It was the Tories who raised the inheritance tax threshold to £1 million so only estates of millionaires pay it
Yes you are wrong HYUFD. IHT starts at £325k or double if the first spouse leaves the entire estate to the second spouse, that person dies it goes to the beneficiary. The Tories have never increased the threshold to £1 million and the deed of variation move was under Labour as i just checked it. The Tories are doing worse on IHT than Labour...
No, I was absolutely correct.
For a married couple Osborne added £175 000 exemption on their home per person to their £325 000 allowance making £1 million exempt for a married couple
You did not mention homes but "estates". Some people have more than a home as an asset.
In which case if the value of their home plus assets exceeds £1 million they will still pay inheritance tax exactly as I said
I doubt that's true (re capital). Corporate bond yields are, what, a couple of percent. Dividend yields aren't much more.
To get to £165,000 of earnings from capital, you probably need more than £10m of assets, excluding your primary residence. I'm reckoning that's top 0.05% of people (by capital), not 1%.
Once you take into account net property wealth, net financial wealth and net pension wealth, you are in the top 1% with about 5.5 million net wealth. On 3%*, that takes you to 165k without having any other source of income. Of course, a good many of these people may also have employment and self employment on top of these assets, and income from rent.
A straightforward income of 165k from paid employment doesn't get you into that top 1%
*house price inflation has recently dropped to about 1%, but was quite recently steady at 3%.
I doubt that's true (re capital). Corporate bond yields are, what, a couple of percent. Dividend yields aren't much more.
To get to £165,000 of earnings from capital, you probably need more than £10m of assets, excluding your primary residence. I'm reckoning that's top 0.05% of people (by capital), not 1%.
Once you take into account net property wealth, net financial wealth and net pension wealth, you are in the top 1% with about 5.5 million net wealth. On 3%*, that takes you to 165k without having any other source of income. Of course, a good many of these people may also have employment and self employment on top of these assets, and income from rent.
A straightforward income of 165k from paid employment doesn't get you into that top 1%
*house price inflation has recently dropped to about 1%, but was quite recently steady at 3%.
£5.5 million net worth takes you far beyond just the top 1% of UK estates, for which the threshold is just under £1.5 million net worth. So wrong
I doubt that's true (re capital). Corporate bond yields are, what, a couple of percent. Dividend yields aren't much more.
To get to £165,000 of earnings from capital, you probably need more than £10m of assets, excluding your primary residence. I'm reckoning that's top 0.05% of people (by capital), not 1%.
Once you take into account net property wealth, net financial wealth and net pension wealth, you are in the top 1% with about 5.5 million net wealth. On 3%*, that takes you to 165k without having any other source of income. Of course, a good many of these people may also have employment and self employment on top of these assets, and income from rent.
A straightforward income of 165k from paid employment doesn't get you into that top 1%
*house price inflation has recently dropped to about 1%, but was quite recently steady at 3%.
Asset inflation is not income.
Income is when someone cuts you a cheque. Your average investment fund will cut you a 1.2% check in the UK. Prime London property yields (which exclude voids and costs) are sub 3%, and therefore probably sub 2% real.
I'm doing a funding round for my new business, that will mean that I have a great deal of paper wealth. But it's not income. It's shares that currently have a value of x.
Looks about right for Google, then. Like I said, I didn't see any jobs advertised in a quick search but I'm happy to concede the point. The others though? No, not really. And my point remains. The top 65,000 incomes in the UK aren't Google employees. Perhaps Google contributes ~1,000 to that number?
Actually, no, I think I was rash in my top 1% estimate. That £166,000 is the top 1% is counted by /income tax/. There will be a significant number of people above that level accumulating wealth that does not attract income tax at all. So that £166,000 will be firmly in the 99%. The real 1% including non-income-taxable wealth accumulation will be a lot higher than that.
The trick to getting wealthy is to start wealthy.
What utter crap, if you do not earn income per year how are you going to afford to maintain, heat an expensive property etc and pay council tax on it? Yet more rubbish from the hard left
Hard left? I'm a capitalist. You want to know what makes capitalism work? It's the twin pillars of consumer-driven economic organisation, (which comes from the the general population having enough spending money to feed demand-signals into the economy so potential suppliers can create, manufacture and discover new ways of delivering those wishes), and the ability to turn a profit on investment, which encourages wealth holders to make use of their accumulated capital to fund ventures that have good ideas and need a kickstart to ramp up their supply. I have no desire to do away with the latter because it underpins the former. But it has become unbalanced and needs to be levelled out. The capital income ratio is growing and is taking us to pre-WW1 levels which are dangerously unsustainable. The freezing out of the ordinary people from this kind of economy leads to pitchforks, because it fails to deliver what they want and need (because their lack of disposable income strangles their inputs).
If you want to avoid the "hard left", you need to pay attention to this stuff. There is real suffering out there, and there are a growing number of people who think capitalism doesn't deliver for them, so why should they lift a finger to preserve it? That view might not survive a rational analysis, but when people go without and see others with plenty, they aren't particularly open to rational analysis.
I doubt that's true (re capital). Corporate bond yields are, what, a couple of percent. Dividend yields aren't much more.
To get to £165,000 of earnings from capital, you probably need more than £10m of assets, excluding your primary residence. I'm reckoning that's top 0.05% of people (by capital), not 1%.
Once you take into account net property wealth, net financial wealth and net pension wealth, you are in the top 1% with about 5.5 million net wealth. On 3%*, that takes you to 165k without having any other source of income. Of course, a good many of these people may also have employment and self employment on top of these assets, and income from rent.
A straightforward income of 165k from paid employment doesn't get you into that top 1%
*house price inflation has recently dropped to about 1%, but was quite recently steady at 3%.
