politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If the next CON leader betting prices are an indicator then
Comments
-
Leicester now 19 points ahead of 5th, with Man U having 6 games left. Champions League now certain.Scrapheap_as_was said:Huzzah
Huzzah
Huzzah
5 mins of iplayer to be listened to many times this coming week!!!
First time since 2001...
I got 150/1 on that in August.
Spurs are going to be a worthy second place :-)0 -
I've only ever been employed by other people (and it's always been part-time). So I wouldn't know how self-employed people pay their taxes. Or at least it's never something that I've sought out (because I've never needed to).Mortimer said:
If you're self employed, you file tax returns. How else do you think you pay tax? The tax fairy?The_Apocalypse said:
Well when I talked to my mum about this (publishing tax returns) she didn't tell me that.Mortimer said:
Newspaper owners are likely to be directors of companies or fulfil other similar criteria - tax returns would be necessary in almost all cases.
Since when is being able to shape public opinion or being hypocritical a crime?
Amazing how illiberal people start getting when they talk about politicians, the media and the wealthy.
On your second point: well where did I say it was a crime?
@surbiton I asked my mum about tax returns and she implied it was something that only wealthy people did.
And doing a quick goggle on the matter my dad has been self-employed in the past and he has never talked about filing tax returns....0 -
Fair enough, but it might be worth understanding tax returns before you start calling for discrimination against various people who file them....The_Apocalypse said:
I've only ever been employed by other people (and it's always been part-time). So I wouldn't know how self-employed people pay their taxes. Or at least it's never something that I've sought out (because I've never needed to).Mortimer said:
If you're self employed, you file tax returns. How else do you think you pay tax? The tax fairy?The_Apocalypse said:
Well when I talked to my mum about this (publishing tax returns) she didn't tell me that.Mortimer said:
Newspaper owners are likely to be directors of companies or fulfil other similar criteria - tax returns would be necessary in almost all cases.
Since when is being able to shape public opinion or being hypocritical a crime?
Amazing how illiberal people start getting when they talk about politicians, the media and the wealthy.
On your second point: well where did I say it was a crime?
@surbiton I asked my mum about tax returns and she implied it was something that only wealthy people did.
And doing a quick goggle on the matter my dad has been self-employed in the past and he has never talked about filing tax returns....0 -
@foxinsoxuk Did you bet on Leicester to win the title back in August?
0 -
On the basis society in general was more openly racist back then, they probably all were - our terms for the two parties we originally had were insults for foreigners!surbiton said:
Was Labour set up for racist people ?AndyJS said:Your post is a good example of why Labour aren't going to be back in power for a very long time. Until the party stops sneering at the very people it was set up for in the first place, they don't have a chance of winning an election.
tyson said:Clacton is not average- it is a horrible, depressingly white and racist hell hole that probably represents Jeremy Kyles highest viewing figures.
Abingdon or Clitheroe or Southport are probably average. And living in one of those would be worse than the death from a thousand cuts inflicted slowly and excruciatingly.rcs1000 said:
It's very far from average! It has a ukip MPSean_F said:
Cl.Stark_Dawning said:
Quite rions.Roger said:
Actually from memory his argument was more nuanced than that. He was saying that as we become more tolerant as a society and more people have a university education residents like those in Clacton will get left behind. So the Tories should not pander to their prejudices but leave them to Ukip and wait for evolution to do its jobSean_F said:
I think Parris thinks that the inhabitants of Clacton are the most ghastly oiks who had to pay for their own furniture, and who shop at Marks & Spencer.Stark_Dawning said:
I think Parris had the level of the people of Clacton - they did elect Carswell after all. (And I suspect these days Nigel feels the same.)Indigo said:
hope not, unless the voice of moderate toryism is supercilious sneering at the people of Clacton, and suggesting that they party should abandon the third of the electorate that wasn't receptive to right-on modern nostrums and move forward into the new progressive future. Yuck.Stark_Dawning said:Say what you like about Matthew Parris, but he's the voice of a certain strand of moderate Toryism. The man has a following. His philippic against Johnson might prove deadly. I'm convinced to this day that it was a withering article that Parris wrote in 2003 that did for IDS.
0 -
There are many ways into Liverpool, and that is not the one I'd normally choose. For the Sefton Coast, go M62/M57 (and there's a new A5758 that's opened, shortening the journey by another 5 mins)JosiasJessop said:
Nah, you're wrong. The Portsmouth / Southampton area would beat it for one. Mainly because you don't have to suffer Runcorn when negotiating it.
You might be interested in something I discovered today - my grandma worked as a plotter and a runner during WW2 in what I think is now the Western Approaches museum. I'd always known she was a plotter, but assumed she was in Southampton.
Well I hope you've visited the Western Approaches... Critical to the War effort, and the Germans nearly got it!
(across the street)
0 -
Was Labour set up for racist people ?
Almost certainly. How many working class people 100 years ago would pass as non-racist by the left's standards today? Maybe 1%.0 -
3000/1 but only £1 each way.The_Apocalypse said:@foxinsoxuk Did you bet on Leicester to win the title back in August?
I topped up in Dec at 20/1 too (and tipped it here as well as top 4 at evens)0 -
1. June 23rd gone on holiday.SimonStClare said:
I don’t see the necessity to abandon anything – if Jeremy Corbyn advocates voting for remain, then the younger age bracket which predominantly support Labour may well follow suit and swing the result.TCPoliticalBetting said:
Labour abandon their local, London, Welsh Assembly and scot parliament campaigns just to win the referendum and keep Cameron in place.rottenborough said:
Yes, but how? That Booky-Wooky bloke again?TCPoliticalBetting said:James Kirkup: "Cameron will never say it, but his referendum hopes depend on Labour activists turning out younger pro-EU voters."
Someone on here has been making this point I think.
Anyone see a problem with that?
2. Cannot be arse*d
3. Not registered to vote.
4. Who is Corbyn?
5. Who is Labour?
6. What is a referendum?
0 -
Well I did seek out information on the matter (and my mum's work is related to taxes, salaries etc so I thought she'd be a good source on the matter).Mortimer said:
Fair enough, but it might be worth understanding tax returns before you start calling for discrimination against various people who file them....The_Apocalypse said:
I've only ever been employed by other people (and it's always been part-time). So I wouldn't know how self-employed people pay their taxes. Or at least it's never something that I've sought out (because I've never needed to).Mortimer said:
If you're self employed, you file tax returns. How else do you think you pay tax? The tax fairy?The_Apocalypse said:
Well when I talked to my mum about this (publishing tax returns) she didn't tell me that.Mortimer said:
Newspaper owners are likely to be directors of companies or fulfil other similar criteria - tax returns would be necessary in almost all cases.
Since when is being able to shape public opinion or being hypocritical a crime?
Amazing how illiberal people start getting when they talk about politicians, the media and the wealthy.
On your second point: well where did I say it was a crime?
@surbiton I asked my mum about tax returns and she implied it was something that only wealthy people did.
And doing a quick goggle on the matter my dad has been self-employed in the past and he has never talked about filing tax returns....
As for discriminating against people with tax returns: well those in positions in power in society are likely to be amongst those who have the kind of 'tax arrangements' revealed in the Panama papers. Given that these are the same people who have been telling us there is 'no money left' and arguing that many sections of society should bare the burden of cuts, I don't feel guilty about expecting transparency from those people regarding their tax affairs.0 -
When you're walking the coast and not taking ferries, then Runcorn is hard to avoid.RodCrosby said:
There are many ways into Liverpool, and that is not the one I'd normally choose. For the Sefton Coast, go M62/M57 (and there's a new A5758 that's opened, shortening the journey by another 5 mins)JosiasJessop said:
Nah, you're wrong. The Portsmouth / Southampton area would beat it for one. Mainly because you don't have to suffer Runcorn when negotiating it.
You might be interested in something I discovered today - my grandma worked as a plotter and a runner during WW2 in what I think is now the Western Approaches museum. I'd always known she was a plotter, but assumed she was in Southampton.
Well I hope you've visited the Western Approaches... Critical to the War effort, and the Germans nearly got it!
(across the street)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architecture_of_Liverpool#/media/File:Peters'_Building,_Liverpool.jpg
After what I've learnt today, a visit to the museum will have to be made. Probably when the little 'un is old enough to get something out of it though.
There's worse news though: it means my mum might have been conceived in Liverpool. (shudders)0 -
In a bomb-shelter...JosiasJessop said:
When you're walking the coast and not taking ferries, then Runcorn is hard to avoid.RodCrosby said:
There are many ways into Liverpool, and that is not the one I'd normally choose. For the Sefton Coast, go M62/M57 (and there's a new A5758 that's opened, shortening the journey by another 5 mins)JosiasJessop said:
Nah, you're wrong. The Portsmouth / Southampton area would beat it for one. Mainly because you don't have to suffer Runcorn when negotiating it.
You might be interested in something I discovered today - my grandma worked as a plotter and a runner during WW2 in what I think is now the Western Approaches museum. I'd always known she was a plotter, but assumed she was in Southampton.
Well I hope you've visited the Western Approaches... Critical to the War effort, and the Germans nearly got it!
(across the street)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architecture_of_Liverpool#/media/File:Peters'_Building,_Liverpool.jpg
After what I've learnt today, a visit to the museum will have to be made. Probably when the little 'un is old enough to get something out of it though.
There's worse news though: it means my mum might have been conceived in Liverpool. (shudders)0 -
RodCrosby said:
In a bomb-shelter...JosiasJessop said:
When you're walking the coast and not taking ferries, then Runcorn is hard to avoid.RodCrosby said:
There are many ways into Liverpool, and that is not the one I'd normally choose. For the Sefton Coast, go M62/M57 (and there's a new A5758 that's opened, shortening the journey by another 5 mins)JosiasJessop said:
Nah, you're wrong. The Portsmouth / Southampton area would beat it for one. Mainly because you don't have to suffer Runcorn when negotiating it.
You might be interested in something I discovered today - my grandma worked as a plotter and a runner during WW2 in what I think is now the Western Approaches museum. I'd always known she was a plotter, but assumed she was in Southampton.
Well I hope you've visited the Western Approaches... Critical to the War effort, and the Germans nearly got it!
(across the street)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architecture_of_Liverpool#/media/File:Peters'_Building,_Liverpool.jpg
After what I've learnt today, a visit to the museum will have to be made. Probably when the little 'un is old enough to get something out of it though.
There's worse news though: it means my mum might have been conceived in Liverpool. (shudders)
Sadly my grandma suffered dementia from when I was a child, and died a couple of decades ago. I didn't really know her, and there are many stories she could undoubtedly have told me. I know much more about my father's family's wartime experiences. There are photographs of grandma in uniform though.0 -
Attending GlastonburyTCPoliticalBetting said:
1. June 23rd gone on holiday.SimonStClare said:
I don’t see the necessity to abandon anything – if Jeremy Corbyn advocates voting for remain, then the younger age bracket which predominantly support Labour may well follow suit and swing the result.TCPoliticalBetting said:
Labour abandon their local, London, Welsh Assembly and scot parliament campaigns just to win the referendum and keep Cameron in place.rottenborough said:
Yes, but how? That Booky-Wooky bloke again?TCPoliticalBetting said:James Kirkup: "Cameron will never say it, but his referendum hopes depend on Labour activists turning out younger pro-EU voters."
