He unveiled the magic money tree. Wait til he has to prune it.
Telegraph speculating on an IHT level of 80% this morning.
Back of the net!
I'd sooner set fire to it all than hand over 80% of my wealth to the government.
I'll stop off at the casino on my way to Dignitas before letting them rob me blind.
Well, it's that or use any one of the tax loopholes to keep it out of their hands.
I wouldn't bank on tax havens or loopholes serving the coming cull.
None of us enjoy paying tax but I simply don't understand your attitude. Who would you like to pay for schools, hospitals, police, army etc?
Irving Berlin once famously told his accountant off for trying to reduce his tax bill. ‘Are you crazy? I love this country! I WANT to pay my share of tax.’
Well, it's a view, not one I share.
I don't believe that all taxation is theft, but taxation at 80%, on money that has already been taxed when you earned it, certainly is.
I've had muggers who have let me walk away with more.
So fuel duty is theft?
Taxation on fuel is more than 80%, on money that has already been taxed when you earned it.
Irving Berlin once famously told his accountant off for trying to reduce his tax bill. ‘Are you crazy? I love this country! I WANT to pay my share of tax.’
At a more modest level I had the same conversation when I came back to Britain after being elected, and asked an accountant to recommend a fund for my savings that didn't use any tax avoidance or offshore havens. He was genuinely baffled by the stipulation - not opposed to it, but just bemused, as though I'd said I only wanted to invest in Bulgarian bonds.
As for IHT, I'm with Kinabalu - part of the deal of living in Britain is to pay a fair share, not avoid it. If that's mostly when I'm dead, so much the better.
You don’t have kids tho. So there’s that.
True. I have a number of relatives and friends who I'd really like to leave something to, though. Broadly speaking, I earn quite well and if I can keep half of what I earn to do what I like with and the Government takes the other half, that feels roughly right, both alive and dead. If it was significantly less I'd start to feel guilty at getting NHS care etc. if I need it.
Irving Berlin once famously told his accountant off for trying to reduce his tax bill. ‘Are you crazy? I love this country! I WANT to pay my share of tax.’
At a more modest level I had the same conversation when I came back to Britain after being elected, and asked an accountant to recommend a fund for my savings that didn't use any tax avoidance or offshore havens. He was genuinely baffled by the stipulation - not opposed to it, but just bemused, as though I'd said I only wanted to invest in Bulgarian bonds.
As for IHT, I'm with Kinabalu - part of the deal of living in Britain is to pay a fair share, not avoid it. If that's mostly when I'm dead, so much the better.
You don’t have kids tho. So there’s that.
People always talk their corner, unless they're politicians and then they usually keep quiet about their corner.
On IHT I believe that gifts to charity are exempt . So in effect you don't have to leave any money to the state ( I do have some sympathy and doubts as to the state efficiency of spending on stuff that helps society and people) but can leave money to a charity of your choice. that sounds more nicer than being mean and insisting it all goes to a narrow band of relatives who probably are richer than the average population anyway (being probably 60 and middle class at least)
What about people who believe the whole point of life is to give your children a better life than the one you had?
To be forced to surrender everything (or 80% of everything) you have worked for your whole life and hand it over to the state instead of giving it to your children is completely against human nature.
Well its only against the nature of those that believe in that. A fair few granted but human nature is generally about being communal and giving everyone a fair go and not being overly selfish. As I said I am not a great believer in the state but think charities and similar organisations offer so much more than either state monoliths or personal gains. So to be able to leave to a charity OF YOUR CHOICE is a great way to encourage wealth distribution on death imo
Sounds like you're going to leave it to Donkey Sanctuary.
Animals dont tug on my heartstrings like others so no not that but like the idea of leaving to universities ( great examples of a long term british success stories without being controlled overly by the state) or amateur grassroots sport
On IHT I believe that gifts to charity are exempt . So in effect you don't have to leave any money to the state ( I do have some sympathy and doubts as to the state efficiency of spending on stuff that helps society and people) but can leave money to a charity of your choice. that sounds more nicer than being mean and insisting it all goes to a narrow band of relatives who probably are richer than the average population anyway (being probably 60 and middle class at least)
What about people who believe the whole point of life is to give your children a better life than the one you had?
To be forced to surrender everything (or 80% of everything) you have worked for your whole life and hand it over to the state instead of giving it to your children is completely against human nature.
Yes I agree it is. Trouble is life`s so unfair. I can remember being most disgruntled when an acquaintance of mine inherited almost a million from his mother a few years ago. As an only child he copped the lot. Unfair on those who don`t have wealthy parents, unfair on those have to share the spoils with other beneficiaries.
In fairness, George H. Bush memorably got tongue twisted when describing why he was qualified to be president, and declared he and Reagan ‘had triumphs, and we’ve made some mistakes, and we’ve had some sex.’
Irving Berlin once famously told his accountant off for trying to reduce his tax bill. ‘Are you crazy? I love this country! I WANT to pay my share of tax.’
At a more modest level I had the same conversation when I came back to Britain after being elected, and asked an accountant to recommend a fund for my savings that didn't use any tax avoidance or offshore havens. He was genuinely baffled by the stipulation - not opposed to it, but just bemused, as though I'd said I only wanted to invest in Bulgarian bonds.
As for IHT, I'm with Kinabalu - part of the deal of living in Britain is to pay a fair share, not avoid it. If that's mostly when I'm dead, so much the better.
You don’t have kids tho. So there’s that.
Why is that in any way relevant to Nick’s point?
Errrr, he says he really doesn’t mind paying inheritance tax, but he has no kids to inherit his money.
IHT does not just apply to your kids. Unless you are saying people without kids don’t love anyone enough to leave a bequest to
He unveiled the magic money tree. Wait til he has to prune it.
Telegraph speculating on an IHT level of 80% this morning.
Back of the net!
I'd sooner set fire to it all than hand over 80% of my wealth to the government.
I'll stop off at the casino on my way to Dignitas before letting them rob me blind.
Well, it's that or use any one of the tax loopholes to keep it out of their hands.
Really? How bizarre.
I would like my wealth post death to help with the nation's public finances.
Pushed to think of a better use for it.
That's your choice. I would prefer mine to help those I want to help, namely my nearest and dearest. I do not want my life's work sacrificed on the altar of some "greater good".
Thankfully IHT is fairly easy to avoid with proper planning. It is my greatest wish, when I die, that the government should get none of it.
They have already taken a bite out of every penny I have ever earned while I'm alive, I'll be damned if I'm letting them come back for a second bite when I'm dead.
