If that is true it leaves us with two options, maybe only one. A long, hard lockdown to eradicate the virus completely, or developing better treatment options to reduce the fatality rate. And perhaps only the second, or we'd need long-term quarantine measures for travellers from countries that didn't eradicate the virus.
Foxy made a good point this morning, that there will sadly be a lot of cash prematurely going to the younger generation. Perhaps IHT needs looking at fast? I`ve never understood people`s aversion to this tax (second most unpopular after council tax). IHT is my favourite tax. I`d much rather pay tax when I`m dead than when I`m alive.
I'm also an IHT fan, but I have no heirs so I could reasonably be accused of having no skin in that particular game!
Resistance to IHT is the ultimate validation of Thatcher's infamous "no such thing as society" comment, rooted as it is in biology. People (or a very great proportion of people, at any rate) resent the state - i.e. unrelated strangers - getting their hands on their resources when they kick the bucket. They want their own offspring to have it all.
It’s double taxation though.
The government taxes my income. It taxes my spending. Why should it get to take a further chunk just because I die?
And if you pay your income taxed income to your gardener as wages, he pays income tax on it. Harsh but that's how it works. Double taxation is only an objection when money is taxed twice *for what is effectively the same transaction,* like charging corporation tax on profits and then taxing dividends as income.
If I save £100 and then ownership of that £100 transfers to my daughter there is no “transaction”.
Tax works best on the basis of governments receiving a share of the increase in value from someone’s efforts. Otherwise there is no incentive to build capital and wealth.
What about those who have gained wealth without doing anything other than being born into the right family?
They will be taxed on the income that wealth generates.
My brother is an unusual case. He purchased a 25% stake in a private company at par value (about £30,000). He derives a £1,500 annual income from those share.
If the company was ever to be sold then the market value would be meaningful in excess of the purchase price. But he can’t sell his shares independently because each of the other shareholders has a first right of refusal at par value.
So how wealthy is he actually?
My guess is that your brother does not rely solely on that £1,500 annual income.
No, of course not. He receives a decent six figure salary from the company (but works there full time). He pays income tax on it, like everyone else on PAYE.
But the market value of his shares would be meaningfully in excess of his salary.
It’s not easy to define wealth. The easy answer is to say he is wealthy based on his ownership stake in the company. But he can’t sell the shares and he doesn’t derive much income from them. So is he really wealthy?
That's a great example.
Who would decide the value of the shares, and how often?
How much would this whole process cost, both as an amount and as a proportion of the taxes raised?
What would be the unintended consequences on certain types of business, and what unfavourable (for the taxman) behavioural changes would result?
Also, if myself and the bank own a property on a 20/80 split, who pays the tax on it?
We remain a relatively wealthy country. We can afford to pay more tax. So long as the burden falls on those who are doing more than just about managing, the consequent fall in living standards will not push people into poverty.
They will need to try a bit harder to stop their chums the tax cheats not paying anything on their vast sums though.
Foxy made a good point this morning, that there will sadly be a lot of cash prematurely going to the younger generation. Perhaps IHT needs looking at fast? I`ve never understood people`s aversion to this tax (second most unpopular after council tax). IHT is my favourite tax. I`d much rather pay tax when I`m dead than when I`m alive.
I'm also an IHT fan, but I have no heirs so I could reasonably be accused of having no skin in that particular game!
Resistance to IHT is the ultimate validation of Thatcher's infamous "no such thing as society" comment, rooted as it is in biology. People (or a very great proportion of people, at any rate) resent the state - i.e. unrelated strangers - getting their hands on their resources when they kick the bucket. They want their own offspring to have it all.
It’s double taxation though.
The government taxes my income. It taxes my spending. Why should it get to take a further chunk just because I die?
And if you pay your income taxed income to your gardener as wages, he pays income tax on it. Harsh but that's how it works. Double taxation is only an objection when money is taxed twice *for what is effectively the same transaction,* like charging corporation tax on profits and then taxing dividends as income.
If I save £100 and then ownership of that £100 transfers to my daughter there is no “transaction”.
Tax works best on the basis of governments receiving a share of the increase in value from someone’s efforts. Otherwise there is no incentive to build capital and wealth.
What about those who have gained wealth without doing anything other than being born into the right family?
They will be taxed on the income that wealth generates.
My brother is an unusual case. He purchased a 25% stake in a private company at par value (about £30,000). He derives a £1,500 annual income from those share.
If the company was ever to be sold then the market value would be meaningful in excess of the purchase price. But he can’t sell his shares independently because each of the other shareholders has a first right of refusal at par value.
So how wealthy is he actually?
My guess is that your brother does not rely solely on that £1,500 annual income.
No, of course not. He receives a decent six figure salary from the company (but works there full time). He pays income tax on it, like everyone else on PAYE.
But the market value of his shares would be meaningfully in excess of his salary.
It’s not easy to define wealth. The easy answer is to say he is wealthy based on his ownership stake in the company. But he can’t sell the shares and he doesn’t derive much income from them. So is he really wealthy?
That's a great example.
Who would decide the value of the shares, and how often?
How much would this whole process cost, both as an amount and as a proportion of the taxes raised?
What would be the unintended consequences on certain types of business, and what unfavourable (for the taxman) behavioural changes would result?
All of the above is why Captial Gains taxes are some common around the world. It is much simpler to assess and collect the tax when you have an actual gain to tax.
I've missed most of the debate this morning which is a pity as a topic close to me. I agree with the premise that the LibDems are going to struggle - their biggest error is leaving a pair of acting leaders one of whom no-one outside the party have heard of, and the other is the guy rejected by the party membership less than a year ago. To cancel the planned leadership election until 2021 is absurd.
I wish them well...
Are you back on board, Comrade?
I thought the replacement of the rainbow bird with SKS might have been a clue...
Not what I envisaged even a month ago. But times change, and I'm always open to putting my hand up and saying "I got this wrong"
Maybe you got it wrong a second time.
I wonder if Chuka has regrets? Remember him?
Yes does anyone know what his plans are ? Chuka politically has gone from a major player , to not in the game.
Foxy made a good point this morning, that there will sadly be a lot of cash prematurely going to the younger generation. Perhaps IHT needs looking at fast? I`ve never understood people`s aversion to this tax (second most unpopular after council tax). IHT is my favourite tax. I`d much rather pay tax when I`m dead than when I`m alive.
I'm also an IHT fan, but I have no heirs so I could reasonably be accused of having no skin in that particular game!
Resistance to IHT is the ultimate validation of Thatcher's infamous "no such thing as society" comment, rooted as it is in biology. People (or a very great proportion of people, at any rate) resent the state - i.e. unrelated strangers - getting their hands on their resources when they kick the bucket. They want their own offspring to have it all.
It’s double taxation though.
The government taxes my income. It taxes my spending. Why should it get to take a further chunk just because I die?
And if you pay your income taxed income to your gardener as wages, he pays income tax on it. Harsh but that's how it works. Double taxation is only an objection when money is taxed twice *for what is effectively the same transaction,* like charging corporation tax on profits and then taxing dividends as income.
If I save £100 and then ownership of that £100 transfers to my daughter there is no “transaction”.
Tax works best on the basis of governments receiving a share of the increase in value from someone’s efforts. Otherwise there is no incentive to build capital and wealth.
What about those who have gained wealth without doing anything other than being born into the right family?
They will be taxed on the income that wealth generates.
My brother is an unusual case. He purchased a 25% stake in a private company at par value (about £30,000). He derives a £1,500 annual income from those share.
If the company was ever to be sold then the market value would be meaningful in excess of the purchase price. But he can’t sell his shares independently because each of the other shareholders has a first right of refusal at par value.
So how wealthy is he actually?
My guess is that your brother does not rely solely on that £1,500 annual income.
No, of course not. He receives a decent six figure salary from the company (but works there full time). He pays income tax on it, like everyone else on PAYE.
But the market value of his shares would be meaningfully in excess of his salary.
It’s not easy to define wealth. The easy answer is to say he is wealthy based on his ownership stake in the company. But he can’t sell the shares and he doesn’t derive much income from them. So is he really wealthy?
That's a great example.
Who would decide the value of the shares, and how often?
How much would this whole process cost, both as an amount and as a proportion of the taxes raised?
What would be the unintended consequences on certain types of business, and what unfavourable (for the taxman) behavioural changes would result?
The other problem with a wealth tax apart from this sort of issue and dissuading people from saving is once again it would hit the poorest quite badly as most landlords would pass it on in the form of rent increases
If that is true it leaves us with two options, maybe only one. A long, hard lockdown to eradicate the virus completely, or developing better treatment options to reduce the fatality rate. And perhaps only the second, or we'd need long-term quarantine measures for travellers from countries that didn't eradicate the virus.
If it's not true, it raises a lot of questions about the accuracy of South Korea's data.
I've missed most of the debate this morning which is a pity as a topic close to me. I agree with the premise that the LibDems are going to struggle - their biggest error is leaving a pair of acting leaders one of whom no-one outside the party have heard of, and the other is the guy rejected by the party membership less than a year ago. To cancel the planned leadership election until 2021 is absurd.
I wish them well...
Are you back on board, Comrade?
I thought the replacement of the rainbow bird with SKS might have been a clue...
Not what I envisaged even a month ago. But times change, and I'm always open to putting my hand up and saying "I got this wrong"
Maybe you got it wrong a second time.
I wonder if Chuka has regrets? Remember him?
Others can make their own minds up. Was I wrong to disown Corbyn and all he stood for? No. Was joining the LibDems when I did wrong? Possibly. Either way, I realised about a month back that the LibDems probably wasn't where I was going to stay as I just couldn't get into who they are - or think they are. When you've done one thing for 25 years and suddenly start doing another thing its going to take time. Once I realised my heart wasn't in it I stopped making the effort.
As for returning to Labour, whilst SKS has a lot to do he has at least made a positive start. And once my friends in Labour put the feelers out about my return I started thinking about it actively. Won't be an easy ride, I know I've put a few people out locally and won't be trusted by others. Whatever. I can come back in, roll my sleeves up and get on with pushing the loons out now that their death grip on the party has been broken.
Sir Keir Starmer looks and sounds PM material. Even my father a life long Conservative says it is good to see an impressive leader of the opposition.
He's right. Thatcher would have been a better PM with a decent opposition, Blair likewise.
LOL, before I even tread it I know it will be wheeling out the swivel eyed union jack nutjobs as normal. SNPbad and no indyref2 , The Scottish Tory sockpuppet regional office manifesto.
Foxy made a good point this morning, that there will sadly be a lot of cash prematurely going to the younger generation. Perhaps IHT needs looking at fast? I`ve never understood people`s aversion to this tax (second most unpopular after council tax). IHT is my favourite tax. I`d much rather pay tax when I`m dead than when I`m alive.
I'm also an IHT fan, but I have no heirs so I could reasonably be accused of having no skin in that particular game!
Resistance to IHT is the ultimate validation of Thatcher's infamous "no such thing as society" comment, rooted as it is in biology. People (or a very great proportion of people, at any rate) resent the state - i.e. unrelated strangers - getting their hands on their resources when they kick the bucket. They want their own offspring to have it all.
It’s double taxation though.
The government taxes my income. It taxes my spending. Why should it get to take a further chunk just because I die?
And if you pay your income taxed income to your gardener as wages, he pays income tax on it. Harsh but that's how it works. Double taxation is only an objection when money is taxed twice *for what is effectively the same transaction,* like charging corporation tax on profits and then taxing dividends as income.
If I save £100 and then ownership of that £100 transfers to my daughter there is no “transaction”.
Tax works best on the basis of governments receiving a share of the increase in value from someone’s efforts. Otherwise there is no incentive to build capital and wealth.
What about those who have gained wealth without doing anything other than being born into the right family?
They will be taxed on the income that wealth generates.
My brother is an unusual case. He purchased a 25% stake in a private company at par value (about £30,000). He derives a £1,500 annual income from those share.
If the company was ever to be sold then the market value would be meaningful in excess of the purchase price. But he can’t sell his shares independently because each of the other shareholders has a first right of refusal at par value.
So how wealthy is he actually?
My guess is that your brother does not rely solely on that £1,500 annual income.
No, of course not. He receives a decent six figure salary from the company (but works there full time). He pays income tax on it, like everyone else on PAYE.
But the market value of his shares would be meaningfully in excess of his salary.
It’s not easy to define wealth. The easy answer is to say he is wealthy based on his ownership stake in the company. But he can’t sell the shares and he doesn’t derive much income from them. So is he really wealthy?
Yes, he is. The six figure salary tells us that. And at some stage the value of his shares will be realised and he will inherit, too. I would say he is almost certainly a member of the 1%.
Once Swinson ruled out working with Labour, which she did immediately and without apparent consideration or reflection, the jig was up. The only way the LDs could get to revoke Article 50 and/or hold a second referendum was through cooperating with Labour. Lyndon B Johnson's first rule of politics: learn to count.
I think the LDs decided to give up on stopping Brexit and instead they shot for the stars - seeing a great opportunity (because of Corbyn) to replace Labour as the main anti Tory party. Did not, to put it mildly, work. Upshot is we got the worst of both worlds from the PoV of people like me. We got Brexit* AND a Johnson landslide.
* caveat - we sort of haven't got Brexit because virus.
