Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Boris Johnson’s destruction of the key shibboleth of the Conservative Party – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited September 9 in General
Boris Johnson’s destruction of the key shibboleth of the Conservative Party – politicalbetting.com

Keir Starmer has said the Conservatives can “never again claim to be the party of low tax". As of today, only 16% of Brits think they actually are.They're no more likely (17%) to think that Labour are, however. 50% think neither party represents low taxhttps://t.co/TsOlE7VZ5i pic.twitter.com/krw92h4jUM

Read the full story here

«13

Comments

  • Smelly cat.
  • maaarshmaaarsh Posts: 2,323
    What are they taxing you?
  • At least Starmer doesn't shout at the interviewer or walk off as Corbyn did
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 41,639
    When it comes to the next election, the Tories have decided a tax is the best form of defence.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 9,371
    Probably depends if they reduce the tax burden again later a little when the edge has been knocked off the Corona borrowing.

  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 16,964
    FPT:
    Omnium said:

    Self-confessed 'Privileged, white middle class' XR protester, 60, who lives in a £900,000 farmhouse says she was 'exercising her human rights' while blocking roads outside Parliament, court hears

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9973761/Privileged-white-middle-class-XR-activist-60-tells-court-human-right-protest.html

    I am coming around to the idea of a massive wealth tax on property......the (eco) marxists all seem to own massive houses or make their money from flipping property, buy to lets, etc.

    Not against a wealth tax on property, but not clear why her house is relevant to the case. I'm not class warrior enough to feel that rich people shouldn't have an opinion on the environment...
    I think it is emphasising her own point that she is a wealthy individual who is in a privileged position to break the law and it not have any consequences.

    What a £200 fine to her....

    It seems to be a rather consistent theme among the eco-Marxists, they are either wealthy and privileged individuals themselves or the children of them. While the majority have to put up with their illegal behaviour, causing massive disruption, tying up the police from dealing with serious crime and costing us all a load of money.
    Maybe if these rich kids had to work for a living they wouldn't be so precious.
    How do you achieve that?
    🤷‍♂️
    I'll help you then. Tax wealth and inheritance so that these rich idiots don't get a free ride in life.
    And how about those that have worked their entire lives to lift themselves out of poverty for a comfortable old age?
    That's me.

    Tax the wealth at 1% above £1m. Then tax what's left over when the individual dies.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 64,417
    edited September 9
    I am not sure we are going to see either of the main party espousing low taxation for many years to come....the reality is, huge bills have been rung up, aging population is incredibly expensive, and the first mention of cutting back the state, gets you Back to Wigan Pier stuff day in day out.

    You have to be a very unique kind of politician to stand up and say no I am ideologically opposed to a big state. Its always easier just to at very least just keep it as is.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 87,889
    edited September 9
    More Tory voters still think the Tories are the party of low tax than Labour however. For its core vote of pensioners and those waiting to inherit the Tory Party are still the party of low tax. For the rest the investment raised from the NI rise and dividends tax will go to the NHS and care, the electorate's top spending priority, especially post Covid.

    Plus of course the Conservative Party did not emerge as the party of low tax, though it took on that mantle in the 20th century, especially against Labour.

    The Tory Party, the ancestor of today's Conservative Party, emerged in the late 17th century as the party of the monarchy, the Church of England and the landed interest and to that can now be added the party of Brexit
  • Quite right TSE.

    If the Conservatives aren't the party for low taxes and high aspirations then who will be? Nature abhors a vacuum.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 16,964
    "If the Conservative Party isn’t the party of low taxation then what is it for?"

    What it's always been for - protecting the interests of the elite.
  • FPT:

    Omnium said:

    Self-confessed 'Privileged, white middle class' XR protester, 60, who lives in a £900,000 farmhouse says she was 'exercising her human rights' while blocking roads outside Parliament, court hears

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9973761/Privileged-white-middle-class-XR-activist-60-tells-court-human-right-protest.html

    I am coming around to the idea of a massive wealth tax on property......the (eco) marxists all seem to own massive houses or make their money from flipping property, buy to lets, etc.

    Not against a wealth tax on property, but not clear why her house is relevant to the case. I'm not class warrior enough to feel that rich people shouldn't have an opinion on the environment...
    I think it is emphasising her own point that she is a wealthy individual who is in a privileged position to break the law and it not have any consequences.

    What a £200 fine to her....

    It seems to be a rather consistent theme among the eco-Marxists, they are either wealthy and privileged individuals themselves or the children of them. While the majority have to put up with their illegal behaviour, causing massive disruption, tying up the police from dealing with serious crime and costing us all a load of money.
    Maybe if these rich kids had to work for a living they wouldn't be so precious.
    How do you achieve that?
    🤷‍♂️
    I'll help you then. Tax wealth and inheritance so that these rich idiots don't get a free ride in life.
    And how about those that have worked their entire lives to lift themselves out of poverty for a comfortable old age?
    That's me.

    Tax the wealth at 1% above £1m. Then tax what's left over when the individual dies.
    That would be popular in London and the South !!!!!!
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 64,417
    edited September 9
    One question I always have about wealth taxes...if you aren't a normie, i.e. regular 9-5 job, semi-detached new build house, with the 2.5 kids and the dog, it quickly becomes incredibly difficult to assess.

    Also, what about all these schemes that the ultra wealthy use where they transfer their shares into a company, which then trades them to a financial institution, who in return provides lifetime loans at very low interest rates. Do they still have that wealth?

    Even trying to assess the value of your home is tricky. It is why the Lib Dem idea of tax on the exact house value didn't fly, because it was quickly realised that you have to keep reassessing even normal homes, as Bob gets a conservatory, Fred gets a lovely garden make-over etc.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 87,889
    edited September 9

    Quite right TSE.

    If the Conservatives aren't the party for low taxes and high aspirations then who will be? Nature abhors a vacuum.

    During the latter half of the 19th century, especially after many Peelites joined the Whigs and Radicals to form the Liberals and from 1945 to 1979 ie pre Thatcher, when it was often the Liberals who were more pro small state, low taxes and the free market than the Tories. Ed Davey is now probably more small state than Boris and Starmer, he is an Orange Book LD of course and served in Cameron's coalition government unlike Boris too
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 33,469
    FPT

    Some significant COP26 news: President Biden is coming to Glasgow. A big relief for the PM, who invited him months ago. A needy shot in the arm for the summit too, which is in trouble after talks for a deal with China + others stalled.

    https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1436014231896444935?s=20

    Because having dozens of jets turn up at a climate change summit, is giving exactly the right message about how we all need to change our behaviours.

    If the last 18 months has shown the world anyting, it’s that the vast majority of meetings can be done remotely when the chips are down.

    Is this actually THE BIG F***ING EMERGENCY they want us to believe it is?

    I’m still amazed that Cisco didn’t offer $10m to sponsor doing the whole thing on WebEx.
  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOG2QBBUdhc

    Oh look, there's David Cameron not answering questions in 2009.

    This isn't a new thing, Keir Starmer just is playing politics, something Labour has not done for quite some time
  • maaarshmaaarsh Posts: 2,323
    edited September 9

    FPT:

    Omnium said:

    Self-confessed 'Privileged, white middle class' XR protester, 60, who lives in a £900,000 farmhouse says she was 'exercising her human rights' while blocking roads outside Parliament, court hears

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9973761/Privileged-white-middle-class-XR-activist-60-tells-court-human-right-protest.html

    I am coming around to the idea of a massive wealth tax on property......the (eco) marxists all seem to own massive houses or make their money from flipping property, buy to lets, etc.

    Not against a wealth tax on property, but not clear why her house is relevant to the case. I'm not class warrior enough to feel that rich people shouldn't have an opinion on the environment...
    I think it is emphasising her own point that she is a wealthy individual who is in a privileged position to break the law and it not have any consequences.

    What a £200 fine to her....

    It seems to be a rather consistent theme among the eco-Marxists, they are either wealthy and privileged individuals themselves or the children of them. While the majority have to put up with their illegal behaviour, causing massive disruption, tying up the police from dealing with serious crime and costing us all a load of money.
    Maybe if these rich kids had to work for a living they wouldn't be so precious.
    How do you achieve that?
    🤷‍♂️
    I'll help you then. Tax wealth and inheritance so that these rich idiots don't get a free ride in life.
    And how about those that have worked their entire lives to lift themselves out of poverty for a comfortable old age?
    That's me.

    Tax the wealth at 1% above £1m. Then tax what's left over when the individual dies.
    "If the Conservative Party isn’t the party of low taxation then what is it for?"

    What it's always been for - protecting the interests of the elite.
    It must be miserable being a leftie, always striving for more and never able to accept victory - you're the establishment and everyone has to play by your rules.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,013

    One question I always have about wealth taxes...if you aren't a normie, i.e. regular 9-5 job, semi-detached new build house, with the 2.5 kids and the dog, it quickly becomes incredibly difficult to assess.

    Also, what about all these schemes that the ultra wealthy use where they give up their shares in their companies in return for lifetime loans. Do they still have that wealth?

    Make it for the ultra rich only, say £10m or £20m +. Leave it to them to declare the value of their assets. But allow the state to buy any assets from them at 200% of whatever price they declare.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 40,006

    I am not sure we are going to see either of the main party espousing low taxation for many years to come....the reality is, huge bills have been rung up, aging population is incredibly expensive, and the first mention of cutting back the state, gets you Back to Wigan Pier stuff day in day out.

    You have to be a very unique kind of politician to stand up and say no I am ideologically opposed to a big state. Its always easier just to at very least just keep it as is.

    I think we're going through a 60s/70s type scenario right now, where everybody is a tax-and-spender, and everybody loves big government.

    The only real difference between the Conservative and Labour parties right now seems to be that the Conservatives are seeking to somewhat shield their voters (who trend older) from the taxes required to pay for this.

    My guess is that politicians will blanche at the scale of the required tax increases (or spending cuts) and will therefore choose to borrow and to print money. After all, it hasn't caused problems so far.

    However... I think this will all end in tears. Under whose watch, I do not know.
  • rcs1000 said:

    I am not sure we are going to see either of the main party espousing low taxation for many years to come....the reality is, huge bills have been rung up, aging population is incredibly expensive, and the first mention of cutting back the state, gets you Back to Wigan Pier stuff day in day out.

    You have to be a very unique kind of politician to stand up and say no I am ideologically opposed to a big state. Its always easier just to at very least just keep it as is.

    I think we're going through a 60s/70s type scenario right now, where everybody is a tax-and-spender, and everybody loves big government.

    The only real difference between the Conservative and Labour parties right now seems to be that the Conservatives are seeking to somewhat shield their voters (who trend older) from the taxes required to pay for this.

    My guess is that politicians will blanche at the scale of the required tax increases (or spending cuts) and will therefore choose to borrow and to print money. After all, it hasn't caused problems so far.

    However... I think this will all end in tears. Under whose watch, I do not know.
    At what point do people conclude that if they want tax and spend, they're better off going with Labour though? Isn't this a bit like New Labour but in reverse?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 33,746
    SNP realise how badly their proposed GRA bill will go down and are using Belarus tactics to ensure they don't get held to account.

