politicalbetting
Home› General

Howdy, Stranger!

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

Sign In Register

Categories

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Predicting GE2015 – my session with YouGov’s Joe Twyman

SystemSystem Posts: 12,560
edited July 2014 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Predicting GE2015 – my session with YouGov’s Joe Twyman

politicalbetting.com is proudly powered by WordPress
with "Neat!" theme. Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    edited July 2014
    @Socrates FPT

    Wouldn't Richard Branson just leave it directly to his grandkids?

    They used to be called the Rolling Irish Settlement Trust - essentially the settlor leaves it to a Trust for the benefit of his grandchildren (life interest) and their grandchildren (for value)*.

    I don't think they work anymore, but this isn't an area of law I'm particularly familiar with.

    * With a remainder clause in the event that their grandchildren have no issue or their issue no issue.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    @rcs1000

    On who pays VAT:

    If VAT was eliminated, how much do you think BP would reduce the price of petrol? By the full 20%, or by the minimum it needs to?

    In my view, in a freeish market, agents charge the maximum they can get away with for their product. Of this proportion, the government takes a cut in many cases. The business gets to keep the remainder, but can offset VAT it pays against VAT it has been charged by suppliers, broadly speaking with the result that there is only a 20% charge on the "value added" between the raw material and the final consumer good.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,855
    Charles said:

    @rcs1000

    On who pays VAT:

    If VAT was eliminated, how much do you think BP would reduce the price of petrol? By the full 20%, or by the minimum it needs to?

    In my view, in a freeish market, agents charge the maximum they can get away with for their product. Of this proportion, the government takes a cut in many cases. The business gets to keep the remainder, but can offset VAT it pays against VAT it has been charged by suppliers, broadly speaking with the result that there is only a 20% charge on the "value added" between the raw material and the final consumer good.

    As mentioned on the last thread I would argue the consumer pays it- A non EU national can claim back VAT on a purchase and therefore this shows its the consumer that pays it as some consumers pay it and some don't
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,855
    Most taxes are hard to collect especially taxes on wealth or inheritance or selling of assets. Not much is therefore raised anyway. To simplify things and to make it fair I would abolish these types of taxes and increase money supply by the equivalent to be borrowed for government spending (maybe 2-3%??) . This would dilute the wealth of people by that amount and evenly
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    state_go_away said:

    Charles said:

    @rcs1000

    On who pays VAT:

    If VAT was eliminated, how much do you think BP would reduce the price of petrol? By the full 20%, or by the minimum it needs to?

    In my view, in a freeish market, agents charge the maximum they can get away with for their product. Of this proportion, the government takes a cut in many cases. The business gets to keep the remainder, but can offset VAT it pays against VAT it has been charged by suppliers, broadly speaking with the result that there is only a 20% charge on the "value added" between the raw material and the final consumer good.

    As mentioned on the last thread I would argue the consumer pays it- A non EU national can claim back VAT on a purchase and therefore this shows its the consumer that pays it as some consumers pay it and some don't
    No, that just shows that there are double taxation treaties.

    UK consumers can claim back the equivalent of VAT when they buy product overseas provided, of course, that they declare all these goods and pay VAT on them when they re-enter the UK.

    Once again, the government is capturing a portion of the increase in the economic value of the country as a whole
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    FPT
    Charles said:

    I'm talking to myself on the new thread

    Charles

    The first half of your post I can believe.

    The second half took me by surprise.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    state_go_away said:

    Charles said:

    @rcs1000

    On who pays VAT:

    If VAT was eliminated, how much do you think BP would reduce the price of petrol? By the full 20%, or by the minimum it needs to?

    In my view, in a freeish market, agents charge the maximum they can get away with for their product. Of this proportion, the government takes a cut in many cases. The business gets to keep the remainder, but can offset VAT it pays against VAT it has been charged by suppliers, broadly speaking with the result that there is only a 20% charge on the "value added" between the raw material and the final consumer good.

    As mentioned on the last thread I would argue the consumer pays it- A non EU national can claim back VAT on a purchase and therefore this shows its the consumer that pays it as some consumers pay it and some don't
    Can you explain the difference between a sales tax and VAT? It may help clarify your thinking.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    edited July 2014
    rcs1000 said:

    Socrates said:

    Charles said:

    volcanopete said:

    Farage suffers major blow.

    http://www.euractiv.com/sections/eu-elections-2014/pro-eu-parties-shut-out-farages-efdd-committee-chairs-303340

    Which is quite wrong. Whether you agree with them or not (and I don't) UKIP and their equivalents represent a significant strand of the voters across Europe and deserve appropriate representation at all levels of Parliament.

    (And before anyone says, this is the equivalent to the Tories/LDs shutting Labour out of all Select Committee chairs, not the existence of the Coalition per se)
    Just another disgusting case of the EU refusing to acknowledge election results or the will of the general public. The whole system is rigged to exclude power from anyone who isn't a federalist. How can anyone rational hold this institution in anything except contempt?
    Well, technically it's a case of federalist EU parties not allowing non federalist parties a seat at the table, rather than the EU itself.
    If it was one party that would be something, but when all three largest parties get together it's pretty clear there's something rotten in the institution. Can you imagine the Tories and the Lib Dems doing this to cut out Labour from parliamentary committees? It simply wouldn't be accepted, and the backbench MPs from both those parties would reject it as unfair. But, of course, we have a long standing spirit of democratic governance and fairness in this country. The continent, on the other hand, does things differently - you often see this sort of abuse in places like Italy, Hungary etc.

    Why on Earth would someone that supports good governance want to move power from the former to the latter?
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    O/T:

    Tim Fortescue was a senior whip in Ted Heath's government. Here he is talking about how they operated at that time:

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=ll1eyFGMHMU
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,720
    Mr. Socrates, I agree entirely. This sort of behaviour is just one of the reasons why I think the EU should be dismantled.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Socrates, I agree entirely. This sort of behaviour is just one of the reasons why I think the EU should be dismantled.

    It also goes to show how it doesn't matter whether you vote for a member party of the EPP, PES or ALDE. The votes are all used to legitimise the same policy platform of interparty stitch-up for jobs for arch-federalists and exclusion of eurosceptics from power.
  • isamisam Posts: 42,149
    edited July 2014
    Charles said:

    @Socrates FPT

    Wouldn't Richard Branson just leave it directly to his grandkids?

    They used to be called the Rolling Irish Settlement Trust - essentially the settlor leaves it to a Trust for the benefit of his grandchildren (life interest) and their grandchildren (for value)*.

    I don't think they work anymore, but this isn't an area of law I'm particularly familiar with.

    * With a remainder clause in the event that their grandchildren have no issue or their issue no issue.

    The grandchildren loophole in my idea...

    Not really the same would apply to them or whoever it is left to

    Basically the original inheritance only gets taxed once the recipient has had chance to make from it, once the recipient dies it is taxed, but any money made from it is not


    So self made man leaves kid 250m

    Govt takes nothing

    Kids are worth 500m when they die

    Govt taxes 250m of it at whatever rate is decided on

    Also think that those whose will is affected by inheritance tax should be able to choose a charity to donate it ( from a restricted choice of govt approved charities)
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,638
    Socrates said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Socrates said:

    Charles said:

    volcanopete said:

    Farage suffers major blow.

    http://www.euractiv.com/sections/eu-elections-2014/pro-eu-parties-shut-out-farages-efdd-committee-chairs-303340

    Which is quite wrong. Whether you agree with them or not (and I don't) UKIP and their equivalents represent a significant strand of the voters across Europe and deserve appropriate representation at all levels of Parliament.

