Hammond will enact a Logan's Run law, with TV revenue and live audience ticket sales funding poorer students' tuition fees. It all makes perfect sense!
Differential NI or income tax for young and older people is an idea I haven't heard before.
Will it make it more advantageous to hire a younger person rather than an older person? Or could it push older people into retirement earlier?
How will that fit with the laws on age discrimination?
Awkwardly I imagine in practice. Already some older workers feel/are discriminated against...
But legally - there is a different minimum wage for different ages, so I'd have thought differential taxation is okay via legislation....
Doesn't NI end at retirement age, also? Free TV licences. Young Persons Railcard. There are plenty of examples of different charges for different age groups.
Yes NI must end at retirement if you stop working I think... The article says older workers - so presumably before retirement?
Imagine Hammond is floating ideas to see what goes down badly.
Not quite, if you continue working past retirement age then you no longer pay employee NI, so it gives working pensioners an 11% pay increase (in addition to your state pension) compared with younger workers.
Interesting. Doesn't seem particularly fair - perhaps that's what Hammond will go after.
You will probably have maxed your pension contributions before then so paying NI will not bring any benefit and so will be seen by some as unfair - maybe a distinct rate could be introduced. This is a can of worms precisely because short termist politicians have fudged NI and Tax and not told the financial facts of life straight to the electorate. The least painful way forward is a drive for economic growth across all areas of government and the sacrificing of green shibboleths, middle-class nimbyism, foreign aid pretensions, expensive and damaging BS equality and identity politics initiatives and other parasitic practices.
NI past pension age is a non-brainer imho. It can be classed as contribution towards exploding social care costs.
I heard Johnson on the 1 o'clock news doing his Billy Bunter The owl of the Remove routine and it was embarrassing. Does anyone apart from HYUFD see anything in him other than an overweight sleazeball?
He is the most popular Tory in the polls apart from Ruth Davidson
I suspect this will antagonise the elderly and not assuage the youthful.
As Nick P (iirc) said the other day - younger people aren't listening to Tories. Just totally not interested in anything they have to say.
It will have to be a massive splash to make a difference to that I think.
The appeal of Labour under Corbyn and McDonnell suggests they can be bought though....
No. Nothing to do with being bought. Labour allow older young people to believe that they can relive their students' union days.
Whilst I appreciate your point, there is a real danger for the Tories here. I am 50. If it is a choice between the Party of the Old or Party of the Young, I will instinctively side with the Young. Because that's how I want to be seen.
Even the OVP did not win young voters yesterday despite having a 31 year old leader and like the Tories they still did best with pensioners. However Kurz did better with young voters than the Tories did. The Tories do not need to win under 40s just close the gap as Cameron did
rottenborough - the great thing about Hammond's idea is that it will hit all the struggling self payers for care, and not one of those who have not bothered to save a penny or put money into a pension. This intelligent idea will raise pensioner's tax by over 50% - which will be hypothecated for a service they will never be allowed to claim because they bought their own house. I am sure no one is going to notice. Of course, if Labour announced free care...
Stanford University run a whole raft of free online courses on a huge variety of different subjects. I tend to do one or two a year on subjects I either have a professional interest in (to keep up with current thinking) or a personal interest in (just for the fun).
I have just received notification of a course beginning tomorrow being run by the former US Secretary of Defence William Perry on Nuclear Terrorism
Since it seemed to be the sort of thing that PB members might be interested in the link is here:
Question. Do people use their real signatures on documents circulating in the public domain, only to find all their private documents have been signed over to a stranger?
Many moons ago, I was told that pop stars were 'advised' to have a separate signature that they would sign for their fans, which is very different to their real one. I've no idea if that was true, or how widespread the practice was.
Question. Do people use their real signatures on documents circulating in the public domain, only to find all their private documents have been signed over to a stranger?
Many moons ago, I was told that pop stars were 'advised' to have a separate signature that they would sign for their fans, which is very different to their real one. I've no idea if that was true, or how widespread the practice was.
FPT Inheritance Tax, aristocrats have Roy Jenkins to thank for exempting country houses and their works of art from the tax, in return for being open to the public at various times of the year.
It would be better, in my view, to make all property subject to IHT, ending the exemptions for woodlands, businesses, agricultural land, country houses, while reducing the rate to, say, 20%.
Surely that would inevitably mean that every generation they would have to be sold since almost no one would be able to afford to pay that sort of money without selling. How is that a good thing either for the Country House or (if the access by the public ends) the country as a whole?
In terms of agricultural land, forcing businesses to sell of 20% of their asset every 30 years or so does not seem a great way to encourage people to stay in farming.
Stanford University run a whole raft of free online courses on a huge variety of different subjects. I tend to do one or two a year on subjects I either have a professional interest in (to keep up with current thinking) or a personal interest in (just for the fun).
I have just received notification of a course beginning tomorrow being run by the former US Secretary of Defence William Perry on Nuclear Terrorism
Since it seemed to be the sort of thing that PB members might be interested in the link is here:
Stanford University run a whole raft of free online courses on a huge variety of different subjects. I tend to do one or two a year on subjects I either have a professional interest in (to keep up with current thinking) or a personal interest in (just for the fun).
I have just received notification of a course beginning tomorrow being run by the former US Secretary of Defence William Perry on Nuclear Terrorism
Since it seemed to be the sort of thing that PB members might be interested in the link is here:
The absurd position is to complain about a lack of progress while at the same time your MEPs vote against the negotiations continuing. I wonder if they’ll vote against the UK when the final deal is up for a vote.
It strikes me as absurd that the MEPs of the country that is leaving have any vote over whther or not the deal is accepted by the remaining EU members.
I know it is unlikely but imagine the uproar in the EU Parliament if the final deal only passed or failed in the MEP vote due to the votes of UKIP.
Wouldn't it just be easier to disenfranchise the under 40s? If that's too extreme, what about making that the under 30s? I'd vote for either.
The electors of Buckingham constituency are disenfranchised.
How old are they?
Aged 18 until death.
It's the Speaker's constituency and three political parties didn't stand a candidate against him in 2010, 2015 or 2017. The Buckingham MP does not get a vote in parliament nor allowed to speak for or against bills.
So Buckingham electors are effectively disenfranchised.
Just don't offer loans for crap courses - then you won't have a student loan problem. Crap courses will have to be priced to sell if they want to continue in business. And then you can have really low interest rates, because you are likely to get the money back.
Wouldn't it just be easier to disenfranchise the under 40s? If that's too extreme, what about making that the under 30s? I'd vote for either.
The electors of Buckingham constituency are disenfranchised.
How old are they?
Aged 18 until death.
It's the Speaker's constituency and three political parties didn't stand a candidate against him in 2010, 2015 or 2017. The Buckingham MP does not get a vote in parliament nor allowed to speak for or against bills.
So Buckingham electors are effectively disenfranchised.
But the bookies counted Buckingham as CON for betting purposes
Stanford University run a whole raft of free online courses on a huge variety of different subjects. I tend to do one or two a year on subjects I either have a professional interest in (to keep up with current thinking) or a personal interest in (just for the fun).