Foxy made a good point this morning, that there will sadly be a lot of cash prematurely going to the younger generation. Perhaps IHT needs looking at fast? I`ve never understood people`s aversion to this tax (second most unpopular after council tax). IHT is my favourite tax. I`d much rather pay tax when I`m dead than when I`m alive.
I'm also an IHT fan, but I have no heirs so I could reasonably be accused of having no skin in that particular game!
Resistance to IHT is the ultimate validation of Thatcher's infamous "no such thing as society" comment, rooted as it is in biology. People (or a very great proportion of people, at any rate) resent the state - i.e. unrelated strangers - getting their hands on their resources when they kick the bucket. They want their own offspring to have it all.
It’s double taxation though.
The government taxes my income. It taxes my spending. Why should it get to take a further chunk just because I die?
And if you pay your income taxed income to your gardener as wages, he pays income tax on it. Harsh but that's how it works. Double taxation is only an objection when money is taxed twice *for what is effectively the same transaction,* like charging corporation tax on profits and then taxing dividends as income.
If I save £100 and then ownership of that £100 transfers to my daughter there is no “transaction”.
Tax works best on the basis of governments receiving a share of the increase in value from someone’s efforts. Otherwise there is no incentive to build capital and wealth.
What about those who have gained wealth without doing anything other than being born into the right family?
They will be taxed on the income that wealth generates.
My brother is an unusual case. He purchased a 25% stake in a private company at par value (about £30,000). He derives a £1,500 annual income from those share.
If the company was ever to be sold then the market value would be meaningful in excess of the purchase price. But he can’t sell his shares independently because each of the other shareholders has a first right of refusal at par value.
So how wealthy is he actually?
My guess is that your brother does not rely solely on that £1,500 annual income.
No, of course not. He receives a decent six figure salary from the company (but works there full time). He pays income tax on it, like everyone else on PAYE.
But the market value of his shares would be meaningfully in excess of his salary.
It’s not easy to define wealth. The easy answer is to say he is wealthy based on his ownership stake in the company. But he can’t sell the shares and he doesn’t derive much income from them. So is he really wealthy?
That's a great example.
Who would decide the value of the shares, and how often?
How much would this whole process cost, both as an amount and as a proportion of the taxes raised?
What would be the unintended consequences on certain types of business, and what unfavourable (for the taxman) behavioural changes would result?
The other problem with a wealth tax apart from this sort of issue and dissuading people from saving is once again it would hit the poorest quite badly as most landlords would pass it on in the form of rent increases
Landlords can only pass it on if the market will bear the price increase
But will they take the opportunity to revolutionize how parliament works, bring it into the 21st century, break down the archaic and meaningless traditions and realize Westminster s not fit for purpose? I doubt it, too many of them benefit from how it is now. Shame the uk could become a modern democracy with its parliament fit for purpose.
The country is fighting a destructive and vile virus with people dying and many suffering and you think now is the time for a revolution in how parliament organises itself
We are going to have to make a big change immediately because of the virus.
Big change has come already - the difficult bit is getting the economy working again.
Keeping everyone at home more than another month is madness.
The government didn`t expect lockdown to be so well-observed. And it didn`t expect so many people to cease work. It`s instruction was to carry on working, at home wherever possible. This has led to a higher bail-out cost to the treasury than was expected.
It also brings forward another knotty problem which is on the horizon: what happens when lockdown is eased and some people say they don`t want to return to work? These people - sadly - will want and expect further bail-out money and will try to guilt-trip the government into paying it, no doubt with the support of some of the media. This argument will be strengthened the longer lockdown continues.
Furthermore, the government will be savvy of the geopolitical risks around other countries coming out of lockdown earlier than us and gaining a competitive advantage.
Given all of this, the government will want lockdown eased - probably gradually in some way - as soon as possible. They have already commenced research about the harm created by lockdown, financial and psychological, and will use this as "cover" to justify the easing.
Some excellent points here. I suspect Sunak is starting to cotton on to this. The numbers are gargantuan,
Sunak has tried to graft a command economy onto a country he cannot actually command. A free democratic country. The results are, well, disastrous does not describe it.
Its a policy failure of such epic proportions there are barely words to frame it I sense he is starting to realise this as the figures start to come in.
A scary prospect. I cannot even fathom the options available, what might have been a better policy decision? Or was there no way to mitigate effectively?
The only option available is to restart the economy as soon as possible. Like yesterday.
Every other option turns us into Argentina. For good.
Healthcare is very busy - but not overwhelmed.
The lockdown won’t stop Covid - we may as well have a limited return to normal .
The implication that both yourself and Contrarian are making is a spike in fatalities is worth it to save the economy. You are thus tacitly making the bold assumption that you will both survive an immediate curtailment of lockdown to get the economy back on track.
A thriving economy is no good to any of us who find themselves six feet under through a casual response to Covid-19.
We have a spike in fatalities.
You call 10,000 deaths a spike? Think half a million.
Nobody is thinking half a million. Not even the bloke who said it would be half a million
What percentage of people do you think would catch the virus in an uncontrolled epidemic and what do you think the fatality rate would be? Even at 60% and 0.5% you're looking at over 200,000 deaths.
The reason the government abandoned its original herd immuntiy policy was because of predictions of half a million fatalities. That certainly implies half a million as a disticnct possibility if things went badly.
LOL, before I even tread it I know it will be wheeling out the swivel eyed union jack nutjobs as normal. SNPbad and no indyref2 , The Scottish Tory sockpuppet regional office manifesto.
What does any of that have to do with the Scottish government not offering as much financial support to businesses as the English government?
Foxy made a good point this morning, that there will sadly be a lot of cash prematurely going to the younger generation. Perhaps IHT needs looking at fast? I`ve never understood people`s aversion to this tax (second most unpopular after council tax). IHT is my favourite tax. I`d much rather pay tax when I`m dead than when I`m alive.
I'm also an IHT fan, but I have no heirs so I could reasonably be accused of having no skin in that particular game!
Resistance to IHT is the ultimate validation of Thatcher's infamous "no such thing as society" comment, rooted as it is in biology. People (or a very great proportion of people, at any rate) resent the state - i.e. unrelated strangers - getting their hands on their resources when they kick the bucket. They want their own offspring to have it all.
It’s double taxation though.
The government taxes my income. It taxes my spending. Why should it get to take a further chunk just because I die?
And if you pay your income taxed income to your gardener as wages, he pays income tax on it. Harsh but that's how it works. Double taxation is only an objection when money is taxed twice *for what is effectively the same transaction,* like charging corporation tax on profits and then taxing dividends as income.
If I save £100 and then ownership of that £100 transfers to my daughter there is no “transaction”.
Tax works best on the basis of governments receiving a share of the increase in value from someone’s efforts. Otherwise there is no incentive to build capital and wealth.
What about those who have gained wealth without doing anything other than being born into the right family?
They will be taxed on the income that wealth generates.
My brother is an unusual case. He purchased a 25% stake in a private company at par value (about £30,000). He derives a £1,500 annual income from those share.
If the company was ever to be sold then the market value would be meaningful in excess of the purchase price. But he can’t sell his shares independently because each of the other shareholders has a first right of refusal at par value.
So how wealthy is he actually?
My guess is that your brother does not rely solely on that £1,500 annual income.
No, of course not. He receives a decent six figure salary from the company (but works there full time). He pays income tax on it, like everyone else on PAYE.
But the market value of his shares would be meaningfully in excess of his salary.
It’s not easy to define wealth. The easy answer is to say he is wealthy based on his ownership stake in the company. But he can’t sell the shares and he doesn’t derive much income from them. So is he really wealthy?
That's a great example.
Who would decide the value of the shares, and how often?
How much would this whole process cost, both as an amount and as a proportion of the taxes raised?
What would be the unintended consequences on certain types of business, and what unfavourable (for the taxman) behavioural changes would result?
Also, if myself and the bank own a property on a 20/80 split, who pays the tax on it?
For every problem there is a solution.
Wealthy people just need to accept that they are going to be paying more tax. The broadest shoulders will be bearing the heaviest load as we build our brave, new, post-crisis world.
Serious question - for an unprecedented catastrophe affecting the entire world, why can't we all come to an agreed figure for what losses each country has incurred at the end of the crisis, then have all the finance ministers and central bankers sit down at their computers, press the 'Print Money' button to deposit said agreed sum back into their public treasuries, and then carry on as if it never happened? Every country would benefit, and only a limited relative advantage would be gained, so why not?
I can't be enthused by either Davey or Moran. I've no idea what a pansexual is. Each to their own, but I hope she's not giving longing looks at my chip pan.
My wife, who's a natural LD, thought that Jo Swinson looked like a little girl lost in the world of politics. I don't think it was a compliment.
Foxy made a good point this morning, that there will sadly be a lot of cash prematurely going to the younger generation. Perhaps IHT needs looking at fast? I`ve never understood people`s aversion to this tax (second most unpopular after council tax). IHT is my favourite tax. I`d much rather pay tax when I`m dead than when I`m alive.
I'm also an IHT fan, but I have no heirs so I could reasonably be accused of having no skin in that particular game!
Resistance to IHT is the ultimate validation of Thatcher's infamous "no such thing as society" comment, rooted as it is in biology. People (or a very great proportion of people, at any rate) resent the state - i.e. unrelated strangers - getting their hands on their resources when they kick the bucket. They want their own offspring to have it all.
It’s double taxation though.
The government taxes my income. It taxes my spending. Why should it get to take a further chunk just because I die?
And if you pay your income taxed income to your gardener as wages, he pays income tax on it. Harsh but that's how it works. Double taxation is only an objection when money is taxed twice *for what is effectively the same transaction,* like charging corporation tax on profits and then taxing dividends as income.
If I save £100 and then ownership of that £100 transfers to my daughter there is no “transaction”.
Tax works best on the basis of governments receiving a share of the increase in value from someone’s efforts. Otherwise there is no incentive to build capital and wealth.
What about those who have gained wealth without doing anything other than being born into the right family?
They will be taxed on the income that wealth generates.
My brother is an unusual case. He purchased a 25% stake in a private company at par value (about £30,000). He derives a £1,500 annual income from those share.
If the company was ever to be sold then the market value would be meaningful in excess of the purchase price. But he can’t sell his shares independently because each of the other shareholders has a first right of refusal at par value.
So how wealthy is he actually?
My guess is that your brother does not rely solely on that £1,500 annual income.
No, of course not. He receives a decent six figure salary from the company (but works there full time). He pays income tax on it, like everyone else on PAYE.
But the market value of his shares would be meaningfully in excess of his salary.
It’s not easy to define wealth. The easy answer is to say he is wealthy based on his ownership stake in the company. But he can’t sell the shares and he doesn’t derive much income from them. So is he really wealthy?
That's a great example.
Who would decide the value of the shares, and how often?
How much would this whole process cost, both as an amount and as a proportion of the taxes raised?
What would be the unintended consequences on certain types of business, and what unfavourable (for the taxman) behavioural changes would result?
The other problem with a wealth tax apart from this sort of issue and dissuading people from saving is once again it would hit the poorest quite badly as most landlords would pass it on in the form of rent increases
Landlords can only pass it on if the market will bear the price increase
The market always can because people have to live somewhere and there are more trying to rent than places to rent. It will merely mean they skip a few more meals to pay the landlords wealth tax.
But will they take the opportunity to revolutionize how parliament works, bring it into the 21st century, break down the archaic and meaningless traditions and realize Westminster s not fit for purpose? I doubt it, too many of them benefit from how it is now. Shame the uk could become a modern democracy with its parliament fit for purpose.
The country is fighting a destructive and vile virus with people dying and many suffering and you think now is the time for a revolution in how parliament organises itself
Have to say I agree with Nichomar, time to clean out the byre and get parliament out of the 18th century, it is not fit for purpose. It will be a herculean job to get them to give up the privileges and power and gold trimmings but long overdue that it was done. Unfortunately it suits both Tories and Labour just fine so highly unlikely.
Not just the privilege and gold trimmings, Malc. The whole site wants bulldozing into the Thames. At a pinch, I'd let them flog it off to JK Rowling to turn into Harry Potter World. Get rid of it and start again somewhere else, purpose built.
Brilliant plan - junk centuries of history, political culture, and world-renowned architecture in the name of a Year Zero blank slate of glass, steel, and concrete. I'm afraid the revolution was postponed indefinitely last December, comrade
It's what is needed. Get it into the 21st century. Bin the bars, the restaurants, the wigs, the whole fecking lot. Start again in the Midlands or up north. It' s not a revolution, it's evolution.
Exactly , it is just a big heavily subsidised club where these pigs swill back food and drink at cheap rates a few days a week , whilst pocketing big salaries, huge expenses and gold plated pensions.
I've seen the Scottish Parliament. I remember that I kept looking for a while after I had found it, because I couldn't believe that in a city of such incredible, historic architecture, crafted by some of the all-time masters of the art, they had chosen to house their Parliament in a hideous sports centre...
That is Labour for you , no class. Done out of spite and Scottish architects ignored out of pure dogma. They have a lot to answer for and have truly had their just desserts, one diddy MP left and he is a true Tory.
The problem is not the buildings - its the politicians.
I mentioned before the plan to merge two of our local primary schools. As part of the plan a Victorian school would be knocked down and a glass box built on the site to house the combined school. The pupil/square foot ratio would have been extremely high...
The design was actually insane - children sat facing glass wall windows. So that they would be looking straight at the sun, past the teacher. No air conditioning, no properly design natural ventilation either.