    Holyrood protesters to face criminal prosecution under new law

    HOLYROOD is changing its legal status to make it easier for the police to remove protesters.
    Scottish Parliament bosses have asked the Home Office to designate the building and its grounds as a “protected site” in the interests of national security.
    Legislation has now been laid in Westminster under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 which is due to come into force on October 1.
    At present, the police have limited powers to intervene if there is no substantive offence taking place, such as protesters making a prolonged noise outside the entrances.
    But from next month it will be a criminal offence to remain on the parliamentary estate “without lawful authority” punishable by a £5000 fine or a year in jail after a conviction.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,013
    Sandpit said:

    FPT

    Some significant COP26 news: President Biden is coming to Glasgow. A big relief for the PM, who invited him months ago. A needy shot in the arm for the summit too, which is in trouble after talks for a deal with China + others stalled.

    https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1436014231896444935?s=20

    Because having dozens of jets turn up at a climate change summit, is giving exactly the right message about how we all need to change our behaviours.

    If the last 18 months has shown the world anyting, it’s that the vast majority of meetings can be done remotely when the chips are down.

    Is this actually THE BIG F***ING EMERGENCY they want us to believe it is?

    I’m still amazed that Cisco didn’t offer $10m to sponsor doing the whole thing on WebEx.
    I don't really get this objection. It is such a completely irrelevant percentage of the impact of planes on climate change.

    If they can do even 0.01% better in person than they can remotely it will have a positive pay off.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 41,639
    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    When it comes to the next election, the Tories have decided a tax is the best form of defence.

    I am disappointed to see you treating this serious issue with that kind of levyty. I suspect you are not @ydoethur at all but some kind of imposter.

    That's you tolled. As is my duty.
    I accept vat it was not my best pun.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 64,417
    edited September 9
    rcs1000 said:

    I am not sure we are going to see either of the main party espousing low taxation for many years to come....the reality is, huge bills have been rung up, aging population is incredibly expensive, and the first mention of cutting back the state, gets you Back to Wigan Pier stuff day in day out.

    You have to be a very unique kind of politician to stand up and say no I am ideologically opposed to a big state. Its always easier just to at very least just keep it as is.

    I think we're going through a 60s/70s type scenario right now, where everybody is a tax-and-spender, and everybody loves big government.

    The only real difference between the Conservative and Labour parties right now seems to be that the Conservatives are seeking to somewhat shield their voters (who trend older) from the taxes required to pay for this.

    My guess is that politicians will blanche at the scale of the required tax increases (or spending cuts) and will therefore choose to borrow and to print money. After all, it hasn't caused problems so far.

    However... I think this will all end in tears. Under whose watch, I do not know.
    As I have said a number of times, I was really shocked by the take of Biden's economic advisor saying inflation, its solved in the west, we are just going to borrow loads of money / print it and worry about it in 15 years.

    It screamed claims of "ending boom and bust".
  • @Omnium as a member of the Labour Party myself, I predict any challenges to Starmer will be small and ineffective.

    The really problematic, Corbyn-loving wing has already left in a big way, hence the fall in membership. The people that are left are far more pro Starmer.

    He will walk the Conference - but I have no idea yet how his speech will go down with the public
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 40,006
    I would discourage people overleveraging by making it a Gross Assets Levy, rather than a wealth tax.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 42,963
    "If the Conservative Party isn’t the party of low taxation then what is it for?"

    It is a vehicle for allowing Boris to be 'King of the World' presently.

    At some point it will realise it has been had by a cad and a bounder I suspect.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,214
    Decided not to vote today. Labour have enough seats on Newcastle City Council and the Lib Dems’s literature is full of NIMBY shite.

    Oh well
  • I am not sure we are going to see either of the main party espousing low taxation for many years to come....the reality is, huge bills have been rung up, aging population is incredibly expensive, and the first mention of cutting back the state, gets you Back to Wigan Pier stuff day in day out.

    You have to be a very unique kind of politician to stand up and say no I am ideologically opposed to a big state. Its always easier just to at very least just keep it as is.

    It seems so many think nothing has changed when covid has changed everything

    Since covid the populace readily support lockdowns whenever they happen, and want higher spending on health and public services

    The conservative party could have buried it's head in the sand but with Boris, Rishi and Sajid they have very much moved onto the new the agenda, and it is hard to see them deflecting until and unless the finances improve, at which point I expect the conservative party to move back to low taxation

    The conservative party does have this knack of reinventing itself, and this is the moment that it is changing and adapting to the new reality and actually stepping onto labour's patch without any apology
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 64,417
    edited September 9
    rcs1000 said:

    One question I always have about wealth taxes...if you aren't a normie, i.e. regular 9-5 job, semi-detached new build house, with the 2.5 kids and the dog, it quickly becomes incredibly difficult to assess.

    Also, what about all these schemes that the ultra wealthy use where they transfer their shares into a company, which then trades them to a financial institution, who in return provides lifetime loans at very low interest rates. Do they still have that wealth?

    Even trying to assess the value of your home is tricky. It is why the Lib Dem idea of tax on the exact house value didn't fly, because it was quickly realised that you have to keep reassessing even normal homes, as Bob gets a conservatory, Fred gets a lovely garden make-over etc.

    In France, they have a simple solution. You self declare - but the state has the right to buy your house at a c. 20% premium to your self declared value. And every year they sweep up the most egregious cheaters and purchase their homes for less than they're worth and sell them.

    It keeps cheating to a minimum.
    Surely there must be loads of financial vehicles whereby assets are transferred into businesses and clever accounting is used, or as I stated with what we know about the uber uber wealthy, all those stakes in their own companies, large chunks of that has been swapped for very long term low interest loans.

    Its a bit like the old Labour donation swerve, you don't donate, you make a loan, but never ask for the money back and thus you don't have to be named.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 33,469
    edited September 9

    One question I always have about wealth taxes...if you aren't a normie, i.e. regular 9-5 job, semi-detached new build house, with the 2.5 kids and the dog, it quickly becomes incredibly difficult to assess.

    Also, what about all these schemes that the ultra wealthy use where they give up their shares in their companies in return for lifetime loans. Do they still have that wealth?

    Make it for the ultra rich only, say £10m or £20m +. Leave it to them to declare the value of their assets. But allow the state to buy any assets from them at 200% of whatever price they declare.
    No-one worth £10m or £20m would keep any assets in the UK, if that were the case.

    As mentioned yesterday, do we need to ask why Lewis Hamilton lives in Monaco with Philip Greene, and Richard Branson in the Virgin Islands?

    At the £10m level you can tax easily property assets in the UK, but beyond that these people are employing very good accountants and lawyers.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 87,889
    edited September 9

    Decided not to vote today. Labour have enough seats on Newcastle City Council and the Lib Dems’s literature is full of NIMBY shite.

    Oh well

    You could have voted Tory, there is currently no Conservative on Newcastle council but 52 Labour councillors and 20 LDs.

    Looks like there is also a Green candidate and NE party candidate

  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,214
    HYUFD said:

    Decided not to vote today. Labour have enough seats on Newcastle City Council and the Lib Dems’s literature is full of NIMBY shite.

    Oh well

    You could have voted Tory, there is currently no Conservative on Newcastle council but 52 Labour councillors and 20 LDs

    No thanks
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 38,147
    edited September 9
    rcs1000 said:

    I would discourage people overleveraging by making it a Gross Assets Levy, rather than a wealth tax.

    Wasn't "Gross Assets Levy" the fundraiser for Tony Blair?
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,013

    FPT:

    Omnium said:

    Self-confessed 'Privileged, white middle class' XR protester, 60, who lives in a £900,000 farmhouse says she was 'exercising her human rights' while blocking roads outside Parliament, court hears

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9973761/Privileged-white-middle-class-XR-activist-60-tells-court-human-right-protest.html

    I am coming around to the idea of a massive wealth tax on property......the (eco) marxists all seem to own massive houses or make their money from flipping property, buy to lets, etc.

    Not against a wealth tax on property, but not clear why her house is relevant to the case. I'm not class warrior enough to feel that rich people shouldn't have an opinion on the environment...
    I think it is emphasising her own point that she is a wealthy individual who is in a privileged position to break the law and it not have any consequences.

    What a £200 fine to her....

    It seems to be a rather consistent theme among the eco-Marxists, they are either wealthy and privileged individuals themselves or the children of them. While the majority have to put up with their illegal behaviour, causing massive disruption, tying up the police from dealing with serious crime and costing us all a load of money.
    Maybe if these rich kids had to work for a living they wouldn't be so precious.
    How do you achieve that?
    🤷‍♂️
    I'll help you then. Tax wealth and inheritance so that these rich idiots don't get a free ride in life.
    And how about those that have worked their entire lives to lift themselves out of poverty for a comfortable old age?
    That's me.

    Tax the wealth at 1% above £1m. Then tax what's left over when the individual dies.
    That would be popular in London and the South !!!!!!
    Yes it would! Most of us don't want these silly asset prices! Only the very wealthy do, there might be more of them in the SE because of house prices but they are still very much the minority.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 33,469

    Sandpit said:

    FPT

    Some significant COP26 news: President Biden is coming to Glasgow. A big relief for the PM, who invited him months ago. A needy shot in the arm for the summit too, which is in trouble after talks for a deal with China + others stalled.

    https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1436014231896444935?s=20

    Because having dozens of jets turn up at a climate change summit, is giving exactly the right message about how we all need to change our behaviours.

    If the last 18 months has shown the world anyting, it’s that the vast majority of meetings can be done remotely when the chips are down.

    Is this actually THE BIG F***ING EMERGENCY they want us to believe it is?

    I’m still amazed that Cisco didn’t offer $10m to sponsor doing the whole thing on WebEx.
    I don't really get this objection. It is such a completely irrelevant percentage of the impact of planes on climate change.

    If they can do even 0.01% better in person than they can remotely it will have a positive pay off.
    It’s the optics.

    “We” are flying a hundred private planes to the summmit in Glasgow, so that “we” can have our conference, the output of which is that “we” expect “you” to do less flying, to buy expensive electric cars, pay extra taxes, and attend fewer conferences - while “we” appear totally exempt from what “we” impose on “you”.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 64,417
    edited September 9
    Sandpit said:

    One question I always have about wealth taxes...if you aren't a normie, i.e. regular 9-5 job, semi-detached new build house, with the 2.5 kids and the dog, it quickly becomes incredibly difficult to assess.

    Also, what about all these schemes that the ultra wealthy use where they give up their shares in their companies in return for lifetime loans. Do they still have that wealth?

    Make it for the ultra rich only, say £10m or £20m +. Leave it to them to declare the value of their assets. But allow the state to buy any assets from them at 200% of whatever price they declare.
    No-one worth £10m or £20m would keep any assets in the UK, if that were the case.

    As mentioned yesterday, do we need to ask why Lewis Hamilton lives in Monaco with Philip Greene, and Richard Branson in the Virgin Islands?

    At the £10m level you can tax easily property assets in the UK, but beyond that these people are employing very good accountants and lawyers.
    I notice lots of big financial institutions are getting into crypto...and now there is the move with many currencies to be "proof of stake", so rather than this mining idea, existing coins are staked to insure the network and payments are returned like interest....there is also all this distributed finance stuff, again where you give up your coin, for a loan.

    Its all the wild west at the moment, but institutions sniffing around, I smell some schemes there for the wealthy.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,013
    Sandpit said:

    One question I always have about wealth taxes...if you aren't a normie, i.e. regular 9-5 job, semi-detached new build house, with the 2.5 kids and the dog, it quickly becomes incredibly difficult to assess.

