"The home secretary said: "She deserves our profound gratitude for her decades of public service and leadership in policing, as well as our best wishes for the future.
""Dame Cressida has shown exceptional dedication to fighting crime in London and beyond throughout her time as Commissioner, as the first woman to hold the role of commissioner."
"She added: "The circumstances in which the outgoing MPS Commissioner is leaving her role warrant a closer look at the legislation which governs the suspension and removal of the commissioner."
"Outgoing chief inspector of constabulary Sir Tom Winsor will carry out the review."
Another pointless review by another pointless Poo-Bah which will be read by one poor civil servant, summarised then ignored.
I think a review would be very necessary, I think we all want to know how the hell she didn't lose her job long before now.
I suspect the terms of the review may preclude that question getting answered though.
++ Betting Post++ Zhao Xintong is 20-1 in some, 16-1 most, to win the snooker World Championship. Crazy odds! He's the top money earner this season. And he relishes the longer format. When he's on he's the closest I've seen to the young Ronnie O'Sullivan. I wouldn't have him as favourite due to lack of Crucible experience. But eights would be generous. He's completely outplaying John Higgins on ITV4 right now. A value bet for sure.
He's lost 4 frames on the spin since I typed that. Off to GB News for me. Still value nonetheless.
20% minimum tax on household wealth of over $100 million.
Democrats pushing tax rises on the rich as usual
Only 20%
It’s not even, as I understand it, a wealth tax. It’s an income tax that’s levied on the very very wealthy.
The average income tax paid by these plutocrats was about 9% apparently.
HYUFD talking out of his hat as usual.
It is to the extent that wealthy households not paying 20% of their income in tax will have to pay this top up instead out of their assets and capital to get to the 20% tax
It's an income tax. They pay it out of income. You pay tax at 20% or greater on your income, do have to dig into your assets? How is it ever a wealth tax? Bonkers.
If you own a business that goes up in value but you plan never to sell, then you are being taxed on your wealth
Well I don't know what the rules are in America, but unless there is a capital change (eg revaluation, share issue etc) the reason a business goes up in value is because of the income.
Let’s say a company makes revenues of $100m and grows to $110m with consistent 20% margins and a 10x multiple
Its profits have gone from $20m to $22m and its value from $200m to $220m.
So they are saying you need to pay tax on $20m of increase in value ie $4m at a 20% rate.
But even if you pull all of the income from the business (which is probably not appropriate) your income has only gone up by $2m, so your taxes have gone up at twice the rate of your income
Is that what they are saying. I don't know the American rules but it is not what HYUFD said and you are now talking about taxing unrealised capital gains and not income which is bonkers.
HYUFD was referring to tax on income not unrealised capital. The capital element simply being the metric to decide if the higher income tax rate applied to income. Again I am referring to what HYUFD said. You should only be taxed on income (whether realised or not) and realised capital gains.
They used as a justification that the wealthiest only paid 8% on their income plus unrealised income.
I haven’t looked into the detail but there are 2 options:
1) they are taxing unrealised gains (which is bonkers); or 2) they are manipulating statistics to suggest that the wealthy are paying a very low tax rate by inflating the denominator (which is dodgy as f*ck but sadly plausible)
I haven't looked into the details at all. Just reacted to hyufd's nonsense post. It sounds like you don't know either although you have a better idea than me. If 1) I agree completely with you and that is what @rcs1000 said also. I don't really fully understand your point 2.
I don't think we disagree. I was simply making the point that if the tax is just on INCOME you don't need to go into capital if you are paying only 20% other than if the income is fully reinvested, but even then tax is always payable currently unless you have some relief like capital allowances.
Oryx's confirmed Russian equipment losses have gone over 2000 today, with the tank losses (318) now at more than 25% of the initial estimate of 1250 tanks.
And still saying "the amount of equipment destroyed is significantly higher than recorded here"....
Last update I saw said he had another 175 Russian losses to record......
The attrition rate is such that if the Ukrainians weren't losing kit at a reasonable whack too (though apparently less quickly than Russia) you might expect the fightback to start gathering pace quite quickly. A constant rate of losses to a diminishing stock, plus what must surely be a very tired and sleep-deprived army, points to some kind of tipping point. Unless Ukraine is stretched beyond what we realise (which is possible).
Yes, unless the Ukrainian army is also tottering near the point of collapse, then you would expect to see wholesale collapses of the Russian front within the next week or two. Michael Kofman made that point in a podcast recently.
If that's the case, and if Putin accepts the reality of that, then I think we would see a unilateral declaration of a ceasefire by Russia as soon as they have secured Mariupol.
What that overlooks is that Russia has deep reserves of additional forces that were never committed to the Ukraine in the first place, whereas Ukraine has no reserves other than what the West is willing to supply them with. Putin is not going to hold back from committing more of those forces if his own survival depends on it.
The West isn't willing to supply any heavy equipment. For example, even 1% of NATO's stock of tanks is apparently beyond the Pale for an intimidated Biden. So in so far as Ukraine has been able to maintain its stock of servicable AFVs, it's had to rely on capturing and reusing salvagable equipment from the Russians, which reportedly it has done with some success so far. At least tanks can sometimes be salvaged, in contrast to planes. And the idea that Russia will fail to learn from past mistakes and go on repeating the failures of the first month is a big and questionable assumption on which I think the issue will turn.
Yes, the Russians are learning, and aren't sending small detachments of forces on suicidal missions. But my understanding is that it could take quite a long time for them to mobilise their reserves. If Russian losses are as high, and morale as low, as suggested by some, then the Russian army will collapse before those reserves are available.
For what it's worth, I don't think the situation is as bad for Russia as made out. One other point Michael Kofman has made is that very few people had an accurate idea of what a conflict between two sides with some parity of capability would look like. Our ways of thinking about conflict are rooted in recent experience where one side, or the other, has had the advantage from the beginning, and so has been in control of the conflict throughout. This means that we are prone to over-estimating Ukraine's potential to rapidly defeat Russia, now that it has become obvious Russia isn't going to rapidly defeat Ukraine.
That said, Ukraine has demonstrated some advantages over the last month that aren't going to go away any time soon. They have higher morale and are more motivated. They have a logistics advantage for three reasons: they are fighting in their own country, they are better organised, they have more successfully targeted the enemies logistics. They have better equipment and training for night-time operations. They have demonstrated greater tactical flexibility due to superior communications and operational independence for junior officers.
I feel relatively optimistic about the Ukrainian's chances at the moment.
I think Russia's position is actually worse than might appear at first sight really for 5 reasons:
1. The Ukrainian mud season hasn't really started yet. So, for at least the next month or so, Russia will be forced to transport supplies and troops along roads which are ideally suited for ambushes and where the defenders have the better knowledge;
2. Looking at the anecdotal evidence of the funerals for Russian soldiers, it is clear they have been taking exceptionally heavy losses in more "elite" units such as the paratroopers. Reserves being brought in are from less capable units eg the Far Eastern forces;
3. The Ukrainian capability for upping operations is increasing. Why? (1) because they have by now trained a large percentage of the call-up soldiers to at least some degree; (2) extra non-Ukrainian units, which are likely to contain an above-average percentage of trained soldiers; (3) captured Russian equipment on the ground; (4) the supply of western weapons;
4. Re nations giving support to Ukraine, when you break it down, there are clear reasons why it should continue to hold up. The likes of Poland, the Baltics etc are not going to let Ukraine down. The UK has also made this clear and BJ / Wallace are clearly committed to providing the necessary weapons. I am less convinced of Biden in terms of principle but he knows any backsliding on the Ukraine will cause him untold difficulties;
5. Going back to Russia, its military capabilities have been weakened stealthily for several years by the sanctions imposed post-2014. That wasn't clear before the crisis but it is clear now. Russia simply cannot replace many of these losses - it doesn't have the skills, experience, necessary Western know-how etc. Its existing Western-made equipment will slowly depreciate.
On 4, I watched a YouTube discussion hosted by the Modern Warfare Institute at West Point, where the panellists were clear that the US would supply an insurgency and their reasoning was interesting. They said that countries like Poland and the Baltics would provide supplies even if the US didn't, and so the US has to be involved in order to organise and lead it.
You can see the effect of this with the question of the Migs. The Poles want to send the Migs, but because the US has leadership they were able to veto it.
So I think there is potential for the US to slow down support if they think that's in their interests.
On 5, apparently this is one reason, in addition to corruption, why production on the newest Russian tanks, aircraft, etc, has been so slow. The 2014 sanctions were enough to snarl that right up.
The optimistic scenario is that the Russian armoured forces being destroyed in Ukraine now will never be replaced. Putin has used them and lost them.
The Mig one was interesting. Biden got a lot of blowback from the Republicans on that and I suspect he won't want to be accused of "losing" Ukraine by refusing to supply weapons. So I think the US slowing down would be restricted to the more heavy duty stuff like planes and tanks.
Re 5, I don't see how militarily Russia recovers from this for a long time. Demographics, sanctions etc are all against them.
Oh, and on 3.3, I forget where I read it, but it doesn't sound like much of the captured Russian kit is much good, though some of it might be repairable. There was a story that some captured vehicles were found with lists of faults inside them, some of the faults being serious enough that you really wouldn't want to be in the vehicle in a firefight. Which may explain why the vehicle was abandoned, of course.