I have just received notification of a course beginning tomorrow being run by the former US Secretary of Defence William Perry on Nuclear Terrorism
Since it seemed to be the sort of thing that PB members might be interested in the link is here:
I am rather confused by what Hammond is trying to achieve here. Whilst it is clear that the system is heavily weighted against the young, it seems to me that it is heavily weighted in favour of pensioners - or at least those over 60. Hitting those still in employment but retirement age seems to be attacking those who are smack in the middle of the seesaw rather than those benefitting the most from the current arrangements.
I am rather confused by what Hammond is trying to achieve here. Whilst it is clear that the system is heavily weighted against the young, it seems to me that it is heavily weighted in favour of pensioners - or at least those over 60. Hitting those still in employment but retirement age seems to be attacking those who are smack in the middle of the seesaw rather than those benefitting the most from the current arrangements.
Ending the Triple lock would save a few bob, as would cutting a few perks, such as bustravel outside own council area.
I am rather confused by what Hammond is trying to achieve here. Whilst it is clear that the system is heavily weighted against the young, it seems to me that it is heavily weighted in favour of pensioners - or at least those over 60. Hitting those still in employment but retirement age seems to be attacking those who are smack in the middle of the seesaw rather than those benefitting the most from the current arrangements.
Ending the Triple lock would save a few bob, as would cutting a few perks, such as bustravel outside own council area.
Yep. It was a good idea at the last election and is still a good idea now.
Given they should not be voting on these matters anyway he is absolutely right. Do explain to me why British MEPs should be voting on decisions effecting the EU side of the negotiations. It is plain stupid.
However, what is even more bizarre is that we are sending this ill-informed moron to negotiate on our behalf with a sharp operator like Barnier. No wonder the rest of the World is laughing at us!
Given they should not be voting on these matters anyway he is absolutely right. Do explain to me why British MEPs should be voting on decisions effecting the EU side of the negotiations. It is plain stupid.
The Conservatives are thrashing about here looking for some utopian policy which will keep them popular irrespective of what it does to the economy as a whole.
We seem to be moving away from taxation based on income to taxation based on age - if you are under 30 (let's say), you can earn £100k and pay less tax than someone who's 40 and earning £100k. It's called an Income Tax, not an Age Tax. Tax people for being old if you want but call it what it is.
Then we have the hardy perennial of lower stamp duty for young buyers because we want to get everyone owning homes because home owners vote Conservative, don't they ? The notion of lower stamp duty has been tried before and all it did was push up prices.
The Tories really have got be pretty stupid if this is true. It was alienating older voters during the election which caused them to lose their majority. Nor will younger voters vote Tory because of these measures. Students will still vote Labour because Corbyn promises to abolish tuition fees -something the Tories themselves could do to cut the ground under Corbyn's feet. So the Tories are planning to lose older voters while not gaining younger ones. Truly those whom the Gods plan to destroy they first make -not mad -but just plain stupid.
Given they should not be voting on these matters anyway he is absolutely right. Do explain to me why British MEPs should be voting on decisions effecting the EU side of the negotiations. It is plain stupid.
Because they were elected and are still MEPs
And yet the other branches of the EU do not allow the British contingent to be involved on the EU side of the negotiations.
It is ludicrous and I find it very funny and ironic that the Lib Dems should be supporting such a stupid situation.
As I said, it would be highly amusing if May were to cave on things like the divorce bill and it was then UKIP and Tory votes in the EU Parliament that helped reject the deal.
However, what is even more bizarre is that we are sending this ill-informed moron to negotiate on our behalf with a sharp operator like Barnier. No wonder the rest of the World is laughing at us!
Well I am laughing at you and Mike for thinking this arrangement is anything less than bloody stupid.
FPT Inheritance Tax, aristocrats have Roy Jenkins to thank for exempting country houses and their works of art from the tax, in return for being open to the public at various times of the year.
It would be better, in my view, to make all property subject to IHT, ending the exemptions for woodlands, businesses, agricultural land, country houses, while reducing the rate to, say, 20%.
Surely that would inevitably mean that every generation they would have to be sold since almost no one would be able to afford to pay that sort of money without selling. How is that a good thing either for the Country House or (if the access by the public ends) the country as a whole?
In terms of agricultural land, forcing businesses to sell of 20% of their asset every 30 years or so does not seem a great way to encourage people to stay in farming.
Currently, taxpayers can opt to pay IHT on real property by 10 annual instalments. I'd extend that to assets that are currently exempt.
The Tories really have got be pretty stupid if this is true. It was alienating older voters during the election which caused them to lose their majority. Nor will younger voters vote Tory because of these measures. Students will still vote Labour because Corbyn promises to abolish tuition fees -something the Tories themselves could do to cut the ground under Corbyn's feet.
Abolishing tuition fees will never help the young people who vote in elections, it'll always be future students who are not yet voting age. If the Tories could come up with more policies like Help to Buy, that potentially give actual practical benefits to the young, they may be more willing to listen.
If we want to be radical (which apparently we or rather the Conservatives do), let's start building some houses.
Start with the developer land-banks - tell the developers they'll either be taxed by the hectare or, if they go in 50-50 with the local authority, they'll be fast-tracked permission to build houses as long as they provide the necessary community infrastructure.
The reverse can be done with public land - offer half to a developer in exchange for a fast-track planning process and allow the Council to own the remaining freehold and charge Ground Rent. The partnership builds the houses and develops the infrastructure as a Joint Venture.
However, what is even more bizarre is that we are sending this ill-informed moron to negotiate on our behalf with a sharp operator like Barnier. No wonder the rest of the World is laughing at us!
Yes far better to send a sharp operator like Starmer who will capitulate at the first hurdle to whatever sum the EU demand as the price of a potential deal
The Tories really have got be pretty stupid if this is true. It was alienating older voters during the election which caused them to lose their majority. Nor will younger voters vote Tory because of these measures. Students will still vote Labour because Corbyn promises to abolish tuition fees -something the Tories themselves could do to cut the ground under Corbyn's feet. So the Tories are planning to lose older voters while not gaining younger ones. Truly those whom the Gods plan to destroy they first make -not mad -but just plain stupid.
The Tories won't win younger voters they just need to cut the Labour lead with them from 2017 to nearer 2015 levels.
As for over 55s paying more NI, given the triple lock pensions and winter fuel allowance and bus passes they still get it is not much to ask
Scrapping tuition fees altogether would mainly benefit Corbyn voting students at the expense of higher taxes for Tory voting non graduate C2s
FPT Inheritance Tax, aristocrats have Roy Jenkins to thank for exempting country houses and their works of art from the tax, in return for being open to the public at various times of the year.
It would be better, in my view, to make all property subject to IHT, ending the exemptions for woodlands, businesses, agricultural land, country houses, while reducing the rate to, say, 20%.
Surely that would inevitably mean that every generation they would have to be sold since almost no one would be able to afford to pay that sort of money without selling. How is that a good thing either for the Country House or (if the access by the public ends) the country as a whole?
In terms of agricultural land, forcing businesses to sell of 20% of their asset every 30 years or so does not seem a great way to encourage people to stay in farming.
Currently, taxpayers can opt to pay IHT on real property by 10 annual instalments. I'd extend that to assets that are currently exempt.
This would be a disruptive destructive huge pain for small non listed companies.
