Of course in Leaverstan, £125 000 per child from an inheritance is very generous, it mostly becomes an issue in Southern Remania. What percentage of estates are going to be hit in Workington, and in Wimbledon?
Inheritance taxes are possibly the most effective form of wealth redistribution around. It is why the wealthy do not like them but the poor do.
Inheritance taxes destroy private reserves of capital and result in increased dependence on the state. It’s why socialists like them and conservatives & liberals don’t
Yes, they are the most redistributive of taxes, which is why the rich dislike them.
Inheritance taxes were a major driver of land reform in this country a century ago.
Most of those people will have been opposition activists looking to embarrass Johnson in front of the cameras.
That's a pretty disgraceful comment.
People's lives have been affected by these floods and you sit on your laptop and post rubbish like that. Shame on you.
You’re too emotional about your politics and desperate for the narrative to change.
Don’t be naive.
Blaming victims of flooding for giving a clueless, bumbling PM a hard time is the height of emotional politics. The ratiuonal thing to do would be to admit that Johnson came across very poorly but to accept that because of who he is up against it doesn't matter. There is no conceivable way he can ever look worse than his opponent in the eyes of most voters.
Calm down, dear. I’m not blaming victims of flooding. I am saying most of those skits would have been planned ambushes by opposition activists, or supporters.
This has already happened with the NHS worker who gave Johnson a ticking off in hospital a few weeks ago. We repeated the same debate here then.
And I agree he came across nervously and awkwardly.
We are in the heat of a GE campaign and the opposition are desperate to lay some punches. I guess objectivity is out the window for the next 4 weeks.
Accusing those giving the PM a hard time of being rude, unreasonable and of being opposition activists without a shred of evidence is not exactly objective! The PM wanted TV coverage of him sitting down and talking to flood victims. That's why the scenes were filmed. He got what he deserved for just assuming he could wing it. But it will make no difference whatsoever.
Quite.
I'm afraid Casino Royale has made a complete arse of himself today. But he carries on digging. Sometimes it's a good idea to listen to another point of view, accept you may be barking up the wrong tree, and adjust accordingly.
Changing the subject, I mentioned something about Jo Swinson. As a LibDem, I'm rather concerned at the number of people who really find her off-putting. I've tried to dismiss this previously as misogynism but I don't think that's really the whole story. She really seems to irritate quite a few people I know
Hard to think of a younger female politician who isn’t frequently described in such a way. Usually by older men.
It's rather transparent, not to say stupid, to criticise Boris Johnson for running scared of the public, and in the next breath criticise him for being shouted at by the public. People will make of it what they will. In many cases I suspect the response will be sympathetic.
I think the response will be aligned with people's individual political alignment.
What the “lifetime allowance” does is prevent people from giving gifts to their children in their lifetime. Currently records only need to be kept for 7 years (I believe) for inheritance tax details. God know how a lifetime allowance would work admistratively. Would every single gift (or benefiting kind???) above a certain amount from birth have to be reported to HMRC, with threat of jail (for tax fraud)if not done so? And this would have to be done by everyone because you never know when you might be the unexpected beneficiary of an inheritance windfall in future.
Indeed, so undoubtedly bears some responsibility. However, aren't such matters as flood control part of the area of responsibility of the Environmental Authority, the River Board or whatever, and nationally funded.
I could be wrong, but I think flood defences entirely within an LA area are the responsibility of the Local Authority.
Now it's being floated in the press they're almost better off just going ahead and announcing it with a threshold of a million pounds, rather than saying they're not going to do it and everybody thinking they're lying and they're going to do it at £125k.
Not quite the LD policy, but not too far off. Taxing the recipient rather than the estate is a big step in the right direction.
In practice, it is likely that wills would be rewritten in favour of grand children as well as children. That would probably keep tax receipts down, but rather than inherit as a fifty something, many more would inherit in their twenties, when it is more useful.
God,m
If the State tries to intervene in that then don’t expect the party that advocated that policy to benefit.
House prices though, which is a significant part of most people's wealth, haven't risen as a result of the owners efforts, or if they have..... installation of a conservatory, central heating etc. ...... only marginally. They've risen as a result of a collective action..... either inflation or a general rise in prosperity, or alternatively, shortage..... collective failure to build enough for the next generation. So shouldn't the 'collective' have some benefit, rather than the 'lucky' individual?
I don’t think that necessarily follows.
The individual takes on all of the risk when he or she (or both) buy the property.
The value can rise or fall and past performance is no guarantee of future expectations.
Of course in Leaverstan, £125 000 per child from an inheritance is very generous, it mostly becomes an issue in Southern Remania. What percentage of estates are going to be hit in Workington, and in Wimbledon?
Inheritance taxes are possibly the most effective form of wealth redistribution around. It is why the wealthy do not like them but the poor do.
Inheritance taxes destroy private reserves of capital and result in increased dependence on the state. It’s why socialists like them and conservatives & liberals don’t
Yes, they are the most redistributive of taxes, which is why the rich dislike them.
Inheritance taxes were a major driver of land reform in this country a century ago.
We’re not talking about the rich here. We’re talking about people owning average family detached homes.
What the “lifetime allowance” does is prevent people from giving gifts to their children in their lifetime. Currently records only need to be kept for 7 years (I believe) for inheritance tax details. God know how a lifetime allowance would work admistratively. Would every single gift (or benefiting kind???) above a certain amount from birth have to be reported to HMRC, with threat of jail (for tax fraud)if not done so? And this would have to be done by everyone because you never know when you might be the unexpected beneficiary of an inheritance windfall in future.
That was a thought I had as well. But another one is, would you tax the value at the time of the gift, or at the time of death? Because for many people in their seventies that’s would make a huge difference.
Most of those people will have been opposition activists looking to embarrass Johnson in front of the cameras.
That's a pretty disgraceful comment.
People's lives have been affected by these floods and you sit on your laptop and post rubbish like that. Shame on you.
You’re too emotional about your politics and desperate for the narrative to change.
Don’t be naive.
Blaming victims of flooding for giving a clueless, bumbling PM a hard time is the height of emotional politics. The ratiuonal thing to do would be to admit that Johnson came across very poorly but to accept that because of who he is up against it doesn't matter. There is no conceivable way he can ever look worse than his opponent in the eyes of most voters.
Calm down, dear. I’m not blaming victims of flooding. I am saying most of those skits would have been planned ambushes by opposition activists, or supporters.
This has already happened with the NHS worker who gave Johnson a ticking off in hospital a few weeks ago. We repeated the same debate here then.
And I agree he came across nervously and awkwardly.
We are in the heat of a GE campaign and the opposition are desperate to lay some punches. I guess objectivity is out the window for the next 4 weeks.
Accusing those giving the PM a hard time of being rude, unreasonable and of being opposition activists without a shred of evidence is not exactly objective! The PM wanted TV coverage of him sitting down and talking to flood victims. That's why the scenes were filmed. He got what he deserved for just assuming he could wing it. But it will make no difference whatsoever.
Quite.
I'm afraid Casino Royale has made a complete arse of himself today. But he carries on digging. Sometimes it's a good idea to listen to another point of view, accept you may be barking up the wrong tree, and adjust accordingly.
Changing the subject, I mentioned something about Jo Swinson. As a LibDem, I'm rather concerned at the number of people who really find her off-putting. I've tried to dismiss this previously as misogynism but I don't think that's really the whole story. She really seems to irritate quite a few people I know
Hard to think of a younger female politician who isn’t frequently described in such a way. Usually by older men.
That’s too easy.
You don’t hear the same criticisms of Gloria de Piero or Luciana Berger.
Most of those people will have been opposition activists looking to embarrass Johnson in front of the cameras.
That's a pretty disgraceful comment.
People's lives have been affected by these floods and you sit on your laptop and post rubbish like that. Shame on you.
You’re too emotional about your politics and desperate for the narrative to change.
Don’t be naive.
Blaming victims of flooding for giving a clueless, bumbling PM a hard time is the height of emotional politics. The ratiuonal thing to do would be to admit that Johnson came across very poorly but to accept that because of who he is up against it doesn't matter. There is no conceivable way he can ever look worse than his opponent in the eyes of most voters.
Calm down, dear. I’m not blaming victims of flooding. I am saying most of those skits would have been planned ambushes by opposition activists, or supporters.
This has already happened with the NHS worker who gave Johnson a ticking off in hospital a few weeks ago. We repeated the same debate here then.
And I agree he came across nervously and awkwardly.
We are in the heat of a GE campaign and the opposition are desperate to lay some punches. I guess objectivity is out the window for the next 4 weeks.
Accusing those
Quite.
I'm afraid Casino Royale has made a complete arse of himself today. But he carries on digging. Sometimes it's a good idea to listen to another point of view, accept you may be barking up the wrong tree, and adjust accordingly.
Changing the subject, I mentioned something about Jo Swinson. As a LibDem, I'm rather concerned at the number of people who really find her off-putting. I've tried to dismiss this previously as misogynism but I don't think that's really the whole story. She really seems to irritate quite a few people I know
Hard to think of a younger female politician who isn’t frequently described in such a way. Usually by older men.