Asset inflation is not income.
Income is when someone cuts you a cheque. Your average investment fund will cut you a 1.2% check in the UK. Prime London property yields (which exclude voids and costs) are sub 3%, and therefore probably sub 2% real.
I'm doing a funding round for my new business, that will mean that I have a great deal of paper wealth. But it's not income. It's shares that currently have a value of x.
Quite. My point was that income is only a part of wealth accumulation. Paper assets can be realised, sometimes quickly and sometimes slowly, but they can be realised. House price inflation is wealth accumulation because you can sell a house and convert it into cash. My entire point is that income from earnings is only a part of the picture, and the idea that the "brains" -- I used researchers as a paradigm -- are not the ones who would or should be targetted in a sensible, progressive, capitalist-friendly tax system.
I doubt that's true (re capital). Corporate bond yields are, what, a couple of percent. Dividend yields aren't much more.
To get to £165,000 of earnings from capital, you probably need more than £10m of assets, excluding your primary residence. I'm reckoning that's top 0.05% of people (by capital), not 1%.
Once you take into account net property wealth, net financial wealth and net pension wealth, you are in the top 1% with about 5.5 million net wealth. On 3%*, that takes you to 165k without having any other source of income. Of course, a good many of these people may also have employment and self employment on top of these assets, and income from rent.
A straightforward income of 165k from paid employment doesn't get you into that top 1%
*house price inflation has recently dropped to about 1%, but was quite recently steady at 3%.
£5.5 million net worth takes you far beyond just the top 1% of UK estates, for which the threshold is just under £1.5 million net worth. So wrong
I doubt that's true (re capital). Corporate bond yields are, what, a couple of percent. Dividend yields aren't much more.
To get to £165,000 of earnings from capital, you probably need more than £10m of assets, excluding your primary residence. I'm reckoning that's top 0.05% of people (by capital), not 1%.
Once you take into account net property wealth, net financial wealth and net pension wealth, you are in the top 1% with about 5.5 million net wealth. On 3%*, that takes you to 165k without having any other source of income. Of course, a good many of these people may also have employment and self employment on top of these assets, and income from rent.
A straightforward income of 165k from paid employment doesn't get you into that top 1%
*house price inflation has recently dropped to about 1%, but was quite recently steady at 3%.
Asset inflation is not income.
Income is when someone cuts you a cheque. Your average investment fund will cut you a 1.2% check in the UK. Prime London property yields (which exclude voids and costs) are sub 3%, and therefore probably sub 2% real.
I'm doing a funding round for my new business, that will mean that I have a great deal of paper wealth. But it's not income. It's shares that currently have a value of x.
Quite. My point was that income is only a part of wealth accumulation. Paper assets can be realised, sometimes quickly and sometimes slowly, but they can be realised. House price inflation is wealth accumulation because you can sell a house and convert it into cash. My entire point is that income from earnings is only a part of the picture, and the idea that the "brains" -- I used researchers as a paradigm -- are not the ones who would or should be targetted in a sensible, progressive, capitalist-friendly tax system.
As opposed to say a widow or spinster without much income who just inherited a £2 million house for example you mean
I doubt that's true (re capital). Corporate bond yields are, what, a couple of percent. Dividend yields aren't much more.
To get to £165,000 of earnings from capital, you probably need more than £10m of assets, excluding your primary residence. I'm reckoning that's top 0.05% of people (by capital), not 1%.
Once you take into account net property wealth, net financial wealth and net pension wealth, you are in the top 1% with about 5.5 million net wealth. On 3%*, that takes you to 165k without having any other source of income. Of course, a good many of these people may also have employment and self employment on top of these assets, and income from rent.
A straightforward income of 165k from paid employment doesn't get you into that top 1%
*house price inflation has recently dropped to about 1%, but was quite recently steady at 3%.
£5.5 million net worth takes you far beyond just the top 1% of UK estates, for which the threshold is just under £1.5 million net worth. So wrong
I doubt that's true (re capital). Corporate bond yields are, what, a couple of percent. Dividend yields aren't much more.
To get to £165,000 of earnings from capital, you probably need more than £10m of assets, excluding your primary residence. I'm reckoning that's top 0.05% of people (by capital), not 1%.
Once you take into account net property wealth, net financial wealth and net pension wealth, you are in the top 1% with about 5.5 million net wealth. On 3%*, that takes you to 165k without having any other source of income. Of course, a good many of these people may also have employment and self employment on top of these assets, and income from rent.
A straightforward income of 165k from paid employment doesn't get you into that top 1%
*house price inflation has recently dropped to about 1%, but was quite recently steady at 3%.
Asset inflation is not income.
Income is when someone cuts you a cheque. Your average investment fund will cut you a 1.2% check in the UK. Prime London property yields (which exclude voids and costs) are sub 3%, and therefore probably sub 2% real.
I'm doing a funding round for my new business, that will mean that I have a great deal of paper wealth. But it's not income. It's shares that currently have a value of x.
Quite. My point was that income is only a part of wealth accumulation. Paper assets can be realised, sometimes quickly and sometimes slowly, but they can be realised. House price inflation is wealth accumulation because you can sell a house and convert it into cash. My entire point is that income from earnings is only a part of the picture, and the idea that the "brains" -- I used researchers as a paradigm -- are not the ones who would or should be targetted in a sensible, progressive, capitalist-friendly tax system.
As opposed to say a widow or spinster without much income who just inherited a £2 million house for example you mean
Other than trying to show how weirdly old fashioned you are ("spinster"?!). I'm not sure what your point is.
It's just occurred to me that a delay to Brexit on 31st October may be in the interests of almost all the political parties, since they can each spin it in their favour.