The cost per square foot was higher than a relative of mine charges to dig luxury basements under existing houses - one of the most expensive types of construction. In fact he commented that at the tender price, he could dig the whole site out and throw in an underground olympic sized swimming pool and sports hall...
Strangely, there was conservable relief when the plans fell through
It amazed me how thick so many twitter commentators are. London for a start is one of the biggest international hubs in the world. Ireland is a relative backwater with a very high rural population. ICU beds are not proving a significant issue in either country so that stat is redundant.
I apologise for once again sounding like a broken record but this piece seems to me to be an excellent analysis of the issues if CV hadn't happened. But it has. Wittering on about Brexit or the EU is several steps down the road of oblivion. We simply have far more important things to worry about.
So we are about the enter the most severe recession since the early 1930s, possibly worse, certainly sharper. Several million are going to lose their jobs. Major parts of the economy are going to collapse. The way we are going to work is going to change. There is going to be an urgency to re-establishing manufacturing in this country, to reducing our dependence on imports for essentials such as medicines. We are going to have to find a way to balance the need to protect the vulnerable from this virus and earning a living. Frankly any party who is not totally focused on these issues is a waste of time.
Clive Dunn (who was well to the left of you) commented that he quite consciously played Jones as a very coarse, brutal and stupid character, because he saw that as typical of a British Army NCO of that era.
You are a very knowledgeable individual, I have to say. I had no idea of any of that.
Foxy made a good point this morning, that there will sadly be a lot of cash prematurely going to the younger generation. Perhaps IHT needs looking at fast? I`ve never understood people`s aversion to this tax (second most unpopular after council tax). IHT is my favourite tax. I`d much rather pay tax when I`m dead than when I`m alive.
I'm also an IHT fan, but I have no heirs so I could reasonably be accused of having no skin in that particular game!
Resistance to IHT is the ultimate validation of Thatcher's infamous "no such thing as society" comment, rooted as it is in biology. People (or a very great proportion of people, at any rate) resent the state - i.e. unrelated strangers - getting their hands on their resources when they kick the bucket. They want their own offspring to have it all.
It’s double taxation though.
The government taxes my income. It taxes my spending. Why should it get to take a further chunk just because I die?
Why shouldn`t it? Most tax is on money already taxed.
Because I am being taxed for saving. You should be encouraging saving.
You’d rather discourage earning ?
No. But personally I would tax houses more. Let’s keep it simple. Move all the Corona spending into a single bucket. No idea how much it is, but say £500bn. Have that owned by the Bank of England - and charging interest at, say, 2%.
Tax 1% annually on the value of the houses. Explicitly branded as Corona tax. After about 12 years the debt will have been repaid.
Current spending should be funded from current taxation. It may be that governments will want to increase current spending but that is something there should be a political debate about, not something that should be muddled with an exceptional one time cost
That's a huge, huge increase in tax for people who are probably not cash rich. I'd make it 3% and charge it to non-primary residential property and make it 7% for property owned by people not resident for tax.
A blanket property tax would end badly for a lot of people and it would be a huge drag on the economy as money is taken out of the economy from people who spend it rather than from people who don't spend it.
Foxy made a good point this morning, that there will sadly be a lot of cash prematurely going to the younger generation. Perhaps IHT needs looking at fast? I`ve never understood people`s aversion to this tax (second most unpopular after council tax). IHT is my favourite tax. I`d much rather pay tax when I`m dead than when I`m alive.
I'm also an IHT fan, but I have no heirs so I could reasonably be accused of having no skin in that particular game!
Resistance to IHT is the ultimate validation of Thatcher's infamous "no such thing as society" comment, rooted as it is in biology. People (or a very great proportion of people, at any rate) resent the state - i.e. unrelated strangers - getting their hands on their resources when they kick the bucket. They want their own offspring to have it all.
It’s double taxation though.
The government taxes my income. It taxes my spending. Why should it get to take a further chunk just because I die?
And if you pay your income taxed income to your gardener as wages, he pays income tax on it. Harsh but that's how it works. Double taxation is only an objection when money is taxed twice *for what is effectively the same transaction,* like charging corporation tax on profits and then taxing dividends as income.
If I save £100 and then ownership of that £100 transfers to my daughter there is no “transaction”.
Tax works best on the basis of governments receiving a share of the increase in value from someone’s efforts. Otherwise there is no incentive to build capital and wealth.
What about those who have gained wealth without doing anything other than being born into the right family?
They will be taxed on the income that wealth generates.
My brother is an unusual case. He purchased a 25% stake in a private company at par value (about £30,000). He derives a £1,500 annual income from those share.
If the company was ever to be sold then the market value would be meaningful in excess of the purchase price. But he can’t sell his shares independently because each of the other shareholders has a first right of refusal at par value.
So how wealthy is he actually?
My guess is that your brother does not rely solely on that £1,500 annual income.
No, of course not. He receives a decent six figure salary from the company (but works there full time). He pays income tax on it, like everyone else on PAYE.
But the market value of his shares would be meaningfully in excess of his salary.
It’s not easy to define wealth. The easy answer is to say he is wealthy based on his ownership stake in the company. But he can’t sell the shares and he doesn’t derive much income from them. So is he really wealthy?
Yes, he is. The six figure salary tells us that. And at some stage the value of his shares will be realised and he will inherit, too. I would say he is almost certainly a member of the 1%.
“Wealthy” is an unhelpful term because it’s non specific. He’s certainly well paid and comfortably off.
It is unlikely that the value of his shares will be realised as I suspect that in about 27 years he will sell them to my daughter for £30,000.
But ignore his salary and dividend income, which pegs him as being as well off as (and taxed like) any successful member of the upper middle classes in London.
If you look at the market value of his shares he would be in the top 300-400 wealthiest people in the country. But he doesn’t get an income from them. If he could sell them then he would be very wealthy. But he can’t. He takes the view that it’s more like being a custodian of the business than an owner.
But will they take the opportunity to revolutionize how parliament works, bring it into the 21st century, break down the archaic and meaningless traditions and realize Westminster s not fit for purpose? I doubt it, too many of them benefit from how it is now. Shame the uk could become a modern democracy with its parliament fit for purpose.
The country is fighting a destructive and vile virus with people dying and many suffering and you think now is the time for a revolution in how parliament organises itself
Have to say I agree with Nichomar, time to clean out the byre and get parliament out of the 18th century, it is not fit for purpose. It will be a herculean job to get them to give up the privileges and power and gold trimmings but long overdue that it was done. Unfortunately it suits both Tories and Labour just fine so highly unlikely.
Not just the privilege and gold trimmings, Malc. The whole site wants bulldozing into the Thames. At a pinch, I'd let them flog it off to JK Rowling to turn into Harry Potter World. Get rid of it and start again somewhere else, purpose built.
Brilliant plan - junk centuries of history, political culture, and world-renowned architecture in the name of a Year Zero blank slate of glass, steel, and concrete. I'm afraid the revolution was postponed indefinitely last December, comrade
It's what is needed. Get it into the 21st century. Bin the bars, the restaurants, the wigs, the whole fecking lot. Start again in the Midlands or up north. It' s not a revolution, it's evolution.
Exactly , it is just a big heavily subsidised club where these pigs swill back food and drink at cheap rates a few days a week , whilst pocketing big salaries, huge expenses and gold plated pensions.
I've seen the Scottish Parliament. I remember that I kept looking for a while after I had found it, because I couldn't believe that in a city of such incredible, historic architecture, crafted by some of the all-time masters of the art, they had chosen to house their Parliament in a hideous sports centre...
That is Labour for you , no class. Done out of spite and Scottish architects ignored out of pure dogma. They have a lot to answer for and have truly had their just desserts, one diddy MP left and he is a true Tory.
The thing about being in the EU, which we were at the time and your party intends Scotland to be again, is that no level of government can prioritise its own nation or region’s providers in public procurement over those from elsewhere in the EU. Perhaps the tenders put forward by Scottish architects just were not as good as the one that got picked?
Foxy made a good point this morning, that there will sadly be a lot of cash prematurely going to the younger generation. Perhaps IHT needs looking at fast? I`ve never understood people`s aversion to this tax (second most unpopular after council tax). IHT is my favourite tax. I`d much rather pay tax when I`m dead than when I`m alive.
I'm also an IHT fan, but I have no heirs so I could reasonably be accused of having no skin in that particular game!
Resistance to IHT is the ultimate validation of Thatcher's infamous "no such thing as society" comment, rooted as it is in biology. People (or a very great proportion of people, at any rate) resent the state - i.e. unrelated strangers - getting their hands on their resources when they kick the bucket. They want their own offspring to have it all.
It’s double taxation though.
The government taxes my income. It taxes my spending. Why should it get to take a further chunk just because I die?
And if you pay your income taxed income to your gardener as wages, he pays income tax on it. Harsh but that's how it works. Double taxation is only an objection when money is taxed twice *for what is effectively the same transaction,* like charging corporation tax on profits and then taxing dividends as income.
If I save £100 and then ownership of that £100 transfers to my daughter there is no “transaction”.
Tax works best on the basis of governments receiving a share of the increase in value from someone’s efforts. Otherwise there is no incentive to build capital and wealth.
What about those who have gained wealth without doing anything other than being born into the right family?
They will be taxed on the income that wealth generates.
My brother is an unusual case. He purchased a 25% stake in a private company at par value (about £30,000). He derives a £1,500 annual income from those share.
If the company was ever to be sold then the market value would be meaningful in excess of the purchase price. But he can’t sell his shares independently because each of the other shareholders has a first right of refusal at par value.
So how wealthy is he actually?
My guess is that your brother does not rely solely on that £1,500 annual income.
No, of course not. He receives a decent six figure salary from the company (but works there full time). He pays income tax on it, like everyone else on PAYE.
But the market value of his shares would be meaningfully in excess of his salary.
It’s not easy to define wealth. The easy answer is to say he is wealthy based on his ownership stake in the company. But he can’t sell the shares and he doesn’t derive much income from them. So is he really wealthy?
That's a great example.
Who would decide the value of the shares, and how often?
How much would this whole process cost, both as an amount and as a proportion of the taxes raised?
What would be the unintended consequences on certain types of business, and what unfavourable (for the taxman) behavioural changes would result?
Also, if myself and the bank own a property on a 20/80 split, who pays the tax on it?
For every problem there is a solution.
Wealthy people just need to accept that they are going to be paying more tax. The broadest shoulders will be bearing the heaviest load as we build our brave, new, post-crisis world.
If only, many will be even now plotting to conserve their wealth at any cost to others.
Serious question - for an unprecedented catastrophe affecting the entire world, why can't we all come to an agreed figure for what losses each country has incurred at the end of the crisis, then have all the finance ministers and central bankers sit down at their computers, press the 'Print Money' button to deposit said agreed sum back into their public treasuries, and then carry on as if it never happened? Every country would benefit, and only a limited relative advantage would be gained, so why not?
There is an argument that inflation is extremely low - so that a bit of inflation might actually be good. The downside is mainly that once politicians have been allowed to print money once, they never stop.
I've missed most of the debate this morning which is a pity as a topic close to me. I agree with the premise that the LibDems are going to struggle - their biggest error is leaving a pair of acting leaders one of whom no-one outside the party have heard of, and the other is the guy rejected by the party membership less than a year ago. To cancel the planned leadership election until 2021 is absurd.
I wish them well...
Are you back on board, Comrade?
I thought the replacement of the rainbow bird with SKS might have been a clue...
Not what I envisaged even a month ago. But times change, and I'm always open to putting my hand up and saying "I got this wrong"
But will they take the opportunity to revolutionize how parliament works, bring it into the 21st century, break down the archaic and meaningless traditions and realize Westminster s not fit for purpose? I doubt it, too many of them benefit from how it is now. Shame the uk could become a modern democracy with its parliament fit for purpose.
The country is fighting a destructive and vile virus with people dying and many suffering and you think now is the time for a revolution in how parliament organises itself
We are going to have to make a big change immediately because of the virus.
Big change has come already - the difficult bit is getting the economy working again.
Keeping everyone at home more than another month is madness.
The government didn`t expect lockdown to be so well-observed. And it didn`t expect so many people to cease work. It`s instruction was to carry on working, at home wherever possible. This has led to a higher bail-out cost to the treasury than was expected.
It also brings forward another knotty problem which is on the horizon: what happens when lockdown is eased and some people say they don`t want to return to work? These people - sadly - will want and expect further bail-out money and will try to guilt-trip the government into paying it, no doubt with the support of some of the media. This argument will be strengthened the longer lockdown continues.
Furthermore, the government will be savvy of the geopolitical risks around other countries coming out of lockdown earlier than us and gaining a competitive advantage.
Given all of this, the government will want lockdown eased - probably gradually in some way - as soon as possible. They have already commenced research about the harm created by lockdown, financial and psychological, and will use this as "cover" to justify the easing.
Some excellent points here. I suspect Sunak is starting to cotton on to this. The numbers are gargantuan,
Sunak has tried to graft a command economy onto a country he cannot actually command. A free democratic country. The results are, well, disastrous does not describe it.
Its a policy failure of such epic proportions there are barely words to frame it I sense he is starting to realise this as the figures start to come in.
A scary prospect. I cannot even fathom the options available, what might have been a better policy decision? Or was there no way to mitigate effectively?
The only option available is to restart the economy as soon as possible. Like yesterday.
Every other option turns us into Argentina. For good.
Healthcare is very busy - but not overwhelmed.
