Interesting. Just had my first Conservative leaflet from my current (very safe) Conservative MP. The word Brexit doesn't appear at all. Instead it focusses on local transport, hospitals and schools, as well as the threat from an SNP / Labour government.
Interesting thread on wealth tax. In my area (Surrey) I know a lot of people with £2m+ in totally illiquid assets. Some will have liquid assets in addition, others not. It works this way; an ordinary family house can be worth £1m, and those who have retired from middle management positions will have defined benefit pension assets worth another £1m. So much depends on any definition of the assets to be included in a wealth tax. Pension funds definitely not. And if properties are to be included the threshold needs to relate to average prices in the area. A friend of mine bought a townhouse in Notting Hill in the 70s for peanuts; it is now worth much money, but he does not have other assets. A friend of my wife has a 5 bed house in Streatham. She bought it from the council under the right to buy scheme. Similarly, she does not have other assets. The problem with simplistic proposals is that they screw the innocent.
What proportion of people own houses valued at >£3m?
What proportion of the wealthiest 1% have all their assets tied up in their main residence? I'd guess none of them but if I'm wrong, they can always downsize.
But it doesn't have to be just a house. Even if the house only accounts for a third then you as saying they need to make net yield of 1.5% on the rest, and if it's two thirds (not unheard of in London) then it's 3% just to hold one's head above water. Then there's the idiotic idea that someone with £2,999,999 pays £0 in your tax and someone with £3,000,000 suddenly pays £30k per year. What's that marginal rate?
There is a case for additional taxes on non-primary residences, in fact I'd be in favour of them.
Other forms of investment are already taxed, interest, dividends and capital are all taxed.
Your proposal is just more politics of envy that will drive wealth creators out of the country and ultimately smash the poor in reduced job creation and lower overall tax take as those on high incomes decided "fuck it, this country isn't for me".
If you confiscated all of their assets (all £39.4bn) and gave all of it equally to those 14 million they’d have... a one-off payment of £2,800 each.
Corbyn’s promising a bigger bung to the WASPIS.
Good grief, where to begin?
1. No one is suggesting confiscating £39.4bn from six people and giving 14m £2,800 each.
(2. Although as an aside, if they did it would improve the sum of human happiness in the UK immeasurably.)
3. Most of those 14m have no assets at all beyond the clothes they wear and the furniture they sit on - quite a few don't even have the furniture.
4. What is that £39bn doing exactly?
5. Why would anyone need more than a few million let alone multiple billions? what's the point of it?
I'll only bother answering your 5.:
It's none of your business. But once the Government decides they can confiscate 999 pounds out of every 1000 you have, property rights are dead and the entire economic system collapses. And that's everyone's business.
Who's suggesting confiscating £999 out of every £1000?
How about we start with 1% p.a. on wealth over a £3m. Just from the top 1% in other words, but since they own over £1.3tn that would bring in £13bn each year.
And they'd hardly notice it.
Are you utterly ******* insane? Most people's "wealth" is not in the form of liquid assets or currency that can be used to pay your spiteful envy taxes.
£3m in assets and none of it liquid? You're the one who's insane.
I know a lot of pensioners in Hampstead Garden Suburb who bought houses in the sixties and seventies and now have the state pension and small private pension as income. They couldn't pay a tax based on the current value of the home they bought decades before.
What are people planning to sustain themselves with on election night I know popcorn is traditional but there must be better solutions, given the proximity of Christmas seasonal offerings or are just going to rely on a sick bag?
Copious amounts of wine (though I have a new tradition of switching to whisky on the Scottish results) along with cured meats and cheese. The only way.
Some of us have to work the following morning.
That’s why it has to be copious amounts. Can’t be hungover if you’re still drunk.
There are clauses in my contract about not turning up drunk.
I'm surprised your employer requires more than one clause to cover it.
What are people planning to sustain themselves with on election night I know popcorn is traditional but there must be better solutions, given the proximity of Christmas seasonal offerings or are just going to rely on a sick bag?
Since 2001 it's been Doritos and dip. Usually garlic dip. It used to be Schloer as well, tho' that's not too good these days.
I’m going down the cheddar cheese chocolate peanuts and shortbread biscuits with high quality Spanish red wine until I can’t stand up, that ensures I get up every hour to track progress whilst looking after other problems.
I intend to watch the exit poll come in, then get a few hours' sleep and set the alarm for 3 or 3:30, when the bulk of the results are actually landing.
Though if that doesn't work out and I end up sitting through the entire thing, I would imagine I'll just eat plates of chocolate biscuits until I'm all sugared out.
If you confiscated all of their assets (all £39.4bn) and gave all of it equally to those 14 million they’d have... a one-off payment of £2,800 each.
Corbyn’s promising a bigger bung to the WASPIS.
Good grief, where to begin?
1. No one is suggesting confiscating £39.4bn from six people and giving 14m £2,800 each.
(2. Although as an aside, if they did it would improve the sum of human happiness in the UK immeasurably.)
3. Most of those 14m have no assets at all beyond the clothes they wear and the furniture they sit on - quite a few don't even have the furniture.
4. What is that £39bn doing exactly?
5. Why would anyone need more than a few million let alone multiple billions? what's the point of it?
I'll only bother answering your 5.:
It's none of your business. But once the Government decides they can confiscate 999 pounds out of every 1000 you have, property rights are dead and the entire economic system collapses. And that's everyone's business.
And they'd hardly notice it.
Most people with £3m in assets would struggle to pay your £30,000 wealth tax on top of their income tax etc.
Nonsense. If they cannot make >4% + inflation from it they are being badly advised. In which case they will just have to live with £2,970,000 next year (when they will fall below the @Benpointer Wealth Tax threshold).