I really dont see how Boris can spin it to his favour......more delays and now mixed messages about NI and `No Deal'. I can see little he has done to win over an unhappy party, a divided electorate and a range of oppostion parties who have come together in an almost unprecedented way to squeeze his plums to put it mildly.
It's just occurred to me that a delay to Brexit on 31st October may be in the interests of almost all the political parties, since they can each spin it in their favour.
I really dont see how Boris can spin it to his favour......more delays and now mixed messages about NI and `No Deal'. I can see little he has done to win over an unhappy party, a divided electorate and a range of oppostion parties who have come together in an almost unprecedented way to squeeze his plums to put it mildly.
In his Facebook Ask Me Anything, Boris said something like 6 or 7 times that Brexit would happen on 31st October. It’s quite intriguing that he’s even now persisting with this theme.
It's just occurred to me that a delay to Brexit on 31st October may be in the interests of almost all the political parties, since they can each spin it in their favour.
I really dont see how Boris can spin it to his favour......more delays and now mixed messages about NI and `No Deal'. I can see little he has done to win over an unhappy party, a divided electorate and a range of oppostion parties who have come together in an almost unprecedented way to squeeze his plums to put it mildly.
In his Facebook Ask Me Anything, Boris said something like 6 or 7 times that Brexit would happen on 31st October. It’s quite intriguing that he’s even now persisting with this theme.
Quite clear to me what the strategy is: get a deal from the EU, coupled with getting them to draw a line under the process by having no further extension. Parliament gets a straight choice: Boris's Deal or No Deal. Your call, guys.....
It's just occurred to me that a delay to Brexit on 31st October may be in the interests of almost all the political parties, since they can each spin it in their favour.
I really dont see how Boris can spin it to his favour......more delays and now mixed messages about NI and `No Deal'. I can see little he has done to win over an unhappy party, a divided electorate and a range of oppostion parties who have come together in an almost unprecedented way to squeeze his plums to put it mildly.
In his Facebook Ask Me Anything, Boris said something like 6 or 7 times that Brexit would happen on 31st October. It’s quite intriguing that he’s even now persisting with this theme.
Quite clear to me what the strategy is: get a deal from the EU, coupled with getting them to draw a line under the process by having no further extension. Parliament gets a straight choice: Boris's Deal or No Deal. Your call, guys.....
I suspect you have one thing wrong, given the choice cannot be framed in a vacuum. It’s Boris’s deal or Revoke.
Whether Boris can get anything substantially different to May remains to be seen. Will be a classic if he does, as we’ll get to see all these knobheads like Steven Kinnock have to put their money where their mouth is.
It's just occurred to me that a delay to Brexit on 31st October may be in the interests of almost all the political parties, since they can each spin it in their favour.
I really dont see how Boris can spin it to his favour......more delays and now mixed messages about NI and `No Deal'. I can see little he has done to win over an unhappy party, a divided electorate and a range of oppostion parties who have come together in an almost unprecedented way to squeeze his plums to put it mildly.
After the publication of Yellowhammer, I cannot see how a UK government can go ahead with No Deal Brexit. Evoking the "Blitz" is fine if we were going to war. But staying in the EU is not like being imprisoned. In which case, the rest of the EU citizens are too. If any of the likely problems actually occurs, there will be no excuse. Because we knew about it. I still haven't read anything about the farming sector.
Perhaps the best-expressed article I've ever seen by Owen Jones, perhaps itself because it's been informed by his own personal experiences of being attacked in the street in the last couple of weeks.
"The far right see themselves as the “boots” on the streets: the self-appointed enforcers of an endangered national-conservative revolution. The boots have now swung behind what was supposed to be Britain’s mainstream centre-right party.
This development should be an alarming warning for Johnson and Cummings. When you assail opponents for backing a “surrender bill” or denounce them as “collaborators”, as Johnson has done; when you paint a picture, in primary colours, of “parliament versus the people” – as though a den of traitors is at war with the populace – are you really oblivious to the consequences? Does the sight of tanked-up thugs chanting your name in central London not give you pause for thought? "
It's just occurred to me that a delay to Brexit on 31st October may be in the interests of almost all the political parties, since they can each spin it in their favour.
I really dont see how Boris can spin it to his favour......more delays and now mixed messages about NI and `No Deal'. I can see little he has done to win over an unhappy party, a divided electorate and a range of oppostion parties who have come together in an almost unprecedented way to squeeze his plums to put it mildly.
In his Facebook Ask Me Anything, Boris said something like 6 or 7 times that Brexit would happen on 31st October. It’s quite intriguing that he’s even now persisting with this theme.
Quite clear to me what the strategy is: get a deal from the EU, coupled with getting them to draw a line under the process by having no further extension. Parliament gets a straight choice: Boris's Deal or No Deal. Your call, guys.....
I suspect you have one thing wrong, given the choice cannot be framed in a vacuum. It’s Boris’s deal or Revoke.
Whether Boris can get anything substantially different to May remains to be seen. Will be a classic if he does, as we’ll get to see all these knobheads like Steven Kinnock have to put their money where their mouth is.
There is going to be no push whatsoever for revoke in the Conservative Party if Boris has a Brexit deal. Then it is down to Labour MPs. Second referendum is off the table. Pop quiz do you want to go into an election in a Leave-voting seat having killed Brexit, Labour MPs?
Boris repeats Brexit will happen on 31/10 as he clearly intends for it to happen come what May. It’s hard for him to say anything else. However this steadfast commitment will clearly run up against issues as it necessarily means ignoring or side stepping the Benn Act in some way. It has its own legal issues.