On IHT I believe that gifts to charity are exempt . So in effect you don't have to leave any money to the state ( I do have some sympathy and doubts as to the state efficiency of spending on stuff that helps society and people) but can leave money to a charity of your choice. that sounds more nicer than being mean and insisting it all goes to a narrow band of relatives who probably are richer than the average population anyway (being probably 60 and middle class at least)
What about people who believe the whole point of life is to give your children a better life than the one you had?
To be forced to surrender everything (or 80% of everything) you have worked for your whole life and hand it over to the state instead of giving it to your children is completely against human nature.
Yes I agree it is. Trouble is life`s so unfair. I can remember being most disgruntled when an acquaintance of mine inherited almost a million from his mother a few years ago. As an only child he copped the lot. Unfair on those who don`t have wealthy parents, unfair on those have to share the spoils with other beneficiaries.
You must have very green eyes.
Sense of justice. Working all hours for forty years building a business will never realise anything like the cash for me that my acquaintance received through dumb luck and for doing jack shit. Green eyes too.
That actually does surprise me. People are supportive of restriction, but I'd assumed a phased relaxation would be popular.
One would hazard a guess that the opposed cohort consists disproportionately of terrified old people, and well-to-do white collar employees who can continue to work from home.
If you feel you've more to gain than to lose from leaving things as they are (probably because it makes you feel safe, and you're trying not to think about what happens if and when the economy collapses and takes the state down with it,) then of course you're going to be against change.
Irving Berlin once famously told his accountant off for trying to reduce his tax bill. ‘Are you crazy? I love this country! I WANT to pay my share of tax.’
At a more modest level I had the same conversation when I came back to Britain after being elected, and asked an accountant to recommend a fund for my savings that didn't use any tax avoidance or offshore havens. He was genuinely baffled by the stipulation - not opposed to it, but just bemused, as though I'd said I only wanted to invest in Bulgarian bonds.
As for IHT, I'm with Kinabalu - part of the deal of living in Britain is to pay a fair share, not avoid it. If that's mostly when I'm dead, so much the better.
You don’t have kids tho. So there’s that.
Why is that in any way relevant to Nick’s point?
Errrr, he says he really doesn’t mind paying inheritance tax, but he has no kids to inherit his money.
IHT does not just apply to your kids. Unless you are saying people without kids don’t love anyone enough to leave a bequest to
Irving Berlin once famously told his accountant off for trying to reduce his tax bill. ‘Are you crazy? I love this country! I WANT to pay my share of tax.’
At a more modest level I had the same conversation when I came back to Britain after being elected, and asked an accountant to recommend a fund for my savings that didn't use any tax avoidance or offshore havens. He was genuinely baffled by the stipulation - not opposed to it, but just bemused, as though I'd said I only wanted to invest in Bulgarian bonds.
As for IHT, I'm with Kinabalu - part of the deal of living in Britain is to pay a fair share, not avoid it. If that's mostly when I'm dead, so much the better.
You don’t have kids tho. So there’s that.
Why is that in any way relevant to Nick’s point?
Its easy not to want to pass something to your kids if you don't have any.
This is a discussion about IHT which taxes estates not offspring. You don’t need to have children to pass on an estate. Unless you are suggesting people without kids care less than those with?
On IHT I believe that gifts to charity are exempt . So in effect you don't have to leave any money to the state ( I do have some sympathy and doubts as to the state efficiency of spending on stuff that helps society and people) but can leave money to a charity of your choice. that sounds more nicer than being mean and insisting it all goes to a narrow band of relatives who probably are richer than the average population anyway (being probably 60 and middle class at least)
What about people who believe the whole point of life is to give your children a better life than the one you had?
To be forced to surrender everything (or 80% of everything) you have worked for your whole life and hand it over to the state instead of giving it to your children is completely against human nature.
No, it's simply against your nature - you shouldn't assume we all feel the same way. You're rejecting the social contract by going out of your way to avoid paying your share, while presumably not actually refusing to use your share of roads, health care and all the other obvious and less obvious things that form part of the deal. I understand that you want to help your kids, but if you do it at the expense of the rest of us, why not rob a bank or two on their behalf while you're at it? The bank could afford it, your kids would be able to live better, what's stopping you? Is it only the fear of being caught?
I agree with state_go_away that charitable donations are a reasonably compromise, though I worry that less popular but necessary things (rehabilitaiton of prisoners, say) will tend to miss out.
Irving Berlin once famously told his accountant off for trying to reduce his tax bill. ‘Are you crazy? I love this country! I WANT to pay my share of tax.’
At a more modest level I had the same conversation when I came back to Britain after being elected, and asked an accountant to recommend a fund for my savings that didn't use any tax avoidance or offshore havens. He was genuinely baffled by the stipulation - not opposed to it, but just bemused, as though I'd said I only wanted to invest in Bulgarian bonds.
As for IHT, I'm with Kinabalu - part of the deal of living in Britain is to pay a fair share, not avoid it. If that's mostly when I'm dead, so much the better.
You don’t have kids tho. So there’s that.
Why is that in any way relevant to Nick’s point?
Errrr, he says he really doesn’t mind paying inheritance tax, but he has no kids to inherit his money.
IHT does not just apply to your kids. Unless you are saying people without kids don’t love anyone enough to leave a bequest to
Kids are different flesh and blood, genetic line.
That is a horrible thing to say, particularly to adoptive parents.
Technically he is right, intercourse means dealings with - in "sexual intercourse," sexual is the word which means sexual. Compare people who think that "forensic" means scientific on the basis of "forensic science."
The video is fine. Intercourse is a perfectly reasonable word here.
I have a horrible feeling he’s still going to have intercourse from Trump. And he will definitely be on the receiving end, but unlike a reluctant Turkish conscript, no pleasure will be involved except to the Tea Party.
Irving Berlin once famously told his accountant off for trying to reduce his tax bill. ‘Are you crazy? I love this country! I WANT to pay my share of tax.’
At a more modest level I had the same conversation when I came back to Britain after being elected, and asked an accountant to recommend a fund for my savings that didn't use any tax avoidance or offshore havens. He was genuinely baffled by the stipulation - not opposed to it, but just bemused, as though I'd said I only wanted to invest in Bulgarian bonds.
As for IHT, I'm with Kinabalu - part of the deal of living in Britain is to pay a fair share, not avoid it. If that's mostly when I'm dead, so much the better.
You don’t have kids tho. So there’s that.
Why is that in any way relevant to Nick’s point?
Its easy not to want to pass something to your kids if you don't have any.
