Voters prefer tax rises to spending cuts by 59% to 16%.
However while 57% support increasing tobacco duty and 55% back a corporation tax rise and 37% back increasing CGT or alcohol duty only 20% back increasing income tax, just 12% back increasing inheritance tax and only 9% back increasing national insurance and a tiny 7% want a fuel tax rise or VAT rise.
This isn't a joke or a pirate fantasy, all possible solutions have flaws. If we enforce a hard border across the Republic/NI then we risk a return to violence. Is some smuggling worse than a return to the Troubles? I would say no, definitely not, what do you think?
A prediction of "some smuggling" shows staggering ignorance of the six counties. There was massive smuggling when the border was policed. Slab Murphy smuggled something like £25m worth through one farm on the Louth/Armagh border alone.
On topic, and answering the comments of Philip, DavidL etc, some counter-points to Mike's arguments:
1. Comparing a mid-term to a Presidential year re turnout is risky. In 2018, yes, the suburbs came out for the Democrats but there is an argument for saying the "populist" base of Trump's vote didn't feel as fired up to vote. American elections are all about turnout and Trump's base looks more fired up - there are a lot of anti-Trump's voters on Biden's side but it also feels like a lot of "soft" support that may not turn out on the day. One example - much has been made of the surge in NC early ballot requests but so far, less than 25K have been returned and accepted, a rise of just over 2K day on day. That does feel like an electorate that is dropping everything to get Trump out of the door.
2. There have been some comments on here that Trump faces a number of obstacles, particularly the Woodward book. I can't see that myself - there have been so many allegations against him, it is hard to see another one changing too many minds. Biden, however, does face some potentially significant hurdles - how he does in the debates (yes the bar has been set low but, if he stumbles...). Maybe more of an issue is the continued BLM-violence / "mainly peaceful" protests. Monmouth have found 65% of Americans saying law and order is a major issue with Black Americans the most concerned. It's true their poll findings could be used to buttress either candidate but the BLM movement looks out of control and cops being killed runs the risk of turning the suburbs against Biden;
3. Conversely, it could be argued Trump is getting into his stride. His approval rating is at a three month high. He can point to diplomatic triumphs in the Middle East as someone who gets things done. He can also point to his desire to get America back to work;
4. There are signs the Democrats may be repeating the 2016 mistake of taking one of their core voting blocks for granted, namely the Hispanic population. There have been multiple reports of Trump taking share and / or the Democrats worried about whether enough has been done to get Hispanic support. That might be reflected in the polling not only in Florida but also in places like Nevada and Arizona (where you would expect a bigger Biden lead if Hispanic support was firm and the suburbs were swinging away from Trump).
Trump won Arizona by 3.5% in 2016. The latest 538 Arizona polling average has Biden 5.0% ahead, so a bigger swing to Biden in Arizona than nationally. Not sure how you get any evidence from that that he is losing Hispanic support there.
Isn't the Arizona swing correlated to general suburban swing ? Tucson and particularly Phoenix metro areas have 80% of the state's population. (Phoenix 66% alone). Only Nevada is more dominated by a big city I think.
You got in before me Pulpstar. If Trump is seeing the biggest swings against him in the suburbs, as is claimed, then - all other things being equal - you would expect to see Arizona having one of the largest swings against Trump of all the states. It’s not, which suggests that the Hispanic vote (another major bloc) is not as solid for the Dems as 2016.
More generally, there have been a number of articles in Democrat leading publications, as well as GOP ones, highlighting the risk to the Democrats on the Hispanic share vote.
That reasoning (on Arizona polling) seems like a whole bunch of leaps of faith, especially if you don't provide any figures. (which well-polled states are showing a larger swing to Biden than Arizona? what percentage of voters in Arizona and other states are suburban? what is the swing in suburban vs other voters?)
On topic, and answering the comments of Philip, DavidL etc, some counter-points to Mike's arguments:
1. Comparing a mid-term to a Presidential year re turnout is risky. In 2018, yes, the suburbs came out for the Democrats but there is an argument for saying the "populist" base of Trump's vote didn't feel as fired up to vote. American elections are all about turnout and Trump's base looks more fired up - there are a lot of anti-Trump's voters on Biden's side but it also feels like a lot of "soft" support that may not turn out on the day. One example - much has been made of the surge in NC early ballot requests but so far, less than 25K have been returned and accepted, a rise of just over 2K day on day. That does feel like an electorate that is dropping everything to get Trump out of the door.
2. There have been some comments on here that Trump faces a number of obstacles, particularly the Woodward book. I can't see that myself - there have been so many allegations against him, it is hard to see another one changing too many minds. Biden, however, does face some potentially significant hurdles - how he does in the debates (yes the bar has been set low but, if he stumbles...). Maybe more of an issue is the continued BLM-violence / "mainly peaceful" protests. Monmouth have found 65% of Americans saying law and order is a major issue with Black Americans the most concerned. It's true their poll findings could be used to buttress either candidate but the BLM movement looks out of control and cops being killed runs the risk of turning the suburbs against Biden;
3. Conversely, it could be argued Trump is getting into his stride. His approval rating is at a three month high. He can point to diplomatic triumphs in the Middle East as someone who gets things done. He can also point to his desire to get America back to work;
4. There are signs the Democrats may be repeating the 2016 mistake of taking one of their core voting blocks for granted, namely the Hispanic population. There have been multiple reports of Trump taking share and / or the Democrats worried about whether enough has been done to get Hispanic support. That might be reflected in the polling not only in Florida but also in places like Nevada and Arizona (where you would expect a bigger Biden lead if Hispanic support was firm and the suburbs were swinging away from Trump).
Trump won Arizona by 3.5% in 2016. The latest 538 Arizona polling average has Biden 5.0% ahead, so a bigger swing to Biden in Arizona than nationally. Not sure how you get any evidence from that that he is losing Hispanic support there.
Isn't the Arizona swing correlated to general suburban swing ? Tucson and particularly Phoenix metro areas have 80% of the state's population. (Phoenix 66% alone). Only Nevada is more dominated by a big city I think.
You got in before me Pulpstar. If Trump is seeing the biggest swings against him in the suburbs, as is claimed, then - all other things being equal - you would expect to see Arizona having one of the largest swings against Trump of all the states. It’s not, which suggests that the Hispanic vote (another major bloc) is not as solid for the Dems as 2016.
More generally, there have been a number of articles in Democrat leading publications, as well as GOP ones, highlighting the risk to the Democrats on the Hispanic share vote.
Interesting stuff Ed, complex and worthy of further examination. I don't know the answer but I suspect it could depend on which sort Hispanics. Cuban-Americans would, I believe, be strong for Trump. That would certainly explain Florida's resistance to Biden. (I'm backing Trump to hold the State in anything but a landslide.) Mexican-Americans would be different, but they themselves wouldn't be homogeneous. It would certainly be unwise to assume they are a bloc vote.
One other point on state polling is the timely in getting new information. For example, the most recent polls from Ohio, Texas and Georgia on RCP all seem to be a couple of weeks old, and Florida a week back.
No doubt there will be more along soon, but we're always looking in the rear view mirror.
True, but with so few undecideds I'm not expecting much change now. A snapshot now will probably be very close to the final result. I reckon Trump will be a point or two closer Nationally, mainly because of enthusiastic supporters and maybe some voter suppression, but Biden should make it home comfortably enough.
What do you think Trump's betfair price will be in early Oct if the polls have not shifted by then?
Davy is obviously extremely thick and does not have any clue on democracy. Another Tory lickspittle trying to justify the crooks.
Brussels good, Westminster bad.....Scotland sends 58 MPs to Westminster (out of 650, 9%) and sent 6 MEPs to Brussels (out of 736, 0.8%).....
Anything is better than being a colony.
Tell that to all the colonies the Scots helped run in the British Empire!
Is that the latest argument for the union? "You're just as bad as us so we'll drag you down with us."
No - in general, as empires go, the British was probably the least worst (look at the subsequent fates of the colonies) - just a response to the hypocritical mewling from the descendant of "colonial oppressors" himself.
I wonder if the EU is trying to get the UK to commit to SPS standards for much longer than the WTO notification period of 9 months?
Brexiteers throwing their toys out of the pram because they don’t like the bureaucracy they voted for? What else is new?
The UK is fulfilling the bureaucratic requirements. We've informed the EU that we are following EU rules and have agreed to give them 9 months notice of any change to those rules as per pre-existing WTO and EU rules.
With all due respect, I doubt you know anything about the bureaucratic requirements, and which, if anything we may or may not have complied with.
The fact is we have to jump through their hoops. This is a direct consequence of no longer being a EU member state. This is what you voted for FFS.
There's no good throwing your toys out of the pram and whinging that it's just "not fair", which is all you have been doing for months now.
There are some people or circumstances where market forces are at work, but Zoe Ball presenting the Radio 2 Breakfast show is not one.
Actually radio presenters are where market forces are keenest because it is just the presenter and a microphone; audience figures can be compared easily with peers in other slots and the same slot on other stations, and with her holiday relief.
Voters prefer tax rises to spending cuts by 59% to 16%.
However while 57% support increasing tobacco duty and 55% back a corporation tax rise and 37% back increasing CGT or alcohol duty only 20% back increasing income tax, just 12% back increasing inheritance tax and only 9% back increasing national insurance and a tiny 7% want a fuel tax rise or VAT rise.
People hate inheritance tax, don't they? For me, this is a close psychological fit to our attachment to private schools. In both cases it goes way beyond those who pay IHT or use private schools. And for me it also explains why it is next to impossible for Labour to win power here unless they abandon any serious ambitions to fight inequality. The fact is, we value other things far higher than that. Sad face.
This isn't a joke or a pirate fantasy, all possible solutions have flaws. If we enforce a hard border across the Republic/NI then we risk a return to violence. Is some smuggling worse than a return to the Troubles? I would say no, definitely not, what do you think?
A prediction of "some smuggling" shows staggering ignorance of the six counties. There was massive smuggling when the border was policed. Slab Murphy smuggled something like £25m worth through one farm on the Louth/Armagh border alone.
Yes just as there is smuggling today from France to the UK to evade British alcohol and tobacco duties too.
Are you saying a return to the Troubles is better than the risk of some smuggling?
There are some people or circumstances where market forces are at work, but Zoe Ball presenting the Radio 2 Breakfast show is not one.
Actually radio presenters are where market forces are keenest because it is just the presenter and a microphone; audience figures can be compared easily with peers in other slots and the same slot on other stations, and with her holiday relief.
And didn't her ratings start badly and go downhill from there?
They certainly don't have another Chris Evans on their hands.
Voters prefer tax rises to spending cuts by 59% to 16%.
However while 57% support increasing tobacco duty and 55% back a corporation tax rise and 37% back increasing CGT or alcohol duty only 20% back increasing income tax, just 12% back increasing inheritance tax and only 9% back increasing national insurance and a tiny 7% want a fuel tax rise or VAT rise.
