In order to respect property rights, tax on inheritance and gifts should be kept at a reasonable level (50% feels about right). But up to that level, legatees can have no complaints if they are forced to share their windfall with the state.
Dare I be the one to say that Conservatives should have ignored inheritance tax today, and waited until it was actually published in the Labour manifesto?
Given the media coverage, there’s no way the proposal will make it to the document. There’s plenty of other Labour Conference commitments to go on in the meantime.
Voters don't read manifestos. You get your attacks in early and frame the narrative to your advantage, irrespective of detail (see 'Tax, Dementia' for a textbook example).
Dare I be the one to say that Conservatives should have ignored inheritance tax today, and waited until it was actually published in the Labour manifesto?
Given the media coverage, there’s no way the proposal will make it to the document. There’s plenty of other Labour Conference commitments to go on in the meantime.
Get it out there, it doesn't matter if it's in or out the manifesto, the fact it is being considered is damaging enough.
Precisely - Labour claims the NHS is about to be closed down by the Tories every day, despite them never actually doing it...
Plus I'd be astounded if Labour could resist the temptation to keep their grubby hands off inheritance completely in theit manifesto, so there'll still be plenty of actual Labour policy to attack.
Taxes have gone up to deal with the deficits and parlous govt finances left by Brown, who operated on a spend/borrow now, tax later basis.
However the debt has risen by 600bn (from memory) since 2010. Austerity was a complete failure and now we are planning to commit a fortune in the name of power hungry hypocritical career politicians. This will not end well.
I'll be surprised if Boris knows how to solve the Rubik's cube! (If he does and I meet him, I'll ask him whether he does corners or edges first, as a way to gauge whether his interests stretch beyond a) politics and b) smashing up restaurants à la Bullingdon.)
Now, now Ed, we know he can't beat your nerdy Rubik' skills.....
“On the whole, the focus group participants argued for wealth to be more fully taxed,” the report said. “But they were almost unanimously opposed to taxation of inheritance, regardless of their political views.
“Their arguments were striking, emotive and mostly unequivocal. These discussions were excellent examples of how people are able to hold fundamentally contradictory views simultaneously. People believe that wealth should be taxed and inequalities of wealth reduced, but inherited wealth should not be touched.”
Toxic.
This rings true. My old Uncle Albert, car mechanic, absolute salt of the earth, so strong he could crack a walnut with one hand, and just a top top bloke who never earned more than - to continue the nut theme - relative peanuts, he used to get himself in a right old tizz talking about the inheritance tax that he would never in a million years have to pay. To him it was quite simply robbery perpetrated by the government on a person at their most weak and defenceless, i.e. dead. I used to try and try and try to make him see it in a more logical way but I never managed to. His intransigence on the matter was an impossible nut to crack. Now OK he was not the brightest, but he was no mug either. So what can you do.
The right to give inheritance attaches to the owner of the assets and forms part of his or her property rights. There is no right to receive an inheritance and there is a strong public interest in not encouraging people to become reliant on their parents and grandparents, instead encouraging them to use their own talents. So there is no ground to object to taxation of inheritance in the hands of the recipients.
In order to respect property rights, tax on inheritance and gifts should be kept at a reasonable level (50% feels about right). But up to that level, legatees can have no complaints if they are forced to share their windfall with the state.
I wonder how they will deal with inheritances that go abroad if it is the recipient that is being taxed, and not the estate?
That’s a really good point. What happens if my parents leave everything they have to my wife, who’s not British and has never lived in the UK?
The right to give inheritance attaches to the owner of the assets and forms part of his or her property rights. There is no right to receive an inheritance and there is a strong public interest in not encouraging people to become reliant on their parents and grandparents, instead encouraging them to use their own talents. So there is no ground to object to taxation of inheritance in the hands of the recipients.
In order to respect property rights, tax on inheritance and gifts should be kept at a reasonable level (50% feels about right). But up to that level, legatees can have no complaints if they are forced to share their windfall with the state.
That sounds like a legal opinion, I would even say US Supreme Court except I would be surprised at the phrase “feels about right”.
I presume in order to make this lifetime gift tax policy to work, there would have to be introduced a whole new layer of paper pushing, in which if you wanted to gift your kids anything that was worth more than a very very small amount it had to be registered with the state. Every single time.
Just think about that for a second. Again, parents with kids at uni, moving into their first home, their first car, getting married, many give them all sorts of things to help them out.
So the state would have a register of everything single thing you ever gave to your kids.
What about if your adult kids live with you. Would have you to charge rent, otherwise that is gift in kind?
I think, as a rule of thumb, if it's covered by the current seven-year rule then it would be covered. If not, then not. So some of your more fanciful worries are moot.
In terms of paperwork the burden would fall on the recipient, since they will pay the tax, if any. So it would be a form of self-assessment with all the attendant joys that exist with that system for declaring other types of income.
I doubt the seven-year rule will be kept given they call it a "lifetime" gift tax. But the report does propose an improvement to the tax infrastructure "made possible by digital technologies which make the tracking of asset transfers and self-reporting of income easier to achieve". Labour need to couch tax reform as squeezing the rich until the pips squeak and not leave room for the Tories to portray it as the state robbing the ordinary family that helps out or leaves assets, to the tune of low six figures at most, to the younger generation.
I presume in order to make this lifetime gift tax policy to work, there would have to be introduced a whole new layer of paper pushing, in which if you wanted to gift your kids anything that was worth more than a very very small amount it had to be registered with the state. Every single time.
Just think about that for a second. Again, parents with kids at uni, moving into their first home, their first car, getting married, many give them all sorts of things to help them out.
So the state would have a register of everything single thing you ever gave to your kids.
What about if your adult kids live with you. Would have you to charge rent, otherwise that is gift in kind?
I think, as a rule of thumb, if it's covered by the current seven-year rule then it would be covered. If not, then not. So some of your more fanciful worries are moot.
In terms of paperwork the burden would fall on the recipient, since they will pay the tax, if any. So it would be a form of self-assessment with all the attendant joys that exist with that system for declaring other types of income.
I doubt the seven-year rule will be kept given they call it a "lifetime" gift tax. But the report does propose an improvement to the tax infrastructure "made possible by digital technologies which make the tracking of asset transfers and self-reporting of income easier to achieve". Labour need to couch tax reform as squeezing the rich until the pips squeak and not leave room for the Tories to portray it as the state robbing the ordinary family that helps out or leaves assets, to the tune of low six figures at most, to the younger generation.
Dare I be the one to say that Conservatives should have ignored inheritance tax today, and waited until it was actually published in the Labour manifesto?
Given the media coverage, there’s no way the proposal will make it to the document. There’s plenty of other Labour Conference commitments to go on in the meantime.
Get it out there, it doesn't matter if it's in or out the manifesto, the fact it is being considered is damaging enough.
Precisely - Labour claims the NHS is about to be closed down by the Tories every day, despite them never actually doing it...
Plus I'd be astounded if Labour could resist the temptation to keep their grubby hands off inheritance completely in theit manifesto, so there'll still be plenty of actual Labour policy to attack.