Why are you assuming those with £3m in assets have it invested in anything much more than their house It business? I’m being slightly provocative but if you’re in single digit millions it’s not always the case that you have much in the way of liquidity. Make it £10m and I start to agree (with some concerns about marginal tax rates).
Well, I'd compromise on £10m to get started. Or how about 1% of everything above £3m.
I know a few of you are thinking envy tax etc. but honestly, I am comfortably off, not envious. I just think we need to address the inequality a bit more than we currently do.
Let's start by taxing 1% of _everyone's_ wealth every year, starting with you. No one would advocate for this unimaginably stupid idea if they had to stump up the hard cash themselves on top of all the other taxes they pay.
What are people planning to sustain themselves with on election night I know popcorn is traditional but there must be better solutions, given the proximity of Christmas seasonal offerings or are just going to rely on a sick bag?
Copious amounts of wine (though I have a new tradition of switching to whisky on the Scottish results) along with cured meats and cheese. The only way.
Some of us have to work the following morning.
That’s why it has to be copious amounts. Can’t be hungover if you’re still drunk.
There are clauses in my contract about not turning up drunk.
I'm surprised your employer requires more than one clause to cover it.
Well, perhaps they thought I was a particularly devious drunk. The SeanT of pedagogy.
What are people planning to sustain themselves with on election night I know popcorn is traditional but there must be better solutions, given the proximity of Christmas seasonal offerings or are just going to rely on a sick bag?
Since 2001 it's been Doritos and dip. Usually garlic dip. It used to be Schloer as well, tho' that's not too good these days.
I’m going down the cheddar cheese chocolate peanuts and shortbread biscuits with high quality Spanish red wine until I can’t stand up, that ensures I get up every hour to track progress whilst looking after other problems.
I intend to watch the exit poll come in, then get a few hours' sleep and set the alarm for 3 or 3:30, when the bulk of the results are actually landing.
Though if that doesn't work out and I end up sitting through the entire thing, I would imagine I'll just eat plates of chocolate biscuits until I'm all sugared out.
I've often thought about doing that — not watching all the inane chat for the first few hours — but it always proves impossible.
Most people with £3m in assets would struggle to pay your £30,000 wealth tax on top of their income tax etc.
It's a problem that most people wouldn't mind having. Few asset-holders have their entire wealth in illiquid form.
This is, after all, akin to Swiss policy. The Swiss feel that a modest wealth tax is helpful in inducing the wealthy to invest their wealth profitably, seeling off land they don't need etc. I've not heard that people are fleeing Switzerland as a result.
So let's ditch capital gains tax like the Swiss, shall we?
It was a really great call. You should be proud of it Mike. I got on at 66/1 too, but layed off most some while back.
She was a strong candidate but I think there were serious weaknesses in her campaign organisation.
She might well be back - and probably without here sister running the campaign. However talented she might be - and she is - that hardly ever works at a national level.
What are people planning to sustain themselves with on election night I know popcorn is traditional but there must be better solutions, given the proximity of Christmas seasonal offerings or are just going to rely on a sick bag?
Since 2001 it's been Doritos and dip. Usually garlic dip. It used to be Schloer as well, tho' that's not too good these days.
I’m going down the cheddar cheese chocolate peanuts and shortbread biscuits with high quality Spanish red wine until I can’t stand up, that ensures I get up every hour to track progress whilst looking after other problems.
I intend to watch the exit poll come in, then get a few hours' sleep and set the alarm for 3 or 3:30, when the bulk of the results are actually landing.
Though if that doesn't work out and I end up sitting through the entire thing, I would imagine I'll just eat plates of chocolate biscuits until I'm all sugared out.
I've often thought about doing that — not watching all the inane chat for the first few hours — but it always proves impossible.
Unless the exit poll is boring, in which case there's not much point getting up later anyway, the excitement prevents getting to sleep I find.
Interesting. Just had my first Conservative leaflet from my current (very safe) Conservative MP. The word Brexit doesn't appear at all. Instead it focusses on local transport, hospitals and schools, as well as the threat from an SNP / Labour government.
A change in tactics, perhaps?
Had a very similar leaflet in my (also very, very safe) Conservative-held constituency the other day. Schools, hospitals, crime, environment and animal welfare all included. Emphasised need for a Conservative majority Government, and threat of Indyref2 without one. But no mention of Europe, Brexit or the Prime Minister. It might just be that, in areas that are either pro-Remain or roughly split down the middle, they don't feel the need to further antagonise Remain-leaning voters by going on about Brexit.
More especially for areas with some elevation . How this effects turnout is hard to say at this point .
But postal votes would be in by then , I would have thought that would favour the Tories but on the day any snowfall is more likely to cause issues in rural areas and outside of the major towns and cities .
What are people planning to sustain themselves with on election night I know popcorn is traditional but there must be better solutions, given the proximity of Christmas seasonal offerings or are just going to rely on a sick bag?
Since 2001 it's been Doritos and dip. Usually garlic dip. It used to be Schloer as well, tho' that's not too good these days.
I’m going down the cheddar cheese chocolate peanuts and shortbread biscuits with high quality Spanish red wine until I can’t stand up, that ensures I get up every hour to track progress whilst looking after other problems.
I intend to watch the exit poll come in, then get a few hours' sleep and set the alarm for 3 or 3:30, when the bulk of the results are actually landing.
Though if that doesn't work out and I end up sitting through the entire thing, I would imagine I'll just eat plates of chocolate biscuits until I'm all sugared out.
I've often thought about doing that — not watching all the inane chat for the first few hours — but it always proves impossible.
The only difficult decision is at what point does today become tomorrow when more alcohol should be rejected so if I go at two and get up at three is it still today or already tomorrow but I do feel I’m over complicating things.