    Also, what about all these schemes that the ultra wealthy use where they give up their shares in their companies in return for lifetime loans. Do they still have that wealth?

    Make it for the ultra rich only, say £10m or £20m +. Leave it to them to declare the value of their assets. But allow the state to buy any assets from them at 200% of whatever price they declare.
    No-one worth £10m or £20m would keep any assets in the UK, if that were the case.

    As mentioned yesterday, do we need to ask why Lewis Hamilton lives in Monaco with Philip Greene, and Richard Branson in the Virgin Islands?

    At the £10m level you can tax easily property assets in the UK, but beyond that these people are employing very good accountants and lawyers.
    France taxes worldwide property wealth for residents or French property wealth for non residents.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 23,883

    One question I always have about wealth taxes...if you aren't a normie, i.e. regular 9-5 job, semi-detached new build house, with the 2.5 kids and the dog, it quickly becomes incredibly difficult to assess.

    Also, what about all these schemes that the ultra wealthy use where they transfer their shares into a company, which then trades them to a financial institution, who in return provides lifetime loans at very low interest rates. Do they still have that wealth?

    Even trying to assess the value of your home is tricky. It is why the Lib Dem idea of tax on the exact house value didn't fly, because it was quickly realised that you have to keep reassessing even normal homes, as Bob gets a conservatory, Fred gets a lovely garden make-over etc.

    Self assessment with very stiff penalties - jail time - for materially understating it. Fear works wonders.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 11,743

    Quite right TSE.

    If the Conservatives aren't the party for low taxes and high aspirations then who will be? Nature abhors a vacuum.

    Tempted by the Nigel Party, or whatever it might be called now?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 64,417
    edited September 9
    kinabalu said:

    One question I always have about wealth taxes...if you aren't a normie, i.e. regular 9-5 job, semi-detached new build house, with the 2.5 kids and the dog, it quickly becomes incredibly difficult to assess.

    Also, what about all these schemes that the ultra wealthy use where they transfer their shares into a company, which then trades them to a financial institution, who in return provides lifetime loans at very low interest rates. Do they still have that wealth?

    Even trying to assess the value of your home is tricky. It is why the Lib Dem idea of tax on the exact house value didn't fly, because it was quickly realised that you have to keep reassessing even normal homes, as Bob gets a conservatory, Fred gets a lovely garden make-over etc.

    Self assessment with very stiff penalties - jail time - for materially understating it. Fear works wonders.
    The point is that the likes of Jezz Bezos isn't understating by the letter of the law....he does nothing illegal.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,013
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT

    Some significant COP26 news: President Biden is coming to Glasgow. A big relief for the PM, who invited him months ago. A needy shot in the arm for the summit too, which is in trouble after talks for a deal with China + others stalled.

    https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1436014231896444935?s=20

    Because having dozens of jets turn up at a climate change summit, is giving exactly the right message about how we all need to change our behaviours.

    If the last 18 months has shown the world anyting, it’s that the vast majority of meetings can be done remotely when the chips are down.

    Is this actually THE BIG F***ING EMERGENCY they want us to believe it is?

    I’m still amazed that Cisco didn’t offer $10m to sponsor doing the whole thing on WebEx.
    I don't really get this objection. It is such a completely irrelevant percentage of the impact of planes on climate change.

    If they can do even 0.01% better in person than they can remotely it will have a positive pay off.
    It’s the optics.

    “We” are flying a hundred private planes to the summmit in Glasgow, so that “we” can have our conference, the output of which is that “we” expect “you” to do less flying, to buy expensive electric cars, pay extra taxes, and attend fewer conferences - while “we” appear totally exempt from what “we” impose on “you”.
    For me, I think that falls into the moaners are going to moan category. The weather we are already seeing worldwide is starting to hurt - let the leaders do whatever it takes imo.
  • FPT:

    Omnium said:

    Self-confessed 'Privileged, white middle class' XR protester, 60, who lives in a £900,000 farmhouse says she was 'exercising her human rights' while blocking roads outside Parliament, court hears

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9973761/Privileged-white-middle-class-XR-activist-60-tells-court-human-right-protest.html

    I am coming around to the idea of a massive wealth tax on property......the (eco) marxists all seem to own massive houses or make their money from flipping property, buy to lets, etc.

    Not against a wealth tax on property, but not clear why her house is relevant to the case. I'm not class warrior enough to feel that rich people shouldn't have an opinion on the environment...
    I think it is emphasising her own point that she is a wealthy individual who is in a privileged position to break the law and it not have any consequences.

    What a £200 fine to her....

    It seems to be a rather consistent theme among the eco-Marxists, they are either wealthy and privileged individuals themselves or the children of them. While the majority have to put up with their illegal behaviour, causing massive disruption, tying up the police from dealing with serious crime and costing us all a load of money.
    Maybe if these rich kids had to work for a living they wouldn't be so precious.
    How do you achieve that?
    🤷‍♂️
    I'll help you then. Tax wealth and inheritance so that these rich idiots don't get a free ride in life.
    And how about those that have worked their entire lives to lift themselves out of poverty for a comfortable old age?
    That's me.

    Tax the wealth at 1% above £1m. Then tax what's left over when the individual dies.
    That would be popular in London and the South !!!!!!
    Yes it would! Most of us don't want these silly asset prices! Only the very wealthy do, there might be more of them in the SE because of house prices but they are still very much the minority.
    I doubt the vast majority of tax payers in the north would have any problem with such a tax

    Entrepreneurs and wealth creators may though
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 33,469
    rcs1000 said:

    I am not sure we are going to see either of the main party espousing low taxation for many years to come....the reality is, huge bills have been rung up, aging population is incredibly expensive, and the first mention of cutting back the state, gets you Back to Wigan Pier stuff day in day out.

    You have to be a very unique kind of politician to stand up and say no I am ideologically opposed to a big state. Its always easier just to at very least just keep it as is.

    I think we're going through a 60s/70s type scenario right now, where everybody is a tax-and-spender, and everybody loves big government.

    The only real difference between the Conservative and Labour parties right now seems to be that the Conservatives are seeking to somewhat shield their voters (who trend older) from the taxes required to pay for this.

    My guess is that politicians will blanche at the scale of the required tax increases (or spending cuts) and will therefore choose to borrow and to print money. After all, it hasn't caused problems so far.

    However... I think this will all end in tears. Under whose watch, I do not know.
    It’s proved utterly astonishing, how much QE has gone almost unnoticed by the markets, simply because everyone’s doing it.

    There has to be a serious worry that Western governments see continual devaluation as their only way out, but if everyone’s doing it there’s no relative loss…
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 23,883
    rcs1000 said:

    One question I always have about wealth taxes...if you aren't a normie, i.e. regular 9-5 job, semi-detached new build house, with the 2.5 kids and the dog, it quickly becomes incredibly difficult to assess.

    Also, what about all these schemes that the ultra wealthy use where they transfer their shares into a company, which then trades them to a financial institution, who in return provides lifetime loans at very low interest rates. Do they still have that wealth?

    Even trying to assess the value of your home is tricky. It is why the Lib Dem idea of tax on the exact house value didn't fly, because it was quickly realised that you have to keep reassessing even normal homes, as Bob gets a conservatory, Fred gets a lovely garden make-over etc.

    In France, they have a simple solution. You self declare - but the state has the right to buy your house at a c. 20% premium to your self declared value. And every year they sweep up the most egregious cheaters and purchase their homes for less than they're worth and sell them.

    It keeps cheating to a minimum.
    Yes, this is the idea, as I've just posted. Self assessment with punitive consequences for cheating.
  • theProletheProle Posts: 487
    edited September 9
    FPT

    Starmer just needs a better slogan, "tax wealth not workers".

    Blair would not be sitting here writing out the Labour plan for social care

    You seem to think that is a massive winner....I would suggest that a) scares a lot of people, asset rich, cash poor...and b) also aspirational types.
    I don't know if it's a good slogan or not, my point is that it's better than no slogan. If he's got a better one use that.

    But the idea he's going to sit and describe the idea for Labour social care is for the birds, the majority of the public neither no nor care what the plan is, they will listen when they need to, i.e. during an election.

    He's literally following the Blair strategy, it's obvious Blair is advising him
    Starmer has just been given the sort of solid gold diamond encrusted gift, neatly wrapped with a ribbon and bow of which most opposition leaders could only dream.

    The government is planning to raise taxes predominantly on the sorts of people who are potential swing voters who've just been enticed away from his party over Brexit.
    They aren't even planning to use it in a way which properly fixes the issue it's supposedly all about.

    All he has to do is talk a lot about it being a tax on workers, and manage a halfway credible answer to the question "well what would you do instead?"

    That's not even a particularly hard question for which to think of a good answer - mandatory insurance for over 60s would be an obvious option with lots of flexibility available on the detail of what exactly what you were proposing, or who would pay when.

    But no, the man is too stupid or incompetent (or possibly worried about upsetting the "if it moves tax it" elements of his party) to do this, so remains a sort of joke also-ran, whilst the only serious voices voices in opposition are the sorts of Tory elder statesman types who can see just how distructive this sort of cash grab on workers will be.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 33,746
    Sandpit said:

    FPT

    Some significant COP26 news: President Biden is coming to Glasgow. A big relief for the PM, who invited him months ago. A needy shot in the arm for the summit too, which is in trouble after talks for a deal with China + others stalled.

    https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1436014231896444935?s=20

    Because having dozens of jets turn up at a climate change summit, is giving exactly the right message about how we all need to change our behaviours.

    If the last 18 months has shown the world anyting, it’s that the vast majority of meetings can be done remotely when the chips are down.

    Is this actually THE BIG F***ING EMERGENCY they want us to believe it is?

    I’m still amazed that Cisco didn’t offer $10m to sponsor doing the whole thing on WebEx.
    Yes and fleets of gas guzzlers to ferry them around as well, and 10,000 cops driving all over. It is a shitshow as far as environment is concerned.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 7,852
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT

    Some significant COP26 news: President Biden is coming to Glasgow. A big relief for the PM, who invited him months ago. A needy shot in the arm for the summit too, which is in trouble after talks for a deal with China + others stalled.

    https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1436014231896444935?s=20

    Because having dozens of jets turn up at a climate change summit, is giving exactly the right message about how we all need to change our behaviours.

    If the last 18 months has shown the world anyting, it’s that the vast majority of meetings can be done remotely when the chips are down.

    Is this actually THE BIG F***ING EMERGENCY they want us to believe it is?

    I’m still amazed that Cisco didn’t offer $10m to sponsor doing the whole thing on WebEx.
    I don't really get this objection. It is such a completely irrelevant percentage of the impact of planes on climate change.

    If they can do even 0.01% better in person than they can remotely it will have a positive pay off.
    It’s the optics.

    “We” are flying a hundred private planes to the summmit in Glasgow, so that “we” can have our conference, the output of which is that “we” expect “you” to do less flying, to buy expensive electric cars, pay extra taxes, and attend fewer conferences - while “we” appear totally exempt from what “we” impose on “you”.
    Fuck optics. Either you are a software construct (or a sociopath), or you realise that face to face outweighs zoom to an extent that the private jets pay for themselves.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 11,743
    kinabalu said:

    One question I always have about wealth taxes...if you aren't a normie, i.e. regular 9-5 job, semi-detached new build house, with the 2.5 kids and the dog, it quickly becomes incredibly difficult to assess.