Why would they not simply raise tax thresholds a bit and increase the upper rates of tax a bit more than required to compensate ? Would have a similar, and rather less controversial effect, I think ?
FPT Inheritance Tax, aristocrats have Roy Jenkins to thank for exempting country houses and their works of art from the tax, in return for being open to the public at various times of the year.
It would be better, in my view, to make all property subject to IHT, ending the exemptions for woodlands, businesses, agricultural land, country houses, while reducing the rate to, say, 20%.
Surely that would inevitably mean that every generation they would have to be sold since almost no one would be able to afford to pay that sort of money without selling. How is that a good thing either for the Country House or (if the access by the public ends) the country as a whole?
In terms of agricultural land, forcing businesses to sell of 20% of their asset every 30 years or so does not seem a great way to encourage people to stay in farming.
Currently, taxpayers can opt to pay IHT on real property by 10 annual instalments. I'd extend that to assets that are currently exempt.
This would be a disruptive destructive huge pain for small non listed companies.
I don't think a charge of 2% p.a. Is unbearable.
Treating some assets differently from others turns them into tax shelters. It's one reason why farmland is so expensive, relative to the income which it generates.
If we want to be radical (which apparently we or rather the Conservatives do), let's start building some houses.
Start with the developer land-banks - tell the developers they'll either be taxed by the hectare or, if they go in 50-50 with the local authority, they'll be fast-tracked permission to build houses as long as they provide the necessary community infrastructure.
The reverse can be done with public land - offer half to a developer in exchange for a fast-track planning process and allow the Council to own the remaining freehold and charge Ground Rent. The partnership builds the houses and develops the infrastructure as a Joint Venture.
Probably easier than resurrecting Harold Macmillan. I doubt it's as effective though!
When he was PM, the UK built more council houses (150,000) in a year than May plans in a decade. I understand he was good at dealing with the building materials industry and persuading factory owners that his plans were serious and they meant that they'd need to more than double their output.
Brown commissioned a report on this in 2004. A staggering all-party lack of action.
If we want to be radical (which apparently we or rather the Conservatives do), let's start building some houses.
Start with the developer land-banks - tell the developers they'll either be taxed by the hectare or, if they go in 50-50 with the local authority, they'll be fast-tracked permission to build houses as long as they provide the necessary community infrastructure.
The reverse can be done with public land - offer half to a developer in exchange for a fast-track planning process and allow the Council to own the remaining freehold and charge Ground Rent. The partnership builds the houses and develops the infrastructure as a Joint Venture.
Probably easier than resurrecting Harold Macmillan. I doubt it's as effective though!
When he was PM, the UK built more council houses (150,000) in a year than May plans in a decade. I understand he was good at dealing with the building materials industry and persuading factory owners that his plans were serious and they meant that they'd need to more than double their output.
Brown commissioned a report on this in 2004. A staggering all-party lack of action.
It has to be said that many of the council houses and flats built during the 1950's and 60's were of very poor quality (eg Robin Hood Gardens). Some of the tower blocks were real hellholes.
I can't imagine there is any chance of any increased rate of NI (or Income Tax) for anyone getting through the Commons.
As for cutting NI for young people - I would strongly advise Hammond to cut Income Tax for young people, not NI.
Very simple reason - everyone knows and understands what Income Tax is. Most people don't have a clue about NI.
It's the same principle as why it's far easier to cut tax credits than child benefit or winter fuel allowance. Most people (and in particular high earners in the media) don't understand tax credits - whereas everyone understands child benefit and winter fuel.
This is really basic presentational stuff - which is why I expect May and Hammond to get this wrong.
If we want to be radical (which apparently we or rather the Conservatives do), let's start building some houses.
Start with the developer land-banks - tell the developers they'll either be taxed by the hectare or, if they go in 50-50 with the local authority, they'll be fast-tracked permission to build houses as long as they provide the necessary community infrastructure.
The reverse can be done with public land - offer half to a developer in exchange for a fast-track planning process and allow the Council to own the remaining freehold and charge Ground Rent. The partnership builds the houses and develops the infrastructure as a Joint Venture.
Probably easier than resurrecting Harold Macmillan. I doubt it's as effective though!
When he was PM, the UK built more council houses (150,000) in a year than May plans in a decade. I understand he was good at dealing with the building materials industry and persuading factory owners that his plans were serious and they meant that they'd need to more than double their output.
Brown commissioned a report on this in 2004. A staggering all-party lack of action.
Re- Macmillan I believe his success related to when he was Housing Minister after the 1951 election - rather than his period as PM later on.
The Tories really have got be pretty stupid if this is true. It was alienating older voters during the election which caused them to lose their majority. Nor will younger voters vote Tory because of these measures. Students will still vote Labour because Corbyn promises to abolish tuition fees -something the Tories themselves could do to cut the ground under Corbyn's feet. So the Tories are planning to lose older voters while not gaining younger ones. Truly those whom the Gods plan to destroy they first make -not mad -but just plain stupid.
The Tories won't win younger voters they just need to cut the Labour lead with them from 2017 to nearer 2015 levels.
As for over 55s paying more NI, given the triple lock pensions and winter fuel allowance and bus passes they still get it is not much to ask
Surely the point is that the people who are going to be hit with paying more NI are not going to be the ones getting the triple lock, winter fuel allowance and free bus passes. If they are getting those they are not paying NI. Which is kind of the problem.
It is also true that a 3 bed semi council house of the 1950's cost twice the price to build of the cost of a 3 bed detached house built privately. Even with nationalised land.
The Tories really have got be pretty stupid if this is true. It was alienating older voters during the election which caused them to lose their majority. Nor will younger voters vote Tory because of these measures. Students will still vote Labour because Corbyn promises to abolish tuition fees -something the Tories themselves could do to cut the ground under Corbyn's feet. So the Tories are planning to lose older voters while not gaining younger ones. Truly those whom the Gods plan to destroy they first make -not mad -but just plain stupid.
The Tories won't win younger voters they just need to cut the Labour lead with them from 2017 to nearer 2015 levels.
As for over 55s paying more NI, given the triple lock pensions and winter fuel allowance and bus passes they still get it is not much to ask
Surely the point is that the people who are going to be hit with paying more NI are not going to be the ones getting the triple lock, winter fuel allowance and free bus passes. If they are getting those they are not paying NI. Which is kind of the problem.
As NI rises under the plans by more the older you get the highest NI will be paid by those who are nearest retirement age and soon to be in receipt of all the goodies
The Tories really have got be pretty stupid if this is true. It was alienating older voters during the election which caused them to lose their majority. Nor will younger voters vote Tory because of these measures. Students will still vote Labour because Corbyn promises to abolish tuition fees -something the Tories themselves could do to cut the ground under Corbyn's feet. So the Tories are planning to lose older voters while not gaining younger ones. Truly those whom the Gods plan to destroy they first make -not mad -but just plain stupid.
The Tories won't win younger voters they just need to cut the Labour lead with them from 2017 to nearer 2015 levels.
As for over 55s paying more NI, given the triple lock pensions and winter fuel allowance and bus passes they still get it is not much to ask
Surely the point is that the people who are going to be hit with paying more NI are not going to be the ones getting the triple lock, winter fuel allowance and free bus passes. If they are getting those they are not paying NI. Which is kind of the problem.