1. No one is suggesting confiscating £39.4bn from six people and giving 14m £2,800 each.
(2. Although as an aside, if they did it would improve the sum of human happiness in the UK immeasurably.)
3. Most of those 14m have no assets at all beyond the clothes they wear and the furniture they sit on - quite a few don't even have the furniture.
4. What is that £39bn doing exactly?
5. Why would anyone need more than a few million let alone multiple billions? what's the point of it?
I'll only bother answering your 5.:
It's none of your business. But once the Government decides they can confiscate 999 pounds out of every 1000 you have, property rights are dead and the entire economic system collapses. And that's everyone's business.
Who's suggesting confiscating £999 out of every £1000?
How about we start with 1% p.a. on wealth over a £3m. Just from the top 1% in other words, but since they own over £1.3tn that would bring in £13bn each year.
And they'd hardly notice it.
Are you utterly ******* insane? Most people's "wealth" is not in the form of liquid assets or currency that can be used to pay your spiteful envy taxes.
£3m in assets and none of it liquid? You're the one who's insane.
I know a lot of pensioners in Hampstead Garden Suburb who bought houses in the sixties and seventies and now have the state pension and small private pension as income. They couldn't pay a tax based on the current value of the home they bought decades before.
I know houses are expensive in Hampstead, but I doubt there are many pensioners there who i) have a house worth over 3 Million and ii) have not much else. For a start very many downgrade when they retire.
And anyway, there are ways of making sure that such a tax does not catch these people. The easiest would be to value the wealth of the primary property of residence based on the price at which it was bought. First of all these pensioners you know will not be over the 3M wealth mark. Secondly people who *have paid* over 3M for a house chose to do so and so are almost certainly in the "rich enough to pay 1%" category.
Whilst I adore him as a short film maker his 2017 vox pops were hopelessly inaccurate.
If you went by his 2017 films May would currently have a hundred seat majority.
He makes the point that Vox Pops are useless for predicting results - but do illuminate the underlying themes not picked up by polling or the Twittersphere.
Let's start by taxing 1% of _everyone's_ wealth every year, starting with you. No one would advocate for this unimaginably stupid idea if they had to stump up the hard cash themselves on top of all the other taxes they pay.
I'm up for it, no problem. I don't mind paying tax and contributing to the world around me. I don't think almost anyone actually objects to all tax in principle, so we're just arguing about degree. The thing about a wealth tax is that it addresses things which are partly hard to evade tax on (land, houses) and the fact that although our income gap is not as large as some countries, or wealth gap is huge.
A reasonable Tory position (I think Charles ahs suggested something similar) would be a small wealth tax to pay for a modest reduction in income tax, so as to encourage people to work for a living instead of living off inherited assets.
Billionaires have lots of money, in related news it turns out bears really do shit in the woods.
Out of interest, is there any level of inequality that you would consider too much?
No. It's the politics of envy and it does none of us any good. What we need to do is ensure that those wealthy people feel as though they can invest in this country and create jobs for the rest of us. Taxing them into leaving won't achieve anything, really.
Does the imbalance of wealth between Mobutu Sese Seko and his fellow citizens cause any difficulty for your theory, or that between the average Russian oligarch and the average Russian? You are like the subjects in the Milgram experiment, relentlessly turning up the imbalance according to instructions. It is not inherently impossible that there is a skew in the system which makes the system unfair and inefficient, and it is not the case that being a conservative requires you to commit absolutely to a caricature version of unfettered free market capitalism.
Whilst I adore him as a short film maker his 2017 vox pops were hopelessly inaccurate.
If you went by his 2017 films May would currently have a hundred seat majority.
He makes the point that Vox Pops are useless for predicting results - but do illuminate the underlying themes not picked up by polling or the Twittersphere.
1. No one is suggesting confiscating £39.4bn from six people and giving 14m £2,800 each.
(2. Although as an aside, if they did it would improve the sum of human happiness in the UK immeasurably.)
3. Most of those 14m have no assets at all beyond the clothes they wear and the furniture they sit on - quite a few don't even have the furniture.
4. What is that £39bn doing exactly?
5. Why would anyone need more than a few million let alone multiple billions? what's the point of it?
I'll only bother answering your 5.:
It's none of your business. But once the Government decides they can confiscate 999 pounds out of every 1000 you have, property rights are dead and the entire economic system collapses. And that's everyone's business.
Who's suggesting confiscating £999 out of every £1000?
How about we start with 1% p.a. on wealth over a £3m. Just from the top 1% in other words, but since they own over £1.3tn that would bring in £13bn each year.
And they'd hardly notice it.
Are you utterly ******* insane? Most people's "wealth" is not in the form of liquid assets or currency that can be used to pay your spiteful envy taxes.
£3m in assets and none of it liquid? You're the one who's insane.
I know a lot of pensioners in Hampstead Garden Suburb who bought houses in the sixties and seventies and now have the state pension and small private pension as income. They couldn't pay a tax based on the current value of the home they bought decades before.
I know houses are expensive in Hampstead, but I doubt there are many pensioners there who i) have a house worth over 3 Million and ii) have not much else. For a start very many downgrade when they retire.
And anyway, there are ways of making sure that such a tax does not catch these people. The easiest would be to value the wealth of the primary property of residence based on the price at which it was bought. First of all these pensioners you know will not be over the 3M wealth mark. Secondly people who *have paid* over 3M for a house chose to do so and so are almost certainly in the "rich enough to pay 1%" category.
That's too clever for Marxists like Corbyn & McDonnell to understand.
They just look at the current on paper house value and sneer "rich bastards, let's tax them to poverty ".
If you confiscated all of their assets (all £39.4bn) and gave all of it equally to those 14 million they’d have... a one-off payment of £2,800 each.
Corbyn’s promising a bigger bung to the WASPIS.