    Also, what about all these schemes that the ultra wealthy use where they transfer their shares into a company, which then trades them to a financial institution, who in return provides lifetime loans at very low interest rates. Do they still have that wealth?

    Even trying to assess the value of your home is tricky. It is why the Lib Dem idea of tax on the exact house value didn't fly, because it was quickly realised that you have to keep reassessing even normal homes, as Bob gets a conservatory, Fred gets a lovely garden make-over etc.

    Self assessment with very stiff penalties - jail time - for materially understating it. Fear works wonders.
    Ooh, you've gone all authoritarian Priti Patel this evening.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 5,942
    edited September 9

    Sandpit said:

    FPT

    Some significant COP26 news: President Biden is coming to Glasgow. A big relief for the PM, who invited him months ago. A needy shot in the arm for the summit too, which is in trouble after talks for a deal with China + others stalled.

    https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1436014231896444935?s=20

    Because having dozens of jets turn up at a climate change summit, is giving exactly the right message about how we all need to change our behaviours.

    If the last 18 months has shown the world anyting, it’s that the vast majority of meetings can be done remotely when the chips are down.

    Is this actually THE BIG F***ING EMERGENCY they want us to believe it is?

    I’m still amazed that Cisco didn’t offer $10m to sponsor doing the whole thing on WebEx.
    I don't really get this objection. It is such a completely irrelevant percentage of the impact of planes on climate change.

    If they can do even 0.01% better in person than they can remotely it will have a positive pay off.
    No, I don't think this correct.

    Greta Thunberg sailing across the Atlantic on a yacht to attend a UN climate conference in New York was just a brilliant, brilliant piece of campaigning and of PR (whatever you think of her).

    Lots of pols & rich people jetting in to lecture the rest of us is a really crummy piece of campaigning and pr.

    This matters when you are trying to change people's behaviour.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,013

    FPT:

    Omnium said:

    Self-confessed 'Privileged, white middle class' XR protester, 60, who lives in a £900,000 farmhouse says she was 'exercising her human rights' while blocking roads outside Parliament, court hears

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9973761/Privileged-white-middle-class-XR-activist-60-tells-court-human-right-protest.html

    I am coming around to the idea of a massive wealth tax on property......the (eco) marxists all seem to own massive houses or make their money from flipping property, buy to lets, etc.

    Not against a wealth tax on property, but not clear why her house is relevant to the case. I'm not class warrior enough to feel that rich people shouldn't have an opinion on the environment...
    I think it is emphasising her own point that she is a wealthy individual who is in a privileged position to break the law and it not have any consequences.

    What a £200 fine to her....

    It seems to be a rather consistent theme among the eco-Marxists, they are either wealthy and privileged individuals themselves or the children of them. While the majority have to put up with their illegal behaviour, causing massive disruption, tying up the police from dealing with serious crime and costing us all a load of money.
    Maybe if these rich kids had to work for a living they wouldn't be so precious.
    How do you achieve that?
    🤷‍♂️
    I'll help you then. Tax wealth and inheritance so that these rich idiots don't get a free ride in life.
    And how about those that have worked their entire lives to lift themselves out of poverty for a comfortable old age?
    That's me.

    Tax the wealth at 1% above £1m. Then tax what's left over when the individual dies.
    That would be popular in London and the South !!!!!!
    Yes it would! Most of us don't want these silly asset prices! Only the very wealthy do, there might be more of them in the SE because of house prices but they are still very much the minority.
    I doubt the vast majority of tax payers in the north would have any problem with such a tax

    Entrepreneurs and wealth creators may though
    https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/britons-support-paying-more-tax-fund-public-services-most-popular-being-new-net-wealth-tax

    It is popular. 75% support compared to 29% for increasing income tax or 24% for increasing VAT.

    Why Labour don't tie themselves to it is a mystery. Regardless of its effectiveness, which to be fair is relatively unknown in the UK, perhaps Sandpit is right although I think that is overblown, it is a popular policy. Labour need a flagship popular policy and are unlikely to be in sole power anyway.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 23,883

    I am not sure we are going to see either of the main party espousing low taxation for many years to come....the reality is, huge bills have been rung up, aging population is incredibly expensive, and the first mention of cutting back the state, gets you Back to Wigan Pier stuff day in day out.

    You have to be a very unique kind of politician to stand up and say no I am ideologically opposed to a big state. Its always easier just to at very least just keep it as is.

    I'd say unless wealth taxes are embraced - which they won't be - it will be either scale back the welfare state or carry on until it all goes pop.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT

    Some significant COP26 news: President Biden is coming to Glasgow. A big relief for the PM, who invited him months ago. A needy shot in the arm for the summit too, which is in trouble after talks for a deal with China + others stalled.

    https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1436014231896444935?s=20

    Because having dozens of jets turn up at a climate change summit, is giving exactly the right message about how we all need to change our behaviours.

    If the last 18 months has shown the world anyting, it’s that the vast majority of meetings can be done remotely when the chips are down.

    Is this actually THE BIG F***ING EMERGENCY they want us to believe it is?

    I’m still amazed that Cisco didn’t offer $10m to sponsor doing the whole thing on WebEx.
    I don't really get this objection. It is such a completely irrelevant percentage of the impact of planes on climate change.

    If they can do even 0.01% better in person than they can remotely it will have a positive pay off.
    It’s the optics.

    “We” are flying a hundred private planes to the summmit in Glasgow, so that “we” can have our conference, the output of which is that “we” expect “you” to do less flying, to buy expensive electric cars, pay extra taxes, and attend fewer conferences - while “we” appear totally exempt from what “we” impose on “you”.
    Fuck optics. Either you are a software construct (or a sociopath), or you realise that face to face outweighs zoom to an extent that the private jets pay for themselves.
    Does climate change mean nothing to the IshmaelZ's?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 9,371
    edited September 9

    FPT:

    Omnium said:

    Self-confessed 'Privileged, white middle class' XR protester, 60, who lives in a £900,000 farmhouse says she was 'exercising her human rights' while blocking roads outside Parliament, court hears

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9973761/Privileged-white-middle-class-XR-activist-60-tells-court-human-right-protest.html

    I am coming around to the idea of a massive wealth tax on property......the (eco) marxists all seem to own massive houses or make their money from flipping property, buy to lets, etc.

    Not against a wealth tax on property, but not clear why her house is relevant to the case. I'm not class warrior enough to feel that rich people shouldn't have an opinion on the environment...
    I think it is emphasising her own point that she is a wealthy individual who is in a privileged position to break the law and it not have any consequences.

    What a £200 fine to her....

    It seems to be a rather consistent theme among the eco-Marxists, they are either wealthy and privileged individuals themselves or the children of them. While the majority have to put up with their illegal behaviour, causing massive disruption, tying up the police from dealing with serious crime and costing us all a load of money.
    Maybe if these rich kids had to work for a living they wouldn't be so precious.
    How do you achieve that?
    🤷‍♂️
    I'll help you then. Tax wealth and inheritance so that these rich idiots don't get a free ride in life.
    And how about those that have worked their entire lives to lift themselves out of poverty for a comfortable old age?
    That's me.

    Tax the wealth at 1% above £1m. Then tax what's left over when the individual dies.
    That would be popular in London and the South !!!!!!
    Taxing 1% above a £500k threshold for all individuals would raise £42bn a year. Not sure what the exemptions are. 5% ish of Govt pre-COVID spending. Not sure what us exempt; I think that includes pensions, dwellings, businesses and the rest.

    Making the threshold above 1m would raise about £16bn a year, according to the report.

    https://www.wealthandpolicy.com/wp/WealthTaxFinalReport.pdf

    It has the advantage that we would all make our money work harder.

    I would be more inclined to go for a lower level every year, and put Council tax as a & of property value.

    I think in the desire to equalise individuals the conversation has perhaps undervalued the value of centuries of long-held assets.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 6,021

    @Omnium as a member of the Labour Party myself, I predict any challenges to Starmer will be small and ineffective.

    The really problematic, Corbyn-loving wing has already left in a big way, hence the fall in membership. The people that are left are far more pro Starmer.

    He will walk the Conference - but I have no idea yet how his speech will go down with the public

    I think so too. I'm 99% sure though that an attempt to ambush him will be made at the Labour Party conference.
  • theProletheProle Posts: 487
    malcolmg said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT

    Some significant COP26 news: President Biden is coming to Glasgow. A big relief for the PM, who invited him months ago. A needy shot in the arm for the summit too, which is in trouble after talks for a deal with China + others stalled.

    https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1436014231896444935?s=20

    Because having dozens of jets turn up at a climate change summit, is giving exactly the right message about how we all need to change our behaviours.

    If the last 18 months has shown the world anyting, it’s that the vast majority of meetings can be done remotely when the chips are down.

    Is this actually THE BIG F***ING EMERGENCY they want us to believe it is?

    I’m still amazed that Cisco didn’t offer $10m to sponsor doing the whole thing on WebEx.
    Yes and fleets of gas guzzlers to ferry them around as well, and 10,000 cops driving all over. It is a shitshow as far as environment is concerned.
    But none of this stuff has ever been about the environment. It's merely a convenient cause to junket round the place on your private jet, be chauffeured in your limo down the zil lanes, make some rules for the little people (ensuring that you force them to do stuff to enrich your mates) and generally feel important and virtuous all at the same time. What's not to like?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 9,371
    On all this stuff, one of the nicest quotes I have ever heard was roughly:

    "In our culture giving money away necessarily needs pain to be associated."
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 33,469
    malcolmg said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT

    Some significant COP26 news: President Biden is coming to Glasgow. A big relief for the PM, who invited him months ago. A needy shot in the arm for the summit too, which is in trouble after talks for a deal with China + others stalled.

    https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1436014231896444935?s=20

    Because having dozens of jets turn up at a climate change summit, is giving exactly the right message about how we all need to change our behaviours.

    If the last 18 months has shown the world anyting, it’s that the vast majority of meetings can be done remotely when the chips are down.

    Is this actually THE BIG F***ING EMERGENCY they want us to believe it is?

    I’m still amazed that Cisco didn’t offer $10m to sponsor doing the whole thing on WebEx.
    Yes and fleets of gas guzzlers to ferry them around as well, and 10,000 cops driving all over. It is a shitshow as far as environment is concerned.
    If Biden turns up, he will have two or three planes arrive from the US, carrying the cars he travels in when in the UK.

    It’s utterly hillarious that there is a total and utter climate emergency, that requires a hundred named people to turn up in the same place by their own private transports.
  • Omnium said:

    @Omnium as a member of the Labour Party myself, I predict any challenges to Starmer will be small and ineffective.

    The really problematic, Corbyn-loving wing has already left in a big way, hence the fall in membership. The people that are left are far more pro Starmer.

    He will walk the Conference - but I have no idea yet how his speech will go down with the public

    I think so too. I'm 99% sure though that an attempt to ambush him will be made at the Labour Party conference.
    I think you’re probably right but it will come to nothing. In a way I think Starmer would welcome something to show that he is not part of that wing
  • LeonLeon Posts: 10,353
    I have just ordered roast hare.