This is a discussion about IHT which taxes estates not offspring. You don’t need to have children to pass on an estate. Unless you are suggesting people without kids care less than those with?
That actually does surprise me. People are supportive of restriction, but I'd assumed a phased relaxation would be popular.
One would hazard a guess that the opposed cohort consists disproportionately of terrified old people, and well-to-do white collar employees who can continue to work from home.
If you feel you've more to gain than to lose from leaving things as they are (probably because it makes you feel safe, and you're trying not to think about what happens if and when the economy collapses and takes the state down with it,) then of course you're going to be against change.
Being WFH for the past 6 weeks does lead me into temptation to think this is better than my long (50 mile each way) normal commute. But I do miss face to face with colleagues and buzzing around the country every so often . Most of all though the lockdown is cutting opportunity and anticipation and focus for the young..That is hard to measure now but very damaging .
He unveiled the magic money tree. Wait til he has to prune it.
Telegraph speculating on an IHT level of 80% this morning.
Back of the net!
I'd sooner set fire to it all than hand over 80% of my wealth to the government.
I'll stop off at the casino on my way to Dignitas before letting them rob me blind.
Well, it's that or use any one of the tax loopholes to keep it out of their hands.
I wouldn't bank on tax havens or loopholes serving the coming cull.
None of us enjoy paying tax but I simply don't understand your attitude. Who would you like to pay for schools, hospitals, police, army etc?
Irving Berlin once famously told his accountant off for trying to reduce his tax bill. ‘Are you crazy? I love this country! I WANT to pay my share of tax.’
Well, it's a view, not one I share.
I don't believe that all taxation is theft, but taxation at 80%, on money that has already been taxed when you earned it, certainly is.
I've had muggers who have let me walk away with more.
So fuel duty is theft?
Taxation on fuel is more than 80%, on money that has already been taxed when you earned it.
Well, I think there are two things at play here.
Firstly, there is the issue that taxation on fuel is at more than 80% of the product. It is not more than 80% of my income, or 80% of my estate.
That being said, I think there is a threshold and most people I know complain bitterly about prices at the pump.
See Nick's comment, downthread, about it feeling about right that he gets to keep half of what he earns. And he's hardly the most right wing of chaps.
I think that's rather generous of him, my own personal pain threshold is about 20%, after that I start thinking along taxation = theft lines.
YMMV, but I think most people would agree that taxation at 80% is wrong. Whether that's income tax, IHT, vat, whatever. A government proposing taxes at this level would not survive an election.
Most people understand the necessity of paying some tax, however their definition of fairness also includes getting to keep at least half - if not more - of what you earn.
Irving Berlin once famously told his accountant off for trying to reduce his tax bill. ‘Are you crazy? I love this country! I WANT to pay my share of tax.’
At a more modest level I had the same conversation when I came back to Britain after being elected, and asked an accountant to recommend a fund for my savings that didn't use any tax avoidance or offshore havens. He was genuinely baffled by the stipulation - not opposed to it, but just bemused, as though I'd said I only wanted to invest in Bulgarian bonds.
As for IHT, I'm with Kinabalu - part of the deal of living in Britain is to pay a fair share, not avoid it. If that's mostly when I'm dead, so much the better.
You don’t have kids tho. So there’s that.
Why is that in any way relevant to Nick’s point?
Errrr, he says he really doesn’t mind paying inheritance tax, but he has no kids to inherit his money.
IHT does not just apply to your kids. Unless you are saying people without kids don’t love anyone enough to leave a bequest to
Kids are different flesh and blood, genetic line.
That is a horrible thing to say, particularly to adoptive parents.
On IHT I believe that gifts to charity are exempt . So in effect you don't have to leave any money to the state ( I do have some sympathy and doubts as to the state efficiency of spending on stuff that helps society and people) but can leave money to a charity of your choice. that sounds more nicer than being mean and insisting it all goes to a narrow band of relatives who probably are richer than the average population anyway (being probably 60 and middle class at least)
What about people who believe the whole point of life is to give your children a better life than the one you had?
To be forced to surrender everything (or 80% of everything) you have worked for your whole life and hand it over to the state instead of giving it to your children is completely against human nature.
Yes I agree it is. Trouble is life`s so unfair. I can remember being most disgruntled when an acquaintance of mine inherited almost a million from his mother a few years ago. As an only child he copped the lot. Unfair on those who don`t have wealthy parents, unfair on those have to share the spoils with other beneficiaries.
You must have very green eyes.
Sense of justice. Working all hours for forty years building a business will never realise anything like the cash for me that my acquaintance received through dumb luck and for doing jack shit. Green eyes too.
You should try to spend less time worrying about how to take luck out of life - you might enjoy it more.
Can we go back to discussing Covid deaths rather than the depressing subject of tax rises ?
The UK Government is going to borrow £300 billion this financial year. The response to this from the normally fiscally prudent Conservative Party is "keep borrowing".
At what point does anyone think restoring some kind of order to the public finances a good idea and how is it to be done? Spending cuts, a garage sale or are we going to have to contemplate tax rises?
For the better part of 40 years, no politician has been able to even whisper the possibility of raising taxes without a heap of vitriol (or worse) thrown down from the generally pro-Tory media. Oddly enough, given his electoral strength and a solid Parliamentary majority, Boris Johnson could probably push through higher taxes and get away with it.
On IHT I believe that gifts to charity are exempt . So in effect you don't have to leave any money to the state ( I do have some sympathy and doubts as to the state efficiency of spending on stuff that helps society and people) but can leave money to a charity of your choice. that sounds more nicer than being mean and insisting it all goes to a narrow band of relatives who probably are richer than the average population anyway (being probably 60 and middle class at least)
What about people who believe the whole point of life is to give your children a better life than the one you had?
To be forced to surrender everything (or 80% of everything) you have worked for your whole life and hand it over to the state instead of giving it to your children is completely against human nature.
Yes I agree it is. Trouble is life`s so unfair. I can remember being most disgruntled when an acquaintance of mine inherited almost a million from his mother a few years ago. As an only child he copped the lot. Unfair on those who don`t have wealthy parents, unfair on those have to share the spoils with other beneficiaries.
You must have very green eyes.
Sense of justice. Working all hours for forty years building a business will never realise anything like the cash for me that my acquaintance received through dumb luck and for doing jack shit. Green eyes too.
How about the lottery?
EDIT: How about putting a fiver on Sunak at 250/1?
Irving Berlin once famously told his accountant off for trying to reduce his tax bill. ‘Are you crazy? I love this country! I WANT to pay my share of tax.’
