Mr. Taz, a wealth tax seems unwise. If it doesn't apply to houses then people will just shovel their money into property, pushing up prices even more. If it does apply to houses then tons of people who spent their lives paying off a mortgage and have retired will have a new significant cost they can't afford.
That's why a tax on sale is better (though not without some problems). You know the actual value of the house and the seller has the money. If they are trading down they don't need as much. If they are trading up, it helps cap price rises. It releases some of the value contained in property.
We can always find reasons not to do things, not to tax this, that and the other. But if we want a decent care system we will have to pay so rather than find reasons for not paying we need to find a way to pay which raises the money needed and is reasonably fair to all. Income tax is one such way, merging of NI with it and making it applicable to all another. Extending CGT a third. Some form of LVT or wealth tax another. All have pluses and minuses. But we can either argue about it for another 10/20 years and do nothing or actually get on with it.
So argument and doing nothing it is then ......
The problem with your solution is the following (used large round numbers to make maths easy rather than because they are realistic!)
Buy a house for £10m
Sell house 5 years later for £20m
Pay 45% tax on the profit (£10m = £4.5m)
Net proceeds available to move house = £15.5m
So I have to move to a significantly less nice house in order to move (assuming all other houses have gone up in value at the same rate since the original purchase)
That reduces people’s willingness to sell their houses and move with all sorts of knock on effects
Isn't there some kind of capital gains tax allowance? It could be saved up over the time of ownership, thus reducing the taxable amount.
There is, from memory (I don’t use it much as my investments are in ISAs or EIS) it’s about £12k and you can only look back for 3 year so it helps at the margin.
Mr. Taz, a wealth tax seems unwise. If it doesn't apply to houses then people will just shovel their money into property, pushing up prices even more. If it does apply to houses then tons of people who spent their lives paying off a mortgage and have retired will have a new significant cost they can't afford.
That's why a tax on sale is better (though not without some problems). You know the actual value of the house and the seller has the money. If they are trading down they don't need as much. If they are trading up, it helps cap price rises. It releases some of the value contained in property.
We can always find reasons not to do things, not to tax this, that and the other. But if we want a decent care system we will have to pay so rather than find reasons for not paying we need to find a way to pay which raises the money needed and is reasonably fair to all. Income tax is one such way, merging of NI with it and making it applicable to all another. Extending CGT a third. Some form of LVT or wealth tax another. All have pluses and minuses. But we can either argue about it for another 10/20 years and do nothing or actually get on with it.
So argument and doing nothing it is then ......
The problem with your solution is the following (used large round numbers to make maths easy rather than because they are realistic!)
Buy a house for £10m
Sell house 5 years later for £20m
Pay 45% tax on the profit (£10m = £4.5m)
Net proceeds available to move house = £15.5m
So I have to move to a significantly less nice house in order to move (assuming all other houses have gone up in value at the same rate since the original purchase)
That reduces people’s willingness to sell their houses and move with all sorts of knock on effects
Isn't there some kind of capital gains tax allowance? It could be saved up over the time of ownership, thus reducing the taxable amount.
There is, from memory (I don’t use it much as my investments are in ISAs or EIS) it’s about £12k and you can only look back for 3 year so it helps at the margin.
It's gone I think. Makes tax returns easier.
Ok. I pay my brother to get my tax return done so I don’t have to think too much about it
Mr. Taz, a wealth tax seems unwise. If it doesn't apply to houses then people will just shovel their money into property, pushing up prices even more. If it does apply to houses then tons of people who spent their lives paying off a mortgage and have retired will have a new significant cost they can't afford.
That's why a tax on sale is better (though not without some problems). You know the actual value of the house and the seller has the money. If they are trading down they don't need as much. If they are trading up, it helps cap price rises. It releases some of the value contained in property.
We can always find reasons not to do things, not to tax this, that and the other. But if we want a decent care system we will have to pay so rather than find reasons for not paying we need to find a way to pay which raises the money needed and is reasonably fair to all. Income tax is one such way, merging of NI with it and making it applicable to all another. Extending CGT a third. Some form of LVT or wealth tax another. All have pluses and minuses. But we can either argue about it for another 10/20 years and do nothing or actually get on with it.
So argument and doing nothing it is then ......
I'd go for a more broadly-based Inheritance Tax. One could lower the headline rate of 40% and still raise more money by scrapping most exemptions and reliefs.
Taxing inheritance as income of the recipient would have some advantages. Most inheritances are modest, and it would encourage wider distribution, amongst grand children rather than children, for example.
Senior Whitehall sources told the Sunday Times that structural engineering experts hired by the government had “unambiguously and unanimously” advised that the tower should be “carefully taken down”.
Grenfell United, a group for survivors and bereaved families, said it was “shocked” by the development “given the promise by the government that no decision would be made on the future of the tower without full consultation with the bereaved and survivors”.
I’d wondered why it hadn’t been pulled down. I’d have thought survivors would want to see it gone. Very odd.
All this money wasted to trash trade links with your biggest export market! Brexit really is a turd that only the most deluded can cling to and continue to justify .
As has just been said @RochdalePioneers no amount of attacks on Brexit is going to change it and the need now is for it to be made to work with compromise on all sides
What’s there to compromise on. The UK signed the trade deal and the WA , that should be the end of it . The negotiations are over . If the UK doesn’t like being treated as a third country it shouldn’t have left or should have done a trade deal with less barriers . Leavers own the whole stinking mess and should not be allowed to try and scapegoat the EU for the impact of their own vote .
As the old Irish joke has it, I wouldn’t start from here (as a response to being asked for directions to Dublin).
But it’s incumbent on all of us to build a better country starting with where we are. Your approach is not constructive
I would counter that comment by saying the Leaver's approach in 2016 wasn't very constructive either.
Some were, some weren’t.
But it was 5 years ago and we all have a duty to build a better future
By rejoining.
Sorry, couldn't resist the temptation, but it's clear that Leavers made a dreadful mistake, compounded by dishonesty.
And one of the things that makes a democracy democratic is the right, like that of a lady, to change their mind. Consider all the initiatives of governments of all colours that were reversed after a decent interval.
Question is- what counts as a decent interval? It's probably not 40 weeks, but it's not 40 years either.
From a purely practical point of view, this isn't going to plan and doubling down to make rejoin harder is just going to make things worse. But overall the nation isn't ready to confront that... Yet.
I'm reminded of what was said about the Good Friday Agreement- it was Sunningdale 1972 for slow learners. I can't help wondering what the UK-EU version of that will be.
There is a waiting list of 1.6 million for mental health*. Before even thinking about physical. Given that, does anybody, at all, think this will "solve social care?"
* Like the lorry drivers. There isn't anyone to do the jobs. Even if there was funding.
There is very high demand for psychology degrees from students, so lots of potential recruits as clinical psychologists. I think the problem is postgraduate training placements.
How many more times can they kick social care policy announcement into touch? The current policy of Blair’s already out there is Dementia Tax don’t forget. The vote loser is do nothing.
Has HY commented whether he can sell this on the doorstep?
There is a waiting list of 1.6 million for mental health*. Before even thinking about physical. Given that, does anybody, at all, think this will "solve social care?"
* Like the lorry drivers. There isn't anyone to do the jobs. Even if there was funding.
There is very high demand for psychology degrees from students, so lots of potential recruits as clinical psychologists. I think the problem is postgraduate training placements.
I suspect that nursing and nursing assistant staff are not easy to come by, too.
Mr. Taz, a wealth tax seems unwise. If it doesn't apply to houses then people will just shovel their money into property, pushing up prices even more. If it does apply to houses then tons of people who spent their lives paying off a mortgage and have retired will have a new significant cost they can't afford.
That's why a tax on sale is better (though not without some problems). You know the actual value of the house and the seller has the money. If they are trading down they don't need as much. If they are trading up, it helps cap price rises. It releases some of the value contained in property.