    (And before anyone says, this is the equivalent to the Tories/LDs shutting Labour out of all Select Committee chairs, not the existence of the Coalition per se)
    Just another disgusting case of the EU refusing to acknowledge election results or the will of the general public. The whole system is rigged to exclude power from anyone who isn't a federalist. How can anyone rational hold this institution in anything except contempt?
    Well, technically it's a case of federalist EU parties not allowing non federalist parties a seat at the table, rather than the EU itself.
    If it was one party that would be something, but when all three largest parties get together it's pretty clear there's something rotten in the institution. Can you imagine the Tories and the Lib Dems doing this to cut out Labour from parliamentary committees? It simply wouldn't be accepted, and the backbench MPs from both those parties would reject it as unfair. But, of course, we have a long standing spirit of democratic governance and fairness in this country. The continent, on the other hand, does things differently - you often see this sort of abuse in places like Italy, Hungary etc.

    Why on Earth would someone that supports good governance want to move power from the former to the latter?
    Taking a devil's advocate position, wouldn't this be the same as LabLibCon getting together and refusing to allow Sin Fein to have Westminster committee chairmanships on the basis that Sinn Fein did not recognise the position of the UK parliament?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,638
    On the subject of tax, I'm very glad I never got involved with any of the dodgy tax avoidance schemes like this one:

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c6a5e582-05d6-11e4-8b94-00144feab7de.html#axzz36t3yqc7K

  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    Raise IHT to one million, exempting primary home from the calculation and tax everything over it at 50%.
    No one loses the family home or has to cripple themselves finding tax to stay in it, and everyone can inherit a goodly sum without the idiots at Westminster getting their hands on it and giving it to pet projects.
    Or tax wealth over two million pounds, excluding primary home at 1% per annum and scrap IHT.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    And whilst we are on tax, George. Drop VAT and get people spending the increased money that lower tax under the higher personal allowance provides. Turn a paper recovery into a real recovery and reap some reward.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    rcs1000 said:

    On the subject of tax, I'm very glad I never got involved with any of the dodgy tax avoidance schemes like this one:

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c6a5e582-05d6-11e4-8b94-00144feab7de.html#axzz36t3yqc7K

    Absolutely agree - I got so many calls, but always took a 'Just Say No!' approach.

    I do feel a little sorry for Ingenious, because IMHO, they actually had a real business rather than just the dodgy schemes that other people were trying to flog.
  • isamisam Posts: 42,149
    Interesting video, Mike spoke well but one error was to suggest that it is value to back any of the three parties in Watford at bigger than 6/4... You could back all three at 15/8 and be on a guaranteed loser.

    Should be value to back any at bigger than 2/1 I suppose
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    isam said:

    Charles said:

    @Socrates FPT

    Wouldn't Richard Branson just leave it directly to his grandkids?

    They used to be called the Rolling Irish Settlement Trust - essentially the settlor leaves it to a Trust for the benefit of his grandchildren (life interest) and their grandchildren (for value)*.

    I don't think they work anymore, but this isn't an area of law I'm particularly familiar with.

    * With a remainder clause in the event that their grandchildren have no issue or their issue no issue.

    The grandchildren loophole in my idea...

    Not really the same would apply to them or whoever it is left to

    Basically the original inheritance only gets taxed once the recipient has had chance to make from it, once the recipient dies it is taxed, but any money made from it is not


    So self made man leaves kid 250m

    Govt takes nothing

    Kids are worth 500m when they die

    Govt taxes 250m of it at whatever rate is decided on

    Also think that those whose will is affected by inheritance tax should be able to choose a charity to donate it ( from a restricted choice of govt approved charities)
    Ok, so let's take the example of Mark Getty.

    Was Getty Images a product of his hard work, his family money, his mother's contacts, his brilliant idea, luck or a combination of all of them? And in what proportion?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getty_images
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    dyedwoolie said:

    Raise IHT to one million, exempting primary home from the calculation and tax everything over it at 50%.
    No one loses the family home or has to cripple themselves finding tax to stay in it, and everyone can inherit a goodly sum without the idiots at Westminster getting their hands on it and giving it to pet projects.
    Or tax wealth over two million pounds, excluding primary home at 1% per annum and scrap IHT.

    Creating an incentive for people to pour even more money into housing...

    A 95 year old dyedwoolie suddenly wants to move from rural Norfolk to central Kensington. I wonder why?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    rcs1000 said:

    On the subject of tax, I'm very glad I never got involved with any of the dodgy tax avoidance schemes like this one:

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c6a5e582-05d6-11e4-8b94-00144feab7de.html#axzz36t3yqc7K

    The comments are amusingly true to stereotypes.

    Osborne is certainly clamping down aggressively and systematically.
  • isamisam Posts: 42,149
    edited July 2014
    Charles said:

    isam said:

    Charles said:

    @Socrates FPT

    Wouldn't Richard Branson just leave it directly to his grandkids?

    They used to be called the Rolling Irish Settlement Trust - essentially the settlor leaves it to a Trust for the benefit of his grandchildren (life interest) and their grandchildren (for value)*.

    I don't think they work anymore, but this isn't an area of law I'm particularly familiar with.

    * With a remainder clause in the event that their grandchildren have no issue or their issue no issue.

    The grandchildren loophole in my idea...

    Not really the same would apply to them or whoever it is left to

    Basically the original inheritance only gets taxed once the recipient has had chance to make from it, once the recipient dies it is taxed, but any money made from it is not


    So self made man leaves kid 250m

    Govt takes nothing

    Kids are worth 500m when they die

    Govt taxes 250m of it at whatever rate is decided on

    Also think that those whose will is affected by inheritance tax should be able to choose a charity to donate it ( from a restricted choice of govt approved charities)
    Ok, so let's take the example of Mark Getty.

    Was Getty Images a product of his hard work, his family money, his mother's contacts, his brilliant idea, luck or a combination of all of them? And in what proportion?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getty_images
    Under my system, wouldn't all that mattered be how much he was left in a Will and how much he left in his?

    The principle behind my idea was that successful people should be able to leave all what they earn to their kids, but without creating a society where generations can rest on their laurels because of it
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    edited July 2014
    isam said:

    Charles said:

    isam said:

    Charles said:

    @Socrates FPT

    Wouldn't Richard Branson just leave it directly to his grandkids?

    They used to be called the Rolling Irish Settlement Trust - essentially the settlor leaves it to a Trust for the benefit of his grandchildren (life interest) and their grandchildren (for value)*.

    I don't think they work anymore, but this isn't an area of law I'm particularly familiar with.

    * With a remainder clause in the event that their grandchildren have no issue or their issue no issue.

    The grandchildren loophole in my idea...

    Not really the same would apply to them or whoever it is left to

    Basically the original inheritance only gets taxed once the recipient has had chance to make from it, once the recipient dies it is taxed, but any money made from it is not


    So self made man leaves kid 250m

    Govt takes nothing

    Kids are worth 500m when they die

    Govt taxes 250m of it at whatever rate is decided on

    Also think that those whose will is affected by inheritance tax should be able to choose a charity to donate it ( from a restricted choice of govt approved charities)
    Ok, so let's take the example of Mark Getty.

    Was Getty Images a product of his hard work, his family money, his mother's contacts, his brilliant idea, luck or a combination of all of them? And in what proportion?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getty_images
    Under my system, wouldn't all that mattered be how much he was left in a Will and how much he left in his?
    But why should his father's entrepreneurial efforts be rewarded by not being taxed, while Mark's efforts are taxed at the full rate?

    The tax system needs to be consistent
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    edited July 2014
    A top-notch article by Janan Ganesh:

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7200c822-05cb-11e4-9baa-00144feab7de.html#axzz36tAjlRlQ

    None of this is to suggest that cuts are popular, only that they are unpopular in the way flu jabs are unpopular. People do not rise up against things they suspect are unavoidable. At some indistinct point around the turn of the decade, they concluded that the years of bounty were over and some kind of reckoning was on its way....
    ...
    The lesson of this is more troubling for the left than they appear to grasp. It is that politicians can cut spending without everything falling apart. They can remain electorally competitive and the country can remain functional.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,712
    Infographic that some may find useful:
    http://www.euractiv.com/files/infographic-who-who-european-parliament

    Socrates - I think you underestimate the low cunning of British political parties - I can perfectly well imagine their excluding a fringe party from a committee chair, just as I can imagine them fiddling the pairing system by pairing the same MPs with two different parties (as really happened 92-97). Westminster has more virtues than it's generally given credit for, but perfect fairness is not one of them.
  • isamisam Posts: 42,149
    edited July 2014
    Charles said:

    isam said:

    Charles said:

    isam said:

    Charles said:

    @Socrates FPT

    Wouldn't Richard Branson just leave it directly to his grandkids?

    They used to be called the Rolling Irish Settlement Trust - essentially the settlor leaves it to a Trust for the benefit of his grandchildren (life interest) and their grandchildren (for value)*.

    I don't think they work anymore, but this isn't an area of law I'm particularly familiar with.

    * With a remainder clause in the event that their grandchildren have no issue or their issue no issue.

    The grandchildren loophole in my idea...

    Not really the same would apply to them or whoever it is left to

    Basically the original inheritance only gets taxed once the recipient has had chance to make from it, once the recipient dies it is taxed, but any money made from it is not


    So self made man leaves kid 250m

    Govt takes nothing

    Kids are worth 500m when they die

    Govt taxes 250m of it at whatever rate is decided on

    Also think that those whose will is affected by inheritance tax should be able to choose a charity to donate it ( from a restricted choice of govt approved charities)
    Ok, so let's take the example of Mark Getty.

    Was Getty Images a product of his hard work, his family money, his mother's contacts, his brilliant idea, luck or a combination of all of them? And in what proportion?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getty_images
    Under my system, wouldn't all that mattered be how much he was left in a Will and how much he left in his?
    But why should his father's entrepreneurial efforts be rewarded by not being taxed, while Mark's efforts are taxed at the full rate?

    The tax system needs to be consistent
    His efforts wouldn't be


    Let's say he was left 100m, he leaves 300m... Of that 300m, 100m is taxed (that being his fathers effort) the 200m he made (his effort) , isn't
  • VerulamiusVerulamius Posts: 1,555
    edited July 2014
    On IHT and wealth taxes I would suggest a look at the recent data: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_368612.pdf

    In particular in figure 7 you can see that a significant proportion of wealth is tied up in pension assets and only a minority of wealth is in real estate.

    Figures 4 and 5 are interesting in that they show that income and wealth are not as aligned as you might think.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    isam said:

    Charles said:

    isam said:

    Charles said:

    isam said:

    Charles said:

    @Socrates FPT

    Wouldn't Richard Branson just leave it directly to his grandkids?

    They used to be called the Rolling Irish Settlement Trust - essentially the settlor leaves it to a Trust for the benefit of his grandchildren (life interest) and their grandchildren (for value)*.

    I don't think they work anymore, but this isn't an area of law I'm particularly familiar with.

    * With a remainder clause in the event that their grandchildren have no issue or their issue no issue.

    The grandchildren loophole in my idea...

    Not really the same would apply to them or whoever it is left to

    Basically the original inheritance only gets taxed once the recipient has had chance to make from it, once the recipient dies it is taxed, but any money made from it is not


    So self made man leaves kid 250m

    Govt takes nothing

    Kids are worth 500m when they die

    Govt taxes 250m of it at whatever rate is decided on

    Also think that those whose will is affected by inheritance tax should be able to choose a charity to donate it ( from a restricted choice of govt approved charities)
    Ok, so let's take the example of Mark Getty.

    Was Getty Images a product of his hard work, his family money, his mother's contacts, his brilliant idea, luck or a combination of all of them? And in what proportion?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getty_images
    Under my system, wouldn't all that mattered be how much he was left in a Will and how much he left in his?
    But why should his father's entrepreneurial efforts be rewarded by not being taxed, while Mark's efforts are taxed at the full rate?

    The tax system needs to be consistent
    His efforts wouldn't be would they

    Let's say he was left 100m, he leaves 300m, 100m of it is taxed (that being what he was left) the 200m he made (his effort) , isn't
    Ok, I think your original example was confusing - you used 500/250 but it's clearer with 300/100.

    Still doesn't get round the double taxation issue. It's basically social engineering & creates an incentive for people to leave their wealth offshore.
  • isamisam Posts: 42,149
    edited July 2014
    Charles said:

    isam said:

    Charles said:

    isam said:

    Charles said:

    isam said:

    Charles said:

    @Socrates FPT

    Wouldn't Richard Branson just leave it directly to his grandkids?

    They used to be called the Rolling Irish Settlement Trust - essentially the settlor leaves it to a Trust for the benefit of his grandchildren (life interest) and their grandchildren (for value)*.

    I don't think they work anymore, but this isn't an area of law I'm particularly familiar with.

    * With a remainder clause in the event that their grandchildren have no issue or their issue no issue.

    The grandchildren loophole in my idea...

    Not really the same would apply to them or whoever it is left to

    Basically the original inheritance only gets taxed once the recipient has had chance to make from it, once the recipient dies it is taxed, but any money made from it is not


    So self made man leaves kid 250m

    Govt takes nothing

    Kids are worth 500m when they die

    Govt taxes 250m of it at whatever rate is decided on

    Also think that those whose will is affected by inheritance tax should be able to choose a charity to donate it ( from a restricted choice of govt approved charities)
    Ok, so let's take the example of Mark Getty.

    Was Getty Images a product of his hard work, his family money, his mother's contacts, his brilliant idea, luck or a combination of all of them? And in what proportion?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getty_images
    Under my system, wouldn't all that mattered be how much he was left in a Will and how much he left in his?
    But why should his father's entrepreneurial efforts be rewarded by not being taxed, while Mark's efforts are taxed at the full rate?

    The tax system needs to be consistent
    His efforts wouldn't be would they

    Let's say he was left 100m, he leaves 300m, 100m of it is taxed (that being what he was left) the 200m he made (his effort) , isn't
    Ok, I think your original example was confusing - you used 500/250 but it's clearer with 300/100.

    Still doesn't get round the double taxation issue. It's basically social engineering & creates an incentive for people to leave their wealth offshore.
    Yes I thought that! The original numbers were confusing so I changed them in the second example

    Also yes I didn't say it was a perfect system it was just an idea that came to me years ago, happy to be shot down
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    Charles said:

    dyedwoolie said:

    Raise IHT to one million, exempting primary home from the calculation and tax everything over it at 50%.
    No one loses the family home or has to cripple themselves finding tax to stay in it, and everyone can inherit a goodly sum without the idiots at Westminster getting their hands on it and giving it to pet projects.
    Or tax wealth over two million pounds, excluding primary home at 1% per annum and scrap IHT.

    Creating an incentive for people to pour even more money into housing...

    A 95 year old dyedwoolie suddenly wants to move from rural Norfolk to central Kensington. I wonder why?
    The problem with housing is not primary residences, and they should not attract taxation.
    It's gits with holiday homes and pied a terres that need to cough up.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,053
    Socrates said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Socrates said:

    Charles said:

    volcanopete said:

    Farage suffers major blow.

    http://www.euractiv.com/sections/eu-elections-2014/pro-eu-parties-shut-out-farages-efdd-committee-chairs-303340

    Which is quite wrong. Whether you agree with them or not (and I don't) UKIP and their equivalents represent a significant strand of the voters across Europe and deserve appropriate representation at all levels of Parliament.

    (And before anyone says, this is the equivalent to the Tories/LDs shutting Labour out of all Select Committee chairs, not the existence of the Coalition per se)
    Just another disgusting case of the EU refusing to acknowledge election results or the will of the general public. The whole system is rigged to exclude power from anyone who isn't a federalist. How can anyone rational hold this institution in anything except contempt?
    Well, technically it's a case of federalist EU parties not allowing non federalist parties a seat at the table, rather than the EU itself.
    If it was one party that would be something, but when all three largest parties get together it's pretty clear there's something rotten in the institution. Can you imagine the Tories and the Lib Dems doing this to cut out Labour from parliamentary committees? It simply wouldn't be accepted, and the backbench MPs from both those parties would reject it as unfair. But, of course, we have a long standing spirit of democratic governance and fairness in this country. The continent, on the other hand, does things differently - you often see this sort of abuse in places like Italy, Hungary etc.

    Why on Earth would someone that supports good governance want to move power from the former to the latter?
    I'd like to say I'm surprised, but I'm not.

    These people are like the Bourbons.

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,726
    edited July 2014
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    rcs1000 said:

    On the subject of tax, I'm very glad I never got involved with any of the dodgy tax avoidance schemes like this one:

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c6a5e582-05d6-11e4-8b94-00144feab7de.html#axzz36t3yqc7K

    The comments are amusingly true to stereotypes.

    Osborne is certainly clamping down aggressively and systematically.
    Pleased with this from Osborne, General Anti Avoidance measures are one of the triumphs of his chancellorship.

    Hopefully Mr Balls if he becomes Chancellor will carry on the work.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Joe Twyman seems a bit of an ARSE and clearly OGH less so.

    Sadly OGH has done his money of UKIP winning Eastleigh but the cunning old Bedford fox seems to running amok the "Chicken (Shadsy) Run" with the Yellow Peril taking Watford.

    Essentially the key to the seat is whether the popular LibDem Mayor, Dorothy Thornhill, decides to throw her hat in the ring. If she runs she wins and if not the seat is TCTC with all three parties in the hunt.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    isam said:


    Also yes I didn't say it was a perfect system it was just an idea that came to me years ago, happy to be shot down

    Administration
    Inflation
    Moving aboard
    Disbursements
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    ''The lesson of this is more troubling for the left than they appear to grasp. It is that politicians can cut spending without everything falling apart. ''

    Could/should Osborne have cut earlier and harder??

    Waste is still endemic in the public sector, if the tax payers alliance are any guide at all.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    edited July 2014
    dyedwoolie said:

    Charles said:

    dyedwoolie said:

    Raise IHT to one million, exempting primary home from the calculation and tax everything over it at 50%.
    No one loses the family home or has to cripple themselves finding tax to stay in it, and everyone can inherit a goodly sum without the idiots at Westminster getting their hands on it and giving it to pet projects.
    Or tax wealth over two million pounds, excluding primary home at 1% per annum and scrap IHT.

    Creating an incentive for people to pour even more money into housing...

    A 95 year old dyedwoolie suddenly wants to move from rural Norfolk to central Kensington. I wonder why?
    The problem with housing is not primary residences, and they should not attract taxation.
    It's gits with holiday homes and pied a terres that need to cough up.
    But it's a massive loophole.

    If I have a primary residence worth £1m and £10m of other assets, I pay £5m in tax.

    If I have a primary residence worth £10m and £1m of other assets, I pay £0.5m in tax.

    The friction cost of this transaction (stamp duty) is 7% on the £10m, so £0.7m

    Move to Kensington at 95 and you save £3.8m in tax (£5m - £0.5m - £0.7m).
  • isamisam Posts: 42,149
    Charles said:

    isam said:


    Also yes I didn't say it was a perfect system it was just an idea that came to me years ago, happy to be shot down

    Administration
    Inflation
    Moving aboard
    Disbursements
    A... Same with any tax
    B... Easy enough to make the adjustment
    C... You might have a point
    D,... Don't know what that means!
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    taffys said:

    Could/should Osborne have cut earlier and harder??

    Waste is still endemic in the public sector, if the tax payers alliance are any guide at all.

    I think cutting earlier and harder would have been very difficult: politically, economically and in administration terms. It takes a long time to turn things round in government. That is one of my biggest criticisms of Gordon Brown - after the crash in tax revenues became obvious, he deliberately and cynically wasted two years, which could have be used to plan for improved efficiencies and for assessing priorities, just so that he could run his ridiculous 'Labour investment vs Tory cuts' nonsense.

    I'm sure that there are further big savings to be made without damaging delivery of services. As with supermarkets and other private-sector organizations, you just have to keep at it, year after year, gradually improving efficiency. It's hard work and it requires dedication, persistence and skill. Instead we may get Labour.
  • BenMBenM Posts: 1,795
    taffys said:



    Waste is still endemic in the public sector, if the tax payers alliance are any guide at all.

    The Taxdodgers alliance are not any guide to anything other than rightwing prejudice.
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    dyedwoolie said:

    Raise IHT to one million, exempting primary home from the calculation and tax everything over it at 50%.
    No one loses the family home or has to cripple themselves finding tax to stay in it, and everyone can inherit a goodly sum without the idiots at Westminster getting their hands on it and giving it to pet projects.
    Or tax wealth over two million pounds, excluding primary home at 1% per annum and scrap IHT.

    Why not just scrap IHT? It doesn't collect much and virtually nothing from the seriously wealthy. In fact probably the only estates that pay it are those who are seriously unlucky or the unwealthy who have been caught out by rising house prices.

    That well known bastion of privilege, Australia, did away with IHT some years ago and , aside from wealth management consultants, lawyers and accountants, they don't seem to have felt the lack.
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @Richard_Nabavi

    The government is missing a trick here, instead of stacking shelves for some supermarket, the unemployed could be coerced into bottom wiping and feeding duties for the NHS?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    isam said:

    Charles said:

    isam said:


    Also yes I didn't say it was a perfect system it was just an idea that came to me years ago, happy to be shot down

    Administration
    Inflation
    Moving aboard
    Disbursements
    A... Same with any tax
    B... Easy enough to make the adjustment
    C... You might have a point
    D,... Don't know what that means!
    Administration will be harder. Assuming that people receive their inheritance at 50, you'll probably have to keep paperwork for 40 years which seems pretty risky/burdensome.

    Inflation - yes, you can make the adjustment, but that means that they need to outperform inflation on a consistent basis which just lifts the threshold for their own required performance

    Disbursements - If they want to give away money, you are deeming it to come from their own efforts rather than inheritance. Let's say, for example, someone didn't like the fact that their father was in the oil business (they're a green nut). So, they decide to give away the £100m they inherit. They also invent some really clever new green technology and make £200m from their own efforts.

    So when they die, they leave £200m, of which you are taxing them on £100m. But arguably the £200m is entirely down to their own efforts and the £100m that they inherited has been used for philanthropic purposes.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,386

    I've just been watching Keith Vaz and his merry men trying to pin down smoke. Mark Sedwill doing a good imitation of Manuel from Barcelona. Mark Ellis seemed to be the only one on the committee who understands the way the Civil Service filing system works.

    The 114 files were probably destroyed but the log that should have told us that didn't. You can misfile a couple but if they were destroyed, there should have been a record of when and on whose orders.

    The only thing we can say for sure is that we'll never know now.

    Where's Tap?
  • isamisam Posts: 42,149
    Charles said:

    isam said:

    Charles said:

    isam said:


    Also yes I didn't say it was a perfect system it was just an idea that came to me years ago, happy to be shot down

    Administration
    Inflation
    Moving aboard
    Disbursements
    A... Same with any tax
    B... Easy enough to make the adjustment
    C... You might have a point
    D,... Don't know what that means!
    Administration will be harder. Assuming that people receive their inheritance at 50, you'll probably have to keep paperwork for 40 years which seems pretty risky/burdensome.

    Inflation - yes, you can make the adjustment, but that means that they need to outperform inflation on a consistent basis which just lifts the threshold for their own required performance

    Disbursements - If they want to give away money, you are deeming it to come from their own efforts rather than inheritance. Let's say, for example, someone didn't like the fact that their father was in the oil business (they're a green nut). So, they decide to give away the £100m they inherit. They also invent some really clever new green technology and make £200m from their own efforts.

    So when they die, they leave £200m, of which you are taxing them on £100m. But arguably the £200m is entirely down to their own efforts and the £100m that they inherited has been used for philanthropic purposes.
    Interesting to have a conversation on here that isn't an argument!

    I think the admin would be ok... It isn't paperwork anymore but a page on a government website

    I guess my comeback to the last point is that they should put the money in a bank and forget about it and it will be given away when they say 'so long'
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,638
    CD13 said:


    I've just been watching Keith Vaz and his merry men trying to pin down smoke. Mark Sedwill doing a good imitation of Manuel from Barcelona. Mark Ellis seemed to be the only one on the committee who understands the way the Civil Service filing system works.

    The 114 files were probably destroyed but the log that should have told us that didn't. You can misfile a couple but if they were destroyed, there should have been a record of when and on whose orders.

    The only thing we can say for sure is that we'll never know now.

    Where's Tap?

    Unfortunately the methane released into the atmosphere from frack'ing has driven him slightly mad.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    The government is missing a trick here, instead of stacking shelves for some supermarket, the unemployed could be coerced into bottom wiping and feeding duties for the NHS?

    Deep breaths.

    It won't be long now before Ed reinstates the principle that the state owes you a living.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    Sean_F said:

    Socrates said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Socrates said:

    Charles said:

    volcanopete said:

    Farage suffers major blow.

    http://www.euractiv.com/sections/eu-elections-2014/pro-eu-parties-shut-out-farages-efdd-committee-chairs-303340

    Which is quite wrong. Whether you agree with them or not (and I don't) UKIP and their equivalents represent a significant strand of the voters across Europe and deserve appropriate representation at all levels of Parliament.

    (And before anyone says, this is the equivalent to the Tories/LDs shutting Labour out of all Select Committee chairs, not the existence of the Coalition per se)
    Just another disgusting case of the EU refusing to acknowledge election results or the will of the general public. The whole system is rigged to exclude power from anyone who isn't a federalist. How can anyone rational hold this institution in anything except contempt?
    Well, technically it's a case of federalist EU parties not allowing non federalist parties a seat at the table, rather than the EU itself.
    If it was one party that would be something, but when all three largest parties get together it's pretty clear there's something rotten in the institution. Can you imagine the Tories and the Lib Dems doing this to cut out Labour from parliamentary committees? It simply wouldn't be accepted, and the backbench MPs from both those parties would reject it as unfair. But, of course, we have a long standing spirit of democratic governance and fairness in this country. The continent, on the other hand, does things differently - you often see this sort of abuse in places like Italy, Hungary etc.

    Why on Earth would someone that supports good governance want to move power from the former to the latter?
    I'd like to say I'm surprised, but I'm not.

    These people are like the Bourbons.

    I'm looking forward to asking Nick Palmer what he thinks of his party's stitch-up in all this.

    I thought I was pretty eurosceptic two months ago, but I have become much more strongly eurosceptic since then. They pay absolutely no notice at all when the entire UK is united against the proposed President of the Commission, and now they have a stitch-up to break their own conventions so the winning party in the UK elections don't get a chairmanship.
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @taffys

    Just asking, you would think it would be logical, some of them might even take up nursing as a career?
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    edited July 2014
    Bad news for Scottish Conservatives as Edinburgh Zoo panda Tian Tian is up the duff and the formers prospect of having more Scottish MP's than Scottish pandas has been made all the more challenging.

    It appears the black and white furry bear was artificially inseminated earlier this year. Worried Tory PPC's north of the border are said to be avoiding hospitals and surgeries nationwide.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-28212994
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @tnewtondunn: Does Ed M support the strikes? Spokesman latest: "No." Will Ed condemn then? "No. Language of condemnation just ramps up the rhetoric". Hmm.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    isam said:



    I think the admin would be ok... It isn't paperwork anymore but a page on a government website

    I guess my comeback to the last point is that they should put the money in a bank and forget about it and it will be given away when they say 'so long'

    But can you be certain that the page on the government website is accurately maintained over 40 years. I mean, I know that the government excels in large-scale IT projects, but 40 years is a long time.... Who knows, perhaps computers will have changed a little in that time frame and the old data storage systems might not work?

    As for just putting the money in the bank, then what is the advantage of not taxing it upfront? You're not encouraging them to invest or to spend it, so you are just tying up productive capital in an unproductive way (and subsidising the banks by giving them a source of predictable sticky capital).

    Far better to not tax it on transfer, which encourages people to spend or invest - either way it gets the money flowing round the system again and you can generate tax on consumption or on income generated from investment
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    Yet more Good News

    The National Institute for Economic and Social Research (NIESR) has published it forecast of Q2 2014 GDP growth this afternoon.

    Our monthly estimates of GDP suggest that output grew by 0.9 per cent in the three months ending in June after growth of 0.7 per cent in the three months ending in May 2014. The month-on-month dip in the ONS’ latest production estimates is expected to weigh only marginally on the economy’s overall robust performance in 2014 Q2. Based on our estimates, the UK economy is now 3.2 per cent larger than in the same period last year.

    Looks as if everyone is ignoring the ONS Index of Production release this morning, even currency traders:

    Sterling was within 0.4 percent of its strongest level in almost two years against the 18-nation shared currency after the National Institute of Economic and Social Research said the U.K. economy grew 0.9 percent in the three months through June. That compares with a 0.7 percent expansion the previous month.

    Hold on to those pounds, Malcolm. You'll need them on your September holiday.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    Scott_P said:

    @tnewtondunn: Does Ed M support the strikes? Spokesman latest: "No." Will Ed condemn then? "No. Language of condemnation just ramps up the rhetoric". Hmm.

    The man's a complete unprincipled ditherer.

    He will never be Prime Minister.
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @Scott_P
    Politicians answer, If he said he supported the strike, the papers would have been full of "Ed in unions pocket" If he condemns the strike, he alienates a lot of voters, and gives Cameron ammunition.
    They all do it.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,855
    edited July 2014
    Charles said:

    state_go_away said:

    Charles said:

    @rcs1000

    On who pays VAT:

    If VAT was eliminated, how much do you think BP would reduce the price of petrol? By the full 20%, or by the minimum it needs to?

    In my view, in a freeish market, agents charge the maximum they can get away with for their product. Of this proportion, the government takes a cut in many cases. The business gets to keep the remainder, but can offset VAT it pays against VAT it has been charged by suppliers, broadly speaking with the result that there is only a 20% charge on the "value added" between the raw material and the final consumer good.

    As mentioned on the last thread I would argue the consumer pays it- A non EU national can claim back VAT on a purchase and therefore this shows its the consumer that pays it as some consumers pay it and some don't
    No, that just shows that there are double taxation treaties.

    UK consumers can claim back the equivalent of VAT when they buy product overseas provided, of course, that they declare all these goods and pay VAT on them when they re-enter the UK.

    Once again, the government is capturing a portion of the increase in the economic value of the country as a whole
    Yes but if a customer,as a non Eu national, can get a tax refund surely that customer must have deemed to have paid it in the first place (as opposed to the company selling the goods) -ie the tax is on the consumer
  • isamisam Posts: 42,149
    Scottish Commonwealth game uniform... Not the best

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/07/team-scotlands-commonwealth-games-uniforms-are-a-headache-waiting-to-happen/
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    Socrates said:

    Sean_F said:

    Socrates said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Socrates said:

    Charles said:

    volcanopete said:

    Farage suffers major blow.

    http://www.euractiv.com/sections/eu-elections-2014/pro-eu-parties-shut-out-farages-efdd-committee-chairs-303340

    Which is quite wrong. Whether you agree with them or not (and I don't) UKIP and their equivalents represent a significant strand of the voters across Europe and deserve appropriate representation at all levels of Parliament.

    (And before anyone says, this is the equivalent to the Tories/LDs shutting Labour out of all Select Committee chairs, not the existence of the Coalition per se)
    Just another disgusting case of the EU refusing to acknowledge election results or the will of the general public. The whole system is rigged to exclude power from anyone who isn't a federalist. How can anyone rational hold this institution in anything except contempt?
    Well, technically it's a case of federalist EU parties not allowing non federalist parties a seat at the table, rather than the EU itself.
    If it was one party that would be something, but when all three largest parties get together it's pretty clear there's something rotten in the institution. Can you imagine the Tories and the Lib Dems doing this to cut out Labour from parliamentary committees? It simply wouldn't be accepted, and the backbench MPs from both those parties would reject it as unfair. But, of course, we have a long standing spirit of democratic governance and fairness in this country. The continent, on the other hand, does things differently - you often see this sort of abuse in places like Italy, Hungary etc.

    Why on Earth would someone that supports good governance want to move power from the former to the latter?
    I'd like to say I'm surprised, but I'm not.

    These people are like the Bourbons.

    I'm looking forward to asking Nick Palmer what he thinks of his party's stitch-up in all this.

    I thought I was pretty eurosceptic two months ago, but I have become much more strongly eurosceptic since then. They pay absolutely no notice at all when the entire UK is united against the proposed President of the Commission, and now they have a stitch-up to break their own conventions so the winning party in the UK elections don't get a chairmanship.
    It is not a stitch-up, Socrates.

    It is the result of a properly held election.

    Demanding elected posts on the basis of back room deals is entitlement politics.

    If I became a member of a local golf club and then spent my entire resources on campaigning for it to be closed down, I wouldn't expect to be elected an Officer of the club.

    Live by the sword, die by the sword.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,855
    edited July 2014
    Smarmeron said:

    @Scott_P
    Politicians answer, If he said he supported the strike, the papers would have been full of "Ed in unions pocket" If he condemns the strike, he alienates a lot of voters, and gives Cameron ammunition.
    They all do it.

    It makes his position, by default, that be does not take sides. Well that's ok for 99% of the public but for somebody who wants to be PM and in charge of pay of millions of public sector workers its a bit pathetic
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    edited July 2014
    Charles said:

    isam said:



    I think the admin would be ok... It isn't paperwork anymore but a page on a government website

    I guess my comeback to the last point is that they should put the money in a bank and forget about it and it will be given away when they say 'so long'

    But can you be certain that the page on the government website is accurately maintained over 40 years. I mean, I know that the government excels in large-scale IT projects, but 40 years is a long time.... Who knows, perhaps computers will have changed a little in that time frame and the old data storage systems might not work?

    As for just putting the money in the bank, then what is the advantage of not taxing it upfront? You're not encouraging them to invest or to spend it, so you are just tying up productive capital in an unproductive way (and subsidising the banks by giving them a source of predictable sticky capital).

    Far better to not tax it on transfer, which encourages people to spend or invest - either way it gets the money flowing round the system again and you can generate tax on consumption or on income generated from investment
    Governments manage to remember your NI number for your entire life.

    Why can't they store your "inherited amount/date" for a long time?
  • GrandioseGrandiose Posts: 2,323
    Haven't had time to read through everything, but on the IHT discussion I'd say (1) any defence of IHT on the basis of the money raised per se is flawed, but that is by no means the only justification and (2) by what metric can we assess "too much" inherited wealth? What does the social ill look like? And if the top 1% (say) controlled more and more wealth (but no more income) would that be a bad thing of itself?
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    Socrates said:

    Sean_F said:

    Socrates said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Socrates said:

    Charles said:

    volcanopete said:

    Farage suffers major blow.

    http://www.euractiv.com/sections/eu-elections-2014/pro-eu-parties-shut-out-farages-efdd-committee-chairs-303340

    Which is quite wrong. Whether you agree with them or not (and I don't) UKIP and their equivalents represent a significant strand of the voters across Europe and deserve appropriate representation at all levels of Parliament.

    (And before anyone says, this is the equivalent to the Tories/LDs shutting Labour out of all Select Committee chairs, not the existence of the Coalition per se)
    Just another disgusting case of the EU refusing to acknowledge election results or the will of the general public. The whole system is rigged to exclude power from anyone who isn't a federalist. How can anyone rational hold this institution in anything except contempt?
    Well, technically it's a case of federalist EU parties not allowing non federalist parties a seat at the table, rather than the EU itself.
    If it was one party that would be something, but when all three largest parties get together it's pretty clear there's something rotten in the institution. Can you imagine the Tories and the Lib Dems doing this to cut out Labour from parliamentary committees? It simply wouldn't be accepted, and the backbench MPs from both those parties would reject it as unfair. But, of course, we have a long standing spirit of democratic governance and fairness in this country. The continent, on the other hand, does things differently - you often see this sort of abuse in places like Italy, Hungary etc.

    Why on Earth would someone that supports good governance want to move power from the former to the latter?
    I'd like to say I'm surprised, but I'm not.

    These people are like the Bourbons.

    I'm looking forward to asking Nick Palmer what he thinks of his party's stitch-up in all this.

    I thought I was pretty eurosceptic two months ago, but I have become much more strongly eurosceptic since then. They pay absolutely no notice at all when the entire UK is united against the proposed President of the Commission, and now they have a stitch-up to break their own conventions so the winning party in the UK elections don't get a chairmanship.
    Why should Farage get chairmanship of anything when he quite literally turns his back on the EU in parliament?
    The notion that he is there to represent outr iinterests is risible.

  • BenMBenM Posts: 1,795
    edited July 2014
    AveryLP said:

    <\blockquote>

    One can only look at the graph depicting the chronic weakness of the recovery since Osborne was allowed free reign to derail the more substantial one built up by Labour in 2010 and sigh.

  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,855
    edited July 2014
    Grandiose said:

    Haven't had time to read through everything, but on the IHT discussion I'd say (1) any defence of IHT on the basis of the money raised per se is flawed, but that is by no means the only justification and (2) by what metric can we assess "too much" inherited wealth? What does the social ill look like? And if the top 1% (say) controlled more and more wealth (but no more income) would that be a bad thing of itself?

    I think it would be a bad thing for the rich to pass on more of their wealth. However IHT does not address this issue much . As I said on the earlier thread increasing IHT would mean parents give their kids more money earlier in life and hence these kids get money when they can really use it to gain an advantage over others not so fortunate through buying qualifications , buying property , buying businesses etc . If you only inherit wealth when you are 60ish (ie when most people's parents die) then the money is less important.
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @state_go_away
    It's a fudge, but it beats the "answering a completely different question" routine that Cameron uses. That really grates for me. (Y.M.M.V.)
  • ToryJimToryJim Posts: 4,193
    Evening all. Just back from a job interview in London featuring a horrendous journey due to rubbish trains. I fear some people just don't get the concept work-life balance, and that sometimes you will not be willing to sell extra of your time regardless of price.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    isam said:

    Scottish Commonwealth game uniform... Not the best

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/07/team-scotlands-commonwealth-games-uniforms-are-a-headache-waiting-to-happen/

    Is this a devious SNP ploy? Are they doing their best to get a uniform so hideous that the English are bound to mock them, thus inciting Scottish wrath?
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,855
    ToryJim said:

    Evening all. Just back from a job interview in London featuring a horrendous journey due to rubbish trains. I fear some people just don't get the concept work-life balance, and that sometimes you will not be willing to sell extra of your time regardless of price.

    Go well then?
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    Mr Navabi says ... 'Gordon Brown - after the crash in tax revenues became obvious, he deliberately and cynically wasted two years, which could have be used to plan for improved efficiencies and for assessing priorities, just so that he could run his ridiculous 'Labour investment vs Tory cuts' nonsense.'

    Yes too true. But in reality all Brown (and Darling) was doing was stalling for time. Propping up the economy - creating a false economy really - with spending that we could not afford and adding to the deficit, so that the nation was insulated from the effects until the election.
    Lets not forget that Darlings last budget did not spell out departmental spending, either immediately or for the next 3 years. All the talk about cutting the deficit was wishful thinking.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited July 2014
    @BenM

    One can only look at the graph depicting the chronic weakness of the recovery since Osborne was allowed free reign to derail the more substantial one built up by Labour in 2010 and sigh.

    The relevant comparison is not the "2008-" recession with that in 1920-24.

    It is UK versus its main competitors today.

    And the story is that the UK is experiencing the highest growth rate in the G7 at the same time as achieving the highest rate of fiscal consolidation.

    Compare this to Gordon's little bounce in late 2009-early 2010 when the UK growth rate was the second lowest in the G7 and what little there was came from extended government spending and panic monetary expansion.

    But don't worry too much, Ben. This is year three stuff.
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @AveryLP
    Browns figures were helped by house price inflation. At least that has been sorted.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,855
    Socrates said:

    isam said:

    Scottish Commonwealth game uniform... Not the best

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/07/team-scotlands-commonwealth-games-uniforms-are-a-headache-waiting-to-happen/

    Is this a devious SNP ploy? Are they doing their best to get a uniform so hideous that the English are bound to mock them, thus inciting Scottish wrath?
    Ha Ha Reminds me of that episode of Knowing Me Knowing You when Alan got that fashion designer to show off her range!
    The ladies look like nurses and the men look like they are trying to take the mick out of kilt wearing
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    edited July 2014
    Smarmeron said:

    The government is missing a trick here, instead of stacking shelves for some supermarket, the unemployed could be coerced into bottom wiping and feeding duties for the NHS?

    I don't see why you are so contemptuous of those who provide care services on behalf of NHS patients (and the elderly). Personally I have every admiration for those who work in such jobs, such as the excellent staff who are currently looking after my 95-year old mother-in-law.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    state_go_away said:

    Charles said:

    state_go_away said:

    Charles said:

    @rcs1000

    On who pays VAT:

    If VAT was eliminated, how much do you think BP would reduce the price of petrol? By the full 20%, or by the minimum it needs to?

    In my view, in a freeish market, agents charge the maximum they can get away with for their product. Of this proportion, the government takes a cut in many cases. The business gets to keep the remainder, but can offset VAT it pays against VAT it has been charged by suppliers, broadly speaking with the result that there is only a 20% charge on the "value added" between the raw material and the final consumer good.

    As mentioned on the last thread I would argue the consumer pays it- A non EU national can claim back VAT on a purchase and therefore this shows its the consumer that pays it as some consumers pay it and some don't
    No, that just shows that there are double taxation treaties.

    UK consumers can claim back the equivalent of VAT when they buy product overseas provided, of course, that they declare all these goods and pay VAT on them when they re-enter the UK.

    Once again, the government is capturing a portion of the increase in the economic value of the country as a whole
    Yes but if a customer,as a non Eu national, can get a tax refund surely that customer must have deemed to have paid it in the first place (as opposed to the company selling the goods) -ie the tax is on the consumer
    They are assuming that the price paid by the consumer reflects the requirement that the manufacturer has to pay VAT to the government
  • ToryJimToryJim Posts: 4,193
    state_go_away said:

    ToryJim said:

    Evening all. Just back from a job interview in London featuring a horrendous journey due to rubbish trains. I fear some people just don't get the concept work-life balance, and that sometimes you will not be willing to sell extra of your time regardless of price.

    Go well then?
    The interview went well, it was convincing the agent that I'm not comfortable with excessive standard hours and that I'm not doing a job that is mandated as 8-6 daily because I value my sanity for a start.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,855
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Smarmeron said:

    The government is missing a trick here, instead of stacking shelves for some supermarket, the unemployed could be coerced into bottom wiping and feeding duties for the NHS?

    I don't see why you are so contemptous of those who provide care services on behalf of the NHS (and the elderly). Personally I have every admiration for those who work in such jobs, such as the excellent staff who are currently looking after my 95-year old mother-in-law.
    That's just relief Richard that your mother in law does not live with you. 'Is he going out again' was heard a lot from my Dad's mother in law when my grandma lived with us for a time!!
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @Richard_Nabavi
    I have the greatest respect for them as well. but there are a lot of Jobs being done by nursing auxiliaries that they could do?
    Think of the savings?
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    Flightpath said:



    Why should Farage get chairmanship of anything when he quite literally turns his back on the EU in parliament?
    The notion that he is there to represent outr iinterests is risible.

    Because power should lie with the people, and he was leader of the party that won more votes than any other in the UK?

    I can't believe anyone even has the nerve to argue this is fair. Partisanship knows no bounds it seems.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    Smarmeron said:

    @AveryLP
    Browns figures were helped by house price inflation. At least that has been sorted.

    That was in the early naughties, Smarmy.

    You've got the wrong end of the decade.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    edited July 2014
    AveryLP said:


    It is not a stitch-up, Socrates.

    It is the result of a properly held election.

    Demanding elected posts on the basis of back room deals is entitlement politics.

    If I became a member of a local golf club and then spent my entire resources on campaigning for it to be closed down, I wouldn't expect to be elected an Officer of the club.

    Live by the sword, die by the sword.

    The back-room deal is the one to exclude UKIP from power. The chairmanship posts are supposed to be handed out by an established parliamentary convention. It's the equivalent of Ed Miliband getting into power and only handing out Lords places to Labourites.

    Even the European Greens can see how unfair this is. I don't agree with their policies but they at least believe in democracy. Unlike the EPP, PES and ALDE eurofederalist scum.

    It's not just Labour that has some answering to do. The Liberal Democrats are giving a big middle finger to British voters and liberal democracy by going along with this.
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @AveryLP
    How many extra houses above need have we built? The ones that will bring down our housing deficit.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    edited July 2014
    Smarmeron said:

    @Richard_Nabavi
    I have the greatest respect for them as well. but there are a lot of Jobs being done by nursing auxiliaries that they could do?
    Think of the savings?

    Of course, any savings are always to be welcomed, and it is true that sweeping away unnecessary restrictions and inefficient practices can be part of that.

    Quite why the Left are so completely uninterested in, indeed actively hostile to, improved efficiency is one of life's enduring mysteries. The funny thing is that if you look at any Labour-supporting website, you'll find lots and lots of discussion about how the left should adapt to the constraints of reduced expenditure, yet there is virtually no discussion at all of the most obvious answer, namely how we get the efficiency improvements in the public sector which the private sector has achieved.

    Only Frank Field seems to get it, but no-one in Labour listens to him:

    http://www.frankfield.com/franks-blog/blog.aspx?b=51

  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,855
    ToryJim said:

    state_go_away said:

    ToryJim said:

    Evening all. Just back from a job interview in London featuring a horrendous journey due to rubbish trains. I fear some people just don't get the concept work-life balance, and that sometimes you will not be willing to sell extra of your time regardless of price.

    Go well then?
    The interview went well, it was convincing the agent that I'm not comfortable with excessive standard hours and that I'm not doing a job that is mandated as 8-6 daily because I value my sanity for a start.
    8-6 ? should quote Dolly Parton as evidence that those hours are at least 2 hours too long per day
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    Socrates said:

    AveryLP said:


    It is not a stitch-up, Socrates.

    It is the result of a properly held election.

    Demanding elected posts on the basis of back room deals is entitlement politics.

    If I became a member of a local golf club and then spent my entire resources on campaigning for it to be closed down, I wouldn't expect to be elected an Officer of the club.

    Live by the sword, die by the sword.

    The back-room deal is the one to exclude UKIP from power. The chairmanship posts are supposed to be handed out by an established parliamentary convention. It's the equivalent of Ed Miliband getting into power and only handing out Lords places to Labourites.

    Even the European Greens can see how unfair this is. I don't agree with their policies but they at least believe in democracy. Unlike the EPP, PES and ALDE eurofederalist scum.

    It's not just Labour that has some answering to do. The Liberal Democrats are giving a big middle finger to British voters and liberal democracy by going along with this.
    Either hand out the posts in accordance with convention or hold a ballot.

    Trying to do both creates a conflict which can only be resolved by giving primacy to the ballot.

    And if the ballot is decisive it is better not to annoy the voters to such an extent that they are prepared to abandon convention.

    I can only hope that College doesn't have to get Herman Rompuy to sign off on his pension and allowances package.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,855
    edited July 2014
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Smarmeron said:

    @Richard_Nabavi
    I have the greatest respect for them as well. but there are a lot of Jobs being done by nursing auxiliaries that they could do?
    Think of the savings?

    Of course, any savings are always to be welcomed, and it is true that sweeping away unnecessary restrictions and inefficient practices can be part of that.

    Quite why the Left are so completely uninterested in, indeed actively hostile to, improved efficiency is one of life's enduring mysteries. The funny thing is that if you look at any Labour-supporting website, you'll find lots and lots of discussion about how the left should adapt to the constraints of reduced expenditure, yet there is virtually no discussion aty all of the most obvious answer, namely how we get the efficiency improvements in the public sector which the private sector has achieved.

    Only Frank Field seems to get it, but no-one in Labour listens to him:

    http://www.frankfield.com/franks-blog/blog.aspx?b=51

    Yes given how you can only raise so much in tax (and tax always comes mostly from the average Joe) then it seems strange not to want to make it stretch as much as possible in providing public services. The irony is that if the public sector did cut down on waste then more people would be more willing to pay tax as they could see it would be put to good use
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @Richard_Nabavi

    Automation of the nursing wards might be problematic? We lag behind the world in that, and robotics.
    Needs to be cheap labour then?
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    Smarmeron said:

    @AveryLP
    How many extra houses above need have we built? The ones that will bring down our housing deficit.

    No problem with the rate of private sector construction. Highest proportion of sales transactions ever.

    The problem is with social housing. Find a business model to support and the tower blocks will climb to the skies, Smarmy.
  • ToryJimToryJim Posts: 4,193
    state_go_away said:

    ToryJim said:

    state_go_away said:

    ToryJim said:

    Evening all. Just back from a job interview in London featuring a horrendous journey due to rubbish trains. I fear some people just don't get the concept work-life balance, and that sometimes you will not be willing to sell extra of your time regardless of price.

    Go well then?
    The interview went well, it was convincing the agent that I'm not comfortable with excessive standard hours and that I'm not doing a job that is mandated as 8-6 daily because I value my sanity for a start.
    8-6 ? should quote Dolly Parton as evidence that those hours are at least 2 hours too long per day
    Well quite, I don't mind long hours as an exception but not as a rule.
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @AveryLP
    Small flaw in the social housing side. The councils have to sell property the occupier wishes to buy, and at a discount price.
    They are then supposed to build one new house for every one sold.
    I think I spot a small economic problem?
  • EasterrossEasterross Posts: 1,915
    JackW said:

    Bad news for Scottish Conservatives as Edinburgh Zoo panda Tian Tian is up the duff and the formers prospect of having more Scottish MP's than Scottish pandas has been made all the more challenging.

    It appears the black and white furry bear was artificially inseminated earlier this year. Worried Tory PPC's north of the border are said to be avoiding hospitals and surgeries nationwide.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-28212994

    It's not true. I did not have any sort of relations with that Chinese dame Miss Xan Xan or whatever she said her name was. I thought the test tube for was DNA analysis :)
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Smarmeron said:

    @AveryLP
    Small flaw in the social housing side. The councils have to sell property the occupier wishes to buy, and at a discount price.
    They are then supposed to build one new house for every one sold.
    I think I spot a small economic problem?

    Nope. Market value less discount is > construction cost + land cost.

    Essentially you are giving the purchaser the developer's profit margin. Arguably you shouldn't give them all of it as there should be some return on social capital, but you're not selling below replacement cost
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    edited July 2014

    @Charles
    Depends on the average discount when the occupier decides to buy? It could just be as easy as the council tax payer handing them a wad of cash?
    Even council tenants can work out the time to buy at the best time. (Usually just before gran passes off to eternal slumber is good).
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    Red-on-red incoming, and a particularly amusing spat where, because both sides are equally unappealing, you can just enjoy the mud-slinging:

    http://damianpmcbride.tumblr.com/post/91150464979/have-you-no-sense-of-decency-harriet
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    edited July 2014
    BenM said:



    One can only look at the graph depicting the chronic weakness of the recovery since Osborne was allowed free reign to derail the more substantial one built up by Labour in 2010 and sigh.

    Rein, please (what you stop a horse with) not reign (time on throne).

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,480
    edited July 2014
    ToryJim said:

    state_go_away said:

    ToryJim said:

    Evening all. Just back from a job interview in London featuring a horrendous journey due to rubbish trains. I fear some people just don't get the concept work-life balance, and that sometimes you will not be willing to sell extra of your time regardless of price.

    Go well then?
    The interview went well, it was convincing the agent that I'm not comfortable with excessive standard hours and that I'm not doing a job that is mandated as 8-6 daily because I value my sanity for a start.
    Plenty of people looking for part time hours like that

    Thought it was meant to be all cut and thrust in London , with all those high talented Go Getters arriving from all over the globe.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,661
    Smarmeron said:

    @Scott_P
    Politicians answer, If he said he supported the strike, the papers would have been full of "Ed in unions pocket" If he condemns the strike, he alienates a lot of voters, and gives Cameron ammunition.
    They all do it.

    He should have said the strikes are wrong, would have amused us all, again.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCem9EZb-YA
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @Richard_Nabavi

    Tories for Damian McBride?
    The world is truly full of miracles. :-)
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    Smarmeron said:

    @Richard_Nabavi

    Tories for Damian McBride?
    The world is truly full of miracles. :-)

    No, just enjoying the wrestling, not taking sides!
  • isamisam Posts: 42,149
    At least Westminster paedophile cover ups aren't the main headline on the bbc news

    British Muslims fighting for the enemy in Syria instead

    Think I'll watch eggheads instead!!

  • ToryJimToryJim Posts: 4,193
    malcolmg said:

    ToryJim said:

    state_go_away said:

    ToryJim said:

    Evening all. Just back from a job interview in London featuring a horrendous journey due to rubbish trains. I fear some people just don't get the concept work-life balance, and that sometimes you will not be willing to sell extra of your time regardless of price.

    Go well then?
    The interview went well, it was convincing the agent that I'm not comfortable with excessive standard hours and that I'm not doing a job that is mandated as 8-6 daily because I value my sanity for a start.
    Plenty of people looking for part time hours like that

    Thought it was meant to be all cut and thrust in London , with all those high talented Go Getters arriving from all over the globe.
    Other people are welcome to sacrifice themselves on the altar of mammon if they so wish. I work to live not vice versa.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Smarmeron said:


    @Charles
    Depends on the average discount when the occupier decides to buy? It could just be as easy as the council tax payer handing them a wad of cash?
    Even council tenants can work out the time to buy at the best time. (Usually just before gran passes off to eternal slumber is good).

    Of course it does, but I think discounts tend to be in the region of 25%.

    It would be daft to sell below replacement cost, so I'm assuming someone has done the math.
This discussion has been closed.