Good grief, where to begin?
1. No one is suggesting confiscating £39.4bn from six people and giving 14m £2,800 each.
(2. Although as an aside, if they did it would improve the sum of human happiness in the UK immeasurably.)
3. Most of those 14m have no assets at all beyond the clothes they wear and the furniture they sit on - quite a few don't even have the furniture.
4. What is that £39bn doing exactly?
5. Why would anyone need more than a few million let alone multiple billions? what's the point of it?
I'll only bother answering your 5.:
It's none of your business. But once the Government decides they can confiscate 999 pounds out of every 1000 you have, property rights are dead and the entire economic system collapses. And that's everyone's business.
Who's suggesting confiscating £999 out of every £1000?
How about we start with 1% p.a. on wealth over a £3m. Just from the top 1% in other words, but since they own over £1.3tn that would bring in £13bn each year.
And they'd hardly notice it.
Most people with £3m in assets would struggle to pay your £30,000 wealth tax on top of their income tax etc.
Nonsense. If they cannot make >4% + inflation from it they are being badly advised. In which case they will just have to live with £2,970,000 next year (when they will fall below the @Benpointer Wealth Tax threshold).
Given that the majority of assets are in primary residences how do those people pay for it? Do they sell small bits of their house?
What proportion of people own houses valued at >£3m?
What proportion of the wealthiest 1% have all their assets tied up in their main residence? I'd guess none of them but if I'm wrong, they can always downsize.
How about you downsize your desire for other people's assets instead?
How about you downsize your desire for extreme inequality instead?
Interesting. Just had my first Conservative leaflet from my current (very safe) Conservative MP. The word Brexit doesn't appear at all. Instead it focusses on local transport, hospitals and schools, as well as the threat from an SNP / Labour government.
A change in tactics, perhaps?
Had a very similar leaflet in my (also very, very safe) Conservative-held constituency the other day. Schools, hospitals, crime, environment and animal welfare all included. Emphasised need for a Conservative majority Government, and threat of Indyref2 without one. But no mention of Europe, Brexit or the Prime Minister. It might just be that, in areas that are either pro-Remain or roughly split down the middle, they don't feel the need to further antagonise Remain-leaning voters by going on about Brexit.
That could be the case, my constituency was only a bit more leave than average. Surprised they didn't go for the Lib Dems in it though, rather than Labour, given local demographics. It might also be that my MP is one of the more remainy Conservatives, so wants to leave himself some wiggle-room later on.
Let's start by taxing 1% of _everyone's_ wealth every year, starting with you. No one would advocate for this unimaginably stupid idea if they had to stump up the hard cash themselves on top of all the other taxes they pay.
I'm up for it, no problem. I don't mind paying tax and contributing to the world around me. I don't think almost anyone actually objects to all tax in principle, so we're just arguing about degree. The thing about a wealth tax is that it addresses things which are partly hard to evade tax on (land, houses) and the fact that although our income gap is not as large as some countries, or wealth gap is huge.
A reasonable Tory position would be a small wealth tax to pay for a modest reduction in income tax, so as to encourage people to work for a living instead of living off inherited assets.
No, we would have to eliminate CGT so that sale of assets to pay for the new tax is tax free. Are you in favour of that? Because that's how the Swiss make it work.
Interesting. Just had my first Conservative leaflet from my current (very safe) Conservative MP. The word Brexit doesn't appear at all. Instead it focusses on local transport, hospitals and schools, as well as the threat from an SNP / Labour government.
A change in tactics, perhaps?
Had a very similar leaflet in my (also very, very safe) Conservative-held constituency the other day. Schools, hospitals, crime, environment and animal welfare all included. Emphasised need for a Conservative majority Government, and threat of Indyref2 without one. But no mention of Europe, Brexit or the Prime Minister. It might just be that, in areas that are either pro-Remain or roughly split down the middle, they don't feel the need to further antagonise Remain-leaning voters by going on about Brexit.
This is clever. The people fed up of Brexit, who aren't particularly interested in politics, and who hear the 'Get Brexit Done' message from Johnson are being well served by passive media. More sophisticated individuals, who take a more nuanced approach and are a bit more au fait with political realities (but are *also* fed up with Brexit) can read through the literature and pretend that its politics as normal...
More especially for areas with some elevation . How this effects turnout is hard to say at this point .
But postal votes would be in by then , I would have thought that would favour the Tories but on the day any snowfall is more likely to cause issues in rural areas and outside of the major towns and cities .
"...An unsettled and windy week is expected...Many areas are likely to have showers and some lengthier outbreaks of rain. Rainfall amounts above average / well-above average over Wales and western England. Showers likely to become wintry at times over hills, especially through the second half of the week, when northern areas could even see some wintry precipitation to lower levels for a time."
Billionaires have lots of money, in related news it turns out bears really do shit in the woods.
Out of interest, is there any level of inequality that you would consider too much?
No. It's the politics of envy and it does none of us any good. What we need to do is ensure that those wealthy people feel as though they can invest in this country and create jobs for the rest of us. Taxing them into leaving won't achieve anything, really.
Does the imbalance of wealth between Mobutu Sese Seko and his fellow citizens cause any difficulty for your theory, or that between the average Russian oligarch and the average Russian? You are like the subjects in the Milgram experiment, relentlessly turning up the imbalance according to instructions. It is not inherently impossible that there is a skew in the system which makes the system unfair and inefficient, and it is not the case that being a conservative requires you to commit absolutely to a caricature version of unfettered free market capitalism.
I assume you are familiar with Johan Galtung. You sound as though you are quoting from his work in the 60s and 70s (which I agree has much merit).
Interesting. Just had my first Conservative leaflet from my current (very safe) Conservative MP. The word Brexit doesn't appear at all. Instead it focusses on local transport, hospitals and schools, as well as the threat from an SNP / Labour government.