There is an element of that, but others like Layla do manage to carry it off geek-chic rather better.
I quite like Jo, and she chatted quite personably with me after the hustings. She has good people skills, but sometimes seems to be trying too hard.
Of course in Leaverstan, £125 000 per child from an inheritance is very generous, it mostly becomes an issue in Southern Remania. What percentage of estates are going to be hit in Workington, and in Wimbledon?
Inheritance taxes are possibly the most effective form of wealth redistribution around. It is why the wealthy do not like them but the poor do.
Inheritance taxes destroy private reserves of capital and result in increased dependence on the state. It’s why socialists like them and conservatives & liberals don’t
Indeed, so undoubtedly bears some responsibility. However, aren't such matters as flood control part of the area of responsibility of the Environmental Authority, the River Board or whatever, and nationally funded.
I could be wrong, but I think flood defences entirely within an LA area are the responsibility of the Local Authority.
Not sure either TBH, but we had a nasty flash flood here some years ago, and I THINK the Anglian Water Authority has been trying to assure everyone that's OK now, rather than Essex County or the District Council.
Edit: Just looked it up; the Environment Agency " currently working on a scheme to reduce the flood risk to properties and communities in the (affected) villages."
Of course in Leaverstan, £125 000 per child from an inheritance is very generous, it mostly becomes an issue in Southern Remania. What percentage of estates are going to be hit in Workington, and in Wimbledon?
Inheritance taxes are possibly the most effective form of wealth redistribution around. It is why the wealthy do not like them but the poor do.
Inheritance taxes destroy private reserves of capital and result in increased dependence on the state. It’s why socialists like them and conservatives & liberals don’t
Yes, they are the most redistributive of taxes, which is why the rich dislike them.
Inheritance taxes were a major driver of land reform in this country a century ago.
We’re not talking about the rich here. We’re talking about people owning average family detached homes.
£125k is an eye-wateringly tight limit. It’s less than the value of a semi-detached house here in Cannock, and barely more than May’s ‘dementia tax’ limit.
Proving value over a lifetime would also be a nightmare.
If Labour are going with this it could easily cost them every seat they hold south of the Humber.
Indeed, so undoubtedly bears some responsibility. However, aren't such matters as flood control part of the area of responsibility of the Environmental Authority, the River Board or whatever, and nationally funded.
I could be wrong, but I think flood defences entirely within an LA area are the responsibility of the Local Authority.
Of course in Leaverstan, £125 000 per child from an inheritance is very generous, it mostly becomes an issue in Southern Remania. What percentage of estates are going to be hit in Workington, and in Wimbledon?
Inheritance taxes are possibly the most effective form of wealth redistribution around. It is why the wealthy do not like them but the poor do.
Inheritance taxes destroy private reserves of capital and result in increased dependence on the state. It’s why socialists like them and conservatives & liberals don’t
Yes, they are the most redistributive of taxes, which is why the rich dislike them.
Inheritance taxes were a major driver of land reform in this country a century ago.
We’re not talking about the rich here. We’re talking about people owning average family detached homes.
£125k is an eye-wateringly tight limit. It’s less than the value of a semi-detached house here in Cannock, and barely more than May’s ‘dementia tax’ limit.
Proving value over a lifetime would also be a nightmare.
If Labour are going with this it could easily cost them every seat they hold south of the Humber.
You’d think they wouldn’t be that stupid.
Even if they don’t do it in the manifesto, now, there still might be enough of a whiff around it for the Tories to make something of it in innuendo over the next 4 weeks.
Most of those people will have been opposition activists looking to embarrass Johnson in front of the cameras.
That's a pretty disgraceful comment.
People's lives have been affected by these floods and you sit on your laptop and post rubbish like that. Shame on you.
You’re too emotional about your politics and desperate for the narrative to change.
Don’t be naive.
Blaming victims of flooding for giving a clueless, bumbling PM a hard time is the height of emotional politics.
Calm down, dear. I’m not blaming victims of flooding. I am saying most of those skits would have been planned ambushes by opposition activists, or supporters.
This has already happened with the NHS worker who gave Johnson a ticking off in hospital a few weeks ago. We repeated the same debate here then.
And I agree he came across nervously and awkwardly.
We are in the heat of a GE campaign and the opposition are desperate to lay some punches. I guess objectivity is out the window for the next 4 weeks.
Accusing those giving the PM a hard time of being rude, unreasonable and of being opposition activists without a shred of evidence is not exactly objective! The PM wanted TV coverage of him sitting down and talking to flood victims. That's why the scenes were filmed. He got what he deserved for just assuming he could wing it. But it will make no difference whatsoever.
Quite.
I'm afraid Casino Royale has made a complete arse of himself today. But he carries on digging. Sometimes it's a good idea to listen to another point of view, accept you may be barking up the wrong tree, and adjust accordingly.
Changing the subject, I mentioned something about Jo Swinson. As a LibDem, I'm rather concerned at the number of people who really find her off-putting. I've tried to dismiss this previously as misogynism but I don't think that's really the whole story. She really seems to irritate quite a few people I know
Hard to think of a younger female politician who isn’t frequently described in such a way. Usually by older men.
That’s too easy.
You don’t hear the same criticisms of Gloria de Piero or Luciana Berger.
No indeed. Both were described on here in recent days as quite fit....
What the “lifetime allowance” does is prevent people from giving gifts to their children in their lifetime. Currently records only need to be kept for 7 years (I believe) for inheritance tax details. God know how a lifetime allowance would work admistratively. Would every single gift (or benefiting kind???) above a certain amount from birth have to be reported to HMRC, with threat of jail (for tax fraud)if not done so? And this would have to be done by everyone because you never know when you might be the unexpected beneficiary of an inheritance windfall in future.
That was a thought I had as well. But another one is, would you tax the value at the time of the gift, or at the time of death? Because for many people in their seventies that’s would make a huge difference.
I’m not sure whether the “lifetime” applies to the donor or the recipient. If the latter you presumably tax it as you go along, so the value at the gift when the donor dies is irrelevant. It’s not an inheritance tax at all, it’s just a gift tax. If it all relates to the donor then you create scenarios where somebody gets gifts early on in life (say parents putting money into a university fund, or towards a house). By the time of the donors death, the recipient will quite likely find themselves with no means to pay whatever tax comes their way.
Indeed, so undoubtedly bears some responsibility. However, aren't such matters as flood control part of the area of responsibility of the Environmental Authority, the River Board or whatever, and nationally funded.
I could be wrong, but I think flood defences entirely within an LA area are the responsibility of the Local Authority.
Not sure either TBH, but we had a nasty flash flood here some years ago, and I THINK the Anglian Water Authority has been trying to assure everyone that's OK now, rather than Essex County or the District Council.
You see, I think the flood defences in Gloucester were redone by the City Council. But, as I say, I could be wrong. It may also be affected by the fact that Gloucester is technically a coastal city.
Indeed, so undoubtedly bears some responsibility. However, aren't such matters as flood control part of the area of responsibility of the Environmental Authority, the River Board or whatever, and nationally funded.
I could be wrong, but I think flood defences entirely within an LA area are the responsibility of the Local Authority.
The claim, true or not, is that affected areas in the south receive far more central government attention and funding than those in the north.
Well, I think that claim is true, frankly. It was always like that - look at Crossrail going ahead and nobody batting an eyelid and all the fuss over HS2.
It’s also fair to say Sheffield is hardly a wealthy city, although they found money to kill all their trees off (which probably didn’t help matters in this flooding) unlike say, London or Brighton where the millionaires hang out.
At the same time clearly their defences more or less worked, but at the expense of other people.
Of course in Leaverstan, £125 000 per child from an inheritance is very generous, it mostly becomes an issue in Southern Remania. What percentage of estates are going to be hit in Workington, and in Wimbledon?
Inheritance taxes are possibly the most effective form of wealth redistribution around. It is why the wealthy do not like them but the poor do.
Inheritance taxes destroy private reserves of capital and result in increased dependence on the state. It’s why socialists like them and conservatives & liberals don’t
Yes, they are the most redistributive of taxes, which is why the rich dislike them.
Inheritance taxes were a major driver of land reform in this country a century ago.
We’re not talking about the rich here. We’re talking about people owning average family detached homes.
£125k is an eye-wateringly tight limit. It’s less than the value of a semi-detached house here in Cannock, and barely more than May’s ‘dementia tax’ limit.
Proving value over a lifetime would also be a nightmare.
If Labour are going with this it could easily cost them every seat they hold south of the Humber.
It seems to be the variation between the pollsters seems to be narrowing. Tory lead ~10% which should in theory be enough for a comfortable majority.
However, the campaign hasn't really got going yet - there is still a lot to play for.
NOM at 2.8ish on Betfair Exchange seems very good value - agree?
If you think NOM is a possibility there is probably better value backing number of labour seats. Very good prices to be had on everything over 220 seats.