As NI rises under the plans by more the older you get the highest NI will be paid by those who are nearest retirement age and soon to be in receipt of all the goodies
Not the point. The point is you are still hitting those in the middle rather than transferring from one end to the other. It is the pensioners who are getting all the freebies and the young who are losing out. The obvious answer is to stop providing so many goodies for pensioners and use the money to help the young.
The Tories really have got be pretty stupid if this is true. It was alienating older voters during the election which caused them to lose their majority. Nor will younger voters vote Tory because of these measures. Students will still vote Labour because Corbyn promises to abolish tuition fees -something the Tories themselves could do to cut the ground under Corbyn's feet. So the Tories are planning to lose older voters while not gaining younger ones. Truly those whom the Gods plan to destroy they first make -not mad -but just plain stupid.
The Tories won't win younger voters they just need to cut the Labour lead with them from 2017 to nearer 2015 levels.
As for over 55s paying more NI, given the triple lock pensions and winter fuel allowance and bus passes they still get it is not much to ask
Scrapping tuition fees altogether would mainly benefit Corbyn voting students at the expense of higher taxes for Tory voting non graduate C2s
Corbyn claims that he can abolish tuition fees without putting taxes up except on business (corporation tax). If he can do that, so can the Tories.
The Tories really have got be pretty stupid if this is true. It was alienating older voters during the election which caused them to lose their majority. Nor will younger voters vote Tory because of these measures. Students will still vote Labour because Corbyn promises to abolish tuition fees -something the Tories themselves could do to cut the ground under Corbyn's feet. So the Tories are planning to lose older voters while not gaining younger ones. Truly those whom the Gods plan to destroy they first make -not mad -but just plain stupid.
The Tories won't win younger voters they just need to cut the Labour lead with them from 2017 to nearer 2015 levels.
As for over 55s paying more NI, given the triple lock pensions and winter fuel allowance and bus passes they still get it is not much to ask
Surely the point is that the people who are going to be hit with paying more NI are not going to be the ones getting the triple lock, winter fuel allowance and free bus passes. If they are getting those they are not paying NI. Which is kind of the problem.
As NI rises under the plans by more the older you get the highest NI will be paid by those who are nearest retirement age and soon to be in receipt of all the goodies
Not the point. The point is you are still hitting those in the middle rather than transferring from one end to the other. It is the pensioners who are getting all the freebies and the young who are losing out. The obvious answer is to stop providing so many goodies for pensioners and use the money to help the young.
You are reducing the NI burden on the youngest workers and raising it for the oldest workers who will soon be pensioners, short of introducing NI for pensioners which would be unpopular with them it is a big step in that direction without scrapping all the goodies which would hit the Tories with the pensioner vote
If we want to be radical (which apparently we or rather the Conservatives do), let's start building some houses.
Start with the developer land-banks - tell the developers they'll either be taxed by the hectare or, if they go in 50-50 with the local authority, they'll be fast-tracked permission to build houses as long as they provide the necessary community infrastructure.
The reverse can be done with public land - offer half to a developer in exchange for a fast-track planning process and allow the Council to own the remaining freehold and charge Ground Rent. The partnership builds the houses and develops the infrastructure as a Joint Venture.
Probably easier than resurrecting Harold Macmillan. I doubt it's as effective though!
When he was PM, the UK built more council houses (150,000) in a year than May plans in a decade. I understand he was good at dealing with the building materials industry and persuading factory owners that his plans were serious and they meant that they'd need to more than double their output.
Brown commissioned a report on this in 2004. A staggering all-party lack of action.
It has to be said that many of the council houses and flats built during the 1950's and 60's were of very poor quality (eg Robin Hood Gardens). Some of the tower blocks were real hellholes.
Have to disagree there. My house was built in 1967 and it's excellent. Garden front and back, garage, two biggish bedrooms and a master, large kitchen and a monster living room.
The Tories really have got be pretty stupid if this is true. It was alienating older voters during the election which caused them to lose their majority. Nor will younger voters vote Tory because of these measures. Students will still vote Labour because Corbyn promises to abolish tuition fees -something the Tories themselves could do to cut the ground under Corbyn's feet. So the Tories are planning to lose older voters while not gaining younger ones. Truly those whom the Gods plan to destroy they first make -not mad -but just plain stupid.
The Tories won't win younger voters they just need to cut the Labour lead with them from 2017 to nearer 2015 levels.
As for over 55s paying more NI, given the triple lock pensions and winter fuel allowance and bus passes they still get it is not much to ask
Scrapping tuition fees altogether would mainly benefit Corbyn voting students at the expense of higher taxes for Tory voting non graduate C2s
Corbyn claims that he can abolish tuition fees without putting taxes up except on business (corporation tax). If he can do that, so can the Tories.
Corbyn wants to raise income tax on higher earners and increase inheritance tax unlike the Tories who should attack him on those plans.
Tuition fees are unaffordable without significantly higher taxes, some of which will fall on non graduates who may be more Tory inclined than the students scrapping fees now would help. Linking fees to the graduate earnings premium and reducing interest repayments and raising the threshold for repayment to £25k is far more sensible and what Hammond is moving towards.
The Tories really have got be pretty stupid if this is true. It was alienating older voters during the election which caused them to lose their majority. Nor will younger voters vote Tory because of these measures. Students will still vote Labour because Corbyn promises to abolish tuition fees -something the Tories themselves could do to cut the ground under Corbyn's feet. So the Tories are planning to lose older voters while not gaining younger ones. Truly those whom the Gods plan to destroy they first make -not mad -but just plain stupid.
The Tories won't win younger voters they just need to cut the Labour lead with them from 2017 to nearer 2015 levels.
As for over 55s paying more NI, given the triple lock pensions and winter fuel allowance and bus passes they still get it is not much to ask
Scrapping tuition fees altogether would mainly benefit Corbyn voting students at the expense of higher taxes for Tory voting non graduate C2s
Corbyn claims that he can abolish tuition fees without putting taxes up except on business (corporation tax). If he can do that, so can the Tories.
Yes but Corbyn claims many things that are simply not true and that nobody with a brain (apart, strangely, from one poster on here who is normally quite rational) believes for an instant.
For example he claimed that his policies on hiring 10,000 extra police officers with a price tag of £300 million per annum were costed. While it would have been quite entertaining to watch them walking around stark naked because the only cost allowed for was salaries, not uniforms, transport, office space or even pensions, I don't think it would have been effective in cutting crime.
The Tories really have got be pretty stupid if this is true. It was alienating older voters during the election which caused them to lose their majority. Nor will younger voters vote Tory because of these measures. Students will still vote Labour because Corbyn promises to abolish tuition fees -something the Tories themselves could do to cut the ground under Corbyn's feet. So the Tories are planning to lose older voters while not gaining younger ones. Truly those whom the Gods plan to destroy they first make -not mad -but just plain stupid.
The Tories won't win younger voters they just need to cut the Labour lead with them from 2017 to nearer 2015 levels.
