I remain totally amazed that anyone ever seriously thought this outcome wasn't bloody obvious from the start.
Months ago we talked about this, inspected the rules and most thought it was totally clear. IIRC our conversations first kicked off from almost the moment Jezza was elected Leader.
Still, some lawyers made a few quid from it.
RodCrosby was right again...
Didn't he predict a Trump win? God help us.......
McTernan has said Hilary will win so she has absolutely no chance, Trump is a certainty
Mr Crosby has been very quiet of late.
So has Sean T since he went to visit Cde Bob, now I come to think of it.
Britain Elects @britainelects On Britain having nuclear weapons in principle: Support: 52% Oppose: 30% (via YouGov / 26 - 27 Jul)
Britain Elects Britain Elects @britainelects Theresa May was (X) to say she is prepared to authorise a nuclear strike that could kill innocent people: Right: 66% Wrong: 15% (via YouGov)
Because we all love sub samples, are there figures for Scotland?
Plurality support in Scotland too;
Britain Elects @britainelects Scottish voters // On what to do RE Trident: Replace subs & missiles 36% Scrap subs & missiles 33% Replace subs, scrap missiles 10% (YouGov)
Apparently they don't fit anywhere else for the purposes needed. If that is so, just think what sort of concessions an independent scotland could get in exchange for allowing them to stay.
Britain Elects @britainelects On Britain having nuclear weapons in principle: Support: 52% Oppose: 30% (via YouGov / 26 - 27 Jul)
Britain Elects Britain Elects @britainelects Theresa May was (X) to say she is prepared to authorise a nuclear strike that could kill innocent people: Right: 66% Wrong: 15% (via YouGov)
Because we all love sub samples, are there figures for Scotland?
Plurality support in Scotland too;
Britain Elects @britainelects Scottish voters // On what to do RE Trident: Replace subs & missiles 36% Scrap subs & missiles 33% Replace subs, scrap missiles 10% (YouGov)
Britain Elects @britainelects On Britain having nuclear weapons in principle: Support: 52% Oppose: 30% (via YouGov / 26 - 27 Jul)
Britain Elects Britain Elects @britainelects Theresa May was (X) to say she is prepared to authorise a nuclear strike that could kill innocent people: Right: 66% Wrong: 15% (via YouGov)
Because we all love sub samples, are there figures for Scotland?
Plurality support in Scotland too;
Britain Elects @britainelects Scottish voters // On what to do RE Trident: Replace subs & missiles 36% Scrap subs & missiles 33% Replace subs, scrap missiles 10% (YouGov)
What is the point of replacing the subs and not putting missiles in them?
Jobs.
Bollox, you would get far more jobs fixing the crap infrastructure across the UK rather than building a few willie waving toys with mostly foreign parts.
I'm sure we would - but what other explanation do you have for wanting the nuclear missile subs without nuclear missiles?
Britain Elects @britainelects On Britain having nuclear weapons in principle: Support: 52% Oppose: 30% (via YouGov / 26 - 27 Jul)
Britain Elects Britain Elects @britainelects Theresa May was (X) to say she is prepared to authorise a nuclear strike that could kill innocent people: Right: 66% Wrong: 15% (via YouGov)
Because we all love sub samples, are there figures for Scotland?
Plurality support in Scotland too;
Britain Elects @britainelects Scottish voters // On what to do RE Trident: Replace subs & missiles 36% Scrap subs & missiles 33% Replace subs, scrap missiles 10% (YouGov)
What is the point of replacing the subs and not putting missiles in them?
Jobs.
Bollox, you would get far more jobs fixing the crap infrastructure across the UK rather than building a few willie waving toys with mostly foreign parts.
Is that a surreptitious way of launching a campaign that all penile implants should be UK made?
I remain totally amazed that anyone ever seriously thought this outcome wasn't bloody obvious from the start.
Months ago we talked about this, inspected the rules and most thought it was totally clear. IIRC our conversations first kicked off from almost the moment Jezza was elected Leader.
Still, some lawyers made a few quid from it.
RodCrosby was right again...
Didn't he predict a Trump win? God help us.......
McTernan has said Hilary will win so she has absolutely no chance, Trump is a certainty
Mr Crosby has been very quiet of late.
So has Sean T since he went to visit Cde Bob, now I come to think of it.