I don’t believe a new deal can ever be found. The ability to negotiate has gone. I do believe that he believes we will leave on 31/10. The next few weeks are going to see much more political turmoil and many more unprecedented and constitution wrecking actions. All bets are off here - people on both sides are so entrenched now that it’s gone way beyond a “simple matter of leaving be EU”.
Parliament has failed - quite literally - for now. I think people need to take stock and realise what this means.
It would be ironic, but somehow if in trying to leave the EU our old country, democracy and constitutional settlement could ended up being totally destroyed. It’s scary.
It would be ironic, but somehow if in trying to leave the EU our old country, democracy and constitutional settlement could ended up being totally destroyed. It’s scary.
Boris repeats Brexit will happen on 31/10 as he clearly intends for it to happen come what May. It’s hard for him to say anything else. However this steadfast commitment will clearly run up against issues as it necessarily means ignoring or side stepping the Benn Act in some way. It has its own legal issues.
I don’t believe a new deal can ever be found. The ability to negotiate has gone. I do believe that he believes we will leave on 31/10. The next few weeks are going to see much more political turmoil and many more unprecedented and constitution wrecking actions. All bets are off here - people on both sides are so entrenched now that it’s gone way beyond a “simple matter of leaving be EU”.
Parliament has failed - quite literally - for now. I think people need to take stock and realise what this means.
It would be ironic, but somehow if in trying to leave the EU our old country, democracy and constitutional settlement could ended up being totally destroyed. It’s scary.
The Yellowhammer planning document - even in the heavily pared down form it was released in last night - shows exactly why Johnson was so keen to secure a mid-October, pre-No Deal general election.
It's just occurred to me that a delay to Brexit on 31st October may be in the interests of almost all the political parties, since they can each spin it in their favour.
I really dont see how Boris can spin it to his favour......more delays and now mixed messages about NI and `No Deal'. I can see little he has done to win over an unhappy party, a divided electorate and a range of oppostion parties who have come together in an almost unprecedented way to squeeze his plums to put it mildly.
In his Facebook Ask Me Anything, Boris said something like 6 or 7 times that Brexit would happen on 31st October. It’s quite intriguing that he’s even now persisting with this theme.
Quite clear to me what the strategy is: get a deal from the EU, coupled with getting them to draw a line under the process by having no further extension. Parliament gets a straight choice: Boris's Deal or No Deal. Your call, guys.....
I suspect you have one thing wrong, given the choice cannot be framed in a vacuum. It’s Boris’s deal or Revoke.
Whether Boris can get anything substantially different to May remains to be seen. Will be a classic if he does, as we’ll get to see all these knobheads like Steven Kinnock have to put their money where their mouth is.
There is going to be no push whatsoever for revoke in the Conservative Party if Boris has a Brexit deal. Then it is down to Labour MPs. Second referendum is off the table. Pop quiz do you want to go into an election in a Leave-voting seat having killed Brexit, Labour MPs?
It's just occurred to me that a delay to Brexit on 31st October may be in the interests of almost all the political parties, since they can each spin it in their favour.
I really dont see how Boris can spin it to his favour......more delays and now mixed messages about NI and `No Deal'. I can see little he has done to win over an unhappy party, a divided electorate and a range of oppostion parties who have come together in an almost unprecedented way to squeeze his plums to put it mildly.
In his Facebook Ask Me Anything, Boris said something like 6 or 7 times that Brexit would happen on 31st October. It’s quite intriguing that he’s even now persisting with this theme.
Quite clear to me what the strategy is: get a deal from the EU, coupled with getting them to draw a line under the process by having no further extension. Parliament gets a straight choice: Boris's Deal or No Deal. Your call, guys.....
We learnt in spring that it is just not possible to have a meaningful A V B vote in the HoC. So there will be a vote for "Boris' Deal" if the Ayes have it then there is Brexit. If the Noes have it then "Boris' Deal" is dead and no-deal is still illegal because of the Benn Act. What does Mr Johnson do then?
Boris repeats Brexit will happen on 31/10 as he clearly intends for it to happen come what May. It’s hard for him to say anything else. However this steadfast commitment will clearly run up against issues as it necessarily means ignoring or side stepping the Benn Act in some way. It has its own legal issues.
I don’t believe a new deal can ever be found. The ability to negotiate has gone. I do believe that he believes we will leave on 31/10. The next few weeks are going to see much more political turmoil and many more unprecedented and constitution wrecking actions. All bets are off here - people on both sides are so entrenched now that it’s gone way beyond a “simple matter of leaving be EU”.
Parliament has failed - quite literally - for now. I think people need to take stock and realise what this means.
It would be ironic, but somehow if in trying to leave the EU our old country, democracy and constitutional settlement could ended up being totally destroyed. It’s scary.
While I always welcome a new poster, and more opinions, I don't think it's entirely fair to say that Parliament has 'failed'. If it has, it dates back to inadequate discussion of the issue of the Referendum, back in 2015/6. I also feel that Remainers, such as myself, were unaware of the determination of some at least of the people behind Leave, and their desire to feather their nest at the country's expense and some others for whom it was some sort of intellectual exercise; a real-life Game of Thrones.
Boris repeats Brexit will happen on 31/10 as he clearly intends for it to happen come what May. It’s hard for him to say anything else. However this steadfast commitment will clearly run up against issues as it necessarily means ignoring or side stepping the Benn Act in some way. It has its own legal issues.
I don’t believe a new deal can ever be found. The ability to negotiate has gone. I do believe that he believes we will leave on 31/10. The next few weeks are going to see much more political turmoil and many more unprecedented and constitution wrecking actions. All bets are off here - people on both sides are so entrenched now that it’s gone way beyond a “simple matter of leaving be EU”.
Parliament has failed - quite literally - for now. I think people need to take stock and realise what this means.
