resents state handouts...unless, of course, you're in receipt of. ... inheritance cuts for millionaires who's wealth has been accumulated from sitting on their fat arses during a thirty year property boom
Does that mean you are ok with inheritance tax* cuts for millionaries whose wealth has been accumulated by hard work and judicious investment?
* you missed this out, but I inferred you meant it...
Inheritance Tax is a justifiable tax to levy...gifting your wealth to a relative when you're alive attracts a CGT charge. Why should a £2 million family home be excluded from IHT
Because (a) it is double taxation and (b) because it can force the sale of family homes and businesses.
(For a bit of context, my family was forced to surrender our home and garden because of inheritance tax, so it's a rather sore topic)
In what way is it double taxation?
Because the assets have been accumulated out of income (taxed) and are transferred not through choice, but as a result of death.
It's double taxation even if it's transferred through choice. My (already taxed) money - I should be free to give it away if I wish.
Ironically, as a Tory and as a believer of capitalism, you should argue for the opposite. Tax on earned income [ the one you work for ] should be less and tax on unearned income should be high.
I think this is a flawed argument. Much of what you classify as unearned income is earned by risking capital and analysis. I think Buffett could quite reasonably claim to have been a source for economic good on many more levels than a Wall Street mortgage broker but both would probably see themselves as capitalists. The left's hatred of unearned income is clearly green eyed, there is no similar hatred of benefits which, virtually by definition, are unearned income.
In Scotland, despite the money being there and a fairly strong intention to deliver, the industry has found it very difficult to expand anywhere near fast enough. From memory, there is still a considerable shortfall in the level that has been delivered by the industry compared to what the Scottish Government has funded and wants to deliver.
As an industry with fairly low wages and very stiff Disclosure requirements it is not particularly ready to expand quickly.
One of the major problems is lack of suitable property for nursery care. Private nurseries fight tooth and nail to secure locations when they become available.
I'm not sure with that. There are nurseries all around me, in modern commercial property and grade A listed domestic property, as far as I can see, it's pretty damn easy to get a "Change of Use" to a nursery.
The big problem is the economics, with the low wage and high disclosure requirements. I expect that eventually the industry will adapt in Scotland and eventually elsewhere. But the idea it is an overnight fix (which the PB Tories were purporting) is a nonsense.
resents state handouts...unless, of course, you're in receipt of. ... inheritance cuts for millionaires who's wealth has been accumulated from sitting on their fat arses during a thirty year property boom
Does that mean you are ok with inheritance tax* cuts for millionaries whose wealth has been accumulated by hard work and judicious investment?
* you missed this out, but I inferred you meant it...
Inheritance Tax is a justifiable tax to levy...gifting your wealth to a relative when you're alive attracts a CGT charge. Why should a £2 million family home be excluded from IHT
Because (a) it is double taxation and (b) because it can force the sale of family homes and businesses.
(For a bit of context, my family was forced to surrender our home and garden because of inheritance tax, so it's a rather sore topic)
In what way is it double taxation?
Because the assets have been accumulated out of income (taxed) and are transferred not through choice, but as a result of death.
It's double taxation even if it's transferred through choice. My (already taxed) money - I should be free to give it away if I wish.
Ironically, as a Tory and as a believer of capitalism, you should argue for the opposite. Tax on earned income [ the one you work for ] should be less and tax on unearned income should be high.
I think this is a flawed argument. Much of what you classify as unearned income is earned by risking capital and analysis. I think Buffett could quite reasonably claim to have been a source for economic good on many more levels than a Wall Street mortgage broker but both would probably see themselves as capitalists. The left's hatred of unearned income is clearly green eyed, there is no similar hatred of benefits which, virtually by definition, are unearned income.
Michael Portillo agrees with me. He said so himself.
Yes...it's been announced they will do it...but when. Last I heard the funding hadn't been worked out and the trade body were warning that it would be unlikely that nurseries could afford to provide the care.
Of course it only refers to 3 and 4 year olds...so no good if your child is under 3
"No good it your child is under three".
I Am now convinced it doesn't mater what they do you will find a way to complain about it. How about having the baby when you can afford it and not expecting the rest of the population to constantly finance your life style choices from vagina to Varsity?
It's ..nothing else and they've been found out.
...
...
,,,
...
...
And let me guess...you know a lot about tax credits and those who claim them don't you?You're a snobby little Tory who resents state handouts...unless, of course, you're in receipt of child benefit , or you're a wealthy pensioner receiving winter fuel payments, or inheritance cuts for millionaires who's wealth has been accumulated from sitting on their fat arses during a thirty year property boom
Tory most definitely. On the shorter side, yes. Snobby - no. Mother from a council estate. Majority of the family still there - consigned to a terrible fate through lack of aspiration and artificial caps to it presented by the idiocy of tax credits.
I have a problem with money being taxed twice - especially when the thresholds were so low relative to the growing size of estates.
