Mr. M, Labour be better off with Terrence Stamp as undisputed leader. And Zod had the full support of his underlings.
Utterly OT: FFXV has Lena Headey and Sean Bean amongst the voice cast. Pretty impressive. Although I still suspect I'll never get it. The promo-stuff makes it look like a bloody boy band on tour and given the choice between that, a Witcher 3 GOTY, Rise of the Tomb Raider, XCOM 2 and (perhaps) Mass Effect Andromeda/Dishonoured 2 [and limited funds] I think Final Fantasy's run its course for me.
Lena Headey was also in the first Dishonoured, apparently.
Truly? Very fun game that. Not many female characters in it IIRC, so probably a smallish part she had. Haven't played a FF since 10 - they never had exciting gameplay, and the story summaries of the 13 trilogy just seemed so woefully presented, not even Sean Bean could tempt me to that. If I want story I'll stick with Bioware (just replayed Dragon Age Inquisition, with all the DLC - no one does extensive Lore better, and since DA2 they've had some quite unconventional stories too. I've deliberately not looked up info on Andromeda, I want to go into the story cold, but their record means I'll probably buy it).
" Hofstadter’s 1964 essay was inspired by McCarthyism, but the Paranoid Style as a political and psychological phenomena has been with us for as long as modern politics. Of course conspiracies and misdeeds can happen, but the Paranoid Style builds up an apocalyptic vision of a future driven entirely by dark conspiracies. The NHS won’t just be a bit worse; it will be destroyed in 24 hours. Opponents aren’t simply wrong, but evil incarnate; near-omnipotent super-villains control the media, the banks, even history itself. Through most of history, movements like this have remained at the fringes of politics; and when they move into the mainstream bad things tend to happen."
I agree about being comfortable. We spend little and need less. In our thirties, there was a stage when we had three dependant children, a mortgage and 1.5 salaries. Twenty years later, we had no dependant children, no mortgage and two salaries.
Now we have two pensions and no wish to spend money.
But looking back to the 1950s, the highlight was moving into a council house with an indoor toilet.
As my mother used to say ... "You kids, the more you get, the more you want."
There is a good argument for having very low income tax and a significant wealth tax.
This means you keep earnings when you are young but have no wealth and pay lots of tax once you have accumulated wealth and have relatively low retirement income.
Hands up all those in favour of introducing a wealth tax, lowering income tax but no increase in tax overall.
Wealth tax is easy to avoid and incredibly intrusive.
I'd be a fan of annual tax on property value, though.
Agree - (well strictly I'm in favour of the old liberal idea - Land Value Tax - but more or less the same thing.)
In the case of Property Rich, Cash Poor (the ubiquitous penniless old widow in the £2Mn house), I don't see any issue in it being rolled up as an annual charge as a mortgage against the property, to be redeemed on sale or transfer.
Mr. kle4, that's what I heard. I'm not sure who either, as I think the Empress was the splendid Laura Bailey.
FFX had some good points but the main character was so bloody dislikeable. A cross between a stereotypical Millennial and Ronaldo.
I like Dragon Age a lot, but the DLC approach of Bioware/EA is not something I like. I'll wait and see if they do a proper GOTY edition for Andromeda, otherwise I might just skip it. If it were 4, with Jennifer Hale as Femshep, I'd almost certainly get it. Fantastic performance from her across the first three games.
I agree about being comfortable. We spend little and need less. In our thirties, there was a stage when we had three dependant children, a mortgage and 1.5 salaries. Twenty years later, we had no dependant children, no mortgage and two salaries.
Now we have two pensions and no wish to spend money.
But looking back to the 1950s, the highlight was moving into a council house with an indoor toilet.
As my mother used to say ... "You kids, the more you get, the more you want."
There is a good argument for having very low income tax and a significant wealth tax.
This means you keep earnings when you are young but have no wealth and pay lots of tax once you have accumulated wealth and have relatively low retirement income.
Hands up all those in favour of introducing a wealth tax, lowering income tax but no increase in tax overall.
Wealth tax is easy to avoid and incredibly intrusive.
I'd be a fan of annual tax on property value, though.
Yep a 1% tax based on current property value would have an interesting impact on prices.... It's probably achievable now - zoopla gives a very good estimate of current prices....
I agree about being comfortable. We spend little and need less. In our thirties, there was a stage when we had three dependant children, a mortgage and 1.5 salaries. Twenty years later, we had no dependant children, no mortgage and two salaries.
Now we have two pensions and no wish to spend money.
But looking back to the 1950s, the highlight was moving into a council house with an indoor toilet.
As my mother used to say ... "You kids, the more you get, the more you want."
There is a good argument for having very low income tax and a significant wealth tax.
This means you keep earnings when you are young but have no wealth and pay lots of tax once you have accumulated wealth and have relatively low retirement income.
Hands up all those in favour of introducing a wealth tax, lowering income tax but no increase in tax overall.
You can feck right off, Mr. Evershed. I have paid my dues to HM Treasury all my life, including a period where, free from PAYE, I could have worked lots of "legitimate" wheezes but never did. I am still paying a hefty wack in income tax.
So you can take your wealth tax and place it where the sun shineth not.
I agree about being comfortable. We spend little and need less. In our thirties, there was a stage when we had three dependant children, a mortgage and 1.5 salaries. Twenty years later, we had no dependant children, no mortgage and two salaries.
Now we have two pensions and no wish to spend money.
But looking back to the 1950s, the highlight was moving into a council house with an indoor toilet.
As my mother used to say ... "You kids, the more you get, the more you want."
There is a good argument for having very low income tax and a significant wealth tax.
This means you keep earnings when you are young but have no wealth and pay lots of tax once you have accumulated wealth and have relatively low retirement income.
Hands up all those in favour of introducing a wealth tax, lowering income tax but no increase in tax overall.
Wealth tax is easy to avoid and incredibly intrusive.
I'd be a fan of annual tax on property value, though.
Yep a 1% tax on property value would have an interesting impact on prices....
Sure. But a positive one, overall, in that I'd expect prices would fall by c. 10%.
You'd want to set it up as follows:
- Base value for property is last transfer value (i.e. it revalues to current market price whenever there is an arms-length transfer) - In the event that property hasn't been transferred in the last 10 years you'd do a current market valuation & allow for a 10 year (equal increment) run in period (i.e. so year 1 you pay based on last transfer value, and after 10 years you have caught up to market rates as of the date of the introduction of the tax [applies only a launch] - Annual increases in the value of the property based on CPI, with a provision for a temporary down valuation in the event of market dislocation
A wealth tax is great in theory, encourages efficient use of assets - you'd of course want it to replace income tax revenue so it is not just "more tax".
HOWEVER it can't work correctly because people who are actually properly rich will just have most oftheir assets overseas. Instead it'll just bash the moderately rich, probably the easiest target of all of government. Just like inheritance tax it creates makework for lawyers and tax specialists.
I agree about being comfortable. We spend little and need less. In our thirties, there was a stage when we had three dependant children, a mortgage and 1.5 salaries. Twenty years later, we had no dependant children, no mortgage and two salaries.
Now we have two pensions and no wish to spend money.
But looking back to the 1950s, the highlight was moving into a council house with an indoor toilet.
As my mother used to say ... "You kids, the more you get, the more you want."
There is a good argument for having very low income tax and a significant wealth tax.
This means you keep earnings when you are young but have no wealth and pay lots of tax once you have accumulated wealth and have relatively low retirement income.
Hands up all those in favour of introducing a wealth tax, lowering income tax but no increase in tax overall.
Wealth tax is easy to avoid and incredibly intrusive.
I'd be a fan of annual tax on property value, though.
Agree - (well strictly I'm in favour of the old liberal idea - Land Value Tax - but more or less the same thing.)
In the case of Property Rich, Cash Poor (the ubiquitous penniless old widow in the £2Mn house), I don't see any issue in it being rolled up as an annual charge as a mortgage against the property, to be redeemed on sale or transfer.
Virginia has a property tax, with implied Land Value tax. It values land at its highest potential value, which is punitive to farmers, who then feel forced to turn their land over to developers as they cannot afford to pay the tax. It also is anti-investment for capital intensive projects. When I was on our local industrial development board, we lost a major off-shore wind farm development and US-HQ deal because each of the windmills would be taxed each year on their residual value after depreciation. It was a deal-killer. Just saying, lots of downsides to a property tax.
A wealth tax is great in theory, encourages efficient use of assets - you'd of course want it to replace income tax revenue so it is not just "more tax".
HOWEVER it can't work correctly because people who are actually properly rich will just have most oftheir assets overseas. Instead it'll just bash the moderately rich, probably the easiest target of all of government. Just like inheritance tax it creates makework for lawyers and tax specialists.
Unlimited liability companies are great for tax management... they are a liability not an asset...
Mr. kle4, that's what I heard. I'm not sure who either, as I think the Empress was the splendid Laura Bailey.
FFX had some good points but the main character was so bloody dislikeable. A cross between a stereotypical Millennial and Ronaldo.
I like Dragon Age a lot, but the DLC approach of Bioware/EA is not something I like. .
Yeah - I adore the games, but having played the DLC for DA2, which set up the villain for DA: Inquisition (although this was not clear at the time) and now the DLC for DA: Inquisition, which is clearly going to be essential for the next one, it's a bit rich, although at least neither was day 1 in those cases.
They didn't carve out whole characters with DA: Inquisition like they did with the first two though, that may show some progress!
Unelectable is used to refer to his prospects among the wider electorate, not the Labour selectorate. We won't know the definitive answer to whether he is indeed unelectable in that sense until 2020, all evidence before then is not complete proof - however, one can certainly make an assessment as to whether victory among the Labour selectorate is a better indicator of his wider electability or if other evidence, like annual locals, polls, etc, are a better indicator. Reasonable people will differ on that front.
Even 2020 won't be definitive... n=1 is not statistically significant!
The Labour party, at inception, did not win an immediate majority. Corbyn and his acolytes can simply say they are resetting the party and starting afresh.
Well if the Party doesnt unite behind Corbyn
I for one and I suspect I will be in the majority will blame a defeat on PLP in 2020.
The left have the control of the party till 2025 IMO
Surprise, surprise, the Corbynites will blame someone else when Labour lose in 2020. Colour me shocked!