Indeed, so undoubtedly bears some responsibility. However, aren't such matters as flood control part of the area of responsibility of the Environmental Authority, the River Board or whatever, and nationally funded.
I could be wrong, but I think flood defences entirely within an LA area are the responsibility of the Local Authority.
Most of those people will have been opposition activists looking to embarrass Johnson in front of the cameras.
Why do you find it so hard to believe that people whose lives have been so affected by flooding might find a PM breezing in for a photo opportunity a bit too much to stomach? Johnson got what he deserved. He poses as the champion of the ordinary punter, of those ignored by the metropolitan elite, but put him in front of such people and he comes across for what he is - a bumbling oaf who can't be arsed to get on top of his brief.
Normal people simply aren’t that rude and confrontational.
Boris does have that affect on a lot of voters - he is a marmite politician. I commented upthread on Boris derangement syndrome - normally sane people literally lose reason when Boris does anything (see leaving no deal on the table to get a deal)
Yes, the floods may well be this years black swan. Labour need to pin neglect of flood defences on the Tories.
Indeed, the Tories cut a lot of spending on flood defences since 2010. I remember when Cameron was PM, he suffered collateral damage over the issue.
There comes a time when you have a months rain in a day no amount of flood defences can prevent damage to low lying property
The point is money can be found in London and the South east but other places like Yorkshire or North Wales don't have flood mitigation schemes implemented. I agree that nature can be a fickle beast and it must be appalling for the people affected.
Out of interest can you name where the money for flooding has been found in the South East or London?
Most of those people will have been opposition activists looking to embarrass Johnson in front of the cameras.
Why do you find it so hard to believe that people whose lives have been so affected by flooding might find a PM breezing in for a photo opportunity a bit too much to stomach? Johnson got what he deserved. He poses as the champion of the ordinary punter, of those ignored by the metropolitan elite, but put him in front of such people and he comes across for what he is - a bumbling oaf who can't be arsed to get on top of his brief.
Normal people simply aren’t that rude and confrontational.
Boris does have that affect on a lot of voters - he is a marmite politician. I commented upthread on Boris derangement syndrome - normally sane people literally lose reason when Boris does anything (see leaving no deal on the table to get a deal)
Corbyn, on the other hand, is the patent medicine politician. A select few supporters rave about him, but the rest of us look in deep suspicion at a man who tells us we have to swallow something deeply unpleasant for benefits that he can’t prove and which have never been shown to materialise.
Of course in Leaverstan, £125 000 per child from an inheritance is very generous, it mostly becomes an issue in Southern Remania. What percentage of estates are going to be hit in Workington, and in Wimbledon?
Inheritance taxes are possibly the most effective form of wealth redistribution around. It is why the wealthy do not like them but the poor do.
Inheritance taxes destroy private reserves of capital and result in increased dependence on the state. It’s why socialists like them and conservatives & liberals don’t
Yes, they are the most redistributive of taxes, which is why the rich dislike them.
Inheritance taxes were a major driver of land reform in this country a century ago.
We’re not talking about the rich here. We’re talking about people owning average family detached homes.
£125k is an eye-wateringly tight limit. It’s less than the value of a semi-detached house here in Cannock, and barely more than May’s ‘dementia tax’ limit.
Proving value over a lifetime would also be a nightmare.
If Labour are going with this it could easily cost them every seat they hold south of the Humber.
It is £125 000 per recipient rather than per estate. A house being inherited by a couple of children and a few grandchildren would pay no IHT.
What the “lifetime allowance” does is prevent people from giving gifts to their children in their lifetime. Currently records only need to be kept for 7 years (I believe) for inheritance tax details. God know how a lifetime allowance would work admistratively. Would every single gift (or benefiting kind???) above a certain amount from birth have to be reported to HMRC, with threat of jail (for tax fraud)if not done so? And this would have to be done by everyone because you never know when you might be the unexpected beneficiary of an inheritance windfall in future.
What's the difference between Santa and Jeremy Corbyn? They both have nice white beards and keep a list, but Santa uses his to give your kids presents, while Jezza writes down every gift your kids will ever receive and then takes them off them when you die.
What a Christmas turkey that policy would be. Dementia tax x 100.
Donald Trump has claimed Boris Johnson as his bumbling, blond-haired mini-me from across the water. The U.K. Labour Party is doing all it can to push the same message ahead of next month’s general election, claiming there is a Trump-Johnson alliance at foot. Even Hillary Clinton has criticized the British prime minister for his refusal to publish a report into Russia’s involvement in the Brexit referendum.
And yet, by any serious audit of the two men and what they represent, it is not Boris Johnson who is Britain’s Trump. It’s Jeremy Corbyn.
Going after IHT would be a huge own goal . You can get away with higher taxes for the 5% but an IHT change wouldn’t just effect that group .
Well, the obvious aim of this policy is to tackle the huge amount of avoidance that goes on. We currently have 7% of estates taxed when around one-third should be. Moreover, it tends to be the less wealthy estates that get clobbered as the really rich can afford accountants and advisers.
But I can see many formidable practical, emotional and administrative difficulties with this one. If they go with it, expect a Tory landslide.
Yes, the floods may well be this years black swan. Labour need to pin neglect of flood defences on the Tories.
Indeed, the Tories cut a lot of spending on flood defences since 2010. I remember when Cameron was PM, he suffered collateral damage over the issue.
There comes a time when you have a months rain in a day no amount of flood defences can prevent damage to low lying property
The point is money can be found in London and the South east but other places like Yorkshire or North Wales don't have flood mitigation schemes implemented. I agree that nature can be a fickle beast and it must be appalling for the people affected.
Out of interest can you name where the money for flooding has been found in the South East or London?
What the “lifetime allowance” does is prevent people from giving gifts to their children in their lifetime. Currently records only need to be kept for 7 years (I believe) for inheritance tax details. God know how a lifetime allowance would work admistratively. Would every single gift (or benefiting kind???) above a certain amount from birth have to be reported to HMRC, with threat of jail (for tax fraud)if not done so? And this would have to be done by everyone because you never know when you might be the unexpected beneficiary of an inheritance windfall in future.
That was a thought I had as well. But another one is, would you tax the value at the time of the gift, or at the time of death? Because for many people in their seventies that’s would make a huge difference.
I’m not sure whether the “lifetime” applies to the donor or the recipient. If the latter you presumably tax it as you go along, so the value at the gift when the donor dies is irrelevant. It’s not an inheritance tax at all, it’s just a gift tax. If it all relates to the donor then you create scenarios where somebody gets gifts early on in life (say parents putting money into a university fund, or towards a house). By the time of the donors death, the recipient will quite likely find themselves with no means to pay whatever tax comes their way.
No, the gift would be taxed as it arises, so would never be unplayable, unlike the pensions tax taper.
Of course in Leaverstan, £125 000 per child from an inheritance is very generous, it mostly becomes an issue in Southern Remania. What percentage of estates are going to be hit in Workington, and in Wimbledon?
Inheritance taxes are possibly the most effective form of wealth redistribution around. It is why the wealthy do not like them but the poor do.
Inheritance taxes destroy private reserves of capital and result in increased dependence on the state. It’s why socialists like them and conservatives & liberals don’t
Yes, they are the most redistributive of taxes, which is why the rich dislike them.
Inheritance taxes were a major driver of land reform in this country a century ago.
The point is they redistribute by destroying wealth. You need excess capital to find savings and investment.
If the government owned everything and gave everyone a cash handout each year there would be equality but minimal productivity.
What the “lifetime allowance” does is prevent people from giving gifts to their children in their lifetime. Currently records only need to be kept for 7 years (I believe) for inheritance tax details. God know how a lifetime allowance would work admistratively. Would every single gift (or benefiting kind???) above a certain amount from birth have to be reported to HMRC, with threat of jail (for tax fraud)if not done so? And this would have to be done by everyone because you never know when you might be the unexpected beneficiary of an inheritance windfall in future.
What's the difference between Santa and Jeremy Corbyn? They both have nice white beards and keep a list, but Santa uses his to give your kids presents, while Jezza writes down every gift your kids will ever receive and then takes them off them when you die.
What a Christmas turkey that policy would be. Dementia tax x 100.
I suppose a gift from Santa could be excluded from the allowance?
In 2017 the average inheritance was £119k. Agreed that from a Tory point of view a threshold of £125k would be an ideal policy for Labour to try to sell to swing voters.
What's the source of that?
ONS' Wealth and Assets Survey between 2014 and 2016 is the latest hard data I can find. It shows the average person who received an inheritance received £11,000. And just 4% of the population had received an inheritance in the past two years
And that's consistent with my experience. For most of the past 60 years, most people's assets were derisory. Few owned their own home, their pensions disappeared at death and all their children got was a few thousand quids' life insurance and a bit of ageing furniture.
The only people who believe different are Tories living in their own echo chamber (and desperate to keep the property gains they've made by accident), whingeing millennials and journalists. Who, these days, are all offspring of an entitled property-owning minority.