People hate inheritance tax, don't they? For me, this is a close psychological fit to our attachment to private schools. In both cases it goes way beyond those who pay IHT or use private schools. And for me it also explains why it is next to impossible for Labour to win power here unless they abandon any serious ambitions to fight inequality. The fact is, we value other things far higher than that. Sad face.
Even Sweden has scrapped inheritance tax, as house prices have risen especially in the South more estates are paying inheritance tax and private schools offer choice and scholarships and bursaries not just selection by catchment area or religious service attendance as with comprehensives
There are some people or circumstances where market forces are at work, but Zoe Ball presenting the Radio 2 Breakfast show is not one.
Actually radio presenters are where market forces are keenest because it is just the presenter and a microphone; audience figures can be compared easily with peers in other slots and the same slot on other stations, and with her holiday relief.
Indeed. Allowing the free market to decide it is entirely appropriate.
How much money is Radio 2 raising from the free market to pay for this?
On topic, and answering the comments of Philip, DavidL etc, some counter-points to Mike's arguments:
1. Comparing a mid-term to a Presidential year re turnout is risky. In 2018, yes, the suburbs came out for the Democrats but there is an argument for saying the "populist" base of Trump's vote didn't feel as fired up to vote. American elections are all about turnout and Trump's base looks more fired up - there are a lot of anti-Trump's voters on Biden's side but it also feels like a lot of "soft" support that may not turn out on the day. One example - much has been made of the surge in NC early ballot requests but so far, less than 25K have been returned and accepted, a rise of just over 2K day on day. That does feel like an electorate that is dropping everything to get Trump out of the door.
2. There have been some comments on here that Trump faces a number of obstacles, particularly the Woodward book. I can't see that myself - there have been so many allegations against him, it is hard to see another one changing too many minds. Biden, however, does face some potentially significant hurdles - how he does in the debates (yes the bar has been set low but, if he stumbles...). Maybe more of an issue is the continued BLM-violence / "mainly peaceful" protests. Monmouth have found 65% of Americans saying law and order is a major issue with Black Americans the most concerned. It's true their poll findings could be used to buttress either candidate but the BLM movement looks out of control and cops being killed runs the risk of turning the suburbs against Biden;
3. Conversely, it could be argued Trump is getting into his stride. His approval rating is at a three month high. He can point to diplomatic triumphs in the Middle East as someone who gets things done. He can also point to his desire to get America back to work;
4. There are signs the Democrats may be repeating the 2016 mistake of taking one of their core voting blocks for granted, namely the Hispanic population. There have been multiple reports of Trump taking share and / or the Democrats worried about whether enough has been done to get Hispanic support. That might be reflected in the polling not only in Florida but also in places like Nevada and Arizona (where you would expect a bigger Biden lead if Hispanic support was firm and the suburbs were swinging away from Trump).
Trump won Arizona by 3.5% in 2016. The latest 538 Arizona polling average has Biden 5.0% ahead, so a bigger swing to Biden in Arizona than nationally. Not sure how you get any evidence from that that he is losing Hispanic support there.
Isn't the Arizona swing correlated to general suburban swing ? Tucson and particularly Phoenix metro areas have 80% of the state's population. (Phoenix 66% alone). Only Nevada is more dominated by a big city I think.
You got in before me Pulpstar. If Trump is seeing the biggest swings against him in the suburbs, as is claimed, then - all other things being equal - you would expect to see Arizona having one of the largest swings against Trump of all the states. It’s not, which suggests that the Hispanic vote (another major bloc) is not as solid for the Dems as 2016.
More generally, there have been a number of articles in Democrat leading publications, as well as GOP ones, highlighting the risk to the Democrats on the Hispanic share vote.
That reasoning (on Arizona polling) seems like a whole bunch of leaps of faith, especially if you don't provide any figures. (which well-polled states are showing a larger swing to Biden than Arizona? what percentage of voters in Arizona and other states are suburban? what is the swing in suburban vs other voters?)
538's latest podcast included a long and detailed discussion of the Hispanic vote, from just after 30 minutes in. (When scanning for the right spot, look for the Black presenter on the bottom right to be replaced by the Hispanic polling expert.) https://youtu.be/Uj61a6NO8zw?t=1981
Voters prefer tax rises to spending cuts by 59% to 16%.
However while 57% support increasing tobacco duty and 55% back a corporation tax rise and 37% back increasing CGT or alcohol duty only 20% back increasing income tax, just 12% back increasing inheritance tax and only 9% back increasing national insurance and a tiny 7% want a fuel tax rise or VAT rise.
People hate inheritance tax, don't they? For me, this is a close psychological fit to our attachment to private schools. In both cases it goes way beyond those who pay IHT or use private schools. And for me it also explains why it is next to impossible for Labour to win power here unless they abandon any serious ambitions to fight inequality. The fact is, we value other things far higher than that. Sad face.
Even Sweden has scrapped inheritance tax, as house prices have risen especially in the South more estates are paying inheritance tax and private schools offer choice and scholarships and bursaries not just selection by catchment area or religious service attendance as with comprehensives
People don't stop to consider that they will just have to pay more tax when they are alive, instead
I'm also assuming that Biden, in order to win a state, has to be ahead by a decent margin to allow for shy Trump voters, voter repression, and other contingencies.
If the margin is 2.5%, then Biden wins Az, Fl, Mi, Pa, Wis and ends up with 319 EC.
If the margin is 5.0%, then Biden wins Az, Mi, Wis and ends up with 270 EC (assuming he gets the last Maine seat otherwise a dead heat). NB Bidon is on a 4.9% lead in Pa so Trump just retains it.
I'm also assuming that Biden, in order to win a state, has to be ahead by a decent margin to allow for shy Trump voters, voter repression, and other contingencies.
If the margin is 2.5%, then Biden wins Az, Fl, Mi, Pa, Wis and ends up with 319 EC.
If the margin is 5.0%, then Biden wins Az, Mi, Wis and ends up with 270 EC (assuming he gets the last Maine seat otherwise a dead heat). NB He is on a 4.9% lead in Pa so Trump just retains it.
Trump is still ahead on the latest Maine 02 polling and won it by 10% in 2016 so that would make it 269 - 269 if you just look at states Biden is 5% or more ahead as above and Trump wins the rest
Voters prefer tax rises to spending cuts by 59% to 16%.
However while 57% support increasing tobacco duty and 55% back a corporation tax rise and 37% back increasing CGT or alcohol duty only 20% back increasing income tax, just 12% back increasing inheritance tax and only 9% back increasing national insurance and a tiny 7% want a fuel tax rise or VAT rise.
People hate inheritance tax, don't they? For me, this is a close psychological fit to our attachment to private schools. In both cases it goes way beyond those who pay IHT or use private schools. And for me it also explains why it is next to impossible for Labour to win power here unless they abandon any serious ambitions to fight inequality. The fact is, we value other things far higher than that. Sad face.
Even Sweden has scrapped inheritance tax, as house prices have risen especially in the South more estates are paying inheritance tax and private schools offer choice and scholarships and bursaries not just selection by catchment area or religious service attendance as with comprehensives
People don't stop to consider that they will just have to pay more tax when they are alive, instead
They will get a hefty inheritance though from their parents or grandparents if they are homeowners and they are fine with high earners paying more tax or smokers and heavy drinkers paying more tax, just not them
I'm also assuming that Biden, in order to win a state, has to be ahead by a decent margin to allow for shy Trump voters, voter repression, and other contingencies.
If the margin is 2.5%, then Biden wins Az, Fl, Mi, Pa, Wis and ends up with 319 EC.
If the margin is 5.0%, then Biden wins Az, Mi, Wis and ends up with 270 EC (assuming he gets the last Maine seat otherwise a dead heat). NB He is on a 4.9% lead in Pa so Trump just retains it.
Trump is still ahead on the latest Maine 02 polling and won it by 10% in 2016 so that would make it 269 - 269 if you just look at states Biden is 5% or more ahead as above and Trump wins the rest
Voters prefer tax rises to spending cuts by 59% to 16%.
However while 57% support increasing tobacco duty and 55% back a corporation tax rise and 37% back increasing CGT or alcohol duty only 20% back increasing income tax, just 12% back increasing inheritance tax and only 9% back increasing national insurance and a tiny 7% want a fuel tax rise or VAT rise.
People hate inheritance tax, don't they? For me, this is a close psychological fit to our attachment to private schools. In both cases it goes way beyond those who pay IHT or use private schools. And for me it also explains why it is next to impossible for Labour to win power here unless they abandon any serious ambitions to fight inequality. The fact is, we value other things far higher than that. Sad face.
I disagree. I think that, if you are relying on inheritance tax to fight inequality then you are a more patient person than me. It would take generations for the effect to filter through.
Certainly it looks hard for policies to fight inequality by making direct fiscal transfers, but I'd argue that isn't the best way to fight inequality. As we saw with tax credits under Brown and Osbourne, they are very vulnerable to a new government salami slicing the transfers away.
You can only effectively fight inequality by changing the rules of the game, ideally in a way that best survives a change in government. Strengthen unions, weaken rent-seeking, improve access to the law, empower local government, encourage civic society.
The focus on fiscal transfers is intellectually infantilising the Left (although my favourites are a citizens income over tax credits and a land value tax over inheritance tax... D'oh!)
When are we going to get an article on what a gargantuan shower of sh8t the liberal democrats are right now?
If there's a wrong side to be on every argument, they find it.
They could make a big impact in the leafy shires where they were strong by fighting the tories' planning plans. Nothing
They could make a big impact by at least asking questions about the relationship between liberty lockdown and freedom that some are asking, and the rule by decree that is becoming increasingly unpopular. After all, 'liberal' and 'democratic' are their name. Nothing.
They could ask questions about why as Max pointed out earlier, the lives of young people are being destroyed on pretexts that are becoming more and more debatable. Nothing. Labour should be on this too. Its them the young vote for, after all. But again, nothing.
People talk, rightly, about how poor the government is. What is less talked about is how poor the opposition is. Ed Miliband got praise lavished on him by a fawning commentariat for asking tough questions on a topic the public don;t give a monkeys about. A topic they believe was decided months ago.
On topics they do care a great deal about, nothing.
Voters prefer tax rises to spending cuts by 59% to 16%.
However while 57% support increasing tobacco duty and 55% back a corporation tax rise and 37% back increasing CGT or alcohol duty only 20% back increasing income tax, just 12% back increasing inheritance tax and only 9% back increasing national insurance and a tiny 7% want a fuel tax rise or VAT rise.
Voters favour increasing taxes that they don't pay themselves shocker. Income tax, NICs, VAT, corporation tax and CGT are the only ones that could raise proper money. You're not going to close the deficit by putting up the price of fags or cutting the "arts budget" or even foreign aid. Higher borrowing and growing the economy is the best solution in the near term anyway.
Voters prefer tax rises to spending cuts by 59% to 16%.
However while 57% support increasing tobacco duty and 55% back a corporation tax rise and 37% back increasing CGT or alcohol duty only 20% back increasing income tax, just 12% back increasing inheritance tax and only 9% back increasing national insurance and a tiny 7% want a fuel tax rise or VAT rise.