Even if Labour says nothing about IHT now, the attack will still be "They daren't tell you the truth about what they are going to steal from you..."
Worst Cancer figures ever since records began too. Every target missed.
Never trust the Tories with the NHS
Never trust a centralised and socialist medical system run by politicians, trust the much better systems in place in literally every other country in the developed world*
* (except the USA, where the system is equally political and equally screwed).
I presume in order to make this lifetime gift tax policy to work, there would have to be introduced a whole new layer of paper pushing, in which if you wanted to gift your kids anything that was worth more than a very very small amount it had to be registered with the state. Every single time.
Just think about that for a second. Again, parents with kids at uni, moving into their first home, their first car, getting married, many give them all sorts of things to help them out.
So the state would have a register of everything single thing you ever gave to your kids.
What about if your adult kids live with you. Would have you to charge rent, otherwise that is gift in kind?
I think, as a rule of thumb, if it's covered by the current seven-year rule then it would be covered. If not, then not. So some of your more fanciful worries are moot.
In terms of paperwork the burden would fall on the recipient, since they will pay the tax, if any. So it would be a form of self-assessment with all the attendant joys that exist with that system for declaring other types of income.
I doubt the seven-year rule will be kept given they call it a "lifetime" gift tax. But the report does propose an improvement to the tax infrastructure "made possible by digital technologies which make the tracking of asset transfers and self-reporting of income easier to achieve". Labour need to couch tax reform as squeezing the rich until the pips squeak and not leave room for the Tories to portray it as the state robbing the ordinary family that helps out or leaves assets, to the tune of low six figures at most, to the younger generation.
Patel quotes John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, saying in 2013: “If we’re a civilised society, we should have open borders ... It should be a basic human right.”
But, of course, McDonnell wasn’t shadow chancellor in 2013. At that point he was just a backbencher.
I love the idea that the definition of basic human rights depends on whether you are a backbencher or a Shadow Chancellor.
Dare I be the one to say that Conservatives should have ignored inheritance tax today, and waited until it was actually published in the Labour manifesto?
Given the media coverage, there’s no way the proposal will make it to the document. There’s plenty of other Labour Conference commitments to go on in the meantime.
Get it out there, it doesn't matter if it's in or out the manifesto, the fact it is being considered is damaging enough.
Precisely - Labour claims the NHS is about to be closed down by the Tories every day, despite them never actually doing it...
Plus I'd be astounded if Labour could resist the temptation to keep their grubby hands off inheritance completely in theit manifesto, so there'll still be plenty of actual Labour policy to attack.
Even if Labour says nothing about IHT now, the attack will still be "They daren't tell you the truth about what they are going to steal from you..."
Dare I be the one to say that Conservatives should have ignored inheritance tax today, and waited until it was actually published in the Labour manifesto?
Given the media coverage, there’s no way the proposal will make it to the document. There’s plenty of other Labour Conference commitments to go on in the meantime.
Get it out there, it doesn't matter if it's in or out the manifesto, the fact it is being considered is damaging enough.
Precisely - Labour claims the NHS is about to be closed down by the Tories every day, despite them never actually doing it...
Plus I'd be astounded if Labour could resist the temptation to keep their grubby hands off inheritance completely in theit manifesto, so there'll still be plenty of actual Labour policy to attack.
Even if Labour says nothing about IHT now, the attack will still be "They daren't tell you the truth about what they are going to steal from you..."
Yep make stuff up definitely will work.
Have you learned nothing from 2017?
This from the 'Trumps' teh bogey man and coming for your NHS' bullshit party?
The right to give inheritance attaches to the owner of the assets and forms part of his or her property rights. There is no right to receive an inheritance and there is a strong public interest in not encouraging people to become reliant on their parents and grandparents, instead encouraging them to use their own talents. So there is no ground to object to taxation of inheritance in the hands of the recipients.
In order to respect property rights, tax on inheritance and gifts should be kept at a reasonable level (50% feels about right). But up to that level, legatees can have no complaints if they are forced to share their windfall with the state.
I wonder how they will deal with inheritances that go abroad if it is the recipient that is being taxed, and not the estate?
That’s a really good point. What happens if my parents leave everything they have to my wife, who’s not British and has never lived in the UK?
What happens if non-British parents live abroad and never lived in the UK and leave estate to a British UK resident under the current IHT? (Straight question, I don't know)
Corner case though - ok, it's easier to move abroad and marry a non-Brit (is the last bit important?) if you have rich parents to avoid Labour's tax than to have your parents born elsewhere and not live in UK to avoid current tax (if that works) but still quite a step to take.
There are plenty of practical issues with Labour's proposals, as set out by @Cyclefree for example, but I'm not sure this is one of the big ones.
Dare I be the one to say that Conservatives should have ignored inheritance tax today, and waited until it was actually published in the Labour manifesto?
Given the media coverage, there’s no way the proposal will make it to the document. There’s plenty of other Labour Conference commitments to go on in the meantime.
Get it out there, it doesn't matter if it's in or out the manifesto, the fact it is being considered is damaging enough.
Precisely - Labour claims the NHS is about to be closed down by the Tories every day, despite them never actually doing it...
Plus I'd be astounded if Labour could resist the temptation to keep their grubby hands off inheritance completely in theit manifesto, so there'll still be plenty of actual Labour policy to attack.
Even if Labour says nothing about IHT now, the attack will still be "They daren't tell you the truth about what they are going to steal from you..."
Yep make stuff up definitely will work.
Have you learned nothing from 2017?
It certainly worked when Labour and Caroline Lucas used the technique in 2017.
Taxes have gone up to deal with the deficits and parlous govt finances left by Brown, who operated on a spend/borrow now, tax later basis.
However the debt has risen by 600bn (from memory) since 2010. Austerity was a complete failure and now we are planning to commit a fortune in the name of power hungry hypocritical career politicians. This will not end well.
Dare I be the one to say that Conservatives should have ignored inheritance tax today, and waited until it was actually published in the Labour manifesto?
Given the media coverage, there’s no way the proposal will make it to the document. There’s plenty of other Labour Conference commitments to go on in the meantime.
Get it out there, it doesn't matter if it's in or out the manifesto, the fact it is being considered is damaging enough.
Precisely - Labour claims the NHS is about to be closed down by the Tories every day, despite them never actually doing it...
Plus I'd be astounded if Labour could resist the temptation to keep their grubby hands off inheritance completely in theit manifesto, so there'll still be plenty of actual Labour policy to attack.
Even if Labour says nothing about IHT now, the attack will still be "They daren't tell you the truth about what they are going to steal from you..."
Yep make stuff up definitely will work.
Have you learned nothing from 2017?
If what you say is true, then you have nothing to fear, there will be a massive Corbyn surge, just like in 2017, and Labour will sweep into power. You should be delighted the Tories are making stuff up...right?
Taxes have gone up to deal with the deficits and parlous govt finances left by Brown, who operated on a spend/borrow now, tax later basis.
