Re tax - we are consistently told that we must save for our retirement, that state pensions will become nugatory for many, that we are wealthy enough not to need incentives to save into pensions. So when we do save we are told that we are accumulating undeserved wealth and it should be taken away. Long term, fuck it.
This and Sandpit's post both amount to the same thing: that this kind of tax would prevent you and your children and your children's children and so on from sitting on a sufficiently large pot of wealth and getting richer and richer without ever doing anything else to earn an income. If you did that, your wealth would instead gradually diminish over time. Personally, I'd call that a good thing.
On financial assets, certainly. However a lot of the wealth is tied up in productive assets (e.g. companies) or assets that have substantial marriage value (e.g. houses with their hinterland) - it would be an economic negative to force the break up of these assets)
(* for the record, Attlee forced us to split our house and garden from the productive land that supported it. But given the choice today we'd have found a way to keep the garden )
I can't help thinking you are just viewing it from the individual (or family) perspective Charles.
No, genuinely not!
The vast bulk of my family's wealth is tied up in the company - there would normally be an exemption for that.
Assets can be converted into assets and income into spending, but assets into spending is a poor long term strategy.
As I said: if you want to redistribute assets then (a) take a slice of private wealth and move it to a sovereign wealth fund; or (b) use it to repay government debt
Which (assets/expenditure) was what Macmillan was getting at when he complained that Mrs T was "selling the family silver".
I think it was privatisation - not sure which utility specifically.
(But the point is the same - Thatcher spent the proceeds)
2% annual wealth tax is pretty high by international standards
She’s also careful to avoid mentioning that it would need to be levied annually. So over 20 years it would expropriate more than half of someone’s wealth. Obviously that definitely won’t result in any changes in behaviour whatsoever..
How does that maths work?
It doesn't. 0.98 to the power 20 is 0.67, so one third over 20 years.
I mean bloody hell though.
The other way of looking at it is you should be able to generate a return of about 6.0% (CPI + 4%) on a consistent basis with a balanced portfolio.
You currently pay 40% income tax on this (for simplicity), so your return after tax is 3.6% (or CPI + 1.6%)
If you have a flat charge of 2% p.a. on top of this then your return would be 1.6%
Effectively you will be taking all of the return in excess of inflation plus a small slice, so the asset pool would diminish in real terms.
The crossover is at a return of about 6.75% which is pretty punchy by most standards (my asset managers have delivered around 6.5% p.a. over the last 7 years with a moderate amount of risk).
This and Sandpit's post both amount to the same thing: that this kind of tax would prevent you and your children and your children's children and so on from sitting on a sufficiently large pot of wealth and getting richer and richer without ever doing anything else to earn an income. If you did that, your wealth would instead gradually diminish over time. Personally, I'd call that a good thing.
On financial assets, certainly. However a lot of the wealth is tied up in productive assets (e.g. companies) or assets that have substantial marriage value (e.g. houses with their hinterland) - it would be an economic negative to force the break up of these assets)
(* for the record, Attlee forced us to split our house and garden from the productive land that supported it. But given the choice today we'd have found a way to keep the garden )
Stupid Communism ... coming soon to a (formerly) 1st world nation near you!
Delivered by an equally odious and stupid ideology, nationalism, dressed up as a madness known as "Brexit", a malady for halfwits and narcissistic old Etonians.
If property tax replaced council and was set to 1% of a home's say 2015 value (Updating say each 10 years) I assume the papers would lead on the big tax cut for northern terraced and small semi owners ?
What do you think the million-pound-London-house-dwelling journalists would write about?
1. Is it in addition to existing taxes or instead of. If the former then that can be problematic for people whose main wealth is their house. If the latter, then less so. But then how will councils raise revenue? 2. The rate and level at which it is charged. I think it was @NickPalmer who mentioned the wealth tax which the Swiss have which was at a low rate but with few exemptions and seemed a reasonable way of approaching the issue. 3. What is included or not in the definition. Property? Pensions? All savings, even tax-free ones? Jewellery: your engagement ring? Furniture? Granny's silver? Car? Hi-tech equipment in your house?
The more you include the more wealthy people you have to tax but they may not have a particularly high income and may not think of themselves as wealthy at all, particularly not if they have dependant children. Equally those at the other end may resent having savings earmarked for their old age/social care taken.
So it all depends on what is meant by it and how it is applied.
Would anyone like to make a prediction for the projected national shares at the local elections? In 2015 the figures were Con 35%, Lab 29%, UKIP 13%, LD 11%.
Extraordinary. I can honestly see the Tory Party disintegrating - all party loyalty has gone. Hard Brexit is now absolutely everything.
I can't decide if it's ruthless political cynicism, or just stupidity.
A "hard" Brexit means the Tories never win a UK GE again, but it might (just) win them a Little England election.
This is rubbish. A hard Brexit would see a six month recession and then a return to growth. The UK is a large enough economy that international trade is simply not that big a part of our economic health, especially EU trade which is a net deficit.
Would anyone like to make a prediction for the projected national shares at the local elections? In 2015 the figures were Con 35%, Lab 29%, UKIP 13%, LD 11%.
The UK is a large enough economy that international trade is simply not that big a part of our economic health, especially EU trade which is a net deficit.
You are a former Brexit secretary and I claim my 5 groats...
I am curious what all the gammon Brexiteers are going to drive when JLR shuts?
