Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Also, O/T we had lunch today in a pub in Oxfordshire and John Simpson and his wife and son were also eating at the next table plus one, obviously a little less busy this weekend then the last few weekends with all the Afghanistan commentary
homes are slightly outside the £325,000 limit - it's £1m including the home if you are canny enough.
So while up north your house may trigger the lower limit it won't trigger the higher one.
But it doesn't make any difference - you won't be able to add to NI to pay for social care without losing a pile of Blue / Red Wall seats.
The Labour campaign story that you are now paying higher NI so the children of millionaire house owners down south keep the property is going to be on heavy repeat unless you scrap it.
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
FPT - Tip. If anyone recommends you should read Robin Diangelo, Afua Hirsch, Renni Eddo-Lodge, Akala, or June Sarpong your antenna should immediately go up. It's a massive warning sign.
Suggesting those texts should be the core curriculum to learn about race is like suggesting you should read Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Vladimir Lenin, John Stuart Mill and Noam Chomsky as your core curriculum to learn about economics.
Ignorance is Strength.
All of those are worth reading, or at least the 2/3 on both lists that I have read. I have also read the works of a number of white supremacists (after all, such views were commonplace and mainstream in my lifetime) and of libertarian and free market theorists. It is useful to read works you disagree with. It helps shape your own arguments and sharpens your thinking, and occasionally completely changes your opinion of something.
A key point imo. People often rail against new thinking - esp if it sounds a little bit "round glasses and hairy armpits" - but they also often apply the wrong test. No theory in the sociological or political or economic sphere explains the world or gets anywhere close. The test is whether it provides insights of value. Eg Marxism, Monetarism, these do, despite being at odds. Ditto for Woke thinking. Does it explain even a small fraction of what goes on in life? No. But does it add to our understanding? Yes it does.
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Also, O/T we had lunch today in a pub in Oxfordshire and John Simpson and his wife and son were also eating at the next table plus one, obviously a little less busy this weekend then the last few weekends with all the Afghanistan commentary
homes are slightly outside the £325,000 limit - it's £1m including the home if you are canny enough.
So while up north your house may trigger the lower limit it won't trigger the higher one.
But it doesn't make any difference - you won't be able to add to NI to pay for social care without losing a pile of Blue / Red Wall seats.
The Labour campaign story that you are now paying higher NI so the children of millionaire house owners down south keep the property is going to be on heavy repeat unless you scrap it.
It’s cynical, it’s opportunistic but it’s good politics from labour.
I suspect they will scrap it and go back to the drawing board.
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Also, O/T we had lunch today in a pub in Oxfordshire and John Simpson and his wife and son were also eating at the next table plus one, obviously a little less busy this weekend then the last few weekends with all the Afghanistan commentary
homes are slightly outside the £325,000 limit - it's £1m including the home if you are canny enough.
So while up north your house may trigger the lower limit it won't trigger the higher one.
But it doesn't make any difference - you won't be able to add to NI to pay for social care without losing a pile of Blue / Red Wall seats.
The Labour campaign story that you are now paying higher NI so the children of millionaire house owners down south keep the property is going to be on heavy repeat unless you scrap it.
If you are married and canny enough to take advantage of Osborne's IHT cut allowance yes then only homes above £1 million are affected but either way the vast majority of homes affected by IHT are in London and the South. Most homes in the North and Midlands and Wales are below the £325,000 IHT threshold but would be above the £100,000 threshold in value which would have made them liable for May's dementia tax in 2017.
The Labour campaign story in 2017 that May was going to take the average voters house for at home care was far more damaging in marginal seats than a 1% rise in NI would be. If Labour does go for a wealth tax it has to be careful, any threshold below £250-£350,000 would hit them in the Redwall and seats they need to win back from the Tories and any threshold even below £1 million would hit them with currently Labour voting property owners in London and Brighton, Oxford and Cambridge etc
Cases up 5k again in England. And that is before a lot of the super spreaders go back to school / they start to show up in the figures.
Given it's far too early for any increase to be the result of school spread, this is actually just a helpful indicator of the scale of testing impact from testing all the kids twice in a week. LIkely to be a change to the previous underlying downward trend when schools go back, but current numbers give no basis to judge that yet.
Its not because, it is before....I think it is inevitable we will see a large spike in cases when English schools are in full flow.
Yes, my point is just that the rise in the last 3 days is very likely just a result of higher testing given there's no other change. You may well be right as to what happens once school spread is possible and starts to feed in to the numbers, but the last 3 days is no evidence either way.
I think, with cases, we are in a trend, and one that is much longer than a few days....
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Also, O/T we had lunch today in a pub in Oxfordshire and John Simpson and his wife and son were also eating at the next table plus one, obviously a little less busy this weekend then the last few weekends with all the Afghanistan commentary
homes are slightly outside the £325,000 limit - it's £1m including the home if you are canny enough.
So while up north your house may trigger the lower limit it won't trigger the higher one.
But it doesn't make any difference - you won't be able to add to NI to pay for social care without losing a pile of Blue / Red Wall seats.
The Labour campaign story that you are now paying higher NI so the children of millionaire house owners down south keep the property is going to be on heavy repeat unless you scrap it.
If you are married and canny enough to take advantage of Osborne's IHT cut allowance yes then only homes above £1 million are affected but either way the vast majority of homes affected by IHT are in London and the South. Most homes in the North and Midlands are below the £325,000 IHT threshold but would be above the £100,000 threshold in value which would have made them liable for May's dementia tax in 2017.
The Labour campaign story in 2017 that May was going to take the average voters house for at home care was far more damaging in marginal seats than a 1% rise in NI would be. If Labour does go for a wealth tax it has to be careful, any below threshold below £250-£350,000 would hit them in the Redwall and seats they need to win back from the Tories and any threshold even below £1 million would hit them with currently Labour voting property owners in London and Brighton, Oxford and Cambridge etc
Is this not an incredibly arrogant line up for the England football team?
I wouldn't say so....Bellingham is the future, and had a very good start to season in Germany. Henderson is top quality. TAA is IMO better than Walker. Tripier is La Liga Champion. Saka was a star in the Euros. Lingard was fantastic in the EPL last season. Reece James is Champions League winner.
Its hardly like the days when England would field the likes of Fabian Delph as a second string team.
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
I see Lindsay Hoyle is clamping down on the wearing of casual dress in the Commons chamber. I don't disagree with that myself - though do note that Denis Healey was wearing trainers there in his last Parliament - ie the early 1990s.
Another institution ripe for dragging kicking and screaming into the 21st century.
It would be nice if he also clamped down on lying by certain individuals....
Most politicians lie, only a few are called out on it. Why is it a problem when it’s Johnson but not when it’s others ?
Most evade or mislead, few out and out lie. Boris and Trump don't bother with that fine distinction, not that Boris is in the same league as Trump. Whether the distinction matters I'm not sure.
The question you should be asking is whether the distinction between "evad[ing] or mislead[ing]" and "out and out lying" matters. Part of Trump's genius was to figure out that no-one believed a word his opponents (both in the primaries and the General) said, because they were all so jaded from listening to carefully crafted BS from careerist politicians for so long.
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Also, O/T we had lunch today in a pub in Oxfordshire and John Simpson and his wife and son were also eating at the next table plus one, obviously a little less busy this weekend then the last few weekends with all the Afghanistan commentary
homes are slightly outside the £325,000 limit - it's £1m including the home if you are canny enough.
So while up north your house may trigger the lower limit it won't trigger the higher one.
But it doesn't make any difference - you won't be able to add to NI to pay for social care without losing a pile of Blue / Red Wall seats.
The Labour campaign story that you are now paying higher NI so the children of millionaire house owners down south keep the property is going to be on heavy repeat unless you scrap it.