"The home secretary said: "She deserves our profound gratitude for her decades of public service and leadership in policing, as well as our best wishes for the future.
""Dame Cressida has shown exceptional dedication to fighting crime in London and beyond throughout her time as Commissioner, as the first woman to hold the role of commissioner."
"She added: "The circumstances in which the outgoing MPS Commissioner is leaving her role warrant a closer look at the legislation which governs the suspension and removal of the commissioner."
"Outgoing chief inspector of constabulary Sir Tom Winsor will carry out the review."
Another pointless review by another pointless Poo-Bah which will be read by one poor civil servant, summarised then ignored.
I think a review would be very necessary, I think we all want to know how the hell she didn't lose her job long before now.
I suspect the terms of the review may preclude that question getting answered though.
I suspect the review is all about allowing the Home Secretary rather than the London Mayor to make the decision.
- DS staff involved in #partygate told Met abt to update on fines - Met started process & to issue 1st fines to c20 people - no-one notified yet - Earliest will be tmrw expected to be straightforward cases - PM not likely in this 1st tranche (see above)
Don't they realise that the Smarkets bet requires Boris to be fined by the end of March?
"The home secretary said: "She deserves our profound gratitude for her decades of public service and leadership in policing, as well as our best wishes for the future.
""Dame Cressida has shown exceptional dedication to fighting crime in London and beyond throughout her time as Commissioner, as the first woman to hold the role of commissioner."
"She added: "The circumstances in which the outgoing MPS Commissioner is leaving her role warrant a closer look at the legislation which governs the suspension and removal of the commissioner."
"Outgoing chief inspector of constabulary Sir Tom Winsor will carry out the review."
Another pointless review by another pointless Poo-Bah which will be read by one poor civil servant, summarised then ignored.
I think a review would be very necessary, I think we all want to know how the hell she didn't lose her job long before now.
I suspect the terms of the review may preclude that question getting answered though.
I suspect the review is all about allowing the Home Secretary rather than the London Mayor to make the decision.
Frankly I'm amazed Westminster and Whitehall ever made it so the Mayor would be able to be involved, rather than perhaps 'consulted'.
- DS staff involved in #partygate told Met abt to update on fines - Met started process & to issue 1st fines to c20 people - no-one notified yet - Earliest will be tmrw expected to be straightforward cases - PM not likely in this 1st tranche (see above)
Don't they realise that the Smarkets bet requires Boris to be fined by the end of March?
We know which side of the bet the Met is green on then.
++ Betting Post++ Zhao Xintong is 20-1 in some, 16-1 most, to win the snooker World Championship. Crazy odds! He's the top money earner this season. And he relishes the longer format. When he's on he's the closest I've seen to the young Ronnie O'Sullivan. I wouldn't have him as favourite due to lack of Crucible experience. But eights would be generous. He's completely outplaying John Higgins on ITV4 right now. A value bet for sure.
He's lost 4 frames on the spin since I typed that. Off to GB News for me. Still value nonetheless.
What should we look for in a Snooker World Championship winner? It always struck me as a tournament that doesn’t go to form as much as you expect it should?
I always wondered how deeply match fixing is in to snooker, as you would only have to pay off one person to have your results?
20% minimum tax on household wealth of over $100 million.
Democrats pushing tax rises on the rich as usual
Only 20%
It’s not even, as I understand it, a wealth tax. It’s an income tax that’s levied on the very very wealthy.
The average income tax paid by these plutocrats was about 9% apparently.
HYUFD talking out of his hat as usual.
It is to the extent that wealthy households not paying 20% of their income in tax will have to pay this top up instead out of their assets and capital to get to the 20% tax
It's an income tax. They pay it out of income. You pay tax at 20% or greater on your income, do have to dig into your assets? How is it ever a wealth tax? Bonkers.
If you own a business that goes up in value but you plan never to sell, then you are being taxed on your wealth
Well I don't know what the rules are in America, but unless there is a capital change (eg revaluation, share issue etc) the reason a business goes up in value is because of the income.
Let’s say a company makes revenues of $100m and grows to $110m with consistent 20% margins and a 10x multiple
Its profits have gone from $20m to $22m and its value from $200m to $220m.
So they are saying you need to pay tax on $20m of increase in value ie $4m at a 20% rate.
But even if you pull all of the income from the business (which is probably not appropriate) your income has only gone up by $2m, so your taxes have gone up at twice the rate of your income
Is that what they are saying. I don't know the American rules but it is not what HYUFD said and you are now talking about taxing unrealised capital gains and not income which is bonkers.
HYUFD was referring to tax on income not unrealised capital. The capital element simply being the metric to decide if the higher income tax rate applied to income. Again I am referring to what HYUFD said. You should only be taxed on income (whether realised or not) and realised capital gains.
They used as a justification that the wealthiest only paid 8% on their income plus unrealised income.
I haven’t looked into the detail but there are 2 options:
1) they are taxing unrealised gains (which is bonkers); or 2) they are manipulating statistics to suggest that the wealthy are paying a very low tax rate by inflating the denominator (which is dodgy as f*ck but sadly plausible)
I don't understand this. "Unrealised gains" only makes sense if you think that only cash is reality. In a fiat currency world, and even not if one, that is obviously not true. It's gibberish. If I own a house or company or painting in what sense am I realising it by swapping it for cash?
Cash is the medium of exchange and a way to avoid barter.
"The home secretary said: "She deserves our profound gratitude for her decades of public service and leadership in policing, as well as our best wishes for the future.
""Dame Cressida has shown exceptional dedication to fighting crime in London and beyond throughout her time as Commissioner, as the first woman to hold the role of commissioner."
"She added: "The circumstances in which the outgoing MPS Commissioner is leaving her role warrant a closer look at the legislation which governs the suspension and removal of the commissioner."
"Outgoing chief inspector of constabulary Sir Tom Winsor will carry out the review."
Another pointless review by another pointless Poo-Bah which will be read by one poor civil servant, summarised then ignored.
Bit late to change your mind about stated aim like that one?
With so many reasons and aims stated it does make conceding them a bit easier.
The Ukrainians really should demand that Russia be de-Nazified.
Does Nazi mean something different to them than when we hear it? Do we use it differently in this country? To us is it the whipping boys in war films, who always end up losing with Indiana Jones wiping out battalions single handed on a motor cycle whilst dressed as ticket attendant? For those who lived under occupation the word Nazi brings to mind secret police, knocks on door in night, mass graves full of the political or ethic un pure? 😕
Telegraph: Ukraine releases list of identities of more than 600 alleged FSB agents, some of whom could possibly be operating in Britain
Ukraine has released a list of what it claims are the identities of more than 600 Russian spies, including one who appears to fancy himself as James Bond, in a bid to embarrass Moscow.
The list of 620 agents working for Russia’s FSB security agency, who are meant to stay in the shadows, exposes their passports, phone numbers and even their drinking habits.
20% minimum tax on household wealth of over $100 million.
Democrats pushing tax rises on the rich as usual
Only 20%
It’s not even, as I understand it, a wealth tax. It’s an income tax that’s levied on the very very wealthy.
The average income tax paid by these plutocrats was about 9% apparently.
HYUFD talking out of his hat as usual.
It is to the extent that wealthy households not paying 20% of their income in tax will have to pay this top up instead out of their assets and capital to get to the 20% tax
It's an income tax. They pay it out of income. You pay tax at 20% or greater on your income, do have to dig into your assets? How is it ever a wealth tax? Bonkers.
If you own a business that goes up in value but you plan never to sell, then you are being taxed on your wealth
Well I don't know what the rules are in America, but unless there is a capital change (eg revaluation, share issue etc) the reason a business goes up in value is because of the income.
Let’s say a company makes revenues of $100m and grows to $110m with consistent 20% margins and a 10x multiple
Its profits have gone from $20m to $22m and its value from $200m to $220m.
So they are saying you need to pay tax on $20m of increase in value ie $4m at a 20% rate.
But even if you pull all of the income from the business (which is probably not appropriate) your income has only gone up by $2m, so your taxes have gone up at twice the rate of your income
Is that what they are saying. I don't know the American rules but it is not what HYUFD said and you are now talking about taxing unrealised capital gains and not income which is bonkers.
HYUFD was referring to tax on income not unrealised capital. The capital element simply being the metric to decide if the higher income tax rate applied to income. Again I am referring to what HYUFD said. You should only be taxed on income (whether realised or not) and realised capital gains.
They used as a justification that the wealthiest only paid 8% on their income plus unrealised income.
I haven’t looked into the detail but there are 2 options:
1) they are taxing unrealised gains (which is bonkers); or 2) they are manipulating statistics to suggest that the wealthy are paying a very low tax rate by inflating the denominator (which is dodgy as f*ck but sadly plausible)
I haven't looked into the details at all. Just reacted to hyufd's nonsense post. It sounds like you don't know either although you have a better idea than me. If 1) I agree completely with you and that is what @rcs1000 said also. I don't really fully understand your point 2.
I don't think we disagree. I was simply making the point that if the tax is just on INCOME you don't need to go into capital if you are paying only 20% other than if the income is fully reinvested, but even then tax is always payable currently unless you have some relief like capital allowances.
On point 2 say someone pays $20 in tax, has $100 in income and $100 in additional unrealised gains.
They are paying 20% in income tax.