People hate inheritance tax, don't they? For me, this is a close psychological fit to our attachment to private schools. In both cases it goes way beyond those who pay IHT or use private schools. And for me it also explains why it is next to impossible for Labour to win power here unless they abandon any serious ambitions to fight inequality. The fact is, we value other things far higher than that. Sad face.
People spend their whole lives building up assets - it represents their life's work.
They don't want to see the whole lot confiscated by the State when they die.
They want to choose how to leave their own legacy instead.
I'm also assuming that Biden, in order to win a state, has to be ahead by a decent margin to allow for shy Trump voters, voter repression, and other contingencies.
If the margin is 2.5%, then Biden wins Az, Fl, Mi, Pa, Wis and ends up with 319 EC.
If the margin is 5.0%, then Biden wins Az, Mi, Wis and ends up with 270 EC (assuming he gets the last Maine seat otherwise a dead heat). NB He is on a 4.9% lead in Pa so Trump just retains it.
Trump is still ahead on the latest Maine 02 polling and won it by 10% in 2016 so that would make it 269 - 269 if you just look at states Biden is 5% or more ahead as above and Trump wins the rest
"Biden will only win states he leads by 5% or more" is a hell of a ridiculous assumption to make.
When are we going to get an article on what a gargantuan shower of sh8t the liberal democrats are right now?
If there's a wrong side to be on every argument, they find it.
They could make a big impact in the leafy shires where they were strong by fighting the tories' planning plans. Nothing
They could make a big impact by at least asking questions about the relationship between liberty lockdown and freedom that some are asking, and the rule by decree that is becoming increasingly unpopular. After all, 'liberal' and 'democratic' are their name. Nothing.
They could ask questions about why as Max pointed out earlier, the lives of young people are being destroyed on pretexts that are becoming more and more debatable. Nothing. Labour should be on this too. Its them the young vote for, after all. But again, nothing.
People talk, rightly, about how poor the government is. What is less talked about is how poor the opposition is. Ed Miliband got praise lavished on him by a fawning commentariat for asking tough questions on a topic the public don;t give a monkeys about. A topic they believe was decided months ago.
On topics they do care a great deal about, nothing.
I expect the LDs to make big gains in the shires at the local elections next year as they did in May 2019, however plenty of those voters will still vote Tory nationally as they did in December 2019. Nationally their vote is still largely upper middle class diehard Remainers
Voters prefer tax rises to spending cuts by 59% to 16%.
However while 57% support increasing tobacco duty and 55% back a corporation tax rise and 37% back increasing CGT or alcohol duty only 20% back increasing income tax, just 12% back increasing inheritance tax and only 9% back increasing national insurance and a tiny 7% want a fuel tax rise or VAT rise.
People hate inheritance tax, don't they? For me, this is a close psychological fit to our attachment to private schools. In both cases it goes way beyond those who pay IHT or use private schools. And for me it also explains why it is next to impossible for Labour to win power here unless they abandon any serious ambitions to fight inequality. The fact is, we value other things far higher than that. Sad face.
Even Sweden has scrapped inheritance tax, as house prices have risen especially in the South more estates are paying inheritance tax and private schools offer choice and scholarships and bursaries not just selection by catchment area or religious service attendance as with comprehensives
People don't stop to consider that they will just have to pay more tax when they are alive, instead
They will get a hefty inheritance though from their parents or grandparents if they are homeowners and they are fine with high earners paying more tax or smokers and heavy drinkers paying more tax, just not them
The only sensible way to abolish IHT would be to treat gifts between family members (once you get over a threshold) as taxable income. Including after death.
Voters prefer tax rises to spending cuts by 59% to 16%.
However while 57% support increasing tobacco duty and 55% back a corporation tax rise and 37% back increasing CGT or alcohol duty only 20% back increasing income tax, just 12% back increasing inheritance tax and only 9% back increasing national insurance and a tiny 7% want a fuel tax rise or VAT rise.
People hate inheritance tax, don't they? For me, this is a close psychological fit to our attachment to private schools. In both cases it goes way beyond those who pay IHT or use private schools. And for me it also explains why it is next to impossible for Labour to win power here unless they abandon any serious ambitions to fight inequality. The fact is, we value other things far higher than that. Sad face.
People spend their whole lives building up assets - it represents their life's work.
They don't want to see the whole lot confiscated by the State when they die.
They want to choose how to leave their own legacy instead.
Yeah, fine, and I'm playing devil's advocate here, but generationally accumulated wealth really spits in the face of a meritocracy as wealth undoubtably improves life chances.
I'm also assuming that Biden, in order to win a state, has to be ahead by a decent margin to allow for shy Trump voters, voter repression, and other contingencies.
If the margin is 2.5%, then Biden wins Az, Fl, Mi, Pa, Wis and ends up with 319 EC.
If the margin is 5.0%, then Biden wins Az, Mi, Wis and ends up with 270 EC (assuming he gets the last Maine seat otherwise a dead heat). NB He is on a 4.9% lead in Pa so Trump just retains it.
Trump is still ahead on the latest Maine 02 polling and won it by 10% in 2016 so that would make it 269 - 269 if you just look at states Biden is 5% or more ahead as above and Trump wins the rest
Yes
That would be the closest US presidential election in US history, which would be rather poetic given the US is so split now
Voters prefer tax rises to spending cuts by 59% to 16%.
However while 57% support increasing tobacco duty and 55% back a corporation tax rise and 37% back increasing CGT or alcohol duty only 20% back increasing income tax, just 12% back increasing inheritance tax and only 9% back increasing national insurance and a tiny 7% want a fuel tax rise or VAT rise.
People hate inheritance tax, don't they? For me, this is a close psychological fit to our attachment to private schools. In both cases it goes way beyond those who pay IHT or use private schools. And for me it also explains why it is next to impossible for Labour to win power here unless they abandon any serious ambitions to fight inequality. The fact is, we value other things far higher than that. Sad face.
People spend their whole lives building up assets - it represents their life's work.
They don't want to see the whole lot confiscated by the State when they die.
They want to choose how to leave their own legacy instead.
Nevertheless a world where everyone started off without any financial inheritance would probably be a better one.
Voters prefer tax rises to spending cuts by 59% to 16%.
However while 57% support increasing tobacco duty and 55% back a corporation tax rise and 37% back increasing CGT or alcohol duty only 20% back increasing income tax, just 12% back increasing inheritance tax and only 9% back increasing national insurance and a tiny 7% want a fuel tax rise or VAT rise.
People hate inheritance tax, don't they? For me, this is a close psychological fit to our attachment to private schools. In both cases it goes way beyond those who pay IHT or use private schools. And for me it also explains why it is next to impossible for Labour to win power here unless they abandon any serious ambitions to fight inequality. The fact is, we value other things far higher than that. Sad face.
People spend their whole lives building up assets - it represents their life's work.
They don't want to see the whole lot confiscated by the State when they die.
They want to choose how to leave their own legacy instead.
This always confuses me. They don't get to see anything at all. The number one regret of the dying is having worked too hard. I guess folk fundamentally don't internalise that death is inevitable and is the end for all of us.
Voters prefer tax rises to spending cuts by 59% to 16%.
However while 57% support increasing tobacco duty and 55% back a corporation tax rise and 37% back increasing CGT or alcohol duty only 20% back increasing income tax, just 12% back increasing inheritance tax and only 9% back increasing national insurance and a tiny 7% want a fuel tax rise or VAT rise.
People hate inheritance tax, don't they? For me, this is a close psychological fit to our attachment to private schools. In both cases it goes way beyond those who pay IHT or use private schools. And for me it also explains why it is next to impossible for Labour to win power here unless they abandon any serious ambitions to fight inequality. The fact is, we value other things far higher than that. Sad face.
People spend their whole lives building up assets - it represents their life's work.
They don't want to see the whole lot confiscated by the State when they die.
They want to choose how to leave their own legacy instead.
This always confuses me. They don't get to see anything at all. The number one regret of the dying is having worked too hard. I guess folk fundamentally don't internalise that death is inevitable and is the end for all of us.
What % pay inheritance tax, not sure why people who don’t give a shit for those that do.
I'm also assuming that Biden, in order to win a state, has to be ahead by a decent margin to allow for shy Trump voters, voter repression, and other contingencies.
If the margin is 2.5%, then Biden wins Az, Fl, Mi, Pa, Wis and ends up with 319 EC.
If the margin is 5.0%, then Biden wins Az, Mi, Wis and ends up with 270 EC (assuming he gets the last Maine seat otherwise a dead heat). NB He is on a 4.9% lead in Pa so Trump just retains it.
Trump is still ahead on the latest Maine 02 polling and won it by 10% in 2016 so that would make it 269 - 269 if you just look at states Biden is 5% or more ahead as above and Trump wins the rest
"Biden will only win states he leads by 5% or more" is a hell of a ridiculous assumption to make.
It is. Of course he might lose the odd state where he's polling 5% ahead - but he will also more than likely win the odd state where he's 1% in the lead.
I think that there were about 7 "cases" or tests based on different clauses used in different policies. Have the insurers lost them all? This is clearly heading to the Supremes, there is just too much money at stake.
Voters prefer tax rises to spending cuts by 59% to 16%.
However while 57% support increasing tobacco duty and 55% back a corporation tax rise and 37% back increasing CGT or alcohol duty only 20% back increasing income tax, just 12% back increasing inheritance tax and only 9% back increasing national insurance and a tiny 7% want a fuel tax rise or VAT rise.
People hate inheritance tax, don't they? For me, this is a close psychological fit to our attachment to private schools. In both cases it goes way beyond those who pay IHT or use private schools. And for me it also explains why it is next to impossible for Labour to win power here unless they abandon any serious ambitions to fight inequality. The fact is, we value other things far higher than that. Sad face.
People spend their whole lives building up assets - it represents their life's work.
They don't want to see the whole lot confiscated by the State when they die.
They want to choose how to leave their own legacy instead.
This always confuses me. They don't get to see anything at all. The number one regret of the dying is having worked too hard. I guess folk fundamentally don't internalise that death is inevitable and is the end for all of us.
What % pay inheritance tax, not sure why people who don’t give a shit for those that do.
Far fewer since Osborne raised the IHT threshold to £1 million
The so called shy Trump supporter might have more mileage if there’s a large disparity between phone and online polling which there isn’t . Furthermore the issues around the swing states at the last election were in relation to not enough non college educated white people in those polling samples . The pollsters have tried to address that in the current election . The shy Trump supporter is being wheeled out now because some don’t like Trumps polling numbers .
On the testing shambles, my girlfriend's sister, who took her test (in Galashiels I might add) 24 hours after my girlfriend, has had her result back already, and my girlfriend has not.
The longer we wait, the longer she is off work. She works for the NHS.
I'm also assuming that Biden, in order to win a state, has to be ahead by a decent margin to allow for shy Trump voters, voter repression, and other contingencies.
If the margin is 2.5%, then Biden wins Az, Fl, Mi, Pa, Wis and ends up with 319 EC.
If the margin is 5.0%, then Biden wins Az, Mi, Wis and ends up with 270 EC (assuming he gets the last Maine seat otherwise a dead heat). NB He is on a 4.9% lead in Pa so Trump just retains it.