Britain Elects @britainelects On Britain having nuclear weapons in principle: Support: 52% Oppose: 30% (via YouGov / 26 - 27 Jul)
Britain Elects Britain Elects @britainelects Theresa May was (X) to say she is prepared to authorise a nuclear strike that could kill innocent people: Right: 66% Wrong: 15% (via YouGov)
Because we all love sub samples, are there figures for Scotland?
Plurality support in Scotland too;
Britain Elects @britainelects Scottish voters // On what to do RE Trident: Replace subs & missiles 36% Scrap subs & missiles 33% Replace subs, scrap missiles 10% (YouGov)
What is the point of replacing the subs and not putting missiles in them?
Jobs.
Bollox, you would get far more jobs fixing the crap infrastructure across the UK rather than building a few willie waving toys with mostly foreign parts.
I'm sure we would - but what other explanation do you have for wanting the nuclear missile subs without nuclear missiles?
I want shot of the whole shebang, a total and utter waste of squillions of pounds, just for a few cretinous politicians to strut on the UN stage and think they are big shots
Britain Elects @britainelects On Britain having nuclear weapons in principle: Support: 52% Oppose: 30% (via YouGov / 26 - 27 Jul)
Britain Elects Britain Elects @britainelects Theresa May was (X) to say she is prepared to authorise a nuclear strike that could kill innocent people: Right: 66% Wrong: 15% (via YouGov)
Because we all love sub samples, are there figures for Scotland?
Plurality support in Scotland too;
Britain Elects @britainelects Scottish voters // On what to do RE Trident: Replace subs & missiles 36% Scrap subs & missiles 33% Replace subs, scrap missiles 10% (YouGov)
What is the point of replacing the subs and not putting missiles in them?
Jobs.
Bollox, you would get far more jobs fixing the crap infrastructure across the UK rather than building a few willie waving toys with mostly foreign parts.
I'm sure we would - but what other explanation do you have for wanting the nuclear missile subs without nuclear missiles?
I want shot of the whole shebang, a total and utter waste of squillions of pounds, just for a few cretinous politicians to strut on the UN stage and think they are big shots
That's fine, plenty of people believe that as well - it was the view of those who don't want the missiles but want the subs I don't understand.
Britain Elects @britainelects On Britain having nuclear weapons in principle: Support: 52% Oppose: 30% (via YouGov / 26 - 27 Jul)
Britain Elects Britain Elects @britainelects Theresa May was (X) to say she is prepared to authorise a nuclear strike that could kill innocent people: Right: 66% Wrong: 15% (via YouGov)
Because we all love sub samples, are there figures for Scotland?
Plurality support in Scotland too;
Britain Elects @britainelects Scottish voters // On what to do RE Trident: Replace subs & missiles 36% Scrap subs & missiles 33% Replace subs, scrap missiles 10% (YouGov)
Britain Elects @britainelects On Britain having nuclear weapons in principle: Support: 52% Oppose: 30% (via YouGov / 26 - 27 Jul)
Britain Elects Britain Elects @britainelects Theresa May was (X) to say she is prepared to authorise a nuclear strike that could kill innocent people: Right: 66% Wrong: 15% (via YouGov)
Because we all love sub samples, are there figures for Scotland?
Plurality support in Scotland too;
Britain Elects @britainelects Scottish voters // On what to do RE Trident: Replace subs & missiles 36% Scrap subs & missiles 33% Replace subs, scrap missiles 10% (YouGov)
What is the point of replacing the subs and not putting missiles in them?
Jobs.
Bollox, you would get far more jobs fixing the crap infrastructure across the UK rather than building a few willie waving toys with mostly foreign parts.
I don't think anyone sane considers it a good idea.
Surely that would lead to people not downsizing when they should - children persuading parents to stay in large homes rather than go into care / sheltered accommodation etc.
That wouldn't be good - people being in the wrong accommodation to avoid a tax bill - and large properties being clogged up and under occupied.
Then it's subject to inheritance tax in due course
Sure - but it's taxed twice under your proposal - once on sale and then the remaining amount is subject to IT.