We can always find reasons not to do things, not to tax this, that and the other. But if we want a decent care system we will have to pay so rather than find reasons for not paying we need to find a way to pay which raises the money needed and is reasonably fair to all. Income tax is one such way, merging of NI with it and making it applicable to all another. Extending CGT a third. Some form of LVT or wealth tax another. All have pluses and minuses. But we can either argue about it for another 10/20 years and do nothing or actually get on with it.
So argument and doing nothing it is then ......
The problem with your solution is the following (used large round numbers to make maths easy rather than because they are realistic!)
Buy a house for £10m
Sell house 5 years later for £20m
Pay 45% tax on the profit (£10m = £4.5m)
Net proceeds available to move house = £15.5m
So I have to move to a significantly less nice house in order to move (assuming all other houses have gone up in value at the same rate since the original purchase)
That reduces people’s willingness to sell their houses and move with all sorts of knock on effects
Isn't there some kind of capital gains tax allowance? It could be saved up over the time of ownership, thus reducing the taxable amount.
There is, from memory (I don’t use it much as my investments are in ISAs or EIS) it’s about £12k and you can only look back for 3 year so it helps at the margin.
It's gone I think. Makes tax returns easier.
Eh? The capital gains tax allowance in 2021-22 is £12,300.
What has changed is the allownce will not go up in line with inflation in next couple of tax years. Withering on the vine.
How many more times can they kick social care policy announcement into touch? The current policy of Blair’s already out there is Dementia Tax don’t forget. The vote loser is do nothing.
Has HY commented whether he can sell this on the doorstep?
HY has time now to get out on the doorstep. I wonder if he will try to come back.
Where is Labour, "sceptical" about the plans, great.
But where is their plan, ffs this is so easy.
Wealth tax => fund social care.
So tell me about your proposed wealth tax?
Stop trying to spock the idea to death. It's not that stupendously difficult. Just need to ignore the claims that is from the vested interests. That's the key step.
Instead YOU tell us about the only 2 alternatives:
Load more income tax onto working people. Or scale back what we expect the state to provide by way of health and social care.
All this money wasted to trash trade links with your biggest export market! Brexit really is a turd that only the most deluded can cling to and continue to justify .
As has just been said @RochdalePioneers no amount of attacks on Brexit is going to change it and the need now is for it to be made to work with compromise on all sides
What’s there to compromise on. The UK signed the trade deal and the WA , that should be the end of it . The negotiations are over . If the UK doesn’t like being treated as a third country it shouldn’t have left or should have done a trade deal with less barriers . Leavers own the whole stinking mess and should not be allowed to try and scapegoat the EU for the impact of their own vote .
As the old Irish joke has it, I wouldn’t start from here (as a response to being asked for directions to Dublin).
But it’s incumbent on all of us to build a better country starting with where we are. Your approach is not constructive
I would counter that comment by saying the Leaver's approach in 2016 wasn't very constructive either.
Some were, some weren’t.
But it was 5 years ago and we all have a duty to build a better future
By rejoining.
Sorry, couldn't resist the temptation, but it's clear that Leavers made a dreadful mistake, compounded by dishonesty.
And one of the things that makes a democracy democratic is the right, like that of a lady, to change their mind. Consider all the initiatives of governments of all colours that were reversed after a decent interval.
Question is- what counts as a decent interval? It's probably not 40 weeks, but it's not 40 years either.
From a purely practical point of view, this isn't going to plan and doubling down to make rejoin harder is just going to make things worse. But overall the nation isn't ready to confront that... Yet.
I'm reminded of what was said about the Good Friday Agreement- it was Sunningdale 1972 for slow learners. I can't help wondering what the UK-EU version of that will be.
The 'slow learners' are those who wouldn't accept that the UK wanted a trade and co-operation arrangement with European countries and not EverCloserUnion.
Mr. Taz, a wealth tax seems unwise. If it doesn't apply to houses then people will just shovel their money into property, pushing up prices even more. If it does apply to houses then tons of people who spent their lives paying off a mortgage and have retired will have a new significant cost they can't afford.
That's why a tax on sale is better (though not without some problems). You know the actual value of the house and the seller has the money. If they are trading down they don't need as much. If they are trading up, it helps cap price rises. It releases some of the value contained in property.
We can always find reasons not to do things, not to tax this, that and the other. But if we want a decent care system we will have to pay so rather than find reasons for not paying we need to find a way to pay which raises the money needed and is reasonably fair to all. Income tax is one such way, merging of NI with it and making it applicable to all another. Extending CGT a third. Some form of LVT or wealth tax another. All have pluses and minuses. But we can either argue about it for another 10/20 years and do nothing or actually get on with it.
So argument and doing nothing it is then ......
The problem with your solution is the following (used large round numbers to make maths easy rather than because they are realistic!)
Buy a house for £10m
Sell house 5 years later for £20m
Pay 45% tax on the profit (£10m = £4.5m)
Net proceeds available to move house = £15.5m
So I have to move to a significantly less nice house in order to move (assuming all other houses have gone up in value at the same rate since the original purchase)
That reduces people’s willingness to sell their houses and move with all sorts of knock on effects
Isn't there some kind of capital gains tax allowance? It could be saved up over the time of ownership, thus reducing the taxable amount.
There is, from memory (I don’t use it much as my investments are in ISAs or EIS) it’s about £12k and you can only look back for 3 year so it helps at the margin.
It's gone I think. Makes tax returns easier.
Eh? The capital gains tax allowance in 2021-22 is £12,300.
What has changed is the allownce will not go up in line with inflation in next couple of tax years. Withering on the vine.
Shit, sorry, I thought we were talking about the indexation allowance which let you reduce your gains to account for inflation. Yes of course there's a tax free allowance.
They're doing it back to front. First work out what you want to do, then debate how you fund it.....
That was the point IDS made on the radio yesterday… I thought he was very sensible
I can feel a u-turn coming tomorrow before that 1922 meeting.
They will claim it's not a u-turn as the press have been told that nothing has been absolutely decided, but...
I think you're right. All governments fly kites to test the water, though this one does it more often, and more cynically, than most. The NI idea won't run, and they'll say it was never really considered, just 'media speculation'. Quite what they'll do instead, who knows? Probably, kick the can down the road again until after the next election.
What is odd is that iirc they set this kite up in the air about a month, maybe two months ago, and it was shot to pieces at the time with same arguments that are now being used by Steve Baker and co. Johnson rowed back on using NI.
So why are they sending the kite back out there with holes all over its poor wings?
All this money wasted to trash trade links with your biggest export market! Brexit really is a turd that only the most deluded can cling to and continue to justify .
As has just been said @RochdalePioneers no amount of attacks on Brexit is going to change it and the need now is for it to be made to work with compromise on all sides
What’s there to compromise on. The UK signed the trade deal and the WA , that should be the end of it . The negotiations are over . If the UK doesn’t like being treated as a third country it shouldn’t have left or should have done a trade deal with less barriers . Leavers own the whole stinking mess and should not be allowed to try and scapegoat the EU for the impact of their own vote .
As the old Irish joke has it, I wouldn’t start from here (as a response to being asked for directions to Dublin).
But it’s incumbent on all of us to build a better country starting with where we are. Your approach is not constructive
I would counter that comment by saying the Leaver's approach in 2016 wasn't very constructive either.
Some were, some weren’t.
But it was 5 years ago and we all have a duty to build a better future
By rejoining.
Sorry, couldn't resist the temptation, but it's clear that Leavers made a dreadful mistake, compounded by dishonesty.
And one of the things that makes a democracy democratic is the right, like that of a lady, to change their mind. Consider all the initiatives of governments of all colours that were reversed after a decent interval.
Question is- what counts as a decent interval? It's probably not 40 weeks, but it's not 40 years either.
From a purely practical point of view, this isn't going to plan and doubling down to make rejoin harder is just going to make things worse. But overall the nation isn't ready to confront that... Yet.
I'm reminded of what was said about the Good Friday Agreement- it was Sunningdale 1972 for slow learners. I can't help wondering what the UK-EU version of that will be.