Someone on here has been making this point I think.
Anyone see a problem with that?
2. Cannot be arse*d
3. Not registered to vote.
4. Who is Corbyn?
5. Who is Labour?
6. What is a referendum?
0 -
If you consider someone earning £45000 pa "wealthy" ? Or, even less than that but having a lot of investment earnings.The_Apocalypse said:
Well when I talked to my mum about this (publishing tax returns) she didn't tell me that.Mortimer said:
Newspaper owners are likely to be directors of companies or fulfil other similar criteria - tax returns would be necessary in almost all cases.
Since when is being able to shape public opinion or being hypocritical a crime?
Amazing how illiberal people start getting when they talk about politicians, the media and the wealthy.
On your second point: well where did I say it was a crime?
@surbiton I asked my mum about tax returns and she implied it was something that only wealthy people did.
And doing a quick goggle on the matter my dad has been self-employed in the past and he has never talked about filing tax returns....0 -
Translation: He is not an extreme right-winger !Plato_Says said:He's an appalling metro snob.
Stark_Dawning said:Say what you like about Matthew Parris, but he's the voice of a certain strand of moderate Toryism. The man has a following. His philippic against Johnson might prove deadly. I'm convinced to this day that it was a withering article that Parris wrote in 2003 that did for IDS.
0 -
So let me get this right - cos I am a little baffled by the amount of conclusions to which you're jumping. People in power are more likely to have offshore involvement (dodgy assumption 1), these are somehow inherently bad (as suggested by your 'tax arrangements' comment, despite your not understanding how taxes work - dodgy assumption 2), the same people are more likely be pro austerity (dodgy assumption 3), and that tax return publication changes any of those things (dodgy assumption 4).The_Apocalypse said:
Well I did seek out information on the matter (and my mum's work is related to taxes, salaries etc so I thought she'd be a good source on the matter).Mortimer said:
Fair enough, but it might be worth understanding tax returns before you start calling for discrimination against various people who file them....The_Apocalypse said:
I've only ever been employed by other people (and it's always been part-time). So I wouldn't know how self-employed people pay their taxes. Or at least it's never something that I've sought out (because I've never needed to).Mortimer said:
If you're self employed, you file tax returns. How else do you think you pay tax? The tax fairy?The_Apocalypse said:
Well when I talked to my mum about this (publishing tax returns) she didn't tell me that.Mortimer said:
Newspaper owners are likely to be directors of companies or fulfil other similar criteria - tax returns would be necessary in almost all cases.
Since when is being able to shape public opinion or being hypocritical a crime?
Amazing how illiberal people start getting when they talk about politicians, the media and the wealthy.
On your second point: well where did I say it was a crime?
@surbiton I asked my mum about tax returns and she implied it was something that only wealthy people did.
And doing a quick goggle on the matter my dad has been self-employed in the past and he has never talked about filing tax returns....
As for discriminating against people with tax returns: well those in positions in power in society are likely to be amongst those who have the kind of 'tax arrangements' revealed in the Panama papers. Given that these are the same people who have been telling us there is 'no money left' and arguing that many sections of society should bare the burden of cuts, I don't feel guilty about expecting transparency from those people regarding their tax affairs.
So you want to revoke a commonly accepted notion of tax privacy, one of the foundations of Anglo-Saxon liberalism, because of several dodgy assumptions?
0 -
Not wealthy. Probably middle-class (given that the average wage is 26k).surbiton said:
If you consider someone earning £45000 pa "wealthy" ? Or, even less than that but having a lot of investment earnings.The_Apocalypse said:
Well when I talked to my mum about this (publishing tax returns) she didn't tell me that.Mortimer said:
Newspaper owners are likely to be directors of companies or fulfil other similar criteria - tax returns would be necessary in almost all cases.
Since when is being able to shape public opinion or being hypocritical a crime?
Amazing how illiberal people start getting when they talk about politicians, the media and the wealthy.
On your second point: well where did I say it was a crime?
@surbiton I asked my mum about tax returns and she implied it was something that only wealthy people did.
And doing a quick goggle on the matter my dad has been self-employed in the past and he has never talked about filing tax returns....0 -
Oh god nobody tell the Guardian...
Dropbox's head of diversity says she's also had conversations about eliminating bias in job interviews by conducting "blind" interviews using avatars. The Stanford lab's scenarios place users in unsettling situations -- for example, angry harassment by white avatars while the user's avatar is black. "I'm not saying, 'Put on a VR goggle and you've solved racism'," says the Stanford lab's director. "But I'm optimistic it can help."
https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/16/04/10/1449221/vr-tested-by-nfl-to-confront-sexism-and-racism0 -
Salary amounts / wealth are really relative to where you live. £45k a year in London, middle class, "up naffffh", that goes a hell of lot further if certain areas.0
-
He's pretty right-wing on most economic issues.surbiton said:
Translation: He is not an extreme right-winger !Plato_Says said:He's an appalling metro snob.
Stark_Dawning said:Say what you like about Matthew Parris, but he's the voice of a certain strand of moderate Toryism. The man has a following. His philippic against Johnson might prove deadly. I'm convinced to this day that it was a withering article that Parris wrote in 2003 that did for IDS.
0 -
I really hope the heat is going out of this tax story now. It's been a deeply unpleasant spectacle with the full show of hate, hypocrisy and spite on view. I sense the media are beginning to backtrack now.
Damian McBride (sorry, I mean Jeremy Corbyn) unsurprisingly still thinks the PM has questions to answer. It's been interesting that Labour MPs have been strangely quiet. I'm sure by now, that they now know this is getting out of hand. The PM's statement tomorrow could be interesting. Personally, I think he will come out of it okay but he has been damaged and he knows it.
0 -
FFS I turn on BBC1 Countryfile for a programme about country issues that as a townie i may not be aware of and part way through we now have a section about the Archers domestic abuse storyline....0
-
What not global warming is destroying .... ?TCPoliticalBetting said:FFS I turn on BBC1 Countryfile for a programme about country issues that as a townie i may not be aware of and part way through we now have a section about the Archers domestic abuse storyline....
0 -
Firstly, I did not say people in power are likely to have offshore involvement. I said those in positions of power in society are likely to among those who have dodgy tax arrangements. Secondly, I don't see how this is a dodgy assumption. Those in positions of power are likely to have the income required to pay accountants in order to devise these kinds of tax schemes. How many ordinary people have money to pay accountants to organise their tax affairs? Secondly, how is concealing your wealth in an offshore account not 'inherently bad'? And thirdly, how it is a dodgy assumption that those in the press are pro-austerity? Most of the best-selling papers in this country support the government's narrative on austerity. And I don't get your fourth point. It's more about the hypocrisy of certain newspapers arguing that the public should be the recipients of cuts, if they themselves are avoiding tax.Mortimer said:
So let me get this right - cos I am a little baffled by the amount of conclusions to which you're jumping. People in power are more likely to have offshore involvement (dodgy assumption 1), these are somehow inherently bad (as suggested by your 'tax arrangements' comment, despite your not understanding how taxes work - dodgy assumption 2), the same people are more likely be pro austerity (dodgy assumption 3), and that tax return publication changes any of those things (dodgy assumption 4).
So you want to revoke a commonly accepted notion of tax privacy, one of the foundations of Anglo-Saxon liberalism, because of several dodgy assumptions?0 -
I honk to fully appreciate the crass generalisations you are making you need to read up about:The_Apocalypse said:
Firstly, I did not say people in power are likely to have offshore involvement. I said those in positions of power in society are likely to among those who have dodgy tax arrangements. Secondly, I don't see how this is a dodgy assumption. Those in positions of power are likely to have the income required to pay accountants in order to devise these kinds of tax schemes. How many ordinary people have money to pay accountants to organise their tax affairs? Secondly, how is concealing your wealth in an offshore account not 'inherently bad'? And thirdly, how it is a dodgy assumption that those in the press are pro-austerity? Most of the best-selling papers in this country support the government's narrative on austerity. And I don't get your fourth point. It's more about the hypocrisy of certain newspapers arguing that the public should be the recipients of cuts, if they themselves are avoiding tax.Mortimer said:
So let me get this right - cos I am a little baffled by the amount of conclusions to which you're jumping. People in power are more likely to have offshore involvement (dodgy assumption 1), these are somehow inherently bad (as suggested by your 'tax arrangements' comment, despite your not understanding how taxes work - dodgy assumption 2), the same people are more likely be pro austerity (dodgy assumption 3), and that tax return publication changes any of those things (dodgy assumption 4).
So you want to revoke a commonly accepted notion of tax privacy, one of the foundations of Anglo-Saxon liberalism, because of several dodgy assumptions?
- how the tax system is administer for non PAYE individuals
- what offshore investments are - as a clue, they're not necessarily dodgy. Your current generalisation is about as broad brush as saying anyone with cash must be dodgy, because some people get paid cash in hand
- the media and it's main function - clue, it is about selling newspapers and advertising
And then, in order to get my fourth point, it might be worth thinking about how you think mandating people to publish their tax returns would change anything....0 -
Amazing how in the otherwise admirable film, Kenneth More and co. are shown emerging into the London sunlight after their mammoth effort to Sink the Bismarck!.JosiasJessop said:RodCrosby said:
In a bomb-shelter...JosiasJessop said:
When you're walking the coast and not taking ferries, then Runcorn is hard to avoid.RodCrosby said:
There are many ways into Liverpool, and that is not the one I'd normally choose. For the Sefton Coast, go M62/M57 (and there's a new A5758 that's opened, shortening the journey by another 5 mins)JosiasJessop said:
Nah, you're wrong. The Portsmouth / Southampton area would beat it for one. Mainly because you don't have to suffer Runcorn when negotiating it.
You might be interested in something I discovered today - my grandma worked as a plotter and a runner during WW2 in what I think is now the Western Approaches museum. I'd always known she was a plotter, but assumed she was in Southampton.
Well I hope you've visited the Western Approaches... Critical to the War effort, and the Germans nearly got it!
(across the street)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architecture_of_Liverpool#/media/File:Peters'_Building,_Liverpool.jpg
After what I've learnt today, a visit to the museum will have to be made. Probably when the little 'un is old enough to get something out of it though.
There's worse news though: it means my mum might have been conceived in Liverpool. (shudders)
Sadly my grandma suffered dementia from when I was a child, and died a couple of decades ago. I didn't really know her, and there are many stories she could undoubtedly have told me. I know much more about my father's family's wartime experiences. There are photographs of grandma in uniform though.
Of course, it actually took place in Liverpool in the Western Approaches bunker...
Maybe your grannie was involved?0 -
Short-term - terrible week for Cameron, his ratings will plummet.
Long-term - has Labour done a big own goal?
Contrast with welfare cuts - on the face of it popular but long-term impact is the message that Conservatives = Nasty party.