It’s cynical, it’s opportunistic but it’s good politics from labour.
I suspect they will scrap it and go back to the drawing board.
Labour are best off just opposing for now. If they do have a radical and popular option for funding social care they should keep it under wraps for nearer the election.
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
I think we all understood all of this already. It is blatantly obvious that the Government has only one purpose and this is to sustain the Prime Minister in office until he feels like giving up. Useless ministers with no personal following who are wholly dependent on the boss, and a suite of policies designed to feather bed the core vote whilst abandoning everyone else to rot, are inevitable consequences of this.
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
Is this not an incredibly arrogant line up for the England football team?
You were saying?
Anyway, it's hardly as if Southgate elected to wheel out Sutton United Reserves, now is it?
It shows just how much talent England now have, that Second XI really doesn't have many weak players (and they are still missing some really high quality talent, Sancho, Rashford, Hudson-Odoi, Greenwood, Foden)
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
I think we all understood all of this already. It is blatantly obvious that the Government has only one purpose and this is to sustain the Prime Minister in office until he feels like giving up. Useless ministers with no personal following who are wholly dependent on the boss, and a suite of policies designed to feather bed the core vote whilst abandoning everyone else to rot, are inevitable consequences of this.
Yes Boris is a populist without much ideology other than winning elections and staying in power, as opposed to Corbyn who was also a populist but with ideology and in order to make the UK into a socialist state.
Starmer like May is not a populist and might be ready to be more of a reformer on domestic policy but he has to get elected first
Shout out to all the smart cookies who knew vaccine passports were just a bluff to increase take up. Overton window keeps moving 1 step at a time but everyone is far too clever and ironically detatched to ever worry about the next step taken.
Aren't we just on large scale events and nightclubs?
Starlingly liberal - compare to France, for example.
Just thinking England could now put out a 3rd XI and it would be incredibly strong, including..
Ramsdale Wan-Bissaka Ben White Joe Gomez Chilwell Hudson-Odoi Curtis Jones Harvey Elliott Fodon Greenwood Sancho Rashford Dominic Calvert-Lewin James Ward-Prowse
FPT - Tip. If anyone recommends you should read Robin Diangelo, Afua Hirsch, Renni Eddo-Lodge, Akala, or June Sarpong your antenna should immediately go up. It's a massive warning sign.
Suggesting those texts should be the core curriculum to learn about race is like suggesting you should read Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Vladimir Lenin, John Stuart Mill and Noam Chomsky as your core curriculum to learn about economics.
Ignorance is Strength.
All of those are worth reading, or at least the 2/3 on both lists that I have read. I have also read the works of a number of white supremacists (after all, such views were commonplace and mainstream in my lifetime) and of libertarian and free market theorists. It is useful to read works you disagree with. It helps shape your own arguments and sharpens your thinking, and occasionally completely changes your opinion of something.
A key point imo. People often rail against new thinking - esp if it sounds a little bit "round glasses and hairy armpits" - but they also often apply the wrong test. No theory in the sociological or political or economic sphere explains the world or gets anywhere close. The test is whether it provides insights of value. Eg Marxism, Monetarism, these do, despite being at odds. Ditto for Woke thinking. Does it explain even a small fraction of what goes on in life? No. But does it add to our understanding? Yes it does.
There is a also the problem of people ignoring the "old thinking" on the basis that "I know what that was, even without actually knowing what it was".
I gave a historian some plus once, when I shared some stuff from a biography of General Groves. The academic thinking on the Manhattan project was shaped by the scientists. His astonishment at the actual quotes and actions by Groves was fascinating - this was an expert in the area.
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then under May's dementia tax, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories have homes which are worth over £150k on average
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Also, O/T we had lunch today in a pub in Oxfordshire and John Simpson and his wife and son were also eating at the next table plus one, obviously a little less busy this weekend then the last few weekends with all the Afghanistan commentary
homes are slightly outside the £325,000 limit - it's £1m including the home if you are canny enough.
So while up north your house may trigger the lower limit it won't trigger the higher one.
But it doesn't make any difference - you won't be able to add to NI to pay for social care without losing a pile of Blue / Red Wall seats.
The Labour campaign story that you are now paying higher NI so the children of millionaire house owners down south keep the property is going to be on heavy repeat unless you scrap it.
It’s cynical, it’s opportunistic but it’s good politics from labour.
I suspect they will scrap it and go back to the drawing board.
Labour are best off just opposing for now. If they do have a radical and popular option for funding social care they should keep it under wraps for nearer the election.
There is no radical and popular option - that's the problem.
social care is currently a wealth lottery (i.e. if you are unlucky the family's wealth is gone) but it's hard to see how you could introduce a wealth tax in any sane way.
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
I'm not talking about Mrs May's dementia tax. I'm talking about the current proposals, as indicated by 'new peoposal'.
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
Is Maths not your strong subject.
Its obvious 1% rise in NI is much better than losing your house.
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
It depends how many 22 year olds are hoping to eventually inherit a property themselves at some point in the future.
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
It depends how many 22 year olds are hoping to eventually inherit a property themselves at some point in the future.
Not really, they probably need to wait another 30 years until their parents start dying.
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Also, O/T we had lunch today in a pub in Oxfordshire and John Simpson and his wife and son were also eating at the next table plus one, obviously a little less busy this weekend then the last few weekends with all the Afghanistan commentary
homes are slightly outside the £325,000 limit - it's £1m including the home if you are canny enough.
So while up north your house may trigger the lower limit it won't trigger the higher one.
But it doesn't make any difference - you won't be able to add to NI to pay for social care without losing a pile of Blue / Red Wall seats.
The Labour campaign story that you are now paying higher NI so the children of millionaire house owners down south keep the property is going to be on heavy repeat unless you scrap it.
It’s cynical, it’s opportunistic but it’s good politics from labour.
I suspect they will scrap it and go back to the drawing board.
Labour are best off just opposing for now. If they do have a radical and popular option for funding social care they should keep it under wraps for nearer the election.
There is no radical and popular option - that's the problem.
social care is currently a wealth lottery (i.e. if you are unlucky the family's wealth is gone) but it's hard to see how you could introduce a wealth tax in any sane way.
That's not quite true. My paternal grandmother was diagnosed with Alzheimer's in 1992. The council told my dad to sell her home and to stick her in one of their homes. My parents decided to look after her themselves. We sold her house and bought another house with a decent downstairs and moved in with her*.
It was hard work, especially for my mother who had been a nurse and then a childminder after my sister and I came along. But it was worth it given their circumstances (i.e. neither was earning decent money working). They very much earned their inheritances (we also used to go up to Chesterfield a lot to look after my maternal grandfather - but he was pretty much fine until cancer did for him).
Obviously it comes down to personal circumstances. I certainly wouldn't blame anyone for taking the option of sticking them in a home, but I'm not sure how much of the inheritance should be protected.
* As an aside, my parents didn't sell their own home (which they'd bought under right to buy) and rented it out. But what a pain that was. It put me right off the idea of being a landlord. They used a letting agency who were a waste of space. Basically, unless you can do it yourself, don't bother.
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
Is Maths not your strong subject.
Its obvious 1% rise in NI is much better than losing your house.
Of which latter there is only about a 10% chance from discussions earlier today. And that 1% rise is a rise of a percentage point, of course. So the true comparator is 10 percentage points rise in NI right now, maybe when you are 25, which is a 1/10 slash in salary, and which favours the rich as IIRC there is an upper limit to NI.
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
I'm not talking about Mrs May's dementia tax. I'm talking about the current proposals, as indicated by 'new peoposal'.