At a more modest level I had the same conversation when I came back to Britain after being elected, and asked an accountant to recommend a fund for my savings that didn't use any tax avoidance or offshore havens. He was genuinely baffled by the stipulation - not opposed to it, but just bemused, as though I'd said I only wanted to invest in Bulgarian bonds.
As for IHT, I'm with Kinabalu - part of the deal of living in Britain is to pay a fair share, not avoid it. If that's mostly when I'm dead, so much the better.
You don’t have kids tho. So there’s that.
Why is that in any way relevant to Nick’s point?
Its easy not to want to pass something to your kids if you don't have any.
This is a discussion about IHT which taxes estates not offspring. You don’t need to have children to pass on an estate. Unless you are suggesting people without kids care less than those with?
Yes I am suggesting that.
Then you are an ignorant arsehole with no sense of empathy. You have no idea that the pain many people without children go through and then to be told, constantly, that we are somehow further emotionally defective by shits like you just rubs their noses in it. You have kids. Good for you. Wallow in your self righteousness and your sense of superiority.
On IHT I believe that gifts to charity are exempt . So in effect you don't have to leave any money to the state ( I do have some sympathy and doubts as to the state efficiency of spending on stuff that helps society and people) but can leave money to a charity of your choice. that sounds more nicer than being mean and insisting it all goes to a narrow band of relatives who probably are richer than the average population anyway (being probably 60 and middle class at least)
What about people who believe the whole point of life is to give your children a better life than the one you had?
To be forced to surrender everything (or 80% of everything) you have worked for your whole life and hand it over to the state instead of giving it to your children is completely against human nature.
Yes I agree it is. Trouble is life`s so unfair. I can remember being most disgruntled when an acquaintance of mine inherited almost a million from his mother a few years ago. As an only child he copped the lot. Unfair on those who don`t have wealthy parents, unfair on those have to share the spoils with other beneficiaries.
You must have very green eyes.
Sense of justice. Working all hours for forty years building a business will never realise anything like the cash for me that my acquaintance received through dumb luck and for doing jack shit. Green eyes too.
You should try to spend less time worrying about how to take luck out of life - you might enjoy it more.
On IHT I believe that gifts to charity are exempt . So in effect you don't have to leave any money to the state ( I do have some sympathy and doubts as to the state efficiency of spending on stuff that helps society and people) but can leave money to a charity of your choice. that sounds more nicer than being mean and insisting it all goes to a narrow band of relatives who probably are richer than the average population anyway (being probably 60 and middle class at least)
What about people who believe the whole point of life is to give your children a better life than the one you had?
To be forced to surrender everything (or 80% of everything) you have worked for your whole life and hand it over to the state instead of giving it to your children is completely against human nature.
Yes I agree it is. Trouble is life`s so unfair. I can remember being most disgruntled when an acquaintance of mine inherited almost a million from his mother a few years ago. As an only child he copped the lot. Unfair on those who don`t have wealthy parents, unfair on those have to share the spoils with other beneficiaries.
You must have very green eyes.
Sense of justice. Working all hours for forty years building a business will never realise anything like the cash for me that my acquaintance received through dumb luck and for doing jack shit. Green eyes too.
On IHT I believe that gifts to charity are exempt . So in effect you don't have to leave any money to the state ( I do have some sympathy and doubts as to the state efficiency of spending on stuff that helps society and people) but can leave money to a charity of your choice. that sounds more nicer than being mean and insisting it all goes to a narrow band of relatives who probably are richer than the average population anyway (being probably 60 and middle class at least)
What about people who believe the whole point of life is to give your children a better life than the one you had?
To be forced to surrender everything (or 80% of everything) you have worked for your whole life and hand it over to the state instead of giving it to your children is completely against human nature.
No, it's simply against your nature - you shouldn't assume we all feel the same way. You're rejecting the social contract by going out of your way to avoid paying your share, while presumably not actually refusing to use your share of roads, health care and all the other obvious and less obvious things that form part of the deal. I understand that you want to help your kids, but if you do it at the expense of the rest of us, why not rob a bank or two on their behalf while you're at it? The bank could afford it, your kids would be able to live better, what's stopping you? Is it only the fear of being caught?
I agree with state_go_away that charitable donations are a reasonably compromise, though I worry that less popular but necessary things (rehabilitaiton of prisoners, say) will tend to miss out.
I don't assume you all feel the same way. But I am not trying to impose my will on you.
You are using the force of the state to impose yours on me.
He unveiled the magic money tree. Wait til he has to prune it.
Telegraph speculating on an IHT level of 80% this morning.
Back of the net!
I'd sooner set fire to it all than hand over 80% of my wealth to the government.
I'll stop off at the casino on my way to Dignitas before letting them rob me blind.
Well, it's that or use any one of the tax loopholes to keep it out of their hands.
Really? How bizarre.
I would like my wealth post death to help with the nation's public finances.
Pushed to think of a better use for it.
That's your choice. I would prefer mine to help those I want to help, namely my nearest and dearest. I do not want my life's work sacrificed on the altar of some "greater good".
Thankfully IHT is fairly easy to avoid with proper planning. It is my greatest wish, when I die, that the government should get none of it.
They have already taken a bite out of every penny I have ever earned while I'm alive, I'll be damned if I'm letting them come back for a second bite when I'm dead.
On IHT I believe that gifts to charity are exempt . So in effect you don't have to leave any money to the state ( I do have some sympathy and doubts as to the state efficiency of spending on stuff that helps society and people) but can leave money to a charity of your choice. that sounds more nicer than being mean and insisting it all goes to a narrow band of relatives who probably are richer than the average population anyway (being probably 60 and middle class at least)
What about people who believe the whole point of life is to give your children a better life than the one you had?
To be forced to surrender everything (or 80% of everything) you have worked for your whole life and hand it over to the state instead of giving it to your children is completely against human nature.
Yes I agree it is. Trouble is life`s so unfair. I can remember being most disgruntled when an acquaintance of mine inherited almost a million from his mother a few years ago. As an only child he copped the lot. Unfair on those who don`t have wealthy parents, unfair on those have to share the spoils with other beneficiaries.
You must have very green eyes.
Sense of justice. Working all hours for forty years building a business will never realise anything like the cash for me that my acquaintance received through dumb luck and for doing jack shit. Green eyes too.
How about the lottery?
EDIT: How about putting a fiver on Sunak at 250/1?
He unveiled the magic money tree. Wait til he has to prune it.
Telegraph speculating on an IHT level of 80% this morning.
Back of the net!
I'd sooner set fire to it all than hand over 80% of my wealth to the government.
I'll stop off at the casino on my way to Dignitas before letting them rob me blind.