Trump is still ahead on the latest Maine 02 polling and won it by 10% in 2016 so that would make it 269 - 269 if you just look at states Biden is 5% or more ahead as above and Trump wins the rest
"Biden will only win states he leads by 5% or more" is a hell of a ridiculous assumption to make.
It's a fairly extreme assumption to look at the sensitivity of the polling margin Biden needs to win a majority of ECs.
Voters prefer tax rises to spending cuts by 59% to 16%.
However while 57% support increasing tobacco duty and 55% back a corporation tax rise and 37% back increasing CGT or alcohol duty only 20% back increasing income tax, just 12% back increasing inheritance tax and only 9% back increasing national insurance and a tiny 7% want a fuel tax rise or VAT rise.
People hate inheritance tax, don't they? For me, this is a close psychological fit to our attachment to private schools. In both cases it goes way beyond those who pay IHT or use private schools. And for me it also explains why it is next to impossible for Labour to win power here unless they abandon any serious ambitions to fight inequality. The fact is, we value other things far higher than that. Sad face.
People spend their whole lives building up assets - it represents their life's work.
They don't want to see the whole lot confiscated by the State when they die.
They want to choose how to leave their own legacy instead.
Nevertheless a world where everyone started off without any financial inheritance would probably be a better one.
No it would be a world where all our assets we worked for were returned to the state on death
Voters prefer tax rises to spending cuts by 59% to 16%.
However while 57% support increasing tobacco duty and 55% back a corporation tax rise and 37% back increasing CGT or alcohol duty only 20% back increasing income tax, just 12% back increasing inheritance tax and only 9% back increasing national insurance and a tiny 7% want a fuel tax rise or VAT rise.
People hate inheritance tax, don't they? For me, this is a close psychological fit to our attachment to private schools. In both cases it goes way beyond those who pay IHT or use private schools. And for me it also explains why it is next to impossible for Labour to win power here unless they abandon any serious ambitions to fight inequality. The fact is, we value other things far higher than that. Sad face.
People spend their whole lives building up assets - it represents their life's work.
They don't want to see the whole lot confiscated by the State when they die.
They want to choose how to leave their own legacy instead.
This always confuses me. They don't get to see anything at all. The number one regret of the dying is having worked too hard. I guess folk fundamentally don't internalise that death is inevitable and is the end for all of us.
What % pay inheritance tax, not sure why people who don’t give a shit for those that do.
Far fewer since Osborne raised the IHT threshold to £1 million
He didn't. That's for a married couple with a house left directly to their blood children. Approved Tory Family.
Edit: and that assumes the house is worth over 350K. Tough shite if you are (a) renting (b) an auntie (c) live in the North (on average).
Voters prefer tax rises to spending cuts by 59% to 16%.
However while 57% support increasing tobacco duty and 55% back a corporation tax rise and 37% back increasing CGT or alcohol duty only 20% back increasing income tax, just 12% back increasing inheritance tax and only 9% back increasing national insurance and a tiny 7% want a fuel tax rise or VAT rise.
People hate inheritance tax, don't they? For me, this is a close psychological fit to our attachment to private schools. In both cases it goes way beyond those who pay IHT or use private schools. And for me it also explains why it is next to impossible for Labour to win power here unless they abandon any serious ambitions to fight inequality. The fact is, we value other things far higher than that. Sad face.
People spend their whole lives building up assets - it represents their life's work.
They don't want to see the whole lot confiscated by the State when they die.
They want to choose how to leave their own legacy instead.
This always confuses me. They don't get to see anything at all. The number one regret of the dying is having worked too hard. I guess folk fundamentally don't internalise that death is inevitable and is the end for all of us.
What % pay inheritance tax, not sure why people who don’t give a shit for those that do.
Far fewer since Osborne raised the IHT threshold to £1 million
It's not actually £1m. It's £650k for a married couple and it's only £1m if you're directly gifting property without any conditions. If you want to use a trust, something that may be entirely sensible, then you don't get the £1m threshold.
Voters prefer tax rises to spending cuts by 59% to 16%.
However while 57% support increasing tobacco duty and 55% back a corporation tax rise and 37% back increasing CGT or alcohol duty only 20% back increasing income tax, just 12% back increasing inheritance tax and only 9% back increasing national insurance and a tiny 7% want a fuel tax rise or VAT rise.
People hate inheritance tax, don't they? For me, this is a close psychological fit to our attachment to private schools. In both cases it goes way beyond those who pay IHT or use private schools. And for me it also explains why it is next to impossible for Labour to win power here unless they abandon any serious ambitions to fight inequality. The fact is, we value other things far higher than that. Sad face.
People spend their whole lives building up assets - it represents their life's work.
They don't want to see the whole lot confiscated by the State when they die.
They want to choose how to leave their own legacy instead.
Yeah, fine, and I'm playing devil's advocate here, but generationally accumulated wealth really spits in the face of a meritocracy as wealth undoubtably improves life chances.
Voters prefer tax rises to spending cuts by 59% to 16%.
However while 57% support increasing tobacco duty and 55% back a corporation tax rise and 37% back increasing CGT or alcohol duty only 20% back increasing income tax, just 12% back increasing inheritance tax and only 9% back increasing national insurance and a tiny 7% want a fuel tax rise or VAT rise.
People hate inheritance tax, don't they? For me, this is a close psychological fit to our attachment to private schools. In both cases it goes way beyond those who pay IHT or use private schools. And for me it also explains why it is next to impossible for Labour to win power here unless they abandon any serious ambitions to fight inequality. The fact is, we value other things far higher than that. Sad face.
People spend their whole lives building up assets - it represents their life's work.
They don't want to see the whole lot confiscated by the State when they die.
They want to choose how to leave their own legacy instead.
It is a very sad idea that all we work for during life is to amass money. What about family, experiences, achievements, education.
As far as I am aware IHT is only charged at 40% on amounts above £325000, (£650000 for couples), so it is hardly "everything".
There is nothing to stop us leaving our legecy to whoever we want.
When are we going to get an article on what a gargantuan shower of sh8t the liberal democrats are right now?
If there's a wrong side to be on every argument, they find it.
They could make a big impact in the leafy shires where they were strong by fighting the tories' planning plans. Nothing
They could make a big impact by at least asking questions about the relationship between liberty lockdown and freedom that some are asking, and the rule by decree that is becoming increasingly unpopular. After all, 'liberal' and 'democratic' are their name. Nothing.
They could ask questions about why as Max pointed out earlier, the lives of young people are being destroyed on pretexts that are becoming more and more debatable. Nothing. Labour should be on this too. Its them the young vote for, after all. But again, nothing.
People talk, rightly, about how poor the government is. What is less talked about is how poor the opposition is. Ed Miliband got praise lavished on him by a fawning commentariat for asking tough questions on a topic the public don;t give a monkeys about. A topic they believe was decided months ago.
On topics they do care a great deal about, nothing.
They could but there is no media space for anything but EU slagging off and COVID testing failures.
Voters prefer tax rises to spending cuts by 59% to 16%.
However while 57% support increasing tobacco duty and 55% back a corporation tax rise and 37% back increasing CGT or alcohol duty only 20% back increasing income tax, just 12% back increasing inheritance tax and only 9% back increasing national insurance and a tiny 7% want a fuel tax rise or VAT rise.
People hate inheritance tax, don't they? For me, this is a close psychological fit to our attachment to private schools. In both cases it goes way beyond those who pay IHT or use private schools. And for me it also explains why it is next to impossible for Labour to win power here unless they abandon any serious ambitions to fight inequality. The fact is, we value other things far higher than that. Sad face.
That does fortunately seem to be empirically true. Any party seeking to steal our assets or destroy the best part of the education sector in this or any other country is running a marathon up a mountain...
Voters prefer tax rises to spending cuts by 59% to 16%.
However while 57% support increasing tobacco duty and 55% back a corporation tax rise and 37% back increasing CGT or alcohol duty only 20% back increasing income tax, just 12% back increasing inheritance tax and only 9% back increasing national insurance and a tiny 7% want a fuel tax rise or VAT rise.
People hate inheritance tax, don't they? For me, this is a close psychological fit to our attachment to private schools. In both cases it goes way beyond those who pay IHT or use private schools. And for me it also explains why it is next to impossible for Labour to win power here unless they abandon any serious ambitions to fight inequality. The fact is, we value other things far higher than that. Sad face.
People spend their whole lives building up assets - it represents their life's work.
They don't want to see the whole lot confiscated by the State when they die.
They want to choose how to leave their own legacy instead.
Yeah, fine, and I'm playing devil's advocate here, but generationally accumulated wealth really spits in the face of a meritocracy as wealth undoubtably improves life chances.
Voters prefer tax rises to spending cuts by 59% to 16%.
However while 57% support increasing tobacco duty and 55% back a corporation tax rise and 37% back increasing CGT or alcohol duty only 20% back increasing income tax, just 12% back increasing inheritance tax and only 9% back increasing national insurance and a tiny 7% want a fuel tax rise or VAT rise.
People hate inheritance tax, don't they? For me, this is a close psychological fit to our attachment to private schools. In both cases it goes way beyond those who pay IHT or use private schools. And for me it also explains why it is next to impossible for Labour to win power here unless they abandon any serious ambitions to fight inequality. The fact is, we value other things far higher than that. Sad face.
People spend their whole lives building up assets - it represents their life's work.
They don't want to see the whole lot confiscated by the State when they die.
They want to choose how to leave their own legacy instead.
I understand the psychology of it but find it ridiculous as an argument as it rather perversely treats the deceased as the beneficiary of the post-death disposal of assets, rather than the people getting a big cheque for doing essentially sod all.
I'm all in favour of people doing what they like with the money they've earned in their lifetime, including being generous with friends and family if that makes them happy. After they are gone and have been given a decent send off, it simply ceases to be their money - it's literally no good to them.
We don't get a say on other things that happen after we are dead - we don't get a vote for example. Why, uniquely, assets?
The reason, in truth, is that those of us with parents who have a few quid squirreled away would like our share. People who say "my old Dad should be able to leave his millions to me out of respect for him" are lying to themselves. The truth is they'd like the old boy's money when he's gone... and I don't blame them but don't elevate it to the level of high principle.
Personally, I'd treat inheritance as income in the hands of the beneficiary rather than as inheritance tax. This would encourage people to be generous in their lifetime, and spread it about to a wider group to minimise liability.
I'm also assuming that Biden, in order to win a state, has to be ahead by a decent margin to allow for shy Trump voters, voter repression, and other contingencies.
If the margin is 2.5%, then Biden wins Az, Fl, Mi, Pa, Wis and ends up with 319 EC.
If the margin is 5.0%, then Biden wins Az, Mi, Wis and ends up with 270 EC (assuming he gets the last Maine seat otherwise a dead heat). NB He is on a 4.9% lead in Pa so Trump just retains it.