It would be ironic, but somehow if in trying to leave the EU our old country, democracy and constitutional settlement could ended up being totally destroyed. It’s scary.
The Yellowhammer planning document - even in the heavily pared down form it was released in last night - shows exactly why Johnson was so keen to secure a mid-October, pre-No Deal general election.
It also shows exactly why a majority of MPs were so keen to make no-deal illegal.
It's just occurred to me that a delay to Brexit on 31st October may be in the interests of almost all the political parties, since they can each spin it in their favour.
I really dont see how Boris can spin it to his favour......more delays and now mixed messages about NI and `No Deal'. I can see little he has done to win over an unhappy party, a divided electorate and a range of oppostion parties who have come together in an almost unprecedented way to squeeze his plums to put it mildly.
In his Facebook Ask Me Anything, Boris said something like 6 or 7 times that Brexit would happen on 31st October. It’s quite intriguing that he’s even now persisting with this theme.
Quite clear to me what the strategy is: get a deal from the EU, coupled with getting them to draw a line under the process by having no further extension. Parliament gets a straight choice: Boris's Deal or No Deal. Your call, guys.....
We learnt in spring that it is just not possible to have a meaningful A V B vote in the HoC. So there will be a vote for "Boris' Deal" if the Ayes have it then there is Brexit. If the Noes have it then "Boris' Deal" is dead and no-deal is still illegal because of the Benn Act. What does Mr Johnson do then?
Resign along with his government. I don't see how they can do anything else.
It's just occurred to me that a delay to Brexit on 31st October may be in the interests of almost all the political parties, since they can each spin it in their favour.
I really dont see how Boris can spin it to his favour......more delays and now mixed messages about NI and `No Deal'. I can see little he has done to win over an unhappy party, a divided electorate and a range of oppostion parties who have come together in an almost unprecedented way to squeeze his plums to put it mildly.
In his Facebook Ask Me Anything, Boris said something like 6 or 7 times that Brexit would happen on 31st October. It’s quite intriguing that he’s even now persisting with this theme.
Quite clear to me what the strategy is: get a deal from the EU, coupled with getting them to draw a line under the process by having no further extension. Parliament gets a straight choice: Boris's Deal or No Deal. Your call, guys.....
We learnt in spring that it is just not possible to have a meaningful A V B vote in the HoC. So there will be a vote for "Boris' Deal" if the Ayes have it then there is Brexit. If the Noes have it then "Boris' Deal" is dead and no-deal is still illegal because of the Benn Act. What does Mr Johnson do then?
How is No Deal illegal under the Benn Act if an extension has been refused by the EU? If the EU says "nope", what has Benn done? Nothing.
It's just occurred to me that a delay to Brexit on 31st October may be in the interests of almost all the political parties, since they can each spin it in their favour.
I really dont see how Boris can spin it to his favour......more delays and now mixed messages about NI and `No Deal'. I can see little he has done to win over an unhappy party, a divided electorate and a range of oppostion parties who have come together in an almost unprecedented way to squeeze his plums to put it mildly.
In his Facebook Ask Me Anything, Boris said something like 6 or 7 times that Brexit would happen on 31st October. It’s quite intriguing that he’s even now persisting with this theme.
Quite clear to me what the strategy is: get a deal from the EU, coupled with getting them to draw a line under the process by having no further extension. Parliament gets a straight choice: Boris's Deal or No Deal. Your call, guys.....
I suspect you have one thing wrong, given the choice cannot be framed in a vacuum. It’s Boris’s deal or Revoke.
Whether Boris can get anything substantially different to May remains to be seen. Will be a classic if he does, as we’ll get to see all these knobheads like Steven Kinnock have to put their money where their mouth is.
There is going to be no push whatsoever for revoke in the Conservative Party if Boris has a Brexit deal. Then it is down to Labour MPs. Second referendum is off the table. Pop quiz do you want to go into an election in a Leave-voting seat having killed Brexit, Labour MPs?
Revoke is a pipe dream if Boris gets a deal.
... but he's not even trying.
He knows nothing will get decided until the very end of the process.
The incoming new EU team don't want to be troubled with Brexit. They want it finished on the current lot's term.
It's just occurred to me that a delay to Brexit on 31st October may be in the interests of almost all the political parties, since they can each spin it in their favour.
All parties always spin the current situation as much as possible.
A Brextension cannot be in the "interests" of all parties, when a GE is around the corner, as the GE is a zero sum game. But it is fair to say that it is not completely clear which parties will benefit more from a Brextension.
It's just occurred to me that a delay to Brexit on 31st October may be in the interests of almost all the political parties, since they can each spin it in their favour.
I really dont see how Boris can spin it to his favour......more delays and now mixed messages about NI and `No Deal'. I can see little he has done to win over an unhappy party, a divided electorate and a range of oppostion parties who have come together in an almost unprecedented way to squeeze his plums to put it mildly.
In his Facebook Ask Me Anything, Boris said something like 6 or 7 times that Brexit would happen on 31st October. It’s quite intriguing that he’s even now persisting with this theme.
Quite clear to me what the strategy is: get a deal from the EU, coupled with getting them to draw a line under the process by having no further extension. Parliament gets a straight choice: Boris's Deal or No Deal. Your call, guys.....
We learnt in spring that it is just not possible to have a meaningful A V B vote in the HoC. So there will be a vote for "Boris' Deal" if the Ayes have it then there is Brexit. If the Noes have it then "Boris' Deal" is dead and no-deal is still illegal because of the Benn Act. What does Mr Johnson do then?
Resign along with his government. I don't see how they can do anything else.
It's just occurred to me that a delay to Brexit on 31st October may be in the interests of almost all the political parties, since they can each spin it in their favour.