Well, it's that or use any one of the tax loopholes to keep it out of their hands.
Really? How bizarre.
I would like my wealth post death to help with the nation's public finances.
Pushed to think of a better use for it.
That's your choice. I would prefer mine to help those I want to help, namely my nearest and dearest. I do not want my life's work sacrificed on the altar of some "greater good".
Thankfully IHT is fairly easy to avoid with proper planning. It is my greatest wish, when I die, that the government should get none of it.
They have already taken a bite out of every penny I have ever earned while I'm alive, I'll be damned if I'm letting them come back for a second bite when I'm dead.
The Given Day by Dennis Lehane is a novel set in Boston in 1918 and is largely about the flu epidemic, and only 99p on kindle atm. It's quite good (he also wrote Shutter Island on which the film is based).
He unveiled the magic money tree. Wait til he has to prune it.
Telegraph speculating on an IHT level of 80% this morning.
Back of the net!
I'd sooner set fire to it all than hand over 80% of my wealth to the government.
I'll stop off at the casino on my way to Dignitas before letting them rob me blind.
Well, it's that or use any one of the tax loopholes to keep it out of their hands.
I wouldn't bank on tax havens or loopholes serving the coming cull.
None of us enjoy paying tax but I simply don't understand your attitude. Who would you like to pay for schools, hospitals, police, army etc?
Irving Berlin once famously told his accountant off for trying to reduce his tax bill. ‘Are you crazy? I love this country! I WANT to pay my share of tax.’
Well, it's a view, not one I share.
I don't believe that all taxation is theft, but taxation at 80%, on money that has already been taxed when you earned it, certainly is.
I've had muggers who have let me walk away with more.
So fuel duty is theft?
Taxation on fuel is more than 80%, on money that has already been taxed when you earned it.
Well, I think there are two things at play here.
Firstly, there is the issue that taxation on fuel is at more than 80% of the product. It is not more than 80% of my income, or 80% of my estate.
That being said, I think there is a threshold and most people I know complain bitterly about prices at the pump.
See Nick's comment, downthread, about it feeling about right that he gets to keep half of what he earns. And he's hardly the most right wing of chaps.
I think that's rather generous of him, my own personal pain threshold is about 20%, after that I start thinking along taxation = theft lines.
YMMV, but I think most people would agree that taxation at 80% is wrong. Whether that's income tax, IHT, vat, whatever. A government proposing taxes at this level would not survive an election.
Most people understand the necessity of paying some tax, however their definition of fairness also includes getting to keep at least half - if not more - of what you earn.
It is 80% (more actually) of the transaction, IHT isn't 80% of what you earn either.
I agree with the issue of taxation at 80%
It is the double-taxation issue I find wrong. We should be so lucky if we were only double-taxed. We get taxed on almost anything we do. Earn money, spend money, save money, buy a home, sell a home, be hired by someone or hire someone yourself.
The government taxes everything in life. Its virtually impossible to sneeze without the government taxing you for doing so - in fact if you use a tissue when you sneeze you are taxed for the privilege of that too. There's nothing special about IHT when it comes to double-taxation.
Pruning Wisteria and Clematis. Could I have some advice on how to handle pruning and maintenance of a mature wisteria and a clematis, that tend to get top heavy. Thanks.
In the 7th month - July - after flowering cut the wisteria right back. It will then grow again and in February cut each flowering shoot back to two buds.
For clematis it depends on when it flowers. Does this one flower in early spring (group 1), in late spring/early summer (group 2) or late summer (group 3)?
The rules are these:-
Group 1 - after flowering in mid to late spring after any risk of frost. Pruning is to tidy up the plant etc, remove faded flowers and so on. If you cut back down hard then you will lose next year’s flowers but as the plant grows again you can tie it in at at the base of the trellis horizontally so that you get flowers and coverage where you need it.
Group 2 - these often flower in early summer and then again in late summer/September. So prune after the first lot of flowers - to a large growth bud - and then again in February. In February you don’t want to cut back hard. It’s mainly to tidy up the plant and thin out a bot so that you have 4 or 5 nice stems with plenty of buds on them to provide nice flowers in summer.
Group 3 - these clematis flower in late summer (Etoile de Violette is a good and gorgeous example) and will keep on growing from where they stopped so the following year your flowers will be even higher up until eventually they are so high they are adorning low-flying aircraft. So once they’ve stopped flowering in autumn, in November you have to be brutal and cut them back down to the ground leaving perhaps 2 buds on each flowering shoot. That way each year you will get the flowers where you want and can see them.
Difficult to tell from your photos what type of clematis you have but I suspect 2 or 3.
The trick is to tie them in horizontally along the trellis so that, whenever it flowers, you have flowers at every level and not just at the top.
If you clematis is very top heavy, cut right down, reconcile yourself to losing flowers this year and see what happens next year. But since we’re close to summer it’s worth seeing what flowers you do get and when and then doing your pruning as per the above.
The Given Day by Dennis Lehane is a novel set in Boston in 1918 and is largely about the flu epidemic, and only 99p on kindle atm. It's quite good (he also wrote Shutter Island on which the film is based).
He unveiled the magic money tree. Wait til he has to prune it.
Telegraph speculating on an IHT level of 80% this morning.
Back of the net!
I'd sooner set fire to it all than hand over 80% of my wealth to the government.
I'll stop off at the casino on my way to Dignitas before letting them rob me blind.
Well, it's that or use any one of the tax loopholes to keep it out of their hands.
Really? How bizarre.
I would like my wealth post death to help with the nation's public finances.
Pushed to think of a better use for it.
That's your choice. I would prefer mine to help those I want to help, namely my nearest and dearest. I do not want my life's work sacrificed on the altar of some "greater good".
Thankfully IHT is fairly easy to avoid with proper planning. It is my greatest wish, when I die, that the government should get none of it.
They have already taken a bite out of every penny I have ever earned while I'm alive, I'll be damned if I'm letting them come back for a second bite when I'm dead.
The video is fine. Intercourse is a perfectly reasonable word here.
No, he becomes unintelligible after saying it. He realises it's not the right word. Trump is going to smash him in the debates.
By Trump's impeccable oratory? Biden is a decent bloke. It shines through. Trump isn't. The debates will show this clearly. How will independents react?
On IHT I believe that gifts to charity are exempt . So in effect you don't have to leave any money to the state ( I do have some sympathy and doubts as to the state efficiency of spending on stuff that helps society and people) but can leave money to a charity of your choice. that sounds more nicer than being mean and insisting it all goes to a narrow band of relatives who probably are richer than the average population anyway (being probably 60 and middle class at least)
What about people who believe the whole point of life is to give your children a better life than the one you had?
