Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.
I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.
Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.
As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.
Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.
Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.
I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.
I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.
I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
Problem is it means no one sells.
Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.
Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.
So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?
You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power
Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
If we can't afford to defend ourselves and become serfs to authoritarian states to Russia, how many times worse than the poll tax do you think that would be?
The fact our homes are worth anything decent at all is because we live in a safe, secure and wealthy part of the world - keeping that means investing in its protection or we risk losing it all.
We do not want a tax on asset windfalls, a wealth tax or a rise in inheritance tax. No, no, no. Better to go into opposition than for this government to do anything so un Tory and betray the Tory core vote
In any case we already spend the 2% of gdp on defence NATO wants, it is other nations like Germany who have not but are finally now going to do so following Putin's invasion of Ukraine
Cringing nonsense. Utter irresponsibility. About time the geriatric Tories did their fair share.
Who cares if the Tory core vote is reamed out, if that is what it takes?
We Tories do and we Tories are in power with a majority and we Tories will therefore decide policy until the next general election, not you
You do the cause of the conservative party great embarrasment, as you do to yourself
You are a terrible advert for the conservative party
You do not even seem to know what being a Tory means? No surprise as you voted for New Labour twice
The whole point of the Tory Party is that Peel, Disraeli, Salisbury, Churchill, (Joe) Chamberlain, Super Mac, Heath, Thatcher, and Cameron believed utterly different things. You’re in a Salisbury/Chamberlain cycle at the minute. It won’t last.
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
The much bigger problem though is not those countries with nukes deciding to hang on to them, it will be the smaller nations with big aggressive neighbours deciding to get them to be on the safe side.
That greatly increases the risk of something going wrong or a rogue/false flag strike (as in the plot of On The Beach).
In a book Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs written 15 years ago that was criticised as flawed by military experts but I nevertheless found interesting, Lewis Page made this exact point. 'Nuclear weapons confer immunity from American interference up to a point, which is why everyone is so keen to get them...(footnote) Everyone really is keen to get them: this isn't scaremongering or lies. Chemical weapons are a bogey to frighten the children with - the Kaiser had them in World War One, for goodness sakes. But long range nukes are the real deal. If I were running a country, I'd want some.'
Exactly. We either find a way to get rid of them or we don't have a long run future.
If you have any ideas on how to persuade North Korea, Russia, India, Pakistan, Israel, Iran and China to give up their nuclear weapons, I'm sure the UN would be delighted to hear from you.
But even if you could via, say, a programme of mass hypnosis I honestly cannot see the Americans giving up nukes.
All I can do is argue and vote for my own country to do it.
And that's the problem, isn't it? Ukraine and Kazakhstan gave up their nukes, and are now in effect giving up their sovereignty as well as a result. So no politician will get rid of their nukes until *everyone* agrees to get rid of them.
But the other way - proliferate until bang - is imo a bigger problem. And I don't think our nukes protect us. The logic doesn't really work for that. Not as I assess it.
So - let me get this right - you are pro-unilateral disarmament? You would vote for an Abandon Our Nukes party? And you'd be happy if we did that, despite Ukraine?
I kind of hope I've got this wrong
Yes, I feel not a jot safer for Trident and would like to see us reject nuclear weapons. It's moral AND logical.
We Tories do and we Tories are in power with a majority and we Tories will therefore decide policy until the next general election, not you
Yet the Conservatives have always claimed to be a pragmatic party governing in the national interest.
By definition, that means occasionally having to take some difficult and potentially unpopular decisions because it's the right thing to do not because it's the easy or popular thing to do.
Margaret Thatcher always did what she thought was best for the country even if it wasn't in the short term best for the party or for the popularity of the party. Yes, she went out to explain, justify and defend that policy and faced huge resistance sometimes from within the Conservative Party itself but would you not argue she was more often right than wrong and her electoral record confirms that?
Thatcher never increased inheritance tax or imposed a wealth tax as she knew that to do so would betray the defining core Tory value of creation of wealth and preservation of it
Surely creation of wealth was Whig. The Tories were just about preservation of the old order.
It was preservation of wealth and the established church and monarchy that was key to Toryism.
The Whigs were more pro free trade and keener on constitutional reform
The mercantile class were the wealth-creators. Countries that preserved the aristocratic order, stagnated. I have always thought Thatcher was more Whig than Rory.
Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.
I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.
Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.
As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.
Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.
Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.
I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.
I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.
I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
Problem is it means no one sells.
Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.
Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.
So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?
You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power
Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
If we can't afford to defend ourselves and become serfs to authoritarian states to Russia, how many times worse than the poll tax do you think that would be?
The fact our homes are worth anything decent at all is because we live in a safe, secure and wealthy part of the world - keeping that means investing in its protection or we risk losing it all.
We do not want a tax on asset windfalls, a wealth tax or a rise in inheritance tax. No, no, no. Better to go into opposition than for this government to do anything so un Tory and betray the Tory core vote
In any case we already spend the 2% of gdp on defence NATO wants, it is other nations like Germany who have not but are finally now going to do so following Putin's invasion of Ukraine
Cringing nonsense. Utter irresponsibility. About time the geriatric Tories did their fair share.
Who cares if the Tory core vote is reamed out, if that is what it takes?
We Tories do and we Tories are in power with a majority and we Tories will therefore decide policy until the next general election, not you
You do the cause of the conservative party great embarrasment, as you do to yourself
You are a terrible advert for the conservative party
I agree. It's great, isn't it?
I have never come across anyone in the conservative party in my 60 years association so embarrasing and frankly pathetic
We Tories do and we Tories are in power with a majority and we Tories will therefore decide policy until the next general election, not you
Yet the Conservatives have always claimed to be a pragmatic party governing in the national interest.
By definition, that means occasionally having to take some difficult and potentially unpopular decisions because it's the right thing to do not because it's the easy or popular thing to do.
Margaret Thatcher always did what she thought was best for the country even if it wasn't in the short term best for the party or for the popularity of the party. Yes, she went out to explain, justify and defend that policy and faced huge resistance sometimes from within the Conservative Party itself but would you not argue she was more often right than wrong and her electoral record confirms that?
Thatcher never increased inheritance tax or imposed a wealth tax as she knew that to do so would betray the defining core Tory value of creation of wealth and preservation of it
Indeed but Conservative Governments are quite happy to increase taxes - quite apart from the current administration, Howe and Lamont both raised VAT and the party (at least at local level) suffered from the backlash in terms of council seats.
If you aren't prepared to tax wealth and inheritance (which I understand), you must accept there are times when taxes have to be increased to improve the public finances. There will be those who argue the burden of those tax rises should not be disproportionately on those least able to pay them (I think that's a reasonable argument, you may not) which leaves the alternative choice that those with more disposable income contribute a greater share than those with less.
The big disadvantage of taxing the poorest - as say, Louis XVI and Nicholas II both found out - is that they have rather less money to pay in tax than the richest.
Which means you set rather strict limits on how much you will raise. And therefore, how much you can do.
Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.
I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.
Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.
As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.
Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.
Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.
I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.
I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.
I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
Problem is it means no one sells.
Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.
Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.
So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?
You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power
Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
If we can't afford to defend ourselves and become serfs to authoritarian states to Russia, how many times worse than the poll tax do you think that would be?
The fact our homes are worth anything decent at all is because we live in a safe, secure and wealthy part of the world - keeping that means investing in its protection or we risk losing it all.
We do not want a tax on asset windfalls, a wealth tax or a rise in inheritance tax. No, no, no. Better to go into opposition than for this government to do anything so un Tory and betray the Tory core vote
In any case we already spend the 2% of gdp on defence NATO wants, it is other nations like Germany who have not but are finally now going to do so following Putin's invasion of Ukraine
Cringing nonsense. Utter irresponsibility. About time the geriatric Tories did their fair share.
Who cares if the Tory core vote is reamed out, if that is what it takes?
HYUFD isn't a democratic Conservative but a right wing autocrat type. His focus isn't on what's the best, prudent way to run a society, but a naked focus on protecting the rich and powerful.
That's totally untrue.
He's whatever the Conservative party needs him to be. At the moment, that's the 'right wing autocratic type.' If Hunt wins next time, expect him to become a small state liberal. Should Patel win - actually, let's not imagine Patel winning, I don't want to give myself nightmares.
I’ve never understood this sort of utter party loyalty. Probably why I can’t imagine joining one. I just don’t identify with any one set of policies enough.
It isn't policies for real party loyalists, it is the party. Like a football team, the manager and players change, but the support goes on, even if the former manager is now on a rival team.
It's worse, because it wouldn't even matter if the owners, all backroom staff, players changed, the stadium was moved, or even if they stated playing badminton instead of football. (Sample debate: "I don't recognise this club anymore" "We are the same football club as always" "We play badminton!" "It is still 'called' a football club, therefore it is the same!")
It really shouldn't be hard to be a loyalist to a party but acknowledge the basic fact of governing for everyone - guided by your policies and ideology, but not with out and out vindictiveness for anyone not of that agenda.
That's the attitude of semi-democracies, and why autocratic states are so fearful of handing over power, because they lack that basic human decency.
It's not a goal to aim for in a proper democracy, and it doesn't mean you have to be any less loyal - just appreciate other people and groups exist and deserve fait treatment.
On other matters, by way of Sunday light relief, just finished this very enjoyable book - a general history of the Roman Army. In its way, rather reminiscent of the British and Indian Armies, though you'd need a much larger Royal Engineer component to do things such as building the Walls and laying out civilian towns for the Brits. Very taken with the notion that Juvenal was the former OC at the auxiliary fort at Maryport in Cumbria (where the Wall ends).
Roman soldiers acted as their own sappers. Can't quite remember where they got the engineering expertise from though.
Indeed they did - I was thinking, they were more like sappers who did occasional fighting. Did mean they had plenty to do in peacetime. I remember going to Silchester during the excavations in the 1980s (?) and seeing the original town forum which had a rather military air about it ...
Recent events have me puzzling over an historical conundrum: what were Britain's war plans in September 1939? What did Chamberlain have in mind when he announced his fateful decision? Norway, Dunkirk and the fall of France undoubtedly threw us off course. But what did HMG actually plan to do before they were rudely interrupted?
Basically reprise WW1. Stalemate on the Western front, and blockade Germany until surrender was the Anglo-French plan.
That's what I would have guessed. But a blockade is a bit like sanctions, isn't it? Russia has already described sanctions as 'unfriendly', for which a more dramatic synonym would be 'hostile'. We may not be engaged in a military confrontation yet (thank goodness) but sanctions are part of our arsenal and we have already deployed them. Obviously we have no intention of sinking their ships (which is what a blockade implies) but if sanctions bite as deep as many have predicted the effect would be much the same. Even if Russia and Ukraine manage to negotiate a cease-fire the sanctions issue looks impossible to resolve because the Russian brand has been so thoroughly trashed. No-one will want to do business with them even if legal restrictions are eased.
I see that the Russian Orthodox Church in the Netherlands has today defected to the Istanbul-based Orthodox Church. FWIW.
The Russian Orthodox Church has I believe been excommunicated by the Ecumenical Patriarch for refusing to recognise the autonomy of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Or something like that.
Haven't the Ukrainians moved to the Alexandria Patriarch, and now the Russians are therefore trying to get Orthodox African churches to move from Alexandria to the Russian Patriarch?
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
The much bigger problem though is not those countries with nukes deciding to hang on to them, it will be the smaller nations with big aggressive neighbours deciding to get them to be on the safe side.
That greatly increases the risk of something going wrong or a rogue/false flag strike (as in the plot of On The Beach).
In a book Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs written 15 years ago that was criticised as flawed by military experts but I nevertheless found interesting, Lewis Page made this exact point. 'Nuclear weapons confer immunity from American interference up to a point, which is why everyone is so keen to get them...(footnote) Everyone really is keen to get them: this isn't scaremongering or lies. Chemical weapons are a bogey to frighten the children with - the Kaiser had them in World War One, for goodness sakes. But long range nukes are the real deal. If I were running a country, I'd want some.'
Exactly. We either find a way to get rid of them or we don't have a long run future.
If you have any ideas on how to persuade North Korea, Russia, India, Pakistan, Israel, Iran and China to give up their nuclear weapons, I'm sure the UN would be delighted to hear from you.
But even if you could via, say, a programme of mass hypnosis I honestly cannot see the Americans giving up nukes.
All I can do is argue and vote for my own country to do it.
And that's the problem, isn't it? Ukraine and Kazakhstan gave up their nukes, and are now in effect giving up their sovereignty as well as a result. So no politician will get rid of their nukes until *everyone* agrees to get rid of them.
But the other way - proliferate until bang - is imo a bigger problem. And I don't think our nukes protect us. The logic doesn't really work for that. Not as I assess it.
So - let me get this right - you are pro-unilateral disarmament? You would vote for an Abandon Our Nukes party? And you'd be happy if we did that, despite Ukraine?
I kind of hope I've got this wrong
Yes, I feel not a jot safer for Trident and would like to see us reject nuclear weapons. It's moral AND logical.
Armando knows
I don't know why he thinks that's such a clever point. That is basically the point, only there's no practical need to enact that.
We Tories do and we Tories are in power with a majority and we Tories will therefore decide policy until the next general election, not you
Yet the Conservatives have always claimed to be a pragmatic party governing in the national interest.
By definition, that means occasionally having to take some difficult and potentially unpopular decisions because it's the right thing to do not because it's the easy or popular thing to do.
Margaret Thatcher always did what she thought was best for the country even if it wasn't in the short term best for the party or for the popularity of the party. Yes, she went out to explain, justify and defend that policy and faced huge resistance sometimes from within the Conservative Party itself but would you not argue she was more often right than wrong and her electoral record confirms that?
Thatcher never increased inheritance tax or imposed a wealth tax as she knew that to do so would betray the defining core Tory value of creation of wealth and preservation of it
Indeed but Conservative Governments are quite happy to increase taxes - quite apart from the current administration, Howe and Lamont both raised VAT and the party (at least at local level) suffered from the backlash in terms of council seats.
If you aren't prepared to tax wealth and inheritance (which I understand), you must accept there are times when taxes have to be increased to improve the public finances. There will be those who argue the burden of those tax rises should not be disproportionately on those least able to pay them (I think that's a reasonable argument, you may not) which leaves the alternative choice that those with more disposable income contribute a greater share than those with less.
Since when was VAT or other indirect taxes (or indeed NI or the health and social care levy) the same as inheritance tax or a wealth tax? I am not keen on either but on a forced choice Tory governments choose to increase the former not the latter and not hit the property of their core supporters
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
The much bigger problem though is not those countries with nukes deciding to hang on to them, it will be the smaller nations with big aggressive neighbours deciding to get them to be on the safe side.
That greatly increases the risk of something going wrong or a rogue/false flag strike (as in the plot of On The Beach).
In a book Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs written 15 years ago that was criticised as flawed by military experts but I nevertheless found interesting, Lewis Page made this exact point. 'Nuclear weapons confer immunity from American interference up to a point, which is why everyone is so keen to get them...(footnote) Everyone really is keen to get them: this isn't scaremongering or lies. Chemical weapons are a bogey to frighten the children with - the Kaiser had them in World War One, for goodness sakes. But long range nukes are the real deal. If I were running a country, I'd want some.'
Exactly. We either find a way to get rid of them or we don't have a long run future.
If you have any ideas on how to persuade North Korea, Russia, India, Pakistan, Israel, Iran and China to give up their nuclear weapons, I'm sure the UN would be delighted to hear from you.
But even if you could via, say, a programme of mass hypnosis I honestly cannot see the Americans giving up nukes.
All I can do is argue and vote for my own country to do it.
And that's the problem, isn't it? Ukraine and Kazakhstan gave up their nukes, and are now in effect giving up their sovereignty as well as a result. So no politician will get rid of their nukes until *everyone* agrees to get rid of them.
But the other way - proliferate until bang - is imo a bigger problem. And I don't think our nukes protect us. The logic doesn't really work for that. Not as I assess it.
So - let me get this right - you are pro-unilateral disarmament? You would vote for an Abandon Our Nukes party? And you'd be happy if we did that, despite Ukraine?
I kind of hope I've got this wrong
Yes, I feel not a jot safer for Trident and would like to see us reject nuclear weapons. It's moral AND logical.
Thank God virtue-signalling twats like you never get near power. Idiot
On other matters, by way of Sunday light relief, just finished this very enjoyable book - a general history of the Roman Army. In its way, rather reminiscent of the British and Indian Armies, though you'd need a much larger Royal Engineer component to do things such as building the Walls and laying out civilian towns for the Brits. Very taken with the notion that Juvenal was the former OC at the auxiliary fort at Maryport in Cumbria (where the Wall ends).
Roman soldiers acted as their own sappers. Can't quite remember where they got the engineering expertise from though.
PS MInd, in British history, the sappers (and the artillerymen) were amongst the most intelligent soldiers, insofar as they weren't hooray henries as their commissions weren't bought and sold, either. Quite pleased to pay homage to the artillery school at Woolwich a few years back.
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
The much bigger problem though is not those countries with nukes deciding to hang on to them, it will be the smaller nations with big aggressive neighbours deciding to get them to be on the safe side.
That greatly increases the risk of something going wrong or a rogue/false flag strike (as in the plot of On The Beach).
In a book Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs written 15 years ago that was criticised as flawed by military experts but I nevertheless found interesting, Lewis Page made this exact point. 'Nuclear weapons confer immunity from American interference up to a point, which is why everyone is so keen to get them...(footnote) Everyone really is keen to get them: this isn't scaremongering or lies. Chemical weapons are a bogey to frighten the children with - the Kaiser had them in World War One, for goodness sakes. But long range nukes are the real deal. If I were running a country, I'd want some.'
Exactly. We either find a way to get rid of them or we don't have a long run future.
If you have any ideas on how to persuade North Korea, Russia, India, Pakistan, Israel, Iran and China to give up their nuclear weapons, I'm sure the UN would be delighted to hear from you.
But even if you could via, say, a programme of mass hypnosis I honestly cannot see the Americans giving up nukes.
All I can do is argue and vote for my own country to do it.
And that's the problem, isn't it? Ukraine and Kazakhstan gave up their nukes, and are now in effect giving up their sovereignty as well as a result. So no politician will get rid of their nukes until *everyone* agrees to get rid of them.
But the other way - proliferate until bang - is imo a bigger problem. And I don't think our nukes protect us. The logic doesn't really work for that. Not as I assess it.
So - let me get this right - you are pro-unilateral disarmament? You would vote for an Abandon Our Nukes party? And you'd be happy if we did that, despite Ukraine?
I kind of hope I've got this wrong
Yes, I feel not a jot safer for Trident and would like to see us reject nuclear weapons. It's moral AND logical.
Armando knows
I don't know why he thinks that's such a clever point. That is basically the point, only there's no practical need to enact that.
Yes he’s stating the obvious. For a given country it makes sense to have nukes. For the world, it makes sense to limit the numbers. Hence the NPT and security guarantees. He writes it as if no one has thought about it before.
Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.
I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.
Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.
As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.
Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.
Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.
I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.
I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.
I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
Problem is it means no one sells.
Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.
Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.
So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?
You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power
Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
If we can't afford to defend ourselves and become serfs to authoritarian states to Russia, how many times worse than the poll tax do you think that would be?
The fact our homes are worth anything decent at all is because we live in a safe, secure and wealthy part of the world - keeping that means investing in its protection or we risk losing it all.
We do not want a tax on asset windfalls, a wealth tax or a rise in inheritance tax. No, no, no. Better to go into opposition than for this government to do anything so un Tory and betray the Tory core vote
In any case we already spend the 2% of gdp on defence NATO wants, it is other nations like Germany who have not but are finally now going to do so following Putin's invasion of Ukraine
Cringing nonsense. Utter irresponsibility. About time the geriatric Tories did their fair share.
Who cares if the Tory core vote is reamed out, if that is what it takes?
We Tories do and we Tories are in power with a majority and we Tories will therefore decide policy until the next general election, not you
You do the cause of the conservative party great embarrasment, as you do to yourself
You are a terrible advert for the conservative party
You do not even seem to know what being a Tory means? No surprise as you voted for New Labour twice
The whole point of the Tory Party is that Peel, Disraeli, Salisbury, Churchill, (Joe) Chamberlain, Super Mac, Heath, Thatcher, and Cameron believed utterly different things. You’re in a Salisbury/Chamberlain cycle at the minute. It won’t last.
None of them backed wealth taxes or higher inheritance tax and all were monarchists, thus they were all Tories whatever else they disagreed on
On other matters, by way of Sunday light relief, just finished this very enjoyable book - a general history of the Roman Army. In its way, rather reminiscent of the British and Indian Armies, though you'd need a much larger Royal Engineer component to do things such as building the Walls and laying out civilian towns for the Brits. Very taken with the notion that Juvenal was the former OC at the auxiliary fort at Maryport in Cumbria (where the Wall ends).
Roman soldiers acted as their own sappers. Can't quite remember where they got the engineering expertise from though.
PS MInd, in British history, the sappers (and the artillerymen) were amongst the most intelligent soldiers, insofar as they weren't hooray henries as their commissions weren't bought and sold, either. Quite pleased to pay homage to the artillery school at Woolwich a few years back.
‘Twas how Napoleon started out, as well. Artillery, that is.
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
The much bigger problem though is not those countries with nukes deciding to hang on to them, it will be the smaller nations with big aggressive neighbours deciding to get them to be on the safe side.
That greatly increases the risk of something going wrong or a rogue/false flag strike (as in the plot of On The Beach).
In a book Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs written 15 years ago that was criticised as flawed by military experts but I nevertheless found interesting, Lewis Page made this exact point. 'Nuclear weapons confer immunity from American interference up to a point, which is why everyone is so keen to get them...(footnote) Everyone really is keen to get them: this isn't scaremongering or lies. Chemical weapons are a bogey to frighten the children with - the Kaiser had them in World War One, for goodness sakes. But long range nukes are the real deal. If I were running a country, I'd want some.'
Exactly. We either find a way to get rid of them or we don't have a long run future.
If you have any ideas on how to persuade North Korea, Russia, India, Pakistan, Israel, Iran and China to give up their nuclear weapons, I'm sure the UN would be delighted to hear from you.
But even if you could via, say, a programme of mass hypnosis I honestly cannot see the Americans giving up nukes.
All I can do is argue and vote for my own country to do it.
And that's the problem, isn't it? Ukraine and Kazakhstan gave up their nukes, and are now in effect giving up their sovereignty as well as a result. So no politician will get rid of their nukes until *everyone* agrees to get rid of them.
But the other way - proliferate until bang - is imo a bigger problem. And I don't think our nukes protect us. The logic doesn't really work for that. Not as I assess it.
So - let me get this right - you are pro-unilateral disarmament? You would vote for an Abandon Our Nukes party? And you'd be happy if we did that, despite Ukraine?
I kind of hope I've got this wrong
Yes, I feel not a jot safer for Trident and would like to see us reject nuclear weapons. It's moral AND logical.
Armando knows
I don't know why he thinks that's such a clever point. That is basically the point, only there's no practical need to enact that.
Yes he’s stating the obvious. For a given country it makes sense to have nukes. For the world, it makes sense to limit the numbers. Hence the NPT and security guarantees. He writes it as if no one has thought about it before.
From a very clever man, it is the most embarrassing drivel. My guess is that he is instinctively CND, but has never really had to examine his beliefs before, but Ukraine has finally made him do that.
And he opened the intellectual cupboard, and it was bare
Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.
I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.
Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.
As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.
Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.
Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.
I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.
I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.
I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
Problem is it means no one sells.
Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.
Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.
So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?
You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power
Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
If we can't afford to defend ourselves and become serfs to authoritarian states to Russia, how many times worse than the poll tax do you think that would be?
The fact our homes are worth anything decent at all is because we live in a safe, secure and wealthy part of the world - keeping that means investing in its protection or we risk losing it all.
We do not want a tax on asset windfalls, a wealth tax or a rise in inheritance tax. No, no, no. Better to go into opposition than for this government to do anything so un Tory and betray the Tory core vote
In any case we already spend the 2% of gdp on defence NATO wants, it is other nations like Germany who have not but are finally now going to do so following Putin's invasion of Ukraine
Cringing nonsense. Utter irresponsibility. About time the geriatric Tories did their fair share.
Who cares if the Tory core vote is reamed out, if that is what it takes?
We Tories do and we Tories are in power with a majority and we Tories will therefore decide policy until the next general election, not you
You do the cause of the conservative party great embarrasment, as you do to yourself
You are a terrible advert for the conservative party
You do not even seem to know what being a Tory means? No surprise as you voted for New Labour twice
But he didn't vote for PC, and you did. He has principles.
I voted for all Tory candidates then, he voted for the Labour candidate over the Tory. BigG is thus not a pure Tory
And the winner of Best in Show 2022 is…….the flat-coated retriever, this afternoon’s gundog winner from Norway, who has won prizes across Europe.
…with the reserve being the horrible little toy poodle.
Oh, that's lovely. It's one fo the very short list of breeds I'd buy if we had our own dog instead of taking our friends' for rambles.
I had two flat coats (not at the same time).
Lovely dogs, but very boisterous. Also very fragile. Both developed cancers and neither made it to ten.
Our friends had one - a very lovable dog but totally manic right up to her last few months (aged 11 IIRC)
Give me and English Pointer any day.
I wonder, seriously, how those compare with my mother's somewhat scatterbrained Irish Setters?
I thing gundog are often a bit scatty, and retrievers a bit thick.
I really recommend the Portuguese Podengo Pequeno (as per my profile pic). A lovely dog, cat like in his cleanliness and sticks close by off a lead. Very charming and gentle with children too.
Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.
I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.
Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.
As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.
Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.
Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.
I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.
I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.
I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
Problem is it means no one sells.
Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.
Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.
So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?
You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power
Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
If we can't afford to defend ourselves and become serfs to authoritarian states to Russia, how many times worse than the poll tax do you think that would be?
The fact our homes are worth anything decent at all is because we live in a safe, secure and wealthy part of the world - keeping that means investing in its protection or we risk losing it all.
We do not want a tax on asset windfalls, a wealth tax or a rise in inheritance tax. No, no, no. Better to go into opposition than for this government to do anything so un Tory and betray the Tory core vote
In any case we already spend the 2% of gdp on defence NATO wants, it is other nations like Germany who have not but are finally now going to do so following Putin's invasion of Ukraine
Cringing nonsense. Utter irresponsibility. About time the geriatric Tories did their fair share.
Who cares if the Tory core vote is reamed out, if that is what it takes?
We Tories do and we Tories are in power with a majority and we Tories will therefore decide policy until the next general election, not you
You do the cause of the conservative party great embarrasment, as you do to yourself
You are a terrible advert for the conservative party
You do not even seem to know what being a Tory means? No surprise as you voted for New Labour twice
I know that it is nothing like the garbage you trot out and you embarrass the party you are supposed to support
Considering China - it is necessary to understand first the position of its own leaders. They remain permanently terrified of a revolution. Western democracy is still a profound threat to them. That is why they will not let Putin fail. They don't want a liberal pro west regime in Russia.
Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.
I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.
Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.
As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.
Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.
Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.
I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.
I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.
I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
Problem is it means no one sells.
Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.
Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.
So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?
You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power
Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
If we can't afford to defend ourselves and become serfs to authoritarian states to Russia, how many times worse than the poll tax do you think that would be?
The fact our homes are worth anything decent at all is because we live in a safe, secure and wealthy part of the world - keeping that means investing in its protection or we risk losing it all.
We do not want a tax on asset windfalls, a wealth tax or a rise in inheritance tax. No, no, no. Better to go into opposition than for this government to do anything so un Tory and betray the Tory core vote
In any case we already spend the 2% of gdp on defence NATO wants, it is other nations like Germany who have not but are finally now going to do so following Putin's invasion of Ukraine
Cringing nonsense. Utter irresponsibility. About time the geriatric Tories did their fair share.
Who cares if the Tory core vote is reamed out, if that is what it takes?
We Tories do and we Tories are in power with a majority and we Tories will therefore decide policy until the next general election, not you
You do the cause of the conservative party great embarrasment, as you do to yourself
You are a terrible advert for the conservative party
I agree. It's great, isn't it?
I have never come across anyone in the conservative party in my 60 years association so embarrasing and frankly pathetic
Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.
I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.
Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.
As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.
Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.
Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.
I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.
I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.
I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
Problem is it means no one sells.
Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.
Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.
So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?
You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power
Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
If we can't afford to defend ourselves and become serfs to authoritarian states to Russia, how many times worse than the poll tax do you think that would be?
The fact our homes are worth anything decent at all is because we live in a safe, secure and wealthy part of the world - keeping that means investing in its protection or we risk losing it all.
We do not want a tax on asset windfalls, a wealth tax or a rise in inheritance tax. No, no, no. Better to go into opposition than for this government to do anything so un Tory and betray the Tory core vote
In any case we already spend the 2% of gdp on defence NATO wants, it is other nations like Germany who have not but are finally now going to do so following Putin's invasion of Ukraine
Cringing nonsense. Utter irresponsibility. About time the geriatric Tories did their fair share.
Who cares if the Tory core vote is reamed out, if that is what it takes?
We Tories do and we Tories are in power with a majority and we Tories will therefore decide policy until the next general election, not you
You do the cause of the conservative party great embarrasment, as you do to yourself
You are a terrible advert for the conservative party
You do not even seem to know what being a Tory means? No surprise as you voted for New Labour twice
But he didn't vote for PC, and you did. He has principles.
I voted for all Tory candidates then, he voted for the Labour candidate over the Tory. BigG is thus not a pure Tory
Lapdog loyalty should definitely not be a key conservative trait.
Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.
I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.
Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.
As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.
Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.
Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.
I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.
I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.
I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
Problem is it means no one sells.
Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.
Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.
So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?
You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power
Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
If we can't afford to defend ourselves and become serfs to authoritarian states to Russia, how many times worse than the poll tax do you think that would be?
The fact our homes are worth anything decent at all is because we live in a safe, secure and wealthy part of the world - keeping that means investing in its protection or we risk losing it all.
We do not want a tax on asset windfalls, a wealth tax or a rise in inheritance tax. No, no, no. Better to go into opposition than for this government to do anything so un Tory and betray the Tory core vote
In any case we already spend the 2% of gdp on defence NATO wants, it is other nations like Germany who have not but are finally now going to do so following Putin's invasion of Ukraine
Cringing nonsense. Utter irresponsibility. About time the geriatric Tories did their fair share.
Who cares if the Tory core vote is reamed out, if that is what it takes?
We Tories do and we Tories are in power with a majority and we Tories will therefore decide policy until the next general election, not you
You are not a proper Tory, HYUFD. You voted Remain in 2016.
As did David Cameron and Theresa May and Liz Truss and Ben Wallace
I am a BETTER Tory than you because I voted LEAVE in 2016, Tory in 2017 and Tory in 2019. So there
We Tories do and we Tories are in power with a majority and we Tories will therefore decide policy until the next general election, not you
Yet the Conservatives have always claimed to be a pragmatic party governing in the national interest.
By definition, that means occasionally having to take some difficult and potentially unpopular decisions because it's the right thing to do not because it's the easy or popular thing to do.
Margaret Thatcher always did what she thought was best for the country even if it wasn't in the short term best for the party or for the popularity of the party. Yes, she went out to explain, justify and defend that policy and faced huge resistance sometimes from within the Conservative Party itself but would you not argue she was more often right than wrong and her electoral record confirms that?
Thatcher never increased inheritance tax or imposed a wealth tax as she knew that to do so would betray the defining core Tory value of creation of wealth and preservation of it
Indeed but Conservative Governments are quite happy to increase taxes - quite apart from the current administration, Howe and Lamont both raised VAT and the party (at least at local level) suffered from the backlash in terms of council seats.
If you aren't prepared to tax wealth and inheritance (which I understand), you must accept there are times when taxes have to be increased to improve the public finances. There will be those who argue the burden of those tax rises should not be disproportionately on those least able to pay them (I think that's a reasonable argument, you may not) which leaves the alternative choice that those with more disposable income contribute a greater share than those with less.
Since when was VAT or other indirect taxes (or indeed NI or the health and social care levy) the same as inheritance tax or a wealth tax? I am not keen on either but on a forced choice Tory governments choose to increase the former not the latter and not hit the property of their core supporters
Shouldn't tax be levied on UNEARNED wealth first before EARNED wealth?
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
The much bigger problem though is not those countries with nukes deciding to hang on to them, it will be the smaller nations with big aggressive neighbours deciding to get them to be on the safe side.
That greatly increases the risk of something going wrong or a rogue/false flag strike (as in the plot of On The Beach).
In a book Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs written 15 years ago that was criticised as flawed by military experts but I nevertheless found interesting, Lewis Page made this exact point. 'Nuclear weapons confer immunity from American interference up to a point, which is why everyone is so keen to get them...(footnote) Everyone really is keen to get them: this isn't scaremongering or lies. Chemical weapons are a bogey to frighten the children with - the Kaiser had them in World War One, for goodness sakes. But long range nukes are the real deal. If I were running a country, I'd want some.'
Exactly. We either find a way to get rid of them or we don't have a long run future.
If you have any ideas on how to persuade North Korea, Russia, India, Pakistan, Israel, Iran and China to give up their nuclear weapons, I'm sure the UN would be delighted to hear from you.
But even if you could via, say, a programme of mass hypnosis I honestly cannot see the Americans giving up nukes.
All I can do is argue and vote for my own country to do it.
And that's the problem, isn't it? Ukraine and Kazakhstan gave up their nukes, and are now in effect giving up their sovereignty as well as a result. So no politician will get rid of their nukes until *everyone* agrees to get rid of them.
But the other way - proliferate until bang - is imo a bigger problem. And I don't think our nukes protect us. The logic doesn't really work for that. Not as I assess it.
So - let me get this right - you are pro-unilateral disarmament? You would vote for an Abandon Our Nukes party? And you'd be happy if we did that, despite Ukraine?
I kind of hope I've got this wrong
Yes, I feel not a jot safer for Trident and would like to see us reject nuclear weapons. It's moral AND logical.
Armando knows
That's about as clever a point as I've heard explain US gun policy.
We Tories do and we Tories are in power with a majority and we Tories will therefore decide policy until the next general election, not you
Yet the Conservatives have always claimed to be a pragmatic party governing in the national interest.
By definition, that means occasionally having to take some difficult and potentially unpopular decisions because it's the right thing to do not because it's the easy or popular thing to do.
Margaret Thatcher always did what she thought was best for the country even if it wasn't in the short term best for the party or for the popularity of the party. Yes, she went out to explain, justify and defend that policy and faced huge resistance sometimes from within the Conservative Party itself but would you not argue she was more often right than wrong and her electoral record confirms that?
Thatcher never increased inheritance tax or imposed a wealth tax as she knew that to do so would betray the defining core Tory value of creation of wealth and preservation of it
Indeed but Conservative Governments are quite happy to increase taxes - quite apart from the current administration, Howe and Lamont both raised VAT and the party (at least at local level) suffered from the backlash in terms of council seats.
If you aren't prepared to tax wealth and inheritance (which I understand), you must accept there are times when taxes have to be increased to improve the public finances. There will be those who argue the burden of those tax rises should not be disproportionately on those least able to pay them (I think that's a reasonable argument, you may not) which leaves the alternative choice that those with more disposable income contribute a greater share than those with less.
The big disadvantage of taxing the poorest - as say, Louis XVI and Nicholas II both found out - is that they have rather less money to pay in tax than the richest.
Which means you set rather strict limits on how much you will raise. And therefore, how much you can do.
I recently read a book on the peasants revolt. Possibly a bit over detailed for the general reader, but it was fascinating how taxes were voted for by parliament to fund the kings wars, and then collected across the realm. No PAYE back then. I found the different responses in places interesting. Some burgesses tried to bear the greater part of the tax themselves, others did not and the tax collectors had to go after even the lowest level tax payers.
Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.
I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.
Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.
As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.
Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.
Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.
I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.
I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.
I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
Problem is it means no one sells.
Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.
Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.
So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?
You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power
Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
If we can't afford to defend ourselves and become serfs to authoritarian states to Russia, how many times worse than the poll tax do you think that would be?
The fact our homes are worth anything decent at all is because we live in a safe, secure and wealthy part of the world - keeping that means investing in its protection or we risk losing it all.
We do not want a tax on asset windfalls, a wealth tax or a rise in inheritance tax. No, no, no. Better to go into opposition than for this government to do anything so un Tory and betray the Tory core vote
In any case we already spend the 2% of gdp on defence NATO wants, it is other nations like Germany who have not but are finally now going to do so following Putin's invasion of Ukraine
1) This may shock you but some people care more about the country than their political party.
2) The 2% is a floor, and a pretty modest one that’s ok only in peacetime.
It is possible to care both about your country and one of the core defining principles of your party, in the Tory case protection of inherited wealth.
2% spend by every NATO nation on defence is more than enough for NATO to contain Putin if needed and protect NATO nations
Even as someone who has voted Tory more often than the other lot, I'd struggle to say what Tory core values are. Keeping socialists out of power, I suppose. But I wouldn't have thought 'protection of inherited wealth'woukd have come in the top ten of core Tory principles since the mid nineteenth century. Protecting inherited wealth might be something that Conservatives do, but I'd be surprised if too many in the party deemed it a core principle.
Protection of inherited wealth is as key a Tory value as it was in the 19th century. Protection of the family home, estate and wealth from excess tax and protection of the institution of monarchy and the established church and their assets too.
In fact it is perhaps the only core value the sometimes pro free trade, sometimes pro protectionist, sometimes pro more spending, sometimes pro less spending, sometimes pro EU, now Pro Brexit, sometimes socially liberal, sometimes socially conservative Tory party has been consistent on
Just because something was a core value 170 years ago it shouldn't be so today. I don't think there is a sufficient constituency of pro-inherited wealth, pro monarchy, pro-cofE voters to give the Conservatives power. As I think most pragmatic Tories recognise. The CofE, in particular, seem largely a bunch of SJWs whom the Tories should steer well clear of.
There is, property owners and their heirs, especially in the South are far more numerous than even the top 10% of income earners. Indeed 60% of the UK population own the property they live in.
The C of E is apolitical but most of the Church of England congregation vote Tory
Since when was VAT or other indirect taxes (or indeed NI or the health and social care levy) the same as inheritance tax or a wealth tax? I am not keen on either but on a forced choice Tory governments choose to increase the former not the latter and not hit the property of their core supporters
If you increase tax, you are taking money from people's pockets and denying them the right to decide how they should spend their own hard-earned wealth. I'd argue a wealth tax is no different from a tax increase targeted at higher earners for example.
As for "property" tax, you could imagine Council Tax is a property tax in a way the Poll Tax wasn't - the other argument is if you create the conditions in which the value of assets fall, you are denying the children of those who own assets the full value of their inheritance.
Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.
I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.
Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.
As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.
Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.
Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.
I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.
I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.
I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
Problem is it means no one sells.
Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.
Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.
So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?
You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power
Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
If we can't afford to defend ourselves and become serfs to authoritarian states to Russia, how many times worse than the poll tax do you think that would be?
The fact our homes are worth anything decent at all is because we live in a safe, secure and wealthy part of the world - keeping that means investing in its protection or we risk losing it all.
We do not want a tax on asset windfalls, a wealth tax or a rise in inheritance tax. No, no, no. Better to go into opposition than for this government to do anything so un Tory and betray the Tory core vote
In any case we already spend the 2% of gdp on defence NATO wants, it is other nations like Germany who have not but are finally now going to do so following Putin's invasion of Ukraine
Cringing nonsense. Utter irresponsibility. About time the geriatric Tories did their fair share.
Who cares if the Tory core vote is reamed out, if that is what it takes?
We Tories do and we Tories are in power with a majority and we Tories will therefore decide policy until the next general election, not you
You do the cause of the conservative party great embarrasment, as you do to yourself
You are a terrible advert for the conservative party
You do not even seem to know what being a Tory means? No surprise as you voted for New Labour twice
But he didn't vote for PC, and you did. He has principles.
I voted for all Tory candidates then, he voted for the Labour candidate over the Tory. BigG is thus not a pure Tory
But you also voted for PC. Impure Tory. We'd need to have the Medical Officer for Health and the Public Analyst for Aberystwyth doing microbial samplings of your waters etc.
The war is now unwinnable for Putin. Even an unlikely military victory, eventually taking all of Ukraine over several months and installing a puppet government would be a strategic loss. Because the Ukraine resistance, political and/or military, is not going to cease. And so the Western sanctions are not going to be relaxed. Russia is going to face years of isolation.
Yet the war is most likely also unwinnable for Ukraine. Its resistance has been fearless, yet it is still overpowered militarily. While they will continue to inflict significant damage, overturning Russian gains through fighting will be difficult. All while their infrastructure is being destroyed and the country is depopulating via families fleeing the war.
Other than hoping for Putin to come to an unfortunate accident, I struggle to see a good outcome of all this for anyone. Just more death and destruction, depressing as it is.
China should be careful in remaining neutral and not supplying support to Russia, or else they will be caught up in the strength of the western public opinion backlash against the invasion.
Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.
I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.
Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.
As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.
Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.
Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.
I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.
I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.
I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
Problem is it means no one sells.
Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.
Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.
So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?
You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power
Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
If we can't afford to defend ourselves and become serfs to authoritarian states to Russia, how many times worse than the poll tax do you think that would be?
The fact our homes are worth anything decent at all is because we live in a safe, secure and wealthy part of the world - keeping that means investing in its protection or we risk losing it all.
We do not want a tax on asset windfalls, a wealth tax or a rise in inheritance tax. No, no, no. Better to go into opposition than for this government to do anything so un Tory and betray the Tory core vote
In any case we already spend the 2% of gdp on defence NATO wants, it is other nations like Germany who have not but are finally now going to do so following Putin's invasion of Ukraine
Cringing nonsense. Utter irresponsibility. About time the geriatric Tories did their fair share.
Who cares if the Tory core vote is reamed out, if that is what it takes?
We Tories do and we Tories are in power with a majority and we Tories will therefore decide policy until the next general election, not you
You do the cause of the conservative party great embarrasment, as you do to yourself
You are a terrible advert for the conservative party
You do not even seem to know what being a Tory means? No surprise as you voted for New Labour twice
The whole point of the Tory Party is that Peel, Disraeli, Salisbury, Churchill, (Joe) Chamberlain, Super Mac, Heath, Thatcher, and Cameron believed utterly different things. You’re in a Salisbury/Chamberlain cycle at the minute. It won’t last.
None of them backed wealth taxes or higher inheritance tax and all were monarchists, thus they were all Tories whatever else they disagreed on
Erm….. Churchill in 1909 (as a liberal but then, unlike you, he wasn’t wedded to a party):
“ Unearned increments in land are not the only form of unearned or undeserved profit, but they are the principal form of unearned increment, and they are derived from processes which are not merely not beneficial, but positively detrimental to the general public”.
I see that the Russian Orthodox Church in the Netherlands has today defected to the Istanbul-based Orthodox Church. FWIW.
The Russian Orthodox Church has I believe been excommunicated by the Ecumenical Patriarch for refusing to recognise the autonomy of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Or something like that.
Haven't the Ukrainians moved to the Alexandria Patriarch, and now the Russians are therefore trying to get Orthodox African churches to move from Alexandria to the Russian Patriarch?
No. The Ukrainians have been recognised by the Ecumenical Patriarch as independent, and as a result the Russians are no longer in full communion, and have cut off ties with Athens and Alexandria who recognise the Ukrainian Church.
Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.
I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.
Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.
As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.
Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.
Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.
I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.
I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.
I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
Problem is it means no one sells.
Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.
Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.
So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?
You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power
Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
If we can't afford to defend ourselves and become serfs to authoritarian states to Russia, how many times worse than the poll tax do you think that would be?
The fact our homes are worth anything decent at all is because we live in a safe, secure and wealthy part of the world - keeping that means investing in its protection or we risk losing it all.
We do not want a tax on asset windfalls, a wealth tax or a rise in inheritance tax. No, no, no. Better to go into opposition than for this government to do anything so un Tory and betray the Tory core vote
In any case we already spend the 2% of gdp on defence NATO wants, it is other nations like Germany who have not but are finally now going to do so following Putin's invasion of Ukraine
1) This may shock you but some people care more about the country than their political party.
2) The 2% is a floor, and a pretty modest one that’s ok only in peacetime.
It is possible to care both about your country and one of the core defining principles of your party, in the Tory case protection of inherited wealth.
2% spend by every NATO nation on defence is more than enough for NATO to contain Putin if needed and protect NATO nations
Even as someone who has voted Tory more often than the other lot, I'd struggle to say what Tory core values are. Keeping socialists out of power, I suppose. But I wouldn't have thought 'protection of inherited wealth'woukd have come in the top ten of core Tory principles since the mid nineteenth century. Protecting inherited wealth might be something that Conservatives do, but I'd be surprised if too many in the party deemed it a core principle.
Protection of inherited wealth is as key a Tory value as it was in the 19th century. Protection of the family home, estate and wealth from excess tax and protection of the institution of monarchy and the established church and their assets too.
In fact it is perhaps the only core value the sometimes pro free trade, sometimes pro protectionist, sometimes pro more spending, sometimes pro less spending, sometimes pro EU, now Pro Brexit, sometimes socially liberal, sometimes socially conservative Tory party has been consistent on
Just because something was a core value 170 years ago it shouldn't be so today. I don't think there is a sufficient constituency of pro-inherited wealth, pro monarchy, pro-cofE voters to give the Conservatives power. As I think most pragmatic Tories recognise. The CofE, in particular, seem largely a bunch of SJWs whom the Tories should steer well clear of.
There is, property owners and their heirs, especially in the South are far more numerous than even the top 10% of income earners.
The C of E is apolitical but most of the Church of England congregation vote Tory
Don't talk utter nonsense. The C of E can never be apolitical, in its slavish subservience to Erastianism, until it is disestablished. Of course it is utterly political - it is part of the state.
And the winner of Best in Show 2022 is…….the flat-coated retriever, this afternoon’s gundog winner from Norway, who has won prizes across Europe.
…with the reserve being the horrible little toy poodle.
Oh, that's lovely. It's one fo the very short list of breeds I'd buy if we had our own dog instead of taking our friends' for rambles.
I had two flat coats (not at the same time).
Lovely dogs, but very boisterous. Also very fragile. Both developed cancers and neither made it to ten.
Our friends had one - a very lovable dog but totally manic right up to her last few months (aged 11 IIRC)
Give me and English Pointer any day.
I wonder, seriously, how those compare with my mother's somewhat scatterbrained Irish Setters?
I thing gundog are often a bit scatty, and retrievers a bit thick.
I really recommend the Portuguese Podengo Pequeno (as per my profile pic). A lovely dog, cat like in his cleanliness and sticks close by off a lead. Very charming and gentle with children too.
We have a Spanish podenco, lovely gentle temperament, but a bit untrustworthy around squirrels and deer (had a minor ‘fenton’ moment two weeks ago, albeit she stood no chance of catching them, and had no idea what she would have done if she had).
Chechens' own propaganda video shows them reporting their (unsuccessful) attempt to abduct Ukrainian children. Interestingly apparently Kadyrov is actually in Ukraine. You can bet the intelligence services are working overtime to identify how to get him. I wonder if his demise would reignite the Chechen resistance?
Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.
I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.
Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.
As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.
Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.
Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.
I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.
I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.
I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
Problem is it means no one sells.
Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.
Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.
So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?
You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power
Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
If we can't afford to defend ourselves and become serfs to authoritarian states to Russia, how many times worse than the poll tax do you think that would be?
The fact our homes are worth anything decent at all is because we live in a safe, secure and wealthy part of the world - keeping that means investing in its protection or we risk losing it all.
We do not want a tax on asset windfalls, a wealth tax or a rise in inheritance tax. No, no, no. Better to go into opposition than for this government to do anything so un Tory and betray the Tory core vote
In any case we already spend the 2% of gdp on defence NATO wants, it is other nations like Germany who have not but are finally now going to do so following Putin's invasion of Ukraine
Cringing nonsense. Utter irresponsibility. About time the geriatric Tories did their fair share.
Who cares if the Tory core vote is reamed out, if that is what it takes?
We Tories do and we Tories are in power with a majority and we Tories will therefore decide policy until the next general election, not you
You do the cause of the conservative party great embarrasment, as you do to yourself
You are a terrible advert for the conservative party
You do not even seem to know what being a Tory means? No surprise as you voted for New Labour twice
But he didn't vote for PC, and you did. He has principles.
I voted for all Tory candidates then, he voted for the Labour candidate over the Tory. BigG is thus not a pure Tory
There speaks conservative momentum and consigned to permanent opposition
And by the way, I wear your badge of honour with pride
We Tories do and we Tories are in power with a majority and we Tories will therefore decide policy until the next general election, not you
Yet the Conservatives have always claimed to be a pragmatic party governing in the national interest.
By definition, that means occasionally having to take some difficult and potentially unpopular decisions because it's the right thing to do not because it's the easy or popular thing to do.
Margaret Thatcher always did what she thought was best for the country even if it wasn't in the short term best for the party or for the popularity of the party. Yes, she went out to explain, justify and defend that policy and faced huge resistance sometimes from within the Conservative Party itself but would you not argue she was more often right than wrong and her electoral record confirms that?
Thatcher never increased inheritance tax or imposed a wealth tax as she knew that to do so would betray the defining core Tory value of creation of wealth and preservation of it
Indeed but Conservative Governments are quite happy to increase taxes - quite apart from the current administration, Howe and Lamont both raised VAT and the party (at least at local level) suffered from the backlash in terms of council seats.
If you aren't prepared to tax wealth and inheritance (which I understand), you must accept there are times when taxes have to be increased to improve the public finances. There will be those who argue the burden of those tax rises should not be disproportionately on those least able to pay them (I think that's a reasonable argument, you may not) which leaves the alternative choice that those with more disposable income contribute a greater share than those with less.
The problem with the call for greater taxes is that the tax burden is the highest it has been for 60 years. On top of that debt to GDP is 100%
Too many politicians and indeed too many members of the public still seem to be of the view that the Government has endless pots of money.
More money for defence, for social care, for the NHS, for Net Zero, for levelling up. Something is going to have to give.
We Tories do and we Tories are in power with a majority and we Tories will therefore decide policy until the next general election, not you
Yet the Conservatives have always claimed to be a pragmatic party governing in the national interest.
By definition, that means occasionally having to take some difficult and potentially unpopular decisions because it's the right thing to do not because it's the easy or popular thing to do.
Margaret Thatcher always did what she thought was best for the country even if it wasn't in the short term best for the party or for the popularity of the party. Yes, she went out to explain, justify and defend that policy and faced huge resistance sometimes from within the Conservative Party itself but would you not argue she was more often right than wrong and her electoral record confirms that?
Thatcher never increased inheritance tax or imposed a wealth tax as she knew that to do so would betray the defining core Tory value of creation of wealth and preservation of it
Indeed but Conservative Governments are quite happy to increase taxes - quite apart from the current administration, Howe and Lamont both raised VAT and the party (at least at local level) suffered from the backlash in terms of council seats.
If you aren't prepared to tax wealth and inheritance (which I understand), you must accept there are times when taxes have to be increased to improve the public finances. There will be those who argue the burden of those tax rises should not be disproportionately on those least able to pay them (I think that's a reasonable argument, you may not) which leaves the alternative choice that those with more disposable income contribute a greater share than those with less.
Since when was VAT or other indirect taxes (or indeed NI or the health and social care levy) the same as inheritance tax or a wealth tax? I am not keen on either but on a forced choice Tory governments choose to increase the former not the latter and not hit the property of their core supporters
Shouldn't tax be levied on UNEARNED wealth first before EARNED wealth?
👍
No, Liberals might prefer that but the Tory party is about preservation of wealth first.
Though at its best it keeps tax low on income and wealth
Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.
I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.
Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.
As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.
Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.
Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.
I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.
I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.
I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
Problem is it means no one sells.
Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.
Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.
So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?
You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power
Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
If we can't afford to defend ourselves and become serfs to authoritarian states to Russia, how many times worse than the poll tax do you think that would be?
The fact our homes are worth anything decent at all is because we live in a safe, secure and wealthy part of the world - keeping that means investing in its protection or we risk losing it all.
We do not want a tax on asset windfalls, a wealth tax or a rise in inheritance tax. No, no, no. Better to go into opposition than for this government to do anything so un Tory and betray the Tory core vote
In any case we already spend the 2% of gdp on defence NATO wants, it is other nations like Germany who have not but are finally now going to do so following Putin's invasion of Ukraine
1) This may shock you but some people care more about the country than their political party.
2) The 2% is a floor, and a pretty modest one that’s ok only in peacetime.
It is possible to care both about your country and one of the core defining principles of your party, in the Tory case protection of inherited wealth.
2% spend by every NATO nation on defence is more than enough for NATO to contain Putin if needed and protect NATO nations
Even as someone who has voted Tory more often than the other lot, I'd struggle to say what Tory core values are. Keeping socialists out of power, I suppose. But I wouldn't have thought 'protection of inherited wealth'woukd have come in the top ten of core Tory principles since the mid nineteenth century. Protecting inherited wealth might be something that Conservatives do, but I'd be surprised if too many in the party deemed it a core principle.
Protection of inherited wealth is as key a Tory value as it was in the 19th century. Protection of the family home, estate and wealth from excess tax and protection of the institution of monarchy and the established church and their assets too.
In fact it is perhaps the only core value the sometimes pro free trade, sometimes pro protectionist, sometimes pro more spending, sometimes pro less spending, sometimes pro EU, now Pro Brexit, sometimes socially liberal, sometimes socially conservative Tory party has been consistent on
Just because something was a core value 170 years ago it shouldn't be so today. I don't think there is a sufficient constituency of pro-inherited wealth, pro monarchy, pro-cofE voters to give the Conservatives power. As I think most pragmatic Tories recognise. The CofE, in particular, seem largely a bunch of SJWs whom the Tories should steer well clear of.
There is, property owners and their heirs, especially in the South are far more numerous than even the top 10% of income earners. Indeed 60% of the UK population own the property they live in.
The C of E is apolitical but most of the Church of England congregation vote Tory
Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.
I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.
Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.
As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.
Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.
Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.
I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.
I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.
I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
Problem is it means no one sells.
Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.
Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.
So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?
You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power
Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
If we can't afford to defend ourselves and become serfs to authoritarian states to Russia, how many times worse than the poll tax do you think that would be?
The fact our homes are worth anything decent at all is because we live in a safe, secure and wealthy part of the world - keeping that means investing in its protection or we risk losing it all.
We do not want a tax on asset windfalls, a wealth tax or a rise in inheritance tax. No, no, no. Better to go into opposition than for this government to do anything so un Tory and betray the Tory core vote
In any case we already spend the 2% of gdp on defence NATO wants, it is other nations like Germany who have not but are finally now going to do so following Putin's invasion of Ukraine
Cringing nonsense. Utter irresponsibility. About time the geriatric Tories did their fair share.
Who cares if the Tory core vote is reamed out, if that is what it takes?
We Tories do and we Tories are in power with a majority and we Tories will therefore decide policy until the next general election, not you
You are not a proper Tory, HYUFD. You voted Remain in 2016.
As did David Cameron and Theresa May and Liz Truss and Ben Wallace
I am a BETTER Tory than you because I voted LEAVE in 2016, Tory in 2017 and Tory in 2019. So there
Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.
I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.
Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.
As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.
Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.
Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.
I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.
I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.
I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
Problem is it means no one sells.
Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.
Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.
So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?
You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power
Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
If we can't afford to defend ourselves and become serfs to authoritarian states to Russia, how many times worse than the poll tax do you think that would be?
The fact our homes are worth anything decent at all is because we live in a safe, secure and wealthy part of the world - keeping that means investing in its protection or we risk losing it all.
We do not want a tax on asset windfalls, a wealth tax or a rise in inheritance tax. No, no, no. Better to go into opposition than for this government to do anything so un Tory and betray the Tory core vote
In any case we already spend the 2% of gdp on defence NATO wants, it is other nations like Germany who have not but are finally now going to do so following Putin's invasion of Ukraine
Cringing nonsense. Utter irresponsibility. About time the geriatric Tories did their fair share.
Who cares if the Tory core vote is reamed out, if that is what it takes?
We Tories do and we Tories are in power with a majority and we Tories will therefore decide policy until the next general election, not you
You do the cause of the conservative party great embarrasment, as you do to yourself
You are a terrible advert for the conservative party
You do not even seem to know what being a Tory means? No surprise as you voted for New Labour twice
But he didn't vote for PC, and you did. He has principles.
I voted for all Tory candidates then, he voted for the Labour candidate over the Tory. BigG is thus not a pure Tory
There speaks conservative momentum and consigned to permanent opposition
And by the way, I wear your badge of honour with pride
Don’t worry, by his standards nor were Churchill, Disraeli, or Peel.
Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.
I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.
Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.
As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.
Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.
Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.
I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.
I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.
I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
Problem is it means no one sells.
Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.
Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.
So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?
You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power
Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
If we can't afford to defend ourselves and become serfs to authoritarian states to Russia, how many times worse than the poll tax do you think that would be?
The fact our homes are worth anything decent at all is because we live in a safe, secure and wealthy part of the world - keeping that means investing in its protection or we risk losing it all.
We do not want a tax on asset windfalls, a wealth tax or a rise in inheritance tax. No, no, no. Better to go into opposition than for this government to do anything so un Tory and betray the Tory core vote
In any case we already spend the 2% of gdp on defence NATO wants, it is other nations like Germany who have not but are finally now going to do so following Putin's invasion of Ukraine
Cringing nonsense. Utter irresponsibility. About time the geriatric Tories did their fair share.
Who cares if the Tory core vote is reamed out, if that is what it takes?
We Tories do and we Tories are in power with a majority and we Tories will therefore decide policy until the next general election, not you
You are not a proper Tory, HYUFD. You voted Remain in 2016.
As did David Cameron and Theresa May and Liz Truss and Ben Wallace
I am a BETTER Tory than you because I voted LEAVE in 2016, Tory in 2017 and Tory in 2019. So there
You have also voted Labour unlike me
You will forever be TAINTED by your Remain vote in 2016.
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
You mean like all members of NATO do , only France has any real self reliance, we are just renting ours and USA decides when and if they are used. rUK would remain poodles.
No they aren't, we leased Trident off the US but the UK PM still decides whether to fire it or not
Last time it was test-fired (without the US knowing), the missiles turned tail and headed back to Florida.
We don't have an independent nuclear deterrent, we have a pair of our granddad's shoes that we're shuffling around in.
Yes, missiles fail occasionally. Your point being?
As well as your other pro-Russian ramblings on here, ISTR you claimed that all the cruise missiles Russia fired on Syria hit their targets, with no failures? So Russian missiles = good, Yank/British ones = bad?
I claimed what sorry?
From memory, but I believe it was you (if not, apols): During the first Russian attack on Syria, they launched loads of cruise missiles at targets in Syria - I think it was 2017. The Syrians and other countries claimed to have found some missiles that failed (e.g. went off course), and you claimed that was ridiculous as they wouldn't fail. Or somesuch.
Another of your pro-Russia posts, to go along with your antics about MH17.
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
You mean like all members of NATO do , only France has any real self reliance, we are just renting ours and USA decides when and if they are used. rUK would remain poodles.
No they aren't, we leased Trident off the US but the UK PM still decides whether to fire it or not
Last time it was test-fired (without the US knowing), the missiles turned tail and headed back to Florida.
We don't have an independent nuclear deterrent, we have a pair of our granddad's shoes that we're shuffling around in.
Wrong, 4 previous Trident tests were successful.
There was 1 malfunction in 2017 when tested off Florida
We Tories do and we Tories are in power with a majority and we Tories will therefore decide policy until the next general election, not you
Yet the Conservatives have always claimed to be a pragmatic party governing in the national interest.
By definition, that means occasionally having to take some difficult and potentially unpopular decisions because it's the right thing to do not because it's the easy or popular thing to do.
Margaret Thatcher always did what she thought was best for the country even if it wasn't in the short term best for the party or for the popularity of the party. Yes, she went out to explain, justify and defend that policy and faced huge resistance sometimes from within the Conservative Party itself but would you not argue she was more often right than wrong and her electoral record confirms that?
Thatcher never increased inheritance tax or imposed a wealth tax as she knew that to do so would betray the defining core Tory value of creation of wealth and preservation of it
Indeed but Conservative Governments are quite happy to increase taxes - quite apart from the current administration, Howe and Lamont both raised VAT and the party (at least at local level) suffered from the backlash in terms of council seats.
If you aren't prepared to tax wealth and inheritance (which I understand), you must accept there are times when taxes have to be increased to improve the public finances. There will be those who argue the burden of those tax rises should not be disproportionately on those least able to pay them (I think that's a reasonable argument, you may not) which leaves the alternative choice that those with more disposable income contribute a greater share than those with less.
The problem with the call for greater taxes is that the tax burden is the highest it has been for 60 years. On top of that debt to GDP is 100%
Too many politicians and indeed too many members of the public still seem to be of the view that the Government has endless pots of money.
More money for defence, for social care, for the NHS, for Net Zero, for levelling up. Something is going to have to give.
It was probably higher in the 20 years before 1980, to be fair.
The figures are skewed as there were so many public corporations back then, which were excluded from the figures.
We Tories do and we Tories are in power with a majority and we Tories will therefore decide policy until the next general election, not you
Yet the Conservatives have always claimed to be a pragmatic party governing in the national interest.
By definition, that means occasionally having to take some difficult and potentially unpopular decisions because it's the right thing to do not because it's the easy or popular thing to do.
Margaret Thatcher always did what she thought was best for the country even if it wasn't in the short term best for the party or for the popularity of the party. Yes, she went out to explain, justify and defend that policy and faced huge resistance sometimes from within the Conservative Party itself but would you not argue she was more often right than wrong and her electoral record confirms that?
Thatcher never increased inheritance tax or imposed a wealth tax as she knew that to do so would betray the defining core Tory value of creation of wealth and preservation of it
Indeed but Conservative Governments are quite happy to increase taxes - quite apart from the current administration, Howe and Lamont both raised VAT and the party (at least at local level) suffered from the backlash in terms of council seats.
If you aren't prepared to tax wealth and inheritance (which I understand), you must accept there are times when taxes have to be increased to improve the public finances. There will be those who argue the burden of those tax rises should not be disproportionately on those least able to pay them (I think that's a reasonable argument, you may not) which leaves the alternative choice that those with more disposable income contribute a greater share than those with less.
Since when was VAT or other indirect taxes (or indeed NI or the health and social care levy) the same as inheritance tax or a wealth tax? I am not keen on either but on a forced choice Tory governments choose to increase the former not the latter and not hit the property of their core supporters
Shouldn't tax be levied on UNEARNED wealth first before EARNED wealth?
👍
No, Liberals might prefer that but the Tory party is about preservation of wealth first
That would make an excellent billboard poster for Labour.
Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.
I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.
Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.
As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.
Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.
Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.
I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.
I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.
I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
Problem is it means no one sells.
Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.
Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.
So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?
You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power
Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
If we can't afford to defend ourselves and become serfs to authoritarian states to Russia, how many times worse than the poll tax do you think that would be?
The fact our homes are worth anything decent at all is because we live in a safe, secure and wealthy part of the world - keeping that means investing in its protection or we risk losing it all.
We do not want a tax on asset windfalls, a wealth tax or a rise in inheritance tax. No, no, no. Better to go into opposition than for this government to do anything so un Tory and betray the Tory core vote
In any case we already spend the 2% of gdp on defence NATO wants, it is other nations like Germany who have not but are finally now going to do so following Putin's invasion of Ukraine
1) This may shock you but some people care more about the country than their political party.
2) The 2% is a floor, and a pretty modest one that’s ok only in peacetime.
It is possible to care both about your country and one of the core defining principles of your party, in the Tory case protection of inherited wealth.
2% spend by every NATO nation on defence is more than enough for NATO to contain Putin if needed and protect NATO nations
Even as someone who has voted Tory more often than the other lot, I'd struggle to say what Tory core values are. Keeping socialists out of power, I suppose. But I wouldn't have thought 'protection of inherited wealth'woukd have come in the top ten of core Tory principles since the mid nineteenth century. Protecting inherited wealth might be something that Conservatives do, but I'd be surprised if too many in the party deemed it a core principle.
Protection of inherited wealth is as key a Tory value as it was in the 19th century. Protection of the family home, estate and wealth from excess tax and protection of the institution of monarchy and the established church and their assets too.
In fact it is perhaps the only core value the sometimes pro free trade, sometimes pro protectionist, sometimes pro more spending, sometimes pro less spending, sometimes pro EU, now Pro Brexit, sometimes socially liberal, sometimes socially conservative Tory party has been consistent on
Just because something was a core value 170 years ago it shouldn't be so today. I don't think there is a sufficient constituency of pro-inherited wealth, pro monarchy, pro-cofE voters to give the Conservatives power. As I think most pragmatic Tories recognise. The CofE, in particular, seem largely a bunch of SJWs whom the Tories should steer well clear of.
There is, property owners and their heirs, especially in the South are far more numerous than even the top 10% of income earners. Indeed 60% of the UK population own the property they live in.
The C of E is apolitical but most of the Church of England congregation vote Tory
All 2,000 of them !!!!!
Given HYUFD's purity test, that will be also be the number of Tory party members left under his strict criteria.....
Considering China - it is necessary to understand first the position of its own leaders. They remain permanently terrified of a revolution. Western democracy is still a profound threat to them. That is why they will not let Putin fail. They don't want a liberal pro west regime in Russia.
How about being prepared to back someone else who will end the war but can be relied upon to keep Russia in the Chinese rather than western sphere?
I'd love to know what the Chinese ambassador in Kiev was advising Beijing before the invasion.
Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.
I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.
Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.
As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.
Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.
Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.
I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.
I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.
I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
Problem is it means no one sells.
Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.
Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.
So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?
You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power
Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
If we can't afford to defend ourselves and become serfs to authoritarian states to Russia, how many times worse than the poll tax do you think that would be?
The fact our homes are worth anything decent at all is because we live in a safe, secure and wealthy part of the world - keeping that means investing in its protection or we risk losing it all.
We do not want a tax on asset windfalls, a wealth tax or a rise in inheritance tax. No, no, no. Better to go into opposition than for this government to do anything so un Tory and betray the Tory core vote
In any case we already spend the 2% of gdp on defence NATO wants, it is other nations like Germany who have not but are finally now going to do so following Putin's invasion of Ukraine
Cringing nonsense. Utter irresponsibility. About time the geriatric Tories did their fair share.
Who cares if the Tory core vote is reamed out, if that is what it takes?
We Tories do and we Tories are in power with a majority and we Tories will therefore decide policy until the next general election, not you
You are not a proper Tory, HYUFD. You voted Remain in 2016.
As did David Cameron and Theresa May and Liz Truss and Ben Wallace
I am a BETTER Tory than you because I voted LEAVE in 2016, Tory in 2017 and Tory in 2019. So there
You have also voted Labour unlike me
I have to say this - you are just childish - playground arguments
Chechens' own propaganda video shows them reporting their (unsuccessful) attempt to abduct Ukrainian children. Interestingly apparently Kadyrov is actually in Ukraine. You can bet the intelligence services are working overtime to identify how to get him. I wonder if his demise would reignite the Chechen resistance?
Are they honestly trying to "abduct children"? Why?
That's Satanic. That's pure evil. With every day Russia is more poisoned, reputationally
We Tories do and we Tories are in power with a majority and we Tories will therefore decide policy until the next general election, not you
Yet the Conservatives have always claimed to be a pragmatic party governing in the national interest.
By definition, that means occasionally having to take some difficult and potentially unpopular decisions because it's the right thing to do not because it's the easy or popular thing to do.
Margaret Thatcher always did what she thought was best for the country even if it wasn't in the short term best for the party or for the popularity of the party. Yes, she went out to explain, justify and defend that policy and faced huge resistance sometimes from within the Conservative Party itself but would you not argue she was more often right than wrong and her electoral record confirms that?
Thatcher never increased inheritance tax or imposed a wealth tax as she knew that to do so would betray the defining core Tory value of creation of wealth and preservation of it
Indeed but Conservative Governments are quite happy to increase taxes - quite apart from the current administration, Howe and Lamont both raised VAT and the party (at least at local level) suffered from the backlash in terms of council seats.
If you aren't prepared to tax wealth and inheritance (which I understand), you must accept there are times when taxes have to be increased to improve the public finances. There will be those who argue the burden of those tax rises should not be disproportionately on those least able to pay them (I think that's a reasonable argument, you may not) which leaves the alternative choice that those with more disposable income contribute a greater share than those with less.
Since when was VAT or other indirect taxes (or indeed NI or the health and social care levy) the same as inheritance tax or a wealth tax? I am not keen on either but on a forced choice Tory governments choose to increase the former not the latter and not hit the property of their core supporters
Shouldn't tax be levied on UNEARNED wealth first before EARNED wealth?
👍
No, Liberals might prefer that but the Tory party is about preservation of wealth first
That would make an excellent billboard poster for Labour.
China's issue is Xi Jinping has over-invested in Putin. A fair number of the country's movers and shakers seem to realise that, but Xi doesn't want to lose face. Xi is developing a reputation for being error-prone in an environment normally intolerant of mistakes.
That's my not-totally-uninformed take.
It also raises the question why someone so mediocre, without obvious talent or charisma should be so dominant. I'm not the only person asking that question.
And the winner of Best in Show 2022 is…….the flat-coated retriever, this afternoon’s gundog winner from Norway, who has won prizes across Europe.
…with the reserve being the horrible little toy poodle.
Oh, that's lovely. It's one fo the very short list of breeds I'd buy if we had our own dog instead of taking our friends' for rambles.
I had two flat coats (not at the same time).
Lovely dogs, but very boisterous. Also very fragile. Both developed cancers and neither made it to ten.
Our friends had one - a very lovable dog but totally manic right up to her last few months (aged 11 IIRC)
Give me and English Pointer any day.
I wonder, seriously, how those compare with my mother's somewhat scatterbrained Irish Setters?
Pointers (English, I can't speak for German or other pointers) are very calm in our experience - we've had two.
They do like to run and need an hour or two free running each day. The rest of the time they are docile as anything.
Not spooked by loud noises, not much of a guard dog (would let anyone in as far as we can tell).
Not the brightest in the bunch but that has it's pluses.
Neither of ours was particularly needy - they were fine being left for a few hours. Never any damage in the house.
The are hunters though - our current one has killed 5 or 6 squirrels and 3 pheasants in our garden.
The American Kennel Club website has some outstanding resources on almost all the breeds. For Pointers it says:
Loyal / Hardworking / Even-Tempered - The Pointer is the ultimate expression of canine power and grace. The breed's name is its job description: Pointers point game birds, and they have been pointing for centuries. The high-energy Pointer is an excellent runner's companion. Unquestioned aristocrats of the sporting world, Pointers carry themselves proudly and are capable of great speed and agility. The coat comes in several colors, solid or in patterns, but as the breed's devotees like to say, a good Pointer can't be a bad color. A large male can stand 28 inches at the shoulder and weigh up to 75 pounds; a small female might weigh as little as 45 pounds and stand 23 inches.
The athletic, exuberant Pointer is a very active sporting breed and requires lots of exercise every day to keep him healthy and happy. This can come in the form of long daily walks and vigorous play sessions with his owner. Providing a securely fenced yard where the Pointer can run full out and burn off some of his renowned "hunt all day" endurance is beneficial and will make for a calmer, more contented companion inside the home. The breed also exercises mind and body by participating in canine sports such as field events, obedience, tracking, agility, rally, and other activities that can be enjoyed by dog and owner.
Deleted due to pointlessness of what I'd just written. Sorry.
It'll never catch on.
Splendid retort - and you're right. I must take less pride in my posts.
Drag yourself back to our level; no-one likes a tall poppy…
Incidentally, she who must be obeyed has been summoning me to watch Crufts with her for the last couple of days. I have used your running commentary to inform her that there's no need as I am being kept abreast of things there, so thanks. I did consent to watch one bit where an owner and a dog were dancing to Swan Lake; Mrs Al was in tears of joy/laughter, I was bemused.
Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.
I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.
Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.
As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.
Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.
Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.
I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.
I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.
I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
Problem is it means no one sells.
Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.
Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.
So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?
You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power
Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
If we can't afford to defend ourselves and become serfs to authoritarian states to Russia, how many times worse than the poll tax do you think that would be?
The fact our homes are worth anything decent at all is because we live in a safe, secure and wealthy part of the world - keeping that means investing in its protection or we risk losing it all.
We do not want a tax on asset windfalls, a wealth tax or a rise in inheritance tax. No, no, no. Better to go into opposition than for this government to do anything so un Tory and betray the Tory core vote
In any case we already spend the 2% of gdp on defence NATO wants, it is other nations like Germany who have not but are finally now going to do so following Putin's invasion of Ukraine
Cringing nonsense. Utter irresponsibility. About time the geriatric Tories did their fair share.
Who cares if the Tory core vote is reamed out, if that is what it takes?
We Tories do and we Tories are in power with a majority and we Tories will therefore decide policy until the next general election, not you
You are not a proper Tory, HYUFD. You voted Remain in 2016.
As did David Cameron and Theresa May and Liz Truss and Ben Wallace
I am a BETTER Tory than you because I voted LEAVE in 2016, Tory in 2017 and Tory in 2019. So there
You have also voted Labour unlike me
You will forever be TAINTED by your Remain vote in 2016.
As far as I can see, that was the last sensible thing that he has done.
We Tories do and we Tories are in power with a majority and we Tories will therefore decide policy until the next general election, not you
Yet the Conservatives have always claimed to be a pragmatic party governing in the national interest.
By definition, that means occasionally having to take some difficult and potentially unpopular decisions because it's the right thing to do not because it's the easy or popular thing to do.
Margaret Thatcher always did what she thought was best for the country even if it wasn't in the short term best for the party or for the popularity of the party. Yes, she went out to explain, justify and defend that policy and faced huge resistance sometimes from within the Conservative Party itself but would you not argue she was more often right than wrong and her electoral record confirms that?
Thatcher never increased inheritance tax or imposed a wealth tax as she knew that to do so would betray the defining core Tory value of creation of wealth and preservation of it
Indeed but Conservative Governments are quite happy to increase taxes - quite apart from the current administration, Howe and Lamont both raised VAT and the party (at least at local level) suffered from the backlash in terms of council seats.
If you aren't prepared to tax wealth and inheritance (which I understand), you must accept there are times when taxes have to be increased to improve the public finances. There will be those who argue the burden of those tax rises should not be disproportionately on those least able to pay them (I think that's a reasonable argument, you may not) which leaves the alternative choice that those with more disposable income contribute a greater share than those with less.
Since when was VAT or other indirect taxes (or indeed NI or the health and social care levy) the same as inheritance tax or a wealth tax? I am not keen on either but on a forced choice Tory governments choose to increase the former not the latter and not hit the property of their core supporters
Shouldn't tax be levied on UNEARNED wealth first before EARNED wealth?
👍
No, Liberals might prefer that but the Tory party is about preservation of wealth first
That would make an excellent billboard poster for Labour.
Why? 60% of the population own their properties and have significant wealth.
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
The much bigger problem though is not those countries with nukes deciding to hang on to them, it will be the smaller nations with big aggressive neighbours deciding to get them to be on the safe side.
That greatly increases the risk of something going wrong or a rogue/false flag strike (as in the plot of On The Beach).
In a book Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs written 15 years ago that was criticised as flawed by military experts but I nevertheless found interesting, Lewis Page made this exact point. 'Nuclear weapons confer immunity from American interference up to a point, which is why everyone is so keen to get them...(footnote) Everyone really is keen to get them: this isn't scaremongering or lies. Chemical weapons are a bogey to frighten the children with - the Kaiser had them in World War One, for goodness sakes. But long range nukes are the real deal. If I were running a country, I'd want some.'
Exactly. We either find a way to get rid of them or we don't have a long run future.
If you have any ideas on how to persuade North Korea, Russia, India, Pakistan, Israel, Iran and China to give up their nuclear weapons, I'm sure the UN would be delighted to hear from you.
But even if you could via, say, a programme of mass hypnosis I honestly cannot see the Americans giving up nukes.
All I can do is argue and vote for my own country to do it.
And that's the problem, isn't it? Ukraine and Kazakhstan gave up their nukes, and are now in effect giving up their sovereignty as well as a result. So no politician will get rid of their nukes until *everyone* agrees to get rid of them.
But the other way - proliferate until bang - is imo a bigger problem. And I don't think our nukes protect us. The logic doesn't really work for that. Not as I assess it.
So - let me get this right - you are pro-unilateral disarmament? You would vote for an Abandon Our Nukes party? And you'd be happy if we did that, despite Ukraine?
I kind of hope I've got this wrong
Yes, I feel not a jot safer for Trident and would like to see us reject nuclear weapons. It's moral AND logical.
Thank God virtue-signalling twats like you never get near power. Idiot
Same applies to roller coaster emoting, hysterical fannies of course.
Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.
I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.
Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.
As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.
Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.
Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.
I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.
I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.
I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
Problem is it means no one sells.
Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.
Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.
So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?
You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power
Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
If we can't afford to defend ourselves and become serfs to authoritarian states to Russia, how many times worse than the poll tax do you think that would be?
The fact our homes are worth anything decent at all is because we live in a safe, secure and wealthy part of the world - keeping that means investing in its protection or we risk losing it all.
We do not want a tax on asset windfalls, a wealth tax or a rise in inheritance tax. No, no, no. Better to go into opposition than for this government to do anything so un Tory and betray the Tory core vote
In any case we already spend the 2% of gdp on defence NATO wants, it is other nations like Germany who have not but are finally now going to do so following Putin's invasion of Ukraine
Cringing nonsense. Utter irresponsibility. About time the geriatric Tories did their fair share.
Who cares if the Tory core vote is reamed out, if that is what it takes?
We Tories do and we Tories are in power with a majority and we Tories will therefore decide policy until the next general election, not you
You do the cause of the conservative party great embarrasment, as you do to yourself
You are a terrible advert for the conservative party
You do not even seem to know what being a Tory means? No surprise as you voted for New Labour twice
But he didn't vote for PC, and you did. He has principles.
I voted for all Tory candidates then, he voted for the Labour candidate over the Tory. BigG is thus not a pure Tory
There speaks conservative momentum and consigned to permanent opposition
And by the way, I wear your badge of honour with pride
Don’t worry, by his standards nor were Churchill, Disraeli, or Peel.
They were as all were monarchists and did not as Tories support heavy wealth and inheritance taxes
Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.
I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.
Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.
As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.
Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.
Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.
I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.
I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.
I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
Problem is it means no one sells.
Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.
Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.
So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?
You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power
Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
If we can't afford to defend ourselves and become serfs to authoritarian states to Russia, how many times worse than the poll tax do you think that would be?
The fact our homes are worth anything decent at all is because we live in a safe, secure and wealthy part of the world - keeping that means investing in its protection or we risk losing it all.
We do not want a tax on asset windfalls, a wealth tax or a rise in inheritance tax. No, no, no. Better to go into opposition than for this government to do anything so un Tory and betray the Tory core vote
In any case we already spend the 2% of gdp on defence NATO wants, it is other nations like Germany who have not but are finally now going to do so following Putin's invasion of Ukraine
1) This may shock you but some people care more about the country than their political party.
2) The 2% is a floor, and a pretty modest one that’s ok only in peacetime.
It is possible to care both about your country and one of the core defining principles of your party, in the Tory case protection of inherited wealth.
2% spend by every NATO nation on defence is more than enough for NATO to contain Putin if needed and protect NATO nations
Even as someone who has voted Tory more often than the other lot, I'd struggle to say what Tory core values are. Keeping socialists out of power, I suppose. But I wouldn't have thought 'protection of inherited wealth'woukd have come in the top ten of core Tory principles since the mid nineteenth century. Protecting inherited wealth might be something that Conservatives do, but I'd be surprised if too many in the party deemed it a core principle.
Protection of inherited wealth is as key a Tory value as it was in the 19th century. Protection of the family home, estate and wealth from excess tax and protection of the institution of monarchy and the established church and their assets too.
In fact it is perhaps the only core value the sometimes pro free trade, sometimes pro protectionist, sometimes pro more spending, sometimes pro less spending, sometimes pro EU, now Pro Brexit, sometimes socially liberal, sometimes socially conservative Tory party has been consistent on
Just because something was a core value 170 years ago it shouldn't be so today. I don't think there is a sufficient constituency of pro-inherited wealth, pro monarchy, pro-cofE voters to give the Conservatives power. As I think most pragmatic Tories recognise. The CofE, in particular, seem largely a bunch of SJWs whom the Tories should steer well clear of.
There is, property owners and their heirs, especially in the South are far more numerous than even the top 10% of income earners.
The C of E is apolitical but most of the Church of England congregation vote Tory
Don't talk utter nonsense. The C of E can never be apolitical, in its slavish subservience to Erastianism, until it is disestablished. Of course it is utterly political - it is part of the state.
It is not party political, it is apolitical as is the Queen as head of state and its supreme governor
We Tories do and we Tories are in power with a majority and we Tories will therefore decide policy until the next general election, not you
Yet the Conservatives have always claimed to be a pragmatic party governing in the national interest.
By definition, that means occasionally having to take some difficult and potentially unpopular decisions because it's the right thing to do not because it's the easy or popular thing to do.
Margaret Thatcher always did what she thought was best for the country even if it wasn't in the short term best for the party or for the popularity of the party. Yes, she went out to explain, justify and defend that policy and faced huge resistance sometimes from within the Conservative Party itself but would you not argue she was more often right than wrong and her electoral record confirms that?
Thatcher never increased inheritance tax or imposed a wealth tax as she knew that to do so would betray the defining core Tory value of creation of wealth and preservation of it
The defence of the Realm should be of infinitely greater importance to Conservatives than the size of one's inheritance.
It is positiviely immoral to increase taxes on the incomes and purchases of average earners in order to protect the wealth of the better off.
Deleted due to pointlessness of what I'd just written. Sorry.
It'll never catch on.
Splendid retort - and you're right. I must take less pride in my posts.
Drag yourself back to our level; no-one likes a tall poppy…
Incidentally, she who must be obeyed has been summoning me to watch Crufts with her for the last couple of days. I have used your running commentary to inform her that there's no need as I am being kept abreast of things there, so thanks. I did consent to watch one bit where an owner and a dog were dancing to Swan Lake; Mrs Al was in tears of joy/laughter, I was bemused.
That was the ex ballet-dancer and her chiwahwah, I think?
As I said yesterday, freestyle hasn’t been the same since Lucie Plevova retired. This was her winning routine from 2018:
Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.
I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.
Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.
As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.
Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.
Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.
I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.
I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.
I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
Problem is it means no one sells.
Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.
Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.
So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?
You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power
Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
If we can't afford to defend ourselves and become serfs to authoritarian states to Russia, how many times worse than the poll tax do you think that would be?
The fact our homes are worth anything decent at all is because we live in a safe, secure and wealthy part of the world - keeping that means investing in its protection or we risk losing it all.
We do not want a tax on asset windfalls, a wealth tax or a rise in inheritance tax. No, no, no. Better to go into opposition than for this government to do anything so un Tory and betray the Tory core vote
In any case we already spend the 2% of gdp on defence NATO wants, it is other nations like Germany who have not but are finally now going to do so following Putin's invasion of Ukraine
1) This may shock you but some people care more about the country than their political party.
2) The 2% is a floor, and a pretty modest one that’s ok only in peacetime.
It is possible to care both about your country and one of the core defining principles of your party, in the Tory case protection of inherited wealth.
2% spend by every NATO nation on defence is more than enough for NATO to contain Putin if needed and protect NATO nations
Even as someone who has voted Tory more often than the other lot, I'd struggle to say what Tory core values are. Keeping socialists out of power, I suppose. But I wouldn't have thought 'protection of inherited wealth'woukd have come in the top ten of core Tory principles since the mid nineteenth century. Protecting inherited wealth might be something that Conservatives do, but I'd be surprised if too many in the party deemed it a core principle.
Protection of inherited wealth is as key a Tory value as it was in the 19th century. Protection of the family home, estate and wealth from excess tax and protection of the institution of monarchy and the established church and their assets too.
In fact it is perhaps the only core value the sometimes pro free trade, sometimes pro protectionist, sometimes pro more spending, sometimes pro less spending, sometimes pro EU, now Pro Brexit, sometimes socially liberal, sometimes socially conservative Tory party has been consistent on
Just because something was a core value 170 years ago it shouldn't be so today. I don't think there is a sufficient constituency of pro-inherited wealth, pro monarchy, pro-cofE voters to give the Conservatives power. As I think most pragmatic Tories recognise. The CofE, in particular, seem largely a bunch of SJWs whom the Tories should steer well clear of.
There is, property owners and their heirs, especially in the South are far more numerous than even the top 10% of income earners. Indeed 60% of the UK population own the property they live in.
The C of E is apolitical but most of the Church of England congregation vote Tory
Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.
I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.
Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.
As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.
Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.
Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.
I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.
I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.
I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
Problem is it means no one sells.
Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.
Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.
So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?
You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power
Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
If we can't afford to defend ourselves and become serfs to authoritarian states to Russia, how many times worse than the poll tax do you think that would be?
The fact our homes are worth anything decent at all is because we live in a safe, secure and wealthy part of the world - keeping that means investing in its protection or we risk losing it all.
We do not want a tax on asset windfalls, a wealth tax or a rise in inheritance tax. No, no, no. Better to go into opposition than for this government to do anything so un Tory and betray the Tory core vote
In any case we already spend the 2% of gdp on defence NATO wants, it is other nations like Germany who have not but are finally now going to do so following Putin's invasion of Ukraine
Cringing nonsense. Utter irresponsibility. About time the geriatric Tories did their fair share.
Who cares if the Tory core vote is reamed out, if that is what it takes?
We Tories do and we Tories are in power with a majority and we Tories will therefore decide policy until the next general election, not you
You are not a proper Tory, HYUFD. You voted Remain in 2016.
As did David Cameron and Theresa May and Liz Truss and Ben Wallace
I am a BETTER Tory than you because I voted LEAVE in 2016, Tory in 2017 and Tory in 2019. So there
You have also voted Labour unlike me
I have to say this - you are just childish - playground arguments
Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.
I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.
Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.
As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.
Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.
Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.
I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.
I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.
I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
Problem is it means no one sells.
Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.
Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.
So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?
You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power
Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
If we can't afford to defend ourselves and become serfs to authoritarian states to Russia, how many times worse than the poll tax do you think that would be?
The fact our homes are worth anything decent at all is because we live in a safe, secure and wealthy part of the world - keeping that means investing in its protection or we risk losing it all.
We do not want a tax on asset windfalls, a wealth tax or a rise in inheritance tax. No, no, no. Better to go into opposition than for this government to do anything so un Tory and betray the Tory core vote
In any case we already spend the 2% of gdp on defence NATO wants, it is other nations like Germany who have not but are finally now going to do so following Putin's invasion of Ukraine
Cringing nonsense. Utter irresponsibility. About time the geriatric Tories did their fair share.
Who cares if the Tory core vote is reamed out, if that is what it takes?
We Tories do and we Tories are in power with a majority and we Tories will therefore decide policy until the next general election, not you
You do the cause of the conservative party great embarrasment, as you do to yourself
You are a terrible advert for the conservative party
You do not even seem to know what being a Tory means? No surprise as you voted for New Labour twice
The whole point of the Tory Party is that Peel, Disraeli, Salisbury, Churchill, (Joe) Chamberlain, Super Mac, Heath, Thatcher, and Cameron believed utterly different things. You’re in a Salisbury/Chamberlain cycle at the minute. It won’t last.
None of them backed wealth taxes or higher inheritance tax and all were monarchists, thus they were all Tories whatever else they disagreed on
Nonsense.
The Peelites introduced the Succession Duty in 1853 under Lord Aberdeen.
Salisbury introduced Estate Duty in 1889.
And before all that Lord North's Tory administration introduced Legacy Duty in 1780.
We Tories do and we Tories are in power with a majority and we Tories will therefore decide policy until the next general election, not you
Yet the Conservatives have always claimed to be a pragmatic party governing in the national interest.
By definition, that means occasionally having to take some difficult and potentially unpopular decisions because it's the right thing to do not because it's the easy or popular thing to do.
Margaret Thatcher always did what she thought was best for the country even if it wasn't in the short term best for the party or for the popularity of the party. Yes, she went out to explain, justify and defend that policy and faced huge resistance sometimes from within the Conservative Party itself but would you not argue she was more often right than wrong and her electoral record confirms that?
Thatcher never increased inheritance tax or imposed a wealth tax as she knew that to do so would betray the defining core Tory value of creation of wealth and preservation of it
The defence of the Realm should be of infinitely greater importance to Conservatives than the size of one's inheritance.
It is positiviely immoral to increase taxes on the incomes and purchases of average earners in order to protect the wealth of the better off.
We can defend the realm spending the 2% of our gdp on defence as we do now.
It is the likes of Germany, Italy, Spain and Canada who until now have spent less than 2% of their gdp on defence and not paid their NATO dues.
Protecting the wealth of the Tory core vote is not immoral, it is one of the defining principles of Toryism
We Tories do and we Tories are in power with a majority and we Tories will therefore decide policy until the next general election, not you
Yet the Conservatives have always claimed to be a pragmatic party governing in the national interest.
By definition, that means occasionally having to take some difficult and potentially unpopular decisions because it's the right thing to do not because it's the easy or popular thing to do.
Margaret Thatcher always did what she thought was best for the country even if it wasn't in the short term best for the party or for the popularity of the party. Yes, she went out to explain, justify and defend that policy and faced huge resistance sometimes from within the Conservative Party itself but would you not argue she was more often right than wrong and her electoral record confirms that?
Thatcher never increased inheritance tax or imposed a wealth tax as she knew that to do so would betray the defining core Tory value of creation of wealth and preservation of it
Indeed but Conservative Governments are quite happy to increase taxes - quite apart from the current administration, Howe and Lamont both raised VAT and the party (at least at local level) suffered from the backlash in terms of council seats.
If you aren't prepared to tax wealth and inheritance (which I understand), you must accept there are times when taxes have to be increased to improve the public finances. There will be those who argue the burden of those tax rises should not be disproportionately on those least able to pay them (I think that's a reasonable argument, you may not) which leaves the alternative choice that those with more disposable income contribute a greater share than those with less.
The big disadvantage of taxing the poorest - as say, Louis XVI and Nicholas II both found out - is that they have rather less money to pay in tax than the richest.
Which means you set rather strict limits on how much you will raise. And therefore, how much you can do.
I recently read a book on the peasants revolt. Possibly a bit over detailed for the general reader, but it was fascinating how taxes were voted for by parliament to fund the kings wars, and then collected across the realm. No PAYE back then. I found the different responses in places interesting. Some burgesses tried to bear the greater part of the tax themselves, others did not and the tax collectors had to go after even the lowest level tax payers.
Had a story I used to tell at the end of international negotiations.
I'd tell the negotiator on the other side about Genghis Khan's tax collector. One day, Khan summoned his tax collector and told him to go to a particular village and collect 1,000 pieces of gold. "If you fail me, I will kill you".
So the tax collector went to the village and after a bit of force, he got his 1,000 pieces of gold. "Mighty Khan, I have your gold."
"You have done well, my tax collector. Now, I want you to go back to the village and collect another 1,000 pieces of gold. But if you fail me, I will kill you".
So the tax collector went to the village and after a lot of force, he got his 1,000 pieces of gold. "Mighty Khan, I have your gold."
"You have done well, my tax collector. Now, I want you to go back to the village and collect another 1,000 pieces of gold. But if you fail me, I will kill you".
So the tax collector went to the village and after applying extreme brute force, he got his 1,000 pieces of gold. "Mighty Khan, I have your gold."
"You have done well, my tax collector. Now, I want you to go back to the village and collect another 1,000 pieces of gold. But if you fail me, I will kill you".
So the tax collector went back to the village. He demanded 1,000 pieces of gold. But the people laughed at him.
Terrified, the tax collector went back to the mighty Khan. "I have failed you. They laughed at me"
"No, you have done well, my tax collector. Now I know I have all their gold."
At which point I would tell the negotiator on the other side "Mighty Khan, you have all our gold...."
Melitopol defenders reporting a big capture of Russian vehicles (200) tonight with locals confirming heavy fighting now having eased off, but as ever evidence needs to be seen for claimed victories, however even 10-50 vehicles would be a big win, and enough to knock out a BTG or two. The footage of TB2s travelling far behind lines to destroy command vehicles are quite incredible, and here's a new one: https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1503127520253779974
Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.
I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.
Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.
As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.
Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.
Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.
I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.
I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.
I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
Problem is it means no one sells.
Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.
Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.
So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?
You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power
Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
If we can't afford to defend ourselves and become serfs to authoritarian states to Russia, how many times worse than the poll tax do you think that would be?
The fact our homes are worth anything decent at all is because we live in a safe, secure and wealthy part of the world - keeping that means investing in its protection or we risk losing it all.
We do not want a tax on asset windfalls, a wealth tax or a rise in inheritance tax. No, no, no. Better to go into opposition than for this government to do anything so un Tory and betray the Tory core vote
In any case we already spend the 2% of gdp on defence NATO wants, it is other nations like Germany who have not but are finally now going to do so following Putin's invasion of Ukraine
1) This may shock you but some people care more about the country than their political party.
2) The 2% is a floor, and a pretty modest one that’s ok only in peacetime.
It is possible to care both about your country and one of the core defining principles of your party, in the Tory case protection of inherited wealth.
2% spend by every NATO nation on defence is more than enough for NATO to contain Putin if needed and protect NATO nations
Even as someone who has voted Tory more often than the other lot, I'd struggle to say what Tory core values are. Keeping socialists out of power, I suppose. But I wouldn't have thought 'protection of inherited wealth'woukd have come in the top ten of core Tory principles since the mid nineteenth century. Protecting inherited wealth might be something that Conservatives do, but I'd be surprised if too many in the party deemed it a core principle.
Protection of inherited wealth is as key a Tory value as it was in the 19th century. Protection of the family home, estate and wealth from excess tax and protection of the institution of monarchy and the established church and their assets too.
In fact it is perhaps the only core value the sometimes pro free trade, sometimes pro protectionist, sometimes pro more spending, sometimes pro less spending, sometimes pro EU, now Pro Brexit, sometimes socially liberal, sometimes socially conservative Tory party has been consistent on
Just because something was a core value 170 years ago it shouldn't be so today. I don't think there is a sufficient constituency of pro-inherited wealth, pro monarchy, pro-cofE voters to give the Conservatives power. As I think most pragmatic Tories recognise. The CofE, in particular, seem largely a bunch of SJWs whom the Tories should steer well clear of.
There is, property owners and their heirs, especially in the South are far more numerous than even the top 10% of income earners. Indeed 60% of the UK population own the property they live in.
The C of E is apolitical but most of the Church of England congregation vote Tory
The war is now unwinnable for Putin. Even an unlikely military victory, eventually taking all of Ukraine over several months and installing a puppet government would be a strategic loss. Because the Ukraine resistance, political and/or military, is not going to cease. And so the Western sanctions are not going to be relaxed. Russia is going to face years of isolation.
Yet the war is most likely also unwinnable for Ukraine. Its resistance has been fearless, yet it is still overpowered militarily. While they will continue to inflict significant damage, overturning Russian gains through fighting will be difficult. All while their infrastructure is being destroyed and the country is depopulating via families fleeing the war.
Other than hoping for Putin to come to an unfortunate accident, I struggle to see a good outcome of all this for anyone. Just more death and destruction, depressing as it is.
China should be careful in remaining neutral and not supplying support to Russia, or else they will be caught up in the strength of the western public opinion backlash against the invasion.
By his own logic, Putin's started a Russian civil war with his own rule on the line. Some Russian liberals are already saying that we're watching the rebirth of Kievan Rus and that everything democratic and Western-oriented in the "Russian world" will be centred on Kiev.
Melitopol defenders reporting a big capture of Russian vehicles tonight with locals confirming heavy fighting now having eased off, but as ever evidence needs to be seen for claimed victories.
The shear amount of scrap metal is quite incredible.
Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.
I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.
Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.
As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.
Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.
Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.
I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.
I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.
I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
Problem is it means no one sells.
Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.
Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.
So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?
You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power
Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
If we can't afford to defend ourselves and become serfs to authoritarian states to Russia, how many times worse than the poll tax do you think that would be?
The fact our homes are worth anything decent at all is because we live in a safe, secure and wealthy part of the world - keeping that means investing in its protection or we risk losing it all.
We do not want a tax on asset windfalls, a wealth tax or a rise in inheritance tax. No, no, no. Better to go into opposition than for this government to do anything so un Tory and betray the Tory core vote
In any case we already spend the 2% of gdp on defence NATO wants, it is other nations like Germany who have not but are finally now going to do so following Putin's invasion of Ukraine
Cringing nonsense. Utter irresponsibility. About time the geriatric Tories did their fair share.
Who cares if the Tory core vote is reamed out, if that is what it takes?
We Tories do and we Tories are in power with a majority and we Tories will therefore decide policy until the next general election, not you
You do the cause of the conservative party great embarrasment, as you do to yourself
You are a terrible advert for the conservative party
You do not even seem to know what being a Tory means? No surprise as you voted for New Labour twice
The whole point of the Tory Party is that Peel, Disraeli, Salisbury, Churchill, (Joe) Chamberlain, Super Mac, Heath, Thatcher, and Cameron believed utterly different things. You’re in a Salisbury/Chamberlain cycle at the minute. It won’t last.
None of them backed wealth taxes or higher inheritance tax and all were monarchists, thus they were all Tories whatever else they disagreed on
Nonsense.
The Peelites introduced the Succession Duty in 1853 under Lord Aberdeen.
Salisbury introduced Estate Duty in 1889.
And before all that Lord North's Tory administration introduced Legacy Duty in 1780.
Estate duty replaced multiple existing duties like probate duty. The Peelites by 1853 were not Tories.
The biggest increases in inheritance tax came under Lloyd George's budget hammering the great landed estates and under the Labour governments of the post war pre Thatcher period
Deleted due to pointlessness of what I'd just written. Sorry.
It'll never catch on.
Splendid retort - and you're right. I must take less pride in my posts.
Drag yourself back to our level; no-one likes a tall poppy…
Incidentally, she who must be obeyed has been summoning me to watch Crufts with her for the last couple of days. I have used your running commentary to inform her that there's no need as I am being kept abreast of things there, so thanks. I did consent to watch one bit where an owner and a dog were dancing to Swan Lake; Mrs Al was in tears of joy/laughter, I was bemused.
That was the ex ballet-dancer and her chiwahwah, I think?
As I said yesterday, freestyle hasn’t been the same since Lucie Plevova retired. This was her winning routine from 2018:
Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.
I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.
Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.
As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.
Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.
Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.
I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.
I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.
I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
Problem is it means no one sells.
Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.
Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.
So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?
You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power
Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
If we can't afford to defend ourselves and become serfs to authoritarian states to Russia, how many times worse than the poll tax do you think that would be?
The fact our homes are worth anything decent at all is because we live in a safe, secure and wealthy part of the world - keeping that means investing in its protection or we risk losing it all.
We do not want a tax on asset windfalls, a wealth tax or a rise in inheritance tax. No, no, no. Better to go into opposition than for this government to do anything so un Tory and betray the Tory core vote
In any case we already spend the 2% of gdp on defence NATO wants, it is other nations like Germany who have not but are finally now going to do so following Putin's invasion of Ukraine
1) This may shock you but some people care more about the country than their political party.
2) The 2% is a floor, and a pretty modest one that’s ok only in peacetime.
It is possible to care both about your country and one of the core defining principles of your party, in the Tory case protection of inherited wealth.
2% spend by every NATO nation on defence is more than enough for NATO to contain Putin if needed and protect NATO nations
Even as someone who has voted Tory more often than the other lot, I'd struggle to say what Tory core values are. Keeping socialists out of power, I suppose. But I wouldn't have thought 'protection of inherited wealth'woukd have come in the top ten of core Tory principles since the mid nineteenth century. Protecting inherited wealth might be something that Conservatives do, but I'd be surprised if too many in the party deemed it a core principle.
Protection of inherited wealth is as key a Tory value as it was in the 19th century. Protection of the family home, estate and wealth from excess tax and protection of the institution of monarchy and the established church and their assets too.
In fact it is perhaps the only core value the sometimes pro free trade, sometimes pro protectionist, sometimes pro more spending, sometimes pro less spending, sometimes pro EU, now Pro Brexit, sometimes socially liberal, sometimes socially conservative Tory party has been consistent on
Just because something was a core value 170 years ago it shouldn't be so today. I don't think there is a sufficient constituency of pro-inherited wealth, pro monarchy, pro-cofE voters to give the Conservatives power. As I think most pragmatic Tories recognise. The CofE, in particular, seem largely a bunch of SJWs whom the Tories should steer well clear of.
There is, property owners and their heirs, especially in the South are far more numerous than even the top 10% of income earners. Indeed 60% of the UK population own the property they live in.
The C of E is apolitical but most of the Church of England congregation vote Tory
We Tories do and we Tories are in power with a majority and we Tories will therefore decide policy until the next general election, not you
Yet the Conservatives have always claimed to be a pragmatic party governing in the national interest.
By definition, that means occasionally having to take some difficult and potentially unpopular decisions because it's the right thing to do not because it's the easy or popular thing to do.
Margaret Thatcher always did what she thought was best for the country even if it wasn't in the short term best for the party or for the popularity of the party. Yes, she went out to explain, justify and defend that policy and faced huge resistance sometimes from within the Conservative Party itself but would you not argue she was more often right than wrong and her electoral record confirms that?
Thatcher never increased inheritance tax or imposed a wealth tax as she knew that to do so would betray the defining core Tory value of creation of wealth and preservation of it
Indeed but Conservative Governments are quite happy to increase taxes - quite apart from the current administration, Howe and Lamont both raised VAT and the party (at least at local level) suffered from the backlash in terms of council seats.
If you aren't prepared to tax wealth and inheritance (which I understand), you must accept there are times when taxes have to be increased to improve the public finances. There will be those who argue the burden of those tax rises should not be disproportionately on those least able to pay them (I think that's a reasonable argument, you may not) which leaves the alternative choice that those with more disposable income contribute a greater share than those with less.
Since when was VAT or other indirect taxes (or indeed NI or the health and social care levy) the same as inheritance tax or a wealth tax? I am not keen on either but on a forced choice Tory governments choose to increase the former not the latter and not hit the property of their core supporters
Shouldn't tax be levied on UNEARNED wealth first before EARNED wealth?
👍
No, Liberals might prefer that but the Tory party is about preservation of wealth first
That would make an excellent billboard poster for Labour.
Why? 60% of the population own their properties and have significant wealth.
Firstly, it just sounds bad - people will associate "preservation of wealth" with the super wealthy, not someone with a £300k house in the Midlands.
Secondly, the 60% includes people with mortgages. An equitable wealth tax would be on the proportion owned as that reflects the persons wealth.
Finally, it's all about a fair balance. The effective employment tax rate is almost 45% for income over £12.5k (including employees and employers' NI). And almost 55% for income over £50k. Wealth taxes are minuscule in comparison, making young people dependent on gifts and inheritance for many things in life.
A key reason for young people struggling to purchase property is the very high levels of employment taxes. That will be a long-term disaster for the Tories.
Deleted due to pointlessness of what I'd just written. Sorry.
It'll never catch on.
Splendid retort - and you're right. I must take less pride in my posts.
Drag yourself back to our level; no-one likes a tall poppy…
Incidentally, she who must be obeyed has been summoning me to watch Crufts with her for the last couple of days. I have used your running commentary to inform her that there's no need as I am being kept abreast of things there, so thanks. I did consent to watch one bit where an owner and a dog were dancing to Swan Lake; Mrs Al was in tears of joy/laughter, I was bemused.
That was the ex ballet-dancer and her chiwahwah, I think?
As I said yesterday, freestyle hasn’t been the same since Lucie Plevova retired. This was her winning routine from 2018:
We Tories do and we Tories are in power with a majority and we Tories will therefore decide policy until the next general election, not you
Yet the Conservatives have always claimed to be a pragmatic party governing in the national interest.
By definition, that means occasionally having to take some difficult and potentially unpopular decisions because it's the right thing to do not because it's the easy or popular thing to do.
Margaret Thatcher always did what she thought was best for the country even if it wasn't in the short term best for the party or for the popularity of the party. Yes, she went out to explain, justify and defend that policy and faced huge resistance sometimes from within the Conservative Party itself but would you not argue she was more often right than wrong and her electoral record confirms that?
Thatcher never increased inheritance tax or imposed a wealth tax as she knew that to do so would betray the defining core Tory value of creation of wealth and preservation of it
The defence of the Realm should be of infinitely greater importance to Conservatives than the size of one's inheritance.
It is positiviely immoral to increase taxes on the incomes and purchases of average earners in order to protect the wealth of the better off.
We can defend the realm spending the 2% of our gdp on defence as we do now.
It is the likes of Germany, Italy, Spain and Canada who until now have spent less than 2% of their gdp on defence and not paid their NATO dues.
Protecting the wealth of the Tory core vote is not immoral, it is one of the defining principles of Toryism
I don't think there is any prospect of doing everything that our government says that it is committed to doing on 2% of GDP.
And, I'd suggest that it is a sound Tory principle to govern in the interests of the nation as a whole, and not just the core vote.
And the winner of Best in Show 2022 is…….the flat-coated retriever, this afternoon’s gundog winner from Norway, who has won prizes across Europe.
…with the reserve being the horrible little toy poodle.
Oh, that's lovely. It's one fo the very short list of breeds I'd buy if we had our own dog instead of taking our friends' for rambles.
I had two flat coats (not at the same time).
Lovely dogs, but very boisterous. Also very fragile. Both developed cancers and neither made it to ten.
Our friends had one - a very lovable dog but totally manic right up to her last few months (aged 11 IIRC)
Give me and English Pointer any day.
I wonder, seriously, how those compare with my mother's somewhat scatterbrained Irish Setters?
Pointers (English, I can't speak for German or other pointers) are very calm in our experience - we've had two.
They do like to run and need an hour or two free running each day. The rest of the time they are docile as anything.
Not spooked by loud noises, not much of a guard dog (would let anyone in as far as we can tell).
Not the brightest in the bunch but that has it's pluses.
Neither of ours was particularly needy - they were fine being left for a few hours. Never any damage in the house.
The are hunters though - our current one has killed 5 or 6 squirrels and 3 pheasants in our garden.
The American Kennel Club website has some outstanding resources on almost all the breeds. For Pointers it says:
Loyal / Hardworking / Even-Tempered - The Pointer is the ultimate expression of canine power and grace. The breed's name is its job description: Pointers point game birds, and they have been pointing for centuries. The high-energy Pointer is an excellent runner's companion. Unquestioned aristocrats of the sporting world, Pointers carry themselves proudly and are capable of great speed and agility. The coat comes in several colors, solid or in patterns, but as the breed's devotees like to say, a good Pointer can't be a bad color. A large male can stand 28 inches at the shoulder and weigh up to 75 pounds; a small female might weigh as little as 45 pounds and stand 23 inches.
The athletic, exuberant Pointer is a very active sporting breed and requires lots of exercise every day to keep him healthy and happy. This can come in the form of long daily walks and vigorous play sessions with his owner. Providing a securely fenced yard where the Pointer can run full out and burn off some of his renowned "hunt all day" endurance is beneficial and will make for a calmer, more contented companion inside the home. The breed also exercises mind and body by participating in canine sports such as field events, obedience, tracking, agility, rally, and other activities that can be enjoyed by dog and owner.
I think ours would have enjoyed agility training but Mrs P. branded it 'escape training' and vetoed it on the basis that we have a 4 foot high field gate leading out straight on to the road.*
(*Even without agility training 4 foot proved not to be high enough for our current pointer, Troy, when pheasant number 2 came ambling down the road. The gate now has a trellis taking it to nearly 6 foot high and the pheasant has a special place in Troy's heart, or rather, stomach.)
Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.
I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.
Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.
As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.
Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.
Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.
I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.
I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.
I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
Problem is it means no one sells.
Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.
Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.
So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?
You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power
Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
If we can't afford to defend ourselves and become serfs to authoritarian states to Russia, how many times worse than the poll tax do you think that would be?
The fact our homes are worth anything decent at all is because we live in a safe, secure and wealthy part of the world - keeping that means investing in its protection or we risk losing it all.
We do not want a tax on asset windfalls, a wealth tax or a rise in inheritance tax. No, no, no. Better to go into opposition than for this government to do anything so un Tory and betray the Tory core vote
In any case we already spend the 2% of gdp on defence NATO wants, it is other nations like Germany who have not but are finally now going to do so following Putin's invasion of Ukraine
1) This may shock you but some people care more about the country than their political party.
2) The 2% is a floor, and a pretty modest one that’s ok only in peacetime.
It is possible to care both about your country and one of the core defining principles of your party, in the Tory case protection of inherited wealth.
2% spend by every NATO nation on defence is more than enough for NATO to contain Putin if needed and protect NATO nations
Even as someone who has voted Tory more often than the other lot, I'd struggle to say what Tory core values are. Keeping socialists out of power, I suppose. But I wouldn't have thought 'protection of inherited wealth'woukd have come in the top ten of core Tory principles since the mid nineteenth century. Protecting inherited wealth might be something that Conservatives do, but I'd be surprised if too many in the party deemed it a core principle.
Protection of inherited wealth is as key a Tory value as it was in the 19th century. Protection of the family home, estate and wealth from excess tax and protection of the institution of monarchy and the established church and their assets too.
In fact it is perhaps the only core value the sometimes pro free trade, sometimes pro protectionist, sometimes pro more spending, sometimes pro less spending, sometimes pro EU, now Pro Brexit, sometimes socially liberal, sometimes socially conservative Tory party has been consistent on
Just because something was a core value 170 years ago it shouldn't be so today. I don't think there is a sufficient constituency of pro-inherited wealth, pro monarchy, pro-cofE voters to give the Conservatives power. As I think most pragmatic Tories recognise. The CofE, in particular, seem largely a bunch of SJWs whom the Tories should steer well clear of.
There is, property owners and their heirs, especially in the South are far more numerous than even the top 10% of income earners. Indeed 60% of the UK population own the property they live in.
The C of E is apolitical but most of the Church of England congregation vote Tory
We Tories do and we Tories are in power with a majority and we Tories will therefore decide policy until the next general election, not you
Yet the Conservatives have always claimed to be a pragmatic party governing in the national interest.
By definition, that means occasionally having to take some difficult and potentially unpopular decisions because it's the right thing to do not because it's the easy or popular thing to do.
Margaret Thatcher always did what she thought was best for the country even if it wasn't in the short term best for the party or for the popularity of the party. Yes, she went out to explain, justify and defend that policy and faced huge resistance sometimes from within the Conservative Party itself but would you not argue she was more often right than wrong and her electoral record confirms that?
Thatcher never increased inheritance tax or imposed a wealth tax as she knew that to do so would betray the defining core Tory value of creation of wealth and preservation of it
Indeed but Conservative Governments are quite happy to increase taxes - quite apart from the current administration, Howe and Lamont both raised VAT and the party (at least at local level) suffered from the backlash in terms of council seats.
If you aren't prepared to tax wealth and inheritance (which I understand), you must accept there are times when taxes have to be increased to improve the public finances. There will be those who argue the burden of those tax rises should not be disproportionately on those least able to pay them (I think that's a reasonable argument, you may not) which leaves the alternative choice that those with more disposable income contribute a greater share than those with less.
Since when was VAT or other indirect taxes (or indeed NI or the health and social care levy) the same as inheritance tax or a wealth tax? I am not keen on either but on a forced choice Tory governments choose to increase the former not the latter and not hit the property of their core supporters
Shouldn't tax be levied on UNEARNED wealth first before EARNED wealth?
👍
No, Liberals might prefer that but the Tory party is about preservation of wealth first
That would make an excellent billboard poster for Labour.
Why? 60% of the population own their properties and have significant wealth.
Firstly, it just sounds bad - people will associate "preservation of wealth" with the super wealthy, not someone with a £300k house in the Midlands.
Secondly, the 60% includes people with mortgages. An equitable wealth tax would be on the proportion owned as that reflects the persons wealth.
Finally, it's all about a fair balance. The effective employment tax rate is almost 45% for income over £12.5k (including employees and employers' NI). And almost 55% for income over £50k. Wealth taxes are minuscule in comparison, making young people dependent on gifts and inheritance for many things in life.
A key reason for young people struggling to purchase property is the very high levels of employment taxes. That will be a long-term disaster for the Tories.
No they won't, see how badly May's dementia tax went down in the Midlands when it cost her her majority.
See the hugely popular Osborne inheritance tax cut which overnight saw the Tories poll rating surge.
An English man's home is his castle and whatever left liberals like you think we Tories will preserve it and fight for it forever.
You even want to hammer the wealth of those with mortgages. Political suicide!
Melitopol defenders reporting a big capture of Russian vehicles tonight with locals confirming heavy fighting now having eased off, but as ever evidence needs to be seen for claimed victories.
The shear amount of scrap metal is quite incredible.
A lot of stuff that should have been melted down a decade+ ago finally meeting their maker.
Btw here's Vitaly Kim and Ukr military claiming a victory that has to be seen to be believed, *if* true there'll be photos in the morning. It's not impossible and given the launches reported by civilians we can be sure Ukr artillery fired enough to do so, but far more likely they only hit small parts of it (maybe 10-50 vehicles?) and the Russians are regrouping. Correction: Mykolaiv, not Melitopol.
Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.
I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.
Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.
As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.
Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.
Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.
I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.
I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.
I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
Problem is it means no one sells.
Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.
Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.
So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?
You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power
Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
If we can't afford to defend ourselves and become serfs to authoritarian states to Russia, how many times worse than the poll tax do you think that would be?
The fact our homes are worth anything decent at all is because we live in a safe, secure and wealthy part of the world - keeping that means investing in its protection or we risk losing it all.
We do not want a tax on asset windfalls, a wealth tax or a rise in inheritance tax. No, no, no. Better to go into opposition than for this government to do anything so un Tory and betray the Tory core vote
In any case we already spend the 2% of gdp on defence NATO wants, it is other nations like Germany who have not but are finally now going to do so following Putin's invasion of Ukraine
Cringing nonsense. Utter irresponsibility. About time the geriatric Tories did their fair share.
Who cares if the Tory core vote is reamed out, if that is what it takes?
We Tories do and we Tories are in power with a majority and we Tories will therefore decide policy until the next general election, not you
You do the cause of the conservative party great embarrasment, as you do to yourself
You are a terrible advert for the conservative party
You do not even seem to know what being a Tory means? No surprise as you voted for New Labour twice
But he didn't vote for PC, and you did. He has principles.
I voted for all Tory candidates then, he voted for the Labour candidate over the Tory. BigG is thus not a pure Tory
There speaks conservative momentum and consigned to permanent opposition
And by the way, I wear your badge of honour with pride
Don’t worry, by his standards nor were Churchill, Disraeli, or Peel.
They were as all were monarchists and did not as Tories support heavy wealth and inheritance taxes
Erm…. Peel reintroduced the income tax as Tory PM. Disraeli maintained it. Inheritance tax as we know it was of course introduced by Thatcher in 1986.
Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.
I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.
Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.
As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.
Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.
Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.
I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.
I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.
I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
Problem is it means no one sells.
Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.
Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.
So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?
You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power
Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
If we can't afford to defend ourselves and become serfs to authoritarian states to Russia, how many times worse than the poll tax do you think that would be?
The fact our homes are worth anything decent at all is because we live in a safe, secure and wealthy part of the world - keeping that means investing in its protection or we risk losing it all.
We do not want a tax on asset windfalls, a wealth tax or a rise in inheritance tax. No, no, no. Better to go into opposition than for this government to do anything so un Tory and betray the Tory core vote
In any case we already spend the 2% of gdp on defence NATO wants, it is other nations like Germany who have not but are finally now going to do so following Putin's invasion of Ukraine
1) This may shock you but some people care more about the country than their political party.
2) The 2% is a floor, and a pretty modest one that’s ok only in peacetime.
It is possible to care both about your country and one of the core defining principles of your party, in the Tory case protection of inherited wealth.
2% spend by every NATO nation on defence is more than enough for NATO to contain Putin if needed and protect NATO nations
Even as someone who has voted Tory more often than the other lot, I'd struggle to say what Tory core values are. Keeping socialists out of power, I suppose. But I wouldn't have thought 'protection of inherited wealth'woukd have come in the top ten of core Tory principles since the mid nineteenth century. Protecting inherited wealth might be something that Conservatives do, but I'd be surprised if too many in the party deemed it a core principle.
Protection of inherited wealth is as key a Tory value as it was in the 19th century. Protection of the family home, estate and wealth from excess tax and protection of the institution of monarchy and the established church and their assets too.
In fact it is perhaps the only core value the sometimes pro free trade, sometimes pro protectionist, sometimes pro more spending, sometimes pro less spending, sometimes pro EU, now Pro Brexit, sometimes socially liberal, sometimes socially conservative Tory party has been consistent on
Just because something was a core value 170 years ago it shouldn't be so today. I don't think there is a sufficient constituency of pro-inherited wealth, pro monarchy, pro-cofE voters to give the Conservatives power. As I think most pragmatic Tories recognise. The CofE, in particular, seem largely a bunch of SJWs whom the Tories should steer well clear of.
There is, property owners and their heirs, especially in the South are far more numerous than even the top 10% of income earners. Indeed 60% of the UK population own the property they live in.
The C of E is apolitical but most of the Church of England congregation vote Tory
Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.
I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.
Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.
As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.
Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.
Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.
I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.
I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.
I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
Problem is it means no one sells.
Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.
Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.
So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?
You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power
Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
If we can't afford to defend ourselves and become serfs to authoritarian states to Russia, how many times worse than the poll tax do you think that would be?
The fact our homes are worth anything decent at all is because we live in a safe, secure and wealthy part of the world - keeping that means investing in its protection or we risk losing it all.
We do not want a tax on asset windfalls, a wealth tax or a rise in inheritance tax. No, no, no. Better to go into opposition than for this government to do anything so un Tory and betray the Tory core vote
In any case we already spend the 2% of gdp on defence NATO wants, it is other nations like Germany who have not but are finally now going to do so following Putin's invasion of Ukraine
Cringing nonsense. Utter irresponsibility. About time the geriatric Tories did their fair share.
Who cares if the Tory core vote is reamed out, if that is what it takes?
We Tories do and we Tories are in power with a majority and we Tories will therefore decide policy until the next general election, not you
You do the cause of the conservative party great embarrasment, as you do to yourself
You are a terrible advert for the conservative party
You do not even seem to know what being a Tory means? No surprise as you voted for New Labour twice
The whole point of the Tory Party is that Peel, Disraeli, Salisbury, Churchill, (Joe) Chamberlain, Super Mac, Heath, Thatcher, and Cameron believed utterly different things. You’re in a Salisbury/Chamberlain cycle at the minute. It won’t last.
None of them backed wealth taxes or higher inheritance tax and all were monarchists, thus they were all Tories whatever else they disagreed on
Nonsense.