Trump is still ahead on the latest Maine 02 polling and won it by 10% in 2016 so that would make it 269 - 269 if you just look at states Biden is 5% or more ahead as above and Trump wins the rest
"Biden will only win states he leads by 5% or more" is a hell of a ridiculous assumption to make.
With the exception of Nevada it largely worked for Clinton states in 2016
I'm also assuming that Biden, in order to win a state, has to be ahead by a decent margin to allow for shy Trump voters, voter repression, and other contingencies.
If the margin is 2.5%, then Biden wins Az, Fl, Mi, Pa, Wis and ends up with 319 EC.
If the margin is 5.0%, then Biden wins Az, Mi, Wis and ends up with 270 EC (assuming he gets the last Maine seat otherwise a dead heat). NB He is on a 4.9% lead in Pa so Trump just retains it.
Trump is still ahead on the latest Maine 02 polling and won it by 10% in 2016 so that would make it 269 - 269 if you just look at states Biden is 5% or more ahead as above and Trump wins the rest
"Biden will only win states he leads by 5% or more" is a hell of a ridiculous assumption to make.
With the exception of Nevada it largely worked for Clinton states in 2016
This isn't 2016. There's no real evidence of "shy trumpers" or polling errors.
Voters prefer tax rises to spending cuts by 59% to 16%.
However while 57% support increasing tobacco duty and 55% back a corporation tax rise and 37% back increasing CGT or alcohol duty only 20% back increasing income tax, just 12% back increasing inheritance tax and only 9% back increasing national insurance and a tiny 7% want a fuel tax rise or VAT rise.
People hate inheritance tax, don't they? For me, this is a close psychological fit to our attachment to private schools. In both cases it goes way beyond those who pay IHT or use private schools. And for me it also explains why it is next to impossible for Labour to win power here unless they abandon any serious ambitions to fight inequality. The fact is, we value other things far higher than that. Sad face.
People spend their whole lives building up assets - it represents their life's work.
They don't want to see the whole lot confiscated by the State when they die.
They want to choose how to leave their own legacy instead.
Yeah, fine, and I'm playing devil's advocate here, but generationally accumulated wealth really spits in the face of a meritocracy as wealth undoubtably improves life chances.
Voters prefer tax rises to spending cuts by 59% to 16%.
However while 57% support increasing tobacco duty and 55% back a corporation tax rise and 37% back increasing CGT or alcohol duty only 20% back increasing income tax, just 12% back increasing inheritance tax and only 9% back increasing national insurance and a tiny 7% want a fuel tax rise or VAT rise.
People hate inheritance tax, don't they? For me, this is a close psychological fit to our attachment to private schools. In both cases it goes way beyond those who pay IHT or use private schools. And for me it also explains why it is next to impossible for Labour to win power here unless they abandon any serious ambitions to fight inequality. The fact is, we value other things far higher than that. Sad face.
People spend their whole lives building up assets - it represents their life's work.
They don't want to see the whole lot confiscated by the State when they die.
They want to choose how to leave their own legacy instead.
I understand the psychology of it but find it ridiculous as an argument as it rather perversely treats the deceased as the beneficiary of the post-death disposal of assets, rather than the people getting a big cheque for doing essentially sod all.
I'm all in favour of people doing what they like with the money they've earned in their lifetime, including being generous with friends and family if that makes them happy. After they are gone and have been given a decent send off, it simply ceases to be their money - it's literally no good to them.
We don't get a say on other things that happen after we are dead - we don't get a vote for example. Why, uniquely, assets?
The reason, in truth, is that those of us with parents who have a few quid squirreled away would like our share. People who say "my old Dad should be able to leave his millions to me out of respect for him" are lying to themselves. The truth is they'd like the old boy's money when he's gone... and I don't blame them but don't elevate it to the level of high principle.
Personally, I'd treat inheritance as income in the hands of the beneficiary rather than as inheritance tax. This would encourage people to be generous in their lifetime, and spread it about to a wider group to minimise liability.
Another thing that is odd is that you can get IHT off your estate if you leave to charity (or your heirs do a deed of variation), which is one thing, but also to political parties - which is quite another. Yet you don't get Gift Aid on your Tory, or SNP, or whatever annual sub.
Edit: so in that sense you do get a vote from the grave.
Voters prefer tax rises to spending cuts by 59% to 16%.
However while 57% support increasing tobacco duty and 55% back a corporation tax rise and 37% back increasing CGT or alcohol duty only 20% back increasing income tax, just 12% back increasing inheritance tax and only 9% back increasing national insurance and a tiny 7% want a fuel tax rise or VAT rise.
People hate inheritance tax, don't they? For me, this is a close psychological fit to our attachment to private schools. In both cases it goes way beyond those who pay IHT or use private schools. And for me it also explains why it is next to impossible for Labour to win power here unless they abandon any serious ambitions to fight inequality. The fact is, we value other things far higher than that. Sad face.
People spend their whole lives building up assets - it represents their life's work.
They don't want to see the whole lot confiscated by the State when they die.
They want to choose how to leave their own legacy instead.
This always confuses me. They don't get to see anything at all. The number one regret of the dying is having worked too hard. I guess folk fundamentally don't internalise that death is inevitable and is the end for all of us.
Indeed. Imagine a world where on death the state took half and you had to leave the other half to registered charities of your choice. Where gifts prior to death were taxable income. With the commensurate reduction in other taxation while you were living, and the other economic changes that would follow, such as housing market affordability.
So I noticed that there is the potential for a tropical cyclone to form unusually far up in the North-East Atlantic and wondered how unusual it was. Found that there have been a couple since 2000 in the general area, so could be something that may worsen over the next couple of decades if the North Atlantic continues to warm.
Voters prefer tax rises to spending cuts by 59% to 16%.
However while 57% support increasing tobacco duty and 55% back a corporation tax rise and 37% back increasing CGT or alcohol duty only 20% back increasing income tax, just 12% back increasing inheritance tax and only 9% back increasing national insurance and a tiny 7% want a fuel tax rise or VAT rise.
People hate inheritance tax, don't they? For me, this is a close psychological fit to our attachment to private schools. In both cases it goes way beyond those who pay IHT or use private schools. And for me it also explains why it is next to impossible for Labour to win power here unless they abandon any serious ambitions to fight inequality. The fact is, we value other things far higher than that. Sad face.
People spend their whole lives building up assets - it represents their life's work.
They don't want to see the whole lot confiscated by the State when they die.
They want to choose how to leave their own legacy instead.
Nevertheless a world where everyone started off without any financial inheritance would probably be a better one.
No it would be a world where all our assets we worked for were returned to the state on death
As I was saying. Making possible a more true meritocracy
I wonder if the EU is trying to get the UK to commit to SPS standards for much longer than the WTO notification period of 9 months?
So Frost and Johnson are telling the truth and Barnier is threatening a full blockade. Every MP in the Commons who isn't backing the government over the IM Bill should be ashamed of themselves.
The UK reply that the UK is following EU rules is pretty self-explanatory too. If the UK diverges in the future then the EU should deal with that in the future but for now this is just them messing us around. Good on the Government for calling it out.
I thought that was one point where Ed Miliband was clearly over egging the pudding yesterday. He claimed that there was nothing in the bill that had any relevance to the supply of food to NI and ostentatiously offered to give way to the PM to correct him. Of course if the existing registrations of UK foodstuffs are not preserved the effect is that it would be illegal for those foodstuffs to be transferred to NI unless the powers given in the bill were exercised to exclude the provision of that food from the restrictions that would otherwise apply. This is an inevitable consequence of NI's hybrid state, both in the UK and in the SM.
I still don't get why the government felt the need to bring all this virtue signalling and pomposity upon themselves when emergency legislation could no doubt have been brought in instantly if and when such a scenario arose. Which, lets face it, it probably won't.
Voters prefer tax rises to spending cuts by 59% to 16%.
However while 57% support increasing tobacco duty and 55% back a corporation tax rise and 37% back increasing CGT or alcohol duty only 20% back increasing income tax, just 12% back increasing inheritance tax and only 9% back increasing national insurance and a tiny 7% want a fuel tax rise or VAT rise.
People hate inheritance tax, don't they? For me, this is a close psychological fit to our attachment to private schools. In both cases it goes way beyond those who pay IHT or use private schools. And for me it also explains why it is next to impossible for Labour to win power here unless they abandon any serious ambitions to fight inequality. The fact is, we value other things far higher than that. Sad face.
People spend their whole lives building up assets - it represents their life's work.
They don't want to see the whole lot confiscated by the State when they die.
They want to choose how to leave their own legacy instead.
I understand the psychology of it but find it ridiculous as an argument as it rather perversely treats the deceased as the beneficiary of the post-death disposal of assets, rather than the people getting a big cheque for doing essentially sod all.
I'm all in favour of people doing what they like with the money they've earned in their lifetime, including being generous with friends and family if that makes them happy. After they are gone and have been given a decent send off, it simply ceases to be their money - it's literally no good to them.
We don't get a say on other things that happen after we are dead - we don't get a vote for example. Why, uniquely, assets?
The reason, in truth, is that those of us with parents who have a few quid squirreled away would like our share. People who say "my old Dad should be able to leave his millions to me out of respect for him" are lying to themselves. The truth is they'd like the old boy's money when he's gone... and I don't blame them but don't elevate it to the level of high principle.
Personally, I'd treat inheritance as income in the hands of the beneficiary rather than as inheritance tax. This would encourage people to be generous in their lifetime, and spread it about to a wider group to minimise liability.
They already paid tax on it when they earned it though
Voters prefer tax rises to spending cuts by 59% to 16%.
However while 57% support increasing tobacco duty and 55% back a corporation tax rise and 37% back increasing CGT or alcohol duty only 20% back increasing income tax, just 12% back increasing inheritance tax and only 9% back increasing national insurance and a tiny 7% want a fuel tax rise or VAT rise.
People hate inheritance tax, don't they? For me, this is a close psychological fit to our attachment to private schools. In both cases it goes way beyond those who pay IHT or use private schools. And for me it also explains why it is next to impossible for Labour to win power here unless they abandon any serious ambitions to fight inequality. The fact is, we value other things far higher than that. Sad face.
People spend their whole lives building up assets - it represents their life's work.
They don't want to see the whole lot confiscated by the State when they die.
They want to choose how to leave their own legacy instead.
Nevertheless a world where everyone started off without any financial inheritance would probably be a better one.
No it would be a world where all our assets we worked for were returned to the state on death
As I was saying. Making possible a more true meritocracy
No, meritocracy in reality just mainly reflects inherited IQ, it just means an expanded state and less private wealth
A very satisfying day in parliament yesterday. Majority of 77. woof. Country is so much bettter off than with the paralysis of 12 months ago. Long may it continue.
I recently re-watched Donnie Darko, and that film treads a fine line on this issue, but gets it right in my opinion. Not seen (and almost certainly won't bother seeing) this film, but it's hardly a surprise that it's been criticized.
Hancock says it will take “matter of weeks” to resolve testing shortage
Hmm. Taking him at his word, those are "weeks" we probably don't have right now.
Apparently 100k tests a day are being conducted on those in social care sector and hospital admissions.