That's a wrinkle you can work out. Fundamentally houses should be like other assets (and capital gains are taxed twice) with a rollover relief
Britain Elects @britainelects On Britain having nuclear weapons in principle: Support: 52% Oppose: 30% (via YouGov / 26 - 27 Jul)
Britain Elects Britain Elects @britainelects Theresa May was (X) to say she is prepared to authorise a nuclear strike that could kill innocent people: Right: 66% Wrong: 15% (via YouGov)
Because we all love sub samples, are there figures for Scotland?
Plurality support in Scotland too;
Britain Elects @britainelects Scottish voters // On what to do RE Trident: Replace subs & missiles 36% Scrap subs & missiles 33% Replace subs, scrap missiles 10% (YouGov)
Apparently they don't fit anywhere else for the purposes needed. If that is so, just think what sort of concessions an independent scotland could get in exchange for allowing them to stay.
Thames Estuary is not deep enough. What they need are fjords. Idea: can we swap Scotland for Norway? Norwegians are sexier than Scots anyway.
I would have a gross assets tax, as it would discourage people from over-leveraging themselves. (Donald Trump would have been screwed.)
But 1% is far too high: 0.2% would be more than enough.
Forget the tax for a second..
The issue is that the hyper rich are perceived as not paying their way, whilst the burden of tax falls on the rest of us. A lot of truth in that.
Whatever the mechanism, there are a number of very wealthy people (and I don't mean, actually, the salaried on 100-300k per year) who pay Sweet FA but seem to enjoy a lot of benefits of living here and access at the highest levels too.
That's what needs to be tackled. And it ain't easy either.
The original debate today was about younger people with little or no wealth paying significant income tax on earnings but having to pay for mortgage and family, whilst older people with accumulated wealth and lower retirement income paid little tax and also had lower outgoings.
So for fairness, is there a case to lower income tax and introduce a wealth tax?
The suggestion is that the only realistic wealth tax would need to be on property or a land value tax.
Assuming perfect information, and no tax evasion, yes it would be better to tax wealth than income.
Why?
Because work is something we want to encourage, not discourage. Treating work like cigarettes, and discouraging people from doing more in bizarre.
Furthermore, we want the tax system to encourage the efficient use of capital. The old lady in the 2m house is not using her capital efficiently. She is taking out - effectively - 100,000/year in implied rental benefit. If you gave her 100k/year, do you think she'd rent the house?
Britain Elects @britainelects On Britain having nuclear weapons in principle: Support: 52% Oppose: 30% (via YouGov / 26 - 27 Jul)
Britain Elects Britain Elects @britainelects Theresa May was (X) to say she is prepared to authorise a nuclear strike that could kill innocent people: Right: 66% Wrong: 15% (via YouGov)
Because we all love sub samples, are there figures for Scotland?
Plurality support in Scotland too;
Britain Elects @britainelects Scottish voters // On what to do RE Trident: Replace subs & missiles 36% Scrap subs & missiles 33% Replace subs, scrap missiles 10% (YouGov)
What is the point of replacing the subs and not putting missiles in them?
Jobs.
Why not just dig holes and fill them in again if jobs is the only reason?
I think when it comes to flushing money down the drain, people and politicians like to at least see something at the end of it, even if it is useless or not worth the cost. See HS2 and every large IT and Defence Procurement project.
I remain totally amazed that anyone ever seriously thought this outcome wasn't bloody obvious from the start.
Months ago we talked about this, inspected the rules and most thought it was totally clear. IIRC our conversations first kicked off from almost the moment Jezza was elected Leader.
Still, some lawyers made a few quid from it.
RodCrosby was right again...
Didn't he predict a Trump win? God help us.......
McTernan has said Hilary will win so she has absolutely no chance, Trump is a certainty
Mr Crosby has been very quiet of late.
So has Sean T since he went to visit Cde Bob, now I come to think of it.
Wasn't Sean off to deepest darkest Africa? Probably eaten by a lion in a wonderful setting ...
Britain Elects @britainelects On Britain having nuclear weapons in principle: Support: 52% Oppose: 30% (via YouGov / 26 - 27 Jul)
Britain Elects Britain Elects @britainelects Theresa May was (X) to say she is prepared to authorise a nuclear strike that could kill innocent people: Right: 66% Wrong: 15% (via YouGov)
Because we all love sub samples, are there figures for Scotland?
