State funding of political parties is of course repulsive (and that includes the Short money).
But I don't see why we shouldn't have tax relief on donations, up to some maximum per tax year. After all, there's no real difference between a charitable donation (which you make because you selflessly want to help some cause), and a political donation (which you make because you selflessly want to make the country a better place).
Unlimited relief at the top marginal rate would be very useful, Richard.
Osbornes bonus gift could come straight back rather than having to be gathered up by a few hedge fund bosses and then handed over after dinner with Samantha
The Treasury does very well from bonuses, tim.
Did you see the EBA table of EU bankers earning over €1 million which I posted the other day? It showed that the UK had 1,809 or 84% of 2,159 high earning bankers in Europe (excluding Switzerland) or €2.4 billion per year of taxable income.
Be quiet, tim, don't wake the golden goose. It may fly away and lays its eggs elsewhere.
Actually I'd prefer a 40% top rate and a property tax, makes a lot more sense and may help control damaging housing bubbles.
OK, I'll do a deal.
40% top rate now and a property tax on evidence of a housing bubble.
Agree?
There's already a bubble in the parts of London where the bankers you refer to live, so done.
Not sure it's a bubble - just a much larger and richer buyer group than previously, lifting prices out of the reach of most UK residents (myself included)
Oh dear God! I nearly lost the will to live watching this Indy Debate on STV tonight. It just became a slanging match at the end over, wait for it, current Tory benefit cuts & whether the Labour party will reverse them or not!! The SNP according to Sturgeon, would of course reverse all of them and even increase welfare spending to make the lot of those on benefits even more better off! Yep, this is what Nicola (SNP) and Anwar (Scottish Labour) were reduced to when it come to the Q&A segment, a stairwell rammy over who hates the Tories more when it comes to the bedroom tax etc. Not a word about who or how we would pay for this, or what they would cut elsewhere to pay for it or the debt that we would inherit. Just makes you despair.
State funding of political parties is of course repulsive (and that includes the Short money).
But I don't see why we shouldn't have tax relief on donations, up to some maximum per tax year. After all, there's no real difference between a charitable donation (which you make because you selflessly want to help some cause), and a political donation (which you make because you selflessly want to make the country a better place).
Unlimited relief at the top marginal rate would be very useful, Richard.
Osbornes bonus gift could come straight back rather than having to be gathered up by a few hedge fund bosses and then handed over after dinner with Samantha
The Treasury does very well from bonuses, tim.
Did you see the EBA table of EU bankers earning over €1 million which I posted the other day? It showed that the UK had 1,809 or 84% of 2,159 high earning bankers in Europe (excluding Switzerland) or €2.4 billion per year of taxable income.
Be quiet, tim, don't wake the golden goose. It may fly away and lays its eggs elsewhere.
Actually I'd prefer a 40% top rate and a property tax, makes a lot more sense and may help control damaging housing bubbles.
OK, I'll do a deal.
40% top rate now and a property tax on evidence of a housing bubble.
Agree?
There's already a bubble in the parts of London where the bankers you refer to live, so done.
Not sure it's a bubble - just a much larger and richer buyer group than previously, lifting prices out of the reach of most UK residents (myself included)
Yet another reason to move taxation from earned income to property
Property transaction taxes not annual wealth taxes.
State funding of political parties is of course repulsive (and that includes the Short money).
But I don't see why we shouldn't have tax relief on donations, up to some maximum per tax year. After all, there's no real difference between a charitable donation (which you make because you selflessly want to help some cause), and a political donation (which you make because you selflessly want to make the country a better place).
Unlimited relief at the top marginal rate would be very useful, Richard.
Osbornes bonus gift could come straight back rather than having to be gathered up by a few hedge fund bosses and then handed over after dinner with Samantha
The Treasury does very well from bonuses, tim.
Did you see the EBA table of EU bankers earning over €1 million which I posted the other day? It showed that the UK had 1,809 or 84% of 2,159 high earning bankers in Europe (excluding Switzerland) or €2.4 billion per year of taxable income.
Be quiet, tim, don't wake the golden goose. It may fly away and lays its eggs elsewhere.