And what happened? May got her WA, the Tory ultras did not support it and....Labour MPs in leave seats did not support it either. Only a tiny handful of Labour MPs have rebelled and voted for the WA in any of the three votes. And Labour has solidly voted against no deal and (slightly less solidly) for the Cooper Letwin bill. Labour has prevented Brexit so far, it is continuing (via the "talks") to prevent Brexit now, and it will continue to do so in the future. Corbyn may or may not like that (he probably doesn't care much either way) but the facts are there.
I wonder though, if the Brexit Party really does crush Labour in a lot of their Northern and Midlands areas in the Euro elections, whether 30 or so Labour MPs start panicking and pass May's deal.
That would play into Farage’s hands. May’s deal is a ‘betrayal’, remember. Passing it would allow him to use that line for the rest of his career.
I sort of agree, I think Labour in the public's minds are already so vehemently anti-Brexit that it's pointless to change course now, for better or worse.
But that doesn't mean Gloria De Piero or Gareth Snell will also think that, if they've just seen Farage's party thrash them in their backyard.
1. Is it in addition to existing taxes or instead of. If the former then that can be problematic for people whose main wealth is their house. If the latter, then less so. But then how will councils raise revenue? 2. The rate and level at which it is charged. I think it was @NickPalmer who mentioned the wealth tax which the Swiss have which was at a low rate but with few exemptions and seemed a reasonable way of approaching the issue. 3. What is included or not in the definition. Property? Pensions? All savings, even tax-free ones? Jewellery: your engagement ring? Furniture? Granny's silver? Car? Hi-tech equipment in your house?
The more you include the more wealthy people you have to tax but they may not have a particularly high income and may not think of themselves as wealthy at all, particularly not if they have dependant children. Equally those at the other end may resent having savings earmarked for their old age/social care taken.
So it all depends on what is meant by it and how it is applied.
Elizabeth Warren's wealth tax is only for those with over $50m in assets. I doubt many of those people wouldn't think of themselves as wealthy.
Extraordinary. I can honestly see the Tory Party disintegrating - all party loyalty has gone. Hard Brexit is now absolutely everything.
Total madness. Most of them have completely lost their heads. It is like a millenarianist cult panting for the soul purging of economic chaos of No Deal.
And what happened? May got her WA, the Tory ultras did not support it and....Labour MPs in leave seats did not support it either. Only a tiny handful of Labour MPs have rebelled and voted for the WA in any of the three votes. And Labour has solidly voted against no deal and (slightly less solidly) for the Cooper Letwin bill. Labour has prevented Brexit so far, it is continuing (via the "talks") to prevent Brexit now, and it will continue to do so in the future. Corbyn may or may not like that (he probably doesn't care much either way) but the facts are there.
I wonder though, if the Brexit Party really does crush Labour in a lot of their Northern and Midlands areas in the Euro elections, whether 30 or so Labour MPs start panicking and pass May's deal.
Not that I think they will crush labour but I still do not think that many would switch. Brexit is still anathema to most even those pretending to be on the fence and the mp numbers would still favour preventing no deal
Of course they should. It should be an automatic withdrawal of the whip for an elected representative openly to support a rival party. (cf the Lucy Allan tweet below I linked to as an overt example.)
But of course the Conservatives are now so consumed by the death cult that all norms of party functioning are being abandoned.
F1: win, fastest qualifier, and podium markets up on Ladbrokes. Not making any more bets beyond those I mentioned last week, but worth noting the podium/each way win (fifth the odds top 3) discrepancy.
For example, Ricciardo is 15 for a podium. He's 501 to win. Getting a win each way makes the odds 100 (fifth the odds, minus one for the failed 'win') for second or third. That's quite the chasm.
Edited extra bit: Stroll's 34 for a podium. I backed him, each way at 3001. Hefty difference.
Would anyone like to make a prediction for the projected national shares at the local elections? In 2015 the figures were Con 35%, Lab 29%, UKIP 13%, LD 11%.
Nigel's a wilely old thing. I get the impression he's trying to capture the Cameronite centre ground that the Tories have recently abandoned - hence his withering denunciations of UKIP and edging away from Trump.
Yeah, more or less. It's partly that he fancies peeling off a few centre ground voters, but I think his target is the mainstream right wing. By recruiting plausible looking centre figures, he ensures that his new party isn't toxified by the same right-wing nutter affliction as UKIP.
It is genuinely wily - position yourself as centre-right, and you attract the right; position yourself as far-right, and you only attract the far right.
Of course they should. It should be an automatic withdrawal of the whip for an elected representative openly to support a rival party. (cf the Lucy Allan tweet below I linked to as an overt example.)
But of course the Conservatives are now so consumed by the death cult that all norms of party functioning are being abandoned.
Quite.
A few deselections pour encourager les autres are needed.
Lots of things are needed atm. Chances of us getting them are vanishingly low.
1. Is it in addition to existing taxes or instead of. If the former then that can be problematic for people whose main wealth is their house. If the latter, then less so. But then how will councils raise revenue? 2. The rate and level at which it is charged. I think it was @NickPalmer who mentioned the wealth tax which the Swiss have which was at a low rate but with few exemptions and seemed a reasonable way of approaching the issue. 3. What is included or not in the definition. Property? Pensions? All savings, even tax-free ones? Jewellery: your engagement ring? Furniture? Granny's silver? Car? Hi-tech equipment in your house?