    Lucerne, this is your big test

    Today I had THE WORST SALAD OF MY LIFE on top of beautiful Mount Pilatus.

    They have a lot of ground to make up
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,214
    Taxing people after tyeyxate dead is iniquitous. We are taxed to death as it is..
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 7,852

    IshmaelZ said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT

    Some significant COP26 news: President Biden is coming to Glasgow. A big relief for the PM, who invited him months ago. A needy shot in the arm for the summit too, which is in trouble after talks for a deal with China + others stalled.

    https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1436014231896444935?s=20

    Because having dozens of jets turn up at a climate change summit, is giving exactly the right message about how we all need to change our behaviours.

    If the last 18 months has shown the world anyting, it’s that the vast majority of meetings can be done remotely when the chips are down.

    Is this actually THE BIG F***ING EMERGENCY they want us to believe it is?

    I’m still amazed that Cisco didn’t offer $10m to sponsor doing the whole thing on WebEx.
    I don't really get this objection. It is such a completely irrelevant percentage of the impact of planes on climate change.

    If they can do even 0.01% better in person than they can remotely it will have a positive pay off.
    It’s the optics.

    “We” are flying a hundred private planes to the summmit in Glasgow, so that “we” can have our conference, the output of which is that “we” expect “you” to do less flying, to buy expensive electric cars, pay extra taxes, and attend fewer conferences - while “we” appear totally exempt from what “we” impose on “you”.
    Fuck optics. Either you are a software construct (or a sociopath), or you realise that face to face outweighs zoom to an extent that the private jets pay for themselves.
    Does climate change mean nothing to the IshmaelZ's?
    Noooo, way to miss the point. Literally nothing concerns me more thasn climate change. What I'm saying is a face to face climate change conf where everybody turns up in a Learjet is likely to produce a better result, net, than a zoom meeting.

    Dunno about anyone else, but in zoom meetings I'm invariably on PB on a phone just under camera level.
  • I took part in this survey and am with the 50 % who said neither. Clearly an instant reaction to this week's news from the panel. Many were probably like me and used the question as a way to shout at the Government but Conservatives need to get a grip of public finances and fast.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 33,469
    IshmaelZ said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT

    Some significant COP26 news: President Biden is coming to Glasgow. A big relief for the PM, who invited him months ago. A needy shot in the arm for the summit too, which is in trouble after talks for a deal with China + others stalled.

    https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1436014231896444935?s=20

    Because having dozens of jets turn up at a climate change summit, is giving exactly the right message about how we all need to change our behaviours.

    If the last 18 months has shown the world anyting, it’s that the vast majority of meetings can be done remotely when the chips are down.

    Is this actually THE BIG F***ING EMERGENCY they want us to believe it is?

    I’m still amazed that Cisco didn’t offer $10m to sponsor doing the whole thing on WebEx.
    I don't really get this objection. It is such a completely irrelevant percentage of the impact of planes on climate change.

    If they can do even 0.01% better in person than they can remotely it will have a positive pay off.
    It’s the optics.

    “We” are flying a hundred private planes to the summmit in Glasgow, so that “we” can have our conference, the output of which is that “we” expect “you” to do less flying, to buy expensive electric cars, pay extra taxes, and attend fewer conferences - while “we” appear totally exempt from what “we” impose on “you”.
    Fuck optics. Either you are a software construct (or a sociopath), or you realise that face to face outweighs zoom to an extent that the private jets pay for themselves.
    Yeah I’m in IT.

    If there’s a MASSIVE CLIMATE EMERGENCY, then no, the private jets don’t pay for themselves, they’re the most selfish possible use of the scarce resources left on this planet.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 7,852
    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    When it comes to the next election, the Tories have decided a tax is the best form of defence.

    I am disappointed to see you treating this serious issue with that kind of levyty. I suspect you are not @ydoethur at all but some kind of imposter.

    That's you tolled. As is my duty.
    I accept vat it was not my best pun.
    Conceded, if I may say so, with your customary grace.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 6,021
    Leon said:

    I have just ordered roast hare.

    Lucerne, this is your big test

    Today I had THE WORST SALAD OF MY LIFE on top of beautiful Mount Pilatus.

    They have a lot of ground to make up

    Your clear error was ordering a salad. It's that sort of thing that give Brits abroad a bad name.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 25,429
    IshmaelZ said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT

    Some significant COP26 news: President Biden is coming to Glasgow. A big relief for the PM, who invited him months ago. A needy shot in the arm for the summit too, which is in trouble after talks for a deal with China + others stalled.

    https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1436014231896444935?s=20

    Because having dozens of jets turn up at a climate change summit, is giving exactly the right message about how we all need to change our behaviours.

    If the last 18 months has shown the world anyting, it’s that the vast majority of meetings can be done remotely when the chips are down.

    Is this actually THE BIG F***ING EMERGENCY they want us to believe it is?

    I’m still amazed that Cisco didn’t offer $10m to sponsor doing the whole thing on WebEx.
    I don't really get this objection. It is such a completely irrelevant percentage of the impact of planes on climate change.

    If they can do even 0.01% better in person than they can remotely it will have a positive pay off.
    It’s the optics.

    “We” are flying a hundred private planes to the summmit in Glasgow, so that “we” can have our conference, the output of which is that “we” expect “you” to do less flying, to buy expensive electric cars, pay extra taxes, and attend fewer conferences - while “we” appear totally exempt from what “we” impose on “you”.
    Fuck optics. Either you are a software construct (or a sociopath), or you realise that face to face outweighs zoom to an extent that the private jets pay for themselves.
    Face-to-face does outweigh Zoom IMO. But there are several points to make about this.

    Firstly, the 'outweighs' is in the eye of the beholder. *I* might think that my trip to Geneva to decide on the name of a variable is worthwhile; others may disagree. In fact, I'd argue that Mrs J travelling with our son to see family in Turkey once a year *is* more important than most of the business trips. At least to us.

    Secondly, it means that there will be two types of people: those for whom foreign travel is verboten because their reason for travel is not important enough; and those who can travel for 'reasons', however spurious.

    This is where the XR types jetting away from their large houses to sunny climes are so hilariously sh*ts: they want *others* to forego pleasures, to wear the hairshirts, environmentalism demands. Not them: they're too important.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 13,923
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT

    Some significant COP26 news: President Biden is coming to Glasgow. A big relief for the PM, who invited him months ago. A needy shot in the arm for the summit too, which is in trouble after talks for a deal with China + others stalled.

    https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1436014231896444935?s=20

    Because having dozens of jets turn up at a climate change summit, is giving exactly the right message about how we all need to change our behaviours.

    If the last 18 months has shown the world anyting, it’s that the vast majority of meetings can be done remotely when the chips are down.

    Is this actually THE BIG F***ING EMERGENCY they want us to believe it is?

    I’m still amazed that Cisco didn’t offer $10m to sponsor doing the whole thing on WebEx.
    I don't really get this objection. It is such a completely irrelevant percentage of the impact of planes on climate change.

    If they can do even 0.01% better in person than they can remotely it will have a positive pay off.
    It’s the optics.

    “We” are flying a hundred private planes to the summmit in Glasgow, so that “we” can have our conference, the output of which is that “we” expect “you” to do less flying, to buy expensive electric cars, pay extra taxes, and attend fewer conferences - while “we” appear totally exempt from what “we” impose on “you”.
    At least one can simply walk across the river from her house.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 43,595
    edited September 9

    FPT:

    Omnium said:

    Self-confessed 'Privileged, white middle class' XR protester, 60, who lives in a £900,000 farmhouse says she was 'exercising her human rights' while blocking roads outside Parliament, court hears

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9973761/Privileged-white-middle-class-XR-activist-60-tells-court-human-right-protest.html

    I am coming around to the idea of a massive wealth tax on property......the (eco) marxists all seem to own massive houses or make their money from flipping property, buy to lets, etc.

    Not against a wealth tax on property, but not clear why her house is relevant to the case. I'm not class warrior enough to feel that rich people shouldn't have an opinion on the environment...
    I think it is emphasising her own point that she is a wealthy individual who is in a privileged position to break the law and it not have any consequences.

    What a £200 fine to her....

    It seems to be a rather consistent theme among the eco-Marxists, they are either wealthy and privileged individuals themselves or the children of them. While the majority have to put up with their illegal behaviour, causing massive disruption, tying up the police from dealing with serious crime and costing us all a load of money.
    Maybe if these rich kids had to work for a living they wouldn't be so precious.
    How do you achieve that?
    🤷‍♂️
    I'll help you then. Tax wealth and inheritance so that these rich idiots don't get a free ride in life.
    And how about those that have worked their entire lives to lift themselves out of poverty for a comfortable old age?
    That's me.

    Tax the wealth at 1% above £1m. Then tax what's left over when the individual dies.
    That would be popular in London and the South !!!!!!
    Yes it would! Most of us don't want these silly asset prices! Only the very wealthy do, there might be more of them in the SE because of house prices but they are still very much the minority.
    I doubt the vast majority of tax payers in the north would have any problem with such a tax

    Entrepreneurs and wealth creators may though
    https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/britons-support-paying-more-tax-fund-public-services-most-popular-being-new-net-wealth-tax

    It is popular. 75% support compared to 29% for increasing income tax or 24% for increasing VAT.

    Why Labour don't tie themselves to it is a mystery. Regardless of its effectiveness, which to be fair is relatively unknown in the UK, perhaps Sandpit is right although I think that is overblown, it is a popular policy. Labour need a flagship popular policy and are unlikely to be in sole power anyway.
    Actually that was from October 2020 and is not in line with yesterdays poll which said outside NI increases, capital gains tax was the only tax that was considered better

    What we are witnessing here is an array of ways of raising money but each and every one encounters all kinds of controversy and counter objections

    Whether Boris et al are right in their action on Tuesday the fact is there is an actual policy now in place and clearly defined how the monies are raised

    I do not believe the monies raised will be anywhere near adequate and I expect to see further tax increases in due course but Starmer's interview on Sky tonight did not show him in a good light, but just a ditherer with no plan

    Boris at least has a plan
  • MattWMattW Posts: 9,371

    One question I always have about wealth taxes...if you aren't a normie, i.e. regular 9-5 job, semi-detached new build house, with the 2.5 kids and the dog, it quickly becomes incredibly difficult to assess.

    Also, what about all these schemes that the ultra wealthy use where they give up their shares in their companies in return for lifetime loans. Do they still have that wealth?

    Make it for the ultra rich only, say £10m or £20m +. Leave it to them to declare the value of their assets. But allow the state to buy any assets from them at 200% of whatever price they declare.
    If you make it for the ultra-rich only, it doesn't raise significant enough sums.

    Take a run through the various schemes in use around the world, and that shows fairly clearly.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 13,923
    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    When it comes to the next election, the Tories have decided a tax is the best form of defence.

    I am disappointed to see you treating this serious issue with that kind of levyty. I suspect you are not @ydoethur at all but some kind of imposter.

    That's you tolled. As is my duty.
    I accept vat it was not my best pun.
    Conceded, if I may say so, with your customary grace.
    Not the Zoll consideration, though.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 6,021
    Carnyx said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT

    Some significant COP26 news: President Biden is coming to Glasgow. A big relief for the PM, who invited him months ago. A needy shot in the arm for the summit too, which is in trouble after talks for a deal with China + others stalled.

    https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1436014231896444935?s=20

    Because having dozens of jets turn up at a climate change summit, is giving exactly the right message about how we all need to change our behaviours.