Now what message has Labour been making loud and clear? They don't like people inheriting significant sums of money. McDonnell saying system isn't right that Cameron can get £200k from his Mum tax free.
How many people are now thinking - maybe only sub-consciously - "My Mum and Dad own a house worth £300k+ ......... Labour doesn't want me to be able to inherit it ........ they want to tax it".
Self-interest is very, very powerful. And the point about this sort of thing is that it's life changing amounts of money. If people think Labour will stop them getting their parents house that is an unbelievably damaging message for Labour to send out.
And we're not talking about millionaires here (even though Cameron's parents were) - the figures in the headlines are the £300k and £200k he has received. Those are the sums people will be thinking about.
Check the comments on the BBC web article re Cameron's finances - all the most popular are very critical of the whole fuss being made - saying it's just envy.
We've learnt before - be very careful - first impressions are often wrong.
0 -
The problem with this is that tax returns tell us what people HAVE paid tax on, in other words the bits which are above board and we don't need to worry about. They won't contain anything about dodgy shell companies, interesting trusts and cunning loan vehicles, not a single breathe. Any member of the filthy-rich whose accountant is worth his calculator won't appear by name on any other the questionable structures, that will all be handled by a set of nominees, who in the grand tradition of most of the tax haven will not have to be declared or reported.The_Apocalypse said:
Well I did seek out information on the matter (and my mum's work is related to taxes, salaries etc so I thought she'd be a good source on the matter).
As for discriminating against people with tax returns: well those in positions in power in society are likely to be amongst those who have the kind of 'tax arrangements' revealed in the Panama papers. Given that these are the same people who have been telling us there is 'no money left' and arguing that many sections of society should bare the burden of cuts, I don't feel guilty about expecting transparency from those people regarding their tax affairs.
The problem with secrets, is they are secret, and in this case secret in another country that makes a lot of money out of keeping it that way.
0 -
Is that the right one? I thought that was already known (and come to think of it, didn't Number Ten have previous form for Levenson-related intimidation of papers?). I got the impression Francis Urquhart meant something else (not the injunction pair either). It would be a lot easier if we could return to the days of having only one scandal at a time.hunchman said:
Quite right, he's really doing his nut on twitter today!Speedy said:
True, I guessed correctly in the game of charades.hunchman said:Plenty of spreading around the Twitter sphere of the scandal mentioned by @FrancisUrquhart ..........
But I would have seen it sooner if only I was a major fan of Monty Python and become more of a cynic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvVPdyYeaQU0 -
'Honk to' = hope you...Mortimer said:
I honk to fully appreciate the crass generalisations you are making you need to read up about:The_Apocalypse said:
Firstly, I did not say people in power are likely to have offshore involvement. I said those in positions of power in society are likely to among those who have dodgy tax arrangements. Secondly, I don't see how this is a dodgy assumption. Those in positions of power are likely to have the income required to pay accountants in order to devise these kinds of tax schemes. How many ordinary people have money to pay accountants to organise their tax affairs? Secondly, how is concealing your wealth in an offshore account not 'inherently bad'? And thirdly, how it is a dodgy assumption that those in the press are pro-austerity? Most of the best-selling papers in this country support the government's narrative on austerity. And I don't get your fourth point. It's more about the hypocrisy of certain newspapers arguing that the public should be the recipients of cuts, if they themselves are avoiding tax.Mortimer said:
So let me get this right - cos I am a little baffled by the amount of conclusions to which you're jumping. People in power are more likely to have offshore involvement (dodgy assumption 1), these are somehow inherently bad (as suggested by your 'tax arrangements' comment, despite your not understanding how taxes work - dodgy assumption 2), the same people are more likely be pro austerity (dodgy assumption 3), and that tax return publication changes any of those things (dodgy assumption 4).
So you want to revoke a commonly accepted notion of tax privacy, one of the foundations of Anglo-Saxon liberalism, because of several dodgy assumptions?
- how the tax system is administer for non PAYE individuals
- what offshore investments are - as a clue, they're not necessarily dodgy. Your current generalisation is about as broad brush as saying anyone with cash must be dodgy, because some people get paid cash in hand
- the media and it's main function - clue, it is about selling newspapers and advertising
And then, in order to get my fourth point, it might be worth thinking about how you think mandating people to publish their tax returns would change anything....0 -
Quite funny last night at the Masters that the commentators mentioned the possibility of a frost overnight in Georgia in nearly mid-April. NE USA been very cold the past few days, not as though you would have known it from the MSM:FrancisUrquhart said:
What not global warming is destroying .... ?TCPoliticalBetting said:FFS I turn on BBC1 Countryfile for a programme about country issues that as a townie i may not be aware of and part way through we now have a section about the Archers domestic abuse storyline....
http://iceagenow.info/hard-freeze-expected-weekend/
And its going to have an effect on food prices in due course. I remember well when I was called a climate denier on here nearly 10 years ago, funny to see where those AGW proponents have literally melted away these days!0 -
Gah! Think to!!!Mortimer said:
'Honk to' = hope you...Mortimer said:
I honk to fully appreciate the crass generalisations you are making you need to read up about:The_Apocalypse said:
Firstly, I did not say people in power are likely to have offshore involvement. I said those in positions of power in society are likely to among those who have dodgy tax arrangements. Secondly, I don't see how this is a dodgy assumption. Those in positions of power are likely to have the income required to pay accountants in order to devise these kinds of tax schemes. How many ordinary people have money to pay accountants to organise their tax affairs? Secondly, how is concealing your wealth in an offshore account not 'inherently bad'? And thirdly, how it is a dodgy assumption that those in the press are pro-austerity? Most of the best-selling papers in this country support the government's narrative on austerity. And I don't get your fourth point. It's more about the hypocrisy of certain newspapers arguing that the public should be the recipients of cuts, if they themselves are avoiding tax.Mortimer said:
So let me get this right - cos I am a little baffled by the amount of conclusions to which you're jumping. People in power are more likely to have offshore involvement (dodgy assumption 1), these are somehow inherently bad (as suggested by your 'tax arrangements' comment, despite your not understanding how taxes work - dodgy assumption 2), the same people are more likely be pro austerity (dodgy assumption 3), and that tax return publication changes any of those things (dodgy assumption 4).
So you want to revoke a commonly accepted notion of tax privacy, one of the foundations of Anglo-Saxon liberalism, because of several dodgy assumptions?
- how the tax system is administer for non PAYE individuals
- what offshore investments are - as a clue, they're not necessarily dodgy. Your current generalisation is about as broad brush as saying anyone with cash must be dodgy, because some people get paid cash in hand
- the media and it's main function - clue, it is about selling newspapers and advertising
And then, in order to get my fourth point, it might be worth thinking about how you think mandating people to publish their tax returns would change anything....0 -
You could well be right. After the 1992 election, Ken Livingstone spoke about the party pitching sums too low for Londoners' aspirations.MikeL said:Short-term - terrible week for Cameron, his ratings will plummet.
Long-term - has Labour done a big own goal?
Contrast with welfare cuts - on the face of it popular but long-term impact is the message that Conservatives = Nasty party.
Now what message has Labour been making loud and clear? They don't like people inheriting significant sums of money. McDonnell saying system isn't right that Cameron can get £200k from his Mum tax free.
How many people are now thinking - maybe only sub-consciously - "My Mum and Dad own a house worth £300k+ ......... Labour doesn't want me to be able to inherit it ........ they want to tax it".
Self-interest is very, very powerful. And the point about this sort of thing is that it's life changing amounts of money. If people think Labour will stop them getting their parents house that is an unbelievably damaging message for Labour to send out.
And we're not talking about millionaires here (even though Cameron's parents were) - the figures in the headlines are the £300k and £200k he has received. Those are the sums people will be thinking about.
Check the comments on the BBC web article re Cameron's finances - all the most popular are very critical of the whole fuss being made - saying it's just envy.
We've learnt before - be very careful - first impressions are often wrong.0 -
Very good point.MikeL said:How many people are now thinking - maybe only sub-consciously - "My Mum and Dad own a house worth £300k+ ......... Labour doesn't want me to be able to inherit it ........ they want to tax it".
Self-interest is very, very powerful. And the point about this sort of thing is that it's life changing amounts of money. If people think Labour will stop them getting their parents house that is an unbelievably damaging message for Labour to send out.
And we're not talking about millionaires here (even though Cameron's parents were) - the figures in the headlines are the £300k and £200k he has received. Those are the sums people will be thinking about.
Labour learned nothing from the "mansion tax", the vast vast majority of voters have no chance of owning a property that would be caught by the mansion tax, and yet it was monstrously unpopular with everyone who remotely had a job and the slightest hint of aspiration. Labour consistent fail to appreciate:
a) Quite a lot of very ordinary voters have dreams of making it big, or at least considerably bigger. They dont like the idea that having just had a big leg up in life that the taxman is going to help himself to a big chunk of it
b) Possibly more powerfully, they don't trust governments in any sort of times, never mind the austere times we live in now, not to broaden the base on which that tax applies and so bring the into its reach when on the face of it, they are safe.
Both these points apply in spades to McDonnell and Corbyn sucking their teeth about £200,000 inheritances. Its also why Osborne is playing with fire kicking soletrader BLT operators.0 -
All this appears to be the logic behind Polly's conversion to IHT being scrapped...well put in slightly more condescending terms that make it sound like the plebs just won't listen and learn, so why bother, give them what they want.Indigo said:
Very good point.MikeL said:How many people are now thinking - maybe only sub-consciously - "My Mum and Dad own a house worth £300k+ ......... Labour doesn't want me to be able to inherit it ........ they want to tax it".
Self-interest is very, very powerful. And the point about this sort of thing is that it's life changing amounts of money. If people think Labour will stop them getting their parents house that is an unbelievably damaging message for Labour to send out.
And we're not talking about millionaires here (even though Cameron's parents were) - the figures in the headlines are the £300k and £200k he has received. Those are the sums people will be thinking about.
Labour learned nothing from the "mansion tax", the vast vast majority of voters have no chance of owning a property that would be caught by the mansion tax, and yet it was monstrously unpopular with everyone who remotely had a job and the slightest hint of aspiration. Labour consistent fail to appreciate:
a) Quite a lot of very ordinary voters have dreams of making it big, or at least considerably bigger. They dont like the idea that having just had a big leg up in life that the taxman is going to help himself to a big chunk of it
b) Possibly more powerfully, they don't trust governments in any sort of times, never mind the austere times we live in now, not to broaden the base on which that tax applies and so bring the into its reach when on the face of it, they are safe.
Both these points apply in spades to McDonnell and Corbyn sucking their teeth about £200,000 inheritances. Its also why Osborne is playing with fire kicking soletrader BLT operators.0 -
Agreed. In fact, knee jerk reactions are invariably wrong.MikeL said:Short-term - terrible week for Cameron, his ratings will plummet.
Long-term - has Labour done a big own goal?
Contrast with welfare cuts - on the face of it popular but long-term impact is the message that Conservatives = Nasty party.