However the debt has risen by 600bn (from memory) since 2010. Austerity was a complete failure and now we are planning to commit a fortune in the name of power hungry hypocritical career politicians. This will not end well.
Debt rises until deficits fall and are removed. And even then debt will continue to rise unless the surplus is sufficient to deal with the interest on the debt as well as the debt itself. Austerity cut the UK deficit from 10% of GDP to 1.5% of GDP. But as long as a deficit exists debt will continue to rise.
Taxes have gone up to deal with the deficits and parlous govt finances left by Brown, who operated on a spend/borrow now, tax later basis.
BJ is proposing and has announced "spend/borrow now tax later". This is why I cannot vote for the arsehole! He is irresponsible and Brexit means worse public finances not better. So his policies are built on sand and people who are too stupid to work it out now will go balistic when we have austerity mark II....
The right to give inheritance attaches to the owner of the assets and forms part of his or her property rights. There is no right to receive an inheritance and there is a strong public interest in not encouraging people to become reliant on their parents and grandparents, instead encouraging them to use their own talents. So there is no ground to object to taxation of inheritance in the hands of the recipients.
In order to respect property rights, tax on inheritance and gifts should be kept at a reasonable level (50% feels about right). But up to that level, legatees can have no complaints if they are forced to share their windfall with the state.
That sounds like a legal opinion, I would even say US Supreme Court except I would be surprised at the phrase “feels about right”.
All the comment has focused on the popularity or otherwise of the policy. Not much time has been wasted on considering the desirability of the policy.
The basic problem is that there is a cohort in their 50s and 60s who are quietly waiting for mum to shuffle off so they can go on Viking River Cruises. When you’re thinking about toasting your partner as you glide past the Hungarian Parliament, arguments based on societal equity just aren’t going to cut any ice with you.
Debt rises until deficits fall and are removed. And even then debt will continue to rise unless the surplus is sufficient to deal with the interest on the debt as well as the debt itself. Austerity cut the UK deficit from 10% of GDP to 1.5% of GDP. But as long as a deficit exists debt will continue to rise.
It's always particularly funny when the Left attack the Conservatives on the grounds that Osborne's 'austerity' wasn't severe enough to get us straight to a budget surplus.
and I tell you what @HYUFD the average house price is not over £200,000 in the kind of Northern seats you think you’re going to win.
It is still over £125 000 in most of them so they would still be hit
Divide by the number of siblings. The average inheritance in 2017 was £119000. In the North it's much lower.
Again we are taking lifetime gifts made to your kids.
The report says "gifts below a certain lower limit would not have to be declared." (p.3)
But the limit is crucial. And how do you enforce it? We are talking about tracking all potential things to give to your kids over the course of 50+ years.
If it works like in Ireland, (and in UK for IHT), it's £3k per person.
Didn't realise they already used a similar system in Ireland. See here.
Their main threshold is much higher than the mooted £125k, at €335k, but they have lower thresholds for gifts received from people less directly related to the recipient.
Avoiders have presumably largely become evaders.
I don't have any data (if there's some out there ) it would be interesting, but wonder what the level of both evasion and avoidance is for this.
IE people not declaring gifts, regardless of if tax is payable.
What I can find is that the receipts from their Capital Acquisitions Tax were €522 million (out of €82bn) in 2018, while receipts from our IHT were £5.4bn (out of £623bn) for 2018/19. So it made up a smaller proportion (0.64%) of Irish government revenue than of UK government revenue (0.87%).
So I guess we're all concentrating on the most important issue here. On the face of it IHT is more effective at raising tax revenue, which isn't what I was expecting.
I presume in order to make this lifetime gift tax policy to work, there would have to be introduced a whole new layer of paper pushing, in which if you wanted to gift your kids anything that was worth more than a very very small amount it had to be registered with the state. Every single time.
Just think about that for a second. Again, parents with kids at uni, moving into their first home, their first car, getting married, many give them all sorts of things to help them out.
So the state would have a register of everything single thing you ever gave to your kids.
What about if your adult kids live with you. Would have you to charge rent, otherwise that is gift in kind?
Isn’t that the whole point? Surveillance is much easier now than it was in the days of the old Soviet Union. What’s the point of forcibly enjoying the Socialist Paradise if *they* don’t know just how much we do?
I'm suggesting that polls taken when there is no election in the near future aren't worth paying any attention to, and if you bet on the back of them, you'll probably lose money
Zero sum game on betfair (minus the commission).
If you lose, somebody more astute or luckier has won.
I'm suggesting that polls taken when there is no election in the near future aren't worth paying any attention to, and if you bet on the back of them, you'll probably lose money
Zero sum game on betfair (minus the commission).
If you lose, somebody more astute or luckier has won.
This was quite predictable. Withdraw on deadline day when it's too late for the party leadership to get 30 signatures on another nomination form. Savvy candidates knew this and I think we might see quite a few who disagree with farage and swinsons tactics following suit. The two LDs who withdrew too early yesterday were numpties.
Oh it will, this will destroy Labour with middle income swing voters if it gains traction given the average house price is now over £200 000
I don't understand why Labour think this is a good idea, wont all those with a fairly significant wealth just continue or go back to putting things into Trusts to avoid IHT completely like they did before the threshold went up? so the people who might contribute a worthwhile amount will avoid it and it will catch out all the wrong people?
I think the point with changing the tax to be on inheritance received, rather than inheritance given, is that it will tax the income from trusts which currently escapes IHT. If that is the case then they can afford to be generous with the rates and thresholds.
If they aren't generous with the thresholds then either I've misunderstood something, Labour are crap at politics, or both.
Oh I see - does that work? they would have to tax the Trust itself as a recipient of an inheritance, is that the plan? otherwise the capital is just moved into a trust with no tax implications drawn down from the Trust by beneficiaries at a tax efficient level, you never draw down the capital and if you need a wedge of cash the Trust represents it as a loan with no end date / repayment plan and marginal interest rate (which is no real cost because you are just topping up your own asset).
Is this stuff detailed somewhere or is it all a bit arm wavy at the moment?
The right to give inheritance attaches to the owner of the assets and forms part of his or her property rights. There is no right to receive an inheritance and there is a strong public interest in not encouraging people to become reliant on their parents and grandparents, instead encouraging them to use their own talents. So there is no ground to object to taxation of inheritance in the hands of the recipients.
In order to respect property rights, tax on inheritance and gifts should be kept at a reasonable level (50% feels about right). But up to that level, legatees can have no complaints if they are forced to share their windfall with the state.
Taxes have gone up to deal with the deficits and parlous govt finances left by Brown, who operated on a spend/borrow now, tax later basis.
However the debt has risen by 600bn (from memory) since 2010. Austerity was a complete failure and now we are planning to commit a fortune in the name of power hungry hypocritical career politicians. This will not end well.
Debt rises until deficits fall and are removed. And even then debt will continue to rise unless the surplus is sufficient to deal with the interest on the debt as well as the debt itself. Austerity cut the UK deficit from 10% of GDP to 1.5% of GDP. But as long as a deficit exists debt will continue to rise.