The lockdown won’t stop Covid - we may as well have a limited return to normal .
The implication that both yourself and Contrarian are making is a spike in fatalities is worth it to save the economy. You are thus tacitly making the bold assumption that you will both survive an immediate curtailment of lockdown to get the economy back on track.
A thriving economy is no good to any of us who find themselves six feet under through a casual response to Covid-19.
We have a spike in fatalities.
You call 10,000 deaths a spike? Think half a million.
Nobody is thinking half a million. Not even the bloke who said it would be half a million
What percentage of people do you think would catch the virus in an uncontrolled epidemic and what do you think the fatality rate would be? Even at 60% and 0.5% you're looking at over 200,000 deaths.
The reason the government abandoned its original herd immuntiy policy was because of predictions of half a million fatalities. That certainly implies half a million as a disticnct possibility if things went badly.
If people behaved normally, the projected percentage infected was 80%. To get herd immunity the "target" was 60%. With adequate medical care, 0.5% seems like a reasonable estimate of the infection fatality rate. Given that most people who die in hospital even now aren't receiving intensive care, you can imagine what a tiny percentage would receive it in the lunatic scenario of two thirds of the population getting the virus over a two month period. I don't know how big a factor that would increase the fatality rate by. Nobody does yet.
And after all that, it's very doubtful whether any acquired immunity would last longer than a couple of years, so these waves could well become a regular event. A bit like seasonal flu, but with a disease much more lethal and much more transmissible than seasonal flu.
A vaccine is the only solution. Sacrificing half a million lives for some unknown but probably temporary degree of immunity would be crazy.
LOL, before I even tread it I know it will be wheeling out the swivel eyed union jack nutjobs as normal. SNPbad and no indyref2 , The Scottish Tory sockpuppet regional office manifesto.
What does any of that have to do with the Scottish government not offering as much financial support to businesses as the English government?
You moron , what do you know regarding what the Scottish Government policy is or is not. They have given out all the consequentials , ie the same as England in financial support. They have chosen to match it to the Scottish economy rather than copy the completely different English economy and you have a few sad sack greedy unionists who think they should get more than others , rounded up by the inept Tory leader to whinge about it. This causes moronic unionists like yourself to slavishly whine and moan without having a clue what you are a talking about. Stick to posting about cars spinning round a bit of tarmac it suits your brain power a lot better.
Foxy made a good point this morning, that there will sadly be a lot of cash prematurely going to the younger generation. Perhaps IHT needs looking at fast? I`ve never understood people`s aversion to this tax (second most unpopular after council tax). IHT is my favourite tax. I`d much rather pay tax when I`m dead than when I`m alive.
I'm also an IHT fan, but I have no heirs so I could reasonably be accused of having no skin in that particular game!
Resistance to IHT is the ultimate validation of Thatcher's infamous "no such thing as society" comment, rooted as it is in biology. People (or a very great proportion of people, at any rate) resent the state - i.e. unrelated strangers - getting their hands on their resources when they kick the bucket. They want their own offspring to have it all.
It’s double taxation though.
The government taxes my income. It taxes my spending. Why should it get to take a further chunk just because I die?
And if you pay your income taxed income to your gardener as wages, he pays income tax on it. Harsh but that's how it works. Double taxation is only an objection when money is taxed twice *for what is effectively the same transaction,* like charging corporation tax on profits and then taxing dividends as income.
If I save £100 and then ownership of that £100 transfers to my daughter there is no “transaction”.
Tax works best on the basis of governments receiving a share of the increase in value from someone’s efforts. Otherwise there is no incentive to build capital and wealth.
What about those who have gained wealth without doing anything other than being born into the right family?
They will be taxed on the income that wealth generates.
My brother is an unusual case. He purchased a 25% stake in a private company at par value (about £30,000). He derives a £1,500 annual income from those share.
If the company was ever to be sold then the market value would be meaningful in excess of the purchase price. But he can’t sell his shares independently because each of the other shareholders has a first right of refusal at par value.
So how wealthy is he actually?
My guess is that your brother does not rely solely on that £1,500 annual income.
No, of course not. He receives a decent six figure salary from the company (but works there full time). He pays income tax on it, like everyone else on PAYE.
But the market value of his shares would be meaningfully in excess of his salary.
It’s not easy to define wealth. The easy answer is to say he is wealthy based on his ownership stake in the company. But he can’t sell the shares and he doesn’t derive much income from them. So is he really wealthy?
That's a great example.
Who would decide the value of the shares, and how often?
How much would this whole process cost, both as an amount and as a proportion of the taxes raised?
What would be the unintended consequences on certain types of business, and what unfavourable (for the taxman) behavioural changes would result?
Also, if myself and the bank own a property on a 20/80 split, who pays the tax on it?
For every problem there is a solution.
Wealthy people just need to accept that they are going to be paying more tax. The broadest shoulders will be bearing the heaviest load as we build our brave, new, post-crisis world.
If only, many will be even now plotting to conserve their wealth at any cost to others.
My guess is that it will become a lot harder to do.
I apologise for once again sounding like a broken record but this piece seems to me to be an excellent analysis of the issues if CV hadn't happened. But it has. Wittering on about Brexit or the EU is several steps down the road of oblivion. We simply have far more important things to worry about.
So we are about the enter the most severe recession since the early 1930s, possibly worse, certainly sharper. Several million are going to lose their jobs. Major parts of the economy are going to collapse. The way we are going to work is going to change. There is going to be an urgency to re-establishing manufacturing in this country, to reducing our dependence on imports for essentials such as medicines. We are going to have to find a way to balance the need to protect the vulnerable from this virus and earning a living. Frankly any party who is not totally focused on these issues is a waste of time.
What worries me is that I'm not sure that our government and Sir Humphreys will accept that things have to change.
Foxy made a good point this morning, that there will sadly be a lot of cash prematurely going to the younger generation. Perhaps IHT needs looking at fast? I`ve never understood people`s aversion to this tax (second most unpopular after council tax). IHT is my favourite tax. I`d much rather pay tax when I`m dead than when I`m alive.
I'm also an IHT fan, but I have no heirs so I could reasonably be accused of having no skin in that particular game!
Resistance to IHT is the ultimate validation of Thatcher's infamous "no such thing as society" comment, rooted as it is in biology. People (or a very great proportion of people, at any rate) resent the state - i.e. unrelated strangers - getting their hands on their resources when they kick the bucket. They want their own offspring to have it all.
It’s double taxation though.
The government taxes my income. It taxes my spending. Why should it get to take a further chunk just because I die?
Why shouldn`t it? Most tax is on money already taxed.
Because I am being taxed for saving. You should be encouraging saving.
You’d rather discourage earning ?
No. But personally I would tax houses more. Let’s keep it simple. Move all the Corona spending into a single bucket. No idea how much it is, but say £500bn. Have that owned by the Bank of England - and charging interest at, say, 2%.
Tax 1% annually on the value of the houses. Explicitly branded as Corona tax. After about 12 years the debt will have been repaid.
Current spending should be funded from current taxation. It may be that governments will want to increase current spending but that is something there should be a political debate about, not something that should be muddled with an exceptional one time cost
That's a huge, huge increase in tax for people who are probably not cash rich. I'd make it 3% and charge it to non-primary residential property and make it 7% for property owned by people not resident for tax.
A blanket property tax would end badly for a lot of people and it would be a huge drag on the economy as money is taken out of the economy from people who spend it rather than from people who don't spend it.
Taxing non-primary houses would need an exception for MPs who have trouble remembering which is supposed to be their main home.
Foxy made a good point this morning, that there will sadly be a lot of cash prematurely going to the younger generation. Perhaps IHT needs looking at fast? I`ve never understood people`s aversion to this tax (second most unpopular after council tax). IHT is my favourite tax. I`d much rather pay tax when I`m dead than when I`m alive.
I'm also an IHT fan, but I have no heirs so I could reasonably be accused of having no skin in that particular game!
Resistance to IHT is the ultimate validation of Thatcher's infamous "no such thing as society" comment, rooted as it is in biology. People (or a very great proportion of people, at any rate) resent the state - i.e. unrelated strangers - getting their hands on their resources when they kick the bucket. They want their own offspring to have it all.
It’s double taxation though.
The government taxes my income. It taxes my spending. Why should it get to take a further chunk just because I die?
And if you pay your income taxed income to your gardener as wages, he pays income tax on it. Harsh but that's how it works. Double taxation is only an objection when money is taxed twice *for what is effectively the same transaction,* like charging corporation tax on profits and then taxing dividends as income.
If I save £100 and then ownership of that £100 transfers to my daughter there is no “transaction”.
Tax works best on the basis of governments receiving a share of the increase in value from someone’s efforts. Otherwise there is no incentive to build capital and wealth.
What about those who have gained wealth without doing anything other than being born into the right family?
They will be taxed on the income that wealth generates.
My brother is an unusual case. He purchased a 25% stake in a private company at par value (about £30,000). He derives a £1,500 annual income from those share.
If the company was ever to be sold then the market value would be meaningful in excess of the purchase price. But he can’t sell his shares independently because each of the other shareholders has a first right of refusal at par value.
So how wealthy is he actually?
My guess is that your brother does not rely solely on that £1,500 annual income.
No, of course not. He receives a decent six figure salary from the company (but works there full time). He pays income tax on it, like everyone else on PAYE.
But the market value of his shares would be meaningfully in excess of his salary.
It’s not easy to define wealth. The easy answer is to say he is wealthy based on his ownership stake in the company. But he can’t sell the shares and he doesn’t derive much income from them. So is he really wealthy?
Yes, he is. The six figure salary tells us that. And at some stage the value of his shares will be realised and he will inherit, too. I would say he is almost certainly a member of the 1%.
“Wealthy” is an unhelpful term because it’s non specific. He’s certainly well paid and comfortably off.
It is unlikely that the value of his shares will be realised as I suspect that in about 27 years he will sell them to my daughter for £30,000.
But ignore his salary and dividend income, which pegs him as being as well off as (and taxed like) any successful member of the upper middle classes in London.
If you look at the market value of his shares he would be in the top 300-400 wealthiest people in the country. But he doesn’t get an income from them. If he could sell them then he would be very wealthy. But he can’t. He takes the view that it’s more like being a custodian of the business than an owner.
Good on him. But you asked me whether he is wealthy and I explained why I believe he is. If you ask me whether I think he is typical, I would say that I do not believe he is.
I apologise for once again sounding like a broken record but this piece seems to me to be an excellent analysis of the issues if CV hadn't happened. But it has. Wittering on about Brexit or the EU is several steps down the road of oblivion. We simply have far more important things to worry about.
So we are about the enter the most severe recession since the early 1930s, possibly worse, certainly sharper. Several million are going to lose their jobs. Major parts of the economy are going to collapse. The way we are going to work is going to change. There is going to be an urgency to re-establishing manufacturing in this country, to reducing our dependence on imports for essentials such as medicines. We are going to have to find a way to balance the need to protect the vulnerable from this virus and earning a living. Frankly any party who is not totally focused on these issues is a waste of time.
David, you want to phone your buddy carcrash Jackson and tell him that the Scottish Government have said independence is off the menu for the forseeable, the clown is still using it as the only Tory policy. You describe the Scottish Tories perfectly.
A life lived long and well. And wholly without DRS.
On the contrary. In 1958 he appealed against a disqualification for reversing on the track, and got the decision overturned and second place reinstated.
The punchline is that it wasn’t his disqualification he was cross about, it was Mike Hawthorn’s.
Hawthorn beat him to the World Championship by one point as a result.
And Moss didn’t care.
What a legend.
Even more generous was Peter Collins, letting Fangio have his car to win the '56 championship part way through the title-deciding race.
If anyone is interested in this era, I believe the Good Lady's documentary "Ferrari: Race to Immortality" is currently on Amazon Prime.
It amazed me how thick so many twitter commentators are. London for a start is one of the biggest international hubs in the world. Ireland is a relative backwater with a very high rural population. ICU beds are not proving a significant issue in either country so that stat is redundant.
Long way to go yet , but still worth a look at , and typical unionist ignoring the fact that UK has crap governance. Pity the Irish have better standard of living than the great UK.
LibDem success will largely depend on perceptions of Labour and its leader. If possible KibDem to Tory switchers are terrified of Labour winning they’ll stick with the Tories. If they’re not, there’s a decent chance they won’t.
I’d say the perception of the Lib Dem leader matters quite a lot too. Blair meant they could vote for Ashdown or Kennedy, Brown and Miliband meant they could vote for Clegg.
Sir Keir leaves the door open for Tories to vote for... Layla Moran?
Foxy made a good point this morning, that there will sadly be a lot of cash prematurely going to the younger generation. Perhaps IHT needs looking at fast? I`ve never understood people`s aversion to this tax (second most unpopular after council tax). IHT is my favourite tax. I`d much rather pay tax when I`m dead than when I`m alive.
I'm also an IHT fan, but I have no heirs so I could reasonably be accused of having no skin in that particular game!
Resistance to IHT is the ultimate validation of Thatcher's infamous "no such thing as society" comment, rooted as it is in biology. People (or a very great proportion of people, at any rate) resent the state - i.e. unrelated strangers - getting their hands on their resources when they kick the bucket. They want their own offspring to have it all.
It’s double taxation though.
The government taxes my income. It taxes my spending. Why should it get to take a further chunk just because I die?