As for over 55s paying more NI, given the triple lock pensions and winter fuel allowance and bus passes they still get it is not much to ask
Surely the point is that the people who are going to be hit with paying more NI are not going to be the ones getting the triple lock, winter fuel allowance and free bus passes. If they are getting those they are not paying NI. Which is kind of the problem.
As NI rises under the plans by more the older you get the highest NI will be paid by those who are nearest retirement age and soon to be in receipt of all the goodies
Not the point. The point is you are still hitting those in the middle rather than transferring from one end to the other. It is the pensioners who are getting all the freebies and the young who are losing out. The obvious answer is to stop providing so many goodies for pensioners and use the money to help the young.
You are reducing the NI burden on the youngest workers and raising it for the oldest workers who will soon be pensioners, short of introducing NI for pensioners which would be unpopular with them it is a big step in that direction without scrapping all the goodies which would hit the Tories with the pensioner vote
I am of the opinion that we are way past the point where the Tories can do much to save their vote except do what is right for the country and hope that people come to realise that over the next 4 years. If ever was the time to introduce measures to correct the huge imbalance in favour of pensioners it is now. The triple lock should go as should the other perks for any pensioner who is paying income tax over a certain level.
I don't see the connection between the two issues. One was purportedly about civil liberties, the other a matter of political disciplining. Now, while I don't like the way the MEPs voted I don't agree with suspending them, but what is worthy of suspension is up to each party, to decide, and it is surely open for others to suggest that certain decisions are so worthy. Unless he was suggesting they had committed an actual offense which needed formal, rather than political, punishment, the reaction against his comments seems as phony as his own reaction.
If we want to be radical (which apparently we or rather the Conservatives do), let's start building some houses.
Start with the developer land-banks - tell the developers they'll either be taxed by the hectare or, if they go in 50-50 with the local authority, they'll be fast-tracked permission to build houses as long as they provide the necessary community infrastructure.
The reverse can be done with public land - offer half to a developer in exchange for a fast-track planning process and allow the Council to own the remaining freehold and charge Ground Rent. The partnership builds the houses and develops the infrastructure as a Joint Venture.
Probably easier than resurrecting Harold Macmillan. I doubt it's as effective though!
When he was PM, the UK built more council houses (150,000) in a year than May plans in a decade. I understand he was good at dealing with the building materials industry and persuading factory owners that his plans were serious and they meant that they'd need to more than double their output.
Brown commissioned a report on this in 2004. A staggering all-party lack of action.
It has to be said that many of the council houses and flats built during the 1950's and 60's were of very poor quality (eg Robin Hood Gardens). Some of the tower blocks were real hellholes.
Have to disagree there. My house was built in 1967 and it's excellent. Garden front and back, garage, two biggish bedrooms and a master, large kitchen and a monster living room.
Mind you it was built by a Labour council!
I'm sure a lot were good. But there was a lot of jerry-building.
There is a reason why older people have more money than younger people - the have worked for it!
But you cannot deny that the policies of successive governments mean that the young today can only dream of having the opportunities that the baby boomers had.
The Tories really have got be pretty stupid if this is true. It was .
The Tories won't win younger voters they just need to cut the Labour lead with them from 2017 to nearer 2015 levels.
As for over 55s paying more NI, given the triple lock pensions and winter fuel allowance and bus passes they still get it is not much to ask
Surely the point is that the people who .
As NI rises under the plans by more the older you get the highest NI will be paid by those who are nearest retirement age and soon to be in receipt of all the goodies
Not the point. to help the young.
You are reducing the NI burdenvote
I am of the opinion that we are way past the point where the Tories can do much to save their vote except do what is right for the country and hope that people come to realise that over the next 4 years. If ever was the time to introduce measures to correct the huge imbalance in favour of pensioners it is now. The triple lock should go as should the other perks for any pensioner who is paying income tax over a certain level.
The Tories supposedly tried to do what is 'right' for the country last time with the dementia tax to fund social care, scrapping the triple lock, ending winter fuel allowance and keeping the 1% public pay cap and high interest repayments etc. The result was they lost much of their base and turned off a number of swing voters who went to Corbyn and they lost their majority when they were aiming to significantly increase it.
Stuff that now. Next time the Tories manifesto must be focused on winning and nothing else. That means keeping the pensioner vote and yes the triple lock. It means scrapping the dementia tax and just keeping the £100k of assets free of care costs guarantee, it means increasing public sector pay by more than 1%, it means easing the burden of tuition fees repayments for the young and cutting their tax and NI burden and more housing (albeit focused on brownbelt land first). It also probably means a Leaver as leader and someone who actually believes in Brexit as May never really did. Finally it means hammering Corbyn on his tax raising plans, particularly income tax for higher earners and inheritance tax
Above all the Tories need to mobilise their base ie pensioners and Leavers while also cutting Labour's lead with the young and winning back middle aged voters turned off by the dementia tax
1. Tuition fees are a lunatic policy which stop working class going to university - solution reduce fees to £6,000pa and interest rate to CPI +1%
2. Housing market is totally overvalued- solution put up interest rates to a sensible level, hammer buy to let to increase supply and stop help to buy!!
If we want to be radical (which apparently we or rather the Conservatives do), let's start building some houses.
Start with the developer land-banks - tell the developers they'll either be taxed by the hectare or, if they go in 50-50 with the local authority, they'll be fast-tracked permission to build houses as long as they provide the necessary community infrastructure.
The reverse can be done with public land - offer half to a developer in exchange for a fast-track planning process and allow the Council to own the remaining freehold and charge Ground Rent. The partnership builds the houses and develops the infrastructure as a Joint Venture.
Probably easier than resurrecting Harold Macmillan. I doubt it's as effective though!
When he was PM, the UK built more council houses (150,000) in a year than May plans in a decade. I understand he was good at dealing with the building materials industry and persuading factory owners that his plans were serious and they meant that they'd need to more than double their output.
Brown commissioned a report on this in 2004. A staggering all-party lack of action.
Re- Macmillan I believe his success related to when he was Housing Minister after the 1951 election - rather than his period as PM later on.
Yes it did. However, others continued a similar policy so I think the construction rate actually peaked when he'd become PM. Some dwellings built in the late 1950s were grotty flats in tower blocks but I think the number of good quality dwellings was about 300,000 per year which is what we need now.
Ave_it - the government has let the same academics behing the initial teaching alphabet to destroy the finances of the young, while employing more adminstrators than academic staff and the second most expensive Vice Chancellors in the world. And it is a great business. And the student loan system copied from America has failed in exactly the same way as in America. No one, not the student nor the taxpayer, can afford the cost. And the product being sold isn't worth anything except for a few courses.
Reduce graduate grants to two years only and reduce them to £3000 for everything but those few courses with expensive lab needs. Stop the pretence of examinations, nobody cares. Somehow the University system has made itself the prolongation of school.
I was a maths lecturer years ago - analytic number theory research isn't something the tax payer should be paying for.
In my purely anecdotal experience the middle class students have a kind of arrogance that they will be fine anyway somehow, and can sit tight while they sort things out, while poorer students believe they will really struggle to break free of their background without going to uni and having a degree to impress employers with.
Differential NI or income tax for young and older people is an idea I haven't heard before.
Will it make it more advantageous to hire a younger person rather than an older person? Or could it push older people into retirement earlier?