Now what message has Labour been making loud and clear? They don't like people inheriting significant sums of money. McDonnell saying system isn't right that Cameron can get £200k from his Mum tax free.
How many people are now thinking - maybe only sub-consciously - "My Mum and Dad own a house worth £300k+ ......... Labour doesn't want me to be able to inherit it ........ they want to tax it".
Self-interest is very, very powerful. And the point about this sort of thing is that it's life changing amounts of money. If people think Labour will stop them getting their parents house that is an unbelievably damaging message for Labour to send out.
And we're not talking about millionaires here (even though Cameron's parents were) - the figures in the headlines are the £300k and £200k he has received. Those are the sums people will be thinking about.
Check the comments on the BBC web article re Cameron's finances - all the most popular are very critical of the whole fuss being made - saying it's just envy.
We've learnt before - be very careful - first impressions are often wrong.
Imagine if Cameron had released the full story on Monday - he'd probably be seeing s boost by now. My anecdotal experience in a room of about 300 mostly non political post 45 year olds today; he did nothing wrong and is being hounded. I heard someone call for Corbyn to resign for wrongly calling for Cameron's resignation.0 -
in the second part it went off about cuts in govt spending on support for victims with "80% have had cuts". Was it a 1% cut to 8 in 10 of them or what...? No details or context of course.FrancisUrquhart said:
What not global warming is destroying .... ?TCPoliticalBetting said:FFS I turn on BBC1 Countryfile for a programme about country issues that as a townie i may not be aware of and part way through we now have a section about the Archers domestic abuse storyline....
0 -
Aspiration is great. But when the tax system makes it more advantageous for BTL landlords than private individuals to own a house, one form of aspiration tramples (running a business) on a far more significant one (home ownership).Indigo said:
Very good point.MikeL said:How many people are now thinking - maybe only sub-consciously - "My Mum and Dad own a house worth £300k+ ......... Labour doesn't want me to be able to inherit it ........ they want to tax it".
Self-interest is very, very powerful. And the point about this sort of thing is that it's life changing amounts of money. If people think Labour will stop them getting their parents house that is an unbelievably damaging message for Labour to send out.
And we're not talking about millionaires here (even though Cameron's parents were) - the figures in the headlines are the £300k and £200k he has received. Those are the sums people will be thinking about.
Labour learned nothing from the "mansion tax", the vast vast majority of voters have no chance of owning a property that would be caught by the mansion tax, and yet it was monstrously unpopular with everyone who remotely had a job and the slightest hint of aspiration. Labour consistent fail to appreciate:
a) Quite a lot of very ordinary voters have dreams of making it big, or at least considerably bigger. They dont like the idea that having just had a big leg up in life that the taxman is going to help himself to a big chunk of it
b) Possibly more powerfully, they don't trust governments in any sort of times, never mind the austere times we live in now, not to broaden the base on which that tax applies and so bring the into its reach when on the face of it, they are safe.
Both these points apply in spades to McDonnell and Corbyn sucking their teeth about £200,000 inheritances. Its also why Osborne is playing with fire kicking soletrader BLT operators.
In short, there are more people who want to own a home than want to be a BTL landlord...0 -
What he should have done...dump the data and also organize the outriders to flood the media with quotes all singing from the same hymn sheet i.e. all taxes paid, boring "disturbed" Unit Trust, just like most people pension funds invest in and which isn't "tax efficient", got rid of all investment prior to PM so no conflict of interest.Mortimer said:
Agreed. In fact, knee jerk reactions are invariably wrong.MikeL said:Short-term - terrible week for Cameron, his ratings will plummet.
Long-term - has Labour done a big own goal?
Contrast with welfare cuts - on the face of it popular but long-term impact is the message that Conservatives = Nasty party.
Now what message has Labour been making loud and clear? They don't like people inheriting significant sums of money. McDonnell saying system isn't right that Cameron can get £200k from his Mum tax free.
How many people are now thinking - maybe only sub-consciously - "My Mum and Dad own a house worth £300k+ ......... Labour doesn't want me to be able to inherit it ........ they want to tax it".
Self-interest is very, very powerful. And the point about this sort of thing is that it's life changing amounts of money. If people think Labour will stop them getting their parents house that is an unbelievably damaging message for Labour to send out.
And we're not talking about millionaires here (even though Cameron's parents were) - the figures in the headlines are the £300k and £200k he has received. Those are the sums people will be thinking about.
Check the comments on the BBC web article re Cameron's finances - all the most popular are very critical of the whole fuss being made - saying it's just envy.
We've learnt before - be very careful - first impressions are often wrong.
Imagine if Cameron had released the full story on Monday - he'd probably be seeing s boost by now. My anecdotal experience in a room of about 300 mostly non political post 45 year olds today; he did nothing wrong and is being hounded. I heard someone call for Corbyn to resign for wrongly calling for Cameron's resignation.
New Labour were really the masters at this. Have a consistent message, hammer it relentlessly and especially highlight any slip up in the reporting.0 -
Maybe, but on this I don't think so personally. The message is in - Cameron is a cheat (if not stated in so many words). It is nonsense, but it feels like one of those things where people will think he has done something worse than he has, so when they want to do the same, they don't think it is the same.MikeL said:Short-term - terrible week for Cameron, his ratings will plummet.
Long-term - has Labour done a big own goal?
Contrast with welfare cuts - on the face of it popular but long-term impact is the message that Conservatives = Nasty party.
Now what message has Labour been making loud and clear? They don't like people inheriting significant sums of money. McDonnell saying system isn't right that Cameron can get £200k from his Mum tax free.
How many people are now thinking - maybe only sub-consciously - "My Mum and Dad own a house worth £300k+ ......... Labour doesn't want me to be able to inherit it ........ they want to tax it".
Self-interest is very, very powerful. And the point about this sort of thing is that it's life changing amounts of money. If people think Labour will stop them getting their parents house that is an unbelievably damaging message for Labour to send out.
And we're not talking about millionaires here (even though Cameron's parents were) - the figures in the headlines are the £300k and £200k he has received. Those are the sums people will be thinking about.
Check the comments on the BBC web article re Cameron's finances - all the most popular are very critical of the whole fuss being made - saying it's just envy.
We've learnt before - be very careful - first impressions are often wrong.0 -
Someone running a sandwich shop?Indigo said:
soletrader BLT operators.MikeL said:How many people are now thinking - maybe only sub-consciously - "My Mum and Dad own a house worth £300k+ ......... Labour doesn't want me to be able to inherit it ........ they want to tax it".
Self-interest is very, very powerful. And the point about this sort of thing is that it's life changing amounts of money. If people think Labour will stop them getting their parents house that is an unbelievably damaging message for Labour to send out.
And we're not talking about millionaires here (even though Cameron's parents were) - the figures in the headlines are the £300k and £200k he has received. Those are the sums people will be thinking about.0 -
And yet he did nothing that will bother large BLT landlords in the slightest, since they self finance and don't have to get mortgages. To the C1 construction worker doing up a little BLT on the side for his retirement, that is going to look like kicking him whilst cosying up to big business.Mortimer said:Aspiration is great. But when the tax system makes it more advantageous for BTL landlords than private individuals to own a house, one form of aspiration tramples (running a business) on a far more significant one (home ownership).
In short, there are more people who want to own a home than want to be a BTL landlord...
0 -
Been across the rail bridge next to the road bridge on the way to Liverpool.JosiasJessop said:
When you're walking the coast and not taking ferries, then Runcorn is hard to avoid.0 -
Them as wellSandyRentool said:
Someone running a sandwich shop?Indigo said:
soletrader BLT operators.MikeL said:How many people are now thinking - maybe only sub-consciously - "My Mum and Dad own a house worth £300k+ ......... Labour doesn't want me to be able to inherit it ........ they want to tax it".
Self-interest is very, very powerful. And the point about this sort of thing is that it's life changing amounts of money. If people think Labour will stop them getting their parents house that is an unbelievably damaging message for Labour to send out.
And we're not talking about millionaires here (even though Cameron's parents were) - the figures in the headlines are the £300k and £200k he has received. Those are the sums people will be thinking about.
Possibly a BLT in a BTL.0 -
Very few people aspire to be a Ltd company landlord.Indigo said:
And yet he did nothing that will bother large BLT landlords in the slightest, since they self finance and don't have to get mortgages. To the C1 construction worker doing up a little BLT on the side for his retirement, that is going to look like kicking him whilst cosying up to big business.Mortimer said:Aspiration is great. But when the tax system makes it more advantageous for BTL landlords than private individuals to own a house, one form of aspiration tramples (running a business) on a far more significant one (home ownership).
In short, there are more people who want to own a home than want to be a BTL landlord...
More people want to own their own home.
I really don't understand the objection to changing details re BTL landlords - I'm no longer an Osborne fan, but this was a good example of where nudging through legislation will work. Changing company regulations to prevent Ltd company landlords would have more negative effects than were acceptable to this economy.
0 -
Agreed. And to be fair to No. 10 they can be quite disciplined at times; my theory is that internals are showing that Remain certainty to vote is very, very soft. And there is a consequent huge panic which is stripping away the sensible oil from the machinery of govt.FrancisUrquhart said:
What he should have done...dump the data and also organize the outriders to flood the media with quotes all singing from the same hymn sheet i.e. all taxes paid, boring "disturbed" Unit Trust, just like most people pension funds invest in and which isn't "tax efficient", got rid of all investment prior to PM so no conflict of interest.Mortimer said:
Agreed. In fact, knee jerk reactions are invariably wrong.MikeL said:Short-term - terrible week for Cameron, his ratings will plummet.
Long-term - has Labour done a big own goal?
Contrast with welfare cuts - on the face of it popular but long-term impact is the message that Conservatives = Nasty party.
Now what message has Labour been making loud and clear? They don't like people inheriting significant sums of money. McDonnell saying system isn't right that Cameron can get £200k from his Mum tax free.
How many people are now thinking - maybe only sub-consciously - "My Mum and Dad own a house worth £300k+ ......... Labour doesn't want me to be able to inherit it ........ they want to tax it".
Self-interest is very, very powerful. And the point about this sort of thing is that it's life changing amounts of money. If people think Labour will stop them getting their parents house that is an unbelievably damaging message for Labour to send out.
And we're not talking about millionaires here (even though Cameron's parents were) - the figures in the headlines are the £300k and £200k he has received. Those are the sums people will be thinking about.
Check the comments on the BBC web article re Cameron's finances - all the most popular are very critical of the whole fuss being made - saying it's just envy.
We've learnt before - be very careful - first impressions are often wrong.
Imagine if Cameron had released the full story on Monday - he'd probably be seeing s boost by now. My anecdotal experience in a room of about 300 mostly non political post 45 year olds today; he did nothing wrong and is being hounded. I heard someone call for Corbyn to resign for wrongly calling for Cameron's resignation.
New Labour were really the masters at this. Have a consistent message, hammer it relentlessly and especially highlight any slip up in the reporting.