The Peelites introduced the Succession Duty in 1853 under Lord Aberdeen.
Salisbury introduced Estate Duty in 1889.
And before all that Lord North's Tory administration introduced Legacy Duty in 1780.
Estate duty replaced multiple existing duties like probate duty. The Peelites by 1853 were not Tories.
The biggest increases in inheritance tax came under Lloyd George's budget hammering the great landed estates and under the Labour governments of the post war pre Thatcher period
Probate Duty - introduced in 1694 by the Earl of Godolphin - a Tory.
We Tories do and we Tories are in power with a majority and we Tories will therefore decide policy until the next general election, not you
Yet the Conservatives have always claimed to be a pragmatic party governing in the national interest.
By definition, that means occasionally having to take some difficult and potentially unpopular decisions because it's the right thing to do not because it's the easy or popular thing to do.
Margaret Thatcher always did what she thought was best for the country even if it wasn't in the short term best for the party or for the popularity of the party. Yes, she went out to explain, justify and defend that policy and faced huge resistance sometimes from within the Conservative Party itself but would you not argue she was more often right than wrong and her electoral record confirms that?
Thatcher never increased inheritance tax or imposed a wealth tax as she knew that to do so would betray the defining core Tory value of creation of wealth and preservation of it
The defence of the Realm should be of infinitely greater importance to Conservatives than the size of one's inheritance.
It is positiviely immoral to increase taxes on the incomes and purchases of average earners in order to protect the wealth of the better off.
We can defend the realm spending the 2% of our gdp on defence as we do now.
It is the likes of Germany, Italy, Spain and Canada who until now have spent less than 2% of their gdp on defence and not paid their NATO dues.
Protecting the wealth of the Tory core vote is not immoral, it is one of the defining principles of Toryism
I don't think there is any prospect of doing everything that our government says that it is committed to doing on 2% of GDP.
And, I'd suggest that it is a sound Tory principle to govern in the interests of the nation as a whole, and not just the core vote.
Yes there is. We defend ourselves and the UK through NATO and NATO alone and our nuclear deterrent. We already pay our NATO dues on defence, most NATO nations until now have not.
A party which does not defend the interests of its core vote is no party at all. Just as Labour would not be if it abandoned its public sector and union core vote
Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.
I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.
Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.
As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.
Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.
Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.
I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.
I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.
I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
Problem is it means no one sells.
Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.
Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.
So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?
You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power
Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
If we can't afford to defend ourselves and become serfs to authoritarian states to Russia, how many times worse than the poll tax do you think that would be?
The fact our homes are worth anything decent at all is because we live in a safe, secure and wealthy part of the world - keeping that means investing in its protection or we risk losing it all.
We do not want a tax on asset windfalls, a wealth tax or a rise in inheritance tax. No, no, no. Better to go into opposition than for this government to do anything so un Tory and betray the Tory core vote
In any case we already spend the 2% of gdp on defence NATO wants, it is other nations like Germany who have not but are finally now going to do so following Putin's invasion of Ukraine
Cringing nonsense. Utter irresponsibility. About time the geriatric Tories did their fair share.
Who cares if the Tory core vote is reamed out, if that is what it takes?
We Tories do and we Tories are in power with a majority and we Tories will therefore decide policy until the next general election, not you
You do the cause of the conservative party great embarrasment, as you do to yourself
You are a terrible advert for the conservative party
You do not even seem to know what being a Tory means? No surprise as you voted for New Labour twice
The whole point of the Tory Party is that Peel, Disraeli, Salisbury, Churchill, (Joe) Chamberlain, Super Mac, Heath, Thatcher, and Cameron believed utterly different things. You’re in a Salisbury/Chamberlain cycle at the minute. It won’t last.
None of them backed wealth taxes or higher inheritance tax and all were monarchists, thus they were all Tories whatever else they disagreed on
Nonsense.
The Peelites introduced the Succession Duty in 1853 under Lord Aberdeen.
Salisbury introduced Estate Duty in 1889.
And before all that Lord North's Tory administration introduced Legacy Duty in 1780.
Deleted due to pointlessness of what I'd just written. Sorry.
It'll never catch on.
Splendid retort - and you're right. I must take less pride in my posts.
Drag yourself back to our level; no-one likes a tall poppy…
Incidentally, she who must be obeyed has been summoning me to watch Crufts with her for the last couple of days. I have used your running commentary to inform her that there's no need as I am being kept abreast of things there, so thanks. I did consent to watch one bit where an owner and a dog were dancing to Swan Lake; Mrs Al was in tears of joy/laughter, I was bemused.
That was the ex ballet-dancer and her chiwahwah, I think?
As I said yesterday, freestyle hasn’t been the same since Lucie Plevova retired. This was her winning routine from 2018:
Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.
I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.
Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.
As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.
Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.
Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.
I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.
I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.
I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
Problem is it means no one sells.
Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.
Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.
So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?
You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power
Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
If we can't afford to defend ourselves and become serfs to authoritarian states to Russia, how many times worse than the poll tax do you think that would be?
The fact our homes are worth anything decent at all is because we live in a safe, secure and wealthy part of the world - keeping that means investing in its protection or we risk losing it all.
We do not want a tax on asset windfalls, a wealth tax or a rise in inheritance tax. No, no, no. Better to go into opposition than for this government to do anything so un Tory and betray the Tory core vote
In any case we already spend the 2% of gdp on defence NATO wants, it is other nations like Germany who have not but are finally now going to do so following Putin's invasion of Ukraine
Cringing nonsense. Utter irresponsibility. About time the geriatric Tories did their fair share.
Who cares if the Tory core vote is reamed out, if that is what it takes?
We Tories do and we Tories are in power with a majority and we Tories will therefore decide policy until the next general election, not you
You do the cause of the conservative party great embarrasment, as you do to yourself
You are a terrible advert for the conservative party
You do not even seem to know what being a Tory means? No surprise as you voted for New Labour twice
But he didn't vote for PC, and you did. He has principles.
I voted for all Tory candidates then, he voted for the Labour candidate over the Tory. BigG is thus not a pure Tory
There speaks conservative momentum and consigned to permanent opposition
And by the way, I wear your badge of honour with pride
Don’t worry, by his standards nor were Churchill, Disraeli, or Peel.
They were as all were monarchists and did not as Tories support heavy wealth and inheritance taxes
Erm…. Peel reintroduced the income tax as Tory PM. Disraeli maintained it. Inheritance tax as we know it was of course introduced by Thatcher in 1986.
Income tax is not an estate tax. Thatcher cut the estate taxes the previous Labour Government had imposed. The Finance Act 1986 abolished the tax on lifetime gifts altogether
Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.
I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.
Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.
As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.
Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.
Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.
I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.
I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.
I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
Problem is it means no one sells.
Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.
Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.
So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?
You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power
Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
If we can't afford to defend ourselves and become serfs to authoritarian states to Russia, how many times worse than the poll tax do you think that would be?
The fact our homes are worth anything decent at all is because we live in a safe, secure and wealthy part of the world - keeping that means investing in its protection or we risk losing it all.
We do not want a tax on asset windfalls, a wealth tax or a rise in inheritance tax. No, no, no. Better to go into opposition than for this government to do anything so un Tory and betray the Tory core vote
In any case we already spend the 2% of gdp on defence NATO wants, it is other nations like Germany who have not but are finally now going to do so following Putin's invasion of Ukraine
Cringing nonsense. Utter irresponsibility. About time the geriatric Tories did their fair share.
Who cares if the Tory core vote is reamed out, if that is what it takes?
We Tories do and we Tories are in power with a majority and we Tories will therefore decide policy until the next general election, not you
You do the cause of the conservative party great embarrasment, as you do to yourself
You are a terrible advert for the conservative party
You do not even seem to know what being a Tory means? No surprise as you voted for New Labour twice
But he didn't vote for PC, and you did. He has principles.
I voted for all Tory candidates then, he voted for the Labour candidate over the Tory. BigG is thus not a pure Tory
There speaks conservative momentum and consigned to permanent opposition
And by the way, I wear your badge of honour with pride
Don’t worry, by his standards nor were Churchill, Disraeli, or Peel.
They were as all were monarchists and did not as Tories support heavy wealth and inheritance taxes
Erm…. Peel reintroduced the income tax as Tory PM. Disraeli maintained it. Inheritance tax as we know it was of course introduced by Thatcher in 1986.
That just proves it - Thatcher was not a 'True Tory'. Not in HYUFD's book anyway!
Comments
Which means you set rather strict limits on how much you will raise. And therefore, how much you can do.
It really shouldn't be hard to be a loyalist to a party but acknowledge the basic fact of governing for everyone - guided by your policies and ideology, but not with out and out vindictiveness for anyone not of that agenda.
That's the attitude of semi-democracies, and why autocratic states are so fearful of handing over power, because they lack that basic human decency.
It's not a goal to aim for in a proper democracy, and it doesn't mean you have to be any less loyal - just appreciate other people and groups exist and deserve fait treatment.
And he opened the intellectual cupboard, and it was bare
I really recommend the Portuguese Podengo Pequeno (as per my profile pic). A lovely dog, cat like in his cleanliness and sticks close by off a lead. Very charming and gentle with children too.
👍
The C of E is apolitical but most of the Church of England congregation vote Tory
As for "property" tax, you could imagine Council Tax is a property tax in a way the Poll Tax wasn't - the other argument is if you create the conditions in which the value of assets fall, you are denying the children of those who own assets the full value of their inheritance.
Yet the war is most likely also unwinnable for Ukraine. Its resistance has been fearless, yet it is still overpowered militarily. While they will continue to inflict significant damage, overturning Russian gains through fighting will be difficult. All while their infrastructure is being destroyed and the country is depopulating via families fleeing the war.
Other than hoping for Putin to come to an unfortunate accident, I struggle to see a good outcome of all this for anyone. Just more death and destruction, depressing as it is.
China should be careful in remaining neutral and not supplying support to Russia, or else they will be caught up in the strength of the western public opinion backlash against the invasion.
“ Unearned increments in land are not the only form of unearned or undeserved profit, but they are the principal form of unearned increment, and they are derived from processes which are not merely not beneficial, but positively detrimental to the general public”.
Joe Chamberlain was also a fan.
Orthodox Church politics is complicated...
Chechens' own propaganda video shows them reporting their (unsuccessful) attempt to abduct Ukrainian children. Interestingly apparently Kadyrov is actually in Ukraine. You can bet the intelligence services are working overtime to identify how to get him. I wonder if his demise would reignite the Chechen resistance?
They do like to run and need an hour or two free running each day. The rest of the time they are docile as anything.
Not spooked by loud noises, not much of a guard dog (would let anyone in as far as we can tell).
Not the brightest in the bunch but that has it's pluses.
Neither of ours was particularly needy - they were fine being left for a few hours. Never any damage in the house.
The are hunters though - our current one has killed 5 or 6 squirrels and 3 pheasants in our garden.
And by the way, I wear your badge of honour with pride
Too many politicians and indeed too many members of the public still seem to be of the view that the Government has endless pots of money.
More money for defence, for social care, for the NHS, for Net Zero, for levelling up. Something is going to have to give.
Though at its best it keeps tax low on income and wealth
Seriously?
The figures are skewed as there were so many public corporations back then, which were excluded from the figures.
I'd love to know what the Chinese ambassador in Kiev was advising Beijing before the invasion.
That's Satanic. That's pure evil. With every day Russia is more poisoned, reputationally
That's my not-totally-uninformed take.
It also raises the question why someone so mediocre, without obvious talent or charisma should be so dominant. I'm not the only person asking that question.
Loyal / Hardworking / Even-Tempered - The Pointer is the ultimate expression of canine power and grace. The breed's name is its job description: Pointers point game birds, and they have been pointing for centuries. The high-energy Pointer is an excellent runner's companion. Unquestioned aristocrats of the sporting world, Pointers carry themselves proudly and are capable of great speed and agility. The coat comes in several colors, solid or in patterns, but as the breed's devotees like to say, a good Pointer can't be a bad color. A large male can stand 28 inches at the shoulder and weigh up to 75 pounds; a small female might weigh as little as 45 pounds and stand 23 inches.
The athletic, exuberant Pointer is a very active sporting breed and requires lots of exercise every day to keep him healthy and happy. This can come in the form of long daily walks and vigorous play sessions with his owner. Providing a securely fenced yard where the Pointer can run full out and burn off some of his renowned "hunt all day" endurance is beneficial and will make for a calmer, more contented companion inside the home. The breed also exercises mind and body by participating in canine sports such as field events, obedience, tracking, agility, rally, and other activities that can be enjoyed by dog and owner.
It is positiviely immoral to increase taxes on the incomes and purchases of average earners in order to protect the wealth of the better off.
As I said yesterday, freestyle hasn’t been the same since Lucie Plevova retired. This was her winning routine from 2018:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5vwAox7Y4c&t=191s
😀😀😀
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxpYW_w5pgo&t=1s
The Peelites introduced the Succession Duty in 1853 under Lord Aberdeen.
Salisbury introduced Estate Duty in 1889.
And before all that Lord North's Tory administration introduced Legacy Duty in 1780.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inheritance_Tax_in_the_United_Kingdom#History
It is the likes of Germany, Italy, Spain and Canada who until now have spent less than 2% of their gdp on defence and not paid their NATO dues.
Protecting the wealth of the Tory core vote is not immoral, it is one of the defining principles of Toryism
I'd tell the negotiator on the other side about Genghis Khan's tax collector. One day, Khan summoned his tax collector and told him to go to a particular village and collect 1,000 pieces of gold. "If you fail me, I will kill you".
So the tax collector went to the village and after a bit of force, he got his 1,000 pieces of gold. "Mighty Khan, I have your gold."
"You have done well, my tax collector. Now, I want you to go back to the village and collect another 1,000 pieces of gold. But if you fail me, I will kill you".
So the tax collector went to the village and after a lot of force, he got his 1,000 pieces of gold. "Mighty Khan, I have your gold."
"You have done well, my tax collector. Now, I want you to go back to the village and collect another 1,000 pieces of gold. But if you fail me, I will kill you".
So the tax collector went to the village and after applying extreme brute force, he got his 1,000 pieces of gold. "Mighty Khan, I have your gold."
"You have done well, my tax collector. Now, I want you to go back to the village and collect another 1,000 pieces of gold. But if you fail me, I will kill you".
So the tax collector went back to the village. He demanded 1,000 pieces of gold. But the people laughed at him.
Terrified, the tax collector went back to the mighty Khan. "I have failed you. They laughed at me"
"No, you have done well, my tax collector. Now I know I have all their gold."
At which point I would tell the negotiator on the other side "Mighty Khan, you have all our gold...."
Worked like a charm.
Melitopol defenders reporting a big capture of Russian vehicles (200) tonight with locals confirming heavy fighting now having eased off, but as ever evidence needs to be seen for claimed victories, however even 10-50 vehicles would be a big win, and enough to knock out a BTG or two. The footage of TB2s travelling far behind lines to destroy command vehicles are quite incredible, and here's a new one: https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1503127520253779974
https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2020/10/regular-c-of-e-worshippers-form-less-than-2-percent-of-englands-population
The biggest increases in inheritance tax came under Lloyd George's budget hammering the great landed estates and under the Labour governments of the post war pre Thatcher period
Mind you, our little fluffy Bichon Frise feigns her own death for around 20 hours a day, though she claims she's asleep.
Secondly, the 60% includes people with mortgages. An equitable wealth tax would be on the proportion owned as that reflects the persons wealth.
Finally, it's all about a fair balance. The effective employment tax rate is almost 45% for income over £12.5k (including employees and employers' NI). And almost 55% for income over £50k. Wealth taxes are minuscule in comparison, making young people dependent on gifts and inheritance for many things in life.
A key reason for young people struggling to purchase property is the very high levels of employment taxes. That will be a long-term disaster for the Tories.
It’s why French Bulldogs are now the most popular breed; they just lie about doing f**k all.
And, I'd suggest that it is a sound Tory principle to govern in the interests of the nation as a whole, and not just the core vote.
(*Even without agility training 4 foot proved not to be high enough for our current pointer, Troy, when pheasant number 2 came ambling down the road. The gate now has a trellis taking it to nearly 6 foot high and the pheasant has a special place in Troy's heart, or rather, stomach.)
See the hugely popular Osborne inheritance tax cut which overnight saw the Tories poll rating surge.
An English man's home is his castle and whatever left liberals like you think we Tories will preserve it and fight for it forever.
You even want to hammer the wealth of those with mortgages. Political suicide!
Btw here's Vitaly Kim and Ukr military claiming a victory that has to be seen to be believed, *if* true there'll be photos in the morning. It's not impossible and given the launches reported by civilians we can be sure Ukr artillery fired enough to do so, but far more likely they only hit small parts of it (maybe 10-50 vehicles?) and the Russians are regrouping. Correction: Mykolaiv, not Melitopol.
https://twitter.com/IntelCrab/status/1503126946372362240
https://twitter.com/IntelArrow/status/1503121079476367369
However the Parish as the basis of the Church in England is sacrosanct
Again, I would not expect a former New Labour voter like you to understand that
A party which does not defend the interests of its core vote is no party at all. Just as Labour would not be if it abandoned its public sector and union core vote