I think the Labour Party should propose as European policy a recognition of EU agricultural and food standards, with UK in dynamic alignment on other standards by default. If there were a specific issue that we wanted to deviate on that would be very much the exception. This solves the Irish Sea border substantially, and would also help a lot at the Channel. A little fresh thinking on mutual no visas for students and short term working too
This would be distinct from the Tories, get NI onside (important if a minority government), and actually be sensible without antagonising most Brexiteers, only the ones that wouldn't vote Labour ever anyway.
Where is Labour, "sceptical" about the plans, great.
But where is their plan, ffs this is so easy.
Wealth tax => fund social care.
Yep, c'mon Labour. All the talk of painting a big, non-Tory vision in PRIMARY COLOURS. Here's where to start. Wealth tax. Pick up that brush, Keir, and get stroking.
That doesn't work for care homes as at £60,000 a year everything adds up quickly.
Most people's stay in care homes is not very long. I understand the median is about 9 months. I would have thought that the edge cases which involve staying for years could be covered by insurance of some kind.
The real issue is care in the community. There's lots of people struggling along with the help of relatives and/or 15 minute visits from carers. Very few live with their parents or grandparents any more.
Roughly agree in your time on care homes - residential is probably rather longer.
The number of multigenerational households has been increasing for quite a few years. Though there are boomerang kids as well as granny moving in.
If kids leave, Granny can fit in quite well into the space - the requirements are eventually either 2 decent reception rooms downstairs, or a convertible integral garage. Doable in most detached estate houses. Though in many areas of the country it is more about family living reasonably close together.
Dilnot estimated that 10% of elderly need the kind of long term residential care for years that gives the eye watering numbers that destroy any inheritance plans.
A cap would allow an insurance market but with no cap, as now, no insurer will touch the market as there is a possibility of huge sums being involved - maybe £400K or a lot more for say ten years of dementia care.
It is of course a total lottery whether one ends up being one of the 10%.
They're doing it back to front. First work out what you want to do, then debate how you fund it.....
That was the point IDS made on the radio yesterday… I thought he was very sensible
I can feel a u-turn coming tomorrow before that 1922 meeting.
They will claim it's not a u-turn as the press have been told that nothing has been absolutely decided, but...
I think you're right. All governments fly kites to test the water, though this one does it more often, and more cynically, than most. The NI idea won't run, and they'll say it was never really considered, just 'media speculation'. Quite what they'll do instead, who knows? Probably, kick the can down the road again until after the next election.
What is odd is that iirc they set this kite up in the air about a month, maybe two months ago, and it was shot to pieces at the time with same arguments that are now being used by Steve Baker and co. Johnson rowed back on using NI.
So why are they sending the kite back out there with holes all over its poor wings?
They've probably run it through a focus group (maybe of one - Carrie) which has told them that people think NI isn't a tax but something which funds the NHS, social care and pensions.
And oldies are all for it - "I worked hard all my life so why should I have to pay more now when I paid in all those years etc etc".
Mr. Taz, a wealth tax seems unwise. If it doesn't apply to houses then people will just shovel their money into property, pushing up prices even more. If it does apply to houses then tons of people who spent their lives paying off a mortgage and have retired will have a new significant cost they can't afford.
That's why a tax on sale is better (though not without some problems). You know the actual value of the house and the seller has the money. If they are trading down they don't need as much. If they are trading up, it helps cap price rises. It releases some of the value contained in property.
We can always find reasons not to do things, not to tax this, that and the other. But if we want a decent care system we will have to pay so rather than find reasons for not paying we need to find a way to pay which raises the money needed and is reasonably fair to all. Income tax is one such way, merging of NI with it and making it applicable to all another. Extending CGT a third. Some form of LVT or wealth tax another. All have pluses and minuses. But we can either argue about it for another 10/20 years and do nothing or actually get on with it.
So argument and doing nothing it is then ......
The problem with your solution is the following (used large round numbers to make maths easy rather than because they are realistic!)
Buy a house for £10m
Sell house 5 years later for £20m
Pay 45% tax on the profit (£10m = £4.5m)
Net proceeds available to move house = £15.5m
So I have to move to a significantly less nice house in order to move (assuming all other houses have gone up in value at the same rate since the original purchase)
That reduces people’s willingness to sell their houses and move with all sorts of knock on effects
Isn't there some kind of capital gains tax allowance? It could be saved up over the time of ownership, thus reducing the taxable amount.
There is, from memory (I don’t use it much as my investments are in ISAs or EIS) it’s about £12k and you can only look back for 3 year so it helps at the margin.
It's gone I think. Makes tax returns easier.
Eh? The capital gains tax allowance in 2021-22 is £12,300.
What has changed is the allownce will not go up in line with inflation in next couple of tax years. Withering on the vine.
Shit, sorry, I thought we were talking about the indexation allowance which let you reduce your gains to account for inflation. Yes of course there's a tax free allowance.
The other thing that has changed I think is the CGT position if you rented out your own residential property for some of the years you owned it (but also lived in it as well some of the time). e.g. you rented out your primary residence for two years whilst you were working abroad. There was a bit of a loophole.
That was a bizarre one. Nowhere near the bat and missing another set of stumps.
I genuinely think they need somebody else to make the call, because his instincts are just wrong time and time again, not even umpires call stuff, totally missing two sets of stumps / missed hitting it by a mile type situations.
How many more times can they kick social care policy announcement into touch? The current policy of Blair’s already out there is Dementia Tax don’t forget. The vote loser is do nothing.
Has HY commented whether he can sell this on the doorstep?
HY has time now to get out on the doorstep. I wonder if he will try to come back.
O/T but interesti;ng piece by John Harris (who usually tries and succeeds in breaking out of the metropolitan bubble) - makes an interesting comparison with Leon's remarks the other day.
That doesn't work for care homes as at £60,000 a year everything adds up quickly.
Most people's stay in care homes is not very long. I understand the median is about 9 months. I would have thought that the edge cases which involve staying for years could be covered by insurance of some kind.
The real issue is care in the community. There's lots of people struggling along with the help of relatives and/or 15 minute visits from carers. Very few live with their parents or grandparents any more.
Roughly agree in your time on care homes - residential is probably rather longer.
The number of multigenerational households has been increasing for quite a few years. Though there are boomerang kids as well as granny moving in.
If kids leave, Granny can fit in quite well into the space - the requirements are eventually either 2 decent reception rooms downstairs, or a convertible integral garage. Doable in most detached estate houses. Though in many areas of the country it is more about family living reasonably close together.
In my immediate family, one elderly relative required 2 years of residential care, followed by 2 years of dementia care. However, all other elderly relatives required none (they either died suddenly, or they were able to look after themselves in their own homes till the very end).
Prolonged stays in care homes are uncommon. That is why successive governments have been able to get away with doing little, as only a very small proportion of families are affected at all (<< 10%). Of course, even fewer are affected at any given instant in time.
May's attempt to "fix social care" was useful -- because it showed that most people thought dementia care was available for free on the NHS.
Many people did not understand that May's proposals were better than what we've already got -- because many people (incorrectly) thought it was already free. Hence, Labour were successfully & disgracefully able to argue that May was introducing a 'dementia tax'.
But, "fixing social care" is more than dementia care.
It is a whole host of problems -- the lack of biological fairness in our fates as we approach the end, the lack of social fairness in who gets what care, the absence of protection against catastrophic care costs, the wages and conditions of professional carers (both in care homes and in care in the community), the wellbeing of millions of unpaid carers, the responsibilities that younger family members have to their old folk, and so on.
It would need an exceptionally able and skilful set of politicians to navigate this set of problems.
At most, Boris will put in some money to stabilise the system to get to the next GE. And to be fair, that is what all politicians have done since 1997. (With the exception of May, who paid a heavy price).
Where is Labour, "sceptical" about the plans, great.
But where is their plan, ffs this is so easy.
Wealth tax => fund social care.
Yep, c'mon Labour. All the talk of painting a big, non-Tory vision in PRIMARY COLOURS. Here's where to start. Wealth tax. Pick up that brush, Keir, and get stroking.
I am bewildered how Overton bowls at such slow speed. Jimmy, never rapid, Anderson at 39 bowls faster than him. Overton is a big unit, he runs in hard, action looks good, and it comes out at 80mph.