Only way I can rationalise the idiotic government and leadership political decisions of the past few months...0 -
Anecdote: BTL is pretty much the standard mode of operation here in the Philippines, substantially less than a quarter of the population has the sort of job you could use as the basis for raising a mortgage, consequently almost everyone rents. There is no social housing to speak of, and interest rates in banks are as unexciting here as they are anywhere else. Culturally people are extremely risk averse with their money, even if they are lucky enough to have a bit to spare, so an upper middle class couple typically buys a little house of two and rents it out for an income, because its steady money with minimal risk, and they have the asset to sell if times get hard.0
-
My mum was raised in Derbyshire / Staffordshire, has no memories of Liverpool, and doesn't think she ever lived there - and she was born mid-war. I've no idea if grandma worked there before or after that. Oddly, grandma did not come from the area, so I've no idea how she ended up there.RodCrosby said:
Amazing how in the otherwise admirable film, Kenneth More and co. are shown emerging into the London sunlight after their mammoth effort to Sink the Bismarck!.JosiasJessop said:
Sadly my grandma suffered dementia from when I was a child, and died a couple of decades ago. I didn't really know her, and there are many stories she could undoubtedly have told me. I know much more about my father's family's wartime experiences. There are photographs of grandma in uniform though.
Of course, it actually took place in Liverpool in the Western Approaches bunker...
Maybe your grannie was involved?
I'll try and find out more of what mum knows tomorrow. She has said that her grandma once told her of working through absolute terror during one particular raid, and of friends being killed. For various reasons I always thought it was Southampton: I was confusing my dad's family and my mum's.
Our family is blessed: we had people fighting in both world wars, and lost no-one. My uncle was sent to Korea. AFAICR he was sent for specialist training, and he was ready for duty a few days or so after the armistice.
I have no intention of joining the military and further testing this lucky streak ...0 -
It was reported in January 2016 that a section of the road would need to undergo a series of repair works during the evenings of a three week period, just 5 months after opening to traffic.[12]RodCrosby said:
There are many ways into Liverpool, and that is not the one I'd normally choose. For the Sefton Coast, go M62/M57 (and there's a new A5758 that's opened, shortening the journey by another 5 mins)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A5758_road0 -
RE offshore involvement I mentioned it in relation to the kind of tax arrangements seen in the Panama papers. Which from what I've read on, are pretty much dodgy. And on how the public have responded to Cameron: well his poll ratings have taken a dive, which says that he hasn't come out of this looking too great to the public. Although they will most likely forget about in it a few weeks.Mortimer said:
I honk to fully appreciate the crass generalisations you are making you need to read up about:The_Apocalypse said:
Firstly, I did not say people in power are likely to have offshore involvement. I said those in positions of power in society are likely to among those who have dodgy tax arrangements. Secondly, I don't see how this is a dodgy assumption. Those in positions of power are likely to have the income required to pay accountants in order to devise these kinds of tax schemes. How many ordinary people have money to pay accountants to organise their tax affairs? Secondly, how is concealing your wealth in an offshore account not 'inherently bad'? And thirdly, how it is a dodgy assumption that those in the press are pro-austerity? Most of the best-selling papers in this country support the government's narrative on austerity. And I don't get your fourth point. It's more about the hypocrisy of certain newspapers arguing that the public should be the recipients of cuts, if they themselves are avoiding tax.Mortimer said:
So let me get this right - cos I am a little baffled by the amount of conclusions to which you're jumping. People in power are more likely to have offshore involvement (dodgy assumption 1), these are somehow inherently bad (as suggested by your 'tax arrangements' comment, despite your not understanding how taxes work - dodgy assumption 2), the same people are more likely be pro austerity (dodgy assumption 3), and that tax return publication changes any of those things (dodgy assumption 4).
So you want to revoke a commonly accepted notion of tax privacy, one of the foundations of Anglo-Saxon liberalism, because of several dodgy assumptions?
- how the tax system is administer for non PAYE individuals
- what offshore investments are - as a clue, they're not necessarily dodgy. Your current generalisation is about as broad brush as saying anyone with cash must be dodgy, because some people get paid cash in hand
- the media and it's main function - clue, it is about selling newspapers and advertising
And then, in order to get my fourth point, it might be worth thinking about how you think mandating people to publish their tax returns would change anything....
0 -
Because lots of very ordinary people bought one or two extra properties as they moved on in life, usually by renting out the house they used to live in when they trade up to a better house. They often are banking on this for their retirement, then along comes Osborne and makes it so they can't claim most of the mortgage interest as an expense, which in most cases will have wiped out their business model and forced the to sell. Meanwhile Fatcat Properties Inc couldnt give a toss because they self finance their properties and don't have to worry about mortgage expenses and reliefs. It looks like one rule for Mr & Mrs Average and one for Osborne's fat cat mates. It might not actually be true but is spectacularly poor optics.Mortimer said:
Very few people aspire to be a Ltd company landlord.Indigo said:
And yet he did nothing that will bother large BLT landlords in the slightest, since they self finance and don't have to get mortgages. To the C1 construction worker doing up a little BLT on the side for his retirement, that is going to look like kicking him whilst cosying up to big business.Mortimer said:Aspiration is great. But when the tax system makes it more advantageous for BTL landlords than private individuals to own a house, one form of aspiration tramples (running a business) on a far more significant one (home ownership).
In short, there are more people who want to own a home than want to be a BTL landlord...
More people want to own their own home.
I really don't understand the objection to changing details re BTL landlords - I'm no longer an Osborne fan, but this was a good example of where nudging through legislation will work. Changing company regulations to prevent Ltd company landlords would have more negative effects than were acceptable to this economy.0 -
It's an interesting area for bridges. There used to be a transporter bridge across the Mersey:Sunil_Prasannan said:
Been across the rail bridge next to the road bridge on the way to Liverpool.JosiasJessop said:
When you're walking the coast and not taking ferries, then Runcorn is hard to avoid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widnes-Runcorn_Transporter_Bridge
Which was replaced by this rather glorious arch bridge:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Jubilee_Bridge
In comparison the railway bridge is rather unspectacular, even if it was a massive achievement when it was built.
The walk from the bridge into Liverpool, squeezing through estuarine mud past Liverpool airport, is p*ss-poor. Except for the tall man of Hale:
http://www.thetallestman.com/johnmiddleton.htm0 -
So basically, nothing much is likely to change out of this whole Panama papers saga? Well that's depressing....Indigo said:
The problem with this is that tax returns tell us what people HAVE paid tax on, in other words the bits which are above board and we don't need to worry about. They won't contain anything about dodgy shell companies, interesting trusts and cunning loan vehicles, not a single breathe. Any member of the filthy-rich whose accountant is worth his calculator won't appear by name on any other the questionable structures, that will all be handled by a set of nominees, who in the grand tradition of most of the tax haven will not have to be declared or reported.The_Apocalypse said:
Well I did seek out information on the matter (and my mum's work is related to taxes, salaries etc so I thought she'd be a good source on the matter).
As for discriminating against people with tax returns: well those in positions in power in society are likely to be amongst those who have the kind of 'tax arrangements' revealed in the Panama papers. Given that these are the same people who have been telling us there is 'no money left' and arguing that many sections of society should bare the burden of cuts, I don't feel guilty about expecting transparency from those people regarding their tax affairs.
The problem with secrets, is they are secret, and in this case secret in another country that makes a lot of money out of keeping it that way.0 -
Nah - you're ignoring the optics of supporting Mr and Mrs Average-but-with-3-houses whilst a large number of Tory voters, especially in marginals, do not have houses.Indigo said:
Because lots of very ordinary people bought one or two extra properties as they moved on in life, usually by renting out the house they used to live in when they trade up to a better house. They often are banking on this for their retirement, then along comes Osborne and makes it so they can't claim most of the mortgage interest as an expense, which in most cases will have wiped out their business model and forced the to sell. Meanwhile Fatcat Properties Inc couldnt give a toss because they self finance their properties and don't have to worry about mortgage expenses and reliefs. It looks like one rule for Mr & Mrs Average and one for Osborne's fat cat mates. It might not actually be true but is spectacularly poor optics.Mortimer said:
Very few people aspire to be a Ltd company landlord.Indigo said:
And yet he did nothing that will bother large BLT landlords in the slightest, since they self finance and don't have to get mortgages. To the C1 construction worker doing up a little BLT on the side for his retirement, that is going to look like kicking him whilst cosying up to big business.Mortimer said:Aspiration is great. But when the tax system makes it more advantageous for BTL landlords than private individuals to own a house, one form of aspiration tramples (running a business) on a far more significant one (home ownership).
In short, there are more people who want to own a home than want to be a BTL landlord...
More people want to own their own home.
I really don't understand the objection to changing details re BTL landlords - I'm no longer an Osborne fan, but this was a good example of where nudging through legislation will work. Changing company regulations to prevent Ltd company landlords would have more negative effects than were acceptable to this economy.
You're also, I suspect, wrong in assuming BTL landlords are either a) C1 construction workers b)heavily mortgaged on their properties and c) up in arms about this.
I know about 5 or 6 BTL landlords. They're all A1 professionals earning, or retired from jobs which paid over 100k. The can't believe they got away with the wheeze for so long.0 -
Almost nothing. Panama is only 12th in the list of tax havens. The USA is 3rd, and there isn't the faintest chance of persuading them to change anything.The_Apocalypse said:
So basically, nothing much is likely to change out of this whole Panama papers saga? Well that's depressing....Indigo said:
The problem with this is that tax returns tell us what people HAVE paid tax on, in other words the bits which are above board and we don't need to worry about. They won't contain anything about dodgy shell companies, interesting trusts and cunning loan vehicles, not a single breathe. Any member of the filthy-rich whose accountant is worth his calculator won't appear by name on any other the questionable structures, that will all be handled by a set of nominees, who in the grand tradition of most of the tax haven will not have to be declared or reported.The_Apocalypse said:
Well I did seek out information on the matter (and my mum's work is related to taxes, salaries etc so I thought she'd be a good source on the matter).
As for discriminating against people with tax returns: well those in positions in power in society are likely to be amongst those who have the kind of 'tax arrangements' revealed in the Panama papers. Given that these are the same people who have been telling us there is 'no money left' and arguing that many sections of society should bare the burden of cuts, I don't feel guilty about expecting transparency from those people regarding their tax affairs.
The problem with secrets, is they are secret, and in this case secret in another country that makes a lot of money out of keeping it that way.