Doesn't the deficit include debt interest payments?
I presume in order to make this lifetime gift tax policy to work, there would have to be introduced a whole new layer of paper pushing, in which if you wanted to gift your kids anything that was worth more than a very very small amount it had to be registered with the state. Every single time.
Just think about that for a second. Again, parents with kids at uni, moving into their first home, their first car, getting married, many give them all sorts of things to help them out.
So the state would have a register of everything single thing you ever gave to your kids.
What about if your adult kids live with you. Would have you to charge rent, otherwise that is gift in kind?
I think, as a rule of thumb, if it's covered by the current seven-year rule then it would be covered. If not, then not. So some of your more fanciful worries are moot.
In terms of paperwork the burden would fall on the recipient, since they will pay the tax, if any. So it would be a form of self-assessment with all the attendant joys that exist with that system for declaring other types of income.
I doubt the seven-year rule will be kept given they call it a "lifetime" gift tax. But the report does propose an improvement to the tax infrastructure "made possible by digital technologies which make the tracking of asset transfers and self-reporting of income easier to achieve". Labour need to couch tax reform as squeezing the rich until the pips squeak and not leave room for the Tories to portray it as the state robbing the ordinary family that helps out or leaves assets, to the tune of low six figures at most, to the younger generation.
Do they actually want to encourage cash stuffed under the mattress, or in the future sons to be given exactly the same name as their father to avoid tax on the foreign investments?
The right to give inheritance attaches to the owner of the assets and forms part of his or her property rights. There is no right to receive an inheritance and there is a strong public interest in not encouraging people to become reliant on their parents and grandparents, instead encouraging them to use their own talents. So there is no ground to object to taxation of inheritance in the hands of the recipients.
In order to respect property rights, tax on inheritance and gifts should be kept at a reasonable level (50% feels about right). But up to that level, legatees can have no complaints if they are forced to share their windfall with the state.
That sounds like a legal opinion, I would even say US Supreme Court except I would be surprised at the phrase “feels about right”.
All the comment has focused on the popularity or otherwise of the policy. Not much time has been wasted on considering the desirability of the policy.
The basic problem is that there is a cohort in their 50s and 60s who are quietly waiting for mum to shuffle off so they can go on Viking River Cruises. When you’re thinking about toasting your partner as you glide past the Hungarian Parliament, arguments based on societal equity just aren’t going to cut any ice with you.
My preferred option would be simply to scrap the various exemptions and reliefs (other than the nil rate band) and the cut the tax rate to 20-25%.
The right to give inheritance attaches to the owner of the assets and forms part of his or her property rights. There is no right to receive an inheritance and there is a strong public interest in not encouraging people to become reliant on their parents and grandparents, instead encouraging them to use their own talents. So there is no ground to object to taxation of inheritance in the hands of the recipients.
In order to respect property rights, tax on inheritance and gifts should be kept at a reasonable level (50% feels about right). But up to that level, legatees can have no complaints if they are forced to share their windfall with the state.
I wonder how they will deal with inheritances that go abroad if it is the recipient that is being taxed, and not the estate?
That’s a really good point. What happens if my parents leave everything they have to my wife, who’s not British and has never lived in the UK?
Under the Irish system this would be taxed as IHT is now - so effectively any beneficiaries who are not part of the Irish tax system have a single tax allowance that they share.
Debt rises until deficits fall and are removed. And even then debt will continue to rise unless the surplus is sufficient to deal with the interest on the debt as well as the debt itself. Austerity cut the UK deficit from 10% of GDP to 1.5% of GDP. But as long as a deficit exists debt will continue to rise.
It's always particularly funny when the Left attack the Conservatives on the grounds that Osborne's 'austerity' wasn't severe enough to get us straight to a budget surplus.
Isn't the argument that austerity was too severe and reduced (for longer) economic growth, thus reducing tax receipts? i.e. the costs of less severe austerity would have been outweighed by more tax from greater economic output.
It's impossible to assess really - there may be other countries that had a different approach, but there will be no direct analogue to the UK. Ireland of course had deeper austerity (didn't it?) and is now - just - in surplus, I believe. That might be used to suggest we should have had harder austerity (if only criterion was to balance the budget sooner) but I expect there's a counter example.
Taxes have gone up to deal with the deficits and parlous govt finances left by Brown, who operated on a spend/borrow now, tax later basis.
However the debt has risen by 600bn (from memory) since 2010. Austerity was a complete failure and now we are planning to commit a fortune in the name of power hungry hypocritical career politicians. This will not end well.
Debt rises until deficits fall and are removed. And even then debt will continue to rise unless the surplus is sufficient to deal with the interest on the debt as well as the debt itself. Austerity cut the UK deficit from 10% of GDP to 1.5% of GDP. But as long as a deficit exists debt will continue to rise.
Doesn't the deficit include debt interest payments?
Not sure. I was wondering about that one as I wrote it. But anyway, the basic principle applies. You can't deal with the debt until you have dealt with the deficit.
Debt rises until deficits fall and are removed. And even then debt will continue to rise unless the surplus is sufficient to deal with the interest on the debt as well as the debt itself. Austerity cut the UK deficit from 10% of GDP to 1.5% of GDP. But as long as a deficit exists debt will continue to rise.
It's always particularly funny when the Left attack the Conservatives on the grounds that Osborne's 'austerity' wasn't severe enough to get us straight to a budget surplus.
Isn't the argument that austerity was too severe and reduced (for longer) economic growth, thus reducing tax receipts? i.e. the costs of less severe austerity would have been outweighed by more tax from greater economic output.
It's impossible to assess really - there may be other countries that had a different approach, but there will be no direct analogue to the UK. Ireland of course had deeper austerity (didn't it?) and is now - just - in surplus, I believe. That might be used to suggest we should have had harder austerity (if only criterion was to balance the budget sooner) but I expect there's a counter example.
It's actually very easy to assess - as I've pointed out many times, there just aren't any countries which managed the extraordinary trick of reducing a big deficit by increasing spending, and there are lots which successfully (albeit in some cases painfully) did the opposite - Ireland, for example, as you say. The UK under Osborne is a textbook example of getting the tricky judgment just right: reducing the deficit reasonably quickly, without provoking mass unemployment and killing growth.
I presume in order to make this lifetime gift tax policy to work, there would have to be introduced a whole new layer of paper pushing, in which if you wanted to gift your kids anything that was worth more than a very very small amount it had to be registered with the state. Every single time.
Just think about that for a second. Again, parents with kids at uni, moving into their first home, their first car, getting married, many give them all sorts of things to help them out.
So the state would have a register of everything single thing you ever gave to your kids.
What about if your adult kids live with you. Would have you to charge rent, otherwise that is gift in kind?
I think, as a rule of thumb, if it's covered by the current seven-year rule then it would be covered. If not, then not. So some of your more fanciful worries are moot.
In terms of paperwork the burden would fall on the recipient, since they will pay the tax, if any. So it would be a form of self-assessment with all the attendant joys that exist with that system for declaring other types of income.