Mr. Taz, a wealth tax seems unwise. If it doesn't apply to houses then people will just shovel their money into property, pushing up prices even more. If it does apply to houses then tons of people who spent their lives paying off a mortgage and have retired will have a new significant cost they can't afford.
That's why a tax on sale is better (though not without some problems). You know the actual value of the house and the seller has the money. If they are trading down they don't need as much. If they are trading up, it helps cap price rises. It releases some of the value contained in property.
We can always find reasons not to do things, not to tax this, that and the other. But if we want a decent care system we will have to pay so rather than find reasons for not paying we need to find a way to pay which raises the money needed and is reasonably fair to all. Income tax is one such way, merging of NI with it and making it applicable to all another. Extending CGT a third. Some form of LVT or wealth tax another. All have pluses and minuses. But we can either argue about it for another 10/20 years and do nothing or actually get on with it.
So argument and doing nothing it is then ......
The problem with your solution is the following (used large round numbers to make maths easy rather than because they are realistic!)
Buy a house for £10m
Sell house 5 years later for £20m
Pay 45% tax on the profit (£10m = £4.5m)
Net proceeds available to move house = £15.5m
So I have to move to a significantly less nice house in order to move (assuming all other houses have gone up in value at the same rate since the original purchase)
That reduces people’s willingness to sell their houses and move with all sorts of knock on effects
Isn't there some kind of capital gains tax allowance? It could be saved up over the time of ownership, thus reducing the taxable amount.
There is, from memory (I don’t use it much as my investments are in ISAs or EIS) it’s about £12k and you can only look back for 3 year so it helps at the margin.
It's gone I think. Makes tax returns easier.
An annual tax is fairer and easier. The income poor concern is easily resolved by allowing roll up of payment until property sale, subject to a sensible rate of interest to discourage the majority who can afford to pay straight away.
There is a waiting list of 1.6 million for mental health*. Before even thinking about physical. Given that, does anybody, at all, think this will "solve social care?"
* Like the lorry drivers. There isn't anyone to do the jobs. Even if there was funding.
There is very high demand for psychology degrees from students, so lots of potential recruits as clinical psychologists. I think the problem is postgraduate training placements.
And the tendency to go into HR or marketing for an easier life. At a lower level. Nipping the problem in the bud, as it were, there is a desperate shortage of qualified talking therapists. As well as a plethora of under and unqualified ones.
They're doing it back to front. First work out what you want to do, then debate how you fund it.....
That was the point IDS made on the radio yesterday… I thought he was very sensible
I can feel a u-turn coming tomorrow before that 1922 meeting.
They will claim it's not a u-turn as the press have been told that nothing has been absolutely decided, but...
I think you're right. All governments fly kites to test the water, though this one does it more often, and more cynically, than most. The NI idea won't run, and they'll say it was never really considered, just 'media speculation'. Quite what they'll do instead, who knows? Probably, kick the can down the road again until after the next election.
What is odd is that iirc they set this kite up in the air about a month, maybe two months ago, and it was shot to pieces at the time with same arguments that are now being used by Steve Baker and co. Johnson rowed back on using NI.
So why are they sending the kite back out there with holes all over its poor wings?
Where is Labour, "sceptical" about the plans, great.
But where is their plan, ffs this is so easy.
Wealth tax => fund social care.
Yep, c'mon Labour. All the talk of painting a big, non-Tory vision in PRIMARY COLOURS. Here's where to start. Wealth tax. Pick up that brush, Keir, and get stroking.
Keir stroking, lovely image thanks mate
His canvas, CHB, his canvas. In great big 'primary colours'. This is what I want to see. I'd hate for 'primary colours', which I keep hearing about, to be just another empty piece of phrase-making, of which we are not short in politics right now.
I am bewildered how Overton bowls at such slow speed. Jimmy, never rapid, Anderson at 39 bowls faster than him. Overton is a big unit, he runs in hard, action looks good, and it comes out at 80mph.
O/T but interesti;ng piece by John Harris (who usually tries and succeeds in breaking out of the metropolitan bubble) - makes an interesting comparison with Leon's remarks the other day.
Equally on the money, the Sunday Rawnsley, brought to you via a sunny terrace above the Danube:
...it is hard not to conclude that we are witnesses to a world-changing reorientation of Washington’s priorities that threatens to leave Britain very marginalised. Barack Obama’s pivot to Asia was followed by the Trump rampage through international norms that has now been succeeded by Joe Biden’s version of America First.
This doesn’t feel like a blip. It looks like an inflection point. Ben Wallace, the defence secretary, is more thoughtful about this than most of his cabinet colleagues. He argues that “taking America for granted” has been a mistake and suggests Britain should be working on other alliances, mentioning France as a partner in supporting African countries besieged by extremists. Mr Tugendhat agrees that Britain has to wean itself off dependency on a single ally: “Like the Suez fiasco, the crisis in Afghanistan is going to change our foreign policy completely… Our options cannot solely be determined by the White House.”
At least some Tories are doing some thinking. This is coinciding with a revived debate in continental Europe about becoming less reliant on the US. A common European effort to do more to protect our continent’s security would be greatly enhanced by the involvement of the UK.
A mutually beneficial partnership on defence and foreign policy makes sense, but you will have already spotted the snag. That would require respect and trust, not relations poisoned by years of Boris Johnson and other senior Tories depicting Europe as this country’s deadliest enemy and festering disputes about the terms of the exit from the EU. One day Britain will have a government that recognises that it is in the national interest for the UK to rebuild the Brexit-burnt bridges with its neighbours, but it will first have to change its prime minister.
Where is Labour, "sceptical" about the plans, great.
But where is their plan, ffs this is so easy.
Wealth tax => fund social care.
Yep, c'mon Labour. All the talk of painting a big, non-Tory vision in PRIMARY COLOURS. Here's where to start. Wealth tax. Pick up that brush, Keir, and get stroking.
Keir stroking, lovely image thanks mate
His canvas, CHB, his canvas. In great big 'primary colours'. This is what I want to see. I'd hate for 'primary colours', which I keep hearing about, to be just another empty piece of phrase-making, of which we are not short in politics right now.
Where is Labour, "sceptical" about the plans, great.
But where is their plan, ffs this is so easy.
Wealth tax => fund social care.
Yep, c'mon Labour. All the talk of painting a big, non-Tory vision in PRIMARY COLOURS. Here's where to start. Wealth tax. Pick up that brush, Keir, and get stroking.
Keir stroking, lovely image thanks mate
His canvas, CHB, his canvas. In great big 'primary colours'. This is what I want to see. I'd hate for 'primary colours', which I keep hearing about, to be just another empty piece of phrase-making, of which we are not short in politics right now.
Where is Labour, "sceptical" about the plans, great.
But where is their plan, ffs this is so easy.
Wealth tax => fund social care.
Yep, c'mon Labour. All the talk of painting a big, non-Tory vision in PRIMARY COLOURS. Here's where to start. Wealth tax. Pick up that brush, Keir, and get stroking.
Keir stroking, lovely image thanks mate
His canvas, CHB, his canvas. In great big 'primary colours'. This is what I want to see. I'd hate for 'primary colours', which I keep hearing about, to be just another empty piece of phrase-making, of which we are not short in politics right now.
Where is Labour, "sceptical" about the plans, great.
But where is their plan, ffs this is so easy.
Wealth tax => fund social care.
Yep, c'mon Labour. All the talk of painting a big, non-Tory vision in PRIMARY COLOURS. Here's where to start. Wealth tax. Pick up that brush, Keir, and get stroking.
Keir stroking, lovely image thanks mate
His canvas, CHB, his canvas. In great big 'primary colours'. This is what I want to see. I'd hate for 'primary colours', which I keep hearing about, to be just another empty piece of phrase-making, of which we are not short in politics right now.
Where is Labour, "sceptical" about the plans, great.
But where is their plan, ffs this is so easy.
Wealth tax => fund social care.
Yep, c'mon Labour. All the talk of painting a big, non-Tory vision in PRIMARY COLOURS. Here's where to start. Wealth tax. Pick up that brush, Keir, and get stroking.