Check this out
http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21571554-some-onshore-jurisdictions-can-be-laxer-offshore-sort-not-palm-tree-sight0 -
I am not a Corbyn supporter so have no idea what the point of your little rant is.Indigo said:
Where as pandering to the preferences of say, a anti-British terrorist-apologising magic money tree marxist is completely acceptable, and in fact signed up another 600,000 members, getting the other 30 million to support it might be a bit more tricky of course.OllyT said:
I agree that nobody needs to sneer at them but equally nobody needs to pander to their prejudices either.Sean_F said:
Clacton's a pretty average, unexceptional, bit of Middle England. If the Tories think their future depends on sneering at people who live in such places - well, they won't have a future.Stark_Dawning said:
Quite right Roger. Parris likes living amongst rich, beautiful, intelligent and successful people. Sorry, but you ain't going to find much of that in Clacton. No surprise that the place isn't his cup of tea. Does anyone on PB actually live there, or are they planning to move there or anywhere similar? If not then it's safe to assume - whether we admit it or not - that we share many of Parris's predilections.Roger said:
Actually from memory his argument was more nuanced than that. He was saying that as we become more tolerant as a society and more people have a university education residents like those in Clacton will get left behind. So the Tories should not pander to their prejudices but leave them to Ukip and wait for evolution to do its jobSean_F said:
I think Parris thinks that the inhabitants of Clacton are the most ghastly oiks who had to pay for their own furniture, and who shop at Marks & Spencer.Stark_Dawning said:
I think Parris had the level of the people of Clacton - they did elect Carswell after all. (And I suspect these days Nigel feels the same.)Indigo said:
I hope not, unless the voice of moderate toryism is supercilious sneering at the people of Clacton, and suggesting that they party should abandon the third of the electorate that wasn't receptive to right-on modern nostrums and move forward into the new progressive future. Yuck.Stark_Dawning said:Say what you like about Matthew Parris, but he's the voice of a certain strand of moderate Toryism. The man has a following. His philippic against Johnson might prove deadly. I'm convinced to this day that it was a withering article that Parris wrote in 2003 that did for IDS.
0 -
Perhaps he felt that dumping the data was a bad thing to do for reasons of privacy and precedence?FrancisUrquhart said:What he should have done...dump the data and also organize the outriders to flood the media with quotes all singing from the same hymn sheet i.e. all taxes paid, boring "disturbed" Unit Trust, just like most people pension funds invest in and which isn't "tax efficient", got rid of all investment prior to PM so no conflict of interest.
New Labour were really the masters at this. Have a consistent message, hammer it relentlessly and especially highlight any slip up in the reporting.
After all the Blairs did not release their tax records when there was the little Foster / Chaplin property scandal. How long ago that seems ...0 -
The main BTL landlord of my acquaintance is a long distance lorry driver, his wife is a cashier at a supermarket, they now have four properties mostly by working their butts off most evenings and weekend renovating rather down a heel properties and renting them out. No they are not terrible happy about the changes.Mortimer said:
Nah - you're ignoring the optics of supporting Mr and Mrs Average-but-with-3-houses whilst a large number of Tory voters, especially in marginals, do not have houses.Indigo said:
Because lots of very ordinary people bought one or two extra properties as they moved on in life, usually by renting out the house they used to live in when they trade up to a better house. They often are banking on this for their retirement, then along comes Osborne and makes it so they can't claim most of the mortgage interest as an expense, which in most cases will have wiped out their business model and forced the to sell. Meanwhile Fatcat Properties Inc couldnt give a toss because they self finance their properties and don't have to worry about mortgage expenses and reliefs. It looks like one rule for Mr & Mrs Average and one for Osborne's fat cat mates. It might not actually be true but is spectacularly poor optics.Mortimer said:
Very few people aspire to be a Ltd company landlord.Indigo said:
And yet he did nothing that will bother large BLT landlords in the slightest, since they self finance and don't have to get mortgages. To the C1 construction worker doing up a little BLT on the side for his retirement, that is going to look like kicking him whilst cosying up to big business.Mortimer said:Aspiration is great. But when the tax system makes it more advantageous for BTL landlords than private individuals to own a house, one form of aspiration tramples (running a business) on a far more significant one (home ownership).
In short, there are more people who want to own a home than want to be a BTL landlord...
More people want to own their own home.
I really don't understand the objection to changing details re BTL landlords - I'm no longer an Osborne fan, but this was a good example of where nudging through legislation will work. Changing company regulations to prevent Ltd company landlords would have more negative effects than were acceptable to this economy.
You're also, I suspect, wrong in assuming BTL landlords are either a) C1 construction workers b)heavily mortgaged on their properties and c) up in arms about this.
I know about 5 or 6 BTL landlords. They're all A1 professionals earning, or retired from jobs which paid over 100k. The can't believe they got away with the wheeze for so long.0 -
So the media is so focused on shaping public opinion to benefit the wealthy that it has given you an entirely mistaken impression, to the detriment of the establishment, of how widespread offshore investments are? You're chasing your tail a bit here. Is it not more likely that you're just a bit cynical about people with money or power and failing to fully understand the dwindling state of our media industry and how the tax and investment system works in this country?The_Apocalypse said:
RE offshore involvement I mentioned it in relation to the kind of tax arrangements seen in the Panama papers. Which from what I've read on, are pretty much dodgy. And on how the public have responded to Cameron: well his poll ratings have taken a dive, which says that he hasn't come out of this looking too great to the public. Although they will most likely forget about in it a few weeks.Mortimer said:
I honk to fully appreciate the crass generalisations you are making you need to read up about:The_Apocalypse said:
Firstly, I did not say people in power are likely to have offshore involvement. I said those in positions of power in society are likely to among those who have dodgy tax arrangements. Secondly, I don't see how this is a dodgy assumption. Those in positions of power are likely to have the income required to pay accountants in order to devise these kinds of tax schemes. How many ordinary people have money to pay accountants to organise their tax affairs? Secondly, how is concealing your wealth in an offshore account not 'inherently bad'? And thirdly, how it is a dodgy assumption that those in the press are pro-austerity? Most of the best-selling papers in this country support the government's narrative on austerity. And I don't get your fourth point. It's more about the hypocrisy of certain newspapers arguing that the public should be the recipients of cuts, if they themselves are avoiding tax.Mortimer said:
So let me get this right - cos I am a little baffled by the amount of conclusions to which you're jumping. People in power are more likely to have offshore involvement (dodgy assumption 1), these are somehow inherently bad (as suggested by your 'tax arrangements' comment...
- how the tax system is administer for non PAYE individuals
- what offshore investments are - as a clue, they're not necessarily dodgy. Your current generalisation is about as broad brush as saying anyone with cash must be dodgy, because some people get paid cash in hand
- the media and it's main function - clue, it is about selling newspapers and advertising
And then, in order to get my fourth point, it might be worth thinking about how you think mandating people to publish their tax returns would change anything....
Full disclosure - I don't have any offshore investments.0 -
Pretty dog in manger-ish.Indigo said:
The main BTL landlord of my acquaintance is a long distance lorry driver, his wife is a cashier at a supermarket, they now have four properties mostly by working their butts off most evenings and weekend renovating rather down a heel properties and renting them out. No they are not terrible happy about the changes.Mortimer said:
Nah - you're ignoring the optics of supporting Mr and Mrs Average-but-with-3-houses whilst a large number of Tory voters, especially in marginals, do not have houses.Indigo said:
Because lots of very ordinary people bought one or two extra properties as they moved on in life, usually by renting out the house they used to live in when they trade up to a better house. They often are banking on this for their retirement, then along comes Osborne and makes it so they can't claim most of the mortgage interest as an expense, which in most cases will have wiped out their business model and forced the to sell. Meanwhile Fatcat Properties Inc couldnt give a toss because they self finance their properties and don't have to worry about mortgage expenses and reliefs. It looks like one rule for Mr & Mrs Average and one for Osborne's fat cat mates. It might not actually be true but is spectacularly poor optics.Mortimer said:
..Indigo said:
...Mortimer said:Aspiration is great. But when the tax system makes it more advantageous for BTL landlords than private individuals to own a house, one form of aspiration tramples (running a business) on a far more significant one (home ownership).
In short, there are more people who want to own a home than want to be a BTL landlord...
I really don't understand the objection to changing details re BTL landlords - I'm no longer an Osborne fan, but this was a good example of where nudging through legislation will work. Changing company regulations to prevent Ltd company landlords would have more negative effects than were acceptable to this economy.
You're also, I suspect, wrong in assuming BTL landlords are either a) C1 construction workers b)heavily mortgaged on their properties and c) up in arms about this.
I know about 5 or 6 BTL landlords. They're all A1 professionals earning, or retired from jobs which paid over 100k. The can't believe they got away with the wheeze for so long.
They could sell the properties to people who do not have a house of their own and profit, presumably?
Home ownership is a public as well as a private good. Multiple home ownership is purely a private good - it should be taxed accordingly.
I do not want the UK to be a rentier economy, which by the sounds of it the Philipines is, by the time my hypothetical children grow up.0 -
They're done. Didn't notice really. Probably to do with drainage.Sunil_Prasannan said:
It was reported in January 2016 that a section of the road would need to undergo a series of repair works during the evenings of a three week period, just 5 months after opening to traffic.[12]RodCrosby said:
There are many ways into Liverpool, and that is not the one I'd normally choose. For the Sefton Coast, go M62/M57 (and there's a new A5758 that's opened, shortening the journey by another 5 mins)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A5758_road0 -
Just Horley left to do in my London Oystercard station-hopping campaign (2015-16 Boris additions). Did Gatwick back in 2010, Hertford East and Redhill back in 2011, then Ware, Rye House, St Margarets (Herts.), Merstham, Earlswood and Salfords within the last few weeks (Salfords just yesterday).
Most of the rest were visited during season 2008-2009, apart from new stations/lines opening in 2010 and 2011, and additions in 2010 (eg. Grays), and 2013 (eg. Broxbourne, Shenfield).
https://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/mappage.jpg?quality=80&strip=all&strip=all0 -
The whole thing is ridiculous anyway. There is nothing remotely "immoral" about investing offshore so long as the correct amount of tax is paid on it. Anyone with any sort of investment or savings has their money invested , probably at least partly offshore, anyway, if they think their cash is just sitting in the bank's vault they would be wrong, and in fact if their bank couldn't invest their money offshore it would be charging them a lot more for looking after it, insuring it, and keeping it safe.Mortimer said:Full disclosure - I don't have any offshore investments.
0 -
The media are focused on shaping public opinion to suit whatever agenda they may have at a given time. Which is why their attacks on Cameron are more likely about undermining Remain's biggest asset (and making a LEAVE vote more likely).Mortimer said:
So the media is so focused on shaping public opinion to benefit the wealthy that it has given you an entirely mistaken impression, to the detriment of the establishment, of how widespread offshore investments are? You're chasing your tail a bit here. Is it not more likely that you're just a bit cynical about people with money or power and failing to fully understand the dwindling state of our media industry and how the tax and investment system works in this country?
Full disclosure - I don't have any offshore investments.
@Indigo Thanks for the link. I'll read it now.0 -
The Philippines has a different problem, almost no one here can raise a mortgage, that is what tends to happen when your average pay is less than £200 a month and most positions are not salaried.Mortimer said:I do not want the UK to be a rentier economy, which by the sounds of it the Philipines is, by the time my hypothetical children grow up.
0 -
I like the turrets at the front and back!JosiasJessop said:
In comparison the [Runcorn] railway bridge is rather unspectacular, even if it was a massive achievement when it was built.