A change in tactics, perhaps?
Had a very similar leaflet in my (also very, very safe) Conservative-held constituency the other day. Schools, hospitals, crime, environment and animal welfare all included. Emphasised need for a Conservative majority Government, and threat of Indyref2 without one. But no mention of Europe, Brexit or the Prime Minister. It might just be that, in areas that are either pro-Remain or roughly split down the middle, they don't feel the need to further antagonise Remain-leaning voters by going on about Brexit.
That could be the case, my constituency was only a bit more leave than average. Surprised they didn't go for the Lib Dems in it though, rather than Labour, given local demographics. It might also be that my MP is one of the more remainy Conservatives, so wants to leave himself some wiggle-room later on.
You may have a point there. Mine belongs to the not quite so ardent as the 21 rebels but still definitely a Remain-sympathiser tendency too. Was one of the Tories who voted against Theresa May on the meaningful vote amendment two years ago; alongside figures like Grieve, Clarke, Soubry, Allen and Wollaston.
Let's start by taxing 1% of _everyone's_ wealth every year, starting with you. No one would advocate for this unimaginably stupid idea if they had to stump up the hard cash themselves on top of all the other taxes they pay.
I'm up for it, no problem. I don't mind paying tax and contributing to the world around me. I don't think almost anyone actually objects to all tax in principle, so we're just arguing about degree. The thing about a wealth tax is that it addresses things which are partly hard to evade tax on (land, houses) and the fact that although our income gap is not as large as some countries, or wealth gap is huge.
A reasonable Tory position would be a small wealth tax to pay for a modest reduction in income tax, so as to encourage people to work for a living instead of living off inherited assets.
No, we would have to eliminate CGT so that sale of assets to pay for the new tax is tax free. Are you in favour of that? Because that's how the Swiss make it work.
Most other taxes are also designed to be taken from an actual source of liquid currency (income tax on ... cash income, CGT on ... cash realized from the sale of an asset).
The wealth tax, by contrast, assumes what cannot be assumed - that everyone keeps large sums of money lying around just to pay this stupid, arbitrary tax.
And who wants the gigantic annual bureaucracy of assessing everyone's assets to make sure that the correct tax is paid? That's why if it is imposed, it should be imposed on _everyone_. The resulting unrest would make the Poll Tax riots look like a Sunday stroll down Piccadilly, and innoculate the public against socialism for a generation.
What are people planning to sustain themselves with on election night I know popcorn is traditional but there must be better solutions, given the proximity of Christmas seasonal offerings or are just going to rely on a sick bag?
More especially for areas with some elevation . How this effects turnout is hard to say at this point .
But postal votes would be in by then , I would have thought that would favour the Tories but on the day any snowfall is more likely to cause issues in rural areas and outside of the major towns and cities .
"...An unsettled and windy week is expected...Many areas are likely to have showers and some lengthier outbreaks of rain. Rainfall amounts above average / well-above average over Wales and western England. Showers likely to become wintry at times over hills, especially through the second half of the week, when northern areas could even see some wintry precipitation to lower levels for a time."
And who wants the gigantic annual bureaucracy of assessing everyone's assets to make sure that the correct tax is paid? That's why if it is imposed, it should be imposed on _everyone_. The resulting unrest would make the Poll Tax riots look like a Sunday stroll down Piccadilly, and innoculate the public against socialism for a generation.
Use the Norwegian approach of self-assessment with all returns on public record, so if you forget to mention some huge asset, someone can remind you.
You do realise that quite a lot of people have no net wealth at all?
What are people planning to sustain themselves with on election night I know popcorn is traditional but there must be better solutions, given the proximity of Christmas seasonal offerings or are just going to rely on a sick bag?
Beefy chipsticks, cheese and port
You can get beefy chipsticks? I thought they only came in "coat your mouth and tongue in salt" flavour.
I'll be on the beer and pizza (without pineapple) on election night. Depending on the exit poll I may have run out of beer by 11pm and have started on the rum...
You might argue that, at current levels, it doesn't do much to diminish wealth inequality, but the principle is not particularly controversial over there.
Those comparative education numbers have come at a really inopportune time for the SNP. Plenty of ammunition for their opponents to use against them in the last 9 days,
Interesting. Just had my first Conservative leaflet from my current (very safe) Conservative MP. The word Brexit doesn't appear at all. Instead it focusses on local transport, hospitals and schools, as well as the threat from an SNP / Labour government.
A change in tactics, perhaps?
Had a very similar leaflet in my (also very, very safe) Conservative-held constituency the other day. Schools, hospitals, crime, environment and animal welfare all included. Emphasised need for a Conservative majority Government, and threat of Indyref2 without one. But no mention of Europe, Brexit or the Prime Minister. It might just be that, in areas that are either pro-Remain or roughly split down the middle, they don't feel the need to further antagonise Remain-leaning voters by going on about Brexit.
That could be the case, my constituency was only a bit more leave than average. Surprised they didn't go for the Lib Dems in it though, rather than Labour, given local demographics. It might also be that my MP is one of the more remainy Conservatives, so wants to leave himself some wiggle-room later on.
You may have a point there. Mine belongs to the not quite so ardent as the 21 rebels but still definitely a Remain-sympathiser tendency too. Was one of the Tories who voted against Theresa May on the meaningful vote amendment two years ago; alongside figures like Grieve, Clarke, Soubry, Allen and Wollaston.
Yes, my MP rebelled on the meaningful vote too. Since then he's just stuck to complaining on Twitter about Brexit being bad, rather than taking any actual action (a bit like a Conservative Jess Phillips with respect to Corbyn). Could be a deliberate tactic to keep leavers on side in these seats, so they aren't reminded that their sitting MP isn't a leaver.