I really dont see how Boris can spin it to his favour......more delays and now mixed messages about NI and `No Deal'. I can see little he has done to win over an unhappy party, a divided electorate and a range of oppostion parties who have come together in an almost unprecedented way to squeeze his plums to put it mildly.
In his Facebook Ask Me Anything, Boris said something like 6 or 7 times that Brexit would happen on 31st October. It’s quite intriguing that he’s even now persisting with this theme.
Quite clear to me what the strategy is: get a deal from the EU, coupled with getting them to draw a line under the process by having no further extension. Parliament gets a straight choice: Boris's Deal or No Deal. Your call, guys.....
We learnt in spring that it is just not possible to have a meaningful A V B vote in the HoC. So there will be a vote for "Boris' Deal" if the Ayes have it then there is Brexit. If the Noes have it then "Boris' Deal" is dead and no-deal is still illegal because of the Benn Act. What does Mr Johnson do then?
Resign along with his government. I don't see how they can do anything else.
He might if he was a man of honour........
Nothing to do with honour. All to do with politics. He needs to demonstrate, should it need any more evidence, that the remainer majority in Parliament has made this country ungovernable. And it has.
It's just occurred to me that a delay to Brexit on 31st October may be in the interests of almost all the political parties, since they can each spin it in their favour.
I really dont see how Boris can spin it to his favour......more delays and now mixed messages about NI and `No Deal'. I can see little he has done to win over an unhappy party, a divided electorate and a range of oppostion parties who have come together in an almost unprecedented way to squeeze his plums to put it mildly.
In his Facebook Ask Me Anything, Boris said something like 6 or 7 times that Brexit would happen on 31st October. It’s quite intriguing that he’s even now persisting with this theme.
Quite clear to me what the strategy is: get a deal from the EU, coupled with getting them to draw a line under the process by having no further extension. Parliament gets a straight choice: Boris's Deal or No Deal. Your call, guys.....
We learnt in spring that it is just not possible to have a meaningful A V B vote in the HoC. So there will be a vote for "Boris' Deal" if the Ayes have it then there is Brexit. If the Noes have it then "Boris' Deal" is dead and no-deal is still illegal because of the Benn Act. What does Mr Johnson do then?
Resign along with his government. I don't see how they can do anything else.
He might if he was a man of honour........
Nothing to do with honour. All to do with politics. He needs to demonstrate, should it need any more evidence, that the remainer majority in Parliament has made this country ungovernable. And it has.
They had more than a little help from their ERG friends - giving them all the cover they needed to trash a deal none of them had read.
Question: What is the point of the extension? What will MPs do with the time? Apart from grandstanding and party games.
The only reason the EU will grant more time is for them to arrange a new referendum or revocation. For that reason, the EU will have no reason to do a deal or even to consider doing one.
I sometimes feel like an adult in a roomful of children who are playing a massive game of pretend. I expect many others do too.
It's just occurred to me that a delay to Brexit on 31st October may be in the interests of almost all the political parties, since they can each spin it in their favour.
I really dont see how Boris can spin it to his favour......more delays and now mixed messages about NI and `No Deal'. I can see little he has done to win over an unhappy party, a divided electorate and a range of oppostion parties who have come together in an almost unprecedented way to squeeze his plums to put it mildly.
In his Facebook Ask Me Anything, Boris said something like 6 or 7 times that Brexit would happen on 31st October. It’s quite intriguing that he’s even now persisting with this theme.
Quite clear to me what the strategy is: get a deal from the EU, coupled with getting them to draw a line under the process by having no further extension. Parliament gets a straight choice: Boris's Deal or No Deal. Your call, guys.....
We learnt in spring that it is just not possible to have a meaningful A V B vote in the HoC. So there will be a vote for "Boris' Deal" if the Ayes have it then there is Brexit. If the Noes have it then "Boris' Deal" is dead and no-deal is still illegal because of the Benn Act. What does Mr Johnson do then?
How is No Deal illegal under the Benn Act if an extension has been refused by the EU? If the EU says "nope", what has Benn done? Nothing.
"The European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019, commonly known as the Benn Bill, is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which requires the Prime Minister to seek an extension to the Brexit withdrawal date—prior to the bill, this was 31 October 2019—should he not be able to agree a withdrawal agreement with the European Union and obtain approval from the House of Commons for it by 19 October 2019" (Source Wikipedia)
He has to seek an extension, if no Brexit vote in the Commons is successful. Asking the EU to say "no extension" is not seeking an extension. Your scenario relies on the EU demanding no-extension, when everyone knows the UK government is compelled to ask for an extension. It is possible, but really very very unlikely.
Looks about right for Google, then. Like I said, I didn't see any jobs advertised in a quick search but I'm happy to concede the point. The others though? No, not really. And my point remains. The top 65,000 incomes in the UK aren't Google employees. Perhaps Google contributes ~1,000 to that number?
Actually, no, I think I was rash in my top 1% estimate. That £166,000 is the top 1% is counted by /income tax/. There will be a significant number of people above that level accumulating wealth that does not attract income tax at all. So that £166,000 will be firmly in the 99%. The real 1% including non-income-taxable wealth accumulation will be a lot higher than that.
The trick to getting wealthy is to start wealthy.
What utter crap, if you do not earn income per year how are you going to afford to maintain, heat an expensive property etc and pay council tax on it? Yet more rubbish from the hard left
Hard left? I'm a capitalist. You want to know what makes capitalism work? It's the twin pillars of consumer-driven economic organisation, (which comes from the the general population having enough spending money to feed demand-signals into the economy so potential suppliers can create, manufacture and discover new ways of delivering those wishes), and the ability to turn a profit on investment, which encourages wealth holders to make use of their accumulated capital to fund ventures that have good ideas and need a kickstart to ramp up their supply. I have no desire to do away with the latter because it underpins the former. But it has become unbalanced and needs to be levelled out. The capital income ratio is growing and is taking us to pre-WW1 levels which are dangerously unsustainable. The freezing out of the ordinary people from this kind of economy leads to pitchforks, because it fails to deliver what they want and need (because their lack of disposable income strangles their inputs).