The major problem I see with that is how do you achieve productivity gains. Sure, some working at home paid on a task completion scale will innovate to become more productive. But how then do you spread those innovations rapidly across the company? Particularly if the person is not fully aware of how he/she has achieved those productivity gains and has to be observed in action by others to elicit such data?
Don't get me wrong, in general I agree with you. I am just trying to think through what will be lost in that model and hence what should be the correct balance/areas of application.
How I would do that is simple, as a business you offer a bonus to any ideas leading to productivity gains. You will soon notice that some workers are more productive at similar tasks than others. That is if you don't do something silly like penalise them for being more productive by making them do more tasks without a commensurate rise in pay which is the model we currently have in work.
Someone is paid the same whether they do 10 tasks in the forty hours or 20. They have little incentive therefore as is human nature not to spin out tasks to fill the time as they are being paid the same as the person who remains just completing 10.
If after completing their 10 tasks that week their time is their own as they have done what they are paid to do that week they have more inclination to do that as efficiently as possible. A manager can then negotiate with them to do extra tasks if they wish to. If on top of that they are also offered incentives to share anything they come up with to lift the productivity of others then you have a system that encourages innovation in productivity and one where employees and management have the same goal
''A wealth tax is great in theory, encourages efficient use of assets - you'd of course want it to replace income tax revenue so it is not just "more tax".''
I'm just trying to work out how many seats a 1% property tax might lose the tories.
The major problem I see with that is how do you achieve productivity gains. Sure, some working at home paid on a task completion scale will innovate to become more productive. But how then do you spread those innovations rapidly across the company? Particularly if the person is not fully aware of how he/she has achieved those productivity gains and has to be observed in action by others to elicit such data?
Don't get me wrong, in general I agree with you. I am just trying to think through what will be lost in that model and hence what should be the correct balance/areas of application.
How I would do that is simple, as a business you offer a bonus to any ideas leading to productivity gains. You will soon notice that some workers are more productive at similar tasks than others. That is if you don't do something silly like penalise them for being more productive by making them do more tasks without a commensurate rise in pay which is the model we currently have in work.
Someone is paid the same whether they do 10 tasks in the forty hours or 20. They have little incentive therefore as is human nature not to spin out tasks to fill the time as they are being paid the same as the person who remains just completing 10.
If after completing their 10 tasks that week their time is their own as they have done what they are paid to do that week they have more inclination to do that as efficiently as possible. A manager can then negotiate with them to do extra tasks if they wish to. If on top of that they are also offered incentives to share anything they come up with to lift the productivity of others then you have a system that encourages innovation in productivity and one where employees and management have the same goal
It's been a long time since I studied economic history, so the details are hazy, but there was a very good reason why the Lancashire mills moved away from piece work rates (your model) to hourly rates... I just forget what it was!
I agree about being comfortable. We spend little and need less. In our thirties, there was a stage when we had three dependant children, a mortgage and 1.5 salaries. Twenty years later, we had no dependant children, no mortgage and two salaries.
Now we have two pensions and no wish to spend money.
But looking back to the 1950s, the highlight was moving into a council house with an indoor toilet.
As my mother used to say ... "You kids, the more you get, the more you want."
There is a good argument for having very low income tax and a significant wealth tax.
This means you keep earnings when you are young but have no wealth and pay lots of tax once you have accumulated wealth and have relatively low retirement income.
Hands up all those in favour of introducing a wealth tax, lowering income tax but no increase in tax overall.
Wealth tax is easy to avoid and incredibly intrusive.
I'd be a fan of annual tax on property value, though.
Who values it, Mr. Charles?
An example two bungalows near me have, in the last couple of months, sold for near the asking price of £500k and both sold within a few days. The house next door remains unsold more than 6 months after it was put on the market and three drops in asking price.
So how, Mr. Charles, is my house to be valued for your annual tax on property value?
Virginia has a property tax, with implied Land Value tax. It values land at its highest potential value, which is punitive to farmers, who then feel forced to turn their land over to developers as they cannot afford to pay the tax.
Sounds like it could solve some of our housing issues and improve trade with the Third World too.
I noticed that Lord Deben had retweeted something from this twitter account and intrigued I had a look at what else they had written. This line about LEAVE = STUPID people seems to be a common view amongst the hardened REMAINers.
InForBritain @InForBritain Jul 26 Our SHOCKING poll finds number of thick, stupid Leavers has actually grown since #EUref. I despair. #brexitin5words
Like hardened people of any political persuasion, it's if you were clever, you'd understand and agree; you disagree => you are not clever.
Like gay marriage, Brexit has gone from being part of the lunatic fringe to the conventional wisdom in half a generation. Trying to overturn Brexit is now a lost cause.
Gay marriage will not adversely affect even the most avid opponent,
Brexit, on the other hand, is entirely different. Substantial numbers of people will never reconcile to what we have done, particularly if the economic consequences become demonstrably negative.
Mr. Wheel, the PLP has only itself to blame. They put Corbyn on the ballot.
Ma Beckett called nominating Corbyn 'the biggest political mistake of my life' - and that was many months ago......
Harriet Harman is the real culprit for her stupidity as Acting Leader a year ago. She should never be forgiven.
What exactly did she do wrong? I was out the country at the time and didn't follow the election too closely.
There was a vote on benefit restrictions or something like that, and she whipped an abstention to show Labour was serious about economic credibility, and Corbyn was the only leadership candidate to vote against, and it gave some real fuel to his campaign.
Alongside that, she (along with Miliband) oversaw the rules changes allowing the £3 system to be set up.
Thanks a lot for the reply. Am I right in thinking that the £3 system was more Miliband's project, not that it actually mattered in the end.
Afternoon Ra Ra Rasputin, I hope you haven't been hacking into Hillary's e-mails
Haha no, why would I want to do that? Of course I haven't, what a ridiculous proposition. Haha, Why would Mother Russia want anything to with Clinton's emails. Preposterous. Not so!!!
I agree about being comfortable. We spend little and need less. In our thirties, there was a stage when we had three dependant children, a mortgage and 1.5 salaries. Twenty years later, we had no dependant children, no mortgage and two salaries.
Now we have two pensions and no wish to spend money.
But looking back to the 1950s, the highlight was moving into a council house with an indoor toilet.
As my mother used to say ... "You kids, the more you get, the more you want."
There is a good argument for having very low income tax and a significant wealth tax.
This means you keep earnings when you are young but have no wealth and pay lots of tax once you have accumulated wealth and have relatively low retirement income.
Hands up all those in favour of introducing a wealth tax, lowering income tax but no increase in tax overall.
Wealth tax is easy to avoid and incredibly intrusive.
I'd be a fan of annual tax on property value, though.
Yep a 1% tax on property value would have an interesting impact on prices....
Sure. But a positive one, overall, in that I'd expect prices would fall by c. 10%.
You'd want to set it up as follows:
- Base value for property is last transfer value (i.e. it revalues to current market price whenever there is an arms-length transfer) - In the event that property hasn't been transferred in the last 10 years you'd do a current market valuation & allow for a 10 year (equal increment) run in period (i.e. so year 1 you pay based on last transfer value, and after 10 years you have caught up to market rates as of the date of the introduction of the tax [applies only a launch] - Annual increases in the value of the property based on CPI, with a provision for a temporary down valuation in the event of market dislocation
My inkling is that any current drop would be far more than 10%. Many rented properties only provide a 5% return, a 1% tax is instantly a drop of 20% in revenue and most of the profit...
The major problem I see with that is how do you achieve productivity gains. Sure, some working at home paid on a task completion scale will innovate to become more productive. But how then do you spread those innovations rapidly across the company? Particularly if the person is not fully aware of how he/she has achieved those productivity gains and has to be observed in action by others to elicit such data?
Don't get me wrong, in general I agree with you. I am just trying to think through what will be lost in that model and hence what should be the correct balance/areas of application.
How I would do that is simple, as a business you offer a bonus to any ideas leading to productivity gains. You will soon notice that some workers are more productive at similar tasks than others. That is if you don't do something silly like penalise them for being more productive by making them do more tasks without a commensurate rise in pay which is the model we currently have in work.
Someone is paid the same whether they do 10 tasks in the forty hours or 20. They have little incentive therefore as is human nature not to spin out tasks to fill the time as they are being paid the same as the person who remains just completing 10.
If after completing their 10 tasks that week their time is their own as they have done what they are paid to do that week they have more inclination to do that as efficiently as possible. A manager can then negotiate with them to do extra tasks if they wish to. If on top of that they are also offered incentives to share anything they come up with to lift the productivity of others then you have a system that encourages innovation in productivity and one where employees and management have the same goal
It's been a long time since I studied economic history, so the details are hazy, but there was a very good reason why the Lancashire mills moved away from piece work rates (your model) to hourly rates... I just forget what it was!
I agree about being comfortable. We spend little and need less. In our thirties, there was a stage when we had three dependant children, a mortgage and 1.5 salaries. Twenty years later, we had no dependant children, no mortgage and two salaries.
Now we have two pensions and no wish to spend money.
But looking back to the 1950s, the highlight was moving into a council house with an indoor toilet.
As my mother used to say ... "You kids, the more you get, the more you want."
There is a good argument for having very low income tax and a significant wealth tax.
This means you keep earnings when you are young but have no wealth and pay lots of tax once you have accumulated wealth and have relatively low retirement income.
Hands up all those in favour of introducing a wealth tax, lowering income tax but no increase in tax overall.
Wealth tax is easy to avoid and incredibly intrusive.
I'd be a fan of annual tax on property value, though.
Who values it, Mr. Charles?
An example two bungalows near me have, in the last couple of months, sold for near the asking price of £500k and both sold within a few days. The house next door remains unsold more than 6 months after it was put on the market and three drops in asking price.
So how, Mr. Charles, is my house to be valued for your annual tax on property value?
What does Zoopla estimate its price at and what is the current kite flying optimistic price still being asked for the property?
I agree about being comfortable. We spend little and need less. In our thirties, there was a stage when we had three dependant children, a mortgage and 1.5 salaries. Twenty years later, we had no dependant children, no mortgage and two salaries.
Now we have two pensions and no wish to spend money.
But looking back to the 1950s, the highlight was moving into a council house with an indoor toilet.
As my mother used to say ... "You kids, the more you get, the more you want."
There is a good argument for having very low income tax and a significant wealth tax.
This means you keep earnings when you are young but have no wealth and pay lots of tax once you have accumulated wealth and have relatively low retirement income.