Keir stroking, lovely image thanks mate
His canvas, CHB, his canvas. In great big 'primary colours'. This is what I want to see. I'd hate for 'primary colours', which I keep hearing about, to be just another empty piece of phrase-making, of which we are not short in politics right now.
Can you see what it is yet?
It's a bluey grey thing, or maybe a greyey blue. Not sure.
Where is Labour, "sceptical" about the plans, great.
But where is their plan, ffs this is so easy.
Wealth tax => fund social care.
Yep, c'mon Labour. All the talk of painting a big, non-Tory vision in PRIMARY COLOURS. Here's where to start. Wealth tax. Pick up that brush, Keir, and get stroking.
Keir stroking, lovely image thanks mate
His canvas, CHB, his canvas. In great big 'primary colours'. This is what I want to see. I'd hate for 'primary colours', which I keep hearing about, to be just another empty piece of phrase-making, of which we are not short in politics right now.
How many more times can they kick social care policy announcement into touch? The current policy of Blair’s already out there is Dementia Tax don’t forget. The vote loser is do nothing.
Has HY commented whether he can sell this on the doorstep?
HY has time now to get out on the doorstep. I wonder if he will try to come back.
Can confirm that he is. I had a little exchange with him yesterday about a wealth tax. He wasn't keen. In fact he was implacably opposed to the idea. Said wealth taxes are not what a true Tory is all about. Hard to disagree.
Where is Labour, "sceptical" about the plans, great.
But where is their plan, ffs this is so easy.
Wealth tax => fund social care.
Yep, c'mon Labour. All the talk of painting a big, non-Tory vision in PRIMARY COLOURS. Here's where to start. Wealth tax. Pick up that brush, Keir, and get stroking.
Keir stroking, lovely image thanks mate
His canvas, CHB, his canvas. In great big 'primary colours'. This is what I want to see. I'd hate for 'primary colours', which I keep hearing about, to be just another empty piece of phrase-making, of which we are not short in politics right now.
Mr. Taz, a wealth tax seems unwise. If it doesn't apply to houses then people will just shovel their money into property, pushing up prices even more. If it does apply to houses then tons of people who spent their lives paying off a mortgage and have retired will have a new significant cost they can't afford.
That's why a tax on sale is better (though not without some problems). You know the actual value of the house and the seller has the money. If they are trading down they don't need as much. If they are trading up, it helps cap price rises. It releases some of the value contained in property.
We can always find reasons not to do things, not to tax this, that and the other. But if we want a decent care system we will have to pay so rather than find reasons for not paying we need to find a way to pay which raises the money needed and is reasonably fair to all. Income tax is one such way, merging of NI with it and making it applicable to all another. Extending CGT a third. Some form of LVT or wealth tax another. All have pluses and minuses. But we can either argue about it for another 10/20 years and do nothing or actually get on with it.
So argument and doing nothing it is then ......
I'd go for a more broadly-based Inheritance Tax. One could lower the headline rate of 40% and still raise more money by scrapping most exemptions and reliefs.
Taxing inheritance as income of the recipient would have some advantages. Most inheritances are modest, and it would encourage wider distribution, amongst grand children rather than children, for example.
I'm a fan of this reform. Labour had it for GE19 (I think) and I hope it comes back. Don't see why your party shouldn't embrace it, in fact.
Mr. (Ms?) Moonshine, more than half of households have an Amazon Prime subscription? If true, that's an astonishing stat.
Shows how gullible the fools are. I wonder how many of them even know they've got one. Amazon pulls out all the stops to get buyers to give them a contract for Prime, including by encouraging the less wary and literate to think it's a way to get "free" shipping. The button saying "No thanks, I want to forgo all the benefits of Prime and I might get free shipping this way too but everyone in the world will think I'm a pauper or else very mean" is usually very grey and not at all colourful. Think of how a six-month old baby decides what baby books they prefer.
You cretinous halfwit , they pay for it and you have to physically purchase it.
You accidentally hit the wrong button when buying something and boom you're on the trial (which then will be billed if not cancelled).
You can cancel any time , you can return almost anything you purchase free of charge etc. Never had an issue and have returned many things. For me at £80 it is a bargain.
Yeah, easy to cancel. But that wasnt YoungTurk's point. They were saying it's very easy to accidentally sign up for it while ordering something.
I don't agree , it is very obvious and you can cancel Prime with one button press at any time, same as any regular order etc. YoungTurk is obviously not very bright or disingenious. I have had Prime since it came out and think it is very simple and find that if there are any mistakes or I don't like what I ordered , they take it back and pick it up free of charge as well. I may be lucky but doubt it.
It isn't very obvious, the button to continue without a prime trial is deliberately smaller and less prominent.
O/T but interesti;ng piece by John Harris (who usually tries and succeeds in breaking out of the metropolitan bubble) - makes an interesting comparison with Leon's remarks the other day.
Equally on the money, the Sunday Rawnsley, brought to you via a sunny terrace above the Danube:
...it is hard not to conclude that we are witnesses to a world-changing reorientation of Washington’s priorities that threatens to leave Britain very marginalised. Barack Obama’s pivot to Asia was followed by the Trump rampage through international norms that has now been succeeded by Joe Biden’s version of America First.
This doesn’t feel like a blip. It looks like an inflection point. Ben Wallace, the defence secretary, is more thoughtful about this than most of his cabinet colleagues. He argues that “taking America for granted” has been a mistake and suggests Britain should be working on other alliances, mentioning France as a partner in supporting African countries besieged by extremists. Mr Tugendhat agrees that Britain has to wean itself off dependency on a single ally: “Like the Suez fiasco, the crisis in Afghanistan is going to change our foreign policy completely… Our options cannot solely be determined by the White House.”
At least some Tories are doing some thinking. This is coinciding with a revived debate in continental Europe about becoming less reliant on the US. A common European effort to do more to protect our continent’s security would be greatly enhanced by the involvement of the UK.
A mutually beneficial partnership on defence and foreign policy makes sense, but you will have already spotted the snag. That would require respect and trust, not relations poisoned by years of Boris Johnson and other senior Tories depicting Europe as this country’s deadliest enemy and festering disputes about the terms of the exit from the EU. One day Britain will have a government that recognises that it is in the national interest for the UK to rebuild the Brexit-burnt bridges with its neighbours, but it will first have to change its prime minister.
Hmm....
The US is no longer interested in Europe, that is undoubtedly true. The US no longer see Russia as a threat. Ditto. (They are right by the way). The US is focused on China and the Pacific. We are bit players there at most. It seems unlikely that the very close relationship we have had with the US since 1945 will survive this change of focus.
But so what? Europe is a boring, if prosperous, backwater facing very little in the way of strategic threats. Having dominated world history for 3-400 years it no longer counts. What strategic threats do we actually face? And what could our European allies do to help us address these?
I frankly struggle to see any. We share common views with the EU on many things, if not all. But who cares what we or they think anymore? What are we willing to do to promote and enforce those values? Anything? I doubt it.
I see Nadim Zahawi is coming under fire from incredulous journalists and anti-vaxxers for...checks notes... Outlining nearly 40 year old case law on Gillick Competence. Which is every day for teachers, social workers and health care. But appears to be a revelation to professional spouters.
I hope you read some of the recommendations. You might find one or two nuggets that make you think a little differently about things. It's happened to you before - Brighton Uni etc - so this means you're the sort who is open to change. There's no reason why it can't happen again. And indeed again after that, at least one more time, bearing in mind you're only in middle age.
Where is Labour, "sceptical" about the plans, great.
But where is their plan, ffs this is so easy.
Wealth tax => fund social care.
Still think your Labour lead this year is a winner?
I do.
FWIW as a Tory activist, I am pretty certain you'll win that bet but of course it won't mean anything about the result of the next election.
That would be true in the same way that the Tory lead in the polls in mid-1961 revealed very little re- the outcome of the 1964 election - or indeed that the big Tory lead at the beginning of 1989 did of the 1992 election. The huge continuing Labour lead in early 1999 also was way off the 2001 election result.