The more you include the more wealthy people you have to tax but they may not have a particularly high income and may not think of themselves as wealthy at all, particularly not if they have dependant children. Equally those at the other end may resent having savings earmarked for their old age/social care taken.
So it all depends on what is meant by it and how it is applied.
Pensions are interesting given the hidden wealth final salary pensions give to (now substantially) state employees. Shocks galore.
Why not have an alliance between the two parties so they don't fight each other? The LDs could contest most of the seats in those areas where they're strong, like the South West, and ChangeUK could fight in areas where the LDs are weak, like most of London outside RIchmond/Twickenham/Kingston, etc.
1. Is it in addition to existing taxes or instead of. If the former then that can be problematic for people whose main wealth is their house. If the latter, then less so. But then how will councils raise revenue? 2. The rate and level at which it is charged. I think it was @NickPalmer who mentioned the wealth tax which the Swiss have which was at a low rate but with few exemptions and seemed a reasonable way of approaching the issue. 3. What is included or not in the definition. Property? Pensions? All savings, even tax-free ones? Jewellery: your engagement ring? Furniture? Granny's silver? Car? Hi-tech equipment in your house?
The more you include the more wealthy people you have to tax but they may not have a particularly high income and may not think of themselves as wealthy at all, particularly not if they have dependant children. Equally those at the other end may resent having savings earmarked for their old age/social care taken.
So it all depends on what is meant by it and how it is applied.
Elizabeth Warren's wealth tax is only for those with over $50m in assets. I doubt many of those people wouldn't think of themselves as wealthy.
Of course.
I was more thinking of how it might be introduced here where I suspect it would be levied on people with much much less than that.
"The Conservatives’ mistake was to think “Let’s just get Brexit done, and then we can move on to other things.” There is no “moving on”. Even if the Prime Minister had managed to pass her Brexit deal, the hard Brexiteers (and their leadership contenders) would have immediately campaigned to withdraw from the withdrawal agreement — and the argument about the permanent EU relationship would go on for years. "
The UK is a large enough economy that international trade is simply not that big a part of our economic health, especially EU trade which is a net deficit.
You are a former Brexit secretary and I claim my 5 groats...
I am curious what all the gammon Brexiteers are going to drive when JLR shuts?
New JLR vehicles are commonly found in areas where 4WD is wholly unnecessary. Like remain voting SW London. Perhaps you can insult some women for a change of pace,
Of course they should. It should be an automatic withdrawal of the whip for an elected representative openly to support a rival party. (cf the Lucy Allan tweet below I linked to as an overt example.)
But of course the Conservatives are now so consumed by the death cult that all norms of party functioning are being abandoned.
Quite.
A few deselections pour encourager les autres are needed.
Lots of things are needed atm. Chances of us getting them are vanishingly low.
We are seeing a complete breakdown of party discipline in the two largest parties.
Ms Allen is calculating (correctly) that the PM is too weak to withdraw the whip from her - it would leave the Con+DUP government with a theoretical majority of one.
Why not have an alliance between the two parties so they don't fight each other? The LDs could contest most of the seats in those areas where they're strong, like the South West, and ChangeUK could fight in areas where the LDs are weak, like most of London outside RIchmond/Twickenham/Kingston, etc.
What makes you think the CUKs aren’t weak outside of southwest London?
F1: win, fastest qualifier, and podium markets up on Ladbrokes. Not making any more bets beyond those I mentioned last week, but worth noting the podium/each way win (fifth the odds top 3) discrepancy.
For example, Ricciardo is 15 for a podium. He's 501 to win. Getting a win each way makes the odds 100 (fifth the odds, minus one for the failed 'win') for second or third. That's quite the chasm.
Edited extra bit: Stroll's 34 for a podium. I backed him, each way at 3001. Hefty difference.
Good spot, and have fun trying not to be banned by the bookie if one of the "mispriced" e/w bets comes in.
Why not have an alliance between the two parties so they don't fight each other? The LDs could contest most of the seats in those areas where they're strong, like the South West, and ChangeUK could fight in areas where the LDs are weak, like most of London outside RIchmond/Twickenham/Kingston, etc.
What makes you think the CUKs aren’t weak outside of southwest London?
I just thought they might be slightly stronger in London than elsewhere.
Why not have an alliance between the two parties so they don't fight each other? The LDs could contest most of the seats in those areas where they're strong, like the South West, and ChangeUK could fight in areas where the LDs are weak, like most of London outside RIchmond/Twickenham/Kingston, etc.
What makes you think the CUKs aren’t weak outside of southwest London?
I just thought they might be slightly stronger in London than elsewhere.
Oh quite probably, but demographically it’s likely the southwest London area will be one of their strongest parts of the capital, where the LDs also get their voters. So they can’t exactly move aside for one another.
And what happened? May got her WA, the Tory ultras did not support it and....Labour MPs in leave seats did not support it either. Only a tiny handful of Labour MPs have rebelled and voted for the WA in any of the three votes. And Labour has solidly voted against no deal and (slightly less solidly) for the Cooper Letwin bill. Labour has prevented Brexit so far, it is continuing (via the "talks") to prevent Brexit now, and it will continue to do so in the future. Corbyn may or may not like that (he probably doesn't care much either way) but the facts are there.
I wonder though, if the Brexit Party really does crush Labour in a lot of their Northern and Midlands areas in the Euro elections, whether 30 or so Labour MPs start panicking and pass May's deal.