But the politico is claiming they are paying only a 10% rate to try and manipulate the public (“it’s outrageous they are paying so little!”) by saying it is 20/(100+100)=10% while ignoring the fact that they have no legal requirement to pay tax on unrealised gains at present
- DS staff involved in #partygate told Met abt to update on fines - Met started process & to issue 1st fines to c20 people - no-one notified yet - Earliest will be tmrw expected to be straightforward cases - PM not likely in this 1st tranche (see above)
Don't they realise that the Smarkets bet requires Boris to be fined by the end of March?
We know which side of the bet the Met is green on then.
You jest, but with this police force?
Might as well start the formal review into this investigation now to save time - break open the WhatsApp conversations.
20% minimum tax on household wealth of over $100 million.
Democrats pushing tax rises on the rich as usual
Only 20%
It’s not even, as I understand it, a wealth tax. It’s an income tax that’s levied on the very very wealthy.
The average income tax paid by these plutocrats was about 9% apparently.
HYUFD talking out of his hat as usual.
It is to the extent that wealthy households not paying 20% of their income in tax will have to pay this top up instead out of their assets and capital to get to the 20% tax
It's an income tax. They pay it out of income. You pay tax at 20% or greater on your income, do have to dig into your assets? How is it ever a wealth tax? Bonkers.
If you own a business that goes up in value but you plan never to sell, then you are being taxed on your wealth
Yes. It's a wealth tax. Your point being?
To answer @kjh question “how is it ever a wealth tax?”
Except it isn't. It is an income tax only. It is s tax on income. If you don't realise the income it doesn't stop it being an income. If your company makes £100 and you don't pay it out it will go up in value by £100. Your P&L account will show a profit of £100 and you pay tax on it.
The value of a company is a multiple of income, not the retained earnings which is what you are measuring
Of course, assuming it is a going concern. I was being simplistic to make a point. Not sure of your point though. The company will also increase by the value of the increase in retained profits of that year, hence the difference in share price pre and post ex div when retained profits will drop
The crux of the issue is tax should be paid on profits whether retained or paid and on realised capital gains. HYUFD said Americans would have to reduce their capital to pay tax on INCOME if increased to 20%. That is nonsense.
If the Americans are taxing unrealised capital gains that is not what HYUFD said and I would agree is bonkers.
You are still going on about this are you.
Well under the plan wealthy households that pay less than 20 per cent of their full income, including currently tax-free unrealised income, will be required to pay a top-up tax to meet a 20 per cent minimum.
That top-up tax includes wealth in the form of unrealised income from stock and bonds and would in effect apply even if that company later collapsed as RCS pointed out and they received no income from it in reality at all. So it is indeed in effect in part a wealth tax on those not paying 20% tax on their full income
Well that is not what you said earlier and you still seem confused because you seem to be using the word income when you mean capital. If shares go up in price and haven't been sold that is an unrealised capital gain and should not be taxed and if they are as @rcs1000 said then I agree that is wrong. But if you are going to talk crap by using the wrong words it isn't my fault. You said INCOME. For instance in your post above you said 'unrealised INCOME from stocks'. I assume you mean 'unrealised capital gain from stocks'. Using the correct word makes a lot of difference. One should be taxed the other shouldn't so words matters.
It would help if you actually understood what you post.
Telegraph: Ukraine releases list of identities of more than 600 alleged FSB agents, some of whom could possibly be operating in Britain
Ukraine has released a list of what it claims are the identities of more than 600 Russian spies, including one who appears to fancy himself as James Bond, in a bid to embarrass Moscow.
The list of 620 agents working for Russia’s FSB security agency, who are meant to stay in the shadows, exposes their passports, phone numbers and even their drinking habits.
Sir Kir Royale Starmer has weighed in on The Hollywood Slap
"In the UK, Keir Starmer said Smith’s actions at the Oscars fell on the “wrong side of the line”. The Labour leader said: “Of course there are circumstances and anybody who insults family members excites something quite emotional in all of us. But, on the other hand, to go up and hit someone in that way is wrong, I’m afraid … It was the Oscars, it’s got all the cameras there, millions of people watching.""
There is something inherently and intrinsically cringe-worthy about Starmer. I'm not sure what it is. eg these remarks are unexceptional. This side, that side, blah blah, centrist Papa is centrist
Yet something about the fact these remarks exist makes the soul shrivel. It could be an issue come the GE. Boris does not do this to the voter (tho he does many other bad and unseemly things, of course)
This thread is interesting. This may be a contingency for some sort of targeted strike in response to possible use of chemical weapons.
"This is a way Bigger Deal in my opinion than many people are acknowledging and truly indicates to me that NATO may be Planning Air Combat Operations and I will explain in this thread why I think that is now probable:"
20% minimum tax on household wealth of over $100 million.
Democrats pushing tax rises on the rich as usual
Only 20%
It’s not even, as I understand it, a wealth tax. It’s an income tax that’s levied on the very very wealthy.
The average income tax paid by these plutocrats was about 9% apparently.
HYUFD talking out of his hat as usual.
It is to the extent that wealthy households not paying 20% of their income in tax will have to pay this top up instead out of their assets and capital to get to the 20% tax
It's an income tax. They pay it out of income. You pay tax at 20% or greater on your income, do have to dig into your assets? How is it ever a wealth tax? Bonkers.
If you own a business that goes up in value but you plan never to sell, then you are being taxed on your wealth
Well I don't know what the rules are in America, but unless there is a capital change (eg revaluation, share issue etc) the reason a business goes up in value is because of the income.
Let’s say a company makes revenues of $100m and grows to $110m with consistent 20% margins and a 10x multiple
Its profits have gone from $20m to $22m and its value from $200m to $220m.
So they are saying you need to pay tax on $20m of increase in value ie $4m at a 20% rate.
But even if you pull all of the income from the business (which is probably not appropriate) your income has only gone up by $2m, so your taxes have gone up at twice the rate of your income
Is that what they are saying. I don't know the American rules but it is not what HYUFD said and you are now talking about taxing unrealised capital gains and not income which is bonkers.
HYUFD was referring to tax on income not unrealised capital. The capital element simply being the metric to decide if the higher income tax rate applied to income. Again I am referring to what HYUFD said. You should only be taxed on income (whether realised or not) and realised capital gains.
They used as a justification that the wealthiest only paid 8% on their income plus unrealised income.
I haven’t looked into the detail but there are 2 options:
1) they are taxing unrealised gains (which is bonkers); or 2) they are manipulating statistics to suggest that the wealthy are paying a very low tax rate by inflating the denominator (which is dodgy as f*ck but sadly plausible)
I haven't looked into the details at all. Just reacted to hyufd's nonsense post. It sounds like you don't know either although you have a better idea than me. If 1) I agree completely with you and that is what @rcs1000 said also. I don't really fully understand your point 2.
I don't think we disagree. I was simply making the point that if the tax is just on INCOME you don't need to go into capital if you are paying only 20% other than if the income is fully reinvested, but even then tax is always payable currently unless you have some relief like capital allowances.
On point 2 say someone pays $20 in tax, has $100 in income and $100 in additional unrealised gains.
They are paying 20% in income tax.
But the politico is claiming they are paying only a 10% rate to try and manipulate the public (“it’s outrageous they are paying so little!”) by saying it is 20/(100+100)=10% while ignoring the fact that they have no legal requirement to pay tax on unrealised gains at present
Ok. Yes that is bonkers if true, but surely people don't fall for that.
- DS staff involved in #partygate told Met abt to update on fines - Met started process & to issue 1st fines to c20 people - no-one notified yet - Earliest will be tmrw expected to be straightforward cases - PM not likely in this 1st tranche (see above)
Don't they realise that the Smarkets bet requires Boris to be fined by the end of March?
Though experiment: given that the polls have improved, Ukraine is ongoing, Rishi is on the naughty step, would Boris go even if he was fined?
Yes, I know that lots of Conservative MPs harrumphed about waiting for the investigation to be concluded, but that was then and now the time is not ripe... (continued until the Conservatives lose 94 seats)
Sir Kir Royale Starmer has weighed in on The Hollywood Slap
"In the UK, Keir Starmer said Smith’s actions at the Oscars fell on the “wrong side of the line”. The Labour leader said: “Of course there are circumstances and anybody who insults family members excites something quite emotional in all of us. But, on the other hand, to go up and hit someone in that way is wrong, I’m afraid … It was the Oscars, it’s got all the cameras there, millions of people watching.""
There is something inherently and intrinsically cringe-worthy about Starmer. I'm not sure what it is. eg these remarks are unexceptional. This side, that side, blah blah, centrist Papa is centrist
Yet something about the fact these remarks exist makes the soul shrivel. It could be an issue come the GE. Boris does not do this to the voter (tho he does many other bad and unseemly things, of course)
Telegraph: Ukraine releases list of identities of more than 600 alleged FSB agents, some of whom could possibly be operating in Britain
Ukraine has released a list of what it claims are the identities of more than 600 Russian spies, including one who appears to fancy himself as James Bond, in a bid to embarrass Moscow.
The list of 620 agents working for Russia’s FSB security agency, who are meant to stay in the shadows, exposes their passports, phone numbers and even their drinking habits.
How many of them are in the House of Lords?
Good question. Drinking habits... House of Lords... Could be embarrassing.
- DS staff involved in #partygate told Met abt to update on fines - Met started process & to issue 1st fines to c20 people - no-one notified yet - Earliest will be tmrw expected to be straightforward cases - PM not likely in this 1st tranche (see above)
Don't they realise that the Smarkets bet requires Boris to be fined by the end of March?