Here0 -
The media are focused on selling newspapers and advertising so that they are not the next in a long line of media failures....The_Apocalypse said:
The media are focused on shaping public opinion to suit whatever agenda they may have at a given time. Which is why their attacks on Cameron are more likely about undermining Remain's biggest asset (and making a LEAVE vote more likely).Mortimer said:
So the media is so focused on shaping public opinion to benefit the wealthy that it has given you an entirely mistaken impression, to the detriment of the establishment, of how widespread offshore investments are? You're chasing your tail a bit here. Is it not more likely that you're just a bit cynical about people with money or power and failing to fully understand the dwindling state of our media industry and how the tax and investment system works in this country?
Full disclosure - I don't have any offshore investments.
@Indigo Thanks for the link. I'll read it now.0 -
Yup.Indigo said:
The whole thing is ridiculous anyway. There is nothing remotely "immoral" about investing offshore so long as the correct amount of tax is paid on it. Anyone with any sort of investment or savings has their money invested , probably at least partly offshore, anyway, if they think their cash is just sitting in the bank's vault they would be wrong, and in fact if their bank couldn't invest their money offshore it would be charging them a lot more for looking after it, insuring it, and keeping it safe.Mortimer said:Full disclosure - I don't have any offshore investments.
Dad was an accountant - he is shocked by how tax discussion seems to be all about morality suddenly.
0 -
Indigo said:
The Philippines has a different problem, almost no one here can raise a mortgage, that is what tends to happen when your average pay is less than £200 a month and most positions are not salaried.Mortimer said:I do not want the UK to be a rentier economy, which by the sounds of it the Philipines is, by the time my hypothetical children grow up.
A common symptom of a rentier economy.Indigo said:
The Philippines has a different problem, almost no one here can raise a mortgage, that is what tends to happen when your average pay is less than £200 a month and most positions are not salaried.Mortimer said:I do not want the UK to be a rentier economy, which by the sounds of it the Philipines is, by the time my hypothetical children grow up.
Discouraging home ownership strips the already modest assets of those not in a position to own.0 -
Fair enough - but is it really only a single carriageway?RodCrosby said:
They're done. Didn't notice really. Probably to do with drainage.Sunil_Prasannan said:
It was reported in January 2016 that a section of the road would need to undergo a series of repair works during the evenings of a three week period, just 5 months after opening to traffic.[12]RodCrosby said:
There are many ways into Liverpool, and that is not the one I'd normally choose. For the Sefton Coast, go M62/M57 (and there's a new A5758 that's opened, shortening the journey by another 5 mins)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A5758_road0 -
Just loving the coverage of The Masters.
The CBS contract with Augusta National limits commercials to 4 minutes per hour.
CBS has the best commentary team in golf by far - Jim Nantz and Nick Faldo. Nantz lives in a house on the 7th tee at Pebble Beach.0 -
Demands for Maltese PM to resign in the wake of Panama tax haven scandal;
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-panama-tax-malta-idUSKCN0X70RL0 -
Yup, but easy to overtake.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Fair enough - but is it really only a single carriageway?RodCrosby said:
They're done. Didn't notice really. Probably to do with drainage.Sunil_Prasannan said:
It was reported in January 2016 that a section of the road would need to undergo a series of repair works during the evenings of a three week period, just 5 months after opening to traffic.[12]RodCrosby said:
There are many ways into Liverpool, and that is not the one I'd normally choose. For the Sefton Coast, go M62/M57 (and there's a new A5758 that's opened, shortening the journey by another 5 mins)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A5758_road0 -
I'd rather listen to those two than Peter Alliss on BBC or Monty on Sky.Tim_B said:Just loving the coverage of The Masters.
The CBS contract with Augusta National limits commercials to 4 minutes per hour.
CBS has the best commentary team in golf by far - Jim Nantz and Nick Faldo. Nantz lives in a house on the 7th tee at Pebble Beach.0 -
The preferred method rearing its head already for the oncoming storm:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-10/austria-just-announced-54-haircut-senior-creditors-first-bail-under-new-european-rul0 -
No one is discouraging anything. If people can't afford to buy a house, or raise a mortgage, and the government can't afford social housing, what do you propose? Rents are actually so low that personally the business case appears almost non-existent but it's what happens.Mortimer said:Indigo said:
The Philippines has a different problem, almost no one here can raise a mortgage, that is what tends to happen when your average pay is less than £200 a month and most positions are not salaried.Mortimer said:I do not want the UK to be a rentier economy, which by the sounds of it the Philipines is, by the time my hypothetical children grow up.
A common symptom of a rentier economy.Indigo said:
The Philippines has a different problem, almost no one here can raise a mortgage, that is what tends to happen when your average pay is less than £200 a month and most positions are not salaried.Mortimer said:I do not want the UK to be a rentier economy, which by the sounds of it the Philipines is, by the time my hypothetical children grow up.
Discouraging home ownership strips the already modest assets of those not in a position to own.0 -
There is no reason for a UK resident to deliberately invest offshore. The charges on UK based funds, fidelity, M & G etc...are zero, or extremely low. Management charges on offshore funds are invariably higher. Plus the paperwork. The returns are much of a muchness- all funds are able to invest in the same stocks.
The only reason I can fathom for someone to make a deliberate decision to invest in an offshore fund if you are a UK resident (unless you are planning to move to said territory, or are buying property there) is to fiddle your taxes. Why bother otherwise.Indigo said:
The whole thing is ridiculous anyway. There is nothing remotely "immoral" about investing offshore so long as the correct amount of tax is paid on it. Anyone with any sort of investment or savings has their money invested , probably at least partly offshore, anyway, if they think their cash is just sitting in the bank's vault they would be wrong, and in fact if their bank couldn't invest their money offshore it would be charging them a lot more for looking after it, insuring it, and keeping it safe.Mortimer said:Full disclosure - I don't have any offshore investments.
0 -
So mortgages, one of the most critical advances in human living standards in the modern age, are wrong because someone profits?John_N said:
It means they get paid to the moneylender after the landlord takes some, rather than directly to the moneylender.Mortimer said:Discouraging home ownership strips the already modest assets of those not in a position to own.
I love PB - just when I begin to start sounding a bit lefty, someone always comes along and wins Top Trumps0 -
Then it is also a very poor form of investment.Indigo said:
No one is discouraging anything. If people can't afford to buy a house, or raise a mortgage, and the government can't afford social housing, what do you propose? Rents are actually so low that personally the business case appears almost non-existent but it's what happens.Mortimer said:Indigo said:
The Philippines has a different problem, almost no one here can raise a mortgage, that is what tends to happen when your average pay is less than £200 a month and most positions are not salaried.Mortimer said:I do not want the UK to be a rentier economy, which by the sounds of it the Philipines is, by the time my hypothetical children grow up.
A common symptom of a rentier economy.Indigo said:
The Philippines has a different problem, almost no one here can raise a mortgage, that is what tends to happen when your average pay is less than £200 a month and most positions are not salaried.Mortimer said:I do not want the UK to be a rentier economy, which by the sounds of it the Philipines is, by the time my hypothetical children grow up.
Discouraging home ownership strips the already modest assets of those not in a position to own.
Rentier economies depress wages, increase inequality and relatively reap poor returns for owners because the wider economy fails to grow or mature into a consumer economy.0 -
They were going to build a bridge across the river to Birkenhead, in the 1920s, but figured (rightly) it would be too much of a strategic target in wartime, possibly leading to closure of the port if brought down.JosiasJessop said:
It's an interesting area for bridges. There used to be a transporter bridge across the Mersey:Sunil_Prasannan said:
Been across the rail bridge next to the road bridge on the way to Liverpool.JosiasJessop said:
When you're walking the coast and not taking ferries, then Runcorn is hard to avoid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widnes-Runcorn_Transporter_Bridge
Which was replaced by this rather glorious arch bridge:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Jubilee_Bridge
In comparison the railway bridge is rather unspectacular, even if it was a massive achievement when it was built.
The walk from the bridge into Liverpool, squeezing through estuarine mud past Liverpool airport, is p*ss-poor. Except for the tall man of Hale:
http://www.thetallestman.com/johnmiddleton.htm
Instead they built the world's longest subaqueous tunnel (which held that title for 29 years until someplace in Japan went 200m further). I think it possibly remains the UK's largest municipal civil engineering project...
https://asenseofplaceblog.wordpress.com/2013/11/26/wonders-of-the-world-the-mersey-tunnel/
I love the basalt statues on the Egyptian control station, representing "Night" and "Day" (the tunnel never closes)...0 -
In the 1980s I used to sit and chat with Peter Alliss over lunch (pimento cheese sandwich) in the media center at The Masters.tlg86 said:
I'd rather listen to those two than Peter Alliss on BBC or Monty on Sky.Tim_B said:Just loving the coverage of The Masters.
The CBS contract with Augusta National limits commercials to 4 minutes per hour.
CBS has the best commentary team in golf by far - Jim Nantz and Nick Faldo. Nantz lives in a house on the 7th tee at Pebble Beach.
Monty and I chat each spring at the Mitsubishi Electric Classic as he used to live in Ilkley and I used to live in Addingham, 2 miles apart. His dad used to run Fox's Biscuits.0 -
Looking at the vile mess that Labour seem to be descending into I despair for decent Labour supporters and the country.
No effective opposition or government in waiting there.
0 -
This must come as news to that well known economic basketcase Germany where around 60% of the population rent from private landlords.Mortimer said:
Then it is also a very poor form of investment.Indigo said:
No one is discouraging anything. If people can't afford to buy a house, or raise a mortgage, and the government can't afford social housing, what do you propose? Rents are actually so low that personally the business case appears almost non-existent but it's what happens.Mortimer said:Indigo said:
The Philippines has a different problem, almost no one here can raise a mortgage, that is what tends to happen when your average pay is less than £200 a month and most positions are not salaried.Mortimer said:I do not want the UK to be a rentier economy, which by the sounds of it the Philipines is, by the time my hypothetical children grow up.
A common symptom of a rentier economy.Indigo said:
The Philippines has a different problem, almost no one here can raise a mortgage, that is what tends to happen when your average pay is less than £200 a month and most positions are not salaried.Mortimer said:I do not want the UK to be a rentier economy, which by the sounds of it the Philipines is, by the time my hypothetical children grow up.
Discouraging home ownership strips the already modest assets of those not in a position to own.
Rentier economies depress wages, increase inequality and relatively reap poor returns for owners because the wider economy fails to grow or mature into a consumer economy.0 -
And we have a government descending into a farce that even a theatre would be embarrassed to show, and the country is in despair and wants change, any change.Floater said:Looking at the vile mess that Labour seem to be descending into I despair for decent Labour supporters and the country.
No effective opposition or government in waiting there.0 -
I had never even heard of a Transporter Bridge. And now I need to go to Newport to check one out!JosiasJessop said:
It's an interesting area for bridges. There used to be a transporter bridge across the Mersey:Sunil_Prasannan said:
Been across the rail bridge next to the road bridge on the way to Liverpool.JosiasJessop said:
When you're walking the coast and not taking ferries, then Runcorn is hard to avoid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widnes-Runcorn_Transporter_Bridge
Which was replaced by this rather glorious arch bridge:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Jubilee_Bridge
In comparison the railway bridge is rather unspectacular, even if it was a massive achievement when it was built.