Hands up all those in favour of introducing a wealth tax, lowering income tax but no increase in tax overall.
Wealth tax is easy to avoid and incredibly intrusive.
I'd be a fan of annual tax on property value, though.
Yep a 1% tax on property value would have an interesting impact on prices....
Sure. But a positive one, overall, in that I'd expect prices would fall by c. 10%.
You'd want to set it up as follows:
- Base value for property is last transfer value (i.e. it revalues to current market price whenever there is an arms-length transfer) - In the event that property hasn't been transferred in the last 10 years you'd do a current market valuation & allow for a 10 year (equal increment) run in period (i.e. so year 1 you pay based on last transfer value, and after 10 years you have caught up to market rates as of the date of the introduction of the tax [applies only a launch] - Annual increases in the value of the property based on CPI, with a provision for a temporary down valuation in the event of market dislocation
Why not use the Council Tax banding in a more aggressive way to move in that direction over time? It is very easy to administer.
An increase on the highest band from (or the addition of a couple of higher bands as well) the present level (around here) of about 3k pa to 5k or 6k would seem to be a good starting point, with a less punitive increase to the lower bands.
Revaluations could be done in the way you suggest too.
The major problem I see with that is how do you achieve productivity gains. Sure, some working at home paid on a task completion scale will innovate to become more productive. But how then do you spread those innovations rapidly across the company? Particularly if the person is not fully aware of how he/she has achieved those productivity gains and has to be observed in action by others to elicit such data?
Don't get me wrong, in general I agree with you. I am just trying to think through what will be lost in that model and hence what should be the correct balance/areas of application.
How I would do that is simple, as a business you offer a bonus to any ideas leading to productivity gains. You will soon notice that some workers are more productive at similar tasks than others. That is if you don't do something silly like penalise them for being more productive by making them do more tasks without a commensurate rise in pay which is the model we currently have in work.
Someone is paid the same whether they do 10 tasks in the forty hours or 20. They have little incentive therefore as is human nature not to spin out tasks to fill the time as they are being paid the same as the person who remains just completing 10.
If after completing their 10 tasks that week their time is their own as they have done what they are paid to do that week they have more inclination to do that as efficiently as possible. A manager can then negotiate with them to do extra tasks if they wish to. If on top of that they are also offered incentives to share anything they come up with to lift the productivity of others then you have a system that encourages innovation in productivity and one where employees and management have the same goal
It's been a long time since I studied economic history, so the details are hazy, but there was a very good reason why the Lancashire mills moved away from piece work rates (your model) to hourly rates... I just forget what it was!
I don't think that children normally inherit the debts of their parents in the UK and certaimly not unsecured credit card debt.
Any secured debts would of course be entitled for repayment out of the value of the security eg a mortgage.
That's interesting to know - so in theory I should aim to die with maxed out credit cards ?
Going full circle on PB today back to Terry Pratchett and Discworld...
...wizards knew when they were going to die. They often threw parties in advance, and always made sure they were as far in debt as possible just as the fateful day dawned.
An army unit or fire crew are different however in that they require to practise together to perform physical tasks. There is definitely some need for a kick off session for software teams but after that I would suggest that the need for a face to face meeting of the team might not be more than once every couple of months.
For a lot of jobs however such as form processing which I would guess is the bulk of office jobs I would say there is probably not much team building needed. Individual companies will have different needs for onsite time
As to online collaborative tools, didn't really use any as so far working from home for most companies is something they avoided. Mostly I suspect because of the middle manager issue so not familiar with the use of many. You could try this as a starting point though
Another benefit of encouraging more home working is that you would also ameliorate the child care problems of many families to a large extent.
The major issue I think is to wean companies off of hours worked and to a more tasks completed sort of model. I can quite see in twenty years that you wont be employed to work 40 hours a week but be employed to complete so many task units a week
Thanks.
The major problem I see with that is how do you achieve productivity gains. Sure, some working at home paid on a task completion scale will innovate to become more productive. But how then do you spread those innovations rapidly across the company? Particularly if the person is not fully aware of how he/she has achieved those productivity gains and has to be observed in action by others to elicit such data?
Don't get me wrong, in general I agree with you. I am just trying to think through what will be lost in that model and hence what should be the correct balance/areas of application.
I work from home but as part of a pan European team. We have regular telephone conferences supported by web based solutions for real time document review and revision. We also have video conferences and maintain team identity by face to face meetings twice a year.
I find this works very well and we have a strong team identity.
The major problem I see with that is how do you achieve productivity gains. Sure, some working at home paid on a task completion scale will innovate to become more productive. But how then do you spread those innovations rapidly across the company? Particularly if the person is not fully aware of how he/she has achieved those productivity gains and has to be observed in action by others to elicit such data?
Don't get me wrong, in general I agree with you. I am just trying to think through what will be lost in that model and hence what should be the correct balance/areas of application.
How I would do that is simple, as a business you offer a bonus to any ideas leading to productivity gains. You will soon notice that some workers are more productive at similar tasks than others. That is if you don't do something silly like penalise them for being more productive by making them do more tasks without a commensurate rise in pay which is the model we currently have in work.
Someone is paid the same whether they do 10 tasks in the forty hours or 20. They have little incentive therefore as is human nature not to spin out tasks to fill the time as they are being paid the same as the person who remains just completing 10.
If after completing their 10 tasks that week their time is their own as they have done what they are paid to do that week they have more inclination to do that as efficiently as possible. A manager can then negotiate with them to do extra tasks if they wish to. If on top of that they are also offered incentives to share anything they come up with to lift the productivity of others then you have a system that encourages innovation in productivity and one where employees and management have the same goal
It's been a long time since I studied economic history, so the details are hazy, but there was a very good reason why the Lancashire mills moved away from piece work rates (your model) to hourly rates... I just forget what it was!
I would be interested in hearing about it Charles, if you remember let me know in the meantime I will try google.
Currently as it stands however for software it is a truism that some engineers are many times more productive than others. This has become more evident with the adoption of Agile methodologies where tasks have a point score assigned and it is not unusual int a team of five or so engineers to find that one member of the team is accounting for 40% of the task points in any given sprint. Rarely however do you see them at least in the companies I have seen rewarded commensurately
Jess Philips Locksmith spending 6hrs to make my home safe.Think abt how my kids feel next time you mock up a picture of me dying https://t.co/zJYOS3cqWA
''A wealth tax is great in theory, encourages efficient use of assets - you'd of course want it to replace income tax revenue so it is not just "more tax".''
I'm just trying to work out how many seats a 1% property tax might lose the tories.
100? 150?
That's why it hasn't happened. Doesn't mean it's the wrong thing to do theoretically.
Provided, of course, that it replaces other taxes
Total value of residential property is £6 trillion (end 2015 -Savills) Total value of commercial property (end 2014 - RICS) is £0.8 trillion
Overall that means a 1% tax take would be worth £68 billion per year
- Cut council tax in half (so that centrally mandated spending is covered centrally even if managed by councils) at a cost of £14 billion - Eliminate property stamp duty at a cost of £9bn
That basically gives you £45 billion to play with.
Personally I'd look for a reduction in employer NICs to make employment more attractive, possibly an increase in capital investment allowances (to encourage investment), a reduction in petrol taxes and utility taxes to reduce the cost of doing business/living, plus a reduction in income taxes. And a chunk - say £25bn or so - to reduce the deficit.
Miss Plato, sounds worrying for Philips. I feel sorry for her kids.
Maybe she'll think about that the next time she mocks the idea of discussing why so many men kill themselves.
Edited extra bit: I do feel sorry for her as well, but that doesn't diminish the contempt I feel for her ridiculing discussing in Parliament the far higher suicide rates of men.
Jess Philips Locksmith spending 6hrs to make my home safe.Think abt how my kids feel next time you mock up a picture of me dying https://t.co/zJYOS3cqWA
Jess Phillips' resignation letter to Jeremy Corbyn obviously upset a few of the membership...
I agree about being comfortable. We spend little and need less. In our thirties, there was a stage when we had three dependant children, a mortgage and 1.5 salaries. Twenty years later, we had no dependant children, no mortgage and two salaries.
Now we have two pensions and no wish to spend money.
But looking back to the 1950s, the highlight was moving into a council house with an indoor toilet.
As my mother used to say ... "You kids, the more you get, the more you want."
There is a good argument for having very low income tax and a significant wealth tax.
This means you keep earnings when you are young but have no wealth and pay lots of tax once you have accumulated wealth and have relatively low retirement income.
Hands up all those in favour of introducing a wealth tax, lowering income tax but no increase in tax overall.
Wealth tax is easy to avoid and incredibly intrusive.
I'd be a fan of annual tax on property value, though.
Who values it, Mr. Charles?
An example two bungalows near me have, in the last couple of months, sold for near the asking price of £500k and both sold within a few days. The house next door remains unsold more than 6 months after it was put on the market and three drops in asking price.
So how, Mr. Charles, is my house to be valued for your annual tax on property value?
I would base it on last transfer value.
If you bought it more than 10 years ago then you get a market valuation (the VOA is reasonably good at them) and then have a 10 years phase in period from last transfer to the VOA valuation). If you transfer in the meantime then it is immediately reset to the new transfer value.
(Have you consider that the reason why the house next door is unsold is because of the grumpy neighbours )
Mr. kle4, yeah, I know the basics of the last DLC for Inquisition. But paying for it feels like rewarding bad behaviour.
Shale was ok. Sebastian was like having a sodding puritan raining on Hawke's parade.
Aw, I liked Sebastian - it was an odd change of pace to have a boring religious do gooder as an option, as opposed to the mopey so and sos you usually get. I played Inquisition this time as though I was him - overly serious religious fanatic. The Corbyn type, as I call it.
Miss Plato, sounds worrying for Philips. I feel sorry for her kids.
Maybe she'll think about that the next time she mocks the idea of discussing why so many men kill themselves.
Edited extra bit: I do feel sorry for her as well, but that doesn't diminish the contempt I feel for her ridiculing discussing in Parliament the far higher suicide rates of men.
I join you in feelings of contempt for her. She is obsessed with playing as many victim cards as possible. She has no positive contribution to make to public discourse and really is a dreadful example of what a politician is.