Back in the days when all journos started off like John Humphrys, the media wasn't stuffed with the delusion that "everyone" handed a mortgage-free piece of prime property to their children. Most of us earned our money: most left little more than fond memories.
I may be wrong. But I'd love to see real evidence.
I don't think it is correct to say few owned their own home, especially in the older cohorts, although it is heavilly skewed by region
Most of those people will have been opposition activists looking to embarrass Johnson in front of the cameras.
Unlikely - are you suggesting that the flood somehow targeted opposition activists, or that these people filmed with their homes full of water were not actual victims?
A more reasonable defence would be that their anger is entirely understandable but Johnson isn't personally responsible for deciding flood defence priorities and accept that in mid-campaign he was slow to respond. We can then debate how these priorities are set. But blaming the victims is not a good look.
I’m not blaming the victims. I’m saying ...
If I were you, I'd stop saying anything more. You've made a fool of yourself this morning.
More flooding today and no real let up in sight to the rain over the next week or two. What we desperately need is settled high pressure but there's been ne'er sight nor feel of one all autumn.
It's really horrendous for those going through it. I'm sorry some politicians don't get it. Sorry too that a couple of posters on here are so cynically enwrapped in their politicking that they've lost touch with the real world.
Party politics doesn't matter when your livelihood is at stake. Action does.
I am unsure as to what they could do though. Aside from flood warnings which are not always accurate are there any things that can be rolled out anywhere within a couple of hours? Probably. Is providing relief and assistance hindered by the floods themselves? Yes.
I work for a business and one of our buildings is routinely hit by flooding. So we have improved it so that it can recover more quickly after a flood but we can’t stop the water and there are no temp measures that help. Sandbags May help to get possessions to safety, but ultimately are no prevention.
This is rubbish, Doncaster North is held by Ed Miliband and is not even in the top 200 Tory target seats and Doncaster Central is not even in the top 100 Tory target seats, even Don Valley is only 69th Tory target but Boris still went there anyway to help despite voters buying properties on the flood plain being surprised when it floods
Yes. Its bollocks.
I think it is unlikely to make a tangible difference but Boris was awkward and lacked empathy. Mind you, it is almost impossible to offer any words of comfort to those who have suffered flooding. Over the years in business I dealt with many flood victims in our area, before serious sea defences were put in place, and you just feel utterly helpless and the smell is beyond belief and all invasive in peoples homes
It is a personal disaster for each and every owner and will take months, even years, to recover from
One day does not make a difference, agreed. But if every second time that Mr Johnson meets ordinary people, he gets heckled and he has no convincing response, then he is in trouble.
John Major was surprisingly good at meeting the public, and surprisingly won an election for it. With Mr Johnson I'm not so sure.
John Major was astonishing in 92. The environment was pretty hostile, but he faced up to the public and tried his best. Enough people respected him for that to swing enough key marginals to stop Kinnock, who badly suffered from over-confidence.
Who is over-confident in 2019?
Who is facing up to a dissatisfied public and trying their best?
Correctly answer those two questions and you can make some cash. I can well remember how shocked I was in 1992 at some of the terrific Tory results. One thing is guaranteed about 2019: a lot of people are going to be in total shock on the morning of 13 December.
John Major is a genuinely nice guy, and that came across when meeting the public, even a public initially antagonistic. Jezza has some of the same charm.
Johnson prefers photo-ops of himself with primary school children or bed bound pensioners. It is working age adults he doesn't like encountering.
The "more peas Norma" characteristion of John Major has funny but harsh.
If a PM is not a natural leader type then you need to be repected and liked within the party and with the the majority of the public (John Major, Angela Merkel). Boris is neither of these.
Most of those people will have been opposition activists looking to embarrass Johnson in front of the cameras.
Why do you find it so hard to believe that people whose lives have been so affected by flooding might find a PM breezing in for a photo opportunity a bit too much to stomach? Johnson got what he deserved. He poses as the champion of the ordinary punter, of those ignored by the metropolitan elite, but put him in front of such people and he comes across for what he is - a bumbling oaf who can't be arsed to get on top of his brief.
I didn’t say all. I said most.
Labour and the LD are both trying to make political capital out of this. It’s naive to think they won’t have prepped some of their activists to ambush Boris on his visits.
Normal people simply aren’t that rude and confrontational.
I expect we’ll find out more in the coming days.
Big floods a decade ago. A party that decides not to spend any money on flood defences. Another big flood and the same politicians who refused to spend the money to protect their homes comes to their homes to show sympathy.
Personally I am shocked that Johnson hasn't been chased out of town. Political Capital? Tories couldn't give a toss about people's lives and this is direct proof smacking them in the face.
I thought a large part of the problem here was that they *did* spend money on flood defences, meaning the water didn't hit most of Sheffield and flooded downriver instead?
Which makes it sound as though the key problem was a lack of planning in preparing additional runoff areas. Equally, without knowing the area I'm not sure how practical such spaces would be.
Minimum spend that 'the authorities' could get away with, or authorise, probably.
OK - but isn't Sheffield Labour controlled?
Indeed, so undoubtedly bears some responsibility. However, aren't such matters as flood control part of the area of responsibility of the Environmental Authority, the River Board or whatever, and nationally funded.
Looked this up yesterday- the local authority has prime responsibility for coordinating plans.
£125k is extremely tight. Me and my other half are probably going to have one child only (Very eco friendly ) - and we're way above that in pension and housing equity already. Neither of us is anywhere near the current higher rate of tax, and my previous house sold for 5 grand more than I bought it for (-ve after moving costs and stamp)
Going after IHT would be a huge own goal . You can get away with higher taxes for the 5% but an IHT change wouldn’t just effect that group .
Well, the obvious aim of this policy is to tackle the huge amount of avoidance that goes on. We currently have 7% of estates taxed when around one-third should be. Moreover, it tends to be the less wealthy estates that get clobbered as the really rich can afford accountants and advisers.
But I can see many formidable practical, emotional and administrative difficulties with this one. If they go with it, expect a Tory landslide.
It won’t earn a lot in the great scheme of things and is a policy that will just anger many people . On all levels it’s a policy that could take over the campaign and sink Labour completely. I think Labour surely must realize what happened with the dementia tax and how that became a constant issue for May , would they really be that stupid .
This attempt to weaponise the floods will go nowhere. The public knows it was an act of God and Johnson was fine. Heckled by a few Labour supporters . So what?
Will the heckling received by Corbyn in Scotland do any damage? Similarly , no.
I think it is unlikely to make a tangible difference but Boris was awkward and lacked empathy. Mind you, it is almost impossible to offer any words of comfort to those who have suffered flooding. Over the years in business I dealt with many flood victims in our area, before serious sea defences were put in place, and you just feel utterly helpless and the smell is beyond belief and all invasive in peoples homes
It is a personal disaster for each and every owner and will take months, even years, to recover from
One day does not make a difference, agreed. But if every second time that Mr Johnson meets ordinary people, he gets heckled and he has no convincing response, then he is in trouble.
John Major was surprisingly good at meeting the public, and surprisingly won an election for it. With Mr Johnson I'm not so sure.
John Major was astonishing in 92. The environment was pretty hostile, but he faced up to the public and tried his best. Enough people respected him for that to swing enough key marginals to stop Kinnock, who badly suffered from over-confidence.
Who is over-confident in 2019?
Who is facing up to a dissatisfied public and trying their best?
Correctly answer those two questions and you can make some cash. I can well remember how shocked I was in 1992 at some of the terrific Tory results. One thing is guaranteed about 2019: a lot of people are going to be in total shock on the morning of 13 December.
John Major is a genuinely nice guy, and that came across when meeting the public, even a public initially antagonistic. Jezza has some of the same charm.
Johnson prefers photo-ops of himself with primary school children or bed bound pensioners. It is working age adults he doesn't like encountering.
The "more peas Norma" characteristion of John Major has funny but harsh.
If a PM is not a natural leader type then you need to be repected and liked within the party and with the the majority of the public (John Major, Angela Merkel). Boris is neither of these.
The double trouble we face is that Boris is too new in the role to have triggered disillusion and that Labour offers an unelectable alternative. I suspect Boris will cruise to victory next month and go on to become the most unpopular PM in history.
Looks like OGH is suffering from BDS (Boris derangement syndrome). Can anyone name a political leader who looked good from a natural disaster?
It wasn't a natural disaster, but Mrs Thatcher after the Brighton Hotel bombing reacted very well. Mr Blair reacted very well to the death of Princess Diana and acted decisivly in the Foot and Mouth crisis. Mr Obama reacted well to several natural disasters. These three examples are are of "good leaders" regardless of one's political leanings. Mrs May and Mr Brown were bad at this kind of thing and were not "good leaders". We will soon see which way Mr Johnson falls in this respect.
Most farmers still haven't forgiven Blair for his actions in the F&M crisis.
I know people who think Blair deliberately introduced foot and mouth to destroy the farming community.