Actually I'd prefer a 40% top rate and a property tax, makes a lot more sense and may help control damaging housing bubbles.
OK, I'll do a deal.
40% top rate now and a property tax on evidence of a housing bubble.
Agree?
There's already a bubble in the parts of London where the bankers you refer to live, so done.
Not sure it's a bubble - just a much larger and richer buyer group than previously, lifting prices out of the reach of most UK residents (myself included)
Yet another reason to move taxation from earned income to property
Providing it is phased in, kept at a low rate and the funds are used to reduce/eliminate more economically damaging taxes then why not.
Need to bear in mind though that it will result in a substantial transfer of wealth from London to other parts of the country. No view on good or bad, but a factor
State funding of political parties is of course repulsive (and that includes the Short money).
But I don't see why we shouldn't have tax relief on donations, up to some maximum per tax year. After all, there's no real difference between a charitable donation (which you make because you selflessly want to help some cause), and a political donation (which you make because you selflessly want to make the country a better place).
Unlimited relief at the top marginal rate would be very useful, Richard.
Osbornes bonus gift could come straight back rather than having to be gathered up by a few hedge fund bosses and then handed over after dinner with Samantha
The Treasury does very well from bonuses, tim.
Did you see the EBA table of EU bankers earning over €1 million which I posted the other day? It showed that the UK had 1,809 or 84% of 2,159 high earning bankers in Europe (excluding Switzerland) or €2.4 billion per year of taxable income.
Be quiet, tim, don't wake the golden goose. It may fly away and lays its eggs elsewhere.
Actually I'd prefer a 40% top rate and a property tax, makes a lot more sense and may help control damaging housing bubbles.
OK, I'll do a deal.
40% top rate now and a property tax on evidence of a housing bubble.
Agree?
There's already a bubble in the parts of London where the bankers you refer to live, so done.
Not sure it's a bubble - just a much larger and richer buyer group than previously, lifting prices out of the reach of most UK residents (myself included)
The fact that this market is driven by overseas cash purchasers means it is highly unlikely to be a "bubble" in the normal sense of what we mean by a "housing bubble".
Housing bubbles are usually linked to credit bubbles, where an oversupply of low cost credit has inflated property prices. The bursting of the bubble comes when credit supply is restricted or interest rates rise to combat excessive inflation.
SkyNews: THE INDEPENDENT: Labour says taxpayers may have to pay more for political parties. http://t.co/MTuGMEvcOs
If taxpayers have to pay (more) for political parties, why should non-taxpayers get to vote?
And, will we be able to decide what political party we want our tax to go to? (ISTR that Germany has/had a religion tax to fund churches, in which the taxpayer chooses the religion/church)
Imagine state funding of the BNP or SWP?
Well, unless "they" are prepared to make them illegal, parties like that will have to be state-funded too, won't they? If they're legitimate political parties, why not? Also, it's hardly democratic only to fund the present major players and make no provision for start-up parties.
But my argument is no state funding of any party, big or small.
Off the top of my head I agree with you, but I acknowledge I haven't thought it through.
I suppose democracy needs political parties ... does it? ... and if the population would rather spend their money on single-interest groups or latest gadgets or beer or charities or whatever, keeping democracy functioning is a public good. Presumably there was a similar sort of reasoning (or at least, some reasoning) behind the original provision of Short money for Oppositions.
Short money was about balance - argument is that the governing party has a benefit from the civil service support (which they would, of course, never ever dream of using for political purposes) and the Short money was designed to balance that.
"Michael Gove appeared to set himself at odds with the "bedroom tax" on Thursday when he said children from less affluent backgrounds suffer at school because they do not have their own bedroom for homework.
The "bedroom tax", introduced in last year's welfare reform act, reduces housing benefit in certain circumstances if children are given separate bedrooms. Two children under the age of 16 of the same gender are expected to share a bedroom. Two children under the age of ten are expected to share regardless of their gender, according to guidelines issued by the National Housing Federation.