    If the last 18 months has shown the world anyting, it’s that the vast majority of meetings can be done remotely when the chips are down.

    Is this actually THE BIG F***ING EMERGENCY they want us to believe it is?

    I’m still amazed that Cisco didn’t offer $10m to sponsor doing the whole thing on WebEx.
    I don't really get this objection. It is such a completely irrelevant percentage of the impact of planes on climate change.

    If they can do even 0.01% better in person than they can remotely it will have a positive pay off.
    It’s the optics.

    “We” are flying a hundred private planes to the summmit in Glasgow, so that “we” can have our conference, the output of which is that “we” expect “you” to do less flying, to buy expensive electric cars, pay extra taxes, and attend fewer conferences - while “we” appear totally exempt from what “we” impose on “you”.
    At least one can simply walk across the river from her house.
    The world is truly fucked up if she's invited.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 13,923
    Omnium said:

    Carnyx said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT

    Some significant COP26 news: President Biden is coming to Glasgow. A big relief for the PM, who invited him months ago. A needy shot in the arm for the summit too, which is in trouble after talks for a deal with China + others stalled.

    https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1436014231896444935?s=20

    Because having dozens of jets turn up at a climate change summit, is giving exactly the right message about how we all need to change our behaviours.

    If the last 18 months has shown the world anyting, it’s that the vast majority of meetings can be done remotely when the chips are down.

    Is this actually THE BIG F***ING EMERGENCY they want us to believe it is?

    I’m still amazed that Cisco didn’t offer $10m to sponsor doing the whole thing on WebEx.
    I don't really get this objection. It is such a completely irrelevant percentage of the impact of planes on climate change.

    If they can do even 0.01% better in person than they can remotely it will have a positive pay off.
    It’s the optics.

    “We” are flying a hundred private planes to the summmit in Glasgow, so that “we” can have our conference, the output of which is that “we” expect “you” to do less flying, to buy expensive electric cars, pay extra taxes, and attend fewer conferences - while “we” appear totally exempt from what “we” impose on “you”.
    At least one can simply walk across the river from her house.
    The world is truly fucked up if she's invited.
    I said 'can', not 'will'. Mr Johnson has been very emphatic about excluding her all year. Until last month when he decame very, very keen all of a sudden to have her and Mr Drakeford take a major part.

    It's certainly not because he has had a Damascene conversion about cooperation with the devolved administrations. Draw your own conclusion.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,013

    FPT:

    Omnium said:

    Self-confessed 'Privileged, white middle class' XR protester, 60, who lives in a £900,000 farmhouse says she was 'exercising her human rights' while blocking roads outside Parliament, court hears

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9973761/Privileged-white-middle-class-XR-activist-60-tells-court-human-right-protest.html

    I am coming around to the idea of a massive wealth tax on property......the (eco) marxists all seem to own massive houses or make their money from flipping property, buy to lets, etc.

    Not against a wealth tax on property, but not clear why her house is relevant to the case. I'm not class warrior enough to feel that rich people shouldn't have an opinion on the environment...
    I think it is emphasising her own point that she is a wealthy individual who is in a privileged position to break the law and it not have any consequences.

    What a £200 fine to her....

    It seems to be a rather consistent theme among the eco-Marxists, they are either wealthy and privileged individuals themselves or the children of them. While the majority have to put up with their illegal behaviour, causing massive disruption, tying up the police from dealing with serious crime and costing us all a load of money.
    Maybe if these rich kids had to work for a living they wouldn't be so precious.
    How do you achieve that?
    🤷‍♂️
    I'll help you then. Tax wealth and inheritance so that these rich idiots don't get a free ride in life.
    And how about those that have worked their entire lives to lift themselves out of poverty for a comfortable old age?
    That's me.

    Tax the wealth at 1% above £1m. Then tax what's left over when the individual dies.
    That would be popular in London and the South !!!!!!
    Yes it would! Most of us don't want these silly asset prices! Only the very wealthy do, there might be more of them in the SE because of house prices but they are still very much the minority.
    I doubt the vast majority of tax payers in the north would have any problem with such a tax

    Entrepreneurs and wealth creators may though
    https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/britons-support-paying-more-tax-fund-public-services-most-popular-being-new-net-wealth-tax

    It is popular. 75% support compared to 29% for increasing income tax or 24% for increasing VAT.

    Why Labour don't tie themselves to it is a mystery. Regardless of its effectiveness, which to be fair is relatively unknown in the UK, perhaps Sandpit is right although I think that is overblown, it is a popular policy. Labour need a flagship popular policy and are unlikely to be in sole power anyway.
    Actually that was from October 2020 and is not in line with yesterdays poll which said outside NI increases, capital gains tax was the only tax that was considered better

    What we are witnessing here is an array of ways of raising money but each and every one encounters all kinds of controversy and counter objections

    Whether Boris et al are right in their action on Tuesday the fact is there is an actual policy now in place and clearly defined how the monies are raised

    I do not believe the monies raised will be anywhere near adequate and I expect to see further tax increases in due course but Starmer's interview on Sky tonight did not show him in a good light, but just a ditherer with no plan

    Boris at least has a plan
    As always his plan is mislead the public to make it look like he has a plan but instead kick the can down the road. It is very popular!
  • CookieCookie Posts: 4,103
    Omnium said:

    Carnyx said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT

    Some significant COP26 news: President Biden is coming to Glasgow. A big relief for the PM, who invited him months ago. A needy shot in the arm for the summit too, which is in trouble after talks for a deal with China + others stalled.

    https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1436014231896444935?s=20

    Because having dozens of jets turn up at a climate change summit, is giving exactly the right message about how we all need to change our behaviours.

    If the last 18 months has shown the world anyting, it’s that the vast majority of meetings can be done remotely when the chips are down.

    Is this actually THE BIG F***ING EMERGENCY they want us to believe it is?

    I’m still amazed that Cisco didn’t offer $10m to sponsor doing the whole thing on WebEx.
    I don't really get this objection. It is such a completely irrelevant percentage of the impact of planes on climate change.

    If they can do even 0.01% better in person than they can remotely it will have a positive pay off.
    It’s the optics.

    “We” are flying a hundred private planes to the summmit in Glasgow, so that “we” can have our conference, the output of which is that “we” expect “you” to do less flying, to buy expensive electric cars, pay extra taxes, and attend fewer conferences - while “we” appear totally exempt from what “we” impose on “you”.
    At least one can simply walk across the river from her house.
    The world is truly fucked up if she's invited.
    She walks on water now?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 33,469
    MattW said:

    One question I always have about wealth taxes...if you aren't a normie, i.e. regular 9-5 job, semi-detached new build house, with the 2.5 kids and the dog, it quickly becomes incredibly difficult to assess.

    Also, what about all these schemes that the ultra wealthy use where they give up their shares in their companies in return for lifetime loans. Do they still have that wealth?

    Make it for the ultra rich only, say £10m or £20m +. Leave it to them to declare the value of their assets. But allow the state to buy any assets from them at 200% of whatever price they declare.
    If you make it for the ultra-rich only, it doesn't raise significant enough sums.

    Take a run through the various schemes in use around the world, and that shows fairly clearly.
    Yes, at the £10m or £20m level, you’re dealing with the sort of person who sleeps in his plane on the tarmac at Luton, because getting off means spending 91 nights in the UK in a calendar year.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 13,923
    Cookie said:

    Omnium said:

    Carnyx said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT

    Some significant COP26 news: President Biden is coming to Glasgow. A big relief for the PM, who invited him months ago. A needy shot in the arm for the summit too, which is in trouble after talks for a deal with China + others stalled.

    https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1436014231896444935?s=20

    Because having dozens of jets turn up at a climate change summit, is giving exactly the right message about how we all need to change our behaviours.

    If the last 18 months has shown the world anyting, it’s that the vast majority of meetings can be done remotely when the chips are down.

    Is this actually THE BIG F***ING EMERGENCY they want us to believe it is?

    I’m still amazed that Cisco didn’t offer $10m to sponsor doing the whole thing on WebEx.
    I don't really get this objection. It is such a completely irrelevant percentage of the impact of planes on climate change.

    If they can do even 0.01% better in person than they can remotely it will have a positive pay off.
    It’s the optics.

    “We” are flying a hundred private planes to the summmit in Glasgow, so that “we” can have our conference, the output of which is that “we” expect “you” to do less flying, to buy expensive electric cars, pay extra taxes, and attend fewer conferences - while “we” appear totally exempt from what “we” impose on “you”.
    At least one can simply walk across the river from her house.
    The world is truly fucked up if she's invited.
    She walks on water now?
    Nah. Squinty Bridge, probably.
  • Don't know why anyone's getting upset about the NI "increase".

    If you round it up to the nearest 10%, it's basically a zero percent rise.

    And that's as good as a tax decrease.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 7,852
    rcs1000 said:

    One question I always have about wealth taxes...if you aren't a normie, i.e. regular 9-5 job, semi-detached new build house, with the 2.5 kids and the dog, it quickly becomes incredibly difficult to assess.

    Also, what about all these schemes that the ultra wealthy use where they transfer their shares into a company, which then trades them to a financial institution, who in return provides lifetime loans at very low interest rates. Do they still have that wealth?

    Even trying to assess the value of your home is tricky. It is why the Lib Dem idea of tax on the exact house value didn't fly, because it was quickly realised that you have to keep reassessing even normal homes, as Bob gets a conservatory, Fred gets a lovely garden make-over etc.

    In France, they have a simple solution. You self declare - but the state has the right to buy your house at a c. 20% premium to your self declared value. And every year they sweep up the most egregious cheaters and purchase their homes for less than they're worth and sell them.

    It keeps cheating to a minimum.
    That's brilliant. Ancient Athens had an even starker deal: citizen A could challenge citizen B that B could afford to sponsor a trireme, but wasn't. B could elect either to start sponsoring a trireme, or to swap all his assets with A.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 33,746
    Carnyx said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT

    Some significant COP26 news: President Biden is coming to Glasgow. A big relief for the PM, who invited him months ago. A needy shot in the arm for the summit too, which is in trouble after talks for a deal with China + others stalled.

    https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1436014231896444935?s=20

    Because having dozens of jets turn up at a climate change summit, is giving exactly the right message about how we all need to change our behaviours.

    If the last 18 months has shown the world anyting, it’s that the vast majority of meetings can be done remotely when the chips are down.

    Is this actually THE BIG F***ING EMERGENCY they want us to believe it is?

    I’m still amazed that Cisco didn’t offer $10m to sponsor doing the whole thing on WebEx.
    I don't really get this objection. It is such a completely irrelevant percentage of the impact of planes on climate change.

    If they can do even 0.01% better in person than they can remotely it will have a positive pay off.
    It’s the optics.

    “We” are flying a hundred private planes to the summmit in Glasgow, so that “we” can have our conference, the output of which is that “we” expect “you” to do less flying, to buy expensive electric cars, pay extra taxes, and attend fewer conferences - while “we” appear totally exempt from what “we” impose on “you”.
    At least one can simply walk across the river from her house.
    Thought she was barred on orders of the High Heid Yin
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 12,692
    edited September 9

    rcs1000 said:

    One question I always have about wealth taxes...if you aren't a normie, i.e. regular 9-5 job, semi-detached new build house, with the 2.5 kids and the dog, it quickly becomes incredibly difficult to assess.