Doubt it. Having voted against the deal three times suddenly turning chicken and voting in favour because Farage got few gammons to vote for him would not look good to their local party membership. Anyway, the vast majority of Labour voters are remainers, even in leave seats. I get the impression that some of the MPs in question are looking at other ways forward, I heard one of them (Nandy I think but could be wrong) on R4 the other day talking about citizens assemblies and compromise solutions - it was all a bit unfocused but it certainly did not suggest that she was about to cave in and back May.
And what happened? May got her WA, the Tory ultras did not support it and....Labour MPs in leave seats did not support it either. Only a tiny handful of Labour MPs have rebelled and voted for the WA in any of the three votes. And Labour has solidly voted against no deal and (slightly less solidly) for the Cooper Letwin bill. Labour has prevented Brexit so far, it is continuing (via the "talks") to prevent Brexit now, and it will continue to do so in the future. Corbyn may or may not like that (he probably doesn't care much either way) but the facts are there.
I wonder though, if the Brexit Party really does crush Labour in a lot of their Northern and Midlands areas in the Euro elections, whether 30 or so Labour MPs start panicking and pass May's deal.
Doubt it. Having voted against the deal three times suddenly turning chicken and voting in favour because Farage got few gammons to vote for him would not look good to their local party membership. Anyway, the vast majority of Labour voters are remainers, even in leave seats. I get the impression that some of the MPs in question are looking at other ways forward, I heard one of them (Nandy I think but could be wrong) on R4 the other day talking about citizens assemblies and compromise solutions - it was all a bit unfocused but it certainly did not suggest that she was about to cave in and back May.
A few gammons? I think the Brexit party will poll quite well.
1. Is it in addition to existing taxes or instead of. If the former then that can be problematic for people whose main wealth is their house. If the latter, then less so. But then how will councils raise revenue? 2. The rate and level at which it is charged. I think it was @NickPalmer who mentioned the wealth tax which the Swiss have which was at a low rate but with few exemptions and seemed a reasonable way of approaching the issue. 3. What is included or not in the definition. Property? Pensions? All savings, even tax-free ones? Jewellery: your engagement ring? Furniture? Granny's silver? Car? Hi-tech equipment in your house?
The more you include the more wealthy people you have to tax but they may not have a particularly high income and may not think of themselves as wealthy at all, particularly not if they have dependant children. Equally those at the other end may resent having savings earmarked for their old age/social care taken.
So it all depends on what is meant by it and how it is applied.
Pensions are interesting given the hidden wealth final salary pensions give to (now substantially) state employees. Shocks galore.
Of course they should. It should be an automatic withdrawal of the whip for an elected representative openly to support a rival party. (cf the Lucy Allan tweet below I linked to as an overt example.)
But of course the Conservatives are now so consumed by the death cult that all norms of party functioning are being abandoned.
Quite.
A few deselections pour encourager les autres are needed.
Lots of things are needed atm. Chances of us getting them are vanishingly low.
We are seeing a complete breakdown of party discipline in the two largest parties.
Ms Allen is calculating (correctly) that the PM is too weak to withdraw the whip from her - it would leave the Con+DUP government with a theoretical majority of one.
Could it not work the other way, though?
Say that any MP supporting, campaigning or voting for any party other than the Tories will have the whip withdrawn - and be deselected, that this will mean the Tories losing their majority and therefore Mrs May will have no option but to ask HMQ to find someone else who can command a majority and, if not, a GE. At which point the Ms Allans of this world are out of a job.
And what happened? May got her WA, the Tory ultras did not support it and....Labour MPs in leave seats did not support it either. Only a tiny handful of Labour MPs have rebelled and voted for the WA in any of the three votes. And Labour has solidly voted against no deal and (slightly less solidly) for the Cooper Letwin bill. Labour has prevented Brexit so far, it is continuing (via the "talks") to prevent Brexit now, and it will continue to do so in the future. Corbyn may or may not like that (he probably doesn't care much either way) but the facts are there.
I wonder though, if the Brexit Party really does crush Labour in a lot of their Northern and Midlands areas in the Euro elections, whether 30 or so Labour MPs start panicking and pass May's deal.
Doubt it. Having voted against the deal three times suddenly turning chicken and voting in favour because Farage got few gammons to vote for him would not look good to their local party membership. Anyway, the vast majority of Labour voters are remainers, even in leave seats. I get the impression that some of the MPs in question are looking at other ways forward, I heard one of them (Nandy I think but could be wrong) on R4 the other day talking about citizens assemblies and compromise solutions - it was all a bit unfocused but it certainly did not suggest that she was about to cave in and back May.
A few gammons? I think the Brexit party will poll quite well.
Clearly these people haven’t learnt from Hillary’s deplorables debacle.
The ones moaning about an alleged betrayal of democracy are trying to re-write the past . Voters were promised a deal but now it seems only no deal is now classed as Brexit.
If they’re willing to support a sensible orderly Brexit then as a Remainer I’ll shut up and accept Brexit if not then Remainers should do everything possible to stop it .
The UK is a large enough economy that international trade is simply not that big a part of our economic health, especially EU trade which is a net deficit.
You are a former Brexit secretary and I claim my 5 groats...
I am curious what all the gammon Brexiteers are going to drive when JLR shuts?