And 100k on the whole of the rest of general population.
This appears to be the bottleneck.
And this is why I think the switch to investment in rapid testing has been mistimed. There aren't enough of those machines rolling off the production line and at the same time the resources aren't being spent to continue scaling up PCR testing. It seems as though the government has bet on rapid testing and is just going to hold the line until the production of them increases enough to meet demand.
I'm also assuming that Biden, in order to win a state, has to be ahead by a decent margin to allow for shy Trump voters, voter repression, and other contingencies.
If the margin is 2.5%, then Biden wins Az, Fl, Mi, Pa, Wis and ends up with 319 EC.
If the margin is 5.0%, then Biden wins Az, Mi, Wis and ends up with 270 EC (assuming he gets the last Maine seat otherwise a dead heat). NB He is on a 4.9% lead in Pa so Trump just retains it.
Trump is still ahead on the latest Maine 02 polling and won it by 10% in 2016 so that would make it 269 - 269 if you just look at states Biden is 5% or more ahead as above and Trump wins the rest
"Biden will only win states he leads by 5% or more" is a hell of a ridiculous assumption to make.
With the exception of Nevada it largely worked for Clinton states in 2016
This isn't 2016. There's no real evidence of "shy trumpers" or polling errors.
Voters prefer tax rises to spending cuts by 59% to 16%.
However while 57% support increasing tobacco duty and 55% back a corporation tax rise and 37% back increasing CGT or alcohol duty only 20% back increasing income tax, just 12% back increasing inheritance tax and only 9% back increasing national insurance and a tiny 7% want a fuel tax rise or VAT rise.
People hate inheritance tax, don't they? For me, this is a close psychological fit to our attachment to private schools. In both cases it goes way beyond those who pay IHT or use private schools. And for me it also explains why it is next to impossible for Labour to win power here unless they abandon any serious ambitions to fight inequality. The fact is, we value other things far higher than that. Sad face.
People spend their whole lives building up assets - it represents their life's work.
They don't want to see the whole lot confiscated by the State when they die.
They want to choose how to leave their own legacy instead.
Nevertheless a world where everyone started off without any financial inheritance would probably be a better one.
No it would be a world where all our assets we worked for were returned to the state on death
As I was saying. Making possible a more true meritocracy
No, meritocracy in reality just mainly reflects inherited IQ, it just means an expanded state and less private wealth
Utter rubbish. You can have a high IQ and yet still be extremely lazy.
So I noticed that there is the potential for a tropical cyclone to form unusually far up in the North-East Atlantic and wondered how unusual it was. Found that there have been a couple since 2000 in the general area, so could be something that may worsen over the next couple of decades if the North Atlantic continues to warm.
I'm also assuming that Biden, in order to win a state, has to be ahead by a decent margin to allow for shy Trump voters, voter repression, and other contingencies.
If the margin is 2.5%, then Biden wins Az, Fl, Mi, Pa, Wis and ends up with 319 EC.
If the margin is 5.0%, then Biden wins Az, Mi, Wis and ends up with 270 EC (assuming he gets the last Maine seat otherwise a dead heat). NB He is on a 4.9% lead in Pa so Trump just retains it.
Trump is still ahead on the latest Maine 02 polling and won it by 10% in 2016 so that would make it 269 - 269 if you just look at states Biden is 5% or more ahead as above and Trump wins the rest
"Biden will only win states he leads by 5% or more" is a hell of a ridiculous assumption to make.
With the exception of Nevada it largely worked for Clinton states in 2016
This isn't 2016. There's no real evidence of "shy trumpers" or polling errors.
We will see on election night
Yes we will see, but in the meantime there is no empirical or logical evidence to base any betting strategy on the exact same result as 2016.
I wonder if the EU is trying to get the UK to commit to SPS standards for much longer than the WTO notification period of 9 months?
So Frost and Johnson are telling the truth and Barnier is threatening a full blockade. Every MP in the Commons who isn't backing the government over the IM Bill should be ashamed of themselves.
The UK reply that the UK is following EU rules is pretty self-explanatory too. If the UK diverges in the future then the EU should deal with that in the future but for now this is just them messing us around. Good on the Government for calling it out.
I thought that was one point where Ed Miliband was clearly over egging the pudding yesterday. He claimed that there was nothing in the bill that had any relevance to the supply of food to NI and ostentatiously offered to give way to the PM to correct him. Of course if the existing registrations of UK foodstuffs are not preserved the effect is that it would be illegal for those foodstuffs to be transferred to NI unless the powers given in the bill were exercised to exclude the provision of that food from the restrictions that would otherwise apply. This is an inevitable consequence of NI's hybrid state, both in the UK and in the SM.
I still don't get why the government felt the need to bring all this virtue signalling and pomposity upon themselves when emergency legislation could no doubt have been brought in instantly if and when such a scenario arose. Which, lets face it, it probably won't.
Because ostentatiousness is the order of the day. The EU are saying to us "give us what we want or we will make you suffer", to which the Government has responded by fighting fire and fire and are basically saying "bring it on, oh and don't expect us to sit idly by while you absorb Northern Ireland".
Voters prefer tax rises to spending cuts by 59% to 16%.
However while 57% support increasing tobacco duty and 55% back a corporation tax rise and 37% back increasing CGT or alcohol duty only 20% back increasing income tax, just 12% back increasing inheritance tax and only 9% back increasing national insurance and a tiny 7% want a fuel tax rise or VAT rise.
People hate inheritance tax, don't they? For me, this is a close psychological fit to our attachment to private schools. In both cases it goes way beyond those who pay IHT or use private schools. And for me it also explains why it is next to impossible for Labour to win power here unless they abandon any serious ambitions to fight inequality. The fact is, we value other things far higher than that. Sad face.
People spend their whole lives building up assets - it represents their life's work.
They don't want to see the whole lot confiscated by the State when they die.
They want to choose how to leave their own legacy instead.
I understand the psychology of it but find it ridiculous as an argument as it rather perversely treats the deceased as the beneficiary of the post-death disposal of assets, rather than the people getting a big cheque for doing essentially sod all.
I'm all in favour of people doing what they like with the money they've earned in their lifetime, including being generous with friends and family if that makes them happy. After they are gone and have been given a decent send off, it simply ceases to be their money - it's literally no good to them.
We don't get a say on other things that happen after we are dead - we don't get a vote for example. Why, uniquely, assets?
The reason, in truth, is that those of us with parents who have a few quid squirreled away would like our share. People who say "my old Dad should be able to leave his millions to me out of respect for him" are lying to themselves. The truth is they'd like the old boy's money when he's gone... and I don't blame them but don't elevate it to the level of high principle.
Personally, I'd treat inheritance as income in the hands of the beneficiary rather than as inheritance tax. This would encourage people to be generous in their lifetime, and spread it about to a wider group to minimise liability.
They already paid tax on it when they earned it though
Voters prefer tax rises to spending cuts by 59% to 16%.
However while 57% support increasing tobacco duty and 55% back a corporation tax rise and 37% back increasing CGT or alcohol duty only 20% back increasing income tax, just 12% back increasing inheritance tax and only 9% back increasing national insurance and a tiny 7% want a fuel tax rise or VAT rise.
People hate inheritance tax, don't they? For me, this is a close psychological fit to our attachment to private schools. In both cases it goes way beyond those who pay IHT or use private schools. And for me it also explains why it is next to impossible for Labour to win power here unless they abandon any serious ambitions to fight inequality. The fact is, we value other things far higher than that. Sad face.
People spend their whole lives building up assets - it represents their life's work.
They don't want to see the whole lot confiscated by the State when they die.
They want to choose how to leave their own legacy instead.
I understand the psychology of it but find it ridiculous as an argument as it rather perversely treats the deceased as the beneficiary of the post-death disposal of assets, rather than the people getting a big cheque for doing essentially sod all.
I'm all in favour of people doing what they like with the money they've earned in their lifetime, including being generous with friends and family if that makes them happy. After they are gone and have been given a decent send off, it simply ceases to be their money - it's literally no good to them.
We don't get a say on other things that happen after we are dead - we don't get a vote for example. Why, uniquely, assets?
The reason, in truth, is that those of us with parents who have a few quid squirreled away would like our share. People who say "my old Dad should be able to leave his millions to me out of respect for him" are lying to themselves. The truth is they'd like the old boy's money when he's gone... and I don't blame them but don't elevate it to the level of high principle.
Personally, I'd treat inheritance as income in the hands of the beneficiary rather than as inheritance tax. This would encourage people to be generous in their lifetime, and spread it about to a wider group to minimise liability.
But the psychology is everything in this debate, above all the psychology of the family: whereas the State and many lefties see death as simply the end of the individual and thus an opportunity to seize their assets, most of those individuals see their death as just an unfortunate incident in the unbroken chain of genetic and material inheritance that is their family. I know how much people love Orwell, so let's quote him out of context again: 'the weariness of the cell is the vigour of the organism'. The individual dies; their legacy, literal and metaphorical, lives on. Woe to the party that attempts to interfere with that natural human desire.
I wonder if the EU is trying to get the UK to commit to SPS standards for much longer than the WTO notification period of 9 months?
So Frost and Johnson are telling the truth and Barnier is threatening a full blockade. Every MP in the Commons who isn't backing the government over the IM Bill should be ashamed of themselves.
The UK reply that the UK is following EU rules is pretty self-explanatory too. If the UK diverges in the future then the EU should deal with that in the future but for now this is just them messing us around. Good on the Government for calling it out.
I thought that was one point where Ed Miliband was clearly over egging the pudding yesterday. He claimed that there was nothing in the bill that had any relevance to the supply of food to NI and ostentatiously offered to give way to the PM to correct him. Of course if the existing registrations of UK foodstuffs are not preserved the effect is that it would be illegal for those foodstuffs to be transferred to NI unless the powers given in the bill were exercised to exclude the provision of that food from the restrictions that would otherwise apply. This is an inevitable consequence of NI's hybrid state, both in the UK and in the SM.
I still don't get why the government felt the need to bring all this virtue signalling and pomposity upon themselves when emergency legislation could no doubt have been brought in instantly if and when such a scenario arose. Which, lets face it, it probably won't.
Because ostentatiousness is the order of the day. The EU are saying to us "give us what we want or we will make you suffer", to which the Government has responded by fighting fire and fire and are basically saying "bring it on, oh and don't expect us to sit idly by while you absorb Northern Ireland".
Voters prefer tax rises to spending cuts by 59% to 16%.
However while 57% support increasing tobacco duty and 55% back a corporation tax rise and 37% back increasing CGT or alcohol duty only 20% back increasing income tax, just 12% back increasing inheritance tax and only 9% back increasing national insurance and a tiny 7% want a fuel tax rise or VAT rise.
People hate inheritance tax, don't they? For me, this is a close psychological fit to our attachment to private schools. In both cases it goes way beyond those who pay IHT or use private schools. And for me it also explains why it is next to impossible for Labour to win power here unless they abandon any serious ambitions to fight inequality. The fact is, we value other things far higher than that. Sad face.
People spend their whole lives building up assets - it represents their life's work.