An army unit or fire crew are different however in that they require to practise together to perform physical tasks. There is definitely some need for a kick off session for software teams but after that I would suggest that the need for a face to face meeting of the team might not be more than once every couple of months.
For a lot of jobs however such as form processing which I would guess is the bulk of office jobs I would say there is probably not much team building needed. Individual companies will have different needs for onsite time
As to online collaborative tools, didn't really use any as so far working from home for most companies is something they avoided. Mostly I suspect because of the middle manager issue so not familiar with the use of many. You could try this as a starting point though
Another benefit of encouraging more home working is that you would also ameliorate the child care problems of many families to a large extent.
The major issue I think is to wean companies off of hours worked and to a more tasks completed sort of model. I can quite see in twenty years that you wont be employed to work 40 hours a week but be employed to complete so many task units a week
Thanks.
The major problem I see with that is how do you achieve productivity gains. Sure, some working at home paid on a task completion scale will innovate to become more productive. But how then do you spread those innovations rapidly across the company? Particularly if the person is not fully aware of how he/she has achieved those productivity gains and has to be observed in action by others to elicit such data?
Don't get me wrong, in general I agree with you. I am just trying to think through what will be lost in that model and hence what should be the correct balance/areas of application.
I work from home but as part of a pan European team. We have regular telephone conferences supported by web based solutions for real time document review and revision. We also have video conferences and maintain team identity by face to face meetings twice a year.
I find this works very well and we have a strong team identity.
I bet those face to face meetings are a crucial component though. Particularly more so as I presume the majority of the team are 'away from home' and so they bonding activities continue beyond meetings into the evening meals etc...
I worked on seven Framework 5 projects at one time, and found the same thing.
Out of interest, what online tools would you recommend. I am about to launch two major projects in Pakistan which will require a lot of teamwork and webinars. I have some software in mind (Smartsheet for project management and Gantt charts, Webinex for comms and meetings), but grateful for any suggestions you may have for what you find works well.
Mr. JS, not a father, but that seems a really odd perspective to me. Even if I never have children, I hope to be successful enough to leave something to my nephew and niece.
I find the older I get the less I can be arsed to spend money on myself; air travel sucks and I have been to most of the places I want to go to, most forms of partying look ridiculous among the over 50s, one car is much the same as another, etc. I will end up looking quite generous, when actually I just have no real further use for the stuff.
One of my few remaining goals is to enrich my daugher beyond her wildest dreams . Selfishly though, she'll have to wait until her forties for said enrichment!
That's not necessarily in her interests though.
I've known a lot of quite well off people over the years - usually the ones with a lot of money or assets when they are young go completely off the rails. Making your daughter wait until her 40s is a good start, but giving her so much money that it means she doesn't have to work can make life pretty meaningless unless she is very disciplined
You want to teach discipline, you should do what my parents did and leave nothing, because it is all used up on credit card debt. That focuses the mind.
In some countries (France?) I believe the children inherit the debts of the parents.
What's the situation here?!
I don't think that children normally inherit the debts of their parents in the UK and certaimly not unsecured credit card debt.
Any secured debts would of course be entitled for repayment out of the value of the security eg a mortgage.
In France, heirship is compulsory. Debts pass to heirs, although they can apply to disclaim an inheritance if debts exceed assets.
In England and Wales, an estate passes by will or intestacy. If the debts exceed the assets, there is nothing to inherit, and the creditors have no claim beyond the value of the estate.
Quite so, Mr. Pagan. Suppose if HMG by requiring train companies to guarantee a seat for every ticket holder it would cost HMG bugger all but it would force the biggest revolution in working practices for 200 years. This one, though, would benefit the workers as well as the productive employers (might be a bit of a pisser for the property companies, no doubt they would cope).
You would need to have reservations for individual seats on individual trains, otherwise what happens if the train is full before it reaches your station?
Also, there would need to be a significant increase in rail fares: do you think that would be popular?
Mr. JS, not a father, but that seems a really odd perspective to me. Even if I never have children, I hope to be successful enough to leave something to my nephew and niece.
I find the older I get the less I can be arsed to spend money on myself; air travel sucks and I have been to most of the places I want to go to, most forms of partying look ridiculous among the over 50s, one car is much the same as another, etc. I will end up looking quite generous, when actually I just have no real further use for the stuff.
One of my few remaining goals is to enrich my daugher beyond her wildest dreams . Selfishly though, she'll have to wait until her forties for said enrichment!
That's not necessarily in her interests though.
I've known a lot of quite well off people over the years - usually the ones with a lot of money or assets when they are young go completely off the rails. Making your daughter wait until her 40s is a good start, but giving her so much money that it means she doesn't have to work can make life pretty meaningless unless she is very disciplined
You want to teach discipline, you should do what my parents did and leave nothing, because it is all used up on credit card debt. That focuses the mind.
In some countries (France?) I believe the children inherit the debts of the parents.
What's the situation here?!
I don't think that children normally inherit the debts of their parents in the UK and certaimly not unsecured credit card debt.
Any secured debts would of course be entitled for repayment out of the value of the security eg a mortgage.
In France, heirship is compulsory. Debts pass to heirs, although they can apply to disclaim an inheritance if debts exceed assets.
In England and Wales, an estate passes by will or intestacy. If the debts exceed the assets, there is nothing to inherit, and the creditors have no claim beyond the value of the estate.
My inkling is that any current drop would be far more than 10%. Many rented properties only provide a 5% return, a 1% tax is instantly a drop of 20% in revenue and most of the profit...
If you take a house worth, say, £300,000 (which I think is about the average house price without checking) that's an annual liability of £3,000 in year 1. Offset that by a 50% reduction in a Band D council tax of, let's say, £600 per year* gives you an additional annual liability of £2,400.
Growing that at 2% a year, for inflation, and discounting back at 8% cost of capital gives you a NPV of the liability of £30,417 - about 10% of the capital value. For simplicity I only ran it out for 25 years rather than looking at a terminal value, but it's near enough to 10% of the capital value.
* Band D council tax - most expensive in the country is £1,726 per year and cheapest is £678. Source: Telegraph. Mid point is £1,200 & I've suggested reducing that by 50% using proceeds from new tax.
[28/07 16:46] This would never happen in Switzerland [28/07 16:46] Wtf is their problem [28/07 16:46] Worst bank ever [28/07 16:46] No wonder it's big in afrixa [28/07 16:46] This is what I think African banks are like
I noticed that Lord Deben had retweeted something from this twitter account and intrigued I had a look at what else they had written. This line about LEAVE = STUPID people seems to be a common view amongst the hardened REMAINers.
InForBritain @InForBritain Jul 26 Our SHOCKING poll finds number of thick, stupid Leavers has actually grown since #EUref. I despair. #brexitin5words
Like hardened people of any political persuasion, it's if you were clever, you'd understand and agree; you disagree => you are not clever.
Like gay marriage, Brexit has gone from being part of the lunatic fringe to the conventional wisdom in half a generation. Trying to overturn Brexit is now a lost cause.
Gay marriage will not adversely affect even the most avid opponent,
Brexit, on the other hand, is entirely different. Substantial numbers of people will never reconcile to what we have done, particularly if the economic consequences become demonstrably negative.
It's still like being a Southern Irish Unionist after 1922.
I agree about being comfortable. We spend little and need less. In our thirties, there was a stage when we had three dependant children, a mortgage and 1.5 salaries. Twenty years later, we had no dependant children, no mortgage and two salaries.
Now we have two pensions and no wish to spend money.
But looking back to the 1950s, the highlight was moving into a council house with an indoor toilet.
As my mother used to say ... "You kids, the more you get, the more you want."
There is a good argument for having very low income tax and a significant wealth tax.
This means you keep earnings when you are young but have no wealth and pay lots of tax once you have accumulated wealth and have relatively low retirement income.
Hands up all those in favour of introducing a wealth tax, lowering income tax but no increase in tax overall.
Wealth tax is easy to avoid and incredibly intrusive.
I'd be a fan of annual tax on property value, though.
Yep a 1% tax on property value would have an interesting impact on prices....
Sure. But a positive one, overall, in that I'd expect prices would fall by c. 10%.
You'd want to set it up as follows:
- Base value for property is last transfer value (i.e. it revalues to current market price whenever there is an arms-length transfer) - In the event that property hasn't been transferred in the last 10 years you'd do a current market valuation & allow for a 10 year (equal increment) run in period (i.e. so year 1 you pay based on last transfer value, and after 10 years you have caught up to market rates as of the date of the introduction of the tax [applies only a launch] - Annual increases in the value of the property based on CPI, with a provision for a temporary down valuation in the event of market dislocation
Why not use the Council Tax banding in a more aggressive way to move in that direction over time? It is very easy to administer.
An increase on the highest band from (or the addition of a couple of higher bands as well) the present level (around here) of about 3k pa to 5k or 6k would seem to be a good starting point, with a less punitive increase to the lower bands.
Revaluations could be done in the way you suggest too.
Because so much depends on the council - I moved from a 2 bed room flat to a 4 bedroom house and my council tax fell by 30%
What a waste of time Michael Foster's case was. I don't understand why the judgment describes him as suing on behalf of all members of the Labour party except the two defendants, Iain McNichol and Jeremy Corbyn. Wasn't this simply one person bringing a case for breach of contract: one member of an association suing because he believed it had breached the contract it agreed with him when he became a member? How could his claim be entered on other people's behalf, some of whom had no problem with the Party's decision? Nor does the judgment refer to any donorship or donation, but nevertheless his status as a donor is still being mentioned in the press as if it were legally relevant.
From the judgment: "Mr Gavin Millar QC, who represents the Claimant, said that it was not the Claimant’s wish that Mr Corbyn should be denied the opportunity to stand in the contest if his (the Claimant’s) case succeeded."
Well what redress was he seeking then?
Corbyn and McNichol should have been awarded costs.
The judge, David Foskett, may belong to the Athenaeum but his judgment is full of piffle. "It is quite obvious that one side will be pleased with the outcome of the case and the other side will not (...). I repeat as firmly and unequivocally as I can that the resolution of the narrow legal issue I have been asked to decide is wholly uninfluenced by which side will be pleased with the outcome."
Lots of rhetorical amplification there, but what he's saying is that he isn't corrupt. What is the point of a judge so declaring in a judgment?
Mr. JS, not a father, but that seems a really odd perspective to me. Even if I never have children, I hope to be successful enough to leave something to my nephew and niece.