Which were introduced to avoid repeating May's dementia tax, plus Boris also overruled Javid who wanted a 2% NI rise. Boris allowed only a 1% NI rise and no dementia tax to keep his social care plan as limited in unpopularity as possible ie basically doing barely anything about it as he usually does. Winning votes is always more important for Boris than any potentially unpopular domestic reform, Boris is not Thatcher more Blair on that front and focus grouped to the nth degree
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Also, O/T we had lunch today in a pub in Oxfordshire and John Simpson and his wife and son were also eating at the next table plus one, obviously a little less busy this weekend then the last few weekends with all the Afghanistan commentary
homes are slightly outside the £325,000 limit - it's £1m including the home if you are canny enough.
So while up north your house may trigger the lower limit it won't trigger the higher one.
But it doesn't make any difference - you won't be able to add to NI to pay for social care without losing a pile of Blue / Red Wall seats.
The Labour campaign story that you are now paying higher NI so the children of millionaire house owners down south keep the property is going to be on heavy repeat unless you scrap it.
It’s cynical, it’s opportunistic but it’s good politics from labour.
I suspect they will scrap it and go back to the drawing board.
Labour are best off just opposing for now. If they do have a radical and popular option for funding social care they should keep it under wraps for nearer the election.
There is no radical and popular option - that's the problem.
social care is currently a wealth lottery (i.e. if you are unlucky the family's wealth is gone) but it's hard to see how you could introduce a wealth tax in any sane way.
Yes, I know. I meant not so unpopular as to lose an election over it. I happen to agree strongly with you. Tap into private wealth. It should be sold as better than the alternatives of (i) loading more tax on working people's incomes or (ii) scaling back what we expect the state to provide by way of health & social care.
EDIT: Or maybe you've changed your mind since yesterday since you now seem to be saying a wealth tax would be insane!
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
As that 22 year old even in the North East will also likely inherit some of the value of their nan's estate once she passes on too which they would not potentially with a dementia tax and they would inherit more than they would pay under a 1% NI rise
I see Lindsay Hoyle is clamping down on the wearing of casual dress in the Commons chamber. I don't disagree with that myself - though do note that Denis Healey was wearing trainers there in his last Parliament - ie the early 1990s.
Another institution ripe for dragging kicking and screaming into the 21st century.
It would be nice if he also clamped down on lying by certain individuals....
Most politicians lie, only a few are called out on it. Why is it a problem when it’s Johnson but not when it’s others ?
Most evade or mislead, few out and out lie. Boris and Trump don't bother with that fine distinction, not that Boris is in the same league as Trump. Whether the distinction matters I'm not sure.
This is very important: most human beings will go to pretty extreme lengths to avoid complete lies, but will disassemble and evade and mislead.
Take Clinton, evader and misleader of the highest degree.
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
As that 22 year old even in the North East will also likely inherit some of the value of their nan's estate once she passes on too which they would not potentially with a dementia tax and they would inherit more than they would pay under a 1% NI rise
FPT - Tip. If anyone recommends you should read Robin Diangelo, Afua Hirsch, Renni Eddo-Lodge, Akala, or June Sarpong your antenna should immediately go up. It's a massive warning sign.
Suggesting those texts should be the core curriculum to learn about race is like suggesting you should read Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Vladimir Lenin, John Stuart Mill and Noam Chomsky as your core curriculum to learn about economics.
Ignorance is Strength.
All of those are worth reading, or at least the 2/3 on both lists that I have read. I have also read the works of a number of white supremacists (after all, such views were commonplace and mainstream in my lifetime) and of libertarian and free market theorists. It is useful to read works you disagree with. It helps shape your own arguments and sharpens your thinking, and occasionally completely changes your opinion of something.
A key point imo. People often rail against new thinking - esp if it sounds a little bit "round glasses and hairy armpits" - but they also often apply the wrong test. No theory in the sociological or political or economic sphere explains the world or gets anywhere close. The test is whether it provides insights of value. Eg Marxism, Monetarism, these do, despite being at odds. Ditto for Woke thinking. Does it explain even a small fraction of what goes on in life? No. But does it add to our understanding? Yes it does.
There is a also the problem of people ignoring the "old thinking" on the basis that "I know what that was, even without actually knowing what it was".
I gave a historian some plus once, when I shared some stuff from a biography of General Groves. The academic thinking on the Manhattan project was shaped by the scientists. His astonishment at the actual quotes and actions by Groves was fascinating - this was an expert in the area.
You will need to elaborate a little for me to pocket the value here.
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
As that 22 year old even in the North East will also likely inherit some of the value of their nan's estate once she passes on too which they would not potentially with a dementia tax and they would inherit more than they would pay under a 1% NI rise
1% on NI is no where near the amount required
Boris was never going to propose any measure to raise anywhere near the amount required, certainly if it was going to cost him votes.
This is the absolute maximum Boris will ever do on social care, if Sunak ever went for a more than 1% rise in NI or a dementia tax to pay for social care Boris would demote him or sack him
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
Because one day he might be 60, and one day might be 95? (The same 22 year old pays tax so that millionaires can get free NHS treatment).
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Also, O/T we had lunch today in a pub in Oxfordshire and John Simpson and his wife and son were also eating at the next table plus one, obviously a little less busy this weekend then the last few weekends with all the Afghanistan commentary
homes are slightly outside the £325,000 limit - it's £1m including the home if you are canny enough.
So while up north your house may trigger the lower limit it won't trigger the higher one.
But it doesn't make any difference - you won't be able to add to NI to pay for social care without losing a pile of Blue / Red Wall seats.
The Labour campaign story that you are now paying higher NI so the children of millionaire house owners down south keep the property is going to be on heavy repeat unless you scrap it.
It’s cynical, it’s opportunistic but it’s good politics from labour.
I suspect they will scrap it and go back to the drawing board.
Labour are best off just opposing for now. If they do have a radical and popular option for funding social care they should keep it under wraps for nearer the election.
There is no radical and popular option - that's the problem.
social care is currently a wealth lottery (i.e. if you are unlucky the family's wealth is gone) but it's hard to see how you could introduce a wealth tax in any sane way.
Yes, I know. I meant not so unpopular as to lose an election over it. I happen to agree strongly with you. Tap into private wealth. It should be sold as better than the alternatives of (i) loading more tax on working people's incomes or (ii) scaling back what we expect the state to provide by way of health & social care.
EDIT: Or maybe you've changed your mind since yesterday since you now seem to be saying a wealth tax would be insane!
Nope - a wealth tax is the only option where you could extract money from people. But it's incredibly hard to do correctly given how much people have invested in tax free isas.
It's why I came back to a land value tax as it's just about the only option left on the table - that is vaguely achievable and unavoidable.
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
As that 22 year old even in the North East will also likely inherit some of the value of their nan's estate once she passes on too which they would not potentially with a dementia tax and they would inherit more than they would pay under a 1% NI rise
You think a 22 year old would be happy to pay extra tax so that they *might* inherit a bit more 30+ years in the future?
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
It depends how many 22 year olds are hoping to eventually inherit a property themselves at some point in the future.
Not as many as you think. And not at a time it would do any good.
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
Because one day he might be 60, and one day might be 95? (The same 22 year old pays tax so that millionaires can get free NHS treatment).
Those in their 20s are not stupid. We know that none of the goodies available to the retired now will be available when we reach that age.
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
Because one day he might be 60, and one day might be 95? (The same 22 year old pays tax so that millionaires can get free NHS treatment).
Those in their 20s are not stupid. We know that none of the goodies available to the retired now will be available when we reach that age.
Of course they will as the retired always vote more than younger voters, plus more of the young will have occupational private pensions when they reach 65 so fewer will need much state pension anyway due to compulsory workplace pension enrolment
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
As that 22 year old even in the North East will also likely inherit some of the value of their nan's estate once she passes on too which they would not potentially with a dementia tax and they would inherit more than they would pay under a 1% NI rise
You think a 22 year old would be happy to pay extra tax so that they *might* inherit a bit more 30+ years in the future?