Plurality support in Scotland too;
Britain Elects @britainelects Scottish voters // On what to do RE Trident: Replace subs & missiles 36% Scrap subs & missiles 33% Replace subs, scrap missiles 10% (YouGov)
I was out of the country for that election and so missed Kenny Everett's show stopper.
It makes me sad that, even then, obvious satire was tutted at so seriously by the PC do-gooders. FFS, he was wearing his Brother Lee Love hands as he called for the bombing of Russia and kicking away of Michael Foot's stick. Satire comes no more oCan you think of the reaction nowadays ...
Britain Elects @britainelects On Britain having nuclear weapons in principle: Support: 52% Oppose: 30% (via YouGov / 26 - 27 Jul)
Britain Elects Britain Elects @britainelects Theresa May was (X) to say she is prepared to authorise a nuclear strike that could kill innocent people: Right: 66% Wrong: 15% (via YouGov)
Because we all love sub samples, are there figures for Scotland?
Plurality support in Scotland too;
Britain Elects @britainelects Scottish voters // On what to do RE Trident: Replace subs & missiles 36% Scrap subs & missiles 33% Replace subs, scrap missiles 10% (YouGov)
BBC Parliament just starting its penultimate evening of Democratic convention highlights from last night, former Defence Secretary Leon Panetta speaking (with a few 'no more war' Berniebots in the background while the rest of the crowd chants 'USA')
Britain Elects @britainelects On Britain having nuclear weapons in principle: Support: 52% Oppose: 30% (via YouGov / 26 - 27 Jul)
Britain Elects Britain Elects @britainelects Theresa May was (X) to say she is prepared to authorise a nuclear strike that could kill innocent people: Right: 66% Wrong: 15% (via YouGov)
Because we all love sub samples, are there figures for Scotland?
Plurality support in Scotland too;
Britain Elects @britainelects Scottish voters // On what to do RE Trident: Replace subs & missiles 36% Scrap subs & missiles 33% Replace subs, scrap missiles 10% (YouGov)
I remain totally amazed that anyone ever seriously thought this outcome wasn't bloody obvious from the start.
Months ago we talked about this, inspected the rules and most thought it was totally clear. IIRC our conversations first kicked off from almost the moment Jezza was elected Leader.
Still, some lawyers made a few quid from it.
RodCrosby was right again...
Didn't he predict a Trump win? God help us.......
McTernan has said Hilary will win so she has absolutely no chance, Trump is a certainty
Mr Crosby has been very quiet of late.
So has Sean T since he went to visit Cde Bob, now I come to think of it.
@SeanT last posted from the departure lounge at LHR.
I expect once SeanT has finished in the champagne bar and awakened from his first class cabin and been driven by limo to his 5* hotel and eaten his gourmet meal for the evening he may deign to make a brief post before heading off to his 4 poster for the night with a voluptuous young maiden!
I would have a gross assets tax, as it would discourage people from over-leveraging themselves. (Donald Trump would have been screwed.)
But 1% is far too high: 0.2% would be more than enough.
Forget the tax for a second..
The issue is that the hyper rich are perceived as not paying their way, whilst the burden of tax falls on the rest of us. A lot of truth in that.
Whatever the mechanism, there are a number of very wealthy people (and I don't mean, actually, the salaried on 100-300k per year) who pay Sweet FA but seem to enjoy a lot of benefits of living here and access at the highest levels too.
That's what needs to be tackled. And it ain't easy either.
The original debate today was about younger people with little or no wealth paying significant income tax on earnings but having to pay for mortgage and family, whilst older people with accumulated wealth and lower retirement income paid little tax and also had lower outgoings.
So for fairness, is there a case to lower income tax and introduce a wealth tax?
The suggestion is that the only realistic wealth tax would need to be on property or a land value tax.
Assuming perfect information, and no tax evasion, yes it would be better to tax wealth than income.
Why?
Because work is something we want to encourage, not discourage. Treating work like cigarettes, and discouraging people from doing more in bizarre.
Furthermore, we want the tax system to encourage the efficient use of capital. The old lady in the 2m house is not using her capital efficiently. She is taking out - effectively - 100,000/year in implied rental benefit. If you gave her 100k/year, do you think she'd rent the house?
Yes. My only issue with this is that I think people should be able to live freely in their own family homes unmolested by the State.