And what happened? May got her WA, the Tory ultras did not support it and....Labour MPs in leave seats did not support it either. Only a tiny handful of Labour MPs have rebelled and voted for the WA in any of the three votes. And Labour has solidly voted against no deal and (slightly less solidly) for the Cooper Letwin bill. Labour has prevented Brexit so far, it is continuing (via the "talks") to prevent Brexit now, and it will continue to do so in the future. Corbyn may or may not like that (he probably doesn't care much either way) but the facts are there.
I wonder though, if the Brexit Party really does crush Labour in a lot of their Northern and Midlands areas in the Euro elections, whether 30 or so Labour MPs start panicking and pass May's deal.
Doubt it. Having voted against the deal three times suddenly turning chicken and voting in favour because Farage got few gammons to vote for him would not look good to their local party membership. Anyway, the vast majority of Labour voters are remainers, even in leave seats. I get the impression that some of the MPs in question are looking at other ways forward, I heard one of them (Nandy I think but could be wrong) on R4 the other day talking about citizens assemblies and compromise solutions - it was all a bit unfocused but it certainly did not suggest that she was about to cave in and back May.
A few gammons? I think the Brexit party will poll quite well.
After 4 days of non-stop sunshine over Easter, the number of gammons seems to have multiplied dramatically.
Is there an easy way to differentiate between the forgot-the-sunscreen fake gammon and the heart-attack-imminent real deal?
And what happened? May got her WA, the Tory ultras did not support it and....Labour MPs in leave seats did not support it either. Only a tiny handful of Labour MPs have rebelled and voted for the WA in any of the three votes. And Labour has solidly voted against no deal and (slightly less solidly) for the Cooper Letwin bill. Labour has prevented Brexit so far, it is continuing (via the "talks") to prevent Brexit now, and it will continue to do so in the future. Corbyn may or may not like that (he probably doesn't care much either way) but the facts are there.
I wonder though, if the Brexit Party really does crush Labour in a lot of their Northern and Midlands areas in the Euro elections, whether 30 or so Labour MPs start panicking and pass May's deal.
Doubt it. Having voted against the deal three times suddenly turning chicken and voting in favour because Farage got few gammons to vote for him would not look good to their local party membership. Anyway, the vast majority of Labour voters are remainers, even in leave seats. I get the impression that some of the MPs in question are looking at other ways forward, I heard one of them (Nandy I think but could be wrong) on R4 the other day talking about citizens assemblies and compromise solutions - it was all a bit unfocused but it certainly did not suggest that she was about to cave in and back May.
A few gammons? I think the Brexit party will poll quite well.
After 4 days of non-stop sunshine over Easter, the number of gammons seems to have multiplied dramatically.
Is there an easy way to differentiate between the forgot-the-sunscreen fake gammon and the heart-attack-imminent real deal?
Put on Ode To Joy . The real gammon will combust whilst at the same time going into an anti German rant .
So the yellow peril is catching up with you in Esher?
No, worse, the Independents in Weybridge St George’s Hill. The LibDems are the main challengers in the next door seat.
Bloody hell St George’s Hill not returning a Tory! What has the world come to?
Funny enough, SGH was an Independent stronghold for several years: it’s only been recently that the ward has again become competitive for the Conservatives. The 2016 boundary changes also helped in that respect. I expect the result next Thursday to be close, maybe double figure majority either way.
"The Conservatives’ mistake was to think “Let’s just get Brexit done, and then we can move on to other things.” There is no “moving on”. Even if the Prime Minister had managed to pass her Brexit deal, the hard Brexiteers (and their leadership contenders) would have immediately campaigned to withdraw from the withdrawal agreement — and the argument about the permanent EU relationship would go on for years. "
One of the many difficulties about Brexit is that it divides centrist opinion on an issue where there can be at most only one winner (no winners looks likely at the moment). Moderates don't like being split among and within the moderate constituency and it is contrary to nature. The normal state of affairs being that two moderate centrist parties alternate in running the government, so both can win at least a bit as so it does not split the nation. The handling of Europe over 45 years in such a way as inevitably to bring this split about is bad governance, not now but for decades past. It is interesting that no solution is in sight. When no solution is in sight people can turn to demagoguery. What else would they do, unless a combination of Gladstone, Kenneth Clark and Joan of Arc should appear over the horizon?
1. Is it in addition to existing taxes or instead of. If the former then that can be problematic for people whose main wealth is their house. If the latter, then less so. But then how will councils raise revenue? 2. The rate and level at which it is charged. I think it was @NickPalmer who mentioned the wealth tax which the Swiss have which was at a low rate but with few exemptions and seemed a reasonable way of approaching the issue. 3. What is included or not in the definition. Property? Pensions? All savings, even tax-free ones? Jewellery: your engagement ring? Furniture? Granny's silver? Car? Hi-tech equipment in your house?
The more you include the more wealthy people you have to tax but they may not have a particularly high income and may not think of themselves as wealthy at all, particularly not if they have dependant children. Equally those at the other end may resent having savings earmarked for their old age/social care taken.
So it all depends on what is meant by it and how it is applied.
Pensions are interesting given the hidden wealth final salary pensions give to (now substantially) state employees. Shocks galore.
I'm sure those will be exempted
State pensions or all pensions or only final salary pensions? It wouldn't take long for the value of final salary pensions to be on the front page of every newspaper if they - and only they - were exempted from a wealth tax. It would be another version of the dementia tax cock-up.