I doubt the seven-year rule will be kept given they call it a "lifetime" gift tax. But the report does propose an improvement to the tax infrastructure "made possible by digital technologies which make the tracking of asset transfers and self-reporting of income easier to achieve". Labour need to couch tax reform as squeezing the rich until the pips squeak and not leave room for the Tories to portray it as the state robbing the ordinary family that helps out or leaves assets, to the tune of low six figures at most, to the younger generation.
The right to give inheritance attaches to the owner of the assets and forms part of his or her property rights. There is no right to receive an inheritance and there is a strong public interest in not encouraging people to become reliant on their parents and grandparents, instead encouraging them to use their own talents. So there is no ground to object to taxation of inheritance in the hands of the recipients.
In order to respect property rights, tax on inheritance and gifts should be kept at a reasonable level (50% feels about right). But up to that level, legatees can have no complaints if they are forced to share their windfall with the state.
There - see?
The proposals from the Resolution Foundation, upon which Labour's 'policy' is based, would be for 20p rate up the 500k and a 30p rate beyond. Which would raise an extra £5bn. At 40%, it raises an extra £9bn.
So we shall see, will the 'policy' become policy and, if so, will the RF's proposed rates be adopted.
"Labour cuts IHT rate in half" would be a cracking headline.
Debt rises until deficits fall and are removed. And even then debt will continue to rise unless the surplus is sufficient to deal with the interest on the debt as well as the debt itself. Austerity cut the UK deficit from 10% of GDP to 1.5% of GDP. But as long as a deficit exists debt will continue to rise.
It's always particularly funny when the Left attack the Conservatives on the grounds that Osborne's 'austerity' wasn't severe enough to get us straight to a budget surplus.
It's less a question of severity and more of misdirection. He targeted people with little who were never able to plug the gap while cutting taxes for his favoured voting groups who would have been able to bring the budget into surplus. If we had been in it together as he'd claimed then perhaps he wouldn't have failed to meet his self-imposed target to eliminate the deficit before GE2015.
It's an interesting parallel with Johnson's failure to meet his self-imposed Brexit deadline. Neither Osborne, or it seems Johnson, were (or will be) punished for failing according to the targets they set themselves. Says something about the quality of opposition that they faced, perhaps.
Well at least I know I am no where near being rich or even wealthy then. Not in monetary terms anyway.
Do you disagree with me? Do you think I've set it too high?
In all honesty it is not something I normally think about. I dislike the current levels of taxation as I think Government spending is generally wasteful and tax to a large extent is theft. So the finesse of who is and is not 'rich' is not a major concern for me.
I do think there are many open goals the Government could be looking at in terms of tax before they direct their attention to individuals either rich or poor. The taxation of multi-nationals is the most obvious.
Taxes have gone up to deal with the deficits and parlous govt finances left by Brown, who operated on a spend/borrow now, tax later basis.
However the debt has risen by 600bn (from memory) since 2010. Austerity was a complete failure and now we are planning to commit a fortune in the name of power hungry hypocritical career politicians. This will not end well.
Debt rises until deficits fall and are removed. And even then debt will continue to rise unless the surplus is sufficient to deal with the interest on the debt as well as the debt itself. Austerity cut the UK deficit from 10% of GDP to 1.5% of GDP. But as long as a deficit exists debt will continue to rise.
Doesn't the deficit include debt interest payments?
Not sure. I was wondering about that one as I wrote it. But anyway, the basic principle applies. You can't deal with the debt until you have dealt with the deficit.
Well, not quite. Debt can just sit there being eroded by inflation. If the number doesn't change that's "good" news (assuming you think paying down the debt is a good thing) just because £1.8tn (2019) is a lot more than £1.8tn (2049).
It's less a question of severity and more of misdirection. He targeted people with little who were never able to plug the gap while cutting taxes for his favoured voting groups who would have been able to bring the budget into surplus. If we had been in it together as he'd claimed then perhaps he wouldn't have failed to meet his self-imposed target to eliminate the deficit before GE2015.
It's an interesting parallel with Johnson's failure to meet his self-imposed Brexit deadline. Neither Osborne, or it seems Johnson, were (or will be) punished for failing according to the targets they set themselves. Says something about the quality of opposition that they faced, perhaps.
You won't be surprised that I very much disagree with that! (Other than the quality of the opposition, natch. But Ed Balls was pretty good.)
Debt rises until deficits fall and are removed. And even then debt will continue to rise unless the surplus is sufficient to deal with the interest on the debt as well as the debt itself. Austerity cut the UK deficit from 10% of GDP to 1.5% of GDP. But as long as a deficit exists debt will continue to rise.
It's always particularly funny when the Left attack the Conservatives on the grounds that Osborne's 'austerity' wasn't severe enough to get us straight to a budget surplus.
Isn't the argument that austerity was too severe and reduced (for longer) economic growth, thus reducing tax receipts? i.e. the costs of less severe austerity would have been outweighed by more tax from greater economic output.
It's impossible to assess really - there may be other countries that had a different approach, but there will be no direct analogue to the UK. Ireland of course had deeper austerity (didn't it?) and is now - just - in surplus, I believe. That might be used to suggest we should have had harder austerity (if only criterion was to balance the budget sooner) but I expect there's a counter example.
Basically, Darling's strategy would have worked better than Osborne's.
Debt rises until deficits fall and are removed. And even then debt will continue to rise unless the surplus is sufficient to deal with the interest on the debt as well as the debt itself. Austerity cut the UK deficit from 10% of GDP to 1.5% of GDP. But as long as a deficit exists debt will continue to rise.
It's always particularly funny when the Left attack the Conservatives on the grounds that Osborne's 'austerity' wasn't severe enough to get us straight to a budget surplus.
Isn't the argument that austerity was too severe and reduced (for longer) economic growth, thus reducing tax receipts? i.e. the costs of less severe austerity would have been outweighed by more tax from greater economic output.
It's impossible to assess really - there may be other countries that had a different approach, but there will be no direct analogue to the UK. Ireland of course had deeper austerity (didn't it?) and is now - just - in surplus, I believe. That might be used to suggest we should have had harder austerity (if only criterion was to balance the budget sooner) but I expect there's a counter example.
Basically, Darling's strategy would have worked better than Osborne's.
Keep 50+ years of financial records, or enroll the entire population into self assessment.
The one advantage of the US tax system - a large number of people need to write a cheque directly to Uncle Sam every year, rather than just have a load of their income disappear automatically via PAYE. Nothing like having to write the cheque makes you pause and consider for a moment where your tax money actually goes.
Another thought....this is a lifetime gift tax right. Most parents give their kids money to help with uni living costs, for a car, help with their first home (be it rental or bought).
I think you and I live in very different worlds...
My parents never gave me money to buy a car, nor my rented accommodation, nor my mortgage(s). It honestly never occurred to me to ask. I'm one of the executors of my parents will and when they are gone, my inheritance will be between 0 and 10k dependent on circumstances, long may that unhappy day be delayed. I have never inherited anything from grandparents, uncles, whatever. And yet I'm in the top 7% of earners...