Laughable.
No they might inherit more now, plenty of 20 and 30 year olds use inheritances they receive from grandparents or passed on from grandparents via their parents to help get their first deposit to buy a property
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
Because one day he might be 60, and one day might be 95? (The same 22 year old pays tax so that millionaires can get free NHS treatment).
Those in their 20s are not stupid. We know that none of the goodies available to the retired now will be available when we reach that age.
Of course they will as the retired always vote more than younger voters, plus more of the young will have occupational private pensions when they reach 65 so fewer will need much state pension anyway due to compulsory workplace pension enrolment
There will likely be even fewer young people to support the ponzi scheme by then
Burns' action is so complicated, there is so much that can go wrong. It's really odd for an opener.
Kim Barnett was the weirdest I have seen (and bowled at him)....If you remember he took guard way outside leg stumps and then walked across his stumps during the bowlers delivery while waving the bat all over the place.
Totally against everything you are told to do. How he even hit I have no idea.
I see Lindsay Hoyle is clamping down on the wearing of casual dress in the Commons chamber. I don't disagree with that myself - though do note that Denis Healey was wearing trainers there in his last Parliament - ie the early 1990s.
Another institution ripe for dragging kicking and screaming into the 21st century.
It would be nice if he also clamped down on lying by certain individuals....
Most politicians lie, only a few are called out on it. Why is it a problem when it’s Johnson but not when it’s others ?
Most evade or mislead, few out and out lie. Boris and Trump don't bother with that fine distinction, not that Boris is in the same league as Trump. Whether the distinction matters I'm not sure.
This is very important: most human beings will go to pretty extreme lengths to avoid complete lies, but will disassemble and evade and mislead.
Take Clinton, evader and misleader of the highest degree.
Very few politicians, if any, lie in a barefaced manner in parliament like our present PM. He doesn't even attempt to "set the record straight" if he is caught out. I am struggling to remember when a politician last lied in parliament and was found out. Stonehouse springs to mind. I think it is lazy to say "most politicians lie" without any actual evidence. The Seravonivc video details Johnson's lies.
FPT - Tip. If anyone recommends you should read Robin Diangelo, Afua Hirsch, Renni Eddo-Lodge, Akala, or June Sarpong your antenna should immediately go up. It's a massive warning sign.
Suggesting those texts should be the core curriculum to learn about race is like suggesting you should read Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Vladimir Lenin, John Stuart Mill and Noam Chomsky as your core curriculum to learn about economics.
Ignorance is Strength.
All of those are worth reading, or at least the 2/3 on both lists that I have read. I have also read the works of a number of white supremacists (after all, such views were commonplace and mainstream in my lifetime) and of libertarian and free market theorists. It is useful to read works you disagree with. It helps shape your own arguments and sharpens your thinking, and occasionally completely changes your opinion of something.
A key point imo. People often rail against new thinking - esp if it sounds a little bit "round glasses and hairy armpits" - but they also often apply the wrong test. No theory in the sociological or political or economic sphere explains the world or gets anywhere close. The test is whether it provides insights of value. Eg Marxism, Monetarism, these do, despite being at odds. Ditto for Woke thinking. Does it explain even a small fraction of what goes on in life? No. But does it add to our understanding? Yes it does.
There is a also the problem of people ignoring the "old thinking" on the basis that "I know what that was, even without actually knowing what it was".
I gave a historian some plus once, when I shared some stuff from a biography of General Groves. The academic thinking on the Manhattan project was shaped by the scientists. His astonishment at the actual quotes and actions by Groves was fascinating - this was an expert in the area.
You will need to elaborate a little for me to pocket the value here.
For example, Groves, in written records at the time, stated that he recruited Oppenheimer to lead the project, despite the known issue of his brother being half way to being a Soviet agent... because he was quite sure they could manage the security issue, since Oppenheimer as head of the project would be under non-stop surveillance/guard, and that Oppie was vital to the project....
Additionally, it was far better to have him inside the tent pissing out, than running round as an embittered exile...
Because he (Oppenheimer) was totally driven to be the creator of the first atomic bomb - he would (according to Groves in 1942) express horror and revulsion afterwards, but he was seeking both fame and, due to an interesting personality, would seek the combined fame/blame. And the blame was almost as important to Oppenheimer as the fame...
It was a devastatingly accurate and rather funny sketch of Oppenheimer and showed Groves to be a long way from the thuggish idiot that the scientists liked to claim latter.
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
Because one day he might be 60, and one day might be 95? (The same 22 year old pays tax so that millionaires can get free NHS treatment).
Those in their 20s are not stupid. We know that none of the goodies available to the retired now will be available when we reach that age.
I'm 59 and pretty pessimistic about that. By the time I am 67 expectations will be different and a lot tougher. The current state of affairs is simply not viable.
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
As that 22 year old even in the North East will also likely inherit some of the value of their nan's estate once she passes on too which they would not potentially with a dementia tax and they would inherit more than they would pay under a 1% NI rise
You think a 22 year old would be happy to pay extra tax so that they *might* inherit a bit more 30+ years in the future?
Laughable.
Desperate but as with HYUFD's earlier attempt to prove something he posted was correct he will continue regardless of reality and the truth.
They now care more about Biden abandoning Afghanistan back to the Taliban and jihadi militants, hence Trump now leads Biden 47% to 46% in the latest poll.
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
Because one day he might be 60, and one day might be 95? (The same 22 year old pays tax so that millionaires can get free NHS treatment).
Those in their 20s are not stupid. We know that none of the goodies available to the retired now will be available when we reach that age.
I'm 59 and pretty pessimistic about that. By the time I am 67 expectations will be different and a lot tougher. The current state of affairs is simply not viable.
I feel for you. I know that pensions will have collapsed by the time I get there and can plan accordingly, but it must be annoying when you're tantalisingly close to retirement to think that the collapse may come before you get there.
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
Because one day he might be 60, and one day might be 95? (The same 22 year old pays tax so that millionaires can get free NHS treatment).
Those in their 20s are not stupid. We know that none of the goodies available to the retired now will be available when we reach that age.
Of course they will as the retired always vote more than younger voters, plus more of the young will have occupational private pensions when they reach 65 so fewer will need much state pension anyway due to compulsory workplace pension enrolment
There will likely be even fewer young people to support the ponzi scheme by then
Isn't the whole economy a ponzi scheme of some sort? It's why we need to import workers from other countries if we can't procreate fast enough. Yay Free movement!
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
As that 22 year old even in the North East will also likely inherit some of the value of their nan's estate once she passes on too which they would not potentially with a dementia tax and they would inherit more than they would pay under a 1% NI rise
You think a 22 year old would be happy to pay extra tax so that they *might* inherit a bit more 30+ years in the future?
Laughable.
Desperate but as with HYUFD's earlier attempt to prove something he posted was correct he will continue regardless of reality and the truth.
It is reality and truth, you are far more likely to be able to make a significant contribution to a deposit to buy a property via an inheritance from a grandparent than avoiding a 1% NI rise if you are only on an average income
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
Because one day he might be 60, and one day might be 95? (The same 22 year old pays tax so that millionaires can get free NHS treatment).
Those in their 20s are not stupid. We know that none of the goodies available to the retired now will be available when we reach that age.
I'm 59 and pretty pessimistic about that. By the time I am 67 expectations will be different and a lot tougher. The current state of affairs is simply not viable.
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
As that 22 year old even in the North East will also likely inherit some of the value of their nan's estate once she passes on too which they would not potentially with a dementia tax and they would inherit more than they would pay under a 1% NI rise
1% on NI is no where near the amount required
To be honest it hardly touches the surface
There was an earlier ducussion on continuing health care (CHC) and if dementia qualified then peoples homes would not come into it, but then the entire bill would fall on the NHS
The tax increases across the board and a wealth tax would be needed
We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
Because one day he might be 60, and one day might be 95? (The same 22 year old pays tax so that millionaires can get free NHS treatment).