I find the older I get the less I can be arsed to spend money on myself; air travel sucks and I have been to most of the places I want to go to, most forms of partying look ridiculous among the over 50s, one car is much the same as another, etc. I will end up looking quite generous, when actually I just have no real further use for the stuff.
One of my few remaining goals is to enrich my daugher beyond her wildest dreams . Selfishly though, she'll have to wait until her forties for said enrichment!
That's not necessarily in her interests though.
I've known a lot of quite well off people over the years - usually the ones with a lot of money or assets when they are young go completely off the rails. Making your daughter wait until her 40s is a good start, but giving her so much money that it means she doesn't have to work can make life pretty meaningless unless she is very disciplined
You want to teach discipline, you should do what my parents did and leave nothing, because it is all used up on credit card debt. That focuses the mind.
In some countries (France?) I believe the children inherit the debts of the parents.
So could be worse.
Same applies in Germany, I believe.
Don't the Japanese take out multi-generational mortgages in order to purchase property?
House prices are no longer so extreme in Japan, and interest rates are zero, so they don't need to any more.
What a waste of time Michael Foster's case was. I don't understand why the judgment describes him as suing on behalf of all members of the Labour party except the two defendants, Iain McNichol and Jeremy Corbyn. This was one person bringing a case for breach of contract: one member of an association suing because he believed it had breached the contract it agreed with him when he became a member. Foster's status is nothing more than individual membership; his claim was not entered on anyone else's behalf. Nor does the judgment refer to any donorship or donation, but nevertheless his status as a donor is still being mentioned in the press as if it were legally relevant.
From the judgment: "Mr Gavin Millar QC, who represents the Claimant, said that it was not the Claimant’s wish that Mr Corbyn should be denied the opportunity to stand in the contest if his (the Claimant’s) case succeeded."
Well what redress was he seeking then?
Corbyn and McNichol should have been awarded costs.
The judge, David Foskett, may belong to the Athenaeum but his judgment is full of piffle. "It is quite obvious that one side will be pleased with the outcome of the case and the other side will not (...). I repeat as firmly and unequivocally as I can that the resolution of the narrow legal issue I have been asked to decide is wholly uninfluenced by which side will be pleased with the outcome."
Lots of rhetorical amplification there, but what he's saying is that he isn't corrupt. What is the point of a judge so declaring in a judgment?
Mr. JS, not a father, but that seems a really odd perspective to me. Even if I never have children, I hope to be successful enough to leave something to my nephew and niece.
I find the older I get the less I can be arsed to spend money on myself; air travel sucks and I have been to most of the places I want to go to, most forms of partying look ridiculous among the over 50s, one car is much the same as another, etc. I will end up looking quite generous, when actually I just have no real further use for the stuff.
One of my few remaining goals is to enrich my daugher beyond her wildest dreams . Selfishly though, she'll have to wait until her forties for said enrichment!
That's not necessarily in her interests though.
I've known a lot of quite well off people over the years - usually the ones with a lot of money or assets when they are young go completely off the rails. Making your daughter wait until her 40s is a good start, but giving her so much money that it means she doesn't have to work can make life pretty meaningless unless she is very disciplined
You want to teach discipline, you should do what my parents did and leave nothing, because it is all used up on credit card debt. That focuses the mind.
In some countries (France?) I believe the children inherit the debts of the parents.
So could be worse.
Same applies in Germany, I believe.
Don't the Japanese take out multi-generational mortgages in order to purchase property?
Don’t know about Japan, but they do in Germany. A 99 year mortgage is not uncommon.
Although German property is incredibly inexpensive, so I don't know why they'd bother.
The major problem I see with that is how do you achieve productivity gains. Sure, some working at home paid on a task completion scale will innovate to become more productive. But how then do you spread those innovations rapidly across the company? Particularly if the person is not fully aware of how he/she has achieved those productivity gains and has to be observed in action by others to elicit such data?
Don't get me wrong, in general I agree with you. I am just trying to think through what will be lost in that model and hence what should be the correct balance/areas of application.
How I would do that is simple, as a business you offer a bonus to any ideas leading to productivity gains. You will soon notice that some workers are more productive at similar tasks than others. That is if you don't do something silly like penalise them for being more productive by making them do more tasks without a commensurate rise in pay which is the model we currently have in work.
Someone is paid the same whether they do 10 tasks in the forty hours or 20. They have little incentive therefore as is human nature not to spin out tasks to fill the time as they are being paid the same as the person who remains just completing 10.
If after completing their 10 tasks that week their time is their own as they have done what they are paid to do that week they have more inclination to do that as efficiently as possible. A manager can then negotiate with them to do extra tasks if they wish to. If on top of that they are also offered incentives to share anything they come up with to lift the productivity of others then you have a system that encourages innovation in productivity and one where employees and management have the same goal
It's been a long time since I studied economic history, so the details are hazy, but there was a very good reason why the Lancashire mills moved away from piece work rates (your model) to hourly rates... I just forget what it was!
I would be interested in hearing about it Charles, if you remember let me know in the meantime I will try google.
Currently as it stands however for software it is a truism that some engineers are many times more productive than others. This has become more evident with the adoption of Agile methodologies where tasks have a point score assigned and it is not unusual int a team of five or so engineers to find that one member of the team is accounting for 40% of the task points in any given sprint. Rarely however do you see them at least in the companies I have seen rewarded commensurately
''House prices are no longer so extreme in Japan, and interest rates are zero, so they don't need to any more. ''
If UK house prices are still extreme and proving resilient through Brexit (as per the Nationwide today) then why the f8ck is the BoE about to cut rates? Why are they intend on stoking this bubble?
They care about their own credibility more than the UK economy, perhaps. There HAS to be a recession, otherwise they look f8cking stupid. Or political.
Mr. JS, not a father, but that seems a really odd perspective to me. Even if I never have children, I hope to be successful enough to leave something to my nephew and niece.
I find the older I get the less I can be arsed to spend money on myself; air travel sucks and I have been to most of the places I want to go to, most forms of partying look ridiculous among the over 50s, one car is much the same as another, etc. I will end up looking quite generous, when actually I just have no real further use for the stuff.
One of my few remaining goals is to enrich my daugher beyond her wildest dreams . Selfishly though, she'll have to wait until her forties for said enrichment!
That's not necessarily in her interests though.
I've known a lot of quite well off people over the years - usually the ones with a lot of money or assets when they are young go completely off the rails. Making your daughter wait until her 40s is a good start, but giving her so much money that it means she doesn't have to work can make life pretty meaningless unless she is very disciplined
You want to teach discipline, you should do what my parents did and leave nothing, because it is all used up on credit card debt. That focuses the mind.
In some countries (France?) I believe the children inherit the debts of the parents.
So could be worse.
Same applies in Germany, I believe.
Don't the Japanese take out multi-generational mortgages in order to purchase property?
Don’t know about Japan, but they do in Germany. A 99 year mortgage is not uncommon.
Although German property is incredibly inexpensive, so I don't know why they'd bother.
Mr. JS, not a father, but that seems a really odd perspective to me. Even if I never have children, I hope to be successful enough to leave something to my nephew and niece.
I find the older I get the less I can be arsed to spend money on myself; air travel sucks and I have been to most of the places I want to go to, most forms of partying look ridiculous among the over 50s, one car is much the same as another, etc. I will end up looking quite generous, when actually I just have no real further use for the stuff.
One of my few remaining goals is to enrich my daugher beyond her wildest dreams . Selfishly though, she'll have to wait until her forties for said enrichment!
That's not necessarily in her interests though.
I've known a lot of quite well off people over the years - usually the ones with a lot of money or assets when they are young go completely off the rails. Making your daughter wait until her 40s is a good start, but giving her so much money that it means she doesn't have to work can make life pretty meaningless unless she is very disciplined
You want to teach discipline, you should do what my parents did and leave nothing, because it is all used up on credit card debt. That focuses the mind.
In some countries (France?) I believe the children inherit the debts of the parents.
What's the situation here?!
I don't think that children normally inherit the debts of their parents in the UK and certaimly not unsecured credit card debt.
Any secured debts would of course be entitled for repayment out of the value of the security eg a mortgage.
In France, heirship is compulsory. Debts pass to heirs, although they can apply to disclaim an inheritance if debts exceed assets.
In England and Wales, an estate passes by will or intestacy. If the debts exceed the assets, there is nothing to inherit, and the creditors have no claim beyond the value of the estate.
Typically, how many die intestate?
About 2/3 in England and Wales.
That's not a big problem if you die married, or unmarried with surviving children, as the surviving spouse or children inherit anyway, under the Intestacy Rules.
It's a huge problem if (a) you're not married to your partner, and you die, and they discover they aren't entitled to anything or (b) you've remarried, and your new spouse gets everything, while your children get nothing.
I agree about being comfortable. We spend little and need less. In our thirties, there was a stage when we had three dependant children, a mortgage and 1.5 salaries. Twenty years later, we had no dependant children, no mortgage and two salaries.
Now we have two pensions and no wish to spend money.
But looking back to the 1950s, the highlight was moving into a council house with an indoor toilet.
As my mother used to say ... "You kids, the more you get, the more you want."
There is a good argument for having very low income tax and a significant wealth tax.
This means you keep earnings when you are young but have no wealth and pay lots of tax once you have accumulated wealth and have relatively low retirement income.
Hands up all those in favour of introducing a wealth tax, lowering income tax but no increase in tax overall.
You can feck right off, Mr. Evershed. I have paid my dues to HM Treasury all my life, including a period where, free from PAYE, I could have worked lots of "legitimate" wheezes but never did. I am still paying a hefty wack in income tax.
So you can take your wealth tax and place it where the sun shineth not.
There's always a good case for tax changes that mean you pay less personally while others pay more
Mr. JS, not a father, but that seems a really odd perspective to me. Even if I never have children, I hope to be successful enough to leave something to my nephew and niece.
I find the older I get the less I can be arsed to spend money on myself; air travel sucks and I have been to most of the places I want to go to, most forms of partying look ridiculous among the over 50s, one car is much the same as another, etc. I will end up looking quite generous, when actually I just have no real further use for the stuff.
One of my few remaining goals is to enrich my daugher beyond her wildest dreams . Selfishly though, she'll have to wait until her forties for said enrichment!
That's not necessarily in her interests though.