And if you pay your income taxed income to your gardener as wages, he pays income tax on it. Harsh but that's how it works. Double taxation is only an objection when money is taxed twice *for what is effectively the same transaction,* like charging corporation tax on profits and then taxing dividends as income.
If I save £100 and then ownership of that £100 transfers to my daughter there is no “transaction”.
Tax works best on the basis of governments receiving a share of the increase in value from someone’s efforts. Otherwise there is no incentive to build capital and wealth.
What about those who have gained wealth without doing anything other than being born into the right family?
They will be taxed on the income that wealth generates.
My brother is an unusual case. He purchased a 25% stake in a private company at par value (about £30,000). He derives a £1,500 annual income from those share.
If the company was ever to be sold then the market value would be meaningful in excess of the purchase price. But he can’t sell his shares independently because each of the other shareholders has a first right of refusal at par value.
So how wealthy is he actually?
My guess is that your brother does not rely solely on that £1,500 annual income.
No, of course not. He receives a decent six figure salary from the company (but works there full time). He pays income tax on it, like everyone else on PAYE.
But the market value of his shares would be meaningfully in excess of his salary.
It’s not easy to define wealth. The easy answer is to say he is wealthy based on his ownership stake in the company. But he can’t sell the shares and he doesn’t derive much income from them. So is he really wealthy?
Yes, he is. The six figure salary tells us that. And at some stage the value of his shares will be realised and he will inherit, too. I would say he is almost certainly a member of the 1%.
“Wealthy” is an unhelpful term because it’s non specific. He’s certainly well paid and comfortably off.
It is unlikely that the value of his shares will be realised as I suspect that in about 27 years he will sell them to my daughter for £30,000.
But ignore his salary and dividend income, which pegs him as being as well off as (and taxed like) any successful member of the upper middle classes in London.
If you look at the market value of his shares he would be in the top 300-400 wealthiest people in the country. But he doesn’t get an income from them. If he could sell them then he would be very wealthy. But he can’t. He takes the view that it’s more like being a custodian of the business than an owner.
Perhaps the business should be nationalised at par value and put into the corona fund.
Foxy made a good point this morning, that there will sadly be a lot of cash prematurely going to the younger generation. Perhaps IHT needs looking at fast? I`ve never understood people`s aversion to this tax (second most unpopular after council tax). IHT is my favourite tax. I`d much rather pay tax when I`m dead than when I`m alive.
I'm also an IHT fan, but I have no heirs so I could reasonably be accused of having no skin in that particular game!
Resistance to IHT is the ultimate validation of Thatcher's infamous "no such thing as society" comment, rooted as it is in biology. People (or a very great proportion of people, at any rate) resent the state - i.e. unrelated strangers - getting their hands on their resources when they kick the bucket. They want their own offspring to have it all.
It’s double taxation though.
The government taxes my income. It taxes my spending. Why should it get to take a further chunk just because I die?
And if you pay your income taxed income to your gardener as wages, he pays income tax on it. Harsh but that's how it works. Double taxation is only an objection when money is taxed twice *for what is effectively the same transaction,* like charging corporation tax on profits and then taxing dividends as income.
If I save £100 and then ownership of that £100 transfers to my daughter there is no “transaction”.
Tax works best on the basis of governments receiving a share of the increase in value from someone’s efforts. Otherwise there is no incentive to build capital and wealth.
What about those who have gained wealth without doing anything other than being born into the right family?
They will be taxed on the income that wealth generates.
My brother is an unusual case. He purchased a 25% stake in a private company at par value (about £30,000). He derives a £1,500 annual income from those share.
If the company was ever to be sold then the market value would be meaningful in excess of the purchase price. But he can’t sell his shares independently because each of the other shareholders has a first right of refusal at par value.
So how wealthy is he actually?
My guess is that your brother does not rely solely on that £1,500 annual income.
No, of course not. He receives a decent six figure salary from the company (but works there full time). He pays income tax on it, like everyone else on PAYE.
But the market value of his shares would be meaningfully in excess of his salary.
It’s not easy to define wealth. The easy answer is to say he is wealthy based on his ownership stake in the company. But he can’t sell the shares and he doesn’t derive much income from them. So is he really wealthy?
That's a great example.
Who would decide the value of the shares, and how often?
How much would this whole process cost, both as an amount and as a proportion of the taxes raised?
What would be the unintended consequences on certain types of business, and what unfavourable (for the taxman) behavioural changes would result?
Also, if myself and the bank own a property on a 20/80 split, who pays the tax on it?
For every problem there is a solution.
Wealthy people just need to accept that they are going to be paying more tax. The broadest shoulders will be bearing the heaviest load as we build our brave, new, post-crisis world.
Fat chance and exceedingly naive view, just more tax evasion and money laundering. The multitude who cannot escape will pay it as usual.
Foxy made a good point this morning, that there will sadly be a lot of cash prematurely going to the younger generation. Perhaps IHT needs looking at fast? I`ve never understood people`s aversion to this tax (second most unpopular after council tax). IHT is my favourite tax. I`d much rather pay tax when I`m dead than when I`m alive.
I'm also an IHT fan, but I have no heirs so I could reasonably be accused of having no skin in that particular game!
Resistance to IHT is the ultimate validation of Thatcher's infamous "no such thing as society" comment, rooted as it is in biology. People (or a very great proportion of people, at any rate) resent the state - i.e. unrelated strangers - getting their hands on their resources when they kick the bucket. They want their own offspring to have it all.
It’s double taxation though.
The government taxes my income. It taxes my spending. Why should it get to take a further chunk just because I die?
Why shouldn`t it? Most tax is on money already taxed.
Because I am being taxed for saving. You should be encouraging saving.
You’d rather discourage earning ?
No. But personally I would tax houses more. Let’s keep it simple. Move all the Corona spending into a single bucket. No idea how much it is, but say £500bn. Have that owned by the Bank of England - and charging interest at, say, 2%.
Tax 1% annually on the value of the houses. Explicitly branded as Corona tax. After about 12 years the debt will have been repaid.
Current spending should be funded from current taxation. It may be that governments will want to increase current spending but that is something there should be a political debate about, not something that should be muddled with an exceptional one time cost
That's a huge, huge increase in tax for people who are probably not cash rich. I'd make it 3% and charge it to non-primary residential property and make it 7% for property owned by people not resident for tax.
A blanket property tax would end badly for a lot of people and it would be a huge drag on the economy as money is taken out of the economy from people who spend it rather than from people who don't spend it.
Would raise a fraction of the amount though.
ATED raised £143m in 17/18 (year of easy google). And that’s at 25%. I don’t know how much non primary residential property there is. But residential property as a whole is £5trn. So you need to find £50bn pa
Bluntly speaking people who own a property are relatively wealthy. If someone who owns a £500k property in London has to pay £5k per year then so be it. It’s simple to administer, hard to avoid, and raises a lot of money. (Feel free to charge more on non-primary residences though)
I've missed most of the debate this morning which is a pity as a topic close to me. I agree with the premise that the LibDems are going to struggle - their biggest error is leaving a pair of acting leaders one of whom no-one outside the party have heard of, and the other is the guy rejected by the party membership less than a year ago. To cancel the planned leadership election until 2021 is absurd.
I wish them well...
Are you back on board, Comrade?
I thought the replacement of the rainbow bird with SKS might have been a clue...
Not what I envisaged even a month ago. But times change, and I'm always open to putting my hand up and saying "I got this wrong"
Maybe you got it wrong a second time.
I wonder if Chuka has regrets? Remember him?
Others can make their own minds up. Was I wrong to disown Corbyn and all he stood for? No. Was joining the LibDems when I did wrong? Possibly. Either way, I realised about a month back that the LibDems probably wasn't where I was going to stay as I just couldn't get into who they are - or think they are. When you've done one thing for 25 years and suddenly start doing another thing its going to take time. Once I realised my heart wasn't in it I stopped making the effort.
As for returning to Labour, whilst SKS has a lot to do he has at least made a positive start. And once my friends in Labour put the feelers out about my return I started thinking about it actively. Won't be an easy ride, I know I've put a few people out locally and won't be trusted by others. Whatever. I can come back in, roll my sleeves up and get on with pushing the loons out now that their death grip on the party has been broken.
Sir Keir Starmer looks and sounds PM material. Even my father a life long Conservative says it is good to see an impressive leader of the opposition.
I said as much earlier on this morning
Yes you did big g . Just catching up with the thread.
I have been sat in the garden with my wife. I think anyone with a house and garden is very fortunate. It must be hard for families who do not have these amenities.
Foxy made a good point this morning, that there will sadly be a lot of cash prematurely going to the younger generation. Perhaps IHT needs looking at fast? I`ve never understood people`s aversion to this tax (second most unpopular after council tax). IHT is my favourite tax. I`d much rather pay tax when I`m dead than when I`m alive.
I'm also an IHT fan, but I have no heirs so I could reasonably be accused of having no skin in that particular game!
Resistance to IHT is the ultimate validation of Thatcher's infamous "no such thing as society" comment, rooted as it is in biology. People (or a very great proportion of people, at any rate) resent the state - i.e. unrelated strangers - getting their hands on their resources when they kick the bucket. They want their own offspring to have it all.
It’s double taxation though.
The government taxes my income. It taxes my spending. Why should it get to take a further chunk just because I die?
Why shouldn`t it? Most tax is on money already taxed.
Because I am being taxed for saving. You should be encouraging saving.
You’d rather discourage earning ?
No. But personally I would tax houses more. Let’s keep it simple. Move all the Corona spending into a single bucket. No idea how much it is, but say £500bn. Have that owned by the Bank of England - and charging interest at, say, 2%.
Tax 1% annually on the value of the houses. Explicitly branded as Corona tax. After about 12 years the debt will have been repaid.
Current spending should be funded from current taxation. It may be that governments will want to increase current spending but that is something there should be a political debate about, not something that should be muddled with an exceptional one time cost
That's a huge, huge increase in tax for people who are probably not cash rich. I'd make it 3% and charge it to non-primary residential property and make it 7% for property owned by people not resident for tax.
A blanket property tax would end badly for a lot of people and it would be a huge drag on the economy as money is taken out of the economy from people who spend it rather than from people who don't spend it.
Would raise a fraction of the amount though.
ATED raised £143m in 17/18 (year of easy google). And that’s at 25%. I don’t know how much non primary residential property there is. But residential property as a whole is £5trn. So you need to find £50bn pa
Bluntly speaking people who own a property are relatively wealthy. If someone who owns a £500k property in London has to pay £5k per year then so be it. It’s simple to administer, hard to avoid, and raises a lot of money. (Feel free to charge more on non-primary residences though)
There are 4.5m privately owned non-primary residences. It's a potentially huge source of cash and it rebalances the economy away from private renting towards owner occupation. That alone will result in a long term GDP gain as the productive are no longer paying the non-productive 40% of their monthly income.
It amazed me how thick so many twitter commentators are. London for a start is one of the biggest international hubs in the world. Ireland is a relative backwater with a very high rural population. ICU beds are not proving a significant issue in either country so that stat is redundant.
Long way to go yet , but still worth a look at , and typical unionist ignoring the fact that UK has crap governance. Pity the Irish have better standard of living than the great UK.
Given the mess Sturgeon has made in the past 2 weeks there is no need to crow. Perhaps Ireland should compare themselves to New Zealand in that case.
Foxy made a good point this morning, that there will sadly be a lot of cash prematurely going to the younger generation. Perhaps IHT needs looking at fast? I`ve never understood people`s aversion to this tax (second most unpopular after council tax). IHT is my favourite tax. I`d much rather pay tax when I`m dead than when I`m alive.
I'm also an IHT fan, but I have no heirs so I could reasonably be accused of having no skin in that particular game!
Resistance to IHT is the ultimate validation of Thatcher's infamous "no such thing as society" comment, rooted as it is in biology. People (or a very great proportion of people, at any rate) resent the state - i.e. unrelated strangers - getting their hands on their resources when they kick the bucket. They want their own offspring to have it all.
It’s double taxation though.
The government taxes my income. It taxes my spending. Why should it get to take a further chunk just because I die?
Why shouldn`t it? Most tax is on money already taxed.
Because I am being taxed for saving. You should be encouraging saving.
You’d rather discourage earning ?
No. But personally I would tax houses more. Let’s keep it simple. Move all the Corona spending into a single bucket. No idea how much it is, but say £500bn. Have that owned by the Bank of England - and charging interest at, say, 2%.
Tax 1% annually on the value of the houses. Explicitly branded as Corona tax. After about 12 years the debt will have been repaid.
Current spending should be funded from current taxation. It may be that governments will want to increase current spending but that is something there should be a political debate about, not something that should be muddled with an exceptional one time cost
That's a huge, huge increase in tax for people who are probably not cash rich. I'd make it 3% and charge it to non-primary residential property and make it 7% for property owned by people not resident for tax.
A blanket property tax would end badly for a lot of people and it would be a huge drag on the economy as money is taken out of the economy from people who spend it rather than from people who don't spend it.
Would raise a fraction of the amount though.
ATED raised £143m in 17/18 (year of easy google). And that’s at 25%. I don’t know how much non primary residential property there is. But residential property as a whole is £5trn. So you need to find £50bn pa
Bluntly speaking people who own a property are relatively wealthy. If someone who owns a £500k property in London has to pay £5k per year then so be it. It’s simple to administer, hard to avoid, and raises a lot of money. (Feel free to charge more on non-primary residences though)
And if you simply don't have the cash to pay 1% of the property value per annum? Y'know, since an occupied house generates no cash and you still have to pay all the other taxes. What then?