    Also, what about all these schemes that the ultra wealthy use where they transfer their shares into a company, which then trades them to a financial institution, who in return provides lifetime loans at very low interest rates. Do they still have that wealth?

    Even trying to assess the value of your home is tricky. It is why the Lib Dem idea of tax on the exact house value didn't fly, because it was quickly realised that you have to keep reassessing even normal homes, as Bob gets a conservatory, Fred gets a lovely garden make-over etc.

    In France, they have a simple solution. You self declare - but the state has the right to buy your house at a c. 20% premium to your self declared value. And every year they sweep up the most egregious cheaters and purchase their homes for less than they're worth and sell them.

    It keeps cheating to a minimum.
    Surely there must be loads of financial vehicles whereby assets are transferred into businesses and clever accounting is used, or as I stated with what we know about the uber uber wealthy, all those stakes in their own companies, large chunks of that has been swapped for very long term low interest loans.

    Its a bit like the old Labour donation swerve, you don't donate, you make a loan, but never ask for the money back and thus you don't have to be named.
    You will still lose your home under the scheme @rcs1000 mentions, I suppose. That's the beauty of it. You or whatever vehicle you use declares a property worth €200 000. The tax authorities think, that's undervalued, we will put it on the market and suppose they get an offer of €300 000. So they go back to you and say, you can continue to stay if you pay us the difference of €100 000. They don't care who lives there, pays the original wealth tax or who gets the €200 000 because they can sell the property at a profit of €100 000 if it's undervalued.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 4,103
    Sandpit said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT

    Some significant COP26 news: President Biden is coming to Glasgow. A big relief for the PM, who invited him months ago. A needy shot in the arm for the summit too, which is in trouble after talks for a deal with China + others stalled.

    https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1436014231896444935?s=20

    Because having dozens of jets turn up at a climate change summit, is giving exactly the right message about how we all need to change our behaviours.

    If the last 18 months has shown the world anyting, it’s that the vast majority of meetings can be done remotely when the chips are down.

    Is this actually THE BIG F***ING EMERGENCY they want us to believe it is?

    I’m still amazed that Cisco didn’t offer $10m to sponsor doing the whole thing on WebEx.
    I don't really get this objection. It is such a completely irrelevant percentage of the impact of planes on climate change.

    If they can do even 0.01% better in person than they can remotely it will have a positive pay off.
    It’s the optics.

    “We” are flying a hundred private planes to the summmit in Glasgow, so that “we” can have our conference, the output of which is that “we” expect “you” to do less flying, to buy expensive electric cars, pay extra taxes, and attend fewer conferences - while “we” appear totally exempt from what “we” impose on “you”.
    Fuck optics. Either you are a software construct (or a sociopath), or you realise that face to face outweighs zoom to an extent that the private jets pay for themselves.
    Yeah I’m in IT.

    If there’s a MASSIVE CLIMATE EMERGENCY, then no, the private jets don’t pay for themselves, they’re the most selfish possible use of the scarce resources left on this planet.
    Also, the whole point of these conferences is to Send A Message To The Plebs. Whether they achieve anything or not (they won't) or irrelevant. So it doesn't matter if they're any more or less effective in person or online.If the whole point is to send a message, the days when such a message could best be sent by having a high profile conference are long past.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 10,353
    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    I have just ordered roast hare.

    Lucerne, this is your big test

    Today I had THE WORST SALAD OF MY LIFE on top of beautiful Mount Pilatus.

    They have a lot of ground to make up

    Your clear error was ordering a salad. It's that sort of thing that give Brits abroad a bad name.
    You what? A salad Nicoise in the riviera sun. A salad caprese.. anywhere

    My salad has fried lake fish (frozen, even tho we were right by the lake) with frisée, beetroot, black lentils, tomato, a tin of sweet corn, pickles, a hunk of stale bread and a dollop of tartare sauce

    It was like a salad piled on a plate at a Garfunkel’s buffet by a cognitively deficient Russian in about 1983
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 60,264
    edited September 9

    Quite right TSE.

    If the Conservatives aren't the party for low taxes and high aspirations then who will be? Nature abhors a vacuum.

    Tempted by the Nigel Party, or whatever it might be called now?
    Hell no.

    Spoilt ballot or LDs probably.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 7,852
    Carnyx said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    When it comes to the next election, the Tories have decided a tax is the best form of defence.

    I am disappointed to see you treating this serious issue with that kind of levyty. I suspect you are not @ydoethur at all but some kind of imposter.

    That's you tolled. As is my duty.
    I accept vat it was not my best pun.
    Conceded, if I may say so, with your customary grace.
    Not the Zoll consideration, though.
    If we're going multilingual, I'm out. I'm douane.
  • FPT:

    Omnium said:

    Self-confessed 'Privileged, white middle class' XR protester, 60, who lives in a £900,000 farmhouse says she was 'exercising her human rights' while blocking roads outside Parliament, court hears

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9973761/Privileged-white-middle-class-XR-activist-60-tells-court-human-right-protest.html

    I am coming around to the idea of a massive wealth tax on property......the (eco) marxists all seem to own massive houses or make their money from flipping property, buy to lets, etc.

    Not against a wealth tax on property, but not clear why her house is relevant to the case. I'm not class warrior enough to feel that rich people shouldn't have an opinion on the environment...
    I think it is emphasising her own point that she is a wealthy individual who is in a privileged position to break the law and it not have any consequences.

    What a £200 fine to her....

    It seems to be a rather consistent theme among the eco-Marxists, they are either wealthy and privileged individuals themselves or the children of them. While the majority have to put up with their illegal behaviour, causing massive disruption, tying up the police from dealing with serious crime and costing us all a load of money.
    Maybe if these rich kids had to work for a living they wouldn't be so precious.
    How do you achieve that?
    🤷‍♂️
    I'll help you then. Tax wealth and inheritance so that these rich idiots don't get a free ride in life.
    And how about those that have worked their entire lives to lift themselves out of poverty for a comfortable old age?
    That's me.

    Tax the wealth at 1% above £1m. Then tax what's left over when the individual dies.
    That would be popular in London and the South !!!!!!
    Yes it would! Most of us don't want these silly asset prices! Only the very wealthy do, there might be more of them in the SE because of house prices but they are still very much the minority.
    I doubt the vast majority of tax payers in the north would have any problem with such a tax

    Entrepreneurs and wealth creators may though
    https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/britons-support-paying-more-tax-fund-public-services-most-popular-being-new-net-wealth-tax

    It is popular. 75% support compared to 29% for increasing income tax or 24% for increasing VAT.

    Why Labour don't tie themselves to it is a mystery. Regardless of its effectiveness, which to be fair is relatively unknown in the UK, perhaps Sandpit is right although I think that is overblown, it is a popular policy. Labour need a flagship popular policy and are unlikely to be in sole power anyway.
    Actually that was from October 2020 and is not in line with yesterdays poll which said outside NI increases, capital gains tax was the only tax that was considered better

    What we are witnessing here is an array of ways of raising money but each and every one encounters all kinds of controversy and counter objections

    Whether Boris et al are right in their action on Tuesday the fact is there is an actual policy now in place and clearly defined how the monies are raised

    I do not believe the monies raised will be anywhere near adequate and I expect to see further tax increases in due course but Starmer's interview on Sky tonight did not show him in a good light, but just a ditherer with no plan

    Boris at least has a plan
    As always his plan is mislead the public to make it look like he has a plan but instead kick the can down the road. It is very popular!
    You would say though that this is a golden opportunity for a labour leader and frankly Starmer is not that, indeed he still comes over more as a a lawyer than a politician

    Could you imagine if a young Tony Blair was leading labour taking on Boris

    It would be no contest
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,013
    MattW said:

    One question I always have about wealth taxes...if you aren't a normie, i.e. regular 9-5 job, semi-detached new build house, with the 2.5 kids and the dog, it quickly becomes incredibly difficult to assess.

    Also, what about all these schemes that the ultra wealthy use where they give up their shares in their companies in return for lifetime loans. Do they still have that wealth?

    Make it for the ultra rich only, say £10m or £20m +. Leave it to them to declare the value of their assets. But allow the state to buy any assets from them at 200% of whatever price they declare.
    If you make it for the ultra-rich only, it doesn't raise significant enough sums.

    Take a run through the various schemes in use around the world, and that shows fairly clearly.
    There are two issues here. Electorally and politically that does not matter for Labour even if it is true. As the PM and Trump have shown us, stories around policies matter far more than their effectiveness.

    Two, define enough? For me partly it is symbolic and shows a willingness to stand up for fairness and to try new things. Some may say it is the politics of envy, but if we don't try new methods to tackle things the ultra rich will continually to get a higher and higher share of global assets. That inevitably leaves less for the rest of us and it is not an inevitable way of life, even in a capitalist and international world. It is a recent phenomenon exacerbated by QE. It is right that this govt inflicted negative change to society is tackled by new govt policies.

    So for me, even if it raises £5bn a year, that would be a worthwhile start - I think it would raise much more.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 40,006

    rcs1000 said:

    One question I always have about wealth taxes...if you aren't a normie, i.e. regular 9-5 job, semi-detached new build house, with the 2.5 kids and the dog, it quickly becomes incredibly difficult to assess.

    Also, what about all these schemes that the ultra wealthy use where they transfer their shares into a company, which then trades them to a financial institution, who in return provides lifetime loans at very low interest rates. Do they still have that wealth?

    Even trying to assess the value of your home is tricky. It is why the Lib Dem idea of tax on the exact house value didn't fly, because it was quickly realised that you have to keep reassessing even normal homes, as Bob gets a conservatory, Fred gets a lovely garden make-over etc.

    In France, they have a simple solution. You self declare - but the state has the right to buy your house at a c. 20% premium to your self declared value. And every year they sweep up the most egregious cheaters and purchase their homes for less than they're worth and sell them.

    It keeps cheating to a minimum.
    Surely there must be loads of financial vehicles whereby assets are transferred into businesses and clever accounting is used, or as I stated with what we know about the uber uber wealthy, all those stakes in their own companies, large chunks of that has been swapped for very long term low interest loans.

    Its a bit like the old Labour donation swerve, you don't donate, you make a loan, but never ask for the money back and thus you don't have to be named.
    The house owner - not the individual - declares the value of the property.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 40,006

    rcs1000 said:

    I would discourage people overleveraging by making it a Gross Assets Levy, rather than a wealth tax.

    Wasn't "Gross Assets Levy" the fundraiser for Tony Blair?
    Boom boom.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 25,429
    On business people having to travel: Howard Hughes ran his multi-billion dollar empire from hotel rooms for ten years of his life.

    If it's good enough for one of the world's richest men, it should be good enough for ordinary businessmen. ;)

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 42,963
    Sandpit said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT

    Some significant COP26 news: President Biden is coming to Glasgow. A big relief for the PM, who invited him months ago. A needy shot in the arm for the summit too, which is in trouble after talks for a deal with China + others stalled.

    https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1436014231896444935?s=20

    Because having dozens of jets turn up at a climate change summit, is giving exactly the right message about how we all need to change our behaviours.