I hope you read some of the recommendations. You might find one or two nuggets that make you think a little differently about things. It's happened to you before - Brighton Uni etc - so this means you're the sort who is open to change. There's no reason why it can't happen again. And indeed again after that, at least one more time, bearing in mind you're only in middle age.
Prejudice, disadvantage and advantage happens in many forms and we should all be aware of biases and be empathetic. The idea of singling out one particular segmentation of society as "privileged" and people who need to be called out separately is deeply unpleasant. Especially when in many cases they perform worse than some of the "oppressed" racial groups.
Mr. (Ms?) Moonshine, more than half of households have an Amazon Prime subscription? If true, that's an astonishing stat.
Shows how gullible the fools are. I wonder how many of them even know they've got one. Amazon pulls out all the stops to get buyers to give them a contract for Prime, including by encouraging the less wary and literate to think it's a way to get "free" shipping. The button saying "No thanks, I want to forgo all the benefits of Prime and I might get free shipping this way too but everyone in the world will think I'm a pauper or else very mean" is usually very grey and not at all colourful. Think of how a six-month old baby decides what baby books they prefer.
You cretinous halfwit , they pay for it and you have to physically purchase it.
You accidentally hit the wrong button when buying something and boom you're on the trial (which then will be billed if not cancelled).
You can cancel any time , you can return almost anything you purchase free of charge etc. Never had an issue and have returned many things. For me at £80 it is a bargain.
Yeah, easy to cancel. But that wasnt YoungTurk's point. They were saying it's very easy to accidentally sign up for it while ordering something.
I don't agree , it is very obvious and you can cancel Prime with one button press at any time, same as any regular order etc. YoungTurk is obviously not very bright or disingenious. I have had Prime since it came out and think it is very simple and find that if there are any mistakes or I don't like what I ordered , they take it back and pick it up free of charge as well. I may be lucky but doubt it.
It isn't very obvious, the button to continue without a prime trial is deliberately smaller and less prominent.
Where is Labour, "sceptical" about the plans, great.
But where is their plan, ffs this is so easy.
Wealth tax => fund social care.
Still think your Labour lead this year is a winner?
I do.
FWIW as a Tory activist, I am pretty certain you'll win that bet but of course it won't mean anything about the result of the next election.
That would be true in the same way that the Tory lead in the polls in mid-1961 revealed very little re- the outcome of the 1964 election - or indeed that the big Tory lead at the beginning of 1989 did of the 1992 election. The huge continuing Labour lead in early 1999 also was way off the 2001 election result.
England have less than half an hour here to take 4 wickets or its game over.
I don't agree with that. The pitch is flat, lots of time to play, lead is currently 236. If England can keep it below 300 to chase, they have a chance - a big if, though. That will be more than half an hour.
Lizzy Truss has just secured a veg trade deal with the Ukraine . They apparently have an abundance of giant carrots and cabbage at a place called Chernobyl
England have less than half an hour here to take 4 wickets or its game over.
I don't agree with that. The pitch is flat, lots of time to play, lead is currently 236. If England can keep it below 300 to chase, they have a chance. That will be more than half an hour.
You have a lot of confidence in England's crap unreliable batting lineup.
300 in a 4th Innings is always a huge ask which is rarely achieved.
All this money wasted to trash trade links with your biggest export market! Brexit really is a turd that only the most deluded can cling to and continue to justify .
As has just been said @RochdalePioneers no amount of attacks on Brexit is going to change it and the need now is for it to be made to work with compromise on all sides
What’s there to compromise on. The UK signed the trade deal and the WA , that should be the end of it . The negotiations are over . If the UK doesn’t like being treated as a third country it shouldn’t have left or should have done a trade deal with less barriers . Leavers own the whole stinking mess and should not be allowed to try and scapegoat the EU for the impact of their own vote .
As the old Irish joke has it, I wouldn’t start from here (as a response to being asked for directions to Dublin).
But it’s incumbent on all of us to build a better country starting with where we are. Your approach is not constructive
I would counter that comment by saying the Leaver's approach in 2016 wasn't very constructive either.
Some were, some weren’t.
But it was 5 years ago and we all have a duty to build a better future
By rejoining.
Sorry, couldn't resist the temptation, but it's clear that Leavers made a dreadful mistake, compounded by dishonesty.
And one of the things that makes a democracy democratic is the right, like that of a lady, to change their mind. Consider all the initiatives of governments of all colours that were reversed after a decent interval.
Question is- what counts as a decent interval? It's probably not 40 weeks, but it's not 40 years either.
From a purely practical point of view, this isn't going to plan and doubling down to make rejoin harder is just going to make things worse. But overall the nation isn't ready to confront that... Yet.
I'm reminded of what was said about the Good Friday Agreement- it was Sunningdale 1972 for slow learners. I can't help wondering what the UK-EU version of that will be.
England have less than half an hour here to take 4 wickets or its game over.
I don't agree with that. The pitch is flat, lots of time to play, lead is currently 236. If England can keep it below 300 to chase, they have a chance. That will be more than half an hour.
You have a lot of confidence in England's crap unreliable batting lineup.
300+ in a 4th Innings is always a huge ask which is rarely achieved.
Not really! I said "they have a chance" if chasing below 300, not 300+. It's a small chance.
England have less than half an hour here to take 4 wickets or its game over.
I don't agree with that. The pitch is flat, lots of time to play, lead is currently 236. If England can keep it below 300 to chase, they have a chance. That will be more than half an hour.
You have a lot of confidence in England's crap unreliable batting lineup.
300+ in a 4th Innings is always a huge ask which is rarely achieved.
Not really! I said "they have a chance" if chasing below 300. It's a small chance.
I certainly wouldn't back them even now if they got them out for 250 lead.
Lizzy Truss has just secured a veg trade deal with the Ukraine . They apparently have an abundance of giant carrots and cabbage at a place called Chernobyl
England have less than half an hour here to take 4 wickets or its game over.
I don't agree with that. The pitch is flat, lots of time to play, lead is currently 236. If England can keep it below 300 to chase, they have a chance - a big if, though. That will be more than half an hour.
Agreed. But there's a tradition on here of talking down England's chances at cricket. Nearest I've been to getting banned was when I once went against that. Now I play along.
So in fact NOT agreed. We've lost this one barring a miracle.
Lizzy Truss has just secured a veg trade deal with the Ukraine . They apparently have an abundance of giant carrots and cabbage at a place called Chernobyl
Senior Whitehall sources told the Sunday Times that structural engineering experts hired by the government had “unambiguously and unanimously” advised that the tower should be “carefully taken down”.
Grenfell United, a group for survivors and bereaved families, said it was “shocked” by the development “given the promise by the government that no decision would be made on the future of the tower without full consultation with the bereaved and survivors”.
I’d wondered why it hadn’t been pulled down. I’d have thought survivors would want to see it gone. Very odd.
If it is structurally unsound then it is inappropriate for laypeople to have much of a voice.
Particularly because a number of the groups involved are political in various ways, and that all ex-Grenfell people have (I assume) been given alternative accommodation.
A consultation on what is to replace it, and a Blue Plaque or similar, may be appropriate imo.
England have less than half an hour here to take 4 wickets or its game over.
I don't agree with that. The pitch is flat, lots of time to play, lead is currently 236. If England can keep it below 300 to chase, they have a chance. That will be more than half an hour.
You have a lot of confidence in England's crap unreliable batting lineup.
300+ in a 4th Innings is always a huge ask which is rarely achieved.
Not really! I said "they have a chance" if chasing below 300. It's a small chance.
I certainly wouldn't back them even now if they got them out for 250 lead.
I wouldn't back them to get within 50 of what they need already. But they do have a slim chance. Which is a big hundred from Root. Following a 100+ opening stand.
England have less than half an hour here to take 4 wickets or its game over.
I don't agree with that. The pitch is flat, lots of time to play, lead is currently 236. If England can keep it below 300 to chase, they have a chance. That will be more than half an hour.
You have a lot of confidence in England's crap unreliable batting lineup.
