNedNews/status/585777724960145408
If they have found £1bn to fund this perhaps the Tory black hole could have been reduced to a barely worth mentioning £19bn
offshore territories have responded that they are already more transparent than the UK, the US and other “onshore” countries in terms of making available information on beneficial ownership.
http://www.offshoretrustsguide.com/features/Towards_Public_Registers_of_Beneficial_Owners__572084.html
"This is amazing"
Why? A focus puller is getting focus on his face. It happens before every shot you just don't see it. But even so I cant see what's "amazing"?
However she would not really acknowledge the 7.6 billion figure from the IFS required for ffa.
Also was very obtuse on her requirement for another referendum.
The SNP could argue that it was 3 v1 and they ganged up on her.
As usual playing the victim.