More especially for areas with some elevation . How this effects turnout is hard to say at this point .
But postal votes would be in by then , I would have thought that would favour the Tories but on the day any snowfall is more likely to cause issues in rural areas and outside of the major towns and cities .
"...An unsettled and windy week is expected...Many areas are likely to have showers and some lengthier outbreaks of rain. Rainfall amounts above average / well-above average over Wales and western England. Showers likely to become wintry at times over hills, especially through the second half of the week, when northern areas could even see some wintry precipitation to lower levels for a time."
That’s irrelevant you have to look at the weather on the day . On the 6 th December 1923 the UK was under a small ridge for most of the vote .
Rain moved in late in the evening to the far nw .
There’s still some uncertainty with the forecast , but the GFS and ECM are interesting of you like a bit of snow , more especially for higher elevations .
The problem for Harris, Booker or any other candidate banking on the african vote is that only those percieved to have Obama's direct blessing or Oprah can siphon that block from Biden. Only if Obama goes on TV and says don't vote Biden will change that.
And who wants the gigantic annual bureaucracy of assessing everyone's assets to make sure that the correct tax is paid? That's why if it is imposed, it should be imposed on _everyone_. The resulting unrest would make the Poll Tax riots look like a Sunday stroll down Piccadilly, and innoculate the public against socialism for a generation.
Use the Norwegian approach of self-assessment with all returns on public record, so if you forget to mention some huge asset, someone can remind you.
You do realise that quite a lot of people have no net wealth at all?
British people would not accept the loss of confidentiality that this would entail.
If you confiscated all of their assets (all £39.4bn) and gave all of it equally to those 14 million they’d have... a one-off payment of £2,800 each.
Corbyn’s promising a bigger bung to the WASPIS.
Good grief, where to begin?
1. No one is suggesting confiscating £39.4bn from six people and giving 14m £2,800 each.
(2. Although as an aside, if they did it would improve the sum of human happiness in the UK immeasurably.)
3. Most of those 14m have no assets at all beyond the clothes they wear and the furniture they sit on - quite a few don't even have the furniture.
4. What is that £39bn doing exactly?
5. Why would anyone need more than a few million let alone multiple billions? what's the point of it?
I'll only bother answering your 5.:
It's none of your business. But once the Government decides they can confiscate 999 pounds out of every 1000 you have, property rights are dead and the entire economic system collapses. And that's everyone's business.
Who's suggesting confiscating £999 out of every £1000?
How about we start with 1% p.a. on wealth over a £3m. Just from the top 1% in other words, but since they own over £1.3tn that would bring in £13bn each year.
And they'd hardly notice it.
Most people with £3m in assets would struggle to pay your £30,000 wealth tax on top of their income tax etc.
Nonsense. If they cannot make >4% + inflation from it they are being badly advised. In which case they will just have to live with £2,970,000 next year (when they will fall below the @Benpointer Wealth Tax threshold).
Given that the majority of assets are in primary residences how do those people pay for it? Do they sell small bits of their house?
What proportion of people own houses valued at >£3m?
What proportion of the wealthiest 1% have all their assets tied up in their main residence? I'd guess none of them but if I'm wrong, they can always downsize.
Billionaires have lots of money, in related news it turns out bears really do shit in the woods.
Out of interest, is there any level of inequality that you would consider too much?
No. It's the politics of envy and it does none of us any good. What we need to do is ensure that those wealthy people feel as though they can invest in this country and create jobs for the rest of us. Taxing them into leaving won't achieve anything, really.
One doesn’t make the poor richer, simply by making the rich poorer.
Actually you do, every time they buy stuff. And we can, and should, get them to buy more of our stuff. But that's too proactive for many people, so they prefer just getting annoyed about it.
If you want that wealth to be used to 'buy stuff' move it to the poor... they spend money rather than sit on it.
Your knowledge of how people get very rich is very limited if you really believe they 'sit on their wealth'.
More especially for areas with some elevation . How this effects turnout is hard to say at this point .
But postal votes would be in by then , I would have thought that would favour the Tories but on the day any snowfall is more likely to cause issues in rural areas and outside of the major towns and cities .
"...An unsettled and windy week is expected...Many areas are likely to have showers and some lengthier outbreaks of rain. Rainfall amounts above average / well-above average over Wales and western England. Showers likely to become wintry at times over hills, especially through the second half of the week, when northern areas could even see some wintry precipitation to lower levels for a time."
That’s irrelevant you have to look at the weather on the day . On the 6 th December 1923 the UK was under a small ridge for most of the vote .
Rain moved in late in the evening to the far nw .
There’s still some uncertainty with the forecast , but the GFS and ECM are interesting if you like a bit of snow , more especially for higher elevations .
In 1923, there weren't any mobile phones or internet, no central heating, and not as many motor cars as today.
re Wealth tax. It's probably a dumb question, but how would wealth be assessed so that a wealth tax can be levied? I understand that if I sell my shares, its easy to calculate the gain, but how would unsold (and indeed never traded) shares be valued?
What are people planning to sustain themselves with on election night I know popcorn is traditional but there must be better solutions, given the proximity of Christmas seasonal offerings or are just going to rely on a sick bag?
Beefy chipsticks, cheese and port
I have vodka in, just in case the exit poll announces a Jezza win. We are all good Soviets then.
Those comparative education numbers have come at a really inopportune time for the SNP. Plenty of ammunition for their opponents to use against them in the last 9 days,
More especially for areas with some elevation . How this effects turnout is hard to say at this point .
But postal votes would be in by then , I would have thought that would favour the Tories but on the day any snowfall is more likely to cause issues in rural areas and outside of the major towns and cities .