I've known a lot of quite well off people over the years - usually the ones with a lot of money or assets when they are young go completely off the rails. Making your daughter wait until her 40s is a good start, but giving her so much money that it means she doesn't have to work can make life pretty meaningless unless she is very disciplined
You want to teach discipline, you should do what my parents did and leave nothing, because it is all used up on credit card debt. That focuses the mind.
In some countries (France?) I believe the children inherit the debts of the parents.
So could be worse.
Same applies in Germany, I believe.
Don't the Japanese take out multi-generational mortgages in order to purchase property?
Don’t know about Japan, but they do in Germany. A 99 year mortgage is not uncommon.
Although German property is incredibly inexpensive, so I don't know why they'd bother.
Lots of rhetorical amplification there, but what he's saying is that he isn't corrupt. What is the point of a judge so declaring in a judgment?
Judicial review.
So it's a bit like when they stress that they've considered very carefully all the evidence brought before them and all the arguments made? I suppose that makes some kind of sense.
[28/07 16:46] This would never happen in Switzerland [28/07 16:46] Wtf is their problem [28/07 16:46] Worst bank ever [28/07 16:46] No wonder it's big in afrixa [28/07 16:46] This is what I think African banks are like
Actually they've sold Africa... they only got there because of Fred Goodenough (wonderful name!) and his vision for Barclays DCO [Dominion, Colonial and Overseas]
I noticed that Lord Deben had retweeted something from this twitter account and intrigued I had a look at what else they had written. This line about LEAVE = STUPID people seems to be a common view amongst the hardened REMAINers.
InForBritain @InForBritain Jul 26 Our SHOCKING poll finds number of thick, stupid Leavers has actually grown since #EUref. I despair. #brexitin5words
Like hardened people of any political persuasion, it's if you were clever, you'd understand and agree; you disagree => you are not clever.
Like gay marriage, Brexit has gone from being part of the lunatic fringe to the conventional wisdom in half a generation. Trying to overturn Brexit is now a lost cause.
Gay marriage will not adversely affect even the most avid opponent,
Brexit, on the other hand, is entirely different. Substantial numbers of people will never reconcile to what we have done, particularly if the economic consequences become demonstrably negative.
It's still like being a Southern Irish Unionist after 1922.
Remainers will be like Catholic recusants were in England in the 16th & 17th centuries in a few years. Skulking in dark corners of their houses fingering their way through copies of the Lisbon Treaty.
I agree about being comfortable. We spend little and need less. In our thirties, there was a stage when we had three dependant children, a mortgage and 1.5 salaries. Twenty years later, we had no dependant children, no mortgage and two salaries.
Now we have two pensions and no wish to spend money.
But looking back to the 1950s, the highlight was moving into a council house with an indoor toilet.
As my mother used to say ... "You kids, the more you get, the more you want."
There is a good argument for having very low income tax and a significant wealth tax.
This means you keep earnings when you are young but have no wealth and pay lots of tax once you have accumulated wealth and have relatively low retirement income.
Hands up all those in favour of introducing a wealth tax, lowering income tax but no increase in tax overall.
Wealth tax is easy to avoid and incredibly intrusive.
I'd be a fan of annual tax on property value, though.
Yep a 1% tax on property value would have an interesting impact on prices....
Sure. But a positive one, overall, in that I'd expect prices would fall by c. 10%.
You'd want to set it up as follows:
- Base value for property is last transfer value (i.e. it revalues to current market price whenever there is an arms-length transfer) - In the event that property hasn't been transferred in the last 10 years you'd do a current market valuation & allow for a 10 year (equal increment) run in period (i.e. so year 1 you pay based on last transfer value, and after 10 years you have caught up to market rates as of the date of the introduction of the tax [applies only a launch] - Annual increases in the value of the property based on CPI, with a provision for a temporary down valuation in the event of market dislocation
My inkling is that any current drop would be far more than 10%. Many rented properties only provide a 5% return, a 1% tax is instantly a drop of 20% in revenue and most of the profit...
Jess Philips Locksmith spending 6hrs to make my home safe.Think abt how my kids feel next time you mock up a picture of me dying https://t.co/zJYOS3cqWA
As a taxpayer, I hope she enjoys the shiny new front door I've just bought for her. You're welcome, Jess.
Rotten to the core. Watchdog slams IMF trumpeted by remainers as key organisation we should listen to.
The IMF is really two totally separate organisations: one is the lender of last resort for bankrupt governments, and the other is a research organisation that produces lots of useful (and usually accurate) data. Of course, it's forecasts are far from perfect, but its research function is incredibly rigorous.
I noticed that Lord Deben had retweeted something from this twitter account and intrigued I had a look at what else they had written. This line about LEAVE = STUPID people seems to be a common view amongst the hardened REMAINers.
InForBritain @InForBritain Jul 26 Our SHOCKING poll finds number of thick, stupid Leavers has actually grown since #EUref. I despair. #brexitin5words
Like hardened people of any political persuasion, it's if you were clever, you'd understand and agree; you disagree => you are not clever.
Like gay marriage, Brexit has gone from being part of the lunatic fringe to the conventional wisdom in half a generation. Trying to overturn Brexit is now a lost cause.
Gay marriage will not adversely affect even the most avid opponent,
Brexit, on the other hand, is entirely different. Substantial numbers of people will never reconcile to what we have done, particularly if the economic consequences become demonstrably negative.
It's still like being a Southern Irish Unionist after 1922.
Remainers will be like Catholic recusants were in England in the 16th & 17th centuries in a few years. Skulking in dark corners of their houses fingering their way through copies of the Lisbon Treaty.
Mr. JS, not a father, but that seems a really odd perspective to me. Even if I never have children, I hope to be successful enough to leave something to my nephew and niece.
I find the older I get the less I can be arsed to spend money on myself; air travel sucks and I have been to most of the places I want to go to, most forms of partying look ridiculous among the over 50s, one car is much the same as another, etc. I will end up looking quite generous, when actually I just have no real further use for the stuff.
One of my few remaining goals is to enrich my daugher beyond her wildest dreams . Selfishly though, she'll have to wait until her forties for said enrichment!
That's not necessarily in her interests though.
I've known a lot of quite well off people over the years - usually the ones with a lot of money or assets when they are young go completely off the rails. Making your daughter wait until her 40s is a good start, but giving her so much money that it means she doesn't have to work can make life pretty meaningless unless she is very disciplined
You want to teach discipline, you should do what my parents did and leave nothing, because it is all used up on credit card debt. That focuses the mind.
In some countries (France?) I believe the children inherit the debts of the parents.
So could be worse.
Same applies in Germany, I believe.
Don't the Japanese take out multi-generational mortgages in order to purchase property?
Don’t know about Japan, but they do in Germany. A 99 year mortgage is not uncommon.
Although German property is incredibly inexpensive, so I don't know why they'd bother.
Mr. JS, not a father, but that seems a really odd perspective to me. Even if I never have children, I hope to be successful enough to leave something to my nephew and niece.
I find the older I get the less I can be arsed to spend money on myself; air travel sucks and I have been to most of the places I want to go to, most forms of partying look ridiculous among the over 50s, one car is much the same as another, etc. I will end up looking quite generous, when actually I just have no real further use for the stuff.
One of my few remaining goals is to enrich my daugher beyond her wildest dreams . Selfishly though, she'll have to wait until her forties for said enrichment!
That's not necessarily in her interests though.
I've known a lot of quite well off people over the years - usually the ones with a lot of money or assets when they are young go completely off the rails. Making your daughter wait until her 40s is a good start, but giving her so much money that it means she doesn't have to work can make life pretty meaningless unless she is very disciplined
You want to teach discipline, you should do what my parents did and leave nothing, because it is all used up on credit card debt. That focuses the mind.
In some countries (France?) I believe the children inherit the debts of the parents.
So could be worse.
Same applies in Germany, I believe.
Don't the Japanese take out multi-generational mortgages in order to purchase property?
Don’t know about Japan, but they do in Germany. A 99 year mortgage is not uncommon.
Although German property is incredibly inexpensive, so I don't know why they'd bother.
I noticed that Lord Deben had retweeted something from this twitter account and intrigued I had a look at what else they had written. This line about LEAVE = STUPID people seems to be a common view amongst the hardened REMAINers.
InForBritain @InForBritain Jul 26 Our SHOCKING poll finds number of thick, stupid Leavers has actually grown since #EUref. I despair. #brexitin5words
Like hardened people of any political persuasion, it's if you were clever, you'd understand and agree; you disagree => you are not clever.
Like gay marriage, Brexit has gone from being part of the lunatic fringe to the conventional wisdom in half a generation. Trying to overturn Brexit is now a lost cause.
Gay marriage will not adversely affect even the most avid opponent,
Brexit, on the other hand, is entirely different. Substantial numbers of people will never reconcile to what we have done, particularly if the economic consequences become demonstrably negative.
It's still like being a Southern Irish Unionist after 1922.
Remainers will be like Catholic recusants were in England in the 16th & 17th centuries in a few years. Skulking in dark corners of their houses fingering their way through copies of the Lisbon Treaty.
Weird - and that's nearly half the electorate!
Probably it was rather more than half in 1536. Not so many fifty years later.
True EU believers are a small minority of the Remain vote from June. They will be seen as cranks and oddballs a decade from now.
''A wealth tax is great in theory, encourages efficient use of assets - you'd of course want it to replace income tax revenue so it is not just "more tax".''
I'm just trying to work out how many seats a 1% property tax might lose the tories.
100? 150?
That's why it hasn't happened. Doesn't mean it's the wrong thing to do theoretically.
Provided, of course, that it replaces other taxes
Total value of residential property is £6 trillion (end 2015 -Savills) Total value of commercial property (end 2014 - RICS) is £0.8 trillion
Overall that means a 1% tax take would be worth £68 billion per year
- Cut council tax in half (so that centrally mandated spending is covered centrally even if managed by councils) at a cost of £14 billion - Eliminate property stamp duty at a cost of £9bn
That basically gives you £45 billion to play with.
Personally I'd look for a reduction in employer NICs to make employment more attractive, possibly an increase in capital investment allowances (to encourage investment), a reduction in petrol taxes and utility taxes to reduce the cost of doing business/living, plus a reduction in income taxes. And a chunk - say £25bn or so - to reduce the deficit.
Large numbers of people have very little wealth beyond the home they live in.