Though experiment: given that the polls have improved, Ukraine is ongoing, Rishi is on the naughty step, would Boris go even if he was fined?
Yes, I know that lots of Conservative MPs harrumphed about waiting for the investigation to be concluded, but that was then and now the time is not ripe... (continued until the Conservatives lose 94 seats)
Oryx's confirmed Russian equipment losses have gone over 2000 today, with the tank losses (318) now at more than 25% of the initial estimate of 1250 tanks.
And still saying "the amount of equipment destroyed is significantly higher than recorded here"....
Last update I saw said he had another 175 Russian losses to record......
The attrition rate is such that if the Ukrainians weren't losing kit at a reasonable whack too (though apparently less quickly than Russia) you might expect the fightback to start gathering pace quite quickly. A constant rate of losses to a diminishing stock, plus what must surely be a very tired and sleep-deprived army, points to some kind of tipping point. Unless Ukraine is stretched beyond what we realise (which is possible).
Yes, unless the Ukrainian army is also tottering near the point of collapse, then you would expect to see wholesale collapses of the Russian front within the next week or two. Michael Kofman made that point in a podcast recently.
If that's the case, and if Putin accepts the reality of that, then I think we would see a unilateral declaration of a ceasefire by Russia as soon as they have secured Mariupol.
What that overlooks is that Russia has deep reserves of additional forces that were never committed to the Ukraine in the first place, whereas Ukraine has no reserves other than what the West is willing to supply them with. Putin is not going to hold back from committing more of those forces if his own survival depends on it.
The West isn't willing to supply any heavy equipment. For example, even 1% of NATO's stock of tanks is apparently beyond the Pale for an intimidated Biden. So in so far as Ukraine has been able to maintain its stock of servicable AFVs, it's had to rely on capturing and reusing salvagable equipment from the Russians, which reportedly it has done with some success so far. At least tanks can sometimes be salvaged, in contrast to planes. And the idea that Russia will fail to learn from past mistakes and go on repeating the failures of the first month is a big and questionable assumption on which I think the issue will turn.
I don't think that's true.
Firstly, they will have sent their best forces in, hence the fact that many of the officer casualties we know about are among their paratroopers. (It's also worth noting that much of the Russian army - by numbers - is conscripts.)
Secondly, Russia has lots of rebellious edges. The Chechens will be itching to rebel again, and they will be far from the only ones.
Thirdly, Putin will be scared for his own safety. A substantial portion of the armed forces are tied down as Putin's personal guard. He can't use these troops without risking himself.
What exactly don't you think is true?
Clearly the Ukranians aren't being resupplied with any heavy weaponry and aren't going to have much left now that's still uncommitted on which to draw on. Their stocks are going to be degraded unless the Russians fail to learn from their mistakes and carry on abandoning equipment.
As for the Russians, I think it's generally accepted that they thought initially that the invasion was going to be a cakewalk. So why assume that they allocated anything beyond what they thought would be necessary and that there's not a lot there left still to draw on, at least in terms of material? So it's wrong in my book to measure Russia's losses only as a proportion of what they initially thought was necessary to use to win an easy war, and assume that they have nothing else substantial to draw upon.
The historical precedent is that the Finns initially prevailed against the Soviet Union in the first months of the 1939-40 Winter War, before being eventually ground down by weight of numbers allied to the Soviets eventually changing their flawed tactics.
That doesn't mean that Ukraine will not be able to continue to hold things at a near stalemate with Russia able to claim further territory only at an ultimately unacceptable cost. But I think that's the best that Ukraine can hope for, losing a substantial part of the country in the process, and the supply risks mean that there's still a danger that they won't be able to achieve even that.
“ I think it's generally accepted that they thought initially that the invasion was going to be a cakewalk. “
Is that true? I always presumed each time I heard that it’s part of the information war, up to now I thought it would take ages for Russia to take key bits of infrastructure and get into a sort of position to be able to and suppress the main cities. It’s only now I’m beginning to think it’s taking a while, especially in the waterfront theatre.
I havn’t seen a post from Yokes for ages, but they did say let’s assess after two weeks just how slow it’s going. So was a week or two ever really that realistic?
As examples then, I was too young when we went into Iraq and Afghanistan, can’t rember the time lInes, did we have the mission wrapped up in a week?
Another example as counterfactual, this war other way round, NATO taking Ukraine whose backed by Russia and friends of Russia can keep up supply of “defensive weapons” you would be disappointed if we wouldn’t have it done and dusted in week or two? Surely the movement of what you need of heavy stuff where you need it in the country takes longer than that on its own?
Maybe also now in 2020s satellite maps on one hand and precision bombing based on that intel helps take the effective blitzkrieging out of warfare - is that an interesting suggestion? It’s fair to say those whose job it is to defend UK, US NATO members etc have filled note books of useful stuff, this has been a helpful boon to them?
- DS staff involved in #partygate told Met abt to update on fines - Met started process & to issue 1st fines to c20 people - no-one notified yet - Earliest will be tmrw expected to be straightforward cases - PM not likely in this 1st tranche (see above)
Don't they realise that the Smarkets bet requires Boris to be fined by the end of March?
Though experiment: given that the polls have improved, Ukraine is ongoing, Rishi is on the naughty step, would Boris go even if he was fined?
Yes, I know that lots of Conservative MPs harrumphed about waiting for the investigation to be concluded, but that was then and now the time is not ripe... (continued until the Conservatives lose 94 seats)
No, he wouldn't. It was already a tough ask to get the required number to put in letters even if he was fined and for many it was clearly just so they could avoid comment when the heat was at its height. So the only ones who actually wanted him gone were the ones who felt it was all bad enough that it didn't matter if he was fined or not. Given some of them have withdrawn letters because of the current situation, what odds those who didn't put in in the first place would show more moral courage than Douglas Ross?
20% minimum tax on household wealth of over $100 million.
Democrats pushing tax rises on the rich as usual
Only 20%
It’s not even, as I understand it, a wealth tax. It’s an income tax that’s levied on the very very wealthy.
The average income tax paid by these plutocrats was about 9% apparently.
HYUFD talking out of his hat as usual.
It is to the extent that wealthy households not paying 20% of their income in tax will have to pay this top up instead out of their assets and capital to get to the 20% tax
It's an income tax. They pay it out of income. You pay tax at 20% or greater on your income, do have to dig into your assets? How is it ever a wealth tax? Bonkers.
If you own a business that goes up in value but you plan never to sell, then you are being taxed on your wealth
Yes. It's a wealth tax. Your point being?
To answer @kjh question “how is it ever a wealth tax?”
Except it isn't. It is an income tax only. It is s tax on income. If you don't realise the income it doesn't stop it being an income. If your company makes £100 and you don't pay it out it will go up in value by £100. Your P&L account will show a profit of £100 and you pay tax on it.
The value of a company is a multiple of income, not the retained earnings which is what you are measuring
Of course, assuming it is a going concern. I was being simplistic to make a point. Not sure of your point though. The company will also increase by the value of the increase in retained profits of that year, hence the difference in share price pre and post ex div when retained profits will drop
The crux of the issue is tax should be paid on profits whether retained or paid and on realised capital gains. HYUFD said Americans would have to reduce their capital to pay tax on INCOME if increased to 20%. That is nonsense.
If the Americans are taxing unrealised capital gains that is not what HYUFD said and I would agree is bonkers.
You are still going on about this are you.
Well under the plan wealthy households that pay less than 20 per cent of their full income, including currently tax-free unrealised income, will be required to pay a top-up tax to meet a 20 per cent minimum.
That top-up tax includes wealth in the form of unrealised income from stock and bonds and would in effect apply even if that company later collapsed as RCS pointed out and they received no income from it in reality at all. So it is indeed in effect in part a wealth tax on those not paying 20% tax on their full income
Well that is not what you said earlier and you still seem confused because you seem to be using the word income when you mean capital. If shares go up in price and haven't been sold that is an unrealised capital gain and should not be taxed and if they are as @rcs1000 said then I agree that is wrong. But if you are going to talk crap by using the wrong words it isn't my fault. You said INCOME. For instance in your post above you said 'unrealised INCOME from stocks'. I assume you mean 'unrealised capital gain from stocks'. Using the correct word makes a lot of difference. One should be taxed the other shouldn't so words matters.
It would help if you actually understood what you post.
Short-term capital gains are taxed as ordinary income and effectively income therefore.
"The home secretary said: "She deserves our profound gratitude for her decades of public service and leadership in policing, as well as our best wishes for the future.
""Dame Cressida has shown exceptional dedication to fighting crime in London and beyond throughout her time as Commissioner, as the first woman to hold the role of commissioner."
"She added: "The circumstances in which the outgoing MPS Commissioner is leaving her role warrant a closer look at the legislation which governs the suspension and removal of the commissioner."
"Outgoing chief inspector of constabulary Sir Tom Winsor will carry out the review."
Another pointless review by another pointless Poo-Bah which will be read by one poor civil servant, summarised then ignored.
I think a review would be very necessary, I think we all want to know how the hell she didn't lose her job long before now.
I suspect the terms of the review may preclude that question getting answered though.
I suspect the review is all about allowing the Home Secretary rather than the London Mayor to make the decision.
It's a power grab by the HS over the Mayor.