What the “lifetime allowance” does is prevent people from giving gifts to their children in their lifetime. Currently records only need to be kept for 7 years (I believe) for inheritance tax details. God know how a lifetime allowance would work admistratively. Would every single gift (or benefiting kind???) above a certain amount from birth have to be reported to HMRC, with threat of jail (for tax fraud)if not done so? And this would have to be done by everyone because you never know when you might be the unexpected beneficiary of an inheritance windfall in future.
What's the difference between Santa and Jeremy Corbyn? They both have nice white beards and keep a list, but Santa uses his to give your kids presents, while Jezza writes down every gift your kids will ever receive and then takes them off them when you die.
What a Christmas turkey that policy would be. Dementia tax x 100.
I suppose a gift from Santa could be excluded from the allowance?
Looks like OGH is suffering from BDS (Boris derangement syndrome). Can anyone name a political leader who looked good from a natural disaster?
It wasn't a natural disaster, but Mrs Thatcher after the Brighton Hotel bombing reacted very well. Mr Blair reacted very well to the death of Princess Diana and acted decisivly in the Foot and Mouth crisis. Mr Obama reacted well to several natural disasters. These three examples are are of "good leaders" regardless of one's political leanings. Mrs May and Mr Brown were bad at this kind of thing and were not "good leaders". We will soon see which way Mr Johnson falls in this respect.
Most farmers still haven't forgiven Blair for his actions in the F&M crisis.
I know people who think Blair deliberately introduced foot and mouth to destroy the farming community.
47% vote retention and 1% across from the SNP in the latest Yougov is amusing - Thinking of which do you want my East Lothian offer ?
Donald Trump has claimed Boris Johnson as his bumbling, blond-haired mini-me from across the water. The U.K. Labour Party is doing all it can to push the same message ahead of next month’s general election, claiming there is a Trump-Johnson alliance at foot. Even Hillary Clinton has criticized the British prime minister for his refusal to publish a report into Russia’s involvement in the Brexit referendum.
And yet, by any serious audit of the two men and what they represent, it is not Boris Johnson who is Britain’s Trump. It’s Jeremy Corbyn.
Neither are that much like Trump, but there are elements of both which can be pretty close. People overdo it with with Boris because of the chaotic style, blond hair etc but that's superficial stuff.
Of course in Leaverstan, £125 000 per child from an inheritance is very generous, it mostly becomes an issue in Southern Remania. What percentage of estates are going to be hit in Workington, and in Wimbledon?
Inheritance taxes are possibly the most effective form of wealth redistribution around. It is why the wealthy do not like them but the poor do.
Inheritance taxes destroy private reserves of capital and result in increased dependence on the state. It’s why socialists like them and conservatives & liberals don’t
Yes, they are the most redistributive of taxes, which is why the rich dislike them.
Inheritance taxes were a major driver of land reform in this country a century ago.
The point is they redistribute by destroying wealth. You need excess capital to find savings and investment.
If the government owned everything and gave everyone a cash handout each year there would be equality but minimal productivity.
It’s striking the right balance.
Indeed, but if there is to be a levelling of the country between deprived Leaverstan and prosperous Remania, and between Boomers and Millenials, then wealth taxes such as IHT are needed.
Of course if the post Brexit plan is to continue shafting the old coalfields and coastal areas then no need. I think that you are correct in thinking that the latter is the Tory plan.
Once upon a time, you had to pay tax in order to get probate in order to get your fingers on the money, because without probate the banks and stockbrokers and everybody else wouldn't give you a penny. These days, I don't see what stops you putting your financial assets into a lot of online accounts and leaving your beneficiaries little bundles consisting of passwords to the accounts and the associated email addresses, and a mobile phone with the number associated with the account. This puts them in a position to scoop the lot without troubling hmrc at all. I do wonder whether this is happening and what is being done about it.
Donald Trump has claimed Boris Johnson as his bumbling, blond-haired mini-me from across the water. The U.K. Labour Party is doing all it can to push the same message ahead of next month’s general election, claiming there is a Trump-Johnson alliance at foot. Even Hillary Clinton has criticized the British prime minister for his refusal to publish a report into Russia’s involvement in the Brexit referendum.
And yet, by any serious audit of the two men and what they represent, it is not Boris Johnson who is Britain’s Trump. It’s Jeremy Corbyn.
Neither are that much like Trump, but there are elements of both which can be pretty close. People overdo it with with Boris because of the chaotic style, blond hair etc but that's superficial stuff.
However only one of them wishes to be allied with Trump, and is c!aimed by Trump as his protege.
Of course in Leaverstan, £125 000 per child from an inheritance is very generous, it mostly becomes an issue in Southern Remania. What percentage of estates are going to be hit in Workington, and in Wimbledon?
Inheritance taxes are possibly the most effective form of wealth redistribution around. It is why the wealthy do not like them but the poor do.
Inheritance taxes destroy private reserves of capital and result in increased dependence on the state. It’s why socialists like them and conservatives & liberals don’t
Yes, they are the most redistributive of taxes, which is why the rich dislike them.
Inheritance taxes were a major driver of land reform in this country a century ago.
We’re not talking about the rich here. We’re talking about people owning average family detached homes.
Donald Trump has claimed Boris Johnson as his bumbling, blond-haired mini-me from across the water. The U.K. Labour Party is doing all it can to push the same message ahead of next month’s general election, claiming there is a Trump-Johnson alliance at foot. Even Hillary Clinton has criticized the British prime minister for his refusal to publish a report into Russia’s involvement in the Brexit referendum.
And yet, by any serious audit of the two men and what they represent, it is not Boris Johnson who is Britain’s Trump. It’s Jeremy Corbyn.
Neither are that much like Trump, but there are elements of both which can be pretty close. People overdo it with with Boris because of the chaotic style, blond hair etc but that's superficial stuff.
However only one of them wishes to be allied with Trump, and is c!aimed by Trump as his protege.
Yes, that's true and not irrelevant, but it doesnt mean people should get carried away with the personal similarities, or ignore similarities (not in style) with Corbyn just because he dislikes Trump.
Of course in Leaverstan, £125 000 per child from an inheritance is very generous, it mostly becomes an issue in Southern Remainia. What percentage of estates are going to be hit in Workington, and in Wimbledon?
Inheritance taxes are possibly the most effective form of wealth redistribution around. It is why the wealthy do not like them but the poor do.
Inheritance taxes destroy private reserves of capital and result in increased dependence on the state. It’s why socialists like them and conservatives & liberals don’t
Would you prefer a 1% wealth tax instead. Tax has to come from somewhere and most people's wealth in Southern Remainia has come from house price inflation not from wages.
How exactly are you supposed to pay your 1%? You buy your house for £200k 25 years ago. It's now on paper worth £1m. But its your home, it's only worth something if you go to all the trouble of moving and downsizing to release some cash. Being taxed on it all is something only a lunatic like Corbyn would want. Basing the tax rate on its current value is insult on insult.
Of course in Leaverstan, £125 000 per child from an inheritance is very generous, it mostly becomes an issue in Southern Remainia. What percentage of estates are going to be hit in Workington, and in Wimbledon?
Inheritance taxes are possibly the most effective form of wealth redistribution around. It is why the wealthy do not like them but the poor do.
Inheritance taxes destroy private reserves of capital and result in increased dependence on the state. It’s why socialists like them and conservatives & liberals don’t
Would you prefer a 1% wealth tax instead. Tax has to come from somewhere and most people's wealth in Southern Remainia has come from house price inflation not from wages.
How exactly are you supposed to pay your 1%? You buy your house for £200k 25 years ago. It's now on paper worth £1m. But its your home, it's only worth something if you go to all the trouble of moving and downsizing to release some cash. Being taxed on it all is something only a lunatic like Corbyn would want. Basing the tax rate on its current value is insult on insult.
Ever heard of council tax? Were I to be introducing such a scheme the single line in the manifesto would be "reform the Council tax system for the 21st century".
No chance . I think the Tories rubbishing Labours manifesto before its published could backfire .
How? For either of them it doesnt matter what the policies actually are it matters what people believe the policy might be. Look at any labour GE campaign on the NHS or Tory GE campaign on taxation.
Once upon a time, you had to pay tax in order to get probate in order to get your fingers on the money, because without probate the banks and stockbrokers and everybody else wouldn't give you a penny. These days, I don't see what stops you putting your financial assets into a lot of online accounts and leaving your beneficiaries little bundles consisting of passwords to the accounts and the associated email addresses, and a mobile phone with the number associated with the account. This puts them in a position to scoop the lot without troubling hmrc at all. I do wonder whether this is happening and what is being done about it.
Or bitcoin, for those with more technical aptitude and higher risk tolerances.
Whose name are your hypothetical online accounts in; donor or recipient? Either way it creates a paper trail which HMRC could follow, if it wished.
Might be easier to just convert cash into high end jewellery, put it in a bank safety deposit box and let your kids know where you keep the key.