A 1% charge in London would instantly = £5k pa tax bill on the most average of properties for many people with very modest incomes.
I noticed that Lord Deben had retweeted something from this twitter account and intrigued I had a look at what else they had written. This line about LEAVE = STUPID people seems to be a common view amongst the hardened REMAINers.
InForBritain @InForBritain Jul 26 Our SHOCKING poll finds number of thick, stupid Leavers has actually grown since #EUref. I despair. #brexitin5words
Like hardened people of any political persuasion, it's if you were clever, you'd understand and agree; you disagree => you are not clever.
Like gay marriage, Brexit has gone from being part of the lunatic fringe to the conventional wisdom in half a generation. Trying to overturn Brexit is now a lost cause.
Gay marriage will not adversely affect even the most avid opponent,
Brexit, on the other hand, is entirely different. Substantial numbers of people will never reconcile to what we have done, particularly if the economic consequences become demonstrably negative.
It's still like being a Southern Irish Unionist after 1922.
Remainers will be like Catholic recusants were in England in the 16th & 17th centuries in a few years. Skulking in dark corners of their houses fingering their way through copies of the Lisbon Treaty.
Weird - and that's nearly half the electorate!
Probably it was rather more than half in 1536. Not so many fifty years later.
True EU believers are a small minority of the Remain vote from June. They will be seen as cranks and oddballs a decade from now.
80% of Remain voters were simply "status quo" voters.
Polly - Thank you, Jeremy, for sweeping away the third-way brigade, but it’s Smith who has the policies, daring and coherence to take the party to power.
I noticed that Lord Deben had retweeted something from this twitter account and intrigued I had a look at what else they had written. This line about LEAVE = STUPID people seems to be a common view amongst the hardened REMAINers.
InForBritain @InForBritain Jul 26 Our SHOCKING poll finds number of thick, stupid Leavers has actually grown since #EUref. I despair. #brexitin5words
Like hardened people of any political persuasion, it's if you were clever, you'd understand and agree; you disagree => you are not clever.
Like gay marriage, Brexit has gone from being part of the lunatic fringe to the conventional wisdom in half a generation. Trying to overturn Brexit is now a lost cause.
Gay marriage will not adversely affect even the most avid opponent,
Brexit, on the other hand, is entirely different. Substantial numbers of people will never reconcile to what we have done, particularly if the economic consequences become demonstrably negative.
It's still like being a Southern Irish Unionist after 1922.
Remainers will be like Catholic recusants were in England in the 16th & 17th centuries in a few years. Skulking in dark corners of their houses fingering their way through copies of the Lisbon Treaty.
Weird - and that's nearly half the electorate!
Probably it was rather more than half in 1536. Not so many fifty years later.
True EU believers are a small minority of the Remain vote from June. They will be seen as cranks and oddballs a decade from now.
80% of Remain voters were simply "status quo" voters.
Polly - Thank you, Jeremy, for sweeping away the third-way brigade, but it’s Smith who has the policies, daring and coherence to take the party to power.
''A wealth tax is great in theory, encourages efficient use of assets - you'd of course want it to replace income tax revenue so it is not just "more tax".''
I'm just trying to work out how many seats a 1% property tax might lose the tories.
100? 150?
That's why it hasn't happened. Doesn't mean it's the wrong thing to do theoretically.
Provided, of course, that it replaces other taxes
Total value of residential property is £6 trillion (end 2015 -Savills) Total value of commercial property (end 2014 - RICS) is £0.8 trillion
Overall that means a 1% tax take would be worth £68 billion per year
- Cut council tax in half (so that centrally mandated spending is covered centrally even if managed by councils) at a cost of £14 billion - Eliminate property stamp duty at a cost of £9bn
That basically gives you £45 billion to play with.
Personally I'd look for a reduction in employer NICs to make employment more attractive, possibly an increase in capital investment allowances (to encourage investment), a reduction in petrol taxes and utility taxes to reduce the cost of doing business/living, plus a reduction in income taxes. And a chunk - say £25bn or so - to reduce the deficit.
Large numbers of people have very little wealth beyond the home they live in.
A 1% charge in London would instantly = £5k pa tax bill on the most average of properties for many people with very modest incomes.
''A wealth tax is great in theory, encourages efficient use of assets - you'd of course want it to replace income tax revenue so it is not just "more tax".''
I'm just trying to work out how many seats a 1% property tax might lose the tories.
100? 150?
That's why it hasn't happened. Doesn't mean it's the wrong thing to do theoretically.
Provided, of course, that it replaces other taxes
Total value of residential property is £6 trillion (end 2015 -Savills) Total value of commercial property (end 2014 - RICS) is £0.8 trillion
Overall that means a 1% tax take would be worth £68 billion per year
- Cut council tax in half (so that centrally mandated spending is covered centrally even if managed by councils) at a cost of £14 billion - Eliminate property stamp duty at a cost of £9bn
That basically gives you £45 billion to play with.
Personally I'd look for a reduction in employer NICs to make employment more attractive, possibly an increase in capital investment allowances (to encourage investment), a reduction in petrol taxes and utility taxes to reduce the cost of doing business/living, plus a reduction in income taxes. And a chunk - say £25bn or so - to reduce the deficit.
Large numbers of people have very little wealth beyond the home they live in.
A 1% charge in London would instantly = £5k pa tax bill on the most average of properties for many people with very modest incomes.
''A wealth tax is great in theory, encourages efficient use of assets - you'd of course want it to replace income tax revenue so it is not just "more tax".''
I'm just trying to work out how many seats a 1% property tax might lose the tories.
100? 150?
That's why it hasn't happened. Doesn't mean it's the wrong thing to do theoretically.
Provided, of course, that it replaces other taxes
Total value of residential property is £6 trillion (end 2015 -Savills) Total value of commercial property (end 2014 - RICS) is £0.8 trillion
Overall that means a 1% tax take would be worth £68 billion per year
- Cut council tax in half (so that centrally mandated spending is covered centrally even if managed by councils) at a cost of £14 billion - Eliminate property stamp duty at a cost of £9bn
That basically gives you £45 billion to play with.
Personally I'd look for a reduction in employer NICs to make employment more attractive, possibly an increase in capital investment allowances (to encourage investment), a reduction in petrol taxes and utility taxes to reduce the cost of doing business/living, plus a reduction in income taxes. And a chunk - say £25bn or so - to reduce the deficit.
Large numbers of people have very little wealth beyond the home they live in.
A 1% charge in London would instantly = £5k pa tax bill on the most average of properties for many people with very modest incomes.
Large numbers of people have very little wealth beyond the home they live in.
This is still wealth, and it's massively advantageous tax treatment is partly why this situation exists in the first place.
It is a home.
The net consequence of doing this would be to further concentrate wealth and property in the hands of the most wealthy, whilst taking capital from those of moderate means and socially cleansing places like London.
This doesn't just affect the homeowner, but all those who inherit. Reduce the inheritance; increase the future dependence.
Thatcher's greatest achievement was putting capital in the hands of the working class. It fostered far greater levels of independence not only for their generation, but those who followed on.
This idea would reverse it.
Concentrate on high value properties, high value incomes and high value products if taxing wealth is the aim.
Polly - Thank you, Jeremy, for sweeping away the third-way brigade, but it’s Smith who has the policies, daring and coherence to take the party to power.
Large numbers of people have very little wealth beyond the home they live in.
This is still wealth, and it's massively advantageous tax treatment is partly why this situation exists in the first place.
It is a home.
The net consequence of doing this would be to further concentrate wealth and property in the hands of the most wealthy, whilst taking capital from those of moderate means and socially cleansing places like London.
This doesn't just affect the homeowner, but all those who inherit. Reduce the inheritance; increase the future dependence.
Thatcher's greatest achievement was putting capital in the hands of the working class. It fostered far greater levels of independence not only for their generation, but those who followed on.
This idea would reverse it.
Concentrate on high value properties, high value incomes and high value products if taxing wealth is the aim.
Thachers home owning democracy has been reversed in London.
''A wealth tax is great in theory, encourages efficient use of assets - you'd of course want it to replace income tax revenue so it is not just "more tax".''
I'm just trying to work out how many seats a 1% property tax might lose the tories.
100? 150?
That's why it hasn't happened. Doesn't mean it's the wrong thing to do theoretically.
Provided, of course, that it replaces other taxes
Total value of residential property is £6 trillion (end 2015 -Savills) Total value of commercial property (end 2014 - RICS) is £0.8 trillion
Overall that means a 1% tax take would be worth £68 billion per year
- Cut council tax in half (so that centrally mandated spending is covered centrally even if managed by councils) at a cost of £14 billion - Eliminate property stamp duty at a cost of £9bn
That basically gives you £45 billion to play with.
Personally I'd look for a reduction in employer NICs to make employment more attractive, possibly an increase in capital investment allowances (to encourage investment), a reduction in petrol taxes and utility taxes to reduce the cost of doing business/living, plus a reduction in income taxes. And a chunk - say £25bn or so - to reduce the deficit.
Large numbers of people have very little wealth beyond the home they live in.
A 1% charge in London would instantly = £5k pa tax bill on the most average of properties for many people with very modest incomes.
It's a really bad idea.
What happens to tenants?
Evictions.
Why would you evict tenants when they're paying the wealth tax ?
''A wealth tax is great in theory, encourages efficient use of assets - you'd of course want it to replace income tax revenue so it is not just "more tax".''
I'm just trying to work out how many seats a 1% property tax might lose the tories.
100? 150?
That's why it hasn't happened. Doesn't mean it's the wrong thing to do theoretically.
Provided, of course, that it replaces other taxes
Total value of residential property is £6 trillion (end 2015 -Savills) Total value of commercial property (end 2014 - RICS) is £0.8 trillion
Overall that means a 1% tax take would be worth £68 billion per year
- Cut council tax in half (so that centrally mandated spending is covered centrally even if managed by councils) at a cost of £14 billion - Eliminate property stamp duty at a cost of £9bn
That basically gives you £45 billion to play with.
Personally I'd look for a reduction in employer NICs to make employment more attractive, possibly an increase in capital investment allowances (to encourage investment), a reduction in petrol taxes and utility taxes to reduce the cost of doing business/living, plus a reduction in income taxes. And a chunk - say £25bn or so - to reduce the deficit.
Large numbers of people have very little wealth beyond the home they live in.