They don't want to see the whole lot confiscated by the State when they die.
They want to choose how to leave their own legacy instead.
I understand the psychology of it but find it ridiculous as an argument as it rather perversely treats the deceased as the beneficiary of the post-death disposal of assets, rather than the people getting a big cheque for doing essentially sod all.
I'm all in favour of people doing what they like with the money they've earned in their lifetime, including being generous with friends and family if that makes them happy. After they are gone and have been given a decent send off, it simply ceases to be their money - it's literally no good to them.
We don't get a say on other things that happen after we are dead - we don't get a vote for example. Why, uniquely, assets?
The reason, in truth, is that those of us with parents who have a few quid squirreled away would like our share. People who say "my old Dad should be able to leave his millions to me out of respect for him" are lying to themselves. The truth is they'd like the old boy's money when he's gone... and I don't blame them but don't elevate it to the level of high principle.
Personally, I'd treat inheritance as income in the hands of the beneficiary rather than as inheritance tax. This would encourage people to be generous in their lifetime, and spread it about to a wider group to minimise liability.
They already paid tax on it when they earned it though
And your point is?
Whenever money moves around the economy, taxes are levied. (apart from some exceptions). It's what money does that matters rather than the accumulation of it.
I'm also assuming that Biden, in order to win a state, has to be ahead by a decent margin to allow for shy Trump voters, voter repression, and other contingencies.
If the margin is 2.5%, then Biden wins Az, Fl, Mi, Pa, Wis and ends up with 319 EC.
If the margin is 5.0%, then Biden wins Az, Mi, Wis and ends up with 270 EC (assuming he gets the last Maine seat otherwise a dead heat). NB He is on a 4.9% lead in Pa so Trump just retains it.
Trump is still ahead on the latest Maine 02 polling and won it by 10% in 2016 so that would make it 269 - 269 if you just look at states Biden is 5% or more ahead as above and Trump wins the rest
"Biden will only win states he leads by 5% or more" is a hell of a ridiculous assumption to make.
With the exception of Nevada it largely worked for Clinton states in 2016
We've been through this many times, but this is a reason to say it COULD happen rather than to assume it WILL happen.
Polls can routinely underestimate one candidate or another. But they do re-calibrate after elections, and the evidence is they have (e.g. correcting under-sampling of non-college educated white voters).
Your argument is, as I see it, rather like responding to a team coming from 1-0 down at halftime to win by assuming that an away comeback win is likely whenever the score is 1-0 at halftime. It isn't. The recent example is merely a useful reminder that it CAN happen. To me, Trump is like a good football team that we know CAN claw back a deficit after halftime. But I'd not assume it will happen... the fact is he's in deficit with enough but not a huge amount of time on the clock, so the likelihood (although by no means certainty) is that he'll lose.
Voters prefer tax rises to spending cuts by 59% to 16%.
However while 57% support increasing tobacco duty and 55% back a corporation tax rise and 37% back increasing CGT or alcohol duty only 20% back increasing income tax, just 12% back increasing inheritance tax and only 9% back increasing national insurance and a tiny 7% want a fuel tax rise or VAT rise.
People hate inheritance tax, don't they? For me, this is a close psychological fit to our attachment to private schools. In both cases it goes way beyond those who pay IHT or use private schools. And for me it also explains why it is next to impossible for Labour to win power here unless they abandon any serious ambitions to fight inequality. The fact is, we value other things far higher than that. Sad face.
People spend their whole lives building up assets - it represents their life's work.
They don't want to see the whole lot confiscated by the State when they die.
They want to choose how to leave their own legacy instead.
Yeah, fine, and I'm playing devil's advocate here, but generationally accumulated wealth really spits in the face of a meritocracy as wealth undoubtably improves life chances.
So does inherited IQ
But sadly not so much as inherited (or education-inculcated) confidence
I'm also assuming that Biden, in order to win a state, has to be ahead by a decent margin to allow for shy Trump voters, voter repression, and other contingencies.
If the margin is 2.5%, then Biden wins Az, Fl, Mi, Pa, Wis and ends up with 319 EC.
If the margin is 5.0%, then Biden wins Az, Mi, Wis and ends up with 270 EC (assuming he gets the last Maine seat otherwise a dead heat). NB He is on a 4.9% lead in Pa so Trump just retains it.
Trump is still ahead on the latest Maine 02 polling and won it by 10% in 2016 so that would make it 269 - 269 if you just look at states Biden is 5% or more ahead as above and Trump wins the rest
"Biden will only win states he leads by 5% or more" is a hell of a ridiculous assumption to make.
With the exception of Nevada it largely worked for Clinton states in 2016
This isn't 2016. There's no real evidence of "shy trumpers" or polling errors.
We will see on election night
Yes we will see, but in the meantime there is no empirical or logical evidence to base any betting strategy on the exact same result as 2016.
There is on the basis Trafalgar group was the only pollster who had Trump ahead in Michigan and Pennsylvania in 2016 and still has Trump ahead in Michigan and Wisconsin or Rasmussen and Fox have Biden 5% or less ahead in the popular vote
A very satisfying day in parliament yesterday. Majority of 77. woof. Country is so much bettter off than with the paralysis of 12 months ago. Long may it continue.
Yes, right or wrong, clever or stupid, doing anything is better than the paralysis of the remainer Parliament.
Voters prefer tax rises to spending cuts by 59% to 16%.
However while 57% support increasing tobacco duty and 55% back a corporation tax rise and 37% back increasing CGT or alcohol duty only 20% back increasing income tax, just 12% back increasing inheritance tax and only 9% back increasing national insurance and a tiny 7% want a fuel tax rise or VAT rise.
People hate inheritance tax, don't they? For me, this is a close psychological fit to our attachment to private schools. In both cases it goes way beyond those who pay IHT or use private schools. And for me it also explains why it is next to impossible for Labour to win power here unless they abandon any serious ambitions to fight inequality. The fact is, we value other things far higher than that. Sad face.
People spend their whole lives building up assets - it represents their life's work.
They don't want to see the whole lot confiscated by the State when they die.
They want to choose how to leave their own legacy instead.
Nevertheless a world where everyone started off without any financial inheritance would probably be a better one.
No it would be a world where all our assets we worked for were returned to the state on death
As I was saying. Making possible a more true meritocracy
No, meritocracy in reality just mainly reflects inherited IQ, it just means an expanded state and less private wealth
Utter rubbish. You can have a high IQ and yet still be extremely lazy.
To be a doctor, lawyer, software engineer ie the highest paid jobs, you need a high IQ.
Even most wealthy entrepreneurs have a high IQ.
Plenty of cleaners work hard, does not mean they are rich.
Voters prefer tax rises to spending cuts by 59% to 16%.
However while 57% support increasing tobacco duty and 55% back a corporation tax rise and 37% back increasing CGT or alcohol duty only 20% back increasing income tax, just 12% back increasing inheritance tax and only 9% back increasing national insurance and a tiny 7% want a fuel tax rise or VAT rise.
People hate inheritance tax, don't they? For me, this is a close psychological fit to our attachment to private schools. In both cases it goes way beyond those who pay IHT or use private schools. And for me it also explains why it is next to impossible for Labour to win power here unless they abandon any serious ambitions to fight inequality. The fact is, we value other things far higher than that. Sad face.
I disagree. I think that, if you are relying on inheritance tax to fight inequality then you are a more patient person than me. It would take generations for the effect to filter through.
Certainly it looks hard for policies to fight inequality by making direct fiscal transfers, but I'd argue that isn't the best way to fight inequality. As we saw with tax credits under Brown and Osbourne, they are very vulnerable to a new government salami slicing the transfers away.
You can only effectively fight inequality by changing the rules of the game, ideally in a way that best survives a change in government. Strengthen unions, weaken rent-seeking, improve access to the law, empower local government, encourage civic society.
The focus on fiscal transfers is intellectually infantilising the Left (although my favourites are a citizens income over tax credits and a land value tax over inheritance tax... D'oh!)
Ok yes. Good points and largely agree. But I didn't mean that hiking IHT or abolishing private schools are necessarily the best way to fight inequality - just that the visceral opposition of the public to these things is imo a clue to something that might be difficult for people like me to accept but nevertheless might have to be contemplated. That a serious assault on inequality is not wanted by people. It's unBritish. Or unEnglish rather. The phrase that "we are a conservative country". I think this is part of what it means.
On the topic of the 'rule of law' this ruling by the future Lord Diplock sounds relevant even if it was over 50 years ago:
"Boris Johnson's proposal to break international law 'in a specific and limited way' has sparked uproar. But do you remember when the UK broke the Geneva Convention? Oh. Well we did. The government ratified the Geneva Convention on the Sea on 10 September 1964. From then the UK was bound forever by the treaty and bound by international law. On 25 September 1964, we were not. No explanation was given. No explanation was asked.
Our Judge who ruled in favour of the government when it broke the Geneva Convention of the Sea, said this:
'the Crown [The Government] has a sovereign right, which the court cannot question, to change its policy, even if this involves breaking an international convention to which it is a party and which has come into force so recently as fifteen days before'.
That Judge became Lord Diplock and he was, one of our very best judges. He was utterly silent on whether or not he thought that example of breaking international law was good or bad – silent because it is a question of politics. Obeying this law is part of our Rule of Law. In a way some may find confusing, that may mean we must obey this law – that we can break international law." https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-didn-t-the-eu-punish-germany-when-it-broke-international-law-
Ah but that was back in the days when Judges were focused on the law instead of human rights and public policy. Halcyon days in retrospect.
If human rights are not protected by law, what are they protected by?
Well paid, more than slightly arrogant, extremely white, old men (in very large part), apparently. They just know better.
You mean the law, don't you?
(As they almost said on Star Trek) Its law Joff, but not as we know it.
In all seriousness I agree with the Sumption critique. Judges who think that they know better are ultimately a threat to democracy.
Presumably Sumpers has no problem with retired judges who think that they know better. Shame about the media blackout on him which prevents him telling all and sundry about all the subjects on which he knows better.
Voters prefer tax rises to spending cuts by 59% to 16%.
However while 57% support increasing tobacco duty and 55% back a corporation tax rise and 37% back increasing CGT or alcohol duty only 20% back increasing income tax, just 12% back increasing inheritance tax and only 9% back increasing national insurance and a tiny 7% want a fuel tax rise or VAT rise.
People hate inheritance tax, don't they? For me, this is a close psychological fit to our attachment to private schools. In both cases it goes way beyond those who pay IHT or use private schools. And for me it also explains why it is next to impossible for Labour to win power here unless they abandon any serious ambitions to fight inequality. The fact is, we value other things far higher than that. Sad face.
People spend their whole lives building up assets - it represents their life's work.
They don't want to see the whole lot confiscated by the State when they die.
They want to choose how to leave their own legacy instead.
I understand the psychology of it but find it ridiculous as an argument as it rather perversely treats the deceased as the beneficiary of the post-death disposal of assets, rather than the people getting a big cheque for doing essentially sod all.