The walk from the bridge into Liverpool, squeezing through estuarine mud past Liverpool airport, is p*ss-poor. Except for the tall man of Hale:
http://www.thetallestman.com/johnmiddleton.htm0 -
Monty was perhaps one of the most grumpy players I can remember. He moaned, grumbled and complained and swore at tournament officials and spectators. I hope that he is more charming in real life.Tim_B said:
In the 1980s I used to sit and chat with Peter Alliss over lunch (pimento cheese sandwich) in the media center at The Masters.tlg86 said:
I'd rather listen to those two than Peter Alliss on BBC or Monty on Sky.Tim_B said:Just loving the coverage of The Masters.
The CBS contract with Augusta National limits commercials to 4 minutes per hour.
CBS has the best commentary team in golf by far - Jim Nantz and Nick Faldo. Nantz lives in a house on the 7th tee at Pebble Beach.
Monty and I chat each spring at the Mitsubishi Electric Classic as he used to live in Ilkley and I used to live in Addingham, 2 miles apart. His dad used to run Fox's Biscuits.0 -
Sounds like the Republicans here. Democrats have a weak and feeble damaged candidate, but the GOP have nothing to beat her with.Floater said:Looking at the vile mess that Labour seem to be descending into I despair for decent Labour supporters and the country.
No effective opposition or government in waiting there.0 -
Am I the only person in the world who thinks that The Living Will / bank bail in rules are actually very sensible?hunchman said:The preferred method rearing its head already for the oncoming storm:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-10/austria-just-announced-54-haircut-senior-creditors-first-bail-under-new-european-rul0 -
Off-topic;
I was just reading up on the Runcorn railway bridge and came across this copy of the Builder magazine from 1866. I was surprised to find the Aeronautical Society of Great Britain was going at that time! And it's still going ...
Some of the experiments and research into flight mentioned are both weird yet interesting.
http://www.gracesguide.co.uk/images/b/bb/Er18660629.pdf0 -
http://petitionmap.unboxedconsulting.com/?petition=116762
The petition has produced a great map of eurosceptisicm.
Philic Wales, Ireland, Scotland and the major English cities vs sceptic rural England.
0 -
That's not true. There are plenty of ETFs (even ETFs of British shares or bonds) that are Irish or Luxembourg domiciled.tyson said:There is no reason for a UK resident to deliberately invest offshore. The charges on UK based funds, fidelity, M & G etc...are zero, or extremely low. Management charges on offshore funds are invariably higher. Plus the paperwork. The returns are much of a muchness- all funds are able to invest in the same stocks.
The only reason I can fathom for someone to make a deliberate decision to invest in an offshore fund if you are a UK resident (unless you are planning to move to said territory, or are buying property there) is to fiddle your taxes. Why bother otherwise.Indigo said:
The whole thing is ridiculous anyway. There is nothing remotely "immoral" about investing offshore so long as the correct amount of tax is paid on it. Anyone with any sort of investment or savings has their money invested , probably at least partly offshore, anyway, if they think their cash is just sitting in the bank's vault they would be wrong, and in fact if their bank couldn't invest their money offshore it would be charging them a lot more for looking after it, insuring it, and keeping it safe.Mortimer said:Full disclosure - I don't have any offshore investments.
0 -
How about gain exposure to markets or investments not available in the UK? This weekend I was looking a couple of ETFs which will give me exposure to Chile and Peru and are both listed on the NYSE Arca and domiciled in the USA.tyson said:There is no reason for a UK resident to deliberately invest offshore. The charges on UK based funds, fidelity, M & G etc...are zero, or extremely low. Management charges on offshore funds are invariably higher. Plus the paperwork. The returns are much of a muchness- all funds are able to invest in the same stocks.
The only reason I can fathom for someone to make a deliberate decision to invest in an offshore fund if you are a UK resident (unless you are planning to move to said territory, or are buying property there) is to fiddle your taxes. Why bother otherwise.Indigo said:
The whole thing is ridiculous anyway. There is nothing remotely "immoral" about investing offshore so long as the correct amount of tax is paid on it. Anyone with any sort of investment or savings has their money invested , probably at least partly offshore, anyway, if they think their cash is just sitting in the bank's vault they would be wrong, and in fact if their bank couldn't invest their money offshore it would be charging them a lot more for looking after it, insuring it, and keeping it safe.Mortimer said:Full disclosure - I don't have any offshore investments.
0 -
True - he would let things get to him.
In real life he is a charmer. In pro-am rounds at tournaments he is much sought after as an all around nice guy.tyson said:Monty was perhaps one of the most grumpy players I can remember. He moaned, grumbled and complained and swore at tournament officials and spectators. I hope that he is more charming in real life.
Tim_B said:
In the 1980s I used to sit and chat with Peter Alliss over lunch (pimento cheese sandwich) in the media center at The Masters.tlg86 said:
I'd rather listen to those two than Peter Alliss on BBC or Monty on Sky.Tim_B said:Just loving the coverage of The Masters.
The CBS contract with Augusta National limits commercials to 4 minutes per hour.
CBS has the best commentary team in golf by far - Jim Nantz and Nick Faldo. Nantz lives in a house on the 7th tee at Pebble Beach.
Monty and I chat each spring at the Mitsubishi Electric Classic as he used to live in Ilkley and I used to live in Addingham, 2 miles apart. His dad used to run Fox's Biscuits.0 -
Lots of supposition, but not much fact to support the potentially serious allegations.hunchman said:Plenty of spreading around the Twitter sphere of the scandal mentioned by @FrancisUrquhart ..........
(i) Oooh. X knows Y. Y does something bad, sometimes, with consenting adults. Oooh. It must be a scandal despite the fact that X and Y know each other is widely known.
(ii) Oooh. X and Y went somewhere together and someone paid. It wasn't declared. It might have been below the threshold for declaration. But we don't know. Oooh.
0 -
The number is even higher in neighbouring economic basketcase Switzerland.Indigo said:
This must come as news to that well known economic basketcase Germany where around 60% of the population rent from private landlords.Mortimer said:
Then it is also a very poor form of investment.Indigo said:
No one is discouraging anything. If people can't afford to buy a house, or raise a mortgage, and the government can't afford social housing, what do you propose? Rents are actually so low that personally the business case appears almost non-existent but it's what happens.Mortimer said:Indigo said:
The Philippines has a different problem, almost no one here can raise a mortgage, that is what tends to happen when your average pay is less than £200 a month and most positions are not salaried.Mortimer said:I do not want the UK to be a rentier economy, which by the sounds of it the Philipines is, by the time my hypothetical children grow up.
A common symptom of a rentier economy.Indigo said:
The Philippines has a different problem, almost no one here can raise a mortgage, that is what tends to happen when your average pay is less than £200 a month and most positions are not salaried.Mortimer said:I do not want the UK to be a rentier economy, which by the sounds of it the Philipines is, by the time my hypothetical children grow up.
Discouraging home ownership strips the already modest assets of those not in a position to own.
Rentier economies depress wages, increase inequality and relatively reap poor returns for owners because the wider economy fails to grow or mature into a consumer economy.0 -
There's also the one at Middlesborough, a visit to which is perhaps the only reason for anyone ever to want to visit Middlesborough (including football), and one (I think a railway one) in Warrington.rcs1000 said:
I had never even heard of a Transporter Bridge. And now I need to go to Newport to check one out!JosiasJessop said:
It's an interesting area for bridges. There used to be a transporter bridge across the Mersey:Sunil_Prasannan said:
Been across the rail bridge next to the road bridge on the way to Liverpool.JosiasJessop said:
When you're walking the coast and not taking ferries, then Runcorn is hard to avoid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widnes-Runcorn_Transporter_Bridge
Which was replaced by this rather glorious arch bridge:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Jubilee_Bridge
In comparison the railway bridge is rather unspectacular, even if it was a massive achievement when it was built.
The walk from the bridge into Liverpool, squeezing through estuarine mud past Liverpool airport, is p*ss-poor. Except for the tall man of Hale:
http://www.thetallestman.com/johnmiddleton.htm
Another weird but wonderful structure is the Anderton boat lift on the Trent and Mersey.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anderton_Boat_Lift0 -
Middlesborough has had some fantastic rare birds over the years. Its presumably the poisoned air they fly through that means they have to land....JosiasJessop said:
There's also the one at Middlesborough, a visit to which is perhaps the only reason for anyone ever to want to visit Middlesborough (including football), and one (I think a railway one) in Warrington.rcs1000 said:
I had never even heard of a Transporter Bridge. And now I need to go to Newport to check one out!JosiasJessop said:
It's an interesting area for bridges. There used to be a transporter bridge across the Mersey:Sunil_Prasannan said:
Been across the rail bridge next to the road bridge on the way to Liverpool.JosiasJessop said:
When you're walking the coast and not taking ferries, then Runcorn is hard to avoid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widnes-Runcorn_Transporter_Bridge
Which was replaced by this rather glorious arch bridge:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Jubilee_Bridge
In comparison the railway bridge is rather unspectacular, even if it was a massive achievement when it was built.
The walk from the bridge into Liverpool, squeezing through estuarine mud past Liverpool airport, is p*ss-poor. Except for the tall man of Hale:
http://www.thetallestman.com/johnmiddleton.htm
Another weird but wonderful structure is the Anderton boat lift on the Trent and Mersey.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anderton_Boat_Lift0 -
I have a choice of hundreds, possibly thousands of different funds managed through UK based companies which invest in just about anything that you can think of. I invested in offshore funds once, but I was a Guernsey resident and paid my taxes in Guernsey.
OK- granted there may be the odd obsessive who can find something outside these- but not in the volume and number that do so.
Seriously, how many UK resident people invest in offshore funds so they can buy some obscure, and probably high risk Peruvian warrants. As said, most people invest in these funds because they think they can conveniently leave this information off their HMRC tax forms.MP_SE said:
How about gain exposure to markets or investments not available in the UK? This weekend I was looking a couple of ETFs which will give me exposure to Chile and Peru and are both listed on the NYSE Arca.tyson said:There is no reason for a UK resident to deliberately invest offshore. The charges on UK based funds, fidelity, M & G etc...are zero, or extremely low. Management charges on offshore funds are invariably higher. Plus the paperwork. The returns are much of a muchness- all funds are able to invest in the same stocks.
The only reason I can fathom for someone to make a deliberate decision to invest in an offshore fund if you are a UK resident (unless you are planning to move to said territory, or are buying property there) is to fiddle your taxes. Why bother otherwise.Indigo said:
The whole thing is ridiculous anyway. There is nothing remotely "immoral" about investing offshore so long as the correct amount of tax is paid on it. Anyone with any sort of investment or savings has their money invested , probably at least partly offshore, anyway, if they think their cash is just sitting in the bank's vault they would be wrong, and in fact if their bank couldn't invest their money offshore it would be charging them a lot more for looking after it, insuring it, and keeping it safe.Mortimer said:Full disclosure - I don't have any offshore investments.
0
bridge_old12.jpg){kind=link}