How will that fit with the laws on age discrimination?
Awkwardly I imagine in practice. Already some older workers feel/are discriminated against...
But legally - there is a different minimum wage for different ages, so I'd have thought differential taxation is okay via legislation....
Doesn't NI end at retirement age, also? Free TV licences. Young Persons Railcard. There are plenty of examples of different charges for different age groups.
Yes NI must end at retirement if you stop working I think... The article says older workers - so presumably before retirement?
Imagine Hammond is floating ideas to see what goes down badly.
Not quite, if you continue working past retirement age then you no longer pay employee NI, so it gives working pensioners an 11% pay increase (in addition to your state pension) compared with younger workers.
Why not charge pensioners earning above the tax threshold (£11-12k/y) full NI on their extra income? They use the NHS. It's a better idea than continuing this attack on the triple-locked state pension, which FFS only costs the UK 5% of GDP.
Charge millionaires full NI too on their marginal income. Not 2%.
But I fear politicians prefer gimmicks to solid, sensible reforms of a system full of loopholes and fiddles and too complicated for most people to understand. Osborne and Brown did.
Need to charge NI on unearned (investment income) too, to level the playing field fully. (...waits for the squeals!)
It would be illogical from a theory standpoint, as NI is by defination only associated with employment. Thats one reason why when GO put a charge on dividends, it wasn't NI.
NI is really just another tax but it distorts the tax system in many ways. The playing field is not level when it comes to paying tax (i.e. income tax + NI) on your income, if for example your income is from investments or a pension, or you are self-employed.
It would be best if NI and income tax were rolled into one but it's tough to implement because there will always be losers. So, no hope this government could achieve anything constructive in this area.
NI is really just another tax but it distorts the tax system in many ways. The playing field is not level when it comes to paying tax (i.e. income tax + NI) on your income, if for example your income is from investments or a pension, or you are self-employed.
It would be best if NI and income tax were rolled into one but it's tough to implement because there will always be losers. So, no hope this government could achieve anything constructive in this area.
Most governments have talked about doing it and failed to act for this very reason. Hard to imagine a government as unstable and distracted as this will succeed where the coalition or New Labour failed.
I have a 'public' and a private signature. Yes there's the security element, but the public one also has my name much more clearly, in a letter to ward residents I want to take every opportunity to get my name across.
Let me give one example of generational fairness that won't be worth any votes but shows how biased the current system is: council tax benefit. This was delegated to councils in 2012 (great! Local decisions and administration responding to local need) however it was done with a 10% cut. So councils had to take on the admin and decide how to deliver a scheme with 90% support not 100% for those who couldn't afford council tax. Hard enough, but the gvt legislation insisted that pensioners were supported at 100% so this meant that it was effectively a 20% cut for everyone else. Literally the poorest in society having to pay more to protect (less well off) pensioners. Councils basically had a choice between refusing and making up the 10% themselves, or imposing the 20% charge on all working age benefit recipients. We basically imposed it, with a discretionary fund and some exemptions around domestic violence and mental health, but it was a real hospital pass from the government. Where was the outrage at the poorest in society not just facing extra taxes but directly subsidising pensioners?
There is a reason why older people have more money than younger people - the have worked for it!
But you cannot deny that the policies of successive governments mean that the young today can only dream of having the opportunities that the baby boomers had.
That depends which baby boomers you're looking at. They aren't all living in clover.
Differential NI or income tax for young and older people is an idea I haven't heard before.
Will it make it more advantageous to hire a younger person rather than an older person? Or could it push older people into retirement earlier?
How will that fit with the laws on age discrimination?
Awkwardly I imagine in practice. Already some older workers feel/are discriminated against...
But legally - there is a different minimum wage for different ages, so I'd have thought differential taxation is okay via legislation....
Doesn't NI end at retirement age, also? Free TV licences. Young Persons Railcard. There are plenty of examples of different charges for different age groups.
Yes NI must end at retirement if you stop working I think... The article says older workers - so presumably before retirement?
Imagine Hammond is floating ideas to see what goes down badly.
Not quite, if you continue working past retirement age then you no longer pay employee NI, so it gives working pensioners an 11% pay increase (in addition to your state pension) compared with younger workers.
Why not charge pensioners earning above the tax threshold (£11-12k/y) full NI on their extra income? They use the NHS. It's a most people to understand. Osborne and Brown did.
Need to charge NI on unearned (investment income) too, to level the playing field fully. (...waits for the squeals!)
It would be illogical from a theory standpoint, as NI is by defination only associated with employment. Thats one reason why when GO put a charge on dividends, it wasn't NI.
NI is really just another tax but it distorts the tax system in many ways. The playing field is not level when it comes to paying tax (i.e. income tax + NI) on your income, if for example your income is from investments or a pension, or you are self-employed.
It would be best if NI and income tax were rolled into one but it's tough to implement because there will always be losers. So, no hope this government could achieve anything constructive in this area.
NI should be used to fund pensions, dementia care, contributory unemployment benefit etc as in theory it is supposed to and was intended for
Ave_it - the government has let the same academics behing the initial teaching alphabet to destroy the finances of the young, while employing more adminstrators than academic staff and the second most expensive Vice Chancellors in the world. And it is a great business. And the student loan system copied from America has failed in exactly the same way as in America. No one, not the student nor the taxpayer, can afford the cost. And the product being sold isn't worth anything except for a few courses.
Reduce graduate grants to two years only and reduce them to £3000 for everything but those few courses with expensive lab needs. Stop the pretence of examinations, nobody cares. Somehow the University system has made itself the prolongation of school.
I was a maths lecturer years ago - analytic number theory research isn't something the tax payer should be paying for.
PAW agreed
Far too many go to university these days. Let's just have 20% going and doing 'proper' degrees and get away from the current view that 'you can't get on if you don't go to university'!
If we want to be radical (which apparently we or rather the Conservatives do), let's start building some houses.
Start with the developer land-banks - tell the developers they'll either be taxed by the hectare or, if they go in 50-50 with the local authority, they'll be fast-tracked permission to build houses as long as they provide the necessary community infrastructure.
The reverse can be done with public land - offer half to a developer in exchange for a fast-track planning process and allow the Council to own the remaining freehold and charge Ground Rent. The partnership builds the houses and develops the infrastructure as a Joint Venture.
Probably easier than resurrecting Harold Macmillan. I doubt it's as effective though!
When he was PM, the UK built more council houses (150,000) in a year than May plans in a decade. I understand he was good at dealing with the building materials industry and persuading factory owners that his plans were serious and they meant that they'd need to more than double their output.
Brown commissioned a report on this in 2004. A staggering all-party lack of action.
It has to be said that many of the council houses and flats built during the 1950's and 60's were of very poor quality (eg Robin Hood Gardens). Some of the tower blocks were real hellholes.
Have to disagree there. My house was built in 1967 and it's excellent. Garden front and back, garage, two biggish bedrooms and a master, large kitchen and a monster living room.
Mind you it was built by a Labour council!
I'm sure a lot were good. But there was a lot of jerry-building.
There is now! See twitter.com/myhouse sucks. That's by Taylor Wimpey.
As the BBC says, 'other grotty developers are available'.