Of course in Leaverstan, £125 000 per child from an inheritance is very generous, it mostly becomes an issue in Southern Remania. What percentage of estates are going to be hit in Workington, and in Wimbledon?
Inheritance taxes are possibly the most effective form of wealth redistribution around. It is why the wealthy do not like them but the poor do.
Inheritance taxes destroy private reserves of capital and result in increased dependence on the state. It’s why socialists like them and conservatives & liberals don’t
Yes, they are the most redistributive of taxes, which is why the rich dislike them.
Inheritance taxes were a major driver of land reform in this country a century ago.
We’re not talking about the rich here. We’re talking about people owning average family detached homes.
Donald Trump has claimed Boris Johnson as his bumbling, blond-haired mini-me from across the water. The U.K. Labour Party is doing all it can to push the same message ahead of next month’s general election, claiming there is a Trump-Johnson alliance at foot. Even Hillary Clinton has criticized the British prime minister for his refusal to publish a report into Russia’s involvement in the Brexit referendum.
And yet, by any serious audit of the two men and what they represent, it is not Boris Johnson who is Britain’s Trump. It’s Jeremy Corbyn.
Neither are that much like Trump, but there are elements of both which can be pretty close. People overdo it with with Boris because of the chaotic style, blond hair etc but that's superficial stuff.
Happy with the Establishment: Johnson Unhappy with the Establishment: Corbyn - which do you put Trump in?
Populist who wants to upend established order - Corbyn Pragmatist 'steady as she goes' supporter of established organisations - Johnson - which do you put Trump in?
Supports Nato - Johnson Sceptical (at best) about Nato - Corbyn - which do you put Trump in?
Moral certitude reacts badly to criticism -Corbyn - which do you put Trump in? "Flexible" and intellectual snob - Johnson
Aligned with his base - Corbyn May well be (Brexit apart) out of line with his base - Johnson - which do you put Trump in?
Of course in Leaverstan, £125 000 per child from an inheritance is very generous, it mostly becomes an issue in Southern Remainia. What percentage of estates are going to be hit in Workington, and in Wimbledon?
Inheritance taxes are possibly the most effective form of wealth redistribution around. It is why the wealthy do not like them but the poor do.
Inheritance taxes destroy private reserves of capital and result in increased dependence on the state. It’s why socialists like them and conservatives & liberals don’t
Would you prefer a 1% wealth tax instead. Tax has to come from somewhere and most people's wealth in Southern Remainia has come from house price inflation not from wages.
How exactly are you supposed to pay your 1%? You buy your house for £200k 25 years ago. It's now on paper worth £1m. But its your home, it's only worth something if you go to all the trouble of moving and downsizing to release some cash. Being taxed on it all is something only a lunatic like Corbyn would want. Basing the tax rate on its current value is insult on insult.
Ever heard of council tax? Were I to be introducing such a scheme the single line in the manifesto would be "reform the Council tax system for the 21st century".
A 1% annual wealth tax would be cheaper for me than current council tax actually.
Donald Trump has claimed Boris Johnson as his bumbling, blond-haired mini-me from across the water. The U.K. Labour Party is doing all it can to push the same message ahead of next month’s general election, claiming there is a Trump-Johnson alliance at foot. Even Hillary Clinton has criticized the British prime minister for his refusal to publish a report into Russia’s involvement in the Brexit referendum.
And yet, by any serious audit of the two men and what they represent, it is not Boris Johnson who is Britain’s Trump. It’s Jeremy Corbyn.
Neither are that much like Trump, but there are elements of both which can be pretty close. People overdo it with with Boris because of the chaotic style, blond hair etc but that's superficial stuff.
However only one of them wishes to be allied with Trump, and is c!aimed by Trump as his protege.
Only one of them wishes to be allied with Putin, and it's not the same one.
Donald Trump has claimed Boris Johnson as his bumbling, blond-haired mini-me from across the water. The U.K. Labour Party is doing all it can to push the same message ahead of next month’s general election, claiming there is a Trump-Johnson alliance at foot. Even Hillary Clinton has criticized the British prime minister for his refusal to publish a report into Russia’s involvement in the Brexit referendum.
And yet, by any serious audit of the two men and what they represent, it is not Boris Johnson who is Britain’s Trump. It’s Jeremy Corbyn.
Neither are that much like Trump, but there are elements of both which can be pretty close. People overdo it with with Boris because of the chaotic style, blond hair etc but that's superficial stuff.
However only one of them wishes to be allied with Trump, and is c!aimed by Trump as his protege.
Only one of them wishes to be allied with Putin, and it's not the same one.
Corbyn is a diddy, but the idea that he wishes to be 'allied' with Putin is also for diddies.
Most of those people will have been opposition activists looking to embarrass Johnson in front of the cameras.
That's a pretty disgraceful comment.
People's lives have been affected by these floods and you sit on your laptop and post rubbish like that. Shame on you.
You’re too emotional about your politics and desperate for the narrative to change.
Don’t be naive.
Blaming victims of flooding for giving a clueless, bumbling PM a hard time is the height of emotional politics. The ratiuonal thing to do would be to admit that Johnson came across very poorly but to accept that because of who he is up against it doesn't matter. There is no conceivable way he can ever look worse than his opponent in the eyes of most voters.
Calm down, dear. I’m not blaming victims of flooding. I am saying most of those skits would have been planned ambushes by opposition activists, or supporters.
This has already happened with the NHS worker who gave Johnson a ticking off in hospital a few weeks ago. We repeated the same debate here then.
And I agree he came across nervously and awkwardly.
We are in the heat of a GE campaign and the opposition are desperate to lay some punches. I guess objectivity is out the window for the next 4 weeks.
Accusing those giving the PM a hard time of being rude, unreasonable and of being opposition activists without a shred of evidence is not exactly objective! The PM wanted TV coverage of him sitting down and talking to flood victims. That's why the scenes were filmed. He got what he deserved for just assuming he could wing it. But it will make no difference whatsoever.
Quite.
I'm afraid Casino Royale has made a complete arse of himself today. But he carries on digging. Sometimes it's a good idea to listen to another point of view, accept you may be barking up the wrong tree, and adjust accordingly.
Changing the subject, I mentioned something about Jo Swinson. As a LibDem, I'm rather concerned at the number of people who really find her off-putting. I've tried to dismiss this previously as misogynism but I don't think that's really the whole story. She really seems to irritate quite a few people I know
Interesting that your first reaction was to accuse people of being misogynistic rather than accept they were sharing their genuine perspective that they had logical reasons for developing
Donald Trump has claimed Boris Johnson as his bumbling, blond-haired mini-me from across the water. The U.K. Labour Party is doing all it can to push the same message ahead of next month’s general election, claiming there is a Trump-Johnson alliance at foot. Even Hillary Clinton has criticized the British prime minister for his refusal to publish a report into Russia’s involvement in the Brexit referendum.
And yet, by any serious audit of the two men and what they represent, it is not Boris Johnson who is Britain’s Trump. It’s Jeremy Corbyn.
Neither are that much like Trump, but there are elements of both which can be pretty close. People overdo it with with Boris because of the chaotic style, blond hair etc but that's superficial stuff.
However only one of them wishes to be allied with Trump, and is c!aimed by Trump as his protege.
Only one of them wishes to be allied with Putin, and it's not the same one.
Corbyn is a diddy, but the idea that he wishes to be 'allied' with Putin is also for diddies.
Probably right, he prefers it back when the Berlin Wall was up.
Most of those people will have been opposition activists looking to embarrass Johnson in front of the cameras.
Why do you find it so hard to believe that people whose lives have been so affected by flooding might find a PM breezing in for a photo opportunity a bit too much to stomach? Johnson got what he deserved. He poses as the champion of the ordinary punter, of those ignored by the metropolitan elite, but put him in front of such people and he comes across for what he is - a bumbling oaf who can't be arsed to get on top of his brief.
Normal people simply aren’t that rude and confrontational.
Boris does have that affect on a lot of voters - he is a marmite politician. I commented upthread on Boris derangement syndrome - normally sane people literally lose reason when Boris does anything (see leaving no deal on the table to get a deal)
Risking chaos, serious distress and deaths is not sane. Either it is an empty threat, in which case it is useless, or it is wicked.
Or bitcoin, for those with more technical aptitude and higher risk tolerances.
Old people and cryptographic keys, what could possibly go wrong?
Yeah, so you get your kids/grandkids to set things up, the cold wallet goes into a safety deposit box and you keep the key. In theory you still have control, but assuming you don't need the money, they can easily access it as soon as they like after the funeral.
Once upon a time, you had to pay tax in order to get probate in order to get your fingers on the money, because without probate the banks and stockbrokers and everybody else wouldn't give you a penny. These days, I don't see what stops you putting your financial assets into a lot of online accounts and leaving your beneficiaries little bundles consisting of passwords to the accounts and the associated email addresses, and a mobile phone with the number associated with the account. This puts them in a position to scoop the lot without troubling hmrc at all. I do wonder whether this is happening and what is being done about it.