300+ in a 4th Innings is always a huge ask which is rarely achieved.
Not really! I said "they have a chance" if chasing below 300. It's a small chance.
I certainly wouldn't back them even now if they got them out for 250 lead.
I wouldn't back them to get within 50 of what they need already. But they do have a slim chance. Which is a big hundred from Root. Following a 100+ opening stand.
This is where Stokes is a huge loss. Not only does he have the golden arm for breaking partnerships, but he is the only one other than Root that has shown he had what it takes to handle the pressure and bat towards a significant target.
Where is Labour, "sceptical" about the plans, great.
But where is their plan, ffs this is so easy.
Wealth tax => fund social care.
Still think your Labour lead this year is a winner?
I do.
FWIW as a Tory activist, I am pretty certain you'll win that bet but of course it won't mean anything about the result of the next election.
That would be true in the same way that the Tory lead in the polls in mid-1961 revealed very little re- the outcome of the 1964 election - or indeed that the big Tory lead at the beginning of 1989 did of the 1992 election. The huge continuing Labour lead in early 1999 also was way off the 2001 election result.
EdM’s Labour led Cammo’s Tories on VI for years
Indeed - but that lead was too early in the 2010 Parliament and fell away when UKIP gained momentum in 2013. It is when the governing party falls behind in years 3 and 4 of a Parliament that it tends to face problems recovering sufficiently to win re-election. In the 1959 Parliament the Tories led continuously until Autumn 1961 then fell well behind in 1962 and 1963. They recovered strongly over the summer of 1964 but still lost the election in October. In the 1987 Parliament the Tories were ahead until May 1989 but then slumped badly with Labour leads as high as 20% being recorded in 1990. They solved the problem by ditching Thatcher in November that year and were narrowly re-elected under the new leader in April 1992.
I hope you read some of the recommendations. You might find one or two nuggets that make you think a little differently about things. It's happened to you before - Brighton Uni etc - so this means you're the sort who is open to change. There's no reason why it can't happen again. And indeed again after that, at least one more time, bearing in mind you're only in middle age.
Prejudice, disadvantage and advantage happens in many forms and we should all be aware of biases and be empathetic. The idea of singling out one particular segmentation of society as "privileged" and people who need to be called out separately is deeply unpleasant. Especially when in many cases they perform worse than some of the "oppressed" racial groups.
I don't view it that way. I see it as an effort to counteract ingrained anti-white prejudice in the white dominated society of a country which was largely built on colonizing non-white peoples in non-white places. It's certainly no solution in itself, and I can see the pitfalls, and perhaps it doesn't have the net positive effect that I'd hope it would - maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, hard to measure - but regardless, even if it's counterproductive as some argue, I cannot feel angry or offended about it. To me, that is total snowflake. At the risk of setting bristles off, it's 'white fragility'. We rule the roost for centuries, then get all upset about even being asked to have a serious think about whether the legacy from this still endures.
Lizzy Truss has just secured a veg trade deal with the Ukraine . They apparently have an abundance of giant carrots and cabbage at a place called Chernobyl
Mr. Taz, a wealth tax seems unwise. If it doesn't apply to houses then people will just shovel their money into property, pushing up prices even more. If it does apply to houses then tons of people who spent their lives paying off a mortgage and have retired will have a new significant cost they can't afford.
That's why a tax on sale is better (though not without some problems). You know the actual value of the house and the seller has the money. If they are trading down they don't need as much. If they are trading up, it helps cap price rises. It releases some of the value contained in property.
We can always find reasons not to do things, not to tax this, that and the other. But if we want a decent care system we will have to pay so rather than find reasons for not paying we need to find a way to pay which raises the money needed and is reasonably fair to all. Income tax is one such way, merging of NI with it and making it applicable to all another. Extending CGT a third. Some form of LVT or wealth tax another. All have pluses and minuses. But we can either argue about it for another 10/20 years and do nothing or actually get on with it.
So argument and doing nothing it is then ......
The problem with your solution is the following (used large round numbers to make maths easy rather than because they are realistic!)
Buy a house for £10m
Sell house 5 years later for £20m
Pay 45% tax on the profit (£10m = £4.5m)
Net proceeds available to move house = £15.5m
So I have to move to a significantly less nice house in order to move (assuming all other houses have gone up in value at the same rate since the original purchase)
That reduces people’s willingness to sell their houses and move with all sorts of knock on effects
Isn't there some kind of capital gains tax allowance? It could be saved up over the time of ownership, thus reducing the taxable amount.
There is, from memory (I don’t use it much as my investments are in ISAs or EIS) it’s about £12k and you can only look back for 3 year so it helps at the margin.
It's gone I think. Makes tax returns easier.
Eh? The capital gains tax allowance in 2021-22 is £12,300.
What has changed is the allownce will not go up in line with inflation in next couple of tax years. Withering on the vine.
Shit, sorry, I thought we were talking about the indexation allowance which let you reduce your gains to account for inflation. Yes of course there's a tax free allowance.
The other thing that has changed I think is the CGT position if you rented out your own residential property for some of the years you owned it (but also lived in it as well some of the time). e.g. you rented out your primary residence for two years whilst you were working abroad. There was a bit of a loophole.
I don't think, however, that - unlike pension contributions say - unused CGT allowance can be rolled over.
Mr. Taz, a wealth tax seems unwise. If it doesn't apply to houses then people will just shovel their money into property, pushing up prices even more. If it does apply to houses then tons of people who spent their lives paying off a mortgage and have retired will have a new significant cost they can't afford.
If they're sitting on a large debt-free asset worth enough for the wealth tax to kick in then by definition they can afford the new cost.
Plenty of people are asset rich but cash poor. Effectively they In that situation will be forced to take secured loans or even sell to pay the debt.
If the figures are small (as they would be with a land value tax) it's possible for the money to be paid upfront against a first charge on the property.
That doesn't work for care homes as at £60,000 a year everything adds up quickly.
Most people's stay in care homes is not very long. I understand the median is about 9 months. I would have thought that the edge cases which involve staying for years could be covered by insurance of some kind.
The real issue is care in the community. There's lots of people struggling along with the help of relatives and/or 15 minute visits from carers. Very few live with their parents or grandparents any more.
They would be far better in a middle way of sheltered or purpose built accommodation but there isn't enough of it and there's a reluctance to sell up.
Lets face it, society is a Ponzi scheme, one way or another.
One further point - when my mum died I was warned by a friend to be cautious about buying sheltered accommodation for dad as it could be very difficult to sell. Which contradicts what you say, seemingly, please? In the end my father did not need it but it would be useful to know for other elderly relatives.
Sheltered accommodation usually comes with very high service charges, and the demand for it is much less than more regular apartments. It can take ages to sell it, or require heavy discounting if you need to sell in a hurry.
Indeedy.
It is quite possibly an example of planning blight in some ways.
That doesn't work for care homes as at £60,000 a year everything adds up quickly.
Most people's stay in care homes is not very long. I understand the median is about 9 months. I would have thought that the edge cases which involve staying for years could be covered by insurance of some kind.
The real issue is care in the community. There's lots of people struggling along with the help of relatives and/or 15 minute visits from carers. Very few live with their parents or grandparents any more.
Roughly agree in your time on care homes - residential is probably rather longer.
The number of multigenerational households has been increasing for quite a few years. Though there are boomerang kids as well as granny moving in.
If kids leave, Granny can fit in quite well into the space - the requirements are eventually either 2 decent reception rooms downstairs, or a convertible integral garage. Doable in most detached estate houses. Though in many areas of the country it is more about family living reasonably close together.
Dilnot estimated that 10% of elderly need the kind of long term residential care for years that gives the eye watering numbers that destroy any inheritance plans.
A cap would allow an insurance market but with no cap, as now, no insurer will touch the market as there is a possibility of huge sums being involved - maybe £400K or a lot more for say ten years of dementia care.
It is of course a total lottery whether one ends up being one of the 10%.
Indeed - which is why it needs to be done nationally.