...I'm not making a political point here: I'm just bragging...
(does Saturday Night Fever strut away into the distance... )
Debt rises until deficits fall and are removed. And even then debt will continue to rise unless the surplus is sufficient to deal with the interest on the debt as well as the debt itself. Austerity cut the UK deficit from 10% of GDP to 1.5% of GDP. But as long as a deficit exists debt will continue to rise.
It's always particularly funny when the Left attack the Conservatives on the grounds that Osborne's 'austerity' wasn't severe enough to get us straight to a budget surplus.
I confess this confuses the hell out of me too. People on the left who argue for deficit spending are arguing for capitalism, and people on the right who want a surplus are arguing to make it harder for investors to find stable interest-bearing investments. The whole thing seems totally backwards to me.
All this government debt is borrowing, which means there is a lender somewhere earning rent on the repayments (well apart from where the government is effectively its own lender with quantitative easing). And the left love and the right hate it? [shrugs]
Keep 50+ years of financial records, or enroll the entire population into self assessment.
The one advantage of the US tax system - a large number of people need to write a cheque directly to Uncle Sam every year, rather than just have a load of their income disappear automatically via PAYE. Nothing like having to write the cheque makes you pause and consider for a moment where your tax money actually goes.
I agree with you. PAYE is a con trick. People would question more closely how their tax was spent if they wrote the cheque
A range of local by-elections with the emphasis on the fringes. Here is the list with defender and likely challenger: Eden -Con (LD); Fife- Con(SNP); Fife - SNP(Con); Highland - SNT(?); Neath Port Talbot - Lab(?); Powys- Con(LD); Torbay- LD(Con);Tunbridge Wells - Con(LD).
This was quite predictable. Withdraw on deadline day when it's too late for the party leadership to get 30 signatures on another nomination form. Savvy candidates knew this and I think we might see quite a few who disagree with farage and swinsons tactics following suit. The two LDs who withdrew too early yesterday were numpties.
Yet the party that could do the most damage by selectively standing down remains Labour.
Did a YouGov this afternoon - asked constituency specific voting intention, with named candidates. Follow up questions about tactical voting i.e. was I doing it?
Hopefully we might see some proper Scottish polling now!
This was quite predictable. Withdraw on deadline day when it's too late for the party leadership to get 30 signatures on another nomination form. Savvy candidates knew this and I think we might see quite a few who disagree with farage and swinsons tactics following suit. The two LDs who withdrew too early yesterday were numpties.
Just checked and for once I got a prediction right. Posted here on 6th November: "If they really wanted to screw Farage, the guaranteed way would be to submit nomination papers and then withdraw them just before the deadline of 4pm on Thursday 14th November."
Debt rises until deficits fall and are removed. And even then debt will continue to rise unless the surplus is sufficient to deal with the interest on the debt as well as the debt itself. Austerity cut the UK deficit from 10% of GDP to 1.5% of GDP. But as long as a deficit exists debt will continue to rise.
It's always particularly funny when the Left attack the Conservatives on the grounds that Osborne's 'austerity' wasn't severe enough to get us straight to a budget surplus.
Isn't the argument that austerity was too severe and reduced (for longer) economic growth, thus reducing tax receipts? i.e. the costs of less severe austerity would have been outweighed by more tax from greater economic output.
It's impossible to assess really - there may be other countries that had a different approach, but there will be no direct analogue to the UK. Ireland of course had deeper austerity (didn't it?) and is now - just - in surplus, I believe. That might be used to suggest we should have had harder austerity (if only criterion was to balance the budget sooner) but I expect there's a counter example.
It's actually very easy to assess - as I've pointed out many times, there just aren't any countries which managed the extraordinary trick of reducing a big deficit by increasing spending, and there are lots which successfully (albeit in some cases painfully) did the opposite - Ireland, for example, as you say. The UK under Osborne is a textbook example of getting the tricky judgment just right: reducing the deficit reasonably quickly, without provoking mass unemployment and killing growth.
My contention is that Osborne probably didn't get it just right, there was likely a more optimal strategy (or he was very lucky/is a genius). But I don't know - and don't think we can really tell - whether that optimal strategy was towards harder or softer austerity.
It clearly wasn't a disastrous strategy, as you say there wasn't a massive contraction and the deficit did come down (although slower than promised) but that doesn't mean it was the best.
Taxes have gone up to deal with the deficits and parlous govt finances left by Brown, who operated on a spend/borrow now, tax later basis.
However the debt has risen by 600bn (from memory) since 2010. Austerity was a complete failure and now we are planning to commit a fortune in the name of power hungry hypocritical career politicians. This will not end well.
Debt rises until deficits fall and are removed. And even then debt will continue to rise unless the surplus is sufficient to deal with the interest on the debt as well as the debt itself. Austerity cut the UK deficit from 10% of GDP to 1.5% of GDP. But as long as a deficit exists debt will continue to rise.
Exactly, how on earth can cutting a large deficit down to a small deficit signal 'the end of austerity'. The debt cannot fall without surpluses...when is that ever gonna happen? And I do not consider nearly 2trn as an acceptable level of debt.
I confess this confuses the hell out of me too. People on the left who argue for deficit spending are arguing for capitalism, and people on the right who want a surplus are arguing to make it harder for investors to find stable interest-bearing investments. The whole thing seems totally backwards to me.
All this government debt is borrowing, which means there is a lender somewhere earning rent on the repayments (well apart from where the government is effectively its own lender with quantitative easing). And the left love and the right hate it? [shrugs]
Personally I think it's really very simple: not too hot, not too cold. If, as the UK was doing in the last year of Brown, you are spending 33% more than your tax revenues, or if you have very high historic debt, then you need to cut spending and/or increase taxes. If, like Germany today, you have an economy which is subdued but you've also got a budget surplus and not too much historic debt, then you should increase spending.
Where people go wrong IMO is to view the deficit as some kind of ideological test of virility. It shouldn't be: sensible people on the left and right really shouldn't disagree much on what deficit you run, the disagreement should be about whether you tend towards higher taxes and higher spending, or lower taxes and lower spending.
Keep 50+ years of financial records, or enroll the entire population into self assessment.
The one advantage of the US tax system - a large number of people need to write a cheque directly to Uncle Sam every year, rather than just have a load of their income disappear automatically via PAYE. Nothing like having to write the cheque makes you pause and consider for a moment where your tax money actually goes.
No, In Australia too (20 years ago at least) pretty much everyone has to file a tax return magazine (much thicker bigger than a form). I just resented the time I was forced to spend completing it. And it has the disadvantage that everyone claims every single cent literally. I remember having to filling out a section which was a rebate for my salary being paid into my bank acount. It came to about 13 cents. The total time spend by every adult in Austrailia to calculate this and the cost of the government processing it is just nuts.
Taxes have gone up to deal with the deficits and parlous govt finances left by Brown, who operated on a spend/borrow now, tax later basis.