To be forced to surrender everything (or 80% of everything) you have worked for your whole life and hand it over to the state instead of giving it to your children is completely against human nature.
Yes I agree it is. Trouble is life`s so unfair. I can remember being most disgruntled when an acquaintance of mine inherited almost a million from his mother a few years ago. As an only child he copped the lot. Unfair on those who don`t have wealthy parents, unfair on those have to share the spoils with other beneficiaries.
You must have very green eyes.
Sense of justice. Working all hours for forty years building a business will never realise anything like the cash for me that my acquaintance received through dumb luck and for doing jack shit. Green eyes too.
How about the lottery?
EDIT: How about putting a fiver on Sunak at 250/1?
The video is fine. Intercourse is a perfectly reasonable word here.
No, he becomes unintelligible after saying it. He realises it's not the right word. Trump is going to smash him in the debates.
By Trump's impeccable oratory? Biden is a decent bloke. It shines through. Trump isn't. The debates will show this clearly. How will independents react?
Biden is mentally deficient. That's what people will realise at the debates. The media have done a very good job in the US at ignoring it but as soon as he's on live for longer than a quick soundbite it's going to be very obvious for everyone.
Whilst having sympathy with the Dunn family , this is pretty obvious it was an accident caused by somebody not used to driving in the UK.I am not sure what good it is pursuing this and presumably the UK authorities think the same (just cannot say it)
On IHT I believe that gifts to charity are exempt . So in effect you don't have to leave any money to the state ( I do have some sympathy and doubts as to the state efficiency of spending on stuff that helps society and people) but can leave money to a charity of your choice. that sounds more nicer than being mean and insisting it all goes to a narrow band of relatives who probably are richer than the average population anyway (being probably 60 and middle class at least)
What about people who believe the whole point of life is to give your children a better life than the one you had?
To be forced to surrender everything (or 80% of everything) you have worked for your whole life and hand it over to the state instead of giving it to your children is completely against human nature.
I think it should be an individual's choice.
I certainly think you can do damage with too much money, be that through spoiling kids or through a spendthrifty Government.
If you really care about outcomes you need to retain control.
The Given Day by Dennis Lehane is a novel set in Boston in 1918 and is largely about the flu epidemic, and only 99p on kindle atm. It's quite good (he also wrote Shutter Island on which the film is based).
Mystic River by Dennis Lehane is also very good.
True, just read that too (but disappointing ending). I was flagging up this one because someone, probably eadric, was compiling a list of epidemic themed fiction.
The Given Day by Dennis Lehane is a novel set in Boston in 1918 and is largely about the flu epidemic, and only 99p on kindle atm. It's quite good (he also wrote Shutter Island on which the film is based).
Mystic River by Dennis Lehane is also very good.
I also think it is Clint Eastwood's best film (after the Unforgiven which is sublime)
The video is fine. Intercourse is a perfectly reasonable word here.
No, he becomes unintelligible after saying it. He realises it's not the right word. Trump is going to smash him in the debates.
By Trump's impeccable oratory? Biden is a decent bloke. It shines through. Trump isn't. The debates will show this clearly. How will independents react?
Biden is mentally deficient. That's what people will realise at the debates. The media have done a very good job in the US at ignoring it but as soon as he's on live for longer than a quick soundbite it's going to be very obvious for everyone.
Ah yes, famously there were no debates during the Democratic Primary process.
Whilst having sympathy with the Dunn family , this is pretty obvious it was an accident caused by somebody not used to driving in the UK.I am not sure what good it is pursuing this and presumably the UK authorities think the same (just cannot say it)
It's easy to both overcook and undercook the level of change that will come out of this. A new normal will be established and there's no real appetite for it to be hugely different from before, albeit existing trends may be exacerbated.
However, my sixth sense told me a couple of weeks ago that major transport projects might not be all that in the next 10-20 years and the assumptions that underlie their business cases are more subject to change than people think.
So I've already started to talk to recruiters about energy and communication project opportunities.
The video is fine. Intercourse is a perfectly reasonable word here.
No, he becomes unintelligible after saying it. He realises it's not the right word. Trump is going to smash him in the debates.
By Trump's impeccable oratory? Biden is a decent bloke. It shines through. Trump isn't. The debates will show this clearly. How will independents react?
Biden is mentally deficient. That's what people will realise at the debates. The media have done a very good job in the US at ignoring it but as soon as he's on live for longer than a quick soundbite it's going to be very obvious for everyone.
Ah yes, famously there were no debates during the Democratic Primary process.
He's become much worse since then, his few unscripted appearances have been awful by the time September rolls around it's going to be even worse. The Dems need a new candidate. It's going to be a disaster if we end up with another 4 years of Trump. I'm genuinely angry that this is the best the Dems could do.
The video is fine. Intercourse is a perfectly reasonable word here.
No, he becomes unintelligible after saying it. He realises it's not the right word. Trump is going to smash him in the debates.
By Trump's impeccable oratory? Biden is a decent bloke. It shines through. Trump isn't. The debates will show this clearly. How will independents react?
Biden is mentally deficient. That's what people will realise at the debates. The media have done a very good job in the US at ignoring it but as soon as he's on live for longer than a quick soundbite it's going to be very obvious for everyone.
Ah yes, famously there were no debates during the Democratic Primary process.
There were some actually. There were so many candidates and they went on so long that everyone lost concentration so the fact that Biden did too was not remarkable.
Whilst having sympathy with the Dunn family , this is pretty obvious it was an accident caused by somebody not used to driving in the UK.I am not sure what good it is pursuing this and presumably the UK authorities think the same (just cannot say it)
That should be for the court to discover.
Trouble is a court would probably interpret an accident like that as dangerous driving (we have some stupid laws regarding this imo just about the worse in the world)- Anything that is unintentional and not reckless in intent should not be a crime however tragic an outcome comes from it
The video is fine. Intercourse is a perfectly reasonable word here.
No, he becomes unintelligible after saying it. He realises it's not the right word. Trump is going to smash him in the debates.
By Trump's impeccable oratory? Biden is a decent bloke. It shines through. Trump isn't. The debates will show this clearly. How will independents react?
Biden is mentally deficient. That's what people will realise at the debates. The media have done a very good job in the US at ignoring it but as soon as he's on live for longer than a quick soundbite it's going to be very obvious for everyone.
Ah yes, famously there were no debates during the Democratic Primary process.