1. Is it in addition to existing taxes or instead of. If the former then that can be problematic for people whose main wealth is their house. If the latter, then less so. But then how will councils raise revenue? 2. The rate and level at which it is charged. I think it was @NickPalmer who mentioned the wealth tax which the Swiss have which was at a low rate but with few exemptions and seemed a reasonable way of approaching the issue. 3. What is included or not in the definition. Property? Pensions? All savings, even tax-free ones? Jewellery: your engagement ring? Furniture? Granny's silver? Car? Hi-tech equipment in your house?
The more you include the more wealthy people you have to tax but they may not have a particularly high income and may not think of themselves as wealthy at all, particularly not if they have dependant children. Equally those at the other end may resent having savings earmarked for their old age/social care taken.
So it all depends on what is meant by it and how it is applied.
Pensions are interesting given the hidden wealth final salary pensions give to (now substantially) state employees. Shocks galore.
I'm sure those will be exempted
If there is to be a wealth tax there should be no exemptions by category, everything must count although there should be a threshold. If there are categorical exemptions then it is prejudiced and unfair and leaves open loopholes for exploitation. A fair number of southern based public sector individuals would be caught unless the threshold is fairly high once you add a house worth over £1M to a pension pot > £1M. The issues with a tax like this are massive though - is it household or strictly individual based is just one. A land value tax is a far better idea for a new tax type.
Not only that, but as 538 has proven (you know, with actual numbers), outside of primaries, there's no such thing as momentum in opinion polls.
That your poll score increased last week does not increase the chance that it will increase again this week. In fact, if anything, there is a very slight reversion to the mean (albeit not significantly significant.)
Not only that, but as 538 has proven (you know, with actual numbers), outside of primaries, there's no such thing as momentum in opinion polls.
That your poll score increased last week does not increase the chance that it will increase again this week. In fact, if anything, there is a very slight reversion to the mean (albeit not significantly significant.)
Sure, in terms of the long haul. But in the context of a major new party launching I'm sure that wouldn't apply.
1. Is it in addition to existing taxes or instead of. If the former then that can be problematic for people whose main wealth is their house. If the latter, then less so. But then how will councils raise revenue? 2. The rate and level at which it is charged. I think it was @NickPalmer who mentioned the wealth tax which the Swiss have which was at a low rate but with few exemptions and seemed a reasonable way of approaching the issue. 3. What is included or not in the definition. Property? Pensions? All savings, even tax-free ones? Jewellery: your engagement ring? Furniture? Granny's silver? Car? Hi-tech equipment in your house?
The more you include the more wealthy people you have to tax but they may not have a particularly high income and may not think of themselves as wealthy at all, particularly not if they have dependant children. Equally those at the other end may resent having savings earmarked for their old age/social care taken.
So it all depends on what is meant by it and how it is applied.
Pensions are interesting given the hidden wealth final salary pensions give to (now substantially) state employees. Shocks galore.
I'm sure those will be exempted
If there is to be a wealth tax there should be no exemptions by category, everything must count although there should be a threshold. If there are categorical exemptions then it is prejudiced and unfair and leaves open loopholes for exploitation. A fair number of southern based public sector individuals would be caught unless the threshold is fairly high once you add a house worth over £1M to a pension pot > £1M. The issues with a tax like this are massive though - is it household or strictly individual based is just one. A land value tax is a far better idea for a new tax type.
*will* not *should*
I'm sure that MPs' pensions will be exempted as well
1. Is it in addition to existing taxes or instead of. If the former then that can be problematic for people whose main wealth is their house. If the latter, then less so. But then how will councils raise revenue? 2. The rate and level at which it is charged. I think it was @NickPalmer who mentioned the wealth tax which the Swiss have which was at a low rate but with few exemptions and seemed a reasonable way of approaching the issue. 3. What is included or not in the definition. Property? Pensions? All savings, even tax-free ones? Jewellery: your engagement ring? Furniture? Granny's silver? Car? Hi-tech equipment in your house?
The more you include the more wealthy people you have to tax but they may not have a particularly high income and may not think of themselves as wealthy at all, particularly not if they have dependant children. Equally those at the other end may resent having savings earmarked for their old age/social care taken.
So it all depends on what is meant by it and how it is applied.
IANAE, bur personally I'd focus on land. The inequality of land distribution in Britain is quite astonishing, and some people with a lot of it (including one or two of my distant relatives) give little apparent thought to doing anything in particular with it. A gentle nudge in the form of a (say) 1% tax on land value exceeding (say) £5 million would raise significant sums and in some cases to people selling off bits that they don't really need. While there will always be problems with avoidance (dividing ownership into umpteen bits worth £4.9 million each etc.) they are less than most kinds of asset, since you can't actually make the land move to the Cayman Islands.
This wouldn't be very useful in Switzerland, where the ownership of vast tracts is rare. As far as I can recall, the Swiss "solve" Cyclefree's item 3 by asking people to add it up themselves and declare their wealth if it's over the qualifying figure. Being Swiss, they by and large dutifully do so, and pay the very modest percentage (<1%). I'm not confident that that would quite work out in Britain.
The thing with all these taxes that start of with the super wealthy, they never raise what they are suppose to and/or politicians decide they need more and before you know it the modest 1% tax on the top 1% has become 40% on the 40%...