If you want to avoid the "hard left", you need to pay attention to this stuff. There is real suffering out there, and there are a growing number of people who think capitalism doesn't deliver for them, so why should they lift a finger to preserve it? That view might not survive a rational analysis, but when people go without and see others with plenty, they aren't particularly open to rational analysis.
Some common sense there. It is a bit worrying that you can get called hard left for saying it.
Question: What is the point of the extension? What will MPs do with the time? Apart from grandstanding and party games.
The only reason the EU will grant more time is for them to arrange a new referendum or revocation. For that reason, the EU will have no reason to do a deal or even to consider doing one.
I sometimes feel like an adult in a roomful of children who are playing a massive game of pretend. I expect many others do too.
The point of an extension is to prevent a no-deal brexit. At some point some way out will have to be found, but the majority of MPs, british voters and almost all of those involved in the other 27 EU countries, want to avoid no-deal.
Interesting that the Herald puts a question mark after “Did Prime Minister lie to queen?”.
The Mirror had no such qualms:
It's a curious aspect of Brexit that those who are trashing the institutions and telling lies to the Queen are the "patriots", and those who wish to uphold the rule of law and protect citizens from harm are the "traitors"
You often hear in the UK news: "In an anouncement today xxx will say yyy" I find this really bizarre, and I have never heard this in Germany. They might say that "xxx is making an anouncemant later" or speculate what yyy might be, but this prereporting is a bit silly.
Question: What is the point of the extension? What will MPs do with the time? Apart from grandstanding and party games.
The only reason the EU will grant more time is for them to arrange a new referendum or revocation. For that reason, the EU will have no reason to do a deal or even to consider doing one.
I sometimes feel like an adult in a roomful of children who are playing a massive game of pretend. I expect many others do too.
The point of an extension is to prevent a no-deal brexit. At some point some way out will have to be found, but the majority of MPs, british voters and almost all of those involved in the other 27 EU countries, want to avoid no-deal.
Cracking, if British voters want to avoid no deal, let’s have an election toute de suite shall we and kick out this Brexity government safely before the leave date?
No? I thought not. How about we just suspend democracy forever so you get to stay in your precious EU.
"The point of an extension is to prevent a no-deal Brexit."
The point of it is mainly to kick the can further down the road until the public cry "I don't care anymore, let's stay with the status quo."
That was always the aim. To say so at the beginning would have been political suicide, so they lied. I don't mind that so much as I expect them to lie. But when it's such a transparent lie, it becomes an insult.
Some of the more fanatical Remainers don't care about that because it may achieve their ends, but the damage to democracy is enormous. The trust may never be regained. But MPs shouldn't whinge about the reputational damage. They deserve the all of it.
Question: What is the point of the extension? What will MPs do with the time? Apart from grandstanding and party games.
The only reason the EU will grant more time is for them to arrange a new referendum or revocation. For that reason, the EU will have no reason to do a deal or even to consider doing one.
I sometimes feel like an adult in a roomful of children who are playing a massive game of pretend. I expect many others do too.
The point of an extension is to prevent a no-deal brexit. At some point some way out will have to be found, but the majority of MPs, british voters and almost all of those involved in the other 27 EU countries, want to avoid no-deal.
Cracking, if British voters want to avoid no deal, let’s have an election toute de suite shall we and kick out this Brexity government safely before the leave date?
No? I thought not. How about we just suspend democracy forever so you get to stay in your precious EU.
But you know what the argument is: Make sure that no-deal really is off the table by getting an extension before an election to kick out this no-dealy-government.
It's just occurred to me that a delay to Brexit on 31st October may be in the interests of almost all the political parties, since they can each spin it in their favour.
I really dont see how Boris can spin it to his favour......more delays and now mixed messages about NI and `No Deal'. I can see little he has done to win over an unhappy party, a divided electorate and a range of oppostion parties who have come together in an almost unprecedented way to squeeze his plums to put it mildly.
In his Facebook Ask Me Anything, Boris said something like 6 or 7 times that Brexit would happen on 31st October. It’s quite intriguing that he’s even now persisting with this theme.
Quite clear to me what the strategy is: get a deal from the EU, coupled with getting them to draw a line under the process by having no further extension. Parliament gets a straight choice: Boris's Deal or No Deal. Your call, guys.....
We learnt in spring that it is just not possible to have a meaningful A V B vote in the HoC. So there will be a vote for "Boris' Deal" if the Ayes have it then there is Brexit. If the Noes have it then "Boris' Deal" is dead and no-deal is still illegal because of the Benn Act. What does Mr Johnson do then?
How is No Deal illegal under the Benn Act if an extension has been refused by the EU? If the EU says "nope", what has Benn done? Nothing.
Yes - no deal is in no sense "illegal" - but or rather BUT - the committed revokers will determine that if the deal is rejected again they can VoNC and replace Boris with a PM willing to Revoke - the ERG loons will decide Revoke is better than BINO and Labour will decide that anything that causes tories pain must by definition be a good thing. So Boris may get a deal through it could happen - but if he doesn't I think Revoke, not No Deal is favourite.
Some common sense there. It is a bit worrying that you can get called hard left for saying it.