Dick was such an embarrassment that Priti must be spitting feathers that by dumping Dick, Khan stole a march on her. I for one still cannot believe the Operation Commander who gave the order to blow De Menezes away hasn't been a Junior Criminology Lecturer for the last sixteen and three quarter years.
Sir Kir Royale Starmer has weighed in on The Hollywood Slap
"In the UK, Keir Starmer said Smith’s actions at the Oscars fell on the “wrong side of the line”. The Labour leader said: “Of course there are circumstances and anybody who insults family members excites something quite emotional in all of us. But, on the other hand, to go up and hit someone in that way is wrong, I’m afraid … It was the Oscars, it’s got all the cameras there, millions of people watching.""
There is something inherently and intrinsically cringe-worthy about Starmer. I'm not sure what it is. eg these remarks are unexceptional. This side, that side, blah blah, centrist Papa is centrist
Yet something about the fact these remarks exist makes the soul shrivel. It could be an issue come the GE. Boris does not do this to the voter (tho he does many other bad and unseemly things, of course)
It's almost as if you've already decided to vote Tory at the next GE. Shocked I am.
"Roman Abramovich confirms he and two Ukrainian negotiators were ‘blinded for several hours and had skin peel off their faces and hands’ in suspected poisoning attack after peace talks in Kyiv"
Sir Kir Royale Starmer has weighed in on The Hollywood Slap
"In the UK, Keir Starmer said Smith’s actions at the Oscars fell on the “wrong side of the line”. The Labour leader said: “Of course there are circumstances and anybody who insults family members excites something quite emotional in all of us. But, on the other hand, to go up and hit someone in that way is wrong, I’m afraid … It was the Oscars, it’s got all the cameras there, millions of people watching.""
There is something inherently and intrinsically cringe-worthy about Starmer. I'm not sure what it is. eg these remarks are unexceptional. This side, that side, blah blah, centrist Papa is centrist
Yet something about the fact these remarks exist makes the soul shrivel. It could be an issue come the GE. Boris does not do this to the voter (tho he does many other bad and unseemly things, of course)
He did the same fence sitting on the Cambridges.
The duke denounced slavery as “abhorrent” and said “it should never have happened” but Sir Keir suggested he could have said more – and may do so in future.
'William “could have gone further”, Sir Keir said, but he acknowledged “it’s a difficult one”.
“I think that he may go further in the future.”
“William and Kate went on an important trip with important messages, including messages about the changing nature of the Commonwealth going forwards, and that is difficult.”
The Labour leader said it was important for the Commonwealth to modernise to strengthen the bonds with the UK.
But he was it was a “bit odd” for the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge to ride in the back of the same Land Rover that the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh used 60 years ago.
“In a sense, what William and Kate were doing – which I applaud – is saying: ‘We’re looking to the future’, but that all harked of the past, so I didn’t quite see how that actually fit that well with the aim of their trip.”
++ Betting Post++ Zhao Xintong is 20-1 in some, 16-1 most, to win the snooker World Championship. Crazy odds! He's the top money earner this season. And he relishes the longer format. When he's on he's the closest I've seen to the young Ronnie O'Sullivan. I wouldn't have him as favourite due to lack of Crucible experience. But eights would be generous. He's completely outplaying John Higgins on ITV4 right now. A value bet for sure.
He's lost 4 frames on the spin since I typed that. Off to GB News for me. Still value nonetheless.
What should we look for in a Snooker World Championship winner? It always struck me as a tournament that doesn’t go to form as much as you expect it should?
I always wondered how deeply match fixing is in to snooker, as you would only have to pay off one person to have your results?
To your first question. Form. And experience. It's a game of millimetres. Everyone in the WC can play. So, theoretically anyone in the draw can win. But the ability to do it under the highest pressure is the difference. Most nobody pays any attention outwith the WC. So Crucible experience is vital.
To your second. Yes. Sadly very true. It is super difficult to prove. And for those not in the top 60 or so you're on minimum wage. Even the very best miss occasionally. For anyone who's tried to play, it is a wonder they ever pot anything. So look at the betting patterns not the play.
- DS staff involved in #partygate told Met abt to update on fines - Met started process & to issue 1st fines to c20 people - no-one notified yet - Earliest will be tmrw expected to be straightforward cases - PM not likely in this 1st tranche (see above)
Don't they realise that the Smarkets bet requires Boris to be fined by the end of March?
Though experiment: given that the polls have improved, Ukraine is ongoing, Rishi is on the naughty step, would Boris go even if he was fined?
Yes, I know that lots of Conservative MPs harrumphed about waiting for the investigation to be concluded, but that was then and now the time is not ripe... (continued until the Conservatives lose 94 seats)
It depends how quickly the whole sort of mood in favour of doing it can change I think is heart of your question? I think he is probably mor vulnerable now than at start of year when it was also so quiet and he looked in no immediate danger, simply because so much of his credibility has been eroded away. Thinking back to when it kicked off second week of January, it only took a revelation from a leak for the whole mood to flip in a couple of hours is it fair to remember it like that? And so many did publicly state, if he is fined it’s the final straw for me did they not?
Also, to answer your question, is the war crisis still at stage of rally round not the moment for that? It’s going off the news more quiet and inoffensive it’s become?
Also, has big dog done things in the last month, such as the war, to rebuild his credibility at home? Hard to say to be honest? At times he has come across rubbish and liability, especially in the commons and in speeches?
Sir Kir Royale Starmer has weighed in on The Hollywood Slap
"In the UK, Keir Starmer said Smith’s actions at the Oscars fell on the “wrong side of the line”. The Labour leader said: “Of course there are circumstances and anybody who insults family members excites something quite emotional in all of us. But, on the other hand, to go up and hit someone in that way is wrong, I’m afraid … It was the Oscars, it’s got all the cameras there, millions of people watching.""
There is something inherently and intrinsically cringe-worthy about Starmer. I'm not sure what it is. eg these remarks are unexceptional. This side, that side, blah blah, centrist Papa is centrist
Yet something about the fact these remarks exist makes the soul shrivel. It could be an issue come the GE. Boris does not do this to the voter (tho he does many other bad and unseemly things, of course)
He did the same fence sitting on the Cambridges.
The duke denounced slavery as “abhorrent” and said “it should never have happened” but Sir Keir suggested he could have said more – and may do so in future.
'William “could have gone further”, Sir Keir said, but he acknowledged “it’s a difficult one”.
“I think that he may go further in the future.”
“William and Kate went on an important trip with important messages, including messages about the changing nature of the Commonwealth going forwards, and that is difficult.”
The Labour leader said it was important for the Commonwealth to modernise to strengthen the bonds with the UK.
But he was it was a “bit odd” for the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge to ride in the back of the same Land Rover that the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh used 60 years ago.
“In a sense, what William and Kate were doing – which I applaud – is saying: ‘We’re looking to the future’, but that all harked of the past, so I didn’t quite see how that actually fit that well with the aim of their trip.”
++ Betting Post++ Zhao Xintong is 20-1 in some, 16-1 most, to win the snooker World Championship. Crazy odds! He's the top money earner this season. And he relishes the longer format. When he's on he's the closest I've seen to the young Ronnie O'Sullivan. I wouldn't have him as favourite due to lack of Crucible experience. But eights would be generous. He's completely outplaying John Higgins on ITV4 right now. A value bet for sure.
He's lost 4 frames on the spin since I typed that. Off to GB News for me. Still value nonetheless.
What should we look for in a Snooker World Championship winner? It always struck me as a tournament that doesn’t go to form as much as you expect it should?
I always wondered how deeply match fixing is in to snooker, as you would only have to pay off one person to have your results?
To your first question. Form. And experience. It's a game of millimetres. Everyone in the WC can play. So, theoretically anyone in the draw can win. But the ability to do it under the highest pressure is the difference. Most nobody pays any attention outwith the WC. So Crucible experience is vital.
To your second. Yes. Sadly very true. It is super difficult to prove. And for those not in the top 60 or so you're on minimum wage. Even the very best miss occasionally. For anyone who's tried to play, it is a wonder they ever pot anything. So look at the betting patterns not the play.
As I said. It's a odds value bet.
Thanks for the tip. No pun intended 🙂
I have tried to play, at home against my dad, as we had table in a spare room, so yes the professionals make the impossible look easy! So the table set just sits against a wall most the time! I am sure I pot even less at pool, much to my other half’s disgust when we team up against people!
Sir Kir Royale Starmer has weighed in on The Hollywood Slap
"In the UK, Keir Starmer said Smith’s actions at the Oscars fell on the “wrong side of the line”. The Labour leader said: “Of course there are circumstances and anybody who insults family members excites something quite emotional in all of us. But, on the other hand, to go up and hit someone in that way is wrong, I’m afraid … It was the Oscars, it’s got all the cameras there, millions of people watching.""
There is something inherently and intrinsically cringe-worthy about Starmer. I'm not sure what it is. eg these remarks are unexceptional. This side, that side, blah blah, centrist Papa is centrist
Yet something about the fact these remarks exist makes the soul shrivel. It could be an issue come the GE. Boris does not do this to the voter (tho he does many other bad and unseemly things, of course)
He did the same fence sitting on the Cambridges.
'William “could have gone further”, Sir Keir said, but he acknowledged “it’s a difficult one”.
“I think that he may go further in the future.”