Speaking in support of planning changes allowing larger homes, Gove said at the Policy Exchange think tank: "My colleague Nick Boles has been making changes to the planning regime. These are changes which are social justice changes. Virginia Woolf wrote about A Room of One's Own and about the fact that throughout history, women did not have a chance to fulfil their potential because they did not have a room of their own in which to write.
"There are children, poor children, who do not have rooms of their own in which to do their homework, in which to achieve their full potential."
Providing it is phased in, kept at a low rate and the funds are used to reduce/eliminate more economically damaging taxes then why not.
Need to bear in mind though that it will result in a substantial transfer of wealth from London to other parts of the country. No view on good or bad, but a factor
More pertinently, MPs have much more property wealth than most of their constituents. The only circumstances in which I see a property tax being introduced are the imminent bankruptcy of the state, or a major political upheaval that brings in a different class of MPs.
"Michael Gove appeared to set himself at odds with the "bedroom tax" on Thursday when he said children from less affluent backgrounds suffer at school because they do not have their own bedroom for homework.
The "bedroom tax", introduced in last year's welfare reform act, reduces housing benefit in certain circumstances if children are given separate bedrooms. Two children under the age of 16 of the same gender are expected to share a bedroom. Two children under the age of ten are expected to share regardless of their gender, according to guidelines issued by the National Housing Federation.
Speaking in support of planning changes allowing larger homes, Gove said at the Policy Exchange think tank: "My colleague Nick Boles has been making changes to the planning regime. These are changes which are social justice changes. Virginia Woolf wrote about A Room of One's Own and about the fact that throughout history, women did not have a chance to fulfil their potential because they did not have a room of their own in which to write.
"There are children, poor children, who do not have rooms of their own in which to do their homework, in which to achieve their full potential."
Never allow children to do their homework in bedrooms, tim.
Young children of primary school age should be required to use the Nursery and elder children the Library.
Gove is absolutely right but his opinions have no bearing on the 'bedroom tax'.
Unpopular and doubtless to be vilified though this view is, the value of homework for young children is unproven. Actually I think it's detrimental: all it does is exhaust them and becomes an excuse for teachers to make up teaching outside of lessons rather than reinforce and extend learning. It teaches youngsters that the only way to live is to work 16 hour days.
So I'd say children under 14 shouldn't be doing any homework, except projects and unusual, fun, activities that genuinely extend learning.
"Michael Gove appeared to set himself at odds with the "bedroom tax" on Thursday when he said children from less affluent backgrounds suffer at school because they do not have their own bedroom for homework.
The "bedroom tax", introduced in last year's welfare reform act, reduces housing benefit in certain circumstances if children are given separate bedrooms. Two children under the age of 16 of the same gender are expected to share a bedroom. Two children under the age of ten are expected to share regardless of their gender, according to guidelines issued by the National Housing Federation.
Speaking in support of planning changes allowing larger homes, Gove said at the Policy Exchange think tank: "My colleague Nick Boles has been making changes to the planning regime. These are changes which are social justice changes. Virginia Woolf wrote about A Room of One's Own and about the fact that throughout history, women did not have a chance to fulfil their potential because they did not have a room of their own in which to write.
"There are children, poor children, who do not have rooms of their own in which to do their homework, in which to achieve their full potential."
Never allow children to do their homework in bedrooms, tim.
Young children of primary school age should be required to use the Nursery and elder children the Library.
Gove is absolutely right but his opinions have no bearing on the 'bedroom tax'.
I'll try again
Unpopular and doubtless to be vilified though this view is, the value of homework for young children is unproven. Actually I think it's detrimental: all it does is exhaust them and becomes an excuse for teachers to make up teaching outside of lessons rather than reinforce and extend learning. It teaches youngsters that the only way to live is to work 16 hour days.
So I'd say children under 14 shouldn't be doing any homework, except projects and unusual, fun, activities that genuinely extend learning.
"Michael Gove appeared to set himself at odds with the "bedroom tax" on Thursday when he said children from less affluent backgrounds suffer at school because they do not have their own bedroom for homework.
The "bedroom tax", introduced in last year's welfare reform act, reduces housing benefit in certain circumstances if children are given separate bedrooms. Two children under the age of 16 of the same gender are expected to share a bedroom. Two children under the age of ten are expected to share regardless of their gender, according to guidelines issued by the National Housing Federation.