Of course they should. It should be an automatic withdrawal of the whip for an elected representative openly to support a rival party. (cf the Lucy Allan tweet below I linked to as an overt example.)
But of course the Conservatives are now so consumed by the death cult that all norms of party functioning are being abandoned.
Off the record. If they had come out publicly and said so it would be another matter.
So the yellow peril is catching up with you in Esher?
No, worse, the Independents in Weybridge St George’s Hill. The LibDems are the main challengers in the next door seat.
Bloody hell St George’s Hill not returning a Tory! What has the world come to?
Funny enough, SGH was an Independent stronghold for several years: it’s only been recently that the ward has again become competitive for the Conservatives. The 2016 boundary changes also helped in that respect. I expect the result next Thursday to be close, maybe double figure majority either way.
far better that they introduce a property tax as that is much simpler to administer and harder to avoid.
Isn't that council tax ?
My preference is for a US style property tax. (And yes, there are ways to protect widows and orphans living in mansions)
They don’t work terribly well in practice. It’s not just the weather that drives retirement-age suburban New Yorkers to the South! We certainly won’t be able to afford to live in Westchester County after we reach retirement age.
Not only that, but as 538 has proven (you know, with actual numbers), outside of primaries, there's no such thing as momentum in opinion polls.
That your poll score increased last week does not increase the chance that it will increase again this week. In fact, if anything, there is a very slight reversion to the mean (albeit not significantly significant.)
I'd fancy the chances of someone who has gone from 5% to 15% slightly more than those of the other guy going from 15% to 5%.
A value bet may be the Tories winning the popular vote at the Euro elections, if there's a very even 3-way split between them, Labour and the Brexit Party.
Not only that, but as 538 has proven (you know, with actual numbers), outside of primaries, there's no such thing as momentum in opinion polls.
That your poll score increased last week does not increase the chance that it will increase again this week. In fact, if anything, there is a very slight reversion to the mean (albeit not significantly significant.)
I'd fancy the chances of someone who has gone from 5% to 15% slightly more than those of the other guy going from 15% to 5%.
But the question here is really 25% to 20% plays 15% to 20%
1. Is it in addition to existing taxes or instead of. If the former then that can be problematic for people whose main wealth is their house. If the latter, then less so. But then how will councils raise revenue? 2. The rate and level at which it is charged. I think it was @NickPalmer who mentioned the wealth tax which the Swiss have which was at a low rate but with few exemptions and seemed a reasonable way of approaching the issue. 3. What is included or not in the definition. Property? Pensions? All savings, even tax-free ones? Jewellery: your engagement ring? Furniture? Granny's silver? Car? Hi-tech equipment in your house?
The more you include the more wealthy people you have to tax but they may not have a particularly high income and may not think of themselves as wealthy at all, particularly not if they have dependant children. Equally those at the other end may resent having savings earmarked for their old age/social care taken.
So it all depends on what is meant by it and how it is applied.
IANAE, bur personally I'd focus on land. The inequality of land distribution in Britain is quite astonishing, and some people with a lot of it (including one or two of my distant relatives) give little apparent thought to doing anything in particular with it. A gentle nudge in the form of a (say) 1% tax on land value exceeding (say) £5 million would raise significant sums and in some cases to people selling off bits that they don't really need. While there will always be problems with avoidance (dividing ownership into umpteen bits worth £4.9 million each etc.) they are less than most kinds of asset, since you can't actually make the land move to the Cayman Islands.
This wouldn't be very useful in Switzerland, where the ownership of vast tracts is rare. As far as I can recall, the Swiss "solve" Cyclefree's item 3 by asking people to add it up themselves and declare their wealth if it's over the qualifying figure. Being Swiss, they by and large dutifully do so, and pay the very modest percentage (
We should also go back to the new town (financial) model of development, under which development land was acquired by the public sector at its current (agricultural) value. Some of the land was then sold with development permission to private developers and the funds thus realised were used to build social housing on the remainder.
A value bet may be the Tories winning the popular vote at the Euro elections, if there's a very even 3-way split between them, Labour and the Brexit Party.
far better that they introduce a property tax as that is much simpler to administer and harder to avoid.
Isn't that council tax ?
My preference is for a US style property tax. (And yes, there are ways to protect widows and orphans living in mansions)
They don’t work terribly well in practice. It’s not just the weather that drives retirement-age suburban New Yorkers to the South! We certainly won’t be able to afford to live in Westchester County after we reach retirement age.
And there was me assuming that Florida's 0% income tax had something to do with it.
I have been working from home today and I have just logged out before I catch my train. I am now free to unleash my wit upon you. What Empyrean heights will I scale, what pretensions will I skewer with my incisive wit? Only time will tell...
A value bet may be the Tories winning the popular vote at the Euro elections, if there's a very even 3-way split between them, Labour and the Brexit Party.
A value bet may be the Tories winning the popular vote at the Euro elections, if there's a very even 3-way split between them, Labour and the Brexit Party.
There's a pretty big "if" there......
It wouldn't be a potentially value bet without the "if".
A value bet may be the Tories winning the popular vote at the Euro elections, if there's a very even 3-way split between them, Labour and the Brexit Party.
A value bet may be the Tories winning the popular vote at the Euro elections, if there's a very even 3-way split between them, Labour and the Brexit Party.
That would be hilarious.
Well the latest poll had something like Brexit Party 23%, Labour 22%, Tories 17%. That isn't such a big gap between the three parties.