"...An unsettled and windy week is expected...Many areas are likely to have showers and some lengthier outbreaks of rain. Rainfall amounts above average / well-above average over Wales and western England. Showers likely to become wintry at times over hills, especially through the second half of the week, when northern areas could even see some wintry precipitation to lower levels for a time."
That’s irrelevant you have to look at the weather on the day . On the 6 th December 1923 the UK was under a small ridge for most of the vote .
Rain moved in late in the evening to the far nw .
There’s still some uncertainty with the forecast , but the GFS and ECM are interesting if you like a bit of snow , more especially for higher elevations .
In 1923, there weren't any mobile phones or internet, no central heating, and not as many motor cars as today.
There is much greater apathy today than in 1923. I don't expect turnout will be greater than 65%.
re Wealth tax. It's probably a dumb question, but how would wealth be assessed so that a wealth tax can be levied? I understand that if I sell my shares, its easy to calculate the gain, but how would unsold (and indeed never traded) shares be valued?
Good point. CGT taxes realised gains not wealth. "Buy and hold" is my favourite share-buying tactic.
Those comparative education numbers have come at a really inopportune time for the SNP. Plenty of ammunition for their opponents to use against them in the last 9 days,
Incidentally, despite the assurances given by LibDem HQ to Mike, the "LibDems are best placed to win here" stuff from him is, I'm told, still being sent out in Portsmouth South, where the constituency poll and MRP have shown it to be nonsense. Mike's got an absolute right to campaign for his preference, but I'd think it was a bad long-term investment to have his name used indiscriminately when it will turn out badly wrong - people won't believe it even when it's true.
re Wealth tax. It's probably a dumb question, but how would wealth be assessed so that a wealth tax can be levied? I understand that if I sell my shares, its easy to calculate the gain, but how would unsold (and indeed never traded) shares be valued?
That’s a very good point. Also what about collections like wine or art?
More especially for areas with some elevation . How this effects turnout is hard to say at this point .
But postal votes would be in by then , I would have thought that would favour the Tories but on the day any snowfall is more likely to cause issues in rural areas and outside of the major towns and cities .
"...An unsettled and windy week is expected...Many areas are likely to have showers and some lengthier outbreaks of rain. Rainfall amounts above average / well-above average over Wales and western England. Showers likely to become wintry at times over hills, especially through the second half of the week, when northern areas could even see some wintry precipitation to lower levels for a time."
That’s irrelevant you have to look at the weather on the day . On the 6 th December 1923 the UK was under a small ridge for most of the vote .
Rain moved in late in the evening to the far nw .
There’s still some uncertainty with the forecast , but the GFS and ECM are interesting if you like a bit of snow , more especially for higher elevations .
In 1923, there weren't any mobile phones or internet, no central heating, and not as many motor cars as today.
There is much greater apathy today than in 1923. I don't expect turnout will be greater than 65%.
When you see what people wear to go to a nightclub these days (not a lot) I don't think they'd be deterred from voting by a light frosting of snow.
re Wealth tax. It's probably a dumb question, but how would wealth be assessed so that a wealth tax can be levied? I understand that if I sell my shares, its easy to calculate the gain, but how would unsold (and indeed never traded) shares be valued?
Complexity is one of the major downsides in that the IRS and taxpayers would have to engage thousands of valuers to conduct private valuations and then debate them every year.
On of Warren's team suggested that in the event of a dispute or difficulties in doing a valuation, that the government could just take 3% of the share capital directly.....
re Wealth tax. It's probably a dumb question, but how would wealth be assessed so that a wealth tax can be levied? I understand that if I sell my shares, its easy to calculate the gain, but how would unsold (and indeed never traded) shares be valued?
That’s a very good point. Also what about collections like wine or art?
Generally it doesn’t make a huge difference but that’s because the vast majority of elections are not held in the winter months .
It’s more likely though to effect undecided voters . It also tends to have a slight effect on demographic C2DE groups.
I'm almost convinced that the only things that can deny the Conservatives a majority is the last Debate and the snow on election day. But it's too early, weather prediction accuracy is poor 100 hours or more into the future.
Generally it doesn’t make a huge difference but that’s because the vast majority of elections are not held in the winter months .
It’s more likely though to effect undecided voters . It also tends to have a slight effect on demographic C2DE groups.
If some of the worst case scenarios in the current model outputs come to pass they won't be getting ballot boxes to some polling stations.
True . The issue is more likely though in rural parts . The differential turnout could impact in seats where you have a town in the middle of a rural area . It’s still some way off and the modeling could change .
Incidentally, despite the assurances given by LibDem HQ to Mike, the "LibDems are best placed to win here" stuff from him is, I'm told, still being sent out in Portsmouth South, where the constituency poll and MRP have shown it to be nonsense. Mike's got an absolute right to campaign for his preference, but I'd think it was a bad long-term investment to have his name used indiscriminately when it will turn out badly wrong - people won't believe it even when it's true.
I had a leaflet this week that implied that the Lib Dems are second in Wycombe and Labour fifth. I’m sure Steve Baker would be delighted to have people think they should vote Lib Dem tactically to get rid of him.
re Wealth tax. It's probably a dumb question, but how would wealth be assessed so that a wealth tax can be levied? I understand that if I sell my shares, its easy to calculate the gain, but how would unsold (and indeed never traded) shares be valued?
That’s a very good point. Also what about collections like wine or art?
Or that old painting in the attic that turns out to be an old master: do you get done for tax evasion if you didn’t declare it for several years because you didn’t know? I would expect Antiques Roadshow to go off air fairly rapidly.
More especially for areas with some elevation . How this effects turnout is hard to say at this point .
But postal votes would be in by then , I would have thought that would favour the Tories but on the day any snowfall is more likely to cause issues in rural areas and outside of the major towns and cities .