Speaking in support of planning changes allowing larger homes, Gove said at the Policy Exchange think tank: "My colleague Nick Boles has been making changes to the planning regime. These are changes which are social justice changes. Virginia Woolf wrote about A Room of One's Own and about the fact that throughout history, women did not have a chance to fulfil their potential because they did not have a room of their own in which to write.
"There are children, poor children, who do not have rooms of their own in which to do their homework, in which to achieve their full potential."
Never allow children to do their homework in bedrooms, tim.
Young children of primary school age should be required to use the Nursery and elder children the Library.
Gove is absolutely right but his opinions have no bearing on the 'bedroom tax'.
I'll try again
Unpopular and doubtless to be vilified though this view is, the value of homework for young children is unproven. Actually I think it's detrimental: all it does is exhaust them and becomes an excuse for teachers to make up teaching outside of lessons rather than reinforce and extend learning. It teaches youngsters that the only way to live is to work 16 hour days.
So I'd say children under 14 shouldn't be doing any homework, except projects and unusual, fun, activities that genuinely extend learning.
I think the "except projects" is a big exception there.
The sort of homework that cannot be completed in a single sitting tests the child's ability to organise their own work, rather than simply working when told to by a teacher, or when facing a deadline the next day. If they cut down on the "complete this worksheet" type of homework to make more room for larger projects it would identify those children who needed help with self-organisation and self-motivation.
Amidst all the recent polls, it would be interesting if those questioned were asked whether they considered the economy was (a) improving, (b) deteriorating (c) remaining much the same. This might help to identify the extent to which any recent actual improvement had impacted on the Great British consciousness and therefore the degree, if any, the Government's ratings might still be impacted.
I suspect that the average British voter has little or no appreciation of any economic improvement as yet and this will only register if and when this starts to affect them directly or at least until it has been headlined in the media for at least 6-12 months.
Comments
Lab 716 Con 257 UKIP 31 Lib Dem 14 Green?
Cllr Tom Dodd (Labour) 716, Con 453, UKIP 257, LibDem 31, Green 14.
Need to bear in mind though that it will result in a substantial transfer of wealth from London to other parts of the country. No view on good or bad, but a factor
Housing bubbles are usually linked to credit bubbles, where an oversupply of low cost credit has inflated property prices. The bursting of the bubble comes when credit supply is restricted or interest rates rise to combat excessive inflation.
P.S. Charles, are you now incognito on PB?
Do the candidates wear mediaeval dress and get served mead in tankards by local wenches?
Catherine SIMMONS - GREEN 292
Robin JULIAN - UKIP 181
David COX - IND 160
Adrian FREELAND - IND 106
Phil PESTER - CON 88
It was a Con-Ind-LD split ward in 2011!!
Neil will take up Morris Dancing next.
Young children of primary school age should be required to use the Nursery and elder children the Library.
Gove is absolutely right but his opinions have no bearing on the 'bedroom tax'.
122 small divisions elected 123 members, with two in Bude (one of which was uncontested):
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dC02dFJobkdWY1E1VTBiaWFiN3EwOFE#gid=0
The Tories won the popular vote with 24.51%.
Unpopular and doubtless to be vilified though this view is, the value of homework for young children is unproven. Actually I think it's detrimental: all it does is exhaust them and becomes an excuse for teachers to make up teaching outside of lessons rather than reinforce and extend learning. It teaches youngsters that the only way to live is to work 16 hour days.
So I'd say children under 14 shouldn't be doing any homework, except projects and unusual, fun, activities that genuinely extend learning.
The sort of homework that cannot be completed in a single sitting tests the child's ability to organise their own work, rather than simply working when told to by a teacher, or when facing a deadline the next day. If they cut down on the "complete this worksheet" type of homework to make more room for larger projects it would identify those children who needed help with self-organisation and self-motivation.
I suspect that the average British voter has little or no appreciation of any economic improvement as yet and this will only register if and when this starts to affect them directly or at least until it has been headlined in the media for at least 6-12 months.