To be honest, if I thought there was even a scrap of conscious thought behind the accusation I'd be annoyed. People like HUFFED are programmed to dismiss anything they disagree with as hard left without even troubling their brain about weighing it up first. It's just a tribalist spasm from the spinal cord, reflexive twitch when the flaws in their views get pointed out. Truly the worst aspect of modern politics.
Comments
A straightforward income of 165k from paid employment doesn't get you into that top 1%
*house price inflation has recently dropped to about 1%, but was quite recently steady at 3%.
https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/8239
Income is when someone cuts you a cheque. Your average investment fund will cut you a 1.2% check in the UK. Prime London property yields (which exclude voids and costs) are sub 3%, and therefore probably sub 2% real.
I'm doing a funding round for my new business, that will mean that I have a great deal of paper wealth. But it's not income. It's shares that currently have a value of x.
I have no desire to do away with the latter because it underpins the former. But it has become unbalanced and needs to be levelled out. The capital income ratio is growing and is taking us to pre-WW1 levels which are dangerously unsustainable. The freezing out of the ordinary people from this kind of economy leads to pitchforks, because it fails to deliver what they want and need (because their lack of disposable income strangles their inputs).
If you want to avoid the "hard left", you need to pay attention to this stuff. There is real suffering out there, and there are a growing number of people who think capitalism doesn't deliver for them, so why should they lift a finger to preserve it? That view might not survive a rational analysis, but when people go without and see others with plenty, they aren't particularly open to rational analysis.
Paper assets can be realised, sometimes quickly and sometimes slowly, but they can be realised. House price inflation is wealth accumulation because you can sell a house and convert it into cash.
My entire point is that income from earnings is only a part of the picture, and the idea that the "brains" -- I used researchers as a paradigm -- are not the ones who would or should be targetted in a sensible, progressive, capitalist-friendly tax system.
Boris Bungled Brexit
It will probably be our credit rating too- just above junk.
Whether Boris can get anything substantially different to May remains to be seen. Will be a classic if he does, as we’ll get to see all these knobheads like Steven Kinnock have to put their money where their mouth is.
If any of the likely problems actually occurs, there will be no excuse. Because we knew about it.
I still haven't read anything about the farming sector.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/12/boris-johnson-pin-up-far-right-thugs-violence
"The far right see themselves as the “boots” on the streets: the self-appointed enforcers of an endangered national-conservative revolution. The boots have now swung behind what was supposed to be Britain’s mainstream centre-right party.
This development should be an alarming warning for Johnson and Cummings. When you assail opponents for backing a “surrender bill” or denounce them as “collaborators”, as Johnson has done; when you paint a picture, in primary colours, of “parliament versus the people” – as though a den of traitors is at war with the populace – are you really oblivious to the consequences? Does the sight of tanked-up thugs chanting your name in central London not give you pause for thought? "
Revoke is a pipe dream if Boris gets a deal.
I don’t believe a new deal can ever be found. The ability to negotiate has gone. I do believe that he believes we will leave on 31/10. The next few weeks are going to see much more political turmoil and many more unprecedented and constitution wrecking actions. All bets are off here - people on both sides are so entrenched now that it’s gone way beyond a “simple matter of leaving be EU”.
Parliament has failed - quite literally - for now. I think people need to take stock and realise what this means.
It would be ironic, but somehow if in trying to leave the EU our old country, democracy and constitutional settlement could ended up being totally destroyed. It’s scary.
http://camdennewjournal.com/article/police-believe-fatal-shooting-was-drive-by-attack
Mr. Observer, blimey. Hope your sister's ok.
So there will be a vote for "Boris' Deal" if the Ayes have it then there is Brexit.
If the Noes have it then "Boris' Deal" is dead and no-deal is still illegal because of the Benn Act. What does Mr Johnson do then?
I also feel that Remainers, such as myself, were unaware of the determination of some at least of the people behind Leave, and their desire to feather their nest at the country's expense and some others for whom it was some sort of intellectual exercise; a real-life Game of Thrones.
The incoming new EU team don't want to be troubled with Brexit. They want it finished on the current lot's term.
A Brextension cannot be in the "interests" of all parties, when a GE is around the corner, as the GE is a zero sum game. But it is fair to say that it is not completely clear which parties will benefit more from a Brextension.
Apart from grandstanding and party games.
The only reason the EU will grant more time is for them to arrange a new referendum or revocation. For that reason, the EU will have no reason to do a deal or even to consider doing one.
I sometimes feel like an adult in a roomful of children who are playing a massive game of pretend. I expect many others do too.
He has to seek an extension, if no Brexit vote in the Commons is successful. Asking the EU to say "no extension" is not seeking an extension. Your scenario relies on the EU demanding no-extension, when everyone knows the UK government is compelled to ask for an extension. It is possible, but really very very unlikely.
https://twitter.com/jolyonmaugham/status/1172020016801374208?s=21
The Mirror had no such qualms:
https://twitter.com/DailyMirror/status/1171899387481665537?s=20
I find this really bizarre, and I have never heard this in Germany.
They might say that "xxx is making an anouncemant later" or speculate what yyy might be, but this prereporting is a bit silly.
No? I thought not. How about we just suspend democracy forever so you get to stay in your precious EU.
NEW THREAD
"The point of an extension is to prevent a no-deal Brexit."
The point of it is mainly to kick the can further down the road until the public cry "I don't care anymore, let's stay with the status quo."
That was always the aim. To say so at the beginning would have been political suicide, so they lied. I don't mind that so much as I expect them to lie. But when it's such a transparent lie, it becomes an insult.
Some of the more fanatical Remainers don't care about that because it may achieve their ends, but the damage to democracy is enormous. The trust may never be regained. But MPs shouldn't whinge about the reputational damage. They deserve the all of it.
This is not "suspend[ing] democracy forever".