Of course they should. It should be an automatic withdrawal of the whip for an elected representative openly to support a rival party. (cf the Lucy Allan tweet below I linked to as an overt example.)
But of course the Conservatives are now so consumed by the death cult that all norms of party functioning are being abandoned.
I can only think of one person "consumed by the death cult".
It's quite obvious too; he's been going on about it every single day for months and months.
I guess people don’t fill in those ‘have you done anything that might embarrass the party?’ questions.
And the parties are *still* not hiring people to go through the social media of prospective candidates for election - because journalists are going to start doing just that as soon as the names are announced.
I guess people don’t fill in those ‘have you done anything that might embarrass the party?’ questions.
And the parties are *still* not hiring people to go through the social media of prospective candidates for election - because journalists are going to start doing just that as soon as the names are announced.
Meh, Claire Fox opposed The Good Friday Agreement.
I guess people don’t fill in those ‘have you done anything that might embarrass the party?’ questions.
And the parties are *still* not hiring people to go through the social media of prospective candidates for election - because journalists are going to start doing just that as soon as the names are announced.
I thought it was Farage who knocked about with racists and lefties who defended paedos? #change
Comments
(But the point is the same - Thatcher spent the proceeds)
A "hard" Brexit means the Tories never win a UK GE again, but it might (just) win them a Little England election.
Now Heidi on the other hand...
1. Is it in addition to existing taxes or instead of. If the former then that can be problematic for people whose main wealth is their house. If the latter, then less so. But then how will councils raise revenue?
2. The rate and level at which it is charged. I think it was @NickPalmer who mentioned the wealth tax which the Swiss have which was at a low rate but with few exemptions and seemed a reasonable way of approaching the issue.
3. What is included or not in the definition. Property? Pensions? All savings, even tax-free ones? Jewellery: your engagement ring? Furniture? Granny's silver? Car? Hi-tech equipment in your house?
The more you include the more wealthy people you have to tax but they may not have a particularly high income and may not think of themselves as wealthy at all, particularly not if they have dependant children. Equally those at the other end may resent having savings earmarked for their old age/social care taken.
So it all depends on what is meant by it and how it is applied.
https://electionsetc.com/2016/05/04/calculating-the-local-elections-projected-national-share-pns-in-2015-and-2016/
I am curious what all the gammon Brexiteers are going to drive when JLR shuts?
But that doesn't mean Gloria De Piero or Gareth Snell will also think that, if they've just seen Farage's party thrash them in their backyard.
But of course the Conservatives are now so consumed by the death cult that all norms of party functioning are being abandoned.
Bonkers.
For example, Ricciardo is 15 for a podium. He's 501 to win. Getting a win each way makes the odds 100 (fifth the odds, minus one for the failed 'win') for second or third. That's quite the chasm.
Edited extra bit: Stroll's 34 for a podium. I backed him, each way at 3001. Hefty difference.
It is genuinely wily - position yourself as centre-right, and you attract the right; position yourself as far-right, and you only attract the far right.
*ducks*
A few deselections pour encourager les autres are needed.
Lots of things are needed atm. Chances of us getting them are vanishingly low.
So finding three such MPs seems like a very small number.
I was more thinking of how it might be introduced here where I suspect it would be levied on people with much much less than that.
https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/letters/the-reader-farage-s-demagogic-rise-is-alarming-for-eu-citizens-like-me-a4123716.html
"The Conservatives’ mistake was to think “Let’s just get Brexit done, and then we can move on to other things.” There is no “moving on”. Even if the Prime Minister had managed to pass her Brexit deal, the hard Brexiteers (and their leadership contenders) would have immediately campaigned to withdraw from the withdrawal agreement — and the argument about the permanent EU relationship would go on for years. "
Ms Allen is calculating (correctly) that the PM is too weak to withdraw the whip from her - it would leave the Con+DUP government with a theoretical majority of one.
But the thought of a 3001 shot coming in is rather nice.
Say that any MP supporting, campaigning or voting for any party other than the Tories will have the whip withdrawn - and be deselected, that this will mean the Tories losing their majority and therefore Mrs May will have no option but to ask HMQ to find someone else who can command a majority and, if not, a GE. At which point the Ms Allans of this world are out of a job.
If they’re willing to support a sensible orderly Brexit then as a Remainer I’ll shut up and accept Brexit if not then Remainers should do everything possible to stop it .
Is there an easy way to differentiate between the forgot-the-sunscreen fake gammon and the heart-attack-imminent real deal?
https://youtu.be/yyjwmlJ4WQ8
That your poll score increased last week does not increase the chance that it will increase again this week. In fact, if anything, there is a very slight reversion to the mean (albeit not significantly significant.)
I'm sure that MPs' pensions will be exempted as well
This wouldn't be very useful in Switzerland, where the ownership of vast tracts is rare. As far as I can recall, the Swiss "solve" Cyclefree's item 3 by asking people to add it up themselves and declare their wealth if it's over the qualifying figure. Being Swiss, they by and large dutifully do so, and pay the very modest percentage (<1%). I'm not confident that that would quite work out in Britain.
There's a global overview of such things here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_tax
There's no other reason to live in FLA!
Beat that, Oscar Wilde...
It's quite obvious too; he's been going on about it every single day for months and months.
Meh, Claire Fox opposed The Good Friday Agreement.