Trouble is that taxing domestic residential property would also be the most lucrative. But political suicide.
Britain Elects @britainelects On Britain having nuclear weapons in principle: Support: 52% Oppose: 30% (via YouGov / 26 - 27 Jul)
Britain Elects Britain Elects @britainelects Theresa May was (X) to say she is prepared to authorise a nuclear strike that could kill innocent people: Right: 66% Wrong: 15% (via YouGov)
Because we all love sub samples, are there figures for Scotland?
Plurality support in Scotland too;
Britain Elects @britainelects Scottish voters // On what to do RE Trident: Replace subs & missiles 36% Scrap subs & missiles 33% Replace subs, scrap missiles 10% (YouGov)
I would have a gross assets tax, as it would discourage people from over-leveraging themselves. (Donald Trump would have been screwed.)
But 1% is far too high: 0.2% would be more than enough.
Forget the tax for a second..
The issue is that the hyper rich are perceived as not paying their way, whilst the burden of tax falls on the rest of us. A lot of truth in that.
Whatever the mechanism, there are a number of very wealthy people (and I don't mean, actually, the salaried on 100-300k per year) who pay Sweet FA but seem to enjoy a lot of benefits of living here and access at the highest levels too.
That's what needs to be tackled. And it ain't easy either.
The original debate today was about younger people with little or no wealth paying significant income tax on earnings but having to pay for mortgage and family, whilst older people with accumulated wealth and lower retirement income paid little tax and also had lower outgoings.
So for fairness, is there a case to lower income tax and introduce a wealth tax?
The suggestion is that the only realistic wealth tax would need to be on property or a land value tax.
Assuming perfect information, and no tax evasion, yes it would be better to tax wealth than income.
Why?
Because work is something we want to encourage, not discourage. Treating work like cigarettes, and discouraging people from doing more in bizarre.
Furthermore, we want the tax system to encourage the efficient use of capital. The old lady in the 2m house is not using her capital efficiently. She is taking out - effectively - 100,000/year in implied rental benefit. If you gave her 100k/year, do you think she'd rent the house?
That lol probably wants to move to a bungalow rather than climb 3 flights of stairs each night - but builders dont't build them as they get more for semis/ detached for the same ground area.
I would have a gross assets tax, as it would discourage people from over-leveraging themselves. (Donald Trump would have been screwed.)
But 1% is far too high: 0.2% would be more than enough.
Forget the tax for a second..
The issue is that the hyper rich are perceived as not paying their way, whilst the burden of tax falls on the rest of us. A lot of truth in that.
Whatever the mechanism, there are a number of very wealthy people (and I don't mean, actually, the salaried on 100-300k per year) who pay Sweet FA but seem to enjoy a lot of benefits of living here and access at the highest levels too.
That's what needs to be tackled. And it ain't easy either.
The original debate today was about younger people with little or no wealth paying significant income tax on earnings but having to pay for mortgage and family, whilst older people with accumulated wealth and lower retirement income paid little tax and also had lower outgoings.
So for fairness, is there a case to lower income tax and introduce a wealth tax?
The suggestion is that the only realistic wealth tax would need to be on property or a land value tax.
Assuming perfect information, and no tax evasion, yes it would be better to tax wealth than income.
Why?
Because work is something we want to encourage, not discourage. Treating work like cigarettes, and discouraging people from doing more in bizarre.
Furthermore, we want the tax system to encourage the efficient use of capital. The old lady in the 2m house is not using her capital efficiently. She is taking out - effectively - 100,000/year in implied rental benefit. If you gave her 100k/year, do you think she'd rent the house?
Yes. My only issue with this is that I think people should be able to live freely in their own family homes unmolested by the State.
Trouble is that taxing domestic residential property would also be the most lucrative. But political suicide.
So it won't happen.
Oh, there's no chance of it happening. But from a straight economics point of view, a modest wealth tax is a very good idea. (It'd also discourage people from bigging up their assets to try and get in the Sunday Times Rich List )
I remain totally amazed that anyone ever seriously thought this outcome wasn't bloody obvious from the start.
Months ago we talked about this, inspected the rules and most thought it was totally clear. IIRC our conversations first kicked off from almost the moment Jezza was elected Leader.
Still, some lawyers made a few quid from it.
RodCrosby was right again...