That is a criminal offence and the Inland Revenue would not hesitate to prosecute
It seems to be the variation between the pollsters seems to be narrowing. Tory lead ~10% which should in theory be enough for a comfortable majority.
However, the campaign hasn't really got going yet - there is still a lot to play for.
NOM at 2.8ish on Betfair Exchange seems very good value - agree?
Voters are beginning to realise that Corbyn isn't the monster of the Daily Mail's imagination and that stripped of the bluster Johnson is an empty vessel. Corbyn looks like he cares. He has the manner of a long time social worker. Johnson looks like a self absorbed dilletante.
(I'm voting Swinson because I don't like the influence of the Unions)
Of course in Leaverstan, £125 000 per child from an inheritance is very generous, it mostly becomes an issue in Southern Remania. What percentage of estates are going to be hit in Workington, and in Wimbledon?
Inheritance taxes are possibly the most effective form of wealth redistribution around. It is why the wealthy do not like them but the poor do.
Inheritance taxes berals don’t
Yes, they are the most redistributive of taxes, which is why the rich dislike them.
Inheritance taxes were a major driver of land reform in this country a century ago.
We’re not talking about the rich here. We’re talking about people owning average family detached homes.
Detached homes? Round my way we call that rich!
Where’s your way?
It was just a joke. Although I do live in a poorer area of the affluent south.
Donald Trump has claimed Boris Johnson as his bumbling, blond-haired mini-me from across the water. The U.K. Labour Party is doing all it can to push the same message ahead of next month’s general election, claiming there is a Trump-Johnson alliance at foot. Even Hillary Clinton has criticized the British prime minister for his refusal to publish a report into Russia’s involvement in the Brexit referendum.
And yet, by any serious audit of the two men and what they represent, it is not Boris Johnson who is Britain’s Trump. It’s Jeremy Corbyn.
Neither are that much like Trump, but there are elements of both which can be pretty close. People overdo it with with Boris because of the chaotic style, blond hair etc but that's superficial stuff.
However only one of them wishes to be allied with Trump, and is c!aimed by Trump as his protege.
Only one of them wishes to be allied with Putin, and it's not the same one.
The one who argued that Putin wasn't behind Salisbury? That one?
Of course in Leaverstan, £125 000 per child from an inheritance is very generous, it mostly becomes an issue in Southern Remainia. What percentage of estates are going to be hit in Workington, and in Wimbledon?
Inheritance taxes are possibly the most effective form of wealth redistribution around. It is why the wealthy do not like them but the poor do.
Inheritance taxes destroy private reserves of capital and result in increased dependence on the state. It’s why socialists like them and conservatives & liberals don’t
Would you prefer a 1% wealth tax instead. Tax has to come from somewhere and most people's wealth in Southern Remainia has come from house price inflation not from wages.
How exactly are you supposed to pay your 1%? You buy your house for £200k 25 years ago. It's now on paper worth £1m. But its your home, it's only worth something if you go to all the trouble of moving and downsizing to release some cash. Being taxed on it all is something only a lunatic like Corbyn would want. Basing the tax rate on its current value is insult on insult.
For those who really cant pay Im sure financial services firms will be delighted to offer to lend the money in exchange for a charge on the property when it is eventually sold.
Of course in Leaverstan, £125 000 per child from an inheritance is very generous, it mostly becomes an issue in Southern Remania. What percentage of estates are going to be hit in Workington, and in Wimbledon?
Inheritance taxes are possibly the most effective form of wealth redistribution around. It is why the wealthy do not like them but the poor do.
Inheritance taxes destroy private reserves of capital and result in increased dependence on the state. It’s why socialists like them and conservatives & liberals don’t
It is pissing it down again in the desolate North, and we've got further flood warnings.
I'm hearing from Tory activists in West Yorkshire that the flood response combined with scrapping Northern rail upgrades/pumping billions into HS2/Crossrail this is feeding into a narrative that Boris Johnson and the Tories don't care about the North.
There's plenty of marginals in West Yorkshire, and if it does lead to Andrea Jenkyns losing then it'll be worth it.
It seems to be the variation between the pollsters seems to be narrowing. Tory lead ~10% which should in theory be enough for a comfortable majority.
However, the campaign hasn't really got going yet - there is still a lot to play for.
NOM at 2.8ish on Betfair Exchange seems very good value - agree?
Voters are beginning to realise that Corbyn isn't the monster of the Daily Mail's imagination and that stripped of the bluster Johnson is an empty vessel. Corbyn looks like he cares. He has the manner of a long time social worker. Johnson looks like a self absorbed dilletante.
(I'm voting Swinson because I don't like the influence of the Unions)
God I hope this is true. The only way Johnson gets a majority big enough to ram home the trade deal is if no one expects it to happen.
Of course in Leaverstan, £125 000 per child from an inheritance is very generous, it mostly becomes an issue in Southern Remainia. What percentage of estates are going to be hit in Workington, and in Wimbledon?
Inheritance taxes are possibly the most effective form of wealth redistribution around. It is why the wealthy do not like them but the poor do.
Inheritance taxes destroy private reserves of capital and result in increased dependence on the state. It’s why socialists like them and conservatives & liberals don’t
Would you prefer a 1% wealth tax instead. Tax has to come from somewhere and most people's wealth in Southern Remainia has come from house price inflation not from wages.
How exactly are you supposed to pay your 1%? You buy your house for £200k 25 years ago. It's now on paper worth £1m. But its your home, it's only worth something if you go to all the trouble of moving and downsizing to release some cash. Being taxed on it all is something only a lunatic like Corbyn would want. Basing the tax rate on its current value is insult on insult.
For those who really cant pay Im sure financial services firms will be delighted to offer to lend the money in exchange for a charge on the property when it is eventually sold.
I'm sure they will. Good old Labour, encouraging financial services companies to grow again
What the “lifetime allowance” does is prevent people from giving gifts to their children in their lifetime. Currently records only need to be kept for 7 years (I believe) for inheritance tax details. God know how a lifetime allowance would work admistratively. Would every single gift (or benefiting kind???) above a certain amount from birth have to be reported to HMRC, with threat of jail (for tax fraud)if not done so? And this would have to be done by everyone because you never know when you might be the unexpected beneficiary of an inheritance windfall in future.
That was a thought I had as well. But another one is, would you tax the value at the time of the gift, or at the time of death? Because for many people in their seventies that’s would make a huge difference.
I’m not sure whether the “lifetime” applies to the donor or the recipient. If the latter you presumably tax it as you go along, so the value at the gift when the donor dies is irrelevant. It’s not an inheritance tax at all, it’s just a gift tax. If it all relates to the donor then you create scenarios where somebody gets gifts early on in life (say parents putting money into a university fund, or towards a house). By the time of the donors death, the recipient will quite likely find themselves with no means to pay whatever tax comes their way.
Effectively it’s just treated as income in the period it is received
Or bitcoin, for those with more technical aptitude and higher risk tolerances.
Old people and cryptographic keys, what could possibly go wrong?
Yeah, so you get your kids/grandkids to set things up, the cold wallet goes into a safety deposit box and you keep the key. In theory you still have control, but assuming you don't need the money, they can easily access it as soon as they like after the funeral.
What's the difference with storing a stash of cash in a safe under the bed?
In both cases you're breaking the law and it's then a matter of your conscience and the risk of being caught/reported.
Presumably these movements in individual constituencies are being driven in large part by money being bet. Whilst the national trends can be analysed and even regional trends in the case of Yougov no one has actual hard information about individual constituencies. Even if they did after Ashcroft's attempts the last time who would take it seriously?
It seems to be the variation between the pollsters seems to be narrowing. Tory lead ~10% which should in theory be enough for a comfortable majority.
However, the campaign hasn't really got going yet - there is still a lot to play for.
NOM at 2.8ish on Betfair Exchange seems very good value - agree?
Voters are beginning to realise that Corbyn isn't the monster of the Daily Mail's imagination and that stripped of the bluster Johnson is an empty vessel. Corbyn looks like he cares. He has the manner of a long time social worker. Johnson looks like a self absorbed dilletante.
(I'm voting Swinson because I don't like the influence of the Unions)
God I hope this is true. The only way Johnson gets a majority big enough to ram home the trade deal is if no one expects it to happen.
What trade deal? You really think there’s going to be one in time for the end of the next Parliament?
Once upon a time, you had to pay tax in order to get probate in order to get your fingers on the money, because without probate the banks and stockbrokers and everybody else wouldn't give you a penny. These days, I don't see what stops you putting your financial assets into a lot of online accounts and leaving your beneficiaries little bundles consisting of passwords to the accounts and the associated email addresses, and a mobile phone with the number associated with the account. This puts them in a position to scoop the lot without troubling hmrc at all. I do wonder whether this is happening and what is being done about it.
That is a criminal offence and the Inland Revenue would not hesitate to prosecute
It's not a criminal offence to put your money anyplace you want to. The crime would be when the IHT declaration is done, or done incorrectly. However how a executor would be able to keep track of that is another issue.