Foxy made a good point this morning, that there will sadly be a lot of cash prematurely going to the younger generation. Perhaps IHT needs looking at fast? I`ve never understood people`s aversion to this tax (second most unpopular after council tax). IHT is my favourite tax. I`d much rather pay tax when I`m dead than when I`m alive.
I'm also an IHT fan, but I have no heirs so I could reasonably be accused of having no skin in that particular game!
Resistance to IHT is the ultimate validation of Thatcher's infamous "no such thing as society" comment, rooted as it is in biology. People (or a very great proportion of people, at any rate) resent the state - i.e. unrelated strangers - getting their hands on their resources when they kick the bucket. They want their own offspring to have it all.
It’s double taxation though.
The government taxes my income. It taxes my spending. Why should it get to take a further chunk just because I die?
And if you pay your income taxed income to your gardener as wages, he pays income tax on it. Harsh but that's how it works. Double taxation is only an objection when money is taxed twice *for what is effectively the same transaction,* like charging corporation tax on profits and then taxing dividends as income.
If I save £100 and then ownership of that £100 transfers to my daughter there is no “transaction”.
Tax works best on the basis of governments receiving a share of the increase in value from someone’s efforts. Otherwise there is no incentive to build capital and wealth.
What about those who have gained wealth without doing anything other than being born into the right family?
They will be taxed on the income that wealth generates.
My brother is an unusual case. He purchased a 25% stake in a private company at par value (about £30,000). He derives a £1,500 annual income from those share.
If the company was ever to be sold then the market value would be meaningful in excess of the purchase price. But he can’t sell his shares independently because each of the other shareholders has a first right of refusal at par value.
So how wealthy is he actually?
My guess is that your brother does not rely solely on that £1,500 annual income.
No, of course not. He receives a decent six figure salary from the company (but works there full time). He pays income tax on it, like everyone else on PAYE.
But the market value of his shares would be meaningfully in excess of his salary.
It’s not easy to define wealth. The easy answer is to say he is wealthy based on his ownership stake in the company. But he can’t sell the shares and he doesn’t derive much income from them. So is he really wealthy?
That's a great example.
Who would decide the value of the shares, and how often?
How much would this whole process cost, both as an amount and as a proportion of the taxes raised?
What would be the unintended consequences on certain types of business, and what unfavourable (for the taxman) behavioural changes would result?
Also, if myself and the bank own a property on a 20/80 split, who pays the tax on it?
For every problem there is a solution.
Wealthy people just need to accept that they are going to be paying more tax. The broadest shoulders will be bearing the heaviest load as we build our brave, new, post-crisis world.
If only, many will be even now plotting to conserve their wealth at any cost to others.
My guess is that it will become a lot harder to do.
Bonanza for bent lawyers and accountants, it will not change as they will make fortunes and be a lot cleverer than the low paid government drones, they will ensure it is not fixed and that they and their chums retain their wealth.
IDS is wrong again. Hydrogen may be good for heavy lorries, but battery is the best option for cars. China makes most batteries because China makes the most electric cars - and should be congratulated for that. However to say they have won the battery race is completely wrong, there is plenty of room for improvement. In any case Tesla is several years ahead of everyone else on electic car batteries. https://energypost.eu/hydrogen-fuel-cell-cars-competitive-hydrogen-fuel-cell-expert/
I apologise for once again sounding like a broken record but this piece seems to me to be an excellent analysis of the issues if CV hadn't happened. But it has. Wittering on about Brexit or the EU is several steps down the road of oblivion. We simply have far more important things to worry about.
So we are about the enter the most severe recession since the early 1930s, possibly worse, certainly sharper. Several million are going to lose their jobs. Major parts of the economy are going to collapse. The way we are going to work is going to change. There is going to be an urgency to re-establishing manufacturing in this country, to reducing our dependence on imports for essentials such as medicines. We are going to have to find a way to balance the need to protect the vulnerable from this virus and earning a living. Frankly any party who is not totally focused on these issues is a waste of time.
What worries me is that I'm not sure that our government and Sir Humphreys will accept that things have to change.
They have no choice. The only issue is what the change will be and how that is managed politically. Everything David says is true. But, equally, the electorate will demand higher spending on a number of services, the NHS and social care in particular. We may also need publicly-backed manufacturing capability for medicines, as well as greater agricultural subsidies, if we do not want to rely so much on imports. And with fewer imports higher prices for many products also look inevitable. Squaring that circle and remaining electable is going to be a huge task.
I apologise for once again sounding like a broken record but this piece seems to me to be an excellent analysis of the issues if CV hadn't happened. But it has. Wittering on about Brexit or the EU is several steps down the road of oblivion. We simply have far more important things to worry about.
So we are about the enter the most severe recession since the early 1930s, possibly worse, certainly sharper. Several million are going to lose their jobs. Major parts of the economy are going to collapse. The way we are going to work is going to change. There is going to be an urgency to re-establishing manufacturing in this country, to reducing our dependence on imports for essentials such as medicines. We are going to have to find a way to balance the need to protect the vulnerable from this virus and earning a living. Frankly any party who is not totally focused on these issues is a waste of time.
David, you want to phone your buddy carcrash Jackson and tell him that the Scottish Government have said independence is off the menu for the forseeable, the clown is still using it as the only Tory policy. You describe the Scottish Tories perfectly.
I've never met him Malc so I doubt I will have the opportunity. But I agree that it is time for the Scottish Tories to start developing a coherent set of policies to help Scotland through these very troubled times. Being part of a much larger economic unit with much greater resources will of course be key to that but it is not enough.
Scotland has so far been much less affected by this virus than England in general and London in particular, roughly half as badly as England as whole and maybe 1/4 of London. Which is great but we are going to be a lot more vulnerable to the second wave. What do we do about it?
Our economy is very service based with a pitiful amount of manufacturing. Services have been particularly badly hit. How do we look to address that? If this virus persists should we make WFH more viable by improving our connectivity? How do we keep our local airports going when flying is much less popular? How do we help those who education has been severely disrupted by this?
Just stating the obvious, that Independence would be suicidal, is not enough.
It amazed me how thick so many twitter commentators are. London for a start is one of the biggest international hubs in the world. Ireland is a relative backwater with a very high rural population. ICU beds are not proving a significant issue in either country so that stat is redundant.
Long way to go yet , but still worth a look at , and typical unionist ignoring the fact that UK has crap governance. Pity the Irish have better standard of living than the great UK.
Given the mess Sturgeon has made in the past 2 weeks there is no need to crow. Perhaps Ireland should compare themselves to New Zealand in that case.
Regale me with this great fantasy mess then you halfwitted moronic clown. Give me a critique compared to your heroes down south, maybe even a score out of 10 on each topic of mess.
Then why on earth do you believe in socialism? It's the ultimate exemplar of that saying.
When I say I'm a Hard Left Social Democrat, people no doubt think I'm trying it on, but this is exactly what I am. I believe in the big interventionist redistributing state and public ownership of utilities, but also in free enterprise and sound money. Which means oodles of taxation. The "hard left" bit comes from class war social measures such as abolishing private schools and the diversity and equality agenda, which I also like very much. But government borrowing (or money printing) to fund current spending? Or to fund grandiose pink elephants? No way.
Serious question - for an unprecedented catastrophe affecting the entire world, why can't we all come to an agreed figure for what losses each country has incurred at the end of the crisis, then have all the finance ministers and central bankers sit down at their computers, press the 'Print Money' button to deposit said agreed sum back into their public treasuries, and then carry on as if it never happened? Every country would benefit, and only a limited relative advantage would be gained, so why not?
Currencies only inflate / deflate relative to other currencies. So if every country in the world replaced their lost output simultaneously in the way I suggest, why would any one country or countries experience hyperinflation?
@Charles it seems that the PM will be hors de combat for several weeks. You said he would recuse himself if he was going to be out for six months.
It might not be six months. All is good in your world with a stand-in PM apparently not making any decisions until further notice right now?
I’m not sure what your point is.
Cabinet is and remains the decision making body for the executive. It may be a little harder for Raab to force through decisions based on his personal authority. Is that a bad thing? If we get factions developing then it’s a problem but I don’t see it being a problem at the moment. Do you?
My point is that the PM is out of commission and we have a sub-optimal decision making body for "the foreseeable future". And of all, really of all the times when we need a decision making body on its game and firing on all cylinders...it is right now.
The media questions of who's in charge are absolutely spot on. Who is in charge? Your answer doesn't make it clear. The cabinet is the decision making body but unlike Boris, Raab can't force his decisions through. Say what?
Foxy made a good point this morning, that there will sadly be a lot of cash prematurely going to the younger generation. Perhaps IHT needs looking at fast? I`ve never understood people`s aversion to this tax (second most unpopular after council tax). IHT is my favourite tax. I`d much rather pay tax when I`m dead than when I`m alive.
I'm also an IHT fan, but I have no heirs so I could reasonably be accused of having no skin in that particular game!
Resistance to IHT is the ultimate validation of Thatcher's infamous "no such thing as society" comment, rooted as it is in biology. People (or a very great proportion of people, at any rate) resent the state - i.e. unrelated strangers - getting their hands on their resources when they kick the bucket. They want their own offspring to have it all.
It’s double taxation though.
The government taxes my income. It taxes my spending. Why should it get to take a further chunk just because I die?
Why shouldn`t it? Most tax is on money already taxed.
Because I am being taxed for saving. You should be encouraging saving.
You’d rather discourage earning ?
No. But personally I would tax houses more. Let’s keep it simple. Move all the Corona spending into a single bucket. No idea how much it is, but say £500bn. Have that owned by the Bank of England - and charging interest at, say, 2%.
Tax 1% annually on the value of the houses. Explicitly branded as Corona tax. After about 12 years the debt will have been repaid.
Current spending should be funded from current taxation. It may be that governments will want to increase current spending but that is something there should be a political debate about, not something that should be muddled with an exceptional one time cost
That's a huge, huge increase in tax for people who are probably not cash rich. I'd make it 3% and charge it to non-primary residential property and make it 7% for property owned by people not resident for tax.
A blanket property tax would end badly for a lot of people and it would be a huge drag on the economy as money is taken out of the economy from people who spend it rather than from people who don't spend it.
Would raise a fraction of the amount though.
ATED raised £143m in 17/18 (year of easy google). And that’s at 25%. I don’t know how much non primary residential property there is. But residential property as a whole is £5trn. So you need to find £50bn pa
Bluntly speaking people who own a property are relatively wealthy. If someone who owns a £500k property in London has to pay £5k per year then so be it. It’s simple to administer, hard to avoid, and raises a lot of money. (Feel free to charge more on non-primary residences though)
And if you simply don't have the cash to pay 1% of the property value per annum? Y'know, since an occupied house generates no cash and you still have to pay all the other taxes. What then?
Would you not just ramp up the debt until either the property is sold and the state takes its cut first or on death.
It's already starting. The world will diversify away from China. Not because the virus came from there, but because of the dishonesty of the Chinese government in reporting the stats which has put the whole world in danger.
I've missed most of the debate this morning which is a pity as a topic close to me. I agree with the premise that the LibDems are going to struggle - their biggest error is leaving a pair of acting leaders one of whom no-one outside the party have heard of, and the other is the guy rejected by the party membership less than a year ago. To cancel the planned leadership election until 2021 is absurd.
I wish them well...
Are you back on board, Comrade?
I thought the replacement of the rainbow bird with SKS might have been a clue...
Not what I envisaged even a month ago. But times change, and I'm always open to putting my hand up and saying "I got this wrong"
Maybe you got it wrong a second time.
I wonder if Chuka has regrets? Remember him?
Others can make their own minds up. Was I wrong to disown Corbyn and all he stood for? No. Was joining the LibDems when I did wrong? Possibly. Either way, I realised about a month back that the LibDems probably wasn't where I was going to stay as I just couldn't get into who they are - or think they are. When you've done one thing for 25 years and suddenly start doing another thing its going to take time. Once I realised my heart wasn't in it I stopped making the effort.
As for returning to Labour, whilst SKS has a lot to do he has at least made a positive start. And once my friends in Labour put the feelers out about my return I started thinking about it actively. Won't be an easy ride, I know I've put a few people out locally and won't be trusted by others. Whatever. I can come back in, roll my sleeves up and get on with pushing the loons out now that their death grip on the party has been broken.
Sir Keir Starmer looks and sounds PM material. Even my father a life long Conservative says it is good to see an impressive leader of the opposition.
I said as much earlier on this morning
Yes you did big g . Just catching up with the thread.
I have been sat in the garden with my wife. I think anyone with a house and garden is very fortunate. It must be hard for families who do not have these amenities.
My wife and I are so blessed with a lovely home and garden away from the main road with views of the sea and mountains, a south facing patio, and room to isolate ourselves away from everyone , though of course not seeing or hugging our grandchildren, especially at Easter, is painful
My wife and I really feel for those caught in high rise flats and in cities that cannot escape easily and it must have an adverse mental effect on so many
I expect we will remain in isolation until mid summer but with Asda providing a good weekly delivery service and our son, daughter and son in law, all on hand to collect medication and other essentials we must be some of the most fortunate in this desperate and deadly virus crisis and we do really feel for those suffering such traumas
@Charles it seems that the PM will be hors de combat for several weeks. You said he would recuse himself if he was going to be out for six months.
