Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It’s Johnson’s bad luck that the floods have happened in Yorks

124

Comments

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 50,848
    Charles said:

    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.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 50,973

    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 :neutral:
    Hard to think of a younger female politician who isn’t frequently described in such a way. Usually by older men.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 5,071

    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.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,658
    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.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 73,133

    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.
  • 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.
  • Foxy said:

    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.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 73,133
    alex. said:

    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.
  • IanB2 said:

    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.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 50,848
    IanB2 said:

    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.
  • Charles said:

    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
    I cannot imagine why you think that way Charles ;)
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 34,427
    edited November 2019
    ydoethur said:

    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."
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 73,133

    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.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 76,038
    ydoethur said:

    I could be wrong, but I think flood defences entirely within an LA area are the responsibility of the Local Authority.
    They simply don’t have the money, as this appears to recognise:
    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.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,975
    I think Labour would be very unwise to go after IHT or bring in some complicated lifetime allowance . They really should leave this well alone .
  • ydoethur said:

    £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.
  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 3,079
    edited November 2019
    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?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 76,038

    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....
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,658
    ydoethur said:

    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.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 73,133

    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.
    Nigelb said:

    They simply don’t have the money, as this appears to recognise:
    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.
    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.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 73,133

    You’d think they wouldn’t be that stupid.
    Wouldn’t you? I would.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 4,953
    murali_s said:

    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.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,320
    edited November 2019
    Get national emergency done not Brexit ya' fat bastard...

    (as they say in Yorkshire)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuVY6p6zdkI&list=RDUuVY6p6zdkI&index=1
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,658
    Nigelb said:

    They simply don’t have the money, as this appears to recognise:
    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.
    Perhaps as much to the point, local authorities hardly have significant expertise in the area. Any spending would have to be VERY localised.
  • NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,329

    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)
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679

    Out of interest can you name where the money for flooding has been found in the South East or London?
    Near Chichester.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 73,133

    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.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,975
    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 .
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 50,848
    ydoethur said:

    £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.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 4,953
    alex. said:

    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.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,281
    edited November 2019
    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.


    https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/11/jeremy-corbyn-like-donald-trump-not-boris-johnson
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 73,133
    nico67 said:

    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.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483



    Near Chichester.
    Thames Barrier
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 50,848
    alex. said:

    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.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Foxy said:

    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.

  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,658
    kyf_100 said:

    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? ;)
  • PaulMPaulM Posts: 613
    Flanner said:

    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

    https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/data/housing/
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,975
    Farage confirms. They will fight 300 seats.
  • NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,329

    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.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 5,071
    Foxy said:

    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.
  • NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,329

    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.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,098
    edited November 2019
    £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)
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,975
    ydoethur said:

    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.

    Political bubble stuff.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 50,973
    eristdoof said:

    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.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    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.
  • Be interesting to see if this makes it into the manifesto:

    https://twitter.com/mattholehouse/status/1194876517316268032?s=20
  • ozymandiasozymandias Posts: 1,503
    alex. said:

    I suppose a gift from Santa could be excluded from the allowance? ;)
    What we have here people is the SANTA TAX!!!!
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,098
    Alistair said:

    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 ?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,353

    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.


    https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/11/jeremy-corbyn-like-donald-trump-not-boris-johnson

    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.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,353
    nico67 said:

    Farage confirms. They will fight 300 seats.

    Excellent news, hes not turned completely away from his Remain stance after all.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 50,848
    Charles said:

    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.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    Here is a theoretical wheeze on the IHT front.

    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.
  • kle4 said:

    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.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,353

    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!

  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,975

    Be interesting to see if this makes it into the manifesto:

    https://twitter.com/mattholehouse/status/1194876517316268032?s=20

    No chance . I think the Tories rubbishing Labours manifesto before its published could backfire .
  • ozymandiasozymandias Posts: 1,503
    Protect your children and loved ones from Corbyn’s SANTA TAX. Vote Conservative.

    “Labour. Stealing your money since 1900”

    😉
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,353

    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.
  • eek said:

    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.
  • Always good to see an IHT thread.... even if the idea of £125k max is absolutely crackers....
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,976
    nico67 said:

    Farage confirms. They will fight 300 seats.

    He confirmed 600 a few weeks ago...

    Although I don't expect this line to change further, at least not officially.
  • eekeek Posts: 29,560
    Banterman said:

    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".
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,353
    nico67 said:

    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.
  • Always good to see an IHT thread.... even if the idea of £125k max is absolutely crackers....

    This is the current day labour party we're talking about...
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,976
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Here is a theoretical wheeze on the IHT front.

    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.
  • kle4 said:

    Detached homes? Round my way we call that rich!

    Where’s your way?
  • kle4 said:

    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?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,098
    eek said:

    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.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,976

    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.
  • Endillion said:


    Or bitcoin, for those with more technical aptitude and higher risk tolerances.

    Old people and cryptographic keys, what could possibly go wrong?
  • Deep mourning in Brexitloonitania, and the Andra Neil household(s).

    https://twitter.com/Schuldensuehner/status/1194873450055290881?s=20
  • Endillion said:

    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.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    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 :neutral:
    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
  • 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.
  • This is the current day labour party we're talking about...
    Not sure how many kids you'd need to split out an Islington property with such a cap.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    edited November 2019

    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.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,976

    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.
  • Ishmael_Z said:

    Here is a theoretical wheeze on the IHT front.

    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
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,320
    edited November 2019
    murali_s said:

    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)
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,353

    Where’s your way?
    It was just a joke. Although I do live in a poorer area of the affluent south.
  • Endillion said:

    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?

    He outdid even Trump on that....
  • Banterman said:

    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.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    I cannot imagine why you think that way Charles ;)
    Because it’s a fact?

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 121,442
    edited November 2019
    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.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,976
    Roger said:

    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.
  • 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
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    alex. said:

    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
  • Endillion said:

    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.
  • Is Corbyn really about to release his Santa Tax against family homes

    Santa tax could have the same effect as Dementia tax

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,966

    Tories drifting in Brecon & Radnorshire:

    Con 4/5
    LD 11/10
    Bxp 50/1
    Lab 50/1

    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?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,966
    nico67 said:

    Farage confirms. They will fight 300 seats.

    A nice Spartan like number to be sure.
  • Endillion said:

    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?
  • DavidL said:

    A nice Spartan like number to be sure.
    Spartans also like losing to hordes of Asian immigrant invaders.
  • 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.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,976

    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.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Pulpstar said:

    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.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,658
    Charles said:

    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.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,976

    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.
This discussion has been closed.