FPT Inheritance Tax, aristocrats have Roy Jenkins to thank for exempting country houses and their works of art from the tax, in return for being open to the public at various times of the year.
It would be better, in my view, to make all property subject to IHT, ending the exemptions for woodlands, businesses, agricultural land, country houses, while reducing the rate to, say, 20%.
Surely that would inevitably mean that every generation they would have to be sold since almost no one would be able to afford to pay that sort of money without selling. How is that a good thing either for the Country House or (if the access by the public ends) the country as a whole?
In terms of agricultural land, forcing businesses to sell of 20% of their asset every 30 years or so does not seem a great way to encourage people to stay in farming.
Currently, taxpayers can opt to pay IHT on real property by 10 annual instalments. I'd extend that to assets that are currently exempt.
This would be a disruptive destructive huge pain for small non listed companies.
I don't think a charge of 2% p.a. Is unbearable.
Treating some assets differently from others turns them into tax shelters. It's one reason why farmland is so expensive, relative to the income which it generates.
I don't see the connection between the two issues. One was purportedly about civil liberties, the other a matter of political disciplining. Now, while I don't like the way the MEPs voted I don't agree with suspending them, but what is worthy of suspension is up to each party, to decide, and it is surely open for others to suggest that certain decisions are so worthy. Unless he was suggesting they had committed an actual offense which needed formal, rather than political, punishment, the reaction against his comments seems as phony as his own reaction.
Every time you think Mariano Rajoy has reached rock bottom, he gets out those jackhammers and goes lower.
Is there any evidence that he's actually a fifth columnist for Catalan and Basque separatists? He's starting to look more and more like Mrs Iseling in The Manchurian Candidate.
Differential NI or income tax for young and older people is an idea I haven't heard before.
Will it make it more advantageous to hire a younger person rather than an older person? Or could it push older people into retirement earlier?
How will that fit with the laws on age discrimination?
Awkwardly I imagine in practice. Already some older workers feel/are discriminated against...
But legally - there is a different minimum wage for different ages, so I'd have thought differential taxation is okay via legislation....
Doesn't NI end at retirement age, also? Free TV licences. Young Persons Railcard. There are plenty of examples of different charges for different age groups.
Yes NI must end at retirement if you stop working I think... The article says older workers - so presumably before retirement?
Imagine Hammond is floating ideas to see what goes down badly.
Not quite, if you continue working past retirement age then you no longer pay employee NI, so it gives working pensioners an 11% pay increase (in addition to your state pension) compared with younger workers.
Why not charge pensioners earning above the tax threshold (£11-12k/y) full NI on their extra income? They use the NHS. It's a most people to understand. Osborne and Brown did.
Need to charge NI on unearned (investment income) too, to level the playing field fully. (...waits for the squeals!)
It would be illogical from a theory standpoint, as NI is by defination only associated with employment. Thats one reason why when GO put a charge on dividends, it wasn't NI.
NI is really just another tax but it distorts the tax system in many ways. The playing field is not level when it comes to paying tax (i.e. income tax + NI) on your income, if for example your income is from investments or a pension, or you are self-employed.
It would be best if NI and income tax were rolled into one but it's tough to implement because there will always be losers. So, no hope this government could achieve anything constructive in this area.
NI should be used to fund pensions, dementia care, contributory unemployment benefit etc as in theory it is supposed to and was intended for
The country needs to recognise that social care and NHS requires more funding.
Both myself and my brother will inherit a substantial estate that will by 2020 be IHT free. i.e. by 1st April 2020 any estate (that includes a home) under £1million will be nil rate.
On topic I think I've confessed before to voting Conservative in my mis-spent youth, and until this year I'd always have second preferences them. But I realised in the GE campaign that I'd have demoted them behind Labour even thinking the same about Corbyn as most Tories. It's the tone-deafness over Brexit first and foremost that means there's a generation who won't even LG I've the Tories a hearing at the moment. While it's important to deal with the intergenerational issues (and as the thread implies it's not about sweeties for the young, but the baby boomers paying their way) their highest priority should be finding a way to talk about Brexit to keep the young on board.
If it was up to me I'd be organising regular Brexit focus groups with 18-30s and would suggest things like a big apology speech from the PM for 'citizens of nowhere' (utterly devastating) public recognition of the desire to explore he world for a generation who don't know what it is not to be connected,,and policy movement on joining schemes like Erasmus. Not enough for me, but they can't gain from some good ideas on this thread without this kind of shift.
The country needs to recognise that social care and NHS requires more funding.
Both myself and my brother will inherit a substantial estate that will by 2020 be IHT free. i.e. by 1st April 2020 any estate (that includes a home) under £1million will be nil rate.
Social care and the NHS should be funded by social insurance as they are in much of Europe and in Japan not from taking yet more from already previously taxed assets of the deceased and removing the amount left for their family
Far more think National Insurance is fair in that poll than think inheritance tax is fair so give the voters what they want!
Comments
Hammond will enact a Logan's Run law, with TV revenue and live audience ticket sales funding poorer students' tuition fees. It all makes perfect sense!
Stanford University run a whole raft of free online courses on a huge variety of different subjects. I tend to do one or two a year on subjects I either have a professional interest in (to keep up with current thinking) or a personal interest in (just for the fun).
I have just received notification of a course beginning tomorrow being run by the former US Secretary of Defence William Perry on Nuclear Terrorism
Since it seemed to be the sort of thing that PB members might be interested in the link is here:
https://lagunita.stanford.edu/courses/course-v1:FSI+NuclearTerrorism+Fall2017/about
In terms of agricultural land, forcing businesses to sell of 20% of their asset every 30 years or so does not seem a great way to encourage people to stay in farming.
Pb members wishing to learn to be Nuclear Terrorists?
I know it is unlikely but imagine the uproar in the EU Parliament if the final deal only passed or failed in the MEP vote due to the votes of UKIP.
Aged 18 until death.
It's the Speaker's constituency and three political parties didn't stand a candidate against him in 2010, 2015 or 2017. The Buckingham MP does not get a vote in parliament nor allowed to speak for or against bills.
So Buckingham electors are effectively disenfranchised.
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/brexit-experte-es-ist-schon-genug-schaden-angerichtet-worden-a-1172788.html
I do hope it deals with the current Tory/Labour vote to seat ratio anomaly!
However, what is even more bizarre is that we are sending this ill-informed moron to negotiate on our behalf with a sharp operator like Barnier. No wonder the rest of the World is laughing at us!
The Conservatives are thrashing about here looking for some utopian policy which will keep them popular irrespective of what it does to the economy as a whole.
We seem to be moving away from taxation based on income to taxation based on age - if you are under 30 (let's say), you can earn £100k and pay less tax than someone who's 40 and earning £100k. It's called an Income Tax, not an Age Tax. Tax people for being old if you want but call it what it is.
Then we have the hardy perennial of lower stamp duty for young buyers because we want to get everyone owning homes because home owners vote Conservative, don't they ? The notion of lower stamp duty has been tried before and all it did was push up prices.
Y
It was alienating older voters during the election which caused them to lose their majority. Nor will younger voters vote Tory because of these measures. Students will still vote Labour because Corbyn promises to abolish tuition fees -something the Tories themselves could do to cut the ground under Corbyn's feet.