A 1% charge in London would instantly = £5k pa tax bill on the most average of properties for many people with very modest incomes.
It's a really bad idea.
What happens to tenants?
Even worse for tenants. They don't have the wealth of the value of the property, but the tax on the value of the property now gets added to their rent.
Comments
Spot on.
In the case of Property Rich, Cash Poor (the ubiquitous penniless old widow in the £2Mn house), I don't see any issue in it being rolled up as an annual charge as a mortgage against the property, to be redeemed on sale or transfer.
FFX had some good points but the main character was so bloody dislikeable. A cross between a stereotypical Millennial and Ronaldo.
I like Dragon Age a lot, but the DLC approach of Bioware/EA is not something I like. I'll wait and see if they do a proper GOTY edition for Andromeda, otherwise I might just skip it. If it were 4, with Jennifer Hale as Femshep, I'd almost certainly get it. Fantastic performance from her across the first three games.
So you can take your wealth tax and place it where the sun shineth not.
You'd want to set it up as follows:
- Base value for property is last transfer value (i.e. it revalues to current market price whenever there is an arms-length transfer)
- In the event that property hasn't been transferred in the last 10 years you'd do a current market valuation & allow for a 10 year (equal increment) run in period (i.e. so year 1 you pay based on last transfer value, and after 10 years you have caught up to market rates as of the date of the introduction of the tax [applies only a launch]
- Annual increases in the value of the property based on CPI, with a provision for a temporary down valuation in the event of market dislocation
HOWEVER it can't work correctly because people who are actually properly rich will just have most oftheir assets overseas. Instead it'll just bash the moderately rich, probably the easiest target of all of government. Just like inheritance tax it creates makework for lawyers and tax specialists.
They didn't carve out whole characters with DA: Inquisition like they did with the first two though, that may show some progress!
Good day to all
Someone is paid the same whether they do 10 tasks in the forty hours or 20. They have little incentive therefore as is human nature not to spin out tasks to fill the time as they are being paid the same as the person who remains just completing 10.
If after completing their 10 tasks that week their time is their own as they have done what they are paid to do that week they have more inclination to do that as efficiently as possible. A manager can then negotiate with them to do extra tasks if they wish to. If on top of that they are also offered incentives to share anything they come up with to lift the productivity of others then you have a system that encourages innovation in productivity and one where employees and management have the same goal
I'm just trying to work out how many seats a 1% property tax might lose the tories.
100? 150?
Shale was ok. Sebastian was like having a sodding puritan raining on Hawke's parade.
An example two bungalows near me have, in the last couple of months, sold for near the asking price of £500k and both sold within a few days. The house next door remains unsold more than 6 months after it was put on the market and three drops in asking price.
So how, Mr. Charles, is my house to be valued for your annual tax on property value?
http://www.bmgresearch.co.uk/evening-standardbmg-polling-labour-supporters-back-corbyn-think-party-failing-opposition/
"If you had to choose, who do you think would make the best Labour leader ?"
General Public
Corbyn 43
Smith 57
2015 Labour voters
Corbyn 60
Smith 40
Present Labour voters
Corbyn 75
Smith 25
I think Smith, who already was doing badly, has actually gone backwards.
Corbyn with a 50 point lead among present Labour voters, just think how large his lead is currently with members.
Gay marriage will not adversely affect even the most avid opponent,
Brexit, on the other hand, is entirely different. Substantial numbers of people will never reconcile to what we have done, particularly if the economic consequences become demonstrably negative.
An increase on the highest band from (or the addition of a couple of higher bands as well) the present level (around here) of about 3k pa to 5k or 6k would seem to be a good starting point, with a less punitive increase to the lower bands.
Revaluations could be done in the way you suggest too.
...wizards knew when they were going to die. They often threw parties in advance, and always made sure they were as far in debt as possible just as the fateful day dawned.
I find this works very well and we have a strong team identity.
Currently as it stands however for software it is a truism that some engineers are many times more productive than others. This has become more evident with the adoption of Agile methodologies where tasks have a point score assigned and it is not unusual int a team of five or so engineers to find that one member of the team is accounting for 40% of the task points in any given sprint. Rarely however do you see them at least in the companies I have seen rewarded commensurately
Locksmith spending 6hrs to make my home safe.Think abt how my kids feel next time you mock up a picture of me dying https://t.co/zJYOS3cqWA
Provided, of course, that it replaces other taxes
Total value of residential property is £6 trillion (end 2015 -Savills)
Total value of commercial property (end 2014 - RICS) is £0.8 trillion
Overall that means a 1% tax take would be worth £68 billion per year
- Cut council tax in half (so that centrally mandated spending is covered centrally even if managed by councils) at a cost of £14 billion
- Eliminate property stamp duty at a cost of £9bn
That basically gives you £45 billion to play with.
Personally I'd look for a reduction in employer NICs to make employment more attractive, possibly an increase in capital investment allowances (to encourage investment), a reduction in petrol taxes and utility taxes to reduce the cost of doing business/living, plus a reduction in income taxes. And a chunk - say £25bn or so - to reduce the deficit.
Maybe she'll think about that the next time she mocks the idea of discussing why so many men kill themselves.
Edited extra bit: I do feel sorry for her as well, but that doesn't diminish the contempt I feel for her ridiculing discussing in Parliament the far higher suicide rates of men.
Jess Phillips' resignation letter to Jeremy Corbyn obviously upset a few of the membership...
Conflict News
BREAKING: al-Nusra releases photo of leader al-Gholani in anticipation of announcement of AQ split - @Rita_Katz
https://t.co/qSvo7BHi86
Rotten to the core. Watchdog slams IMF trumpeted by remainers as key organisation we should listen to.
If you bought it more than 10 years ago then you get a market valuation (the VOA is reasonably good at them) and then have a 10 years phase in period from last transfer to the VOA valuation). If you transfer in the meantime then it is immediately reset to the new transfer value.
(Have you consider that the reason why the house next door is unsold is because of the grumpy neighbours
Still loses 100/150 seats on those terms mate.
One offset they might think about is removing all taxation on pension income.
That way the tories might only lose 100 seats.
I worked on seven Framework 5 projects at one time, and found the same thing.
Not done a psycho-zealot playthrough, but that would fit ideally with Inquisition.
In England and Wales, an estate passes by will or intestacy. If the debts exceed the assets, there is nothing to inherit, and the creditors have no claim beyond the value of the estate.
Also, there would need to be a significant increase in rail fares: do you think that would be popular?
If you take a house worth, say, £300,000 (which I think is about the average house price without checking) that's an annual liability of £3,000 in year 1. Offset that by a 50% reduction in a Band D council tax of, let's say, £600 per year* gives you an additional annual liability of £2,400.
Growing that at 2% a year, for inflation, and discounting back at 8% cost of capital gives you a NPV of the liability of £30,417 - about 10% of the capital value. For simplicity I only ran it out for 25 years rather than looking at a terminal value, but it's near enough to 10% of the capital value.
* Band D council tax - most expensive in the country is £1,726 per year and cheapest is £678. Source: Telegraph. Mid point is £1,200 & I've suggested reducing that by 50% using proceeds from new tax.
[28/07 16:46] This would never happen in Switzerland
[28/07 16:46] Wtf is their problem
[28/07 16:46] Worst bank ever
[28/07 16:46] No wonder it's big in afrixa
[28/07 16:46] This is what I think African banks are like
From the judgment: "Mr Gavin Millar QC, who represents the Claimant, said that it was not the Claimant’s wish that Mr Corbyn should be denied the opportunity to stand in the contest if his (the Claimant’s) case succeeded."
Well what redress was he seeking then?
Corbyn and McNichol should have been awarded costs.
The judge, David Foskett, may belong to the Athenaeum but his judgment is full of piffle. "It is quite obvious that one side will be pleased with the outcome of the case and the other side will not (...). I repeat as firmly and unequivocally as I can that the resolution of the narrow legal issue I have been asked to decide is wholly uninfluenced by which side will be pleased with the outcome."
Lots of rhetorical amplification there, but what he's saying is that he isn't corrupt. What is the point of a judge so declaring in a judgment?
http://www.nber.org/digest/may11/w16540.html
If UK house prices are still extreme and proving resilient through Brexit (as per the Nationwide today) then why the f8ck is the BoE about to cut rates? Why are they intend on stoking this bubble?
They care about their own credibility more than the UK economy, perhaps. There HAS to be a recession, otherwise they look f8cking stupid. Or political.
That's not a big problem if you die married, or unmarried with surviving children, as the surviving spouse or children inherit anyway, under the Intestacy Rules.
It's a huge problem if (a) you're not married to your partner, and you die, and they discover they aren't entitled to anything or (b) you've remarried, and your new spouse gets everything, while your children get nothing.
https://ukgeneralelection2020.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/notional-results-for-parliamentary.html
It's predicting GE results from Council elections, probably not that accurate, but interesting nevertheless.
23% of Tories, 29% of LDs and 26% of UKIPpers all say they think Corbyn would make the best Labour Leader.
http://www.bmgresearch.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/TB_9860_EVENING_STANDARD_280716.pdf
True EU believers are a small minority of the Remain vote from June. They will be seen as cranks and oddballs a decade from now.
A 1% charge in London would instantly = £5k pa tax bill on the most average of properties for many people with very modest incomes.
It's a really bad idea.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/28/labour-owen-smith-jeremy-corbyn-policies?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=soc_3156#link_time=1469712475
Smith is fuked.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3712945/German-police-called-employment-agency-building-Cologne-amid-reports-man-gun.html
a strongly leave family...........
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3710459/ISIS-priest-killer-AWAITING-trial-fresh-terror-charges-house-arrest-electronic-tag-let-free-mornings-shocking-failure-French-security-services.html
But I agree with Jake Novak that the Democrats would be crazy to focus on this: "The Democrats just fell for Trump's Russian email-hack bait".
The net consequence of doing this would be to further concentrate wealth and property in the hands of the most wealthy, whilst taking capital from those of moderate means and socially cleansing places like London.
This doesn't just affect the homeowner, but all those who inherit. Reduce the inheritance; increase the future dependence.
Thatcher's greatest achievement was putting capital in the hands of the working class. It fostered far greater levels of independence not only for their generation, but those who followed on.
This idea would reverse it.
Concentrate on high value properties, high value incomes and high value products if taxing wealth is the aim.