Again another example of how the tax code is unfit for purpose in the modern era.
It seems to be the variation between the pollsters seems to be narrowing. Tory lead ~10% which should in theory be enough for a comfortable majority.
However, the campaign hasn't really got going yet - there is still a lot to play for.
NOM at 2.8ish on Betfair Exchange seems very good value - agree?
Voters are beginning to realise that Corbyn isn't the monster of the Daily Mail's imagination and that stripped of the bluster Johnson is an empty vessel. Corbyn looks like he cares. He has the manner of a long time social worker. Johnson looks like a self absorbed dilletante.
(I'm voting Swinson because I don't like the influence of the Unions)
God I hope this is true. The only way Johnson gets a majority big enough to ram home the trade deal is if no one expects it to happen.
What trade deal? You really think there’s going to be one in time for the end of the next Parliament?
Yeah, if there's enough of a majority to ignore Baker, François et al.
I think Johnson will cave on all manner of things to get one. No one cares about regulatory alignment on goods.
Looks like OGH is suffering from BDS (Boris derangement syndrome). Can anyone name a political leader who looked good from a natural disaster?
It wasn't a natural disaster, but Mrs Thatcher after the Brighton Hotel bombing reacted very well. Mr Blair reacted very well to the death of Princess Diana and acted decisivly in the Foot and Mouth crisis. Mr Obama reacted well to several natural disasters. These three examples are are of "good leaders" regardless of one's political leanings. Mrs May and Mr Brown were bad at this kind of thing and were not "good leaders". We will soon see which way Mr Johnson falls in this respect.
Most farmers still haven't forgiven Blair for his actions in the F&M crisis.
I know people who think Blair deliberately introduced foot and mouth to destroy the farming community.
47% vote retention and 1% across from the SNP in the latest Yougov is amusing - Thinking of which do you want my East Lothian offer ?
I am very tempted, but I'm finding myself rather cautious this election. I need more polls. So pass for now.
What the “lifetime allowance” does is prevent people from giving gifts to their children in their lifetime. Currently records only need to be kept for 7 years (I believe) for inheritance tax details. God know how a lifetime allowance would work admistratively. Would every single gift (or benefiting kind???) above a certain amount from birth have to be reported to HMRC, with threat of jail (for tax fraud)if not done so? And this would have to be done by everyone because you never know when you might be the unexpected beneficiary of an inheritance windfall in future.
That was a thought I had as well. But another one is, would you tax the value at the time of the gift, or at the time of death? Because for many people in their seventies that’s would make a huge difference.
I’m not sure whether the “lifetime” applies to the donor or the recipient. If the latter you presumably tax it as you go along, so the value at the gift when the donor dies is irrelevant. It’s not an inheritance tax at all, it’s just a gift tax. If it all relates to the donor then you create scenarios where somebody gets gifts early on in life (say parents putting money into a university fund, or towards a house). By the time of the donors death, the recipient will quite likely find themselves with no means to pay whatever tax comes their way.
Effectively it’s just treated as income in the period it is received
And every individual in the country receiving a gift from any source has to fill in a tax return. Because one day, an accumulation of gifts may breach the threshold.
Or bitcoin, for those with more technical aptitude and higher risk tolerances.
Old people and cryptographic keys, what could possibly go wrong?
Yeah, so you get your kids/grandkids to set things up, the cold wallet goes into a safety deposit box and you keep the key. In theory you still have control, but assuming you don't need the money, they can easily access it as soon as they like after the funeral.
What's the difference with storing a stash of cash in a safe under the bed?
In both cases you're breaking the law and it's then a matter of your conscience and the risk of being caught/reported.
I'm not advocating this. They're the same other than the risk of losing everything during a break in.
Comments
Inheritance taxes were a major driver of land reform in this country a century ago.
The individual takes on all of the risk when he or she (or both) buy the property.
The value can rise or fall and past performance is no guarantee of future expectations.
You don’t hear the same criticisms of Gloria de Piero or Luciana Berger.
I quite like Jo, and she chatted quite personably with me after the hustings. She has good people skills, but sometimes seems to be trying too hard.
Edit: Just looked it up; the Environment Agency " currently working on a scheme to reduce the flood risk to properties and communities in the (affected) villages."
Proving value over a lifetime would also be a nightmare.
If Labour are going with this it could easily cost them every seat they hold south of the Humber.
https://www.local.gov.uk/topics/severe-weather/flooding/paying-flood-and-coastal-erosion-risk/funding-arrangements
The claim, true or not, is that affected areas in the south receive far more central government attention and funding than those in the north.
Even if they don’t do it in the manifesto, now, there still might be enough of a whiff around it for the Tories to make something of it in innuendo over the next 4 weeks.
However, the campaign hasn't really got going yet - there is still a lot to play for.
NOM at 2.8ish on Betfair Exchange seems very good value - agree?
Both were described on here in recent days as quite fit....
It’s also fair to say Sheffield is hardly a wealthy city, although they found money to kill all their trees off (which probably didn’t help matters in this flooding) unlike say, London or Brighton where the millionaires hang out.
At the same time clearly their defences more or less worked, but at the expense of other people.
(as they say in Yorkshire)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuVY6p6zdkI&list=RDUuVY6p6zdkI&index=1
What a Christmas turkey that policy would be. Dementia tax x 100.
And yet, by any serious audit of the two men and what they represent, it is not Boris Johnson who is Britain’s Trump. It’s Jeremy Corbyn.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/11/jeremy-corbyn-like-donald-trump-not-boris-johnson
But I can see many formidable practical, emotional and administrative difficulties with this one. If they go with it, expect a Tory landslide.
If the government owned everything and gave everyone a cash handout each year there would be equality but minimal productivity.
It’s striking the right balance.
https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/data/housing/
I work for a business and one of our buildings is routinely hit by flooding. So we have improved it so that it can recover more quickly after a flood but we can’t stop the water and there are no temp measures that help. Sandbags May help to get possessions to safety, but ultimately are no prevention.
If a PM is not a natural leader type then you need to be repected and liked within the party and with the the majority of the public (John Major, Angela Merkel). Boris is neither of these.
Neither of us is anywhere near the current higher rate of tax, and my previous house sold for 5 grand more than I bought it for (-ve after moving costs and stamp)
Will the heckling received by Corbyn in Scotland do any damage? Similarly , no.
Political bubble stuff.
https://twitter.com/mattholehouse/status/1194876517316268032?s=20
Of course if the post Brexit plan is to continue shafting the old coalfields and coastal areas then no need. I think that you are correct in thinking that the latter is the Tory plan.
Once upon a time, you had to pay tax in order to get probate in order to get your fingers on the money, because without probate the banks and stockbrokers and everybody else wouldn't give you a penny. These days, I don't see what stops you putting your financial assets into a lot of online accounts and leaving your beneficiaries little bundles consisting of passwords to the accounts and the associated email addresses, and a mobile phone with the number associated with the account. This puts them in a position to scoop the lot without troubling hmrc at all. I do wonder whether this is happening and what is being done about it.
“Labour. Stealing your money since 1900”
😉
Being taxed on it all is something only a lunatic like Corbyn would want. Basing the tax rate on its current value is insult on insult.
Although I don't expect this line to change further, at least not officially.
https://twitter.com/LBCNews/status/1194597204817858560
Whose name are your hypothetical online accounts in; donor or recipient? Either way it creates a paper trail which HMRC could follow, if it wished.
Might be easier to just convert cash into high end jewellery, put it in a bank safety deposit box and let your kids know where you keep the key.
Unhappy with the Establishment: Corbyn - which do you put Trump in?
Populist who wants to upend established order - Corbyn
Pragmatist 'steady as she goes' supporter of established organisations - Johnson - which do you put Trump in?
Supports Nato - Johnson
Sceptical (at best) about Nato - Corbyn - which do you put Trump in?
Moral certitude reacts badly to criticism -Corbyn - which do you put Trump in?
"Flexible" and intellectual snob - Johnson
Aligned with his base - Corbyn
May well be (Brexit apart) out of line with his base - Johnson - which do you put Trump in?
https://twitter.com/Schuldensuehner/status/1194873450055290881?s=20
https://twitter.com/MikeBedigan/status/1194609324548599808?s=20
(I'm voting Swinson because I don't like the influence of the Unions)
He outdid even Trump on that....
I'm hearing from Tory activists in West Yorkshire that the flood response combined with scrapping Northern rail upgrades/pumping billions into HS2/Crossrail this is feeding into a narrative that Boris Johnson and the Tories don't care about the North.
There's plenty of marginals in West Yorkshire, and if it does lead to Andrea Jenkyns losing then it'll be worth it.
In both cases you're breaking the law and it's then a matter of your conscience and the risk of being caught/reported.
Santa tax could have the same effect as Dementia tax
Again another example of how the tax code is unfit for purpose in the modern era.
I think Johnson will cave on all manner of things to get one. No one cares about regulatory alignment on goods.