So the Tories are planning to lose older voters while not gaining younger ones.
Truly those whom the Gods plan to destroy they first make -not mad -but just plain stupid.
It is ludicrous and I find it very funny and ironic that the Lib Dems should be supporting such a stupid situation.
As I said, it would be highly amusing if May were to cave on things like the divorce bill and it was then UKIP and Tory votes in the EU Parliament that helped reject the deal.
Start with the developer land-banks - tell the developers they'll either be taxed by the hectare or, if they go in 50-50 with the local authority, they'll be fast-tracked permission to build houses as long as they provide the necessary community infrastructure.
The reverse can be done with public land - offer half to a developer in exchange for a fast-track planning process and allow the Council to own the remaining freehold and charge Ground Rent. The partnership builds the houses and develops the infrastructure as a Joint Venture.
As for over 55s paying more NI, given the triple lock pensions and winter fuel allowance and bus passes they still get it is not much to ask
Scrapping tuition fees altogether would mainly benefit Corbyn voting students at the expense of higher taxes for Tory voting non graduate C2s
So my Dad and nieces won't be paying NI but me and my partner in our 30s will ?
Probably as much bollocks as my student loan about to be cancelled was though.
Is it to make other Tories feel less stupid ?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/16/chris-graylings-claims-that-uk-can-grow-more-dismissed-as-tripe
Would have a similar, and rather less controversial effect, I think ?
Treating some assets differently from others turns them into tax shelters. It's one reason why farmland is so expensive, relative to the income which it generates.
When he was PM, the UK built more council houses (150,000) in a year than May plans in a decade. I understand he was good at dealing with the building materials industry and persuading factory owners that his plans were serious and they meant that they'd need to more than double their output.
Brown commissioned a report on this in 2004. A staggering all-party lack of action.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-41637730
As for cutting NI for young people - I would strongly advise Hammond to cut Income Tax for young people, not NI.
Very simple reason - everyone knows and understands what Income Tax is. Most people don't have a clue about NI.
It's the same principle as why it's far easier to cut tax credits than child benefit or winter fuel allowance. Most people (and in particular high earners in the media) don't understand tax credits - whereas everyone understands child benefit and winter fuel.
This is really basic presentational stuff - which is why I expect May and Hammond to get this wrong.
Mind you it was built by a Labour council!
Tuition fees are unaffordable without significantly higher taxes, some of which will fall on non graduates who may be more Tory inclined than the students scrapping fees now would help. Linking fees to the graduate earnings premium and reducing interest repayments and raising the threshold for repayment to £25k is far more sensible and what Hammond is moving towards.
For example he claimed that his policies on hiring 10,000 extra police officers with a price tag of £300 million per annum were costed. While it would have been quite entertaining to watch them walking around stark naked because the only cost allowed for was salaries, not uniforms, transport, office space or even pensions, I don't think it would have been effective in cutting crime.
A ) one
B ) 60 billion
C ) Boris
There is a reason why older people have more money than younger people - the have worked for it!
Only joking. Mostly.
Stuff that now. Next time the Tories manifesto must be focused on winning and nothing else. That means keeping the pensioner vote and yes the triple lock. It means scrapping the dementia tax and just keeping the £100k of assets free of care costs guarantee, it means increasing public sector pay by more than 1%, it means easing the burden of tuition fees repayments for the young and cutting their tax and NI burden and more housing (albeit focused on brownbelt land first). It also probably means a Leaver as leader and someone who actually believes in Brexit as May never really did. Finally it means hammering Corbyn on his tax raising plans, particularly income tax for higher earners and inheritance tax
Above all the Tories need to mobilise their base ie pensioners and Leavers while also cutting Labour's lead with the young and winning back middle aged voters turned off by the dementia tax
1. Tuition fees are a lunatic policy which stop working class going to university - solution reduce fees to £6,000pa and interest rate to CPI +1%
2. Housing market is totally overvalued- solution put up interest rates to a sensible level, hammer buy to let to increase supply and stop help to buy!!
How about IHT
£0 to £249,999 nil rate
£250,000 to £999,999 2% rate
£1,000,000 upwards 40% rate
Examples:
Estate (homes, assets etc)
£300,000 IHT £1,000
£500,000 IHT £5,000
£750,000 IHT £10,000
£1,000,000 IHT £15,000 approx
£2,500,000 IHT £615,000 approx
I think this is affordable for those beneficiaries and is fair.
I have no idea how much this will bring in but a supermarket retailer says "Every Little Helps"
Reduce graduate grants to two years only and reduce them to £3000 for everything but those few courses with expensive lab needs. Stop the pretence of examinations, nobody cares. Somehow the University system has made itself the prolongation of school.
I was a maths lecturer years ago - analytic number theory research isn't something the tax payer should be paying for.
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-corbyn-wrong-on-working-class-students
In my purely anecdotal experience the middle class students have a kind of arrogance that they will be fine anyway somehow, and can sit tight while they sort things out, while poorer students believe they will really struggle to break free of their background without going to uni and having a degree to impress employers with.
It would be best if NI and income tax were rolled into one but it's tough to implement because there will always be losers. So, no hope this government could achieve anything constructive in this area.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/03/19/inheritance-tax-most-unfair/
Let me give one example of generational fairness that won't be worth any votes but shows how biased the current system is: council tax benefit. This was delegated to councils in 2012 (great! Local decisions and administration responding to local need) however it was done with a 10% cut. So councils had to take on the admin and decide how to deliver a scheme with 90% support not 100% for those who couldn't afford council tax. Hard enough, but the gvt legislation insisted that pensioners were supported at 100% so this meant that it was effectively a 20% cut for everyone else. Literally the poorest in society having to pay more to protect (less well off) pensioners. Councils basically had a choice between refusing and making up the 10% themselves, or imposing the 20% charge on all working age benefit recipients. We basically imposed it, with a discretionary fund and some exemptions around domestic violence and mental health, but it was a real hospital pass from the government. Where was the outrage at the poorest in society not just facing extra taxes but directly subsidising pensioners?
Far too many go to university these days. Let's just have 20% going and doing 'proper' degrees and get away from the current view that 'you can't get on if you don't go to university'!
Spanish judge orders detention of two Catalan pro-independence leaders accused of sedition
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-41646142
As the BBC says, 'other grotty developers are available'.
Is there any evidence that he's actually a fifth columnist for Catalan and Basque separatists? He's starting to look more and more like Mrs Iseling in The Manchurian Candidate.
The country needs to recognise that social care and NHS requires more funding.
Both myself and my brother will inherit a substantial estate that will by 2020 be IHT free. i.e. by 1st April 2020 any estate (that includes a home) under £1million will be nil rate.
If it was up to me I'd be organising regular Brexit focus groups with 18-30s and would suggest things like a big apology speech from the PM for 'citizens of nowhere' (utterly devastating) public recognition of the desire to explore he world for a generation who don't know what it is not to be connected,,and policy movement on joining schemes like Erasmus. Not enough for me, but they can't gain from some good ideas on this thread without this kind of shift.
Far more think National Insurance is fair in that poll than think inheritance tax is fair so give the voters what they want!