I also have a problem with universal benefits for pensioners. I have no problem with the relatively modest (in relation to average wage growth) maintenance of pension payments for those who are not in a position to improve their income by changing jobs etc
You do know the difference between giving someone another's hard earned money, and not taking that hard earned money in the first place - right? I only ask because it doesn't seem so from your stilted postings.
Just for the record - I'm in my twenties, and own no property apart from my business. It is because we don't all fall into your mean little boxes that Conservatives will always be the party of aspiration in this country.
The inference of the news programmes is that No10 and No 11 see this as a serious rift and having been a convention there is no longer one. They also inferred that something will be done.
That theres fightin' talk.......
But again, no matter how much "fighting talk" the Tories put out, they can't clip the Lords' wings unless the Lords vote for it.
That's not exactly true.
Go on.
Parliament Act 1949 is the precedent.
Did the Act itself not have to be passed by the Lords? (Genuine question)
Osborne becoming Con leader is how Labour will get back in the game - He'll be a disaster (Course they have to rid themselves of Jezza as well)
I feel this is the nub of the issue. Labour will get rid of Jezza and get back in the game. Same old Tory Labour Tory Labour metronome will get back on track. The debate will focus on whether to grossly overspend or overspend grossly. No real choice, country will continue to circle the plughole.
A valid observation but what is the alternative? Please don't say LibDem.
We happen in this country to have a non racist, non sectarian, moderate right wing populist party, called UKIP. That's a rarity. I think it's the best bet we have to get away from pretend politics.
resents state handouts...unless, of course, you're in receipt of. ... inheritance cuts for millionaires who's wealth has been accumulated from sitting on their fat arses during a thirty year property boom
Does that mean you are ok with inheritance tax* cuts for millionaries whose wealth has been accumulated by hard work and judicious investment?
* you missed this out, but I inferred you meant it...
Inheritance Tax is a justifiable tax to levy...gifting your wealth to a relative when you're alive attracts a CGT charge. Why should a £2 million family home be excluded from IHT
Because (a) it is double taxation and (b) because it can force the sale of family homes and businesses.
(For a bit of context, my family was forced to surrender our home and garden because of inheritance tax, so it's a rather sore topic)
In what way is it double taxation?
Because the assets have been accumulated out of income (taxed) and are transferred not through choice, but as a result of death.
It's double taxation even if it's transferred through choice. My (already taxed) money - I should be free to give it away if I wish.
Ironically, as a Tory and as a believer of capitalism, you should argue for the opposite. Tax on earned income [ the one you work for ] should be less and tax on unearned income should be high.
I think this is a flawed argument. Much of what you classify as unearned income is earned by risking capital and analysis. I think Buffett could quite reasonably claim to have been a source for economic good on many more levels than a Wall Street mortgage broker but both would probably see themselves as capitalists. The left's hatred of unearned income is clearly green eyed, there is no similar hatred of benefits which, virtually by definition, are unearned income.
A lot of it is just inflation. A house I bought for £135k in 1990 is now worth over a million. I did sod all for it. I need to thank a lot of Russians, Arabs, French, third world dictators who ploughed their ill-gotten money into the London property market. I am one of the gainers.
resents state handouts...unless, of course, you're in receipt of. ... inheritance cuts for millionaires who's wealth has been accumulated from sitting on their fat arses during a thirty year property boom
Does that mean you are ok with inheritance tax* cuts for millionaries whose wealth has been accumulated by hard work and judicious investment?
* you missed this out, but I inferred you meant it...
Inheritance Tax is a justifiable tax to levy...gifting your wealth to a relative when you're alive attracts a CGT charge. Why should a £2 million family home be excluded from IHT
Because (a) it is double taxation and (b) because it can force the sale of family homes and businesses.
(For a bit of context, my family was forced to surrender our home and garden because of inheritance tax, so it's a rather sore topic)
In what way is it double taxation?
Because the assets have been accumulated out of income (taxed) and are transferred not through choice, but as a result of death.
It's double taxation even if it's transferred through choice. My (already taxed) money - I should be free to give it away if I wish.
Ironically, as a Tory and as a believer of capitalism, you should argue for the opposite. Tax on earned income [ the one you work for ] should be less and tax on unearned income should be high.
I think this is a flawed argument. Much of what you classify as unearned income is earned by risking capital and analysis. I think Buffett could quite reasonably claim to have been a source for economic good on many more levels than a Wall Street mortgage broker but both would probably see themselves as capitalists. The left's hatred of unearned income is clearly green eyed, there is no similar hatred of benefits which, virtually by definition, are unearned income.
A lot of it is just inflation. A house I bought for £135k in 1990 is now worth over a million. I did sod all for it. I need to thank a lot of Russians, Arabs, French, third world dictators who ploughed their ill-gotten money into the London property market. I am one of the gainers.
Lucky you. I don't think I'll ever be able to afford somewhere to live (ie. own a property).
Without looking it up, how many on here know what the other £7.6bn cuts are? I doubt many do.
Point is it's much harder actually taking cash away from someone than just freezing benefits (and thus letting them fall in real terms) or making cuts for new claimants only.
Peston on BBC1 10pm suggested Osborne may now just apply Tax Credit cuts to new claimants.