It might not be six months. All is good in your world with a stand-in PM apparently not making any decisions until further notice right now?
I’m not sure what your point is.
Cabinet is and remains the decision making body for the executive. It may be a little harder for Raab to force through decisions based on his personal authority. Is that a bad thing? If we get factions developing then it’s a problem but I don’t see it being a problem at the moment. Do you?
My point is that the PM is out of commission and we have a sub-optimal decision making body for "the foreseeable future". And of all, really of all the times when we need a decision making body on its game and firing on all cylinders...it is right now.
The media questions of who's in charge are absolutely spot on. Who is in charge? Your answer doesn't make it clear. The cabinet is the decision making body but unlike Boris, Raab can't force his decisions through. Say what?
I cannot agree. The questions were spot on...a week ago. And I've yet to hear what the solution is, since any replacement for Boris as PM would face questions of mandate, so I don't even know what people are demanding here. As it is, our flexible system allows for decision-making to continue, and we have been provided a clear list of who is in charge in any emergency situation. Any non-emergency decision effectively gets taken inthe same way.
So no. The questions started out spot on, but asking the same questions when the situation has not changed in a week is not spot on, it's silly. It would be less silly if we had a President, but we don't. However vitally important the PM definitely is, we have alternatives in place for decision-making under his authority being delegated as he is out of action. And constantly asking over and over who is in charge when an answer has been provided because we don't like the answer adds nothing, nor does it make the situation more chaotic than in fact is the case. And, once again, says nothing about how that suppose chaos is meant to be resolved since any solution would 100% be criticised.
I thought the replacement of the rainbow bird with SKS might have been a clue...
Not what I envisaged even a month ago. But times change, and I'm always open to putting my hand up and saying "I got this wrong"
You didn't get this wrong. You refused to be a member of a party which was lead by an anti-semitic cultist. That anti-semitic cultist has been booted out so you rejoined.
It is now a moderate, centre-left party with no tolerance for anti-semites and the socialist cult of Momentum.
Now perhaps NPXMPX2 needs to ask himself whether he still feels he can be a member of such a party.
Foxy made a good point this morning, that there will sadly be a lot of cash prematurely going to the younger generation. Perhaps IHT needs looking at fast? I`ve never understood people`s aversion to this tax (second most unpopular after council tax). IHT is my favourite tax. I`d much rather pay tax when I`m dead than when I`m alive.
I'm also an IHT fan, but I have no heirs so I could reasonably be accused of having no skin in that particular game!
Resistance to IHT is the ultimate validation of Thatcher's infamous "no such thing as society" comment, rooted as it is in biology. People (or a very great proportion of people, at any rate) resent the state - i.e. unrelated strangers - getting their hands on their resources when they kick the bucket. They want their own offspring to have it all.
It’s double taxation though.
The government taxes my income. It taxes my spending. Why should it get to take a further chunk just because I die?
Why shouldn`t it? Most tax is on money already taxed.
Because I am being taxed for saving. You should be encouraging saving.
You’d rather discourage earning ?
No. But personally I would tax houses more. Let’s keep it simple. Move all the Corona spending into a single bucket. No idea how much it is, but say £500bn. Have that owned by the Bank of England - and charging interest at, say, 2%.
Tax 1% annually on the value of the houses. Explicitly branded as Corona tax. After about 12 years the debt will have been repaid.
Current spending should be funded from current taxation. It may be that governments will want to increase current spending but that is something there should be a political debate about, not something that should be muddled with an exceptional one time cost
That's a huge, huge increase in tax for people who are probably not cash rich. I'd make it 3% and charge it to non-primary residential property and make it 7% for property owned by people not resident for tax.
A blanket property tax would end badly for a lot of people and it would be a huge drag on the economy as money is taken out of the economy from people who spend it rather than from people who don't spend it.
Would raise a fraction of the amount though.
ATED raised £143m in 17/18 (year of easy google). And that’s at 25%. I don’t know how much non primary residential property there is. But residential property as a whole is £5trn. So you need to find £50bn pa
Bluntly speaking people who own a property are relatively wealthy. If someone who owns a £500k property in London has to pay £5k per year then so be it. It’s simple to administer, hard to avoid, and raises a lot of money. (Feel free to charge more on non-primary residences though)
There are 4.5m privately owned non-primary residences. It's a potentially huge source of cash and it rebalances the economy away from private renting towards owner occupation. That alone will result in a long term GDP gain as the productive are no longer paying the non-productive 40% of their monthly income.
And those that can't get a mortgage where do they live in your rebalanced world, this would include most cleaners, shop workers, delivery drivers, single people,teachers, nurses, council workers in the south east
Then why on earth do you believe in socialism? It's the ultimate exemplar of that saying.
When I say I'm a Hard Left Social Democrat, people no doubt think I'm trying it on, but this is exactly what I am. I believe in the big interventionist redistributing state and public ownership of utilities, but also in free enterprise and sound money. Which means oodles of taxation. The "hard left" bit comes from class war social measures such as abolishing private schools and the diversity and equality agenda, which I also like very much. But government borrowing (or money printing) to fund current spending? Or to fund grandiose pink elephants? No way.
The more you describe the details of your policies, the less I like them - it's like taking the worst aspects of hard left and monetarist fundamentalism and then implementing both at the same time!
I'm glad to see that Boris is recovering. However should he have been shaking hands with Covid-19 sufferers and should he have delayed going to hospital for three days as he apparently did. We don't need macho gestures, you can't 'fight' a virus, we need timely decisions and action from our politicians in power.
It's already starting. The world will diversify away from China. Not because the virus came from there, but because of the dishonesty of the Chinese government in reporting the stats which has put the whole world in danger.
It was happening anyway - big moves to Vietnam and, in the future, Myanmar and Indonesia. However, this kind of thing takes a bit of time. You cannot just relocate high-tech production lines and it is very expensive to do. The other proble, is that you usually end up relocating to other countries that have regimes just as opaque and undemocratic as the Chinese one. There aren't that many reliable, low-wage, democracies.
IDS is wrong again. Hydrogen may be good for heavy lorries, but battery is the best option for cars. China makes most batteries because China makes the most electric cars - and should be congratulated for that. However to say they have won the battery race is completely wrong, there is plenty of room for improvement. In any case Tesla is several years ahead of everyone else on electic car batteries. https://energypost.eu/hydrogen-fuel-cell-cars-competitive-hydrogen-fuel-cell-expert/
Hydrogen cars are a better option for those without the ability to have a charger at home.
Then why on earth do you believe in socialism? It's the ultimate exemplar of that saying.
When I say I'm a Hard Left Social Democrat, people no doubt think I'm trying it on, but this is exactly what I am. I believe in the big interventionist redistributing state and public ownership of utilities, but also in free enterprise and sound money. Which means oodles of taxation. The "hard left" bit comes from class war social measures such as abolishing private schools and the diversity and equality agenda, which I also like very much. But government borrowing (or money printing) to fund current spending? Or to fund grandiose pink elephants? No way.
@Charles it seems that the PM will be hors de combat for several weeks. You said he would recuse himself if he was going to be out for six months.
It might not be six months. All is good in your world with a stand-in PM apparently not making any decisions until further notice right now?
I’m not sure what your point is.
Cabinet is and remains the decision making body for the executive. It may be a little harder for Raab to force through decisions based on his personal authority. Is that a bad thing? If we get factions developing then it’s a problem but I don’t see it being a problem at the moment. Do you?
My point is that the PM is out of commission and we have a sub-optimal decision making body for "the foreseeable future". And of all, really of all the times when we need a decision making body on its game and firing on all cylinders...it is right now.
The media questions of who's in charge are absolutely spot on. Who is in charge? Your answer doesn't make it clear. The cabinet is the decision making body but unlike Boris, Raab can't force his decisions through. Say what?
I cannot agree. The questions were spot on...a week ago. And I've yet to hear what the solution is, since any replacement for Boris as PM would face questions of mandate, so I don't even know what people are demanding here. As it is, our flexible system allows for decision-making to continue, and we have been provided a clear list of who is in charge in any emergency situation. Any non-emergency decision effectively gets taken inthe same way.
So no. The questions started out spot on, but asking the same questions when the situation has not changed in a week is not spot on, it's silly. It would be less silly if we had a President, but we don't. However vitally important the PM definitely is, we have alternatives in place for decision-making under his authority being delegated as he is oput of action. And constantly asking over and over who is in charge when an answer has been provided because we don't like the answer adds nothing, nor does it make the situation more chaotic than in fact is the case. And, once again, says nothing about how that suppose chaos is meant to be resolved.
The person who is in charge, the primus inter pares, is now out of commission and will be for some time. As Charles' post so eloquently, if perhaps unintentionally illustrated, there is no (or at least a less) effective decision making structure at a time when we need a super efficient, optimal one.
I apologise for once again sounding like a broken record but this piece seems to me to be an excellent analysis of the issues if CV hadn't happened. But it has. Wittering on about Brexit or the EU is several steps down the road of oblivion. We simply have far more important things to worry about.
So we are about the enter the most severe recession since the early 1930s, possibly worse, certainly sharper. Several million are going to lose their jobs. Major parts of the economy are going to collapse. The way we are going to work is going to change. There is going to be an urgency to re-establishing manufacturing in this country, to reducing our dependence on imports for essentials such as medicines. We are going to have to find a way to balance the need to protect the vulnerable from this virus and earning a living. Frankly any party who is not totally focused on these issues is a waste of time.
David, you want to phone your buddy carcrash Jackson and tell him that the Scottish Government have said independence is off the menu for the forseeable, the clown is still using it as the only Tory policy. You describe the Scottish Tories perfectly.
I've never met him Malc so I doubt I will have the opportunity. But I agree that it is time for the Scottish Tories to start developing a coherent set of policies to help Scotland through these very troubled times. Being part of a much larger economic unit with much greater resources will of course be key to that but it is not enough.
Scotland has so far been much less affected by this virus than England in general and London in particular, roughly half as badly as England as whole and maybe 1/4 of London. Which is great but we are going to be a lot more vulnerable to the second wave. What do we do about it?
Our economy is very service based with a pitiful amount of manufacturing. Services have been particularly badly hit. How do we look to address that? If this virus persists should we make WFH more viable by improving our connectivity? How do we keep our local airports going when flying is much less popular? How do we help those who education has been severely disrupted by this?
Just stating the obvious, that Independence would be suicidal, is not enough.
I know David and SNP are far from perfect but the opposition in Scotland to hold them to book is non-existant. Tories and Labour are just fixated on indyref2 ,whilst current SNP leadership are avoiding it like the plague , and Lib Dems are just a total joke. It is extremely poor all round for good stewardship especially as SNP are being run by a cabal interested in genderism and feminism etc and little else.
Then why on earth do you believe in socialism? It's the ultimate exemplar of that saying.
When I say I'm a Hard Left Social Democrat, people no doubt think I'm trying it on, but this is exactly what I am. I believe in the big interventionist redistributing state and public ownership of utilities, but also in free enterprise and sound money. Which means oodles of taxation. The "hard left" bit comes from class war social measures such as abolishing private schools and the diversity and equality agenda, which I also like very much. But government borrowing (or money printing) to fund current spending? Or to fund grandiose pink elephants? No way.
Sounds like a dystopian world to me no thanks
We're going to need a new term to encapsulate its awfulness - I suggest "Hellworld" or "Shitplane".
It's already starting. The world will diversify away from China. Not because the virus came from there, but because of the dishonesty of the Chinese government in reporting the stats which has put the whole world in danger.
It was happening anyway - big moves to Vietnam and, in the future, Myanmar and Indonesia. However, this kindof hing takes a bit of time. You cannot just relocate high-tech production lines and it is very expensive to do.
Ah Vietnam, the more palatable communist dictatorship?
It's already starting. The world will diversify away from China. Not because the virus came from there, but because of the dishonesty of the Chinese government in reporting the stats which has put the whole world in danger.
It was always a crap business model to outsource all your manufacturing to someone else.
Serious question - for an unprecedented catastrophe affecting the entire world, why can't we all come to an agreed figure for what losses each country has incurred at the end of the crisis, then have all the finance ministers and central bankers sit down at their computers, press the 'Print Money' button to deposit said agreed sum back into their public treasuries, and then carry on as if it never happened? Every country would benefit, and only a limited relative advantage would be gained, so why not?
Currencies only inflate / deflate relative to other currencies. So if every country in the world replaced their lost output simultaneously in the way I suggest, why would any one country or countries experience hyperinflation?
That's not true, they inflate relative to actual things, that's what inflation is.
It's already starting. The world will diversify away from China. Not because the virus came from there, but because of the dishonesty of the Chinese government in reporting the stats which has put the whole world in danger.
It was always a crap business model to outsource all your manufacturing to someone else.
Malc first I hope you are all recovering.
And secondly, I don't think anyone has yet managed to repeal the law of comparative advantage.
It's already starting. The world will diversify away from China. Not because the virus came from there, but because of the dishonesty of the Chinese government in reporting the stats which has put the whole world in danger.
It was always a crap business model to outsource all your manufacturing to someone else.
Indeed, the question is how do we bring it back and make sure that employees are properly paid without having too much product price inflation. Does that mean more automation or wage subsidies?
@Charles it seems that the PM will be hors de combat for several weeks. You said he would recuse himself if he was going to be out for six months.
It might not be six months. All is good in your world with a stand-in PM apparently not making any decisions until further notice right now?