However the debt has risen by 600bn (from memory) since 2010. Austerity was a complete failure and now we are planning to commit a fortune in the name of power hungry hypocritical career politicians. This will not end well.
Debt rises until deficits fall and are removed. And even then debt will continue to rise unless the surplus is sufficient to deal with the interest on the debt as well as the debt itself. Austerity cut the UK deficit from 10% of GDP to 1.5% of GDP. But as long as a deficit exists debt will continue to rise.
Exactly, how on earth can cutting a large deficit down to a small deficit signal 'the end of austerity'. The debt cannot fall without surpluses...when is that ever gonna happen? And I do not consider nearly 2trn as an acceptable level of debt.
It won’t be. It’ll be like a credit card you never pay off. As long as you can afford the minimum payment every month the balance becomes immaterial. Just keep your fingers crossed you can keep affording to pay the interest.
Well at least I know I am no where near being rich or even wealthy then. Not in monetary terms anyway.
Do you disagree with me? Do you think I've set it too high?
In all honesty it is not something I normally think about. I dislike the current levels of taxation as I think Government spending is generally wasteful and tax to a large extent is theft. So the finesse of who is and is not 'rich' is not a major concern for me.
I do think there are many open goals the Government could be looking at in terms of tax before they direct their attention to individuals either rich or poor. The taxation of multi-nationals is the most obvious.
Taxation of employers is never a very good thing, and is something that is dangerous to tinker with. It also infantilises individuals, because they never really see how much tax is effectively being paid on their behalf. Most people will have never heard of employers national insurance, and yet it is basically a tax on their job, meaning they are paying a tax on the efforts they make without even knowing it.
Perhaps there will be photographs of him exercising in a park gym once again.
Wow. That's straight out of the Stone/Trump playbook. The precise same thing was spread about Hilary. Quite dark really.
I think over here it would backfire. Far more likely to garner sympathy for him. I know that was my first reaction and I can't stand the guy as a rule.
Perhaps there will be photographs of him exercising in a park gym once again.
Wow. That's straight out of the Stone/Trump playbook. The precise same thing was spread about Hilary. Quite dark really.
After reading When Illness Strikes The Leader, and In Sickness and In Power, there are many examples of incapacitated politicians holding power when unfit to do so. The health of politicians is rarely touched upon at election times. Political parties have done their damnedest to spin about the health of their leaders, think Churchill in 1953, or Charles Kennedy more recently. How far journalists are in on the secret is another matter.
Angela Merkel's shaking triggered off speculation, and it would be a surprise if other governments weren't trying to work out if it was symptomatic of something major or minor.
It may be that Jeremy Corbyn's health is good, or it may not.
The right to give inheritance attaches to the owner of the assets and forms part of his or her property rights. There is no right to receive an inheritance and there is a strong public interest in not encouraging people to become reliant on their parents and grandparents, instead encouraging them to use their own talents. So there is no ground to object to taxation of inheritance in the hands of the recipients.
In order to respect property rights, tax on inheritance and gifts should be kept at a reasonable level (50% feels about right). But up to that level, legatees can have no complaints if they are forced to share their windfall with the state.
That sounds like a legal opinion, I would even say US Supreme Court except I would be surprised at the phrase “feels about right”.
All the comment has focused on the popularity or otherwise of the policy. Not much time has been wasted on considering the desirability of the policy.
The basic problem is that there is a cohort in their 50s and 60s who are quietly waiting for mum to shuffle off so they can go on Viking River Cruises. When you’re thinking about toasting your partner as you glide past the Hungarian Parliament, arguments based on societal equity just aren’t going to cut any ice with you.
In principle I agree with you, but I wonder how many voters who were thinking of voting Labour think that principle is not worth paying the tax for (in truth I’m not sure I could: but I was never going to vote for Corbyn in the first place). If the Tories can make it stick the the policy will be “courageous”.
I still don’t believe Labour would be stupid enough to do this.
Taxes have gone up to deal with the deficits and parlous govt finances left by Brown, who operated on a spend/borrow now, tax later basis.
However the debt has risen by 600bn (from memory) since 2010. Austerity was a complete failure and now we are planning to commit a fortune in the name of power hungry hypocritical career politicians. This will not end well.
Debt rises until deficits fall and are removed. And even then debt will continue to rise unless the surplus is sufficient to deal with the interest on the debt as well as the debt itself. Austerity cut the UK deficit from 10% of GDP to 1.5% of GDP. But as long as a deficit exists debt will continue to rise.
Exactly, how on earth can cutting a large deficit down to a small deficit signal 'the end of austerity'. The debt cannot fall without surpluses...when is that ever gonna happen? And I do not consider nearly 2trn as an acceptable level of debt.
It won’t be. It’ll be like a credit card you never pay off. As long as you can afford the minimum payment every month the balance becomes immaterial. Just keep your fingers crossed you can keep affording to pay the interest.
I cannot see how this is sustainable Inthe long run. Eventually your credit card gets declined.🤔
Debt rises until deficits fall and are removed. And even then debt will continue to rise unless the surplus is sufficient to deal with the interest on the debt as well as the debt itself. Austerity cut the UK deficit from 10% of GDP to 1.5% of GDP. But as long as a deficit exists debt will continue to rise.
It's always particularly funny when the Left attack the Conservatives on the grounds that Osborne's 'austerity' wasn't severe enough to get us straight to a budget surplus.
I confess this confuses the hell out of me too. People on the left who argue for deficit spending are arguing for capitalism, and people on the right who want a surplus are arguing to make it harder for investors to find stable interest-bearing investments. The whole thing seems totally backwards to me.
All this government debt is borrowing, which means there is a lender somewhere earning rent on the repayments (well apart from where the government is effectively its own lender with quantitative easing). And the left love and the right hate it? [shrugs]
I'm pretty sure I read an FT article in the very early 2000s along those lines, complaining that Brown's budget surplus meant that there weren't enough gilts on the market, and a modest amount of extra borrowing would be beneficial.
Well at least I know I am no where near being rich or even wealthy then. Not in monetary terms anyway.
Do you disagree with me? Do you think I've set it too high?
In all honesty it is not something I normally think about. I dislike the current levels of taxation as I think Government spending is generally wasteful and tax to a large extent is theft. So the finesse of who is and is not 'rich' is not a major concern for me.
I do think there are many open goals the Government could be looking at in terms of tax before they direct their attention to individuals either rich or poor. The taxation of multi-nationals is the most obvious.
Taxation of employers is never a very good thing, and is something that is dangerous to tinker with. It also infantilises individuals, because they never really see how much tax is effectively being paid on their behalf. Most people will have never heard of employers national insurance, and yet it is basically a tax on their job, meaning they are paying a tax on the efforts they make without even knowing it.
Did a YouGov this afternoon - asked constituency specific voting intention, with named candidates. Follow up questions about tactical voting i.e. was I doing it?
Hopefully we might see some proper Scottish polling now!
Yep, me too. I reckon it’s the first rollout for their mega panel constituency model.
I wonder if these candidates quitting actually suits Farage in some ways. Giving more ground without actually giving more ground.