I'm all in favour of people doing what they like with the money they've earned in their lifetime, including being generous with friends and family if that makes them happy. After they are gone and have been given a decent send off, it simply ceases to be their money - it's literally no good to them.
We don't get a say on other things that happen after we are dead - we don't get a vote for example. Why, uniquely, assets?
The reason, in truth, is that those of us with parents who have a few quid squirreled away would like our share. People who say "my old Dad should be able to leave his millions to me out of respect for him" are lying to themselves. The truth is they'd like the old boy's money when he's gone... and I don't blame them but don't elevate it to the level of high principle.
Personally, I'd treat inheritance as income in the hands of the beneficiary rather than as inheritance tax. This would encourage people to be generous in their lifetime, and spread it about to a wider group to minimise liability.
They already paid tax on it when they earned it though
But the psychology is everything in this debate, above all the psychology of the family: whereas the State and many lefties see death as simply the end of the individual and thus an opportunity to seize their assets, most of those individuals see their death as just an unfortunate incident in the unbroken chain of genetic and material inheritance that is their family. I know how much people love Orwell, so let's quote him out of context again: 'the weariness of the cell is the vigour of the organism'. The individual dies; their legacy, literal and metaphorical, lives on. Woe to the party that attempts to interfere with that natural human desire.
It is only "everything" in this, or other, debates if your objective to get to the popular rather than right answer.
I appreciate this is a political betting website and so we focus on what is likely to be popular among the public and what isn't. That's the dominant angle here, and that's fine. But it isn't the only, or the most important, perspective.
I suppose some would also argue that popular is everything in a democracy - it's either what people want or it isn't. But I don't agree with that. If you give the majority everything they want on each individual issue in isolation, they actually get nothing they want in aggregate - mainly because pain (in the form of taxes) is almost never popular, and gain (in the form of spending) almost always is.
On the topic of the 'rule of law' this ruling by the future Lord Diplock sounds relevant even if it was over 50 years ago:
"Boris Johnson's proposal to break international law 'in a specific and limited way' has sparked uproar. But do you remember when the UK broke the Geneva Convention? Oh. Well we did. The government ratified the Geneva Convention on the Sea on 10 September 1964. From then the UK was bound forever by the treaty and bound by international law. On 25 September 1964, we were not. No explanation was given. No explanation was asked.
Our Judge who ruled in favour of the government when it broke the Geneva Convention of the Sea, said this:
'the Crown [The Government] has a sovereign right, which the court cannot question, to change its policy, even if this involves breaking an international convention to which it is a party and which has come into force so recently as fifteen days before'.
That Judge became Lord Diplock and he was, one of our very best judges. He was utterly silent on whether or not he thought that example of breaking international law was good or bad – silent because it is a question of politics. Obeying this law is part of our Rule of Law. In a way some may find confusing, that may mean we must obey this law – that we can break international law." https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-didn-t-the-eu-punish-germany-when-it-broke-international-law-
Ah but that was back in the days when Judges were focused on the law instead of human rights and public policy. Halcyon days in retrospect.
If human rights are not protected by law, what are they protected by?
Well paid, more than slightly arrogant, extremely white, old men (in very large part), apparently. They just know better.
You mean the law, don't you?
(As they almost said on Star Trek) Its law Joff, but not as we know it.
In all seriousness I agree with the Sumption critique. Judges who think that they know better are ultimately a threat to democracy.
Presumably Sumpers has no problem with retired judges who think that they know better. Shame about the media blackout on him which prevents him telling all and sundry about all the subjects on which he knows better.
He is as entitled to an opinion as anyone else. He is a brilliant writer and clear thinker. I don't always agree with him but I certainly enjoy reading him. The difference is that he no longer makes the law, he merely expresses an opinion.
Comments
However while 57% support increasing tobacco duty and 55% back a corporation tax rise and 37% back increasing CGT or alcohol duty only 20% back increasing income tax, just 12% back increasing inheritance tax and only 9% back increasing national insurance and a tiny 7% want a fuel tax rise or VAT rise.
There is also support for cutting foreign aid, 67% would back cutting the overseas aid budget 42% want the arts budget cut and 30% the defence budget cut.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-09-15/u-k-budget-boris-johnson-faces-a-reckoning-over-tax
A prediction of "some smuggling" shows staggering ignorance of the six counties. There was massive smuggling when the border was policed. Slab Murphy smuggled something like £25m worth through one farm on the Louth/Armagh border alone.
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/reports/annualreport/2019-20.pdf
There are some people or circumstances where market forces are at work, but Zoe Ball presenting the Radio 2 Breakfast show is not one.
The fact is we have to jump through their hoops. This is a direct consequence of no longer being a EU member state. This is what you voted for FFS.
There's no good throwing your toys out of the pram and whinging that it's just "not fair", which is all you have been doing for months now.
Are you saying a return to the Troubles is better than the risk of some smuggling?
They certainly don't have another Chris Evans on their hands.
How much money is Radio 2 raising from the free market to pay for this?
https://youtu.be/Uj61a6NO8zw?t=1981
I'm also assuming that Biden, in order to win a state, has to be ahead by a decent margin to allow for shy Trump voters, voter repression, and other contingencies.
If the margin is 2.5%, then Biden wins Az, Fl, Mi, Pa, Wis and ends up with 319 EC.
If the margin is 5.0%, then Biden wins Az, Mi, Wis and ends up with 270 EC (assuming he gets the last Maine seat otherwise a dead heat). NB Bidon is on a 4.9% lead in Pa so Trump just retains it.
Certainly it looks hard for policies to fight inequality by making direct fiscal transfers, but I'd argue that isn't the best way to fight inequality. As we saw with tax credits under Brown and Osbourne, they are very vulnerable to a new government salami slicing the transfers away.
You can only effectively fight inequality by changing the rules of the game, ideally in a way that best survives a change in government. Strengthen unions, weaken rent-seeking, improve access to the law, empower local government, encourage civic society.
The focus on fiscal transfers is intellectually infantilising the Left (although my favourites are a citizens income over tax credits and a land value tax over inheritance tax... D'oh!)
If there's a wrong side to be on every argument, they find it.
They could make a big impact in the leafy shires where they were strong by fighting the tories' planning plans. Nothing
They could make a big impact by at least asking questions about the relationship between liberty lockdown and freedom that some are asking, and the rule by decree that is becoming increasingly unpopular. After all, 'liberal' and 'democratic' are their name. Nothing.
They could ask questions about why as Max pointed out earlier, the lives of young people are being destroyed on pretexts that are becoming more and more debatable. Nothing. Labour should be on this too. Its them the young vote for, after all. But again, nothing.
People talk, rightly, about how poor the government is. What is less talked about is how poor the opposition is. Ed Miliband got praise lavished on him by a fawning commentariat for asking tough questions on a topic the public don;t give a monkeys about. A topic they believe was decided months ago.
On topics they do care a great deal about, nothing.
Income tax, NICs, VAT, corporation tax and CGT are the only ones that could raise proper money. You're not going to close the deficit by putting up the price of fags or cutting the "arts budget" or even foreign aid. Higher borrowing and growing the economy is the best solution in the near term anyway.
They don't want to see the whole lot confiscated by the State when they die.
They want to choose how to leave their own legacy instead.
They don't get to see anything at all.
The number one regret of the dying is having worked too hard. I guess folk fundamentally don't internalise that death is inevitable and is the end for all of us.
https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1305837506353659906?s=20
Of course he might lose the odd state where he's polling 5% ahead - but he will also more than likely win the odd state where he's 1% in the lead.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/09/florida-felony-disenfranchisement-pryor-decision.html
The longer we wait, the longer she is off work. She works for the NHS.
Margin Biden ECs
0% 333
1% 318
2% 318
3% 289
4% 289
5% 269
6% 252
7% 238
Edit: and that assumes the house is worth over 350K. Tough shite if you are (a) renting (b) an auntie (c) live in the North (on average).
As far as I am aware IHT is only charged at 40% on amounts above £325000, (£650000 for couples), so it is hardly "everything".
There is nothing to stop us leaving our legecy to whoever we want.
I'm all in favour of people doing what they like with the money they've earned in their lifetime, including being generous with friends and family if that makes them happy. After they are gone and have been given a decent send off, it simply ceases to be their money - it's literally no good to them.
We don't get a say on other things that happen after we are dead - we don't get a vote for example. Why, uniquely, assets?
The reason, in truth, is that those of us with parents who have a few quid squirreled away would like our share. People who say "my old Dad should be able to leave his millions to me out of respect for him" are lying to themselves. The truth is they'd like the old boy's money when he's gone... and I don't blame them but don't elevate it to the level of high principle.
Personally, I'd treat inheritance as income in the hands of the beneficiary rather than as inheritance tax. This would encourage people to be generous in their lifetime, and spread it about to a wider group to minimise liability.
Edit: so in that sense you do get a vote from the grave.
"You are an habitual criminal, who accepts arrest as an occupational hazard, and presumably accepts imprisonment in the same casual manner."
https://twitter.com/BenQuinn75/status/1305834932233736192?s=20
And 100k on the whole of the rest of general population.
This appears to be the bottleneck.
Found that there have been a couple since 2000 in the general area, so could be something that may worsen over the next couple of decades if the
North Atlantic continues to warm.
https://www.severe-weather.eu/tropical-weather/record-breaking-hurricane-pablo-mk/
I still don't get why the government felt the need to bring all this virtue signalling and pomposity upon themselves when emergency legislation could no doubt have been brought in instantly if and when such a scenario arose. Which, lets face it, it probably won't.
Whenever money moves around the economy, taxes are levied. (apart from some exceptions). It's what money does that matters rather than the accumulation of it.
Polls can routinely underestimate one candidate or another. But they do re-calibrate after elections, and the evidence is they have (e.g. correcting under-sampling of non-college educated white voters).
Your argument is, as I see it, rather like responding to a team coming from 1-0 down at halftime to win by assuming that an away comeback win is likely whenever the score is 1-0 at halftime. It isn't. The recent example is merely a useful reminder that it CAN happen. To me, Trump is like a good football team that we know CAN claw back a deficit after halftime. But I'd not assume it will happen... the fact is he's in deficit with enough but not a huge amount of time on the clock, so the likelihood (although by no means certainty) is that he'll lose.
Even most wealthy entrepreneurs have a high IQ.
Plenty of cleaners work hard, does not mean they are rich.
https://theconversation.com/the-truth-about-meritocracy-it-doesnt-make-society-fairer-65260
Shame about the media blackout on him which prevents him telling all and sundry about all the subjects on which he knows better.
I appreciate this is a political betting website and so we focus on what is likely to be popular among the public and what isn't. That's the dominant angle here, and that's fine. But it isn't the only, or the most important, perspective.
I suppose some would also argue that popular is everything in a democracy - it's either what people want or it isn't. But I don't agree with that. If you give the majority everything they want on each individual issue in isolation, they actually get nothing they want in aggregate - mainly because pain (in the form of taxes) is almost never popular, and gain (in the form of spending) almost always is.
That is as silly story as the Weatherspoons positive cases.
Any car park will do for a testing centre, it is processing all the tests that is the limiting factor.