Didn't he predict a Trump win? God help us.......
McTernan has said Hilary will win so she has absolutely no chance, Trump is a certainty
Mr Crosby has been very quiet of late.
So has Sean T since he went to visit Cde Bob, now I come to think of it.
Britain Elects @britainelects On Britain having nuclear weapons in principle: Support: 52% Oppose: 30% (via YouGov / 26 - 27 Jul)
Britain Elects Britain Elects @britainelects Theresa May was (X) to say she is prepared to authorise a nuclear strike that could kill innocent people: Right: 66% Wrong: 15% (via YouGov)
Because we all love sub samples, are there figures for Scotland?
Plurality support in Scotland too;
Britain Elects @britainelects Scottish voters // On what to do RE Trident: Replace subs & missiles 36% Scrap subs & missiles 33% Replace subs, scrap missiles 10% (YouGov)
Apparently they don't fit anywhere else for the purposes needed. If that is so, just think what sort of concessions an independent scotland could get in exchange for allowing them to stay.
We didn't give Cyprus any concessions, just hung onto a couple of decent size chunks of it as sovereign bases.
I would have a gross assets tax, as it would discourage people from over-leveraging themselves. (Donald Trump would have been screwed.)
But 1% is far too high: 0.2% would be more than enough.
Forget the tax for a second..
The issue is that the hyper rich are perceived as not paying their way, whilst the burden of tax falls on the rest of us. A lot of truth in that.
Whatever the mechanism, there are a number of very wealthy people (and I don't mean, actually, the salaried on 100-300k per year) who pay Sweet FA but seem to enjoy a lot of benefits of living here and access at the highest levels too.
That's what needs to be tackled. And it ain't easy either.
The original debate today was about younger people with little or no wealth paying significant income tax on earnings but having to pay for mortgage and family, whilst older people with accumulated wealth and lower retirement income paid little tax and also had lower outgoings.
So for fairness, is there a case to lower income tax and introduce a wealth tax?
The suggestion is that the only realistic wealth tax would need to be on property or a land value tax.
Assuming perfect information, and no tax evasion, yes it would be better to tax wealth than income.
Why?
Because work is something we want to encourage, not discourage. Treating work like cigarettes, and discouraging people from doing more in bizarre.
Furthermore, we want the tax system to encourage the efficient use of capital. The old lady in the 2m house is not using her capital efficiently. She is taking out - effectively - 100,000/year in implied rental benefit. If you gave her 100k/year, do you think she'd rent the house?
Yes. My only issue with this is that I think people should be able to live freely in their own family homes unmolested by the State.
Trouble is that taxing domestic residential property would also be the most lucrative. But political suicide.
So it won't happen.
Oh, there's no chance of it happening. But from a straight economics point of view, a modest wealth tax is a very good idea. (It'd also discourage people from bigging up their assets to try and get in the Sunday Times Rich List )
What exactly is council tax except a tax on your family home... We just need a means of taxing it that isn't based on estimated values 27 years ago...
I would have a gross assets tax, as it would discourage people from over-leveraging themselves. (Donald Trump would have been screwed.)
But 1% is far too high: 0.2% would be more than enough.
Forget the tax for a second..
The issue is that the hyper rich are perceived as not paying their way, whilst the burden of tax falls on the rest of us. A lot of truth in that.
Whatever the mechanism, there are a number of very wealthy people (and I don't mean, actually, the salaried on 100-300k per year) who pay Sweet FA but seem to enjoy a lot of benefits of living here and access at the highest levels too.
That's what needs to be tackled. And it ain't easy either.
The original debate today was about younger people with little or no wealth paying significant income tax on earnings but having to pay for mortgage and family, whilst older people with accumulated wealth and lower retirement income paid little tax and also had lower outgoings.
So for fairness, is there a case to lower income tax and introduce a wealth tax?
The suggestion is that the only realistic wealth tax would need to be on property or a land value tax.
Assuming perfect information, and no tax evasion, yes it would be better to tax wealth than income.
Why?
Because work is something we want to encourage, not discourage. Treating work like cigarettes, and discouraging people from doing more in bizarre.
Furthermore, we want the tax system to encourage the efficient use of capital. The old lady in the 2m house is not using her capital efficiently. She is taking out - effectively - 100,000/year in implied rental benefit. If you gave her 100k/year, do you think she'd rent the house?