I’m not sure what your point is.
Cabinet is and remains the decision making body for the executive. It may be a little harder for Raab to force through decisions based on his personal authority. Is that a bad thing? If we get factions developing then it’s a problem but I don’t see it being a problem at the moment. Do you?
My point is that the PM is out of commission and we have a sub-optimal decision making body for "the foreseeable future". And of all, really of all the times when we need a decision making body on its game and firing on all cylinders...it is right now.
The media questions of who's in charge are absolutely spot on. Who is in charge? Your answer doesn't make it clear. The cabinet is the decision making body but unlike Boris, Raab can't force his decisions through. Say what?
I cannot agree. The questions were spot on...a week ago. And I've yet to hear what the solution is, since any replacement for Boris as PM would face questions of mandate, so I don't even know what people are demanding here. As it is, our flexible system allows for decision-making to continue, and we have been provided a clear list of who is in charge in any emergency situation. Any non-emergency decision effectively gets taken inthe same way.
So no. The questions started out spot on, but asking the same questions when the situation has not changed in a week is not spot on, it's silly. It would be less silly if we had a President, but we don't. However vitally important the PM definitely is, we have alternatives in place for decision-making under his authority being delegated as he is oput of action. And constantly asking over and over who is in charge when an answer has been provided because we don't like the answer adds nothing, nor does it make the situation more chaotic than in fact is the case. And, once again, says nothing about how that suppose chaos is meant to be resolved.
The person who is in charge, the primus inter pares, is now out of commission and will be for some time. As Charles' post so eloquently, if perhaps unintentionally illustrated, there is no (or at least a less) effective decision making structure at a time when we need a super efficient, optimal one.
Meaning what? What do you think should happen? A new PM appointed, who, lacking the mandate that people left and right usually claim as so important, would be attacked as not having the right to take decisions?
That's the bit I do not understand here. Things are sub-optimal, sure, but I disagree on how sub-optimal that really is when the government response is being driven by its advisers for better and worse, but what do you think is the solution?
Scottish Cons should be advocating for lower rates of income tax in Scotland over England - not higher as is now. would raise more revenue and boost the economy. Ask the CoTE if they can keep the extra revenue.
I'm glad to see that Boris is recovering. However should he have been shaking hands with Covid-19 sufferers and should he have delayed going to hospital for three days as he apparently did. We don't need macho gestures, you can't 'fight' a virus, we need timely decisions and action from our politicians in power.
It is so comforing to have yet another expert to advise ...using the benefit of hindsight...on .what the PM ought to have done.
It's already starting. The world will diversify away from China. Not because the virus came from there, but because of the dishonesty of the Chinese government in reporting the stats which has put the whole world in danger.
It was always a crap business model to outsource all your manufacturing to someone else.
Indeed, the question is how do we bring it back and make sure that employees are properly paid without having too much product price inflation. Does that mean more automation or wage subsidies?
@RochdalePioneers - Great to see you have made the switch back. I always had a feeling you might! Still a huge mountain to climb, but we have made a start.
It's already starting. The world will diversify away from China. Not because the virus came from there, but because of the dishonesty of the Chinese government in reporting the stats which has put the whole world in danger.
It was happening anyway - big moves to Vietnam and, in the future, Myanmar and Indonesia. However, this kindof hing takes a bit of time. You cannot just relocate high-tech production lines and it is very expensive to do.
Ah Vietnam, the more palatable communist dictatorship?
There was a documentary made in the 90s where an old school lefty (Johnny Pilger) went to Vietnam. The look on his face when the Finance minister explained the exact practical reasons why communist economic polices were shit was priceless.
It's already starting. The world will diversify away from China. Not because the virus came from there, but because of the dishonesty of the Chinese government in reporting the stats which has put the whole world in danger.
It was happening anyway - big moves to Vietnam and, in the future, Myanmar and Indonesia. However, this kindof hing takes a bit of time. You cannot just relocate high-tech production lines and it is very expensive to do.
Ah Vietnam, the more palatable communist dictatorship?
I've been to both countries many times, the level of personal and business freedom in Viet Nam is orders of magnitude higher than China. I have no doubt that one day soon Viet Nam will have free elections, I don't see a road there for China.
I apologise for once again sounding like a broken record but this piece seems to me to be an excellent analysis of the issues if CV hadn't happened. But it has. Wittering on about Brexit or the EU is several steps down the road of oblivion. We simply have far more important things to worry about.
So we are about the enter the most severe recession since the early 1930s, possibly worse, certainly sharper. Several million are going to lose their jobs. Major parts of the economy are going to collapse. The way we are going to work is going to change. There is going to be an urgency to re-establishing manufacturing in this country, to reducing our dependence on imports for essentials such as medicines. We are going to have to find a way to balance the need to protect the vulnerable from this virus and earning a living. Frankly any party who is not totally focused on these issues is a waste of time.
What worries me is that I'm not sure that our government and Sir Humphreys will accept that things have to change.
The challenges are just immense. How do we pay for this? What do we support? What do we let go? What is our new definition of our strategic interest? Do we want to take part in diminishing the role of China in the world economy or not? How do we do that without just giving up on GATT? Has free trade developed in a way not necessarily to our advantage? Will we get away with letting QE take much of the strain? Has what our NHS managed in crisis mode demonstrated that far too much time is being taken up with unnecessary bureaucracy in our public services? You could go on all day.
It's already starting. The world will diversify away from China. Not because the virus came from there, but because of the dishonesty of the Chinese government in reporting the stats which has put the whole world in danger.
It was happening anyway - big moves to Vietnam and, in the future, Myanmar and Indonesia. However, this kindof hing takes a bit of time. You cannot just relocate high-tech production lines and it is very expensive to do.
Ah Vietnam, the more palatable communist dictatorship?
LOL, before I even tread it I know it will be wheeling out the swivel eyed union jack nutjobs as normal. SNPbad and no indyref2 , The Scottish Tory sockpuppet regional office manifesto.
What does any of that have to do with the Scottish government not offering as much financial support to businesses as the English government?
You moron , what do you know regarding what the Scottish Government policy is or is not. They have given out all the consequentials , ie the same as England in financial support. They have chosen to match it to the Scottish economy rather than copy the completely different English economy and you have a few sad sack greedy unionists who think they should get more than others , rounded up by the inept Tory leader to whinge about it. This causes moronic unionists like yourself to slavishly whine and moan without having a clue what you are a talking about. Stick to posting about cars spinning round a bit of tarmac it suits your brain power a lot better.
I guess you don’t like oppositions asking questions?
I do think the government is basically screwed. It won't show in polling for quite some time and for now they are still trusted and supported, but the messaging is all there about things that many think we should have done, where our preparations were not as good as others and so on, and unless we end up on the lower scale of deaths - which looks vanishingly unlikely - those messages will hit home once we are out of the worst.
Comments
Who would decide the value of the shares, and how often?
How much would this whole process cost, both as an amount and as a proportion of the taxes raised?
What would be the unintended consequences on certain types of business, and what unfavourable (for the taxman) behavioural changes would result?
Also, if myself and the bank own a property on a 20/80 split, who pays the tax on it?
* caveat - we sort of haven't got Brexit because virus.
Interesting thread
https://twitter.com/laineydoyle/status/1249127908876128259
Wealthy people just need to accept that they are going to be paying more tax. The broadest shoulders will be bearing the heaviest load as we build our brave, new, post-crisis world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_the_Weimar_Republic
My wife, who's a natural LD, thought that Jo Swinson looked like a little girl lost in the world of politics. I don't think it was a compliment.
I mentioned before the plan to merge two of our local primary schools. As part of the plan a Victorian school would be knocked down and a glass box built on the site to house the combined school. The pupil/square foot ratio would have been extremely high...
The design was actually insane - children sat facing glass wall windows. So that they would be looking straight at the sun, past the teacher. No air conditioning, no properly design natural ventilation either.
The cost per square foot was higher than a relative of mine charges to dig luxury basements under existing houses - one of the most expensive types of construction. In fact he commented that at the tender price, he could dig the whole site out and throw in an underground olympic sized swimming pool and sports hall...
Strangely, there was conservable relief when the plans fell through
Can anyone remember his name?
So we are about the enter the most severe recession since the early 1930s, possibly worse, certainly sharper. Several million are going to lose their jobs. Major parts of the economy are going to collapse. The way we are going to work is going to change. There is going to be an urgency to re-establishing manufacturing in this country, to reducing our dependence on imports for essentials such as medicines. We are going to have to find a way to balance the need to protect the vulnerable from this virus and earning a living. Frankly any party who is not totally focused on these issues is a waste of time.
A blanket property tax would end badly for a lot of people and it would be a huge drag on the economy as money is taken out of the economy from people who spend it rather than from people who don't spend it.
It is unlikely that the value of his shares will be realised as I suspect that in about 27 years he will sell them to my daughter for £30,000.
But ignore his salary and dividend income, which pegs him as being as well off as (and taxed like) any successful member of the upper middle classes in London.
If you look at the market value of his shares he would be in the top 300-400 wealthiest people in the country. But he doesn’t get an income from them. If he could sell them then he would be very wealthy. But he can’t. He takes the view that it’s more like being a custodian of the business than an owner.
And wasn't to do with sexism........what an awful person.
And after all that, it's very doubtful whether any acquired immunity would last longer than a couple of years, so these waves could well become a regular event. A bit like seasonal flu, but with a disease much more lethal and much more transmissible than seasonal flu.
A vaccine is the only solution. Sacrificing half a million lives for some unknown but probably temporary degree of immunity would be crazy.
https://www.birdguides.com/Species-Guide/ioc/regulus-ignicapilla
No meat on it at all. Makes a quail seem like a turkey....
If anyone is interested in this era, I believe the Good Lady's documentary "Ferrari: Race to Immortality" is currently on Amazon Prime.
https://twitter.com/guidofawkes/status/1249263978288644096?s=21
Sir Keir leaves the door open for Tories to vote for... Layla Moran?
ATED raised £143m in 17/18 (year of easy google). And that’s at 25%. I don’t know how much non primary residential property there is. But residential property as a whole is £5trn. So you need to find £50bn pa
Bluntly speaking people who own a property are relatively wealthy. If someone who owns a £500k property in London has to pay £5k per year then so be it. It’s simple to administer, hard to avoid, and raises a lot of money. (Feel free to charge more on non-primary residences though)
Just catching up with the thread.
I have been sat in the garden with my wife.
I think anyone with a house and garden is very fortunate.
It must be hard for families who do not have these amenities.
Hydrogen may be good for heavy lorries, but battery is the best option for cars.
China makes most batteries because China makes the most electric cars - and should be congratulated for that. However to say they have won the battery race is completely wrong, there is plenty of room for improvement. In any case Tesla is several years ahead of everyone else on electic car batteries.
https://energypost.eu/hydrogen-fuel-cell-cars-competitive-hydrogen-fuel-cell-expert/
Scotland has so far been much less affected by this virus than England in general and London in particular, roughly half as badly as England as whole and maybe 1/4 of London. Which is great but we are going to be a lot more vulnerable to the second wave. What do we do about it?
Our economy is very service based with a pitiful amount of manufacturing. Services have been particularly badly hit. How do we look to address that? If this virus persists should we make WFH more viable by improving our connectivity? How do we keep our local airports going when flying is much less popular? How do we help those who education has been severely disrupted by this?
Just stating the obvious, that Independence would be suicidal, is not enough.
The media questions of who's in charge are absolutely spot on. Who is in charge? Your answer doesn't make it clear. The cabinet is the decision making body but unlike Boris, Raab can't force his decisions through. Say what?
It's already starting. The world will diversify away from China. Not because the virus came from there, but because of the dishonesty of the Chinese government in reporting the stats which has put the whole world in danger.
My wife and I really feel for those caught in high rise flats and in cities that cannot escape easily and it must have an adverse mental effect on so many
I expect we will remain in isolation until mid summer but with Asda providing a good weekly delivery service and our son, daughter and son in law, all on hand to collect medication and other essentials we must be some of the most fortunate in this desperate and deadly virus crisis and we do really feel for those suffering such traumas
So no. The questions started out spot on, but asking the same questions when the situation has not changed in a week is not spot on, it's silly. It would be less silly if we had a President, but we don't. However vitally important the PM definitely is, we have alternatives in place for decision-making under his authority being delegated as he is out of action. And constantly asking over and over who is in charge when an answer has been provided because we don't like the answer adds nothing, nor does it make the situation more chaotic than in fact is the case. And, once again, says nothing about how that suppose chaos is meant to be resolved since any solution would 100% be criticised.
It is now a moderate, centre-left party with no tolerance for anti-semites and the socialist cult of Momentum.
Now perhaps NPXMPX2 needs to ask himself whether he still feels he can be a member of such a party.
Shudder.
However should he have been shaking hands with Covid-19 sufferers and should he have delayed going to hospital for three days as he apparently did.
We don't need macho gestures, you can't 'fight' a virus, we need timely decisions and action from our politicians in power.
And secondly, I don't think anyone has yet managed to repeal the law of comparative advantage.
https://twitter.com/montie/status/1249298253264363527?s=21
That's the bit I do not understand here. Things are sub-optimal, sure, but I disagree on how sub-optimal that really is when the government response is being driven by its advisers for better and worse, but what do you think is the solution?
would raise more revenue and boost the economy. Ask the CoTE if they can keep the extra revenue.
Why do they even bother?