Mr. Taz, a wealth tax seems unwise. If it doesn't apply to houses then people will just shovel their money into property, pushing up prices even more. If it does apply to houses then tons of people who spent their lives paying off a mortgage and have retired will have a new significant cost they can't afford.
If they're sitting on a large debt-free asset worth enough for the wealth tax to kick in then by definition they can afford the new cost.
Plenty of people are asset rich but cash poor. Effectively they In that situation will be forced to take secured loans or even sell to pay the debt.
If the figures are small (as they would be with a land value tax) it's possible for the money to be paid upfront against a first charge on the property.
That doesn't work for care homes as at £60,000 a year everything adds up quickly.
Most people's stay in care homes is not very long. I understand the median is about 9 months. I would have thought that the edge cases which involve staying for years could be covered by insurance of some kind.
The real issue is care in the community. There's lots of people struggling along with the help of relatives and/or 15 minute visits from carers. Very few live with their parents or grandparents any more.
They would be far better in a middle way of sheltered or purpose built accommodation but there isn't enough of it and there's a reluctance to sell up.
Lets face it, society is a Ponzi scheme, one way or another.
I'm surprised it's only 9 months. I would have estimated at least 5 years.
Lizzy Truss has just secured a veg trade deal with the Ukraine . They apparently have an abundance of giant carrots and cabbage at a place called Chernobyl
Comments
Its like how dare somebody bowl him a good ball that means I can't bat anymore, don't you know everybody came to watch me bat all day.
Senior Whitehall sources told the Sunday Times that structural engineering experts hired by the government had “unambiguously and unanimously” advised that the tower should be “carefully taken down”.
Grenfell United, a group for survivors and bereaved families, said it was “shocked” by the development “given the promise by the government that no decision would be made on the future of the tower without full consultation with the bereaved and survivors”.
I’d wondered why it hadn’t been pulled down. I’d have thought survivors would want to see it gone. Very odd.
Question is- what counts as a decent interval? It's probably not 40 weeks, but it's not 40 years either.
From a purely practical point of view, this isn't going to plan and doubling down to make rejoin harder is just going to make things worse. But overall the nation isn't ready to confront that... Yet.
I'm reminded of what was said about the Good Friday Agreement- it was Sunningdale 1972 for slow learners. I can't help wondering what the UK-EU version of that will be.
Has HY commented whether he can sell this on the doorstep?
What has changed is the allownce will not go up in line with inflation in next couple of tax years. Withering on the vine.
Instead YOU tell us about the only 2 alternatives:
Load more income tax onto working people. Or scale back what we expect the state to provide by way of health and social care.
So why are they sending the kite back out there with holes all over its poor wings?
This would be distinct from the Tories, get NI onside (important if a minority government), and actually be sensible without antagonising most Brexiteers, only the ones that wouldn't vote Labour ever anyway.
A cap would allow an insurance market but with no cap, as now, no insurer will touch the market as there is a possibility of huge sums being involved - maybe £400K or a lot more for say ten years of dementia care.
It is of course a total lottery whether one ends up being one of the 10%.
And oldies are all for it - "I worked hard all my life so why should I have to pay more now when I paid in all those years etc etc".
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/05/boris-johnson-incompetence-uk-westminster-normality
In my immediate family, one elderly relative required 2 years of residential care, followed by 2 years of dementia care. However, all other elderly relatives required none (they either died suddenly, or they were able to look after themselves in their own homes till the very end).
Prolonged stays in care homes are uncommon. That is why successive governments have been able to get away with doing little, as only a very small proportion of families are affected at all (<< 10%). Of course, even fewer are affected at any given instant in time.
May's attempt to "fix social care" was useful -- because it showed that most people thought dementia care was available for free on the NHS.
Many people did not understand that May's proposals were better than what we've already got -- because many people (incorrectly) thought it was already free. Hence, Labour were successfully & disgracefully able to argue that May was introducing a 'dementia tax'.
But, "fixing social care" is more than dementia care.
It is a whole host of problems -- the lack of biological fairness in our fates as we approach the end, the lack of social fairness in who gets what care, the absence of protection against catastrophic care costs, the wages and conditions of professional carers (both in care homes and in care in the community), the wellbeing of millions of unpaid carers, the responsibilities that younger family members have to their old folk, and so on.
It would need an exceptionally able and skilful set of politicians to navigate this set of problems.
At most, Boris will put in some money to stabilise the system to get to the next GE. And to be fair, that is what all politicians have done since 1997. (With the exception of May, who paid a heavy price).
At a lower level. Nipping the problem in the bud, as it were, there is a desperate shortage of qualified talking therapists. As well as a plethora of under and unqualified ones.
...it is hard not to conclude that we are witnesses to a world-changing reorientation of Washington’s priorities that threatens to leave Britain very marginalised. Barack Obama’s pivot to Asia was followed by the Trump rampage through international norms that has now been succeeded by Joe Biden’s version of America First.
This doesn’t feel like a blip. It looks like an inflection point. Ben Wallace, the defence secretary, is more thoughtful about this than most of his cabinet colleagues. He argues that “taking America for granted” has been a mistake and suggests Britain should be working on other alliances, mentioning France as a partner in supporting African countries besieged by extremists. Mr Tugendhat agrees that Britain has to wean itself off dependency on a single ally: “Like the Suez fiasco, the crisis in Afghanistan is going to change our foreign policy completely… Our options cannot solely be determined by the White House.”
At least some Tories are doing some thinking. This is coinciding with a revived debate in continental Europe about becoming less reliant on the US. A common European effort to do more to protect our continent’s security would be greatly enhanced by the involvement of the UK.
A mutually beneficial partnership on defence and foreign policy makes sense, but you will have already spotted the snag. That would require respect and trust, not relations poisoned by years of Boris Johnson and other senior Tories depicting Europe as this country’s deadliest enemy and festering disputes about the terms of the exit from the EU. One day Britain will have a government that recognises that it is in the national interest for the UK to rebuild the Brexit-burnt bridges with its neighbours, but it will first have to change its prime minister.
Dirty mind!
https://senioronboarding.leadershipacademy.nhs.uk/blog-dear-white-people-in-the-uk/
Dario Costa, an Italian stunt pilot, teamed up with Red Bull to become the 1st person ever to fly a plane through a tunnel.
https://twitter.com/JoePompliano/status/1434235625901801474?s=20
Red Bull might taste like piss and give you terrible jitters, but they are absolutely genius at advertising and marketing.
On the same side as Dom, yuck
The US is no longer interested in Europe, that is undoubtedly true.
The US no longer see Russia as a threat. Ditto. (They are right by the way).
The US is focused on China and the Pacific.
We are bit players there at most. It seems unlikely that the very close relationship we have had with the US since 1945 will survive this change of focus.
But so what? Europe is a boring, if prosperous, backwater facing very little in the way of strategic threats. Having dominated world history for 3-400 years it no longer counts. What strategic threats do we actually face? And what could our European allies do to help us address these?
I frankly struggle to see any. We share common views with the EU on many things, if not all. But who cares what we or they think anymore? What are we willing to do to promote and enforce those values? Anything? I doubt it.
"don't be defensive"
Don't be so bloody accusatory, then!
Outlining nearly 40 year old case law on Gillick Competence. Which is every day for teachers, social workers and health care. But appears to be a revelation to professional spouters.
But “Labour” eh?
Hmm quite a good line that
300 in a 4th Innings is always a huge ask which is rarely achieved.
So in fact NOT agreed. We've lost this one barring a miracle.
Particularly because a number of the groups involved are political in various ways, and that all ex-Grenfell people have (I assume) been given alternative accommodation.
A consultation on what is to replace it, and a Blue Plaque or similar, may be appropriate imo.
Which is a big hundred from Root. Following a 100+ opening stand.
In the 1987 Parliament the Tories were ahead until May 1989 but then slumped badly with Labour leads as high as 20% being recorded in 1990. They solved the problem by ditching Thatcher in November that year and were narrowly re-elected under the new leader in April 1992.
It is quite possibly an example of planning blight in some ways.
Do any countries do it via insurance?
https://olympics.com/tokyo-2020/paralympic-games/en/results/all-sports/medal-standings.htm