Yes. My only issue with this is that I think people should be able to live freely in their own family homes unmolested by the State.
Trouble is that taxing domestic residential property would also be the most lucrative. But political suicide.
So it won't happen.
Oh, there's no chance of it happening. But from a straight economics point of view, a modest wealth tax is a very good idea. (It'd also discourage people from bigging up their assets to try and get in the Sunday Times Rich List )
What exactly is council tax except a tax on your family home... We just need a means of taxing it that isn't based on estimated values 27 years ago...
I was talking about a wealth tax, rather than a housing tax. It's worth remembering that if own 1m house, you probably have a 800k mortgage on it, and therefore would only pay the wealth tax on the 200k.
Britain Elects @britainelects On Britain having nuclear weapons in principle: Support: 52% Oppose: 30% (via YouGov / 26 - 27 Jul)
Britain Elects Britain Elects @britainelects Theresa May was (X) to say she is prepared to authorise a nuclear strike that could kill innocent people: Right: 66% Wrong: 15% (via YouGov)
Because we all love sub samples, are there figures for Scotland?
Plurality support in Scotland too;
Britain Elects @britainelects Scottish voters // On what to do RE Trident: Replace subs & missiles 36% Scrap subs & missiles 33% Replace subs, scrap missiles 10% (YouGov)
Apparently they don't fit anywhere else for the purposes needed. If that is so, just think what sort of concessions an independent scotland could get in exchange for allowing them to stay.
We didn't give Cyprus any concessions, just hung onto a couple of decent size chunks of it as sovereign bases.
Anyone fancy crayoning some borders?
Well, that's a possibility, but I suppose it would depend on strength of our respective positions and how generous we each wanted to be in the interest of good relations.
I remain totally amazed that anyone ever seriously thought this outcome wasn't bloody obvious from the start.
Months ago we talked about this, inspected the rules and most thought it was totally clear. IIRC our conversations first kicked off from almost the moment Jezza was elected Leader.
Still, some lawyers made a few quid from it.
RodCrosby was right again...
Didn't he predict a Trump win? God help us.......
McTernan has said Hilary will win so she has absolutely no chance, Trump is a certainty
Mr Crosby has been very quiet of late.
So has Sean T since he went to visit Cde Bob, now I come to think of it.
Wasn't Sean off to deepest darkest Africa? Probably eaten by a lion in a wonderful setting ...
@SeanT last posted from the departure lounge at LHR.
Don't let him see that - it was "Concorde room", the epitome of elegance and the pinnacle of Club Lounges at Heathrow...
He's never been to the Chelsea room then...
(neither have I, but that's beside the point )
Our firm is being acquired at the moment. Our new owners have a mammoth sales force and I've found myself agreeing to lots of trips to see potential customers. I'm reckoning GGL and a Concorde Room card is within reach
Comments
@SeanT last posted from the departure lounge at LHR.
Vintage Top of the Pops from 11th March 1982 about to start on BBC4:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/live/bbcfour
Why?
Because work is something we want to encourage, not discourage. Treating work like cigarettes, and discouraging people from doing more in bizarre.
Furthermore, we want the tax system to encourage the efficient use of capital. The old lady in the 2m house is not using her capital efficiently. She is taking out - effectively - 100,000/year in implied rental benefit. If you gave her 100k/year, do you think she'd rent the house?
Don't let him see that - it was "Concorde room", the epitome of elegance and the pinnacle of Club Lounges at Heathrow...
If the UK is still around in 2020 I'd expect a handful of Tory gains in Scotland in GE2020.
Trouble is that taxing domestic residential property would also be the most lucrative. But political suicide.
So it won't happen.
Alternatively we could transfer Orkney and Shetland to England and put them at Scapa Flow.
But from a straight economics point of view, a modest wealth tax is a very good idea. (It'd also discourage people from bigging up their assets to try and get in the Sunday Times Rich List
Anyone fancy crayoning some borders?
It's worth remembering that if own 1m house, you probably have a 800k mortgage on it, and therefore would only pay the wealth tax on the 200k.
Maybe the CIO dont approve of Politicalbetting?
(neither have I, but that's beside the point
https://twitter.com/thomasknox/status/757840110859661314