"...An unsettled and windy week is expected...Many areas are likely to have showers and some lengthier outbreaks of rain. Rainfall amounts above average / well-above average over Wales and western England. Showers likely to become wintry at times over hills, especially through the second half of the week, when northern areas could even see some wintry precipitation to lower levels for a time."
That’s irrelevant you have to look at the weather on the day . On the 6 th December 1923 the UK was under a small ridge for most of the vote .
Rain moved in late in the evening to the far nw .
There’s still some uncertainty with the forecast , but the GFS and ECM are interesting if you like a bit of snow , more especially for higher elevations .
In 1923, there weren't any mobile phones or internet, no central heating, and not as many motor cars as today.
There is much greater apathy today than in 1923. I don't expect turnout will be greater than 65%.
When you see what people wear to go to a nightclub these days (not a lot) I don't think they'd be deterred from voting by a light frosting of snow.
But that's when their out for a night on the town. And as a teacher friend of mine once notably said "their hormones are what's keeping them warm"!
Comments
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/dec/03/anywhere-but-westminster-vox-pops-understanding-uk-political-landscape
https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1201938829931929601?s=20
A change in tactics, perhaps?
The problem with simplistic proposals is that they screw the innocent.
There is a case for additional taxes on non-primary residences, in fact I'd be in favour of them.
Other forms of investment are already taxed, interest, dividends and capital are all taxed.
Your proposal is just more politics of envy that will drive wealth creators out of the country and ultimately smash the poor in reduced job creation and lower overall tax take as those on high incomes decided "fuck it, this country isn't for me".
https://twitter.com/MirrorPolitics/status/1201944206538924032?s=20
Though if that doesn't work out and I end up sitting through the entire thing, I would imagine I'll just eat plates of chocolate biscuits until I'm all sugared out.
https://i.imgur.com/HNS0lgD.gif?noredirect
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/corbyn-calls-for-softer-approach-to-putin-njqbmtd96
If you went by his 2017 films May would currently have a hundred seat majority.
However talented she might be - and she is - that hardly ever works at a national level.
More especially for areas with some elevation . How this effects turnout is hard to say at this point .
But postal votes would be in by then , I would have thought that would favour the Tories but on the day any snowfall is more likely to cause issues in rural areas and outside of the major towns and cities .
And anyway, there are ways of making sure that such a tax does not catch these people. The easiest would be to value the wealth of the primary property of residence based on the price at which it was bought. First of all these pensioners you know will not be over the 3M wealth mark. Secondly people who *have paid* over 3M for a house chose to do so and so are almost certainly in the "rich enough to pay 1%" category.
A reasonable Tory position (I think Charles ahs suggested something similar) would be a small wealth tax to pay for a modest reduction in income tax, so as to encourage people to work for a living instead of living off inherited assets.
They just look at the current on paper house value and sneer "rich bastards, let's tax them to poverty ".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/outlook
The wealth tax, by contrast, assumes what cannot be assumed - that everyone keeps large sums of money lying around just to pay this stupid, arbitrary tax.
And who wants the gigantic annual bureaucracy of assessing everyone's assets to make sure that the correct tax is paid? That's why if it is imposed, it should be imposed on _everyone_. The resulting unrest would make the Poll Tax riots look like a Sunday stroll down Piccadilly, and innoculate the public against socialism for a generation.
You do realise that quite a lot of people have no net wealth at all?
I'll be on the beer and pizza (without pineapple) on election night. Depending on the exit poll I may have run out of beer by 11pm and have started on the rum...
https://smartasset.com/taxes/new-york-property-tax-calculator
You might argue that, at current levels, it doesn't do much to diminish wealth inequality, but the principle is not particularly controversial over there.
Rain moved in late in the evening to the far nw .
There’s still some uncertainty with the forecast , but the GFS and ECM are interesting of you like a bit of snow , more especially for higher elevations .
Only if Obama goes on TV and says don't vote Biden will change that.
It's probably a dumb question, but how would wealth be assessed so that a wealth tax can be levied? I understand that if I sell my shares, its easy to calculate the gain, but how would unsold (and indeed never traded) shares be valued?
Con 8/11
Lab 7/2
LD 5/1
https://twitter.com/AgentP22/status/1201953366617788416?s=20
I don't expect turnout will be greater than 65%.
Generally it doesn’t make a huge difference but that’s because the vast majority of elections are not held in the winter months .
It’s more likely though to effect undecided voters . It also tends to have a slight effect on demographic C2DE groups.
Con 5/6
Ashfield Independents 3/1
Lab 11/2
I certainly think she would have had a better shot at beating Trump than Elizabeth 'McGovern' Warren.
I was red on her.
Admittedly their candidate is the extraordinary Emma Dent Coad.
On of Warren's team suggested that in the event of a dispute or difficulties in doing a valuation, that the government could just take 3% of the share capital directly.....
https://fs.nwstatic.co.uk/monthly_2019_12/68539D90-EA8E-4ECC-9C61-04B86A51B039.jpeg.fe357f6ffd20c0cff13d041de085e23b.jpeg
https://twitter.com/STVNews/status/1201956738074853376?s=20
But it's too early, weather prediction accuracy is poor 100 hours or more into the future.
This is free and could be a big threat to Sky and BT
https://fs.nwstatic.co.uk/monthly_2019_12/A3A61845-1E39-4E65-997B-CCD9223DF966.png.6361d00dc3a79ddb4792ceb396a6ecf5.png
I’m shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
Av Lead for sale | eBay
Sky’s welcome to the hit’n’giggle, er, T20.
Unionists just too divided - jocks are just not canny enough to avoid #indyref2
The future of unity on this island is at stake, ie the UK
Nobody seems to care
Maybe it does have some merit after all...