He's become much worse since then, his few unscripted appearances have been awful by the time September rolls around it's going to be even worse. The Dems need a new candidate. It's going to be a disaster if we end up with another 4 years of Trump. I'm genuinely angry that this is the best the Dems could do.
Biden is a terrible candidate, I think only Sanders and Gabbard would have been worse than him.
But I feel you underestimate the partisan nature of the American electorate these days. Both sides have a very high base.
Irving Berlin once famously told his accountant off for trying to reduce his tax bill. ‘Are you crazy? I love this country! I WANT to pay my share of tax.’
At a more modest level I had the same conversation when I came back to Britain after being elected, and asked an accountant to recommend a fund for my savings that didn't use any tax avoidance or offshore havens. He was genuinely baffled by the stipulation - not opposed to it, but just bemused, as though I'd said I only wanted to invest in Bulgarian bonds.
As for IHT, I'm with Kinabalu - part of the deal of living in Britain is to pay a fair share, not avoid it. If that's mostly when I'm dead, so much the better.
You don’t have kids tho. So there’s that.
Why is that in any way relevant to Nick’s point?
Because the guy is a nasty, malicious piece of work sometimes.....horribly nasty....comes with the territory associated with narcissism.....(lack of empathy and all that)
Nick P is a really nice man, a genuinely lovely, caring person....
This IHT story is a trial balloon. Expect many more such. Th6 government is softening up the Press and the reasonably off for the inevitable unavoidable fact that they are going to have to put their hands in their pockets. In some way shape or form. The numbers don't work otherwise. Either economically or electorally.
This IHT story is a trial balloon. Expect many more such. Th6 government is softening up the Press and the reasonably off for the inevitable unavoidable fact that they are going to have to put their hands in their pockets. In some way shape or form. The numbers don't work otherwise. Either economically or electorally.
They aren't, there was no government source behind it, Boris ideologically would prefer to borrow indefinitely rather than put up tax or cuts spending on the NHS
The video is fine. Intercourse is a perfectly reasonable word here.
No, he becomes unintelligible after saying it. He realises it's not the right word. Trump is going to smash him in the debates.
By Trump's impeccable oratory? Biden is a decent bloke. It shines through. Trump isn't. The debates will show this clearly. How will independents react?
Biden is mentally deficient. That's what people will realise at the debates. The media have done a very good job in the US at ignoring it but as soon as he's on live for longer than a quick soundbite it's going to be very obvious for everyone.
Ah yes, famously there were no debates during the Democratic Primary process.
He's become much worse since then, his few unscripted appearances have been awful by the time September rolls around it's going to be even worse. The Dems need a new candidate. It's going to be a disaster if we end up with another 4 years of Trump. I'm genuinely angry that this is the best the Dems could do.
Biden is actually by far the best candidate the Democrats had to beat Trump and has more appeal to white working class voters than any Democratic candidate since Bill Clinton as the polling shows
Whilst having sympathy with the Dunn family , this is pretty obvious it was an accident caused by somebody not used to driving in the UK.I am not sure what good it is pursuing this and presumably the UK authorities think the same (just cannot say it)
It’s rarely the actual case, more often the ham fisted cover up following it.
Can we go back to discussing Covid deaths rather than the depressing subject of tax rises ?
The UK Government is going to borrow £300 billion this financial year. The response to this from the normally fiscally prudent Conservative Party is "keep borrowing".
At what point does anyone think restoring some kind of order to the public finances a good idea and how is it to be done? Spending cuts, a garage sale or are we going to have to contemplate tax rises?
For the better part of 40 years, no politician has been able to even whisper the possibility of raising taxes without a heap of vitriol (or worse) thrown down from the generally pro-Tory media. Oddly enough, given his electoral strength and a solid Parliamentary majority, Boris Johnson could probably push through higher taxes and get away with it.
Brown raised the top rate of income tax to 50p from 40p before the 2010 general election if you recall
Can we go back to discussing Covid deaths rather than the depressing subject of tax rises ?
The UK Government is going to borrow £300 billion this financial year. The response to this from the normally fiscally prudent Conservative Party is "keep borrowing".
At what point does anyone think restoring some kind of order to the public finances a good idea and how is it to be done? Spending cuts, a garage sale or are we going to have to contemplate tax rises?
For the better part of 40 years, no politician has been able to even whisper the possibility of raising taxes without a heap of vitriol (or worse) thrown down from the generally pro-Tory media. Oddly enough, given his electoral strength and a solid Parliamentary majority, Boris Johnson could probably push through higher taxes and get away with it.
Has tax actually come down that much in the last 40 years?
I'm not convinced. We've shifted the type of taxation from direct to indirect a bit but whacked up property and local taxes.
We are not lightly taxed.
You may be able to raise them a little bit more without choking off growth, but not much more.
Can we go back to discussing Covid deaths rather than the depressing subject of tax rises ?
The UK Government is going to borrow £300 billion this financial year. The response to this from the normally fiscally prudent Conservative Party is "keep borrowing".
At what point does anyone think restoring some kind of order to the public finances a good idea and how is it to be done? Spending cuts, a garage sale or are we going to have to contemplate tax rises?
For the better part of 40 years, no politician has been able to even whisper the possibility of raising taxes without a heap of vitriol (or worse) thrown down from the generally pro-Tory media. Oddly enough, given his electoral strength and a solid Parliamentary majority, Boris Johnson could probably push through higher taxes and get away with it.
Has tax actually come down that much in the last 40 years?
I'm not convinced. We've shifted the type of taxation from direct to indirect a bit but whacked up property and local taxes.
We are not lightly taxed.
You may be able to raise them a little bit more without choking off growth, but not much more.
Why would more taxes choke growth? Provided they are targeted at wealth they need not impact growth. Spending cuts are more likely to choke growth.
Can we go back to discussing Covid deaths rather than the depressing subject of tax rises ?
The UK Government is going to borrow £300 billion this financial year. The response to this from the normally fiscally prudent Conservative Party is "keep borrowing".
At what point does anyone think restoring some kind of order to the public finances a good idea and how is it to be done? Spending cuts, a garage sale or are we going to have to contemplate tax rises?
For the better part of 40 years, no politician has been able to even whisper the possibility of raising taxes without a heap of vitriol (or worse) thrown down from the generally pro-Tory media. Oddly enough, given his electoral strength and a solid Parliamentary majority, Boris Johnson could probably push through higher taxes and get away with it.
Has tax actually come down that much in the last 40 years?
I'm not convinced. We've shifted the type of taxation from direct to indirect a bit but whacked up property and local taxes.
We are not lightly taxed.