    If the last 18 months has shown the world anyting, it’s that the vast majority of meetings can be done remotely when the chips are down.

    Is this actually THE BIG F***ING EMERGENCY they want us to believe it is?

    I’m still amazed that Cisco didn’t offer $10m to sponsor doing the whole thing on WebEx.
    I don't really get this objection. It is such a completely irrelevant percentage of the impact of planes on climate change.

    If they can do even 0.01% better in person than they can remotely it will have a positive pay off.
    It’s the optics.

    “We” are flying a hundred private planes to the summmit in Glasgow, so that “we” can have our conference, the output of which is that “we” expect “you” to do less flying, to buy expensive electric cars, pay extra taxes, and attend fewer conferences - while “we” appear totally exempt from what “we” impose on “you”.
    Fuck optics. Either you are a software construct (or a sociopath), or you realise that face to face outweighs zoom to an extent that the private jets pay for themselves.
    Yeah I’m in IT.

    If there’s a MASSIVE CLIMATE EMERGENCY, then no, the private jets don’t pay for themselves, they’re the most selfish possible use of the scarce resources left on this planet.
    Flying is about 2% of carbon emissions. Most of that is leisure, not business.

    If they can all jet in and do something about coal burning in China then it will be well worth the flights.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 7,852
    Leon said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    I have just ordered roast hare.

    Lucerne, this is your big test

    Today I had THE WORST SALAD OF MY LIFE on top of beautiful Mount Pilatus.

    They have a lot of ground to make up

    Your clear error was ordering a salad. It's that sort of thing that give Brits abroad a bad name.
    You what? A salad Nicoise in the riviera sun. A salad caprese.. anywhere

    My salad has fried lake fish (frozen, even tho we were right by the lake) with frisée, beetroot, black lentils, tomato, a tin of sweet corn, pickles, a hunk of stale bread and a dollop of tartare sauce

    It was like a salad piled on a plate at a Garfunkel’s buffet by a cognitively deficient Russian in about 1983
    That's the way the girls are in Texas. I'm just surprised there weren't gherkins in it.

    Roast hare = this could be heaven and this could be hell. My signature dish is jugged hare. I'd think roast would be very dry.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 11,743
    On topic

    Just saw Starmer's "Rosie" speech in the HoC from yesterday. £1000 a year reduced UC plus the NI increase to a working mum. Starmer was actually very good and he played the Tory laughter very well.

    Fortunately for Johnson nothing to interest the BBC. They are fully focused on the tax rise that is necessary to fully fund the NHS and social care for once and for all.
  • TazTaz Posts: 1,629

    FPT:

    Omnium said:

    Self-confessed 'Privileged, white middle class' XR protester, 60, who lives in a £900,000 farmhouse says she was 'exercising her human rights' while blocking roads outside Parliament, court hears

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9973761/Privileged-white-middle-class-XR-activist-60-tells-court-human-right-protest.html

    I am coming around to the idea of a massive wealth tax on property......the (eco) marxists all seem to own massive houses or make their money from flipping property, buy to lets, etc.

    Not against a wealth tax on property, but not clear why her house is relevant to the case. I'm not class warrior enough to feel that rich people shouldn't have an opinion on the environment...
    I think it is emphasising her own point that she is a wealthy individual who is in a privileged position to break the law and it not have any consequences.

    What a £200 fine to her....

    It seems to be a rather consistent theme among the eco-Marxists, they are either wealthy and privileged individuals themselves or the children of them. While the majority have to put up with their illegal behaviour, causing massive disruption, tying up the police from dealing with serious crime and costing us all a load of money.
    Maybe if these rich kids had to work for a living they wouldn't be so precious.
    How do you achieve that?
    🤷‍♂️
    I'll help you then. Tax wealth and inheritance so that these rich idiots don't get a free ride in life.
    And how about those that have worked their entire lives to lift themselves out of poverty for a comfortable old age?
    That's me.

    Tax the wealth at 1% above £1m. Then tax what's left over when the individual dies.
    That would be popular in London and the South !!!!!!
    Yes it would! Most of us don't want these silly asset prices! Only the very wealthy do, there might be more of them in the SE because of house prices but they are still very much the minority.
    I doubt the vast majority of tax payers in the north would have any problem with such a tax

    Entrepreneurs and wealth creators may though
    https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/britons-support-paying-more-tax-fund-public-services-most-popular-being-new-net-wealth-tax

    It is popular. 75% support compared to 29% for increasing income tax or 24% for increasing VAT.

    Why Labour don't tie themselves to it is a mystery. Regardless of its effectiveness, which to be fair is relatively unknown in the UK, perhaps Sandpit is right although I think that is overblown, it is a popular policy. Labour need a flagship popular policy and are unlikely to be in sole power anyway.
    Most people support it as they don’t think it Will impact on them.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 40,006
    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I am not sure we are going to see either of the main party espousing low taxation for many years to come....the reality is, huge bills have been rung up, aging population is incredibly expensive, and the first mention of cutting back the state, gets you Back to Wigan Pier stuff day in day out.

    You have to be a very unique kind of politician to stand up and say no I am ideologically opposed to a big state. Its always easier just to at very least just keep it as is.

    I think we're going through a 60s/70s type scenario right now, where everybody is a tax-and-spender, and everybody loves big government.

    The only real difference between the Conservative and Labour parties right now seems to be that the Conservatives are seeking to somewhat shield their voters (who trend older) from the taxes required to pay for this.

    My guess is that politicians will blanche at the scale of the required tax increases (or spending cuts) and will therefore choose to borrow and to print money. After all, it hasn't caused problems so far.

    However... I think this will all end in tears. Under whose watch, I do not know.
    It’s proved utterly astonishing, how much QE has gone almost unnoticed by the markets, simply because everyone’s doing it.

    There has to be a serious worry that Western governments see continual devaluation as their only way out, but if everyone’s doing it there’s no relative loss…
    Bingo: ultimately if everyone is trying to devalue their currency vs everyone else's currency... then the end result has to be the devaluation of all currency vs real things.
  • On topic

    Just saw Starmer's "Rosie" speech in the HoC from yesterday. £1000 a year reduced UC plus the NI increase to a working mum. Starmer was actually very good and he played the Tory laughter very well.

    Fortunately for Johnson nothing to interest the BBC. They are fully focused on the tax rise that is necessary to fully fund the NHS and social care for once and for all.

    And the point I made earlier, if that had been a young Tony Blair Boris would have been demolished but for labour Starmer is no Tony Blair
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,013
    Taz said:

    FPT:

    Omnium said:

    Self-confessed 'Privileged, white middle class' XR protester, 60, who lives in a £900,000 farmhouse says she was 'exercising her human rights' while blocking roads outside Parliament, court hears

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9973761/Privileged-white-middle-class-XR-activist-60-tells-court-human-right-protest.html

    I am coming around to the idea of a massive wealth tax on property......the (eco) marxists all seem to own massive houses or make their money from flipping property, buy to lets, etc.

    Not against a wealth tax on property, but not clear why her house is relevant to the case. I'm not class warrior enough to feel that rich people shouldn't have an opinion on the environment...
    I think it is emphasising her own point that she is a wealthy individual who is in a privileged position to break the law and it not have any consequences.

    What a £200 fine to her....

    It seems to be a rather consistent theme among the eco-Marxists, they are either wealthy and privileged individuals themselves or the children of them. While the majority have to put up with their illegal behaviour, causing massive disruption, tying up the police from dealing with serious crime and costing us all a load of money.
    Maybe if these rich kids had to work for a living they wouldn't be so precious.
    How do you achieve that?
    🤷‍♂️
    I'll help you then. Tax wealth and inheritance so that these rich idiots don't get a free ride in life.
    And how about those that have worked their entire lives to lift themselves out of poverty for a comfortable old age?
    That's me.

    Tax the wealth at 1% above £1m. Then tax what's left over when the individual dies.
    That would be popular in London and the South !!!!!!
    Yes it would! Most of us don't want these silly asset prices! Only the very wealthy do, there might be more of them in the SE because of house prices but they are still very much the minority.
    I doubt the vast majority of tax payers in the north would have any problem with such a tax

    Entrepreneurs and wealth creators may though
    https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/britons-support-paying-more-tax-fund-public-services-most-popular-being-new-net-wealth-tax

    It is popular. 75% support compared to 29% for increasing income tax or 24% for increasing VAT.

    Why Labour don't tie themselves to it is a mystery. Regardless of its effectiveness, which to be fair is relatively unknown in the UK, perhaps Sandpit is right although I think that is overblown, it is a popular policy. Labour need a flagship popular policy and are unlikely to be in sole power anyway.
    Most people support it as they don’t think it Will impact on them.
    No shit sherlock! If most people were going to pay it, it wouldn't be a tax on the wealthy!
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 40,006
    kinabalu said:

    One question I always have about wealth taxes...if you aren't a normie, i.e. regular 9-5 job, semi-detached new build house, with the 2.5 kids and the dog, it quickly becomes incredibly difficult to assess.

    Also, what about all these schemes that the ultra wealthy use where they transfer their shares into a company, which then trades them to a financial institution, who in return provides lifetime loans at very low interest rates. Do they still have that wealth?

    Even trying to assess the value of your home is tricky. It is why the Lib Dem idea of tax on the exact house value didn't fly, because it was quickly realised that you have to keep reassessing even normal homes, as Bob gets a conservatory, Fred gets a lovely garden make-over etc.

    Self assessment with very stiff penalties - jail time - for materially understating it. Fear works wonders.
    That's the wrong solution. Any property in the UK has to be self declared. We have a land registry with the owners of all land in it. If you don't declare, then HMRC has the right to purchase and sell the property to recover missing property taxes.

    It doesn't matter if it's in a company or a trust or it's owned by an individual, there is a declaration of value, and a resulting tax.

    If you underdeclare the value of your property, HMRC will simply buy it from you at a 20% premium to what you said it was worth.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 9,371
    Sandpit said:

    malcolmg said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT

    Some significant COP26 news: President Biden is coming to Glasgow. A big relief for the PM, who invited him months ago. A needy shot in the arm for the summit too, which is in trouble after talks for a deal with China + others stalled.

    https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1436014231896444935?s=20

    Because having dozens of jets turn up at a climate change summit, is giving exactly the right message about how we all need to change our behaviours.

    If the last 18 months has shown the world anyting, it’s that the vast majority of meetings can be done remotely when the chips are down.

    Is this actually THE BIG F***ING EMERGENCY they want us to believe it is?

    I’m still amazed that Cisco didn’t offer $10m to sponsor doing the whole thing on WebEx.
    Yes and fleets of gas guzzlers to ferry them around as well, and 10,000 cops driving all over. It is a shitshow as far as environment is concerned.
    If Biden turns up, he will have two or three planes arrive from the US, carrying the cars he travels in when in the UK.

    It’s utterly hillarious that there is a total and utter climate emergency, that requires a hundred named people to turn up in the same place by their own private transports.
    I think that leaders at CoP26 is far more defensible than self-important celebrity hypocrites turning up at events.

    Remember when Emma Thompson flew in from Los Angeles to an E2R demo in London. 5400 miles. And flew back to New York First Class.

    If the first trip was Business, that was the same emissions as nearly 3 uk people for an entire year. Just for the flight.
Sign In or Register to comment.