Those in their 20s are not stupid. We know that none of the goodies available to the retired now will be available when we reach that age.
I'm 59 and pretty pessimistic about that. By the time I am 67 expectations will be different and a lot tougher. The current state of affairs is simply not viable.
I feel for you. I know that pensions will have collapsed by the time I get there and can plan accordingly, but it must be annoying when you're tantalisingly close to retirement to think that the collapse may come before you get there.
Why should they? We have one of the highest rates of enrolment in occupational pension schemes in the developed world so most future generations do not have to rely on the state pension alone
They now care more about Biden abandoning Afghanistan back to the Taliban and jihadi militants, hence Trump now leads Biden 47% to 46% in the latest poll.
That's insane, just because something didn't succeed it doesn't matter? Are failed terrorist attacks or assassinations nothing to be worried about either?
For heaven's sake, politics and government look back at things that happened to see what worked, what didn't, what went wrong, all the damn time. That's how we learn things.
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
Because one day he might be 60, and one day might be 95? (The same 22 year old pays tax so that millionaires can get free NHS treatment).
Those in their 20s are not stupid. We know that none of the goodies available to the retired now will be available when we reach that age.
Of course they will as the retired always vote more than younger voters, plus more of the young will have occupational private pensions when they reach 65 so fewer will need much state pension anyway due to compulsory workplace pension enrolment
There will likely be even fewer young people to support the ponzi scheme by then
Isn't the whole economy a ponzi scheme of some sort? It's why we need to import workers from other countries if we can't procreate fast enough. Yay Free movement!
Back in the 90s, when the raging population issue was a big thing, the suggestion that one option would be to move from current contributions pay fro the oldies to actual pension pots per person... was treated as Utter Evul.
Interestingly, economic migration didn't reach the levels required to fix the problem. Which kind of gives you the scale of the problem.
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
As that 22 year old even in the North East will also likely inherit some of the value of their nan's estate once she passes on too which they would not potentially with a dementia tax and they would inherit more than they would pay under a 1% NI rise
You think a 22 year old would be happy to pay extra tax so that they *might* inherit a bit more 30+ years in the future?
Laughable.
Desperate but as with HYUFD's earlier attempt to prove something he posted was correct he will continue regardless of reality and the truth.
It is reality and truth, you are far more likely to be able to make a significant contribution to a deposit to buy a property via an inheritance from a grandparent than avoiding a 1% NI rise if you are only on an average income
It's going to be even harder to raise a deposit if you're paying more tax and thus have less disposable income.
Remember a reasonable percentage of young people are already paying a higher tax rate due to the repayment of student loads.
All this policy does is increase the divide between the haves and the have nots.
They now care more about Biden abandoning Afghanistan back to the Taliban and jihadi militants, hence Trump now leads Biden 47% to 46% in the latest poll.
That's insane, just because something didn't succeed it doesn't matter? Are failed terrorist attacks or assassinations nothing to be worried about either?
For heaven's sake, politics and government look back at things that happened to see what worked, what didn't, what went wrong, all the damn time. That's how we learn things.
"Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason."
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
As that 22 year old even in the North East will also likely inherit some of the value of their nan's estate once she passes on too which they would not potentially with a dementia tax and they would inherit more than they would pay under a 1% NI rise
1% on NI is no where near the amount required
To be honest it hardly touches the surface
There was an earlier ducussion on continuing health care (CHC) and if dementia qualified then peoples homes would not come into it, but then the entire bill would fall on the NHS
The tax increases across the board and a wealth tax would be needed
We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed
Then voters who believe that are better off voting Labour or LD then as there will be no wealth tax, no dementia tax and no NI rise above 1% with Boris in No 10
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
As that 22 year old even in the North East will also likely inherit some of the value of their nan's estate once she passes on too which they would not potentially with a dementia tax and they would inherit more than they would pay under a 1% NI rise
You think a 22 year old would be happy to pay extra tax so that they *might* inherit a bit more 30+ years in the future?
Laughable.
Desperate but as with HYUFD's earlier attempt to prove something he posted was correct he will continue regardless of reality and the truth.
It is reality and truth, you are far more likely to be able to make a significant contribution to a deposit to buy a property via an inheritance from a grandparent than avoiding a 1% NI rise if you are only on an average income
It's going to be even harder to raise a deposit if you're paying more tax and thus have less disposable income.
Remember a reasonable percentage of young people are already paying a higher tax rate due to the repayment of student loads.
All this policy does is increase the divide between the haves and the have nots.
In terms of buying a house it shouldn't matter except for people who don't pay NI (self employed and "workers") who get an advantage over employees.
As for student loans, well, it seems to me that the haves are those that dodge university.
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
Because one day he might be 60, and one day might be 95? (The same 22 year old pays tax so that millionaires can get free NHS treatment).
Those in their 20s are not stupid. We know that none of the goodies available to the retired now will be available when we reach that age.
I'm 59 and pretty pessimistic about that. By the time I am 67 expectations will be different and a lot tougher. The current state of affairs is simply not viable.
I feel for you. I know that pensions will have collapsed by the time I get there and can plan accordingly, but it must be annoying when you're tantalisingly close to retirement to think that the collapse may come before you get there.
Why should they? We have one of the highest rates of enrolment in occupational pension schemes in the developed world so most future generations do not have to rely on the state pension alone
The argument used by rich pensioners is that they deserve their state pension because they paid NI for 30 years.
The proposed policy is to increase NI paid by young people. Now you're saying that despite that they don't need the state pension? Is that consistent at all?
Get rid of national insurance. It is a total waste of space.
Today is the 21st anniversary of me becoming a homeowner for the first time at the princely age of 21.
It was entirely down to my mother determined that I shouldn't rent when that money should be used to pay down a mortgage.
The bank of Mum & Dad and Banks of Grandparents made it possible, it set me up financially for life by becoming a London homeowner in 2000.
We need to make it so much easier for younger people to become homeowners.
Something has gone horribly wrong that home ownership is but a pipe dream for so many people, especially in the south.
Which is why we Tories are fully supportive of the Bank of Mum and Dad and the Bank of Grandparents too as we know how crucial it is to helping young people buy their first property, especially south of Watford where the house price to income discrepancy is so much bigger than in the North and Midlands.
Good to see you demonstrating Tory principles in action so clearly there TSE!
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
As that 22 year old even in the North East will also likely inherit some of the value of their nan's estate once she passes on too which they would not potentially with a dementia tax and they would inherit more than they would pay under a 1% NI rise
You think a 22 year old would be happy to pay extra tax so that they *might* inherit a bit more 30+ years in the future?
Laughable.
Desperate but as with HYUFD's earlier attempt to prove something he posted was correct he will continue regardless of reality and the truth.
It is reality and truth, you are far more likely to be able to make a significant contribution to a deposit to buy a property via an inheritance from a grandparent than avoiding a 1% NI rise if you are only on an average income
It's going to be even harder to raise a deposit if you're paying more tax and thus have less disposable income.
Remember a reasonable percentage of young people are already paying a higher tax rate due to the repayment of student loads.
All this policy does is increase the divide between the haves and the have nots.
In terms of buying a house it shouldn't matter except for people who don't pay NI (self employed and "workers") who get an advantage over employees.
As for student loans, well, it seems to me that the haves are those that dodge university.
If you increase NI you decrease disposal income. How can that not matter? The biggest barrier to home ownership at present is the saving of the deposit itself.
If your policy is to decrease young people's disposal income in order to protect the assets of the rich, then the end result is concentration of wealth.