“William and Kate went on an important trip with important messages, including messages about the changing nature of the Commonwealth going forwards, and that is difficult.”
The Labour leader said it was important for the Commonwealth to modernise to strengthen the bonds with the UK.
But he was it was a “bit odd” for the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge to ride in the back of the same Land Rover that the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh used 60 years ago.
“In a sense, what William and Kate were doing – which I applaud – is saying: ‘We’re looking to the future’, but that all harked of the past, so I didn’t quite see how that actually fit that well with the aim of their trip.”
Whether you like it or not, the Land Rover incident looked terrible. As far as the hands through the fence was concerned that was a damned if they do, damned if they don't incident.
Surely Starmer is entitled to comment, and all the better without controversy.
He could of course have said something like "the Queen has come to love the Commonwealth, partly because it supplies her with regular cheering crowds of flag-waving piccaninnies."
Sir Kir Royale Starmer has weighed in on The Hollywood Slap
"In the UK, Keir Starmer said Smith’s actions at the Oscars fell on the “wrong side of the line”. The Labour leader said: “Of course there are circumstances and anybody who insults family members excites something quite emotional in all of us. But, on the other hand, to go up and hit someone in that way is wrong, I’m afraid … It was the Oscars, it’s got all the cameras there, millions of people watching.""
There is something inherently and intrinsically cringe-worthy about Starmer. I'm not sure what it is. eg these remarks are unexceptional. This side, that side, blah blah, centrist Papa is centrist
Yet something about the fact these remarks exist makes the soul shrivel. It could be an issue come the GE. Boris does not do this to the voter (tho he does many other bad and unseemly things, of course)
He did the same fence sitting on the Cambridges.
The duke denounced slavery as “abhorrent” and said “it should never have happened” but Sir Keir suggested he could have said more – and may do so in future.
'William “could have gone further”, Sir Keir said, but he acknowledged “it’s a difficult one”.
“I think that he may go further in the future.”
“William and Kate went on an important trip with important messages, including messages about the changing nature of the Commonwealth going forwards, and that is difficult.”
The Labour leader said it was important for the Commonwealth to modernise to strengthen the bonds with the UK.
But he was it was a “bit odd” for the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge to ride in the back of the same Land Rover that the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh used 60 years ago.
“In a sense, what William and Kate were doing – which I applaud – is saying: ‘We’re looking to the future’, but that all harked of the past, so I didn’t quite see how that actually fit that well with the aim of their trip.”
"The home secretary said: "She deserves our profound gratitude for her decades of public service and leadership in policing, as well as our best wishes for the future.
""Dame Cressida has shown exceptional dedication to fighting crime in London and beyond throughout her time as Commissioner, as the first woman to hold the role of commissioner."
"She added: "The circumstances in which the outgoing MPS Commissioner is leaving her role warrant a closer look at the legislation which governs the suspension and removal of the commissioner."
"Outgoing chief inspector of constabulary Sir Tom Winsor will carry out the review."
Another pointless review by another pointless Poo-Bah which will be read by one poor civil servant, summarised then ignored.
I think a review would be very necessary, I think we all want to know how the hell she didn't lose her job long before now.
I suspect the terms of the review may preclude that question getting answered though.
I suspect the review is all about allowing the Home Secretary rather than the London Mayor to make the decision.
It's a power grab by the HS over the Mayor.
Dick was such an embarrassment that Priti must be spitting feathers that by dumping Dick, Khan stole a march on her. I for one still cannot believe the Operation Commander who gave the order to blow De Menezes away hasn't been a Junior Criminology Lecturer for the last sixteen and three quarter years.
Does the HS want to put the new dick in herself, or prefer to let the mayor do it for her?
20% minimum tax on household wealth of over $100 million.
Democrats pushing tax rises on the rich as usual
Only 20%
It’s not even, as I understand it, a wealth tax. It’s an income tax that’s levied on the very very wealthy.
The average income tax paid by these plutocrats was about 9% apparently.
HYUFD talking out of his hat as usual.
It is to the extent that wealthy households not paying 20% of their income in tax will have to pay this top up instead out of their assets and capital to get to the 20% tax
It's an income tax. They pay it out of income. You pay tax at 20% or greater on your income, do have to dig into your assets? How is it ever a wealth tax? Bonkers.
If you own a business that goes up in value but you plan never to sell, then you are being taxed on your wealth
Yes. It's a wealth tax. Your point being?
To answer @kjh question “how is it ever a wealth tax?”
Except it isn't. It is an income tax only. It is s tax on income. If you don't realise the income it doesn't stop it being an income. If your company makes £100 and you don't pay it out it will go up in value by £100. Your P&L account will show a profit of £100 and you pay tax on it.
The value of a company is a multiple of income, not the retained earnings which is what you are measuring
Of course, assuming it is a going concern. I was being simplistic to make a point. Not sure of your point though. The company will also increase by the value of the increase in retained profits of that year, hence the difference in share price pre and post ex div when retained profits will drop
The crux of the issue is tax should be paid on profits whether retained or paid and on realised capital gains. HYUFD said Americans would have to reduce their capital to pay tax on INCOME if increased to 20%. That is nonsense.
If the Americans are taxing unrealised capital gains that is not what HYUFD said and I would agree is bonkers.
You are still going on about this are you.
Well under the plan wealthy households that pay less than 20 per cent of their full income, including currently tax-free unrealised income, will be required to pay a top-up tax to meet a 20 per cent minimum.
That top-up tax includes wealth in the form of unrealised income from stock and bonds and would in effect apply even if that company later collapsed as RCS pointed out and they received no income from it in reality at all. So it is indeed in effect in part a wealth tax on those not paying 20% tax on their full income
Well that is not what you said earlier and you still seem confused because you seem to be using the word income when you mean capital. If shares go up in price and haven't been sold that is an unrealised capital gain and should not be taxed and if they are as @rcs1000 said then I agree that is wrong. But if you are going to talk crap by using the wrong words it isn't my fault. You said INCOME. For instance in your post above you said 'unrealised INCOME from stocks'. I assume you mean 'unrealised capital gain from stocks'. Using the correct word makes a lot of difference. One should be taxed the other shouldn't so words matters.
It would help if you actually understood what you post.
Short-term capital gains are taxed as ordinary income and effectively income therefore.
So I don't know the American rules but are you seriously saying that currently unrealised capital gains are taxed (not talking about what is planned). Note I have added the word unrealised because that is key.
Also what did you mean by short term. If you are talking about dealing rather than investing that is different to a normal holding and would be income, but that is a special case. Analogous to a builders housing stock compared to a house owner or an aircraft manufacturers compared to an airline. One is stock creating income, the other is capital.
"Roman Abramovich confirms he and two Ukrainian negotiators were ‘blinded for several hours and had skin peel off their faces and hands’ in suspected poisoning attack after peace talks in Kyiv"
How is Roman going to come out of this? Why are we, under duress from the Labour Party, being so cruel to someone clearly on Ukraine side and suffering in the fight against Putin?
Sir Kir Royale Starmer has weighed in on The Hollywood Slap
"In the UK, Keir Starmer said Smith’s actions at the Oscars fell on the “wrong side of the line”. The Labour leader said: “Of course there are circumstances and anybody who insults family members excites something quite emotional in all of us. But, on the other hand, to go up and hit someone in that way is wrong, I’m afraid … It was the Oscars, it’s got all the cameras there, millions of people watching.""
There is something inherently and intrinsically cringe-worthy about Starmer. I'm not sure what it is. eg these remarks are unexceptional. This side, that side, blah blah, centrist Papa is centrist
Yet something about the fact these remarks exist makes the soul shrivel. It could be an issue come the GE. Boris does not do this to the voter (tho he does many other bad and unseemly things, of course)
He did the same fence sitting on the Cambridges.
The duke denounced slavery as “abhorrent” and said “it should never have happened” but Sir Keir suggested he could have said more – and may do so in future.
'William “could have gone further”, Sir Keir said, but he acknowledged “it’s a difficult one”.
“I think that he may go further in the future.”
“William and Kate went on an important trip with important messages, including messages about the changing nature of the Commonwealth going forwards, and that is difficult.”
The Labour leader said it was important for the Commonwealth to modernise to strengthen the bonds with the UK.
But he was it was a “bit odd” for the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge to ride in the back of the same Land Rover that the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh used 60 years ago.
“In a sense, what William and Kate were doing – which I applaud – is saying: ‘We’re looking to the future’, but that all harked of the past, so I didn’t quite see how that actually fit that well with the aim of their trip.”
"Roman Abramovich confirms he and two Ukrainian negotiators were ‘blinded for several hours and had skin peel off their faces and hands’ in suspected poisoning attack after peace talks in Kyiv"
How is Roman going to come out of this? Why are we, under duress from the Labour Party, being so cruel to someone clearly on Ukraine side and suffering in the fight against Putin?
Newsnight seemed to be pouring a little cold water on the veracity of all this.
++ Betting Post++ Zhao Xintong is 20-1 in some, 16-1 most, to win the snooker World Championship. Crazy odds! He's the top money earner this season. And he relishes the longer format. When he's on he's the closest I've seen to the young Ronnie O'Sullivan. I wouldn't have him as favourite due to lack of Crucible experience. But eights would be generous. He's completely outplaying John Higgins on ITV4 right now. A value bet for sure.
He's lost 4 frames on the spin since I typed that. Off to GB News for me. Still value nonetheless.