You may be able to raise them a little bit more without choking off growth, but not much more.
Why would more taxes choke growth? Provided they are targeted at wealth they need not impact growth. Spending cuts are more likely to choke growth.
Governments don't build economies - they're parasites on them. Necessary parasites in the bigger picture though.
He unveiled the magic money tree. Wait til he has to prune it.
Telegraph speculating on an IHT level of 80% this morning.
Back of the net!
I'd sooner set fire to it all than hand over 80% of my wealth to the government.
I'll stop off at the casino on my way to Dignitas before letting them rob me blind.
Well, it's that or use any one of the tax loopholes to keep it out of their hands.
Really? How bizarre.
I would like my wealth post death to help with the public finances of the country I have lived my life in.
Pushed to think of a better use for it.
On that basis you must be in favour of 100% IHT then?
I'd actually abolish it and tax as income as I think you and I agreed a while back.
Otherwise high rate but with a threshold so you can leave a little something to loved ones.
Yes, we did didn`t we.
What if someone dies and the only asset is their house, which has gone through that family`s generations for centuries? Say there is only one child beneficiary who wants to move into the said house (or maybe already lives there).
How can we tax that? Cruel to force the sale of the house? Or not?
Hmm. Don't wish to force a sale no. Should be a solution based around borrowing against house as collateral akin to the social care situation.
Comments
Taxation on fuel is more than 80%, on money that has already been taxed when you earned it.
https://youtu.be/eySs4Iu8dV4
Plus 350k on the family property left to children.
1 million in toto.
Unless you know a way to get 650 on a single inheritance, which would save me a significant sum just about now.
If you feel you've more to gain than to lose from leaving things as they are (probably because it makes you feel safe, and you're trying not to think about what happens if and when the economy collapses and takes the state down with it,) then of course you're going to be against change.
The debates this year should be hosted by Bob Harper and Jillian Michaels.
I agree with state_go_away that charitable donations are a reasonably compromise, though I worry that less popular but necessary things (rehabilitaiton of prisoners, say) will tend to miss out.
And on that depressing thought, good night.
This is absolutely shocking:
https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1255147479466565636?s=20
Firstly, there is the issue that taxation on fuel is at more than 80% of the product. It is not more than 80% of my income, or 80% of my estate.
That being said, I think there is a threshold and most people I know complain bitterly about prices at the pump.
See Nick's comment, downthread, about it feeling about right that he gets to keep half of what he earns. And he's hardly the most right wing of chaps.
I think that's rather generous of him, my own personal pain threshold is about 20%, after that I start thinking along taxation = theft lines.
YMMV, but I think most people would agree that taxation at 80% is wrong. Whether that's income tax, IHT, vat, whatever. A government proposing taxes at this level would not survive an election.
Most people understand the necessity of paying some tax, however their definition of fairness also includes getting to keep at least half - if not more - of what you earn.
At what point does anyone think restoring some kind of order to the public finances a good idea and how is it to be done? Spending cuts, a garage sale or are we going to have to contemplate tax rises?
For the better part of 40 years, no politician has been able to even whisper the possibility of raising taxes without a heap of vitriol (or worse) thrown down from the generally pro-Tory media. Oddly enough, given his electoral strength and a solid Parliamentary majority, Boris Johnson could probably push through higher taxes and get away with it.
EDIT: How about putting a fiver on Sunak at 250/1?
You are using the force of the state to impose yours on me.
in 1964 for £1,750
The Given Day by Dennis Lehane is a novel set in Boston in 1918 and is largely about the flu epidemic, and only 99p on kindle atm. It's quite good (he also wrote Shutter Island on which the film is based).
I agree with the issue of taxation at 80%
It is the double-taxation issue I find wrong. We should be so lucky if we were only double-taxed. We get taxed on almost anything we do. Earn money, spend money, save money, buy a home, sell a home, be hired by someone or hire someone yourself.
The government taxes everything in life. Its virtually impossible to sneeze without the government taxing you for doing so - in fact if you use a tissue when you sneeze you are taxed for the privilege of that too. There's nothing special about IHT when it comes to double-taxation.
In the 7th month - July - after flowering cut the wisteria right back. It will then grow again and in February cut each flowering shoot back to two buds.
For clematis it depends on when it flowers. Does this one flower in early spring (group 1), in late spring/early summer (group 2) or late summer (group 3)?
The rules are these:-
Group 1 - after flowering in mid to late spring after any risk of frost. Pruning is to tidy up the plant etc, remove faded flowers and so on. If you cut back down hard then you will lose next year’s flowers but as the plant grows again you can tie it in at at the base of the trellis horizontally so that you get flowers and coverage where you need it.
Group 2 - these often flower in early summer and then again in late summer/September. So prune after the first lot of flowers - to a large growth bud - and then again in February. In February you don’t want to cut back hard. It’s mainly to tidy up the plant and thin out a bot so that you have 4 or 5 nice stems with plenty of buds on them to provide nice flowers in summer.
Group 3 - these clematis flower in late summer (Etoile de Violette is a good and gorgeous example) and will keep on growing from where they stopped so the following year your flowers will be even higher up until eventually they are so high they are adorning low-flying aircraft. So once they’ve stopped flowering in autumn, in November you have to be brutal and cut them back down to the ground leaving perhaps 2 buds on each flowering shoot. That way each year you will get the flowers where you want and can see them.
Difficult to tell from your photos what type of clematis you have but I suspect 2 or 3.
The trick is to tie them in horizontally along the trellis so that, whenever it flowers, you have flowers at every level and not just at the top.
If you clematis is very top heavy, cut right down, reconcile yourself to losing flowers this year and see what happens next year. But since we’re close to summer it’s worth seeing what flowers you do get and when and then doing your pruning as per the above.
Hope this helps.
I certainly think you can do damage with too much money, be that through spoiling kids or through a spendthrifty Government.
If you really care about outcomes you need to retain control.
However, my sixth sense told me a couple of weeks ago that major transport projects might not be all that in the next 10-20 years and the assumptions that underlie their business cases are more subject to change than people think.
So I've already started to talk to recruiters about energy and communication project opportunities.
But I feel you underestimate the partisan nature of the American electorate these days. Both sides have a very high base.
NEW THREAD
Nick P is a really nice man, a genuinely lovely, caring person....
In some way shape or form.
The numbers don't work otherwise. Either economically or electorally.
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1254622107574599682?s=20
I'm not convinced. We've shifted the type of taxation from direct to indirect a bit but whacked up property and local taxes.
We are not lightly taxed.
You may be able to raise them a little bit more without choking off growth, but not much more.