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
As that 22 year old even in the North East will also likely inherit some of the value of their nan's estate once she passes on too which they would not potentially with a dementia tax and they would inherit more than they would pay under a 1% NI rise
1% on NI is no where near the amount required
Boris was never going to propose any measure to raise anywhere near the amount required, certainly if it was going to cost him votes.
This is the absolute maximum Boris will ever do on social care, if Sunak ever went for a more than 1% rise in NI or a dementia tax to pay for social care Boris would demote him or sack him
So if this isnt raising the amount required, by your own words, where is the rest coming from?
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
As that 22 year old even in the North East will also likely inherit some of the value of their nan's estate once she passes on too which they would not potentially with a dementia tax and they would inherit more than they would pay under a 1% NI rise
1% on NI is no where near the amount required
To be honest it hardly touches the surface
There was an earlier ducussion on continuing health care (CHC) and if dementia qualified then peoples homes would not come into it, but then the entire bill would fall on the NHS
The tax increases across the board and a wealth tax would be needed
We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed
Then voters who believe that are better off voting Labour or LD then as there will be no wealth tax, no dementia tax and no NI rise above 1% with Boris in No 10
I am sorry but tax rises are inevitable no matter which party you support
And I would expect Rishi to increase IHT and possibly reduce higher rate tax relief
Times have changed and politics is changing rapidly
Today is the 21st anniversary of me becoming a homeowner for the first time at the princely age of 21.
It was entirely down to my mother determined that I shouldn't rent when that money should be used to pay down a mortgage.
The bank of Mum & Dad and Banks of Grandparents made it possible, it set me up financially for life by becoming a London homeowner in 2000.
We need to make it so much easier for younger people to become homeowners.
Something has gone horribly wrong that home ownership is but a pipe dream for so many people, especially in the south.
I was in that London at the same time. There were new build 1 bed flats in Docklands going for £140k. If I'd bought less DVDs and done a self-declaration mortgage I could have bought one and then flogged it for double not long after.
Didn't do because when you buy a flat you buy a key, but it could have been good...
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
Is Maths not your strong subject.
Its obvious 1% rise in NI is much better than losing your house.
Bollocks its obvious.
A 1% rise in NI* is for a working couple potentially a thousand pounds per year, compounded, lost every year throughout their entire working life.
Versus the possibility of maybe not as much of an inheritance in the unlikely event that the stars align that you both have a wealthy relative, and they get dementia, and they survive long enough in a care home to take a lot of cost, and they were to leave you their money.
Today is the 21st anniversary of me becoming a homeowner for the first time at the princely age of 21.
It was entirely down to my mother determined that I shouldn't rent when that money should be used to pay down a mortgage.
The bank of Mum & Dad and Banks of Grandparents made it possible, it set me up financially for life by becoming a London homeowner in 2000.
We need to make it so much easier for younger people to become homeowners.
Something has gone horribly wrong that home ownership is but a pipe dream for so many people, especially in the south.
Which is why we Tories are fully supportive of the Bank of Mum and Dad and the Bank of Grandparents too as we know how crucial it is to helping young people buy their first property, especially south of Watford where the house price to income discrepancy is so much bigger than in the North and Midlands.
Good to see you demonstrating Tory principles in action so clearly there TSE!
I suspect it wouldn't be possible if I wasn't an only child and the only grandchild of both sets of grandparents.
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
As that 22 year old even in the North East will also likely inherit some of the value of their nan's estate once she passes on too which they would not potentially with a dementia tax and they would inherit more than they would pay under a 1% NI rise
You think a 22 year old would be happy to pay extra tax so that they *might* inherit a bit more 30+ years in the future?
Laughable.
The opt-out rate for the auto-enroll pension sign up is very low. That is for a benefit in about 45 years' time.
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
Because one day he might be 60, and one day might be 95? (The same 22 year old pays tax so that millionaires can get free NHS treatment).
Those in their 20s are not stupid. We know that none of the goodies available to the retired now will be available when we reach that age.
I'm 59 and pretty pessimistic about that. By the time I am 67 expectations will be different and a lot tougher. The current state of affairs is simply not viable.
I feel for you. I know that pensions will have collapsed by the time I get there and can plan accordingly, but it must be annoying when you're tantalisingly close to retirement to think that the collapse may come before you get there.
Why should they? We have one of the highest rates of enrolment in occupational pension schemes in the developed world so most future generations do not have to rely on the state pension alone
That is an utter nonsense, and if you believe that fairy tale I am glad you are not advising me on pension planning
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
As that 22 year old even in the North East will also likely inherit some of the value of their nan's estate once she passes on too which they would not potentially with a dementia tax and they would inherit more than they would pay under a 1% NI rise
You think a 22 year old would be happy to pay extra tax so that they *might* inherit a bit more 30+ years in the future?
Laughable.
Desperate but as with HYUFD's earlier attempt to prove something he posted was correct he will continue regardless of reality and the truth.
It is reality and truth, you are far more likely to be able to make a significant contribution to a deposit to buy a property via an inheritance from a grandparent than avoiding a 1% NI rise if you are only on an average income
It's going to be even harder to raise a deposit if you're paying more tax and thus have less disposable income.
Remember a reasonable percentage of young people are already paying a higher tax rate due to the repayment of student loads.
All this policy does is increase the divide between the haves and the have nots.
1% NI may not seem much but that is of gross salary, and by the time the rest of the NI and income tax and rent have come off, it is quite a significant chunk of the rest.
As I recall when I was young and paying off a (by modern standards almost trivial) overdraft for my student days (havign studied rather than worked in most vacs), an even very small increase in salary by way of career progression had an amazing effect on my finances: suddenly I was actually saving money and soon had a deposit for my house.
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
Because one day he might be 60, and one day might be 95? (The same 22 year old pays tax so that millionaires can get free NHS treatment).
Those in their 20s are not stupid. We know that none of the goodies available to the retired now will be available when we reach that age.
I don't think you do - that is 50 years away. Anything that far out is a guess.
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
As that 22 year old even in the North East will also likely inherit some of the value of their nan's estate once she passes on too which they would not potentially with a dementia tax and they would inherit more than they would pay under a 1% NI rise
You think a 22 year old would be happy to pay extra tax so that they *might* inherit a bit more 30+ years in the future?
Laughable.
Desperate but as with HYUFD's earlier attempt to prove something he posted was correct he will continue regardless of reality and the truth.
It is reality and truth, you are far more likely to be able to make a significant contribution to a deposit to buy a property via an inheritance from a grandparent than avoiding a 1% NI rise if you are only on an average income
It's going to be even harder to raise a deposit if you're paying more tax and thus have less disposable income.
Remember a reasonable percentage of young people are already paying a higher tax rate due to the repayment of student loads.
All this policy does is increase the divide between the haves and the have nots.
In terms of buying a house it shouldn't matter except for people who don't pay NI (self employed and "workers") who get an advantage over employees.
As for student loans, well, it seems to me that the haves are those that dodge university.
If you increase NI you decrease disposal income. How can that not matter? The biggest barrier to home ownership at present is the saving of the deposit itself.
If your policy is to decrease young people's disposal income in order to protect the assets of the rich, then the end result is concentration of wealth.
I was thinking that if all employees have less money, then that just means that house prices will take a small hit. Just look at what happened when stamp duty was suspended. Prices went up because everyone could afford to pay a bit more.
I guess you could argue that it benefits cash buyers, but that's still a relatively small part of it.
To be clear, I'm not saying that this is a good policy, just that I wouldn't worry about it making much difference in terms of purchasing power.
Today is the 21st anniversary of me becoming a homeowner for the first time at the princely age of 21.
It was entirely down to my mother determined that I shouldn't rent when that money should be used to pay down a mortgage.
The bank of Mum & Dad and Banks of Grandparents made it possible, it set me up financially for life by becoming a London homeowner in 2000.
We need to make it so much easier for younger people to become homeowners.
Something has gone horribly wrong that home ownership is but a pipe dream for so many people, especially in the south.
Which is why we Tories are fully supportive of the Bank of Mum and Dad and the Bank of Grandparents too as we know how crucial it is to helping young people buy their first property, especially south of Watford where the house price to income discrepancy is so much bigger than in the North and Midlands.
Good to see you demonstrating Tory principles in action so clearly there TSE!
Of course this pushes property prices up and makes it so much harder for those who don't have the family money to get on the property ladder...
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
As that 22 year old even in the North East will also likely inherit some of the value of their nan's estate once she passes on too which they would not potentially with a dementia tax and they would inherit more than they would pay under a 1% NI rise
You think a 22 year old would be happy to pay extra tax so that they *might* inherit a bit more 30+ years in the future?
Laughable.
The opt-out rate for the auto-enroll pension sign up is very low. That is for a benefit in about 45 years' time.
There is significantly more certainty in receiving something from a private pension than there is from an inheritance 45 years' in the future. Grandma could have spunked it all on strippers and blow in Las Vegas before then.
Today is the 21st anniversary of me becoming a homeowner for the first time at the princely age of 21.
It was entirely down to my mother determined that I shouldn't rent when that money should be used to pay down a mortgage.
The bank of Mum & Dad and Banks of Grandparents made it possible, it set me up financially for life by becoming a London homeowner in 2000.
We need to make it so much easier for younger people to become homeowners.
Something has gone horribly wrong that home ownership is but a pipe dream for so many people, especially in the south.
I was in that London at the same time. There were new build 1 bed flats in Docklands going for £140k. If I'd bought less DVDs and done a self-declaration mortgage I could have bought one and then flogged it for double not long after.
Didn't do because when you buy a flat you buy a key, but it could have been good...
My mother persuaded me to buy in 1995.
On the basis of "Pay someone else's mortgage for 20 years, or pay your own. And get a property at the end, as a bonus".
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
As that 22 year old even in the North East will also likely inherit some of the value of their nan's estate once she passes on too which they would not potentially with a dementia tax and they would inherit more than they would pay under a 1% NI rise
You think a 22 year old would be happy to pay extra tax so that they *might* inherit a bit more 30+ years in the future?
Laughable.
The opt-out rate for the auto-enroll pension sign up is very low. That is for a benefit in about 45 years' time.
There is significantly more certainty in receiving something from a private pension than there is from an inheritance 45 years' in the future. Grandma could have spunked it all on strippers and blow in Las Vegas before then.
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
Is Maths not your strong subject.
Its obvious 1% rise in NI is much better than losing your house.
Bollocks its obvious.
A 1% rise in NI* is for a working couple potentially a thousand pounds per year, compounded, lost every year throughout their entire working life.
Versus the possibility of maybe not as much of an inheritance in the unlikely event that the stars align that you both have a wealthy relative, and they get dementia, and they survive long enough in a care home to take a lot of cost, and they were to leave you their money.
The former is much, much, much worse.
* Which is really a 2% rise.
How do you get 2%? Just wondering - employer as well, or in disposable income terms?
Today is the 21st anniversary of me becoming a homeowner for the first time at the princely age of 21.
It was entirely down to my mother determined that I shouldn't rent when that money should be used to pay down a mortgage.
The bank of Mum & Dad and Banks of Grandparents made it possible, it set me up financially for life by becoming a London homeowner in 2000.
We need to make it so much easier for younger people to become homeowners.
Something has gone horribly wrong that home ownership is but a pipe dream for so many people, especially in the south.
Which is why we Tories are fully supportive of the Bank of Mum and Dad and the Bank of Grandparents too as we know how crucial it is to helping young people buy their first property, especially south of Watford where the house price to income discrepancy is so much bigger than in the North and Midlands.
Good to see you demonstrating Tory principles in action so clearly there TSE!
Of course this pushes property prices up and makes it so much harder for those who don't have the family money to get on the property ladder...
Then they can move to the North and Midlands or Wales and Scotland then as it is much easier to buy a property there on an average income than it is in London and the South East
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
Because one day he might be 60, and one day might be 95? (The same 22 year old pays tax so that millionaires can get free NHS treatment).
Those in their 20s are not stupid. We know that none of the goodies available to the retired now will be available when we reach that age.
Of course they will as the retired always vote more than younger voters, plus more of the young will have occupational private pensions when they reach 65 so fewer will need much state pension anyway due to compulsory workplace pension enrolment
Ha! Money purchase schemes are a crock of shite. I know, I used to work in that business. Even twenty years ago, the amount of money you had to shovel into them to get any kind of decent return was so much that no-one not already in receipt of a handsome salary could afford the cost, and sustain any decent standard of living off of what was left. And things have got considerably worse since then, life expectancy having lengthened and annuity rates having been further depressed in direct consequence.
At a guess, I'd say Government will eventually be forced to start rapidly increasing the state retirement age to avert the ultimate collapse of the system. As a man in his mid 40s, I reckon I'll end up not receiving my state handout until my early 70s, though I'm in one of the last surviving private sector defined benefit pension schemes so I might be very fortunate and find myself able to throw in the towel at 65. Today's young, save for those in high flying careers, heirs of very rich families, and the odd Lotto winner, are going to be flogged until they drop down dead of exhaustion.
Williamson will survive, he is canny enough to have made himself a Cameron loyalist, then jumped ship to be a May loyalist now jumped ship again to be a Boris loyalist. Raab even Sunak are more likely to be moved, Boris prizes loyalty above all else, even competence.
As for NI remember there are actually a higher percentage of homewners in the North and Midlands than the South now so rehashing May's plan to make all assets above £100,000 liable for at home care would have hit even those new Tory voters and their heirs, even if their properties do not reach the £325,000 in value those in London and the South would to make them liable for IHT.
Pure unashamed clientelism. I appreciate your honesty, @HYUFD
The new proposal's worth a hell of a lot more to Tory voters in the south than it is to new Tory voters in the north, on average. So one is having one's NI bumped up to protect Tory voters who benefit a lot more in the south than the north simply because they are wealthier in the first place (in terms of owning more expensive houses, but maybe also other assets).
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
It isn't, repeating May's dementia tax and taking the homes of all RedWall properties over £100,000 would be far more damaging to the Tories than a 1% rise in NI
If your house is only worth £150k then how do you win by paying a 1% rise in NI?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
That is 1/3 of your properties value potentially lost to pay for at home social care even then, that is much worse for you and your heirs than a 1% rise in NI and most RedWall seats now held by the Tories are worth over £150k
So attack point 2
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
As that 22 year old even in the North East will also likely inherit some of the value of their nan's estate once she passes on too which they would not potentially with a dementia tax and they would inherit more than they would pay under a 1% NI rise
You think a 22 year old would be happy to pay extra tax so that they *might* inherit a bit more 30+ years in the future?
Laughable.
The opt-out rate for the auto-enroll pension sign up is very low. That is for a benefit in about 45 years' time.
There is significantly more certainty in receiving something from a private pension than there is from an inheritance 45 years' in the future. Grandma could have spunked it all on strippers and blow in Las Vegas before then.
Today is the 21st anniversary of me becoming a homeowner for the first time at the princely age of 21.
It was entirely down to my mother determined that I shouldn't rent when that money should be used to pay down a mortgage.
The bank of Mum & Dad and Banks of Grandparents made it possible, it set me up financially for life by becoming a London homeowner in 2000.
We need to make it so much easier for younger people to become homeowners.
Something has gone horribly wrong that home ownership is but a pipe dream for so many people, especially in the south.
Which is why we Tories are fully supportive of the Bank of Mum and Dad and the Bank of Grandparents too as we know how crucial it is to helping young people buy their first property, especially south of Watford where the house price to income discrepancy is so much bigger than in the North and Midlands.
Good to see you demonstrating Tory principles in action so clearly there TSE!
Of course this pushes property prices up and makes it so much harder for those who don't have the family money to get on the property ladder...
Then they can move to the North and Midlands or Wales and Scotland then as it is much easier to buy a property there on an average income than it is in London and the South East
Comments
So while up north your house may trigger the lower limit it won't trigger the higher one.
But it doesn't make any difference - you won't be able to add to NI to pay for social care without losing a pile of Blue / Red Wall seats.
The Labour campaign story that you are now paying higher NI so the children of millionaire house owners down south keep the property is going to be on heavy repeat unless you scrap it.
I suspect they will scrap it and go back to the drawing board.
The Labour campaign story in 2017 that May was going to take the average voters house for at home care was far more damaging in marginal seats than a 1% rise in NI would be. If Labour does go for a wealth tax it has to be careful, any threshold below £250-£350,000 would hit them in the Redwall and seats they need to win back from the Tories and any threshold even below £1 million would hit them with currently Labour voting property owners in London and Brighton, Oxford and Cambridge etc
Its hardly like the days when England would field the likes of Fabian Delph as a second string team.
I'd not like to have to defend against such a Labour attack line.
300 runs to score on Day 5 seems very, very challenging. So to be in with a shot I'd think we need ~68 today which seems quite unlikely too.
England definitely seems like a lay at the minute.
Anyway, it's hardly as if Southgate elected to wheel out Sutton United Reserves, now is it?
This is even worse than May's dementia tax.
Starmer like May is not a populist and might be ready to be more of a reformer on domestic policy but he has to get elected first
Starlingly liberal - compare to France, for example.
Ramsdale
Wan-Bissaka
Ben White
Joe Gomez
Chilwell
Hudson-Odoi
Curtis Jones
Harvey Elliott
Fodon
Greenwood
Sancho
Rashford
Dominic Calvert-Lewin
James Ward-Prowse
off the top of my head.
I gave a historian some plus once, when I shared some stuff from a biography of General Groves. The academic thinking on the Manhattan project was shaped by the scientists. His astonishment at the actual quotes and actions by Groves was fascinating - this was an expert in the area.
social care is currently a wealth lottery (i.e. if you are unlucky the family's wealth is gone) but it's hard to see how you could introduce a wealth tax in any sane way.
England 3.7
India 2.26
Draw 3.4
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/cricket/market/1.186995118
Why should an 22 year old pay extra tax so some 60 year old down south can inherit their mums home tax free.
Its obvious 1% rise in NI is much better than losing your house.
Labour List
It was hard work, especially for my mother who had been a nurse and then a childminder after my sister and I came along. But it was worth it given their circumstances (i.e. neither was earning decent money working). They very much earned their inheritances (we also used to go up to Chesterfield a lot to look after my maternal grandfather - but he was pretty much fine until cancer did for him).
Obviously it comes down to personal circumstances. I certainly wouldn't blame anyone for taking the option of sticking them in a home, but I'm not sure how much of the inheritance should be protected.
* As an aside, my parents didn't sell their own home (which they'd bought under right to buy) and rented it out. But what a pain that was. It put me right off the idea of being a landlord. They used a letting agency who were a waste of space. Basically, unless you can do it yourself, don't bother.
EDIT: Or maybe you've changed your mind since yesterday since you now seem to be saying a wealth tax would be insane!
Take Clinton, evader and misleader of the highest degree.
This is the absolute maximum Boris will ever do on social care, if Sunak ever went for a more than 1% rise in NI or a dementia tax to pay for social care Boris would demote him or sack him
It's why I came back to a land value tax as it's just about the only option left on the table - that is vaguely achievable and unavoidable.
Laughable.
https://twitter.com/RepSwalwell/status/1434547045298315270?s=19
Totally against everything you are told to do. How he even hit I have no idea.
Additionally, it was far better to have him inside the tent pissing out, than running round as an embittered exile...
Because he (Oppenheimer) was totally driven to be the creator of the first atomic bomb - he would (according to Groves in 1942) express horror and revulsion afterwards, but he was seeking both fame and, due to an interesting personality, would seek the combined fame/blame. And the blame was almost as important to Oppenheimer as the fame...
It was a devastatingly accurate and rather funny sketch of Oppenheimer and showed Groves to be a long way from the thuggish idiot that the scientists liked to claim latter.
Biden was confirmed President despite the Jan 6th insurrection, now Biden is the one in charge and to be judged, not Trump
https://twitter.com/MahirZeynalov/status/1434307305558917129?s=20
There was an earlier ducussion on continuing health care (CHC) and if dementia qualified then peoples homes would not come into it, but then the entire bill would fall on the NHS
The tax increases across the board and a wealth tax would be needed
We need to inject realism into this debate and a 1% NI employee and employer increase is chicken feed
For heaven's sake, politics and government look back at things that happened to see what worked, what didn't, what went wrong, all the damn time. That's how we learn things.
Interestingly, economic migration didn't reach the levels required to fix the problem. Which kind of gives you the scale of the problem.
Remember a reasonable percentage of young people are already paying a higher tax rate due to the repayment of student loads.
All this policy does is increase the divide between the haves and the have nots.
Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason."
It was entirely down to my mother determined that I shouldn't rent when that money should be used to pay down a mortgage.
The bank of Mum & Dad and Banks of Grandparents made it possible, it set me up financially for life by becoming a London homeowner in 2000.
We need to make it so much easier for younger people to become homeowners.
Something has gone horribly wrong that home ownership is but a pipe dream for so many people, especially in the south.
As for student loans, well, it seems to me that the haves are those that dodge university.
The proposed policy is to increase NI paid by young people. Now you're saying that despite that they don't need the state pension? Is that consistent at all?
Get rid of national insurance. It is a total waste of space.
Good to see you demonstrating Tory principles in action so clearly there TSE!
If your policy is to decrease young people's disposal income in order to protect the assets of the rich, then the end result is concentration of wealth.
And I would expect Rishi to increase IHT and possibly reduce higher rate tax relief
Times have changed and politics is changing rapidly
Didn't do because when you buy a flat you buy a key, but it could have been good...
A 1% rise in NI* is for a working couple potentially a thousand pounds per year, compounded, lost every year throughout their entire working life.
Versus the possibility of maybe not as much of an inheritance in the unlikely event that the stars align that you both have a wealthy relative, and they get dementia, and they survive long enough in a care home to take a lot of cost, and they were to leave you their money.
The former is much, much, much worse.
* Which is really a 2% rise.
As I recall when I was young and paying off a (by modern standards almost trivial) overdraft for my student days (havign studied rather than worked in most vacs), an even very small increase in salary by way of career progression had an amazing effect on my finances: suddenly I was actually saving money and soon had a deposit for my house.
I guess you could argue that it benefits cash buyers, but that's still a relatively small part of it.
To be clear, I'm not saying that this is a good policy, just that I wouldn't worry about it making much difference in terms of purchasing power.
On the basis of "Pay someone else's mortgage for 20 years, or pay your own. And get a property at the end, as a bonus".
If you're 25 now you're likely going to retire at 70+.
So that's 45 years worth of working. How about 5 times income mortgages?
At a guess, I'd say Government will eventually be forced to start rapidly increasing the state retirement age to avert the ultimate collapse of the system. As a man in his mid 40s, I reckon I'll end up not receiving my state handout until my early 70s, though I'm in one of the last surviving private sector defined benefit pension schemes so I might be very fortunate and find myself able to throw in the towel at 65. Today's young, save for those in high flying careers, heirs of very rich families, and the odd Lotto winner, are going to be flogged until they drop down dead of exhaustion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sU_pDM1N7i0