What should we look for in a Snooker World Championship winner? It always struck me as a tournament that doesn’t go to form as much as you expect it should?
I always wondered how deeply match fixing is in to snooker, as you would only have to pay off one person to have your results?
To your first question. Form. And experience. It's a game of millimetres. Everyone in the WC can play. So, theoretically anyone in the draw can win. But the ability to do it under the highest pressure is the difference. Most nobody pays any attention outwith the WC. So Crucible experience is vital.
To your second. Yes. Sadly very true. It is super difficult to prove. And for those not in the top 60 or so you're on minimum wage. Even the very best miss occasionally. For anyone who's tried to play, it is a wonder they ever pot anything. So look at the betting patterns not the play.
As I said. It's a odds value bet.
Thanks for the tip. No pun intended 🙂
I have tried to play, at home against my dad, as we had table in a spare room, so yes the professionals make the impossible look easy! So the table set just sits against a wall most the time! I am sure I pot even less at pool, much to my other half’s disgust when we team up against people!
There's a huge amount of luck involved too. The players are so good that a best of 35 really isn't a test of who's better. And it is best of 25 up to the quarters. The odd fluke, decent/dismal split of the pack in a couple of frames can make all the difference to the result. Most all of the pros are capable of clearing the table given one chance. It isn't analagous to a horse being faster than the other
Oryx's confirmed Russian equipment losses have gone over 2000 today, with the tank losses (318) now at more than 25% of the initial estimate of 1250 tanks.
And still saying "the amount of equipment destroyed is significantly higher than recorded here"....
Last update I saw said he had another 175 Russian losses to record......
The attrition rate is such that if the Ukrainians weren't losing kit at a reasonable whack too (though apparently less quickly than Russia) you might expect the fightback to start gathering pace quite quickly. A constant rate of losses to a diminishing stock, plus what must surely be a very tired and sleep-deprived army, points to some kind of tipping point. Unless Ukraine is stretched beyond what we realise (which is possible).
Yes, unless the Ukrainian army is also tottering near the point of collapse, then you would expect to see wholesale collapses of the Russian front within the next week or two. Michael Kofman made that point in a podcast recently.
If that's the case, and if Putin accepts the reality of that, then I think we would see a unilateral declaration of a ceasefire by Russia as soon as they have secured Mariupol.
What that overlooks is that Russia has deep reserves of additional forces that were never committed to the Ukraine in the first place, whereas Ukraine has no reserves other than what the West is willing to supply them with. Putin is not going to hold back from committing more of those forces if his own survival depends on it.
The West isn't willing to supply any heavy equipment. For example, even 1% of NATO's stock of tanks is apparently beyond the Pale for an intimidated Biden. So in so far as Ukraine has been able to maintain its stock of servicable AFVs, it's had to rely on capturing and reusing salvagable equipment from the Russians, which reportedly it has done with some success so far. At least tanks can sometimes be salvaged, in contrast to planes. And the idea that Russia will fail to learn from past mistakes and go on repeating the failures of the first month is a big and questionable assumption on which I think the issue will turn.
I don't think that's true.
Firstly, they will have sent their best forces in, hence the fact that many of the officer casualties we know about are among their paratroopers. (It's also worth noting that much of the Russian army - by numbers - is conscripts.)
Secondly, Russia has lots of rebellious edges. The Chechens will be itching to rebel again, and they will be far from the only ones.
Thirdly, Putin will be scared for his own safety. A substantial portion of the armed forces are tied down as Putin's personal guard. He can't use these troops without risking himself.
What exactly don't you think is true?
Clearly the Ukranians aren't being resupplied with any heavy weaponry and aren't going to have much left now that's still uncommitted on which to draw on. Their stocks are going to be degraded unless the Russians fail to learn from their mistakes and carry on abandoning equipment.
As for the Russians, I think it's generally accepted that they thought initially that the invasion was going to be a cakewalk. So why assume that they allocated anything beyond what they thought would be necessary and that there's not a lot there left still to draw on, at least in terms of material? So it's wrong in my book to measure Russia's losses only as a proportion of what they initially thought was necessary to use to win an easy war, and assume that they have nothing else substantial to draw upon.
The historical precedent is that the Finns initially prevailed against the Soviet Union in the first months of the 1939-40 Winter War, before being eventually ground down by weight of numbers allied to the Soviets eventually changing their flawed tactics.
That doesn't mean that Ukraine will not be able to continue to hold things at a near stalemate with Russia able to claim further territory only at an ultimately unacceptable cost. But I think that's the best that Ukraine can hope for, losing a substantial part of the country in the process, and the supply risks mean that there's still a danger that they won't be able to achieve even that.
I think the Finnish analogy is vastly overdone.
Finland was a tiny country next to Russia, and was being resupplied by exactly no-one. Finland had about 4.5 million people in it in 1940, as against 190 million in the Soviet Union. Heck, the Red Army outnumbered Finns by almost 2:1 in 1940. And the Finns would probably have been able to keep resisting, if they hadn't run out of ammunition.
Ukraine, by contrast, is a third the size of Russia. And is being resupplied (albeit not with heavy weaponry) from the West.
There is no evidence at all the Russians have held back their decent equipment or their professional soldiers. Indeed, the photographic evidence of tanks and APCs on trains, is that the kit being shipped to Ukraine now is older and likely to be even less reliable.
And don't forget, a tank once lost is not going to be replaced easily. An NLAW, on the other hand, can much more easily replaced.
So, this whole 'Russians are learning from their mistakes' theory is - while possible - pretty unlikely. They don't have unlimited numbers of young men to throw at the Ukrainians. They don't have unlimited amounts of kit. And they suffer from much a worse worse supply situation than the defenders.
20% minimum tax on household wealth of over $100 million.
Democrats pushing tax rises on the rich as usual
Only 20%
It’s not even, as I understand it, a wealth tax. It’s an income tax that’s levied on the very very wealthy.
The average income tax paid by these plutocrats was about 9% apparently.
HYUFD talking out of his hat as usual.
It is to the extent that wealthy households not paying 20% of their income in tax will have to pay this top up instead out of their assets and capital to get to the 20% tax
It's an income tax. They pay it out of income. You pay tax at 20% or greater on your income, do have to dig into your assets? How is it ever a wealth tax? Bonkers.
If you own a business that goes up in value but you plan never to sell, then you are being taxed on your wealth
Yes. It's a wealth tax. Your point being?
To answer @kjh question “how is it ever a wealth tax?”
Except it isn't. It is an income tax only. It is s tax on income. If you don't realise the income it doesn't stop it being an income. If your company makes £100 and you don't pay it out it will go up in value by £100. Your P&L account will show a profit of £100 and you pay tax on it.
The value of a company is a multiple of income, not the retained earnings which is what you are measuring
Of course, assuming it is a going concern. I was being simplistic to make a point. Not sure of your point though. The company will also increase by the value of the increase in retained profits of that year, hence the difference in share price pre and post ex div when retained profits will drop
The crux of the issue is tax should be paid on profits whether retained or paid and on realised capital gains. HYUFD said Americans would have to reduce their capital to pay tax on INCOME if increased to 20%. That is nonsense.
If the Americans are taxing unrealised capital gains that is not what HYUFD said and I would agree is bonkers.
You are still going on about this are you.
Well under the plan wealthy households that pay less than 20 per cent of their full income, including currently tax-free unrealised income, will be required to pay a top-up tax to meet a 20 per cent minimum.
That top-up tax includes wealth in the form of unrealised income from stock and bonds and would in effect apply even if that company later collapsed as RCS pointed out and they received no income from it in reality at all. So it is indeed in effect in part a wealth tax on those not paying 20% tax on their full income
Well that is not what you said earlier and you still seem confused because you seem to be using the word income when you mean capital. If shares go up in price and haven't been sold that is an unrealised capital gain and should not be taxed and if they are as @rcs1000 said then I agree that is wrong. But if you are going to talk crap by using the wrong words it isn't my fault. You said INCOME. For instance in your post above you said 'unrealised INCOME from stocks'. I assume you mean 'unrealised capital gain from stocks'. Using the correct word makes a lot of difference. One should be taxed the other shouldn't so words matters.
It would help if you actually understood what you post.
Short-term capital gains are taxed as ordinary income and effectively income therefore.
So I don't know the American rules but are you seriously saying that currently unrealised capital gains are taxed (not talking about what is planned). Note I have added the word unrealised because that is key.
Also what did you mean by short term. If you are talking about dealing rather than investing that is different to a normal holding and would be income, but that is a special case. Analogous to a builders housing stock compared to a house owner or an aircraft manufacturers compared to an airline. One is stock creating income, the other is capital.
These distinctions matter.As I said words matter.
@hyufd just thinking about this more. If, as you imply, unrealised capital gains are already taxed then the proposal to do so is not new, so I just don't believe it. This is either a new tax on unrealised gains or it isn't. From what @StillWaters and @rcs1000 are saying this is new.
You are just trying to get out of the fact that you did say income when you meant capital aren't you?
Oryx's confirmed Russian equipment losses have gone over 2000 today, with the tank losses (318) now at more than 25% of the initial estimate of 1250 tanks.
And still saying "the amount of equipment destroyed is significantly higher than recorded here"....
Last update I saw said he had another 175 Russian losses to record......