Wonder what else he might do to make up all the £4.4bn?
Maybe restrictions on Child Benefit for new claimants - with much lower threshold than the current £50k - maybe £25k or £30k?
Without looking it up, how many on here know what the other £7.6bn cuts are? I doubt many do.
Point is it's much harder actually taking cash away from someone than just freezing benefits (and thus letting them fall in real terms) or making cuts for new claimants only.
Peston on BBC1 10pm suggested Osborne may now just apply Tax Credit cuts to new claimants.
Wonder what else he might do to make up all the £4.4bn?
Maybe restrictions on Child Benefit for new claimants - with much lower threshold than the current £50k - maybe £25k or £30k?
A 24-year-old who claimed benefits for two years said it was the government's fault he remained unemployed. Daniel Shaw from Manchester said it's 'ridiculous' how much money he was getting in handouts - £16,000 a year - and it made him less inclined to seek full-time work. He was even forced to survive on food banks after he gambled his entire handout away in a casino. 'As it stands I am earning more now than someone on minimum wage in a shop,' he told Channel 5 documentary Benefits, which airs this evening.
Food Banks are actually quite hard to access and are pretty much limited to those who have had a benefits sanction and asylum seekers. A referral can only be made by a Job Centre or certain specific charities and none of them will refer someone on the basis of "I gambled it away".
The benefits system is broken but these sort of lies don't help fixing it.
Osborne becoming Con leader is how Labour will get back in the game - He'll be a disaster (Course they have to rid themselves of Jezza as well)
I feel this is the nub of the issue. Labour will get rid of Jezza and get back in the game. Same old Tory Labour Tory Labour metronome will get back on track. The debate will focus on whether to grossly overspend or overspend grossly. No real choice, country will continue to circle the plughole.
A valid observation but what is the alternative? Please don't say LibDem.
We happen in this country to have a non racist, non sectarian, moderate right wing populist party, called UKIP. That's a rarity. I think it's the best bet we have to get away from pretend politics.
UKIP are most certainly a racist party. I would expect them to be sectarian as well.
And no matter how much Kippers wish it, Glenn ain't dead.
So the parties that lost the election, stop the elected government from reducing the deficit that the electorate asked it to do.
Hmmmmm.
But the Tories were elected on the basis that they would protect "hard workers", not on the basis that they'd cut poor workers' incomes.
Is 16 hours a week 'hard work'?
Can of worms.
To qualify for job seekers allowance, you have either to be unemployed or work less than 16 hours a week. Guess what many do ?
They don't have smart [overpaid] accountants either.
You seem to be suggesting that people will opt to work the bare minimum, which is what many on here have been saying.
So, if you are the government and you feel the bare minimum isn't really adequate, what do you do?
Answer - raise the bare minimum.
Restructure tax credits and the benefit cap so that the bare minimum isn't rewarded. It doesn't have to follow that the remunerative work rule applicable to JSA is raised.
Comments
The big problem is the economics, with the low wage and high disclosure requirements. I expect that eventually the industry will adapt in Scotland and eventually elsewhere. But the idea it is an overnight fix (which the PB Tories were purporting) is a nonsense.
I have a problem with money being taxed twice - especially when the thresholds were so low relative to the growing size of estates.
I also have a problem with universal benefits for pensioners. I have no problem with the relatively modest (in relation to average wage growth) maintenance of pension payments for those who are not in a position to improve their income by changing jobs etc
You do know the difference between giving someone another's hard earned money, and not taking that hard earned money in the first place - right? I only ask because it doesn't seem so from your stilted postings.
Just for the record - I'm in my twenties, and own no property apart from my business. It is because we don't all fall into your mean little boxes that Conservatives will always be the party of aspiration in this country.
Proposed Tax Credit cuts = £4.4bn
Without looking it up, how many on here know what the other £7.6bn cuts are? I doubt many do.
Point is it's much harder actually taking cash away from someone than just freezing benefits (and thus letting them fall in real terms) or making cuts for new claimants only.
Peston on BBC1 10pm suggested Osborne may now just apply Tax Credit cuts to new claimants.
Wonder what else he might do to make up all the £4.4bn?
Maybe restrictions on Child Benefit for new claimants - with much lower threshold than the current £50k - maybe £25k or £30k?
Welfare cap to apply to people in work?
Further cuts to Housing benefit?
Food Banks are actually quite hard to access and are pretty much limited to those who have had a benefits sanction and asylum seekers. A referral can only be made by a Job Centre or certain specific charities and none of them will refer someone on the basis of "I gambled it away".
The benefits system is broken but these sort of lies don't help fixing it.
George Osborne "Iron Chancellor" Will Never Be Prime Minister.
I'll get my coat.....
And no matter how much Kippers wish it, Glenn ain't dead.
So, if you are the government and you feel the bare minimum isn't really adequate, what do you do?
Answer - raise the bare minimum.
Restructure tax credits and the benefit cap so that the bare minimum isn't rewarded. It doesn't have to follow that the remunerative work rule applicable to JSA is raised.