If you were looking at a way of undermining the Labour vote, the behaviour of the Brexit Party since the Euros is pretty close to the optimum strategy. That may be coincidence.
Taxes have gone up to deal with the deficits and parlous govt finances left by Brown, who operated on a spend/borrow now, tax later basis.
However the debt has risen by 600bn (from memory) since 2010. Austerity was a complete failure and now we are planning to commit a fortune in the name of power hungry hypocritical career politicians. This will not end well.
Debt rises until deficits fall and are removed. And even then debt will continue to rise unless the surplus is sufficient to deal with the interest on the debt as well as the debt itself. Austerity cut the UK deficit from 10% of GDP to 1.5% of GDP. But as long as a deficit exists debt will continue to rise.
Exactly, how on earth can cutting a large deficit down to a small deficit signal 'the end of austerity'. The debt cannot fall without surpluses...when is that ever gonna happen? And I do not consider nearly 2trn as an acceptable level of debt.
It won’t be. It’ll be like a credit card you never pay off. As long as you can afford the minimum payment every month the balance becomes immaterial. Just keep your fingers crossed you can keep affording to pay the interest.
I cannot see how this is sustainable Inthe long run. Eventually your credit card gets declined.🤔
If the economy grows the LTV shrinks, if you like, so you can borrow more. If the economy shrinks the interest gets jacked up to reflect the increased risk.
It’ll never be declined unless you default. And even then money will always be available somehow. At the right price of course.
Comments
He stood for The Referendum Party in 1997.
Plus I'd be astounded if Labour could resist the temptation to keep their grubby hands off inheritance completely in theit manifesto, so there'll still be plenty of actual Labour policy to attack.
This will not end well.
Great policy, Labour. Leave it in the draw.
Answer: "anyone with more than me....."
Patel quotes John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, saying in 2013: “If we’re a civilised society, we should have open borders ... It should be a basic human right.”
But, of course, McDonnell wasn’t shadow chancellor in 2013. At that point he was just a backbencher.
I love the idea that the definition of basic human rights depends on whether you are a backbencher or a Shadow Chancellor.
Have you learned nothing from 2017?
In this country, having £3m in liquid assets over and above principal residence and pension fund.
That is rich.
Terms such as wealthy, affluent, extremely comfortable kick in at more like £1m.
Corner case though - ok, it's easier to move abroad and marry a non-Brit (is the last bit important?) if you have rich parents to avoid Labour's tax than to have your parents born elsewhere and not live in UK to avoid current tax (if that works) but still quite a step to take.
There are plenty of practical issues with Labour's proposals, as set out by @Cyclefree for example, but I'm not sure this is one of the big ones.
The basic problem is that there is a cohort in their 50s and 60s who are quietly waiting for mum to shuffle off so they can go on Viking River Cruises. When you’re thinking about toasting your partner as you glide past the Hungarian Parliament, arguments based on societal equity just aren’t going to cut any ice with you.
So I guess we're all concentrating on the most important issue here. On the face of it IHT is more effective at raising tax revenue, which isn't what I was expecting.
My lay on Tories 340+ has been matched at 1.83.
Current liabilities £590 so i'll be somewhere around £2500 down (adding to the markets once a week) in the event of a Con Maj with seats over 340.
I will be delighted to lose given Labour's income tax proposals alone will increase my annual tax bill by more than double that in year 1.
If you lose, somebody more astute or luckier has won.
Is this stuff detailed somewhere or is it all a bit arm wavy at the moment?
https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/politics/labour-deselects-general-election-candidate-for-north-west-cambridgeshire-constituency-1-9142291
Another ex PPC on his way earlier this morning.
Affluent pensioners are ripe for the plucking from Labour’s perspective. It’s not as if it would cost them votes.
It's impossible to assess really - there may be other countries that had a different approach, but there will be no direct analogue to the UK. Ireland of course had deeper austerity (didn't it?) and is now - just - in surplus, I believe. That might be used to suggest we should have had harder austerity (if only criterion was to balance the budget sooner) but I expect there's a counter example.
Say I struck a bet on Labour most seats 6 months ago at evens. That would be matched with a person LAYING same at evens.
So now, me massive mug, him or her about to win what I lose. Less the commission to betfair.
So we shall see, will the 'policy' become policy and, if so, will the RF's proposed rates be adopted.
"Labour cuts IHT rate in half" would be a cracking headline.
As I say, we shall see.
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1195016391172218880
Perhaps there will be photographs of him exercising in a park gym once again.
The pensioners don't generally vote Labour so it is a free hit.
*For the Tories, don't mention that everybody will be a pensioner one day.
It's an interesting parallel with Johnson's failure to meet his self-imposed Brexit deadline. Neither Osborne, or it seems Johnson, were (or will be) punished for failing according to the targets they set themselves. Says something about the quality of opposition that they faced, perhaps.
I do think there are many open goals the Government could be looking at in terms of tax before they direct their attention to individuals either rich or poor. The taxation of multi-nationals is the most obvious.
My parents never gave me money to buy a car, nor my rented accommodation, nor my mortgage(s). It honestly never occurred to me to ask. I'm one of the executors of my parents will and when they are gone, my inheritance will be between 0 and 10k dependent on circumstances, long may that unhappy day be delayed. I have never inherited anything from grandparents, uncles, whatever. And yet I'm in the top 7% of earners...
...I'm not making a political point here: I'm just bragging...
(does Saturday Night Fever strut away into the distance... )
The whole thing seems totally backwards to me.
All this government debt is borrowing, which means there is a lender somewhere earning rent on the repayments (well apart from where the government is effectively its own lender with quantitative easing). And the left love and the right hate it? [shrugs]
Eden -Con (LD); Fife- Con(SNP); Fife - SNP(Con); Highland - SNT(?); Neath Port Talbot - Lab(?); Powys- Con(LD); Torbay- LD(Con);Tunbridge Wells - Con(LD).
Which right now, even after the price rise, I feel that they are.
Hopefully we might see some proper Scottish polling now!
It clearly wasn't a disastrous strategy, as you say there wasn't a massive contraction and the deficit did come down (although slower than promised) but that doesn't mean it was the best.
And I do not consider nearly 2trn as an acceptable level of debt.
Where people go wrong IMO is to view the deficit as some kind of ideological test of virility. It shouldn't be: sensible people on the left and right really shouldn't disagree much on what deficit you run, the disagreement should be about whether you tend towards higher taxes and higher spending, or lower taxes and lower spending.
Angela Merkel's shaking triggered off speculation, and it would be a surprise if other governments weren't trying to work out if it was symptomatic of something major or minor.
It may be that Jeremy Corbyn's health is good, or it may not.
They are pushing the Less Democracy angle hard.
https://twitter.com/RuthDavidsonMSP/status/1194892546775945216?s=19
I still don’t believe Labour would be stupid enough to do this.
https://twitter.com/danielferrie/status/1195024789930422272?s=21
It’ll never be declined unless you default. And even then money will always be available somehow. At the right price of course.