The attrition rate is such that if the Ukrainians weren't losing kit at a reasonable whack too (though apparently less quickly than Russia) you might expect the fightback to start gathering pace quite quickly. A constant rate of losses to a diminishing stock, plus what must surely be a very tired and sleep-deprived army, points to some kind of tipping point. Unless Ukraine is stretched beyond what we realise (which is possible).
Yes, unless the Ukrainian army is also tottering near the point of collapse, then you would expect to see wholesale collapses of the Russian front within the next week or two. Michael Kofman made that point in a podcast recently.
If that's the case, and if Putin accepts the reality of that, then I think we would see a unilateral declaration of a ceasefire by Russia as soon as they have secured Mariupol.
What that overlooks is that Russia has deep reserves of additional forces that were never committed to the Ukraine in the first place, whereas Ukraine has no reserves other than what the West is willing to supply them with. Putin is not going to hold back from committing more of those forces if his own survival depends on it.
The West isn't willing to supply any heavy equipment. For example, even 1% of NATO's stock of tanks is apparently beyond the Pale for an intimidated Biden. So in so far as Ukraine has been able to maintain its stock of servicable AFVs, it's had to rely on capturing and reusing salvagable equipment from the Russians, which reportedly it has done with some success so far. At least tanks can sometimes be salvaged, in contrast to planes. And the idea that Russia will fail to learn from past mistakes and go on repeating the failures of the first month is a big and questionable assumption on which I think the issue will turn.
I don't think that's true.
Firstly, they will have sent their best forces in, hence the fact that many of the officer casualties we know about are among their paratroopers. (It's also worth noting that much of the Russian army - by numbers - is conscripts.)
Secondly, Russia has lots of rebellious edges. The Chechens will be itching to rebel again, and they will be far from the only ones.
Thirdly, Putin will be scared for his own safety. A substantial portion of the armed forces are tied down as Putin's personal guard. He can't use these troops without risking himself.
What exactly don't you think is true?
Clearly the Ukranians aren't being resupplied with any heavy weaponry and aren't going to have much left now that's still uncommitted on which to draw on. Their stocks are going to be degraded unless the Russians fail to learn from their mistakes and carry on abandoning equipment.
As for the Russians, I think it's generally accepted that they thought initially that the invasion was going to be a cakewalk. So why assume that they allocated anything beyond what they thought would be necessary and that there's not a lot there left still to draw on, at least in terms of material? So it's wrong in my book to measure Russia's losses only as a proportion of what they initially thought was necessary to use to win an easy war, and assume that they have nothing else substantial to draw upon.
The historical precedent is that the Finns initially prevailed against the Soviet Union in the first months of the 1939-40 Winter War, before being eventually ground down by weight of numbers allied to the Soviets eventually changing their flawed tactics.
That doesn't mean that Ukraine will not be able to continue to hold things at a near stalemate with Russia able to claim further territory only at an ultimately unacceptable cost. But I think that's the best that Ukraine can hope for, losing a substantial part of the country in the process, and the supply risks mean that there's still a danger that they won't be able to achieve even that.
“ I think it's generally accepted that they thought initially that the invasion was going to be a cakewalk. “
Is that true? I always presumed each time I heard that it’s part of the information war, up to now I thought it would take ages for Russia to take key bits of infrastructure and get into a sort of position to be able to and suppress the main cities. It’s only now I’m beginning to think it’s taking a while, especially in the waterfront theatre.
I havn’t seen a post from Yokes for ages, but they did say let’s assess after two weeks just how slow it’s going. So was a week or two ever really that realistic?
As examples then, I was too young when we went into Iraq and Afghanistan, can’t rember the time lInes, did we have the mission wrapped up in a week?
Another example as counterfactual, this war other way round, NATO taking Ukraine whose backed by Russia and friends of Russia can keep up supply of “defensive weapons” you would be disappointed if we wouldn’t have it done and dusted in week or two? Surely the movement of what you need of heavy stuff where you need it in the country takes longer than that on its own?
Maybe also now in 2020s satellite maps on one hand and precision bombing based on that intel helps take the effective blitzkrieging out of warfare - is that an interesting suggestion? It’s fair to say those whose job it is to defend UK, US NATO members etc have filled note books of useful stuff, this has been a helpful boon to them?
Russia will take mariupol soon...that will free up troops....After that who knows
Every town they take requires a garrison. So the idea that they will have more troops available the further they get into Ukraine is for the birds.
"Roman Abramovich confirms he and two Ukrainian negotiators were ‘blinded for several hours and had skin peel off their faces and hands’ in suspected poisoning attack after peace talks in Kyiv"
How is Roman going to come out of this? Why are we, under duress from the Labour Party, being so cruel to someone clearly on Ukraine side and suffering in the fight against Putin?
Newsnight seemed to be pouring a little cold water on the veracity of all this.
Well news night would, I stopped watching the show when it disappeared up its own pretentious bottom! If true though, and Ukraine negotiators can speak for themselves, we will have to pause being so beastly to Roman?
Sir Kir Royale Starmer has weighed in on The Hollywood Slap
"In the UK, Keir Starmer said Smith’s actions at the Oscars fell on the “wrong side of the line”. The Labour leader said: “Of course there are circumstances and anybody who insults family members excites something quite emotional in all of us. But, on the other hand, to go up and hit someone in that way is wrong, I’m afraid … It was the Oscars, it’s got all the cameras there, millions of people watching.""
There is something inherently and intrinsically cringe-worthy about Starmer. I'm not sure what it is. eg these remarks are unexceptional. This side, that side, blah blah, centrist Papa is centrist
Yet something about the fact these remarks exist makes the soul shrivel. It could be an issue come the GE. Boris does not do this to the voter (tho he does many other bad and unseemly things, of course)
It's almost as if you've already decided to vote Tory at the next GE. Shocked I am.
It could be read that Mark Dacey is saying it was bad because there were TV cameras there.
Oryx's confirmed Russian equipment losses have gone over 2000 today, with the tank losses (318) now at more than 25% of the initial estimate of 1250 tanks.
And still saying "the amount of equipment destroyed is significantly higher than recorded here"....
Last update I saw said he had another 175 Russian losses to record......
The attrition rate is such that if the Ukrainians weren't losing kit at a reasonable whack too (though apparently less quickly than Russia) you might expect the fightback to start gathering pace quite quickly. A constant rate of losses to a diminishing stock, plus what must surely be a very tired and sleep-deprived army, points to some kind of tipping point. Unless Ukraine is stretched beyond what we realise (which is possible).
Yes, unless the Ukrainian army is also tottering near the point of collapse, then you would expect to see wholesale collapses of the Russian front within the next week or two. Michael Kofman made that point in a podcast recently.
If that's the case, and if Putin accepts the reality of that, then I think we would see a unilateral declaration of a ceasefire by Russia as soon as they have secured Mariupol.
What that overlooks is that Russia has deep reserves of additional forces that were never committed to the Ukraine in the first place, whereas Ukraine has no reserves other than what the West is willing to supply them with. Putin is not going to hold back from committing more of those forces if his own survival depends on it.
The West isn't willing to supply any heavy equipment. For example, even 1% of NATO's stock of tanks is apparently beyond the Pale for an intimidated Biden. So in so far as Ukraine has been able to maintain its stock of servicable AFVs, it's had to rely on capturing and reusing salvagable equipment from the Russians, which reportedly it has done with some success so far. At least tanks can sometimes be salvaged, in contrast to planes. And the idea that Russia will fail to learn from past mistakes and go on repeating the failures of the first month is a big and questionable assumption on which I think the issue will turn.
I don't think that's true.
Firstly, they will have sent their best forces in, hence the fact that many of the officer casualties we know about are among their paratroopers. (It's also worth noting that much of the Russian army - by numbers - is conscripts.)
Secondly, Russia has lots of rebellious edges. The Chechens will be itching to rebel again, and they will be far from the only ones.
Thirdly, Putin will be scared for his own safety. A substantial portion of the armed forces are tied down as Putin's personal guard. He can't use these troops without risking himself.
What exactly don't you think is true?
Clearly the Ukranians aren't being resupplied with any heavy weaponry and aren't going to have much left now that's still uncommitted on which to draw on. Their stocks are going to be degraded unless the Russians fail to learn from their mistakes and carry on abandoning equipment.
As for the Russians, I think it's generally accepted that they thought initially that the invasion was going to be a cakewalk. So why assume that they allocated anything beyond what they thought would be necessary and that there's not a lot there left still to draw on, at least in terms of material? So it's wrong in my book to measure Russia's losses only as a proportion of what they initially thought was necessary to use to win an easy war, and assume that they have nothing else substantial to draw upon.
The historical precedent is that the Finns initially prevailed against the Soviet Union in the first months of the 1939-40 Winter War, before being eventually ground down by weight of numbers allied to the Soviets eventually changing their flawed tactics.
That doesn't mean that Ukraine will not be able to continue to hold things at a near stalemate with Russia able to claim further territory only at an ultimately unacceptable cost. But I think that's the best that Ukraine can hope for, losing a substantial part of the country in the process, and the supply risks mean that there's still a danger that they won't be able to achieve even that.
I think the Finnish analogy is vastly overdone.
Finland was a tiny country next to Russia, and was being resupplied by exactly no-one. Finland had about 4.5 million people in it in 1940, as against 190 million in the Soviet Union. Heck, the Red Army outnumbered Finns by almost 2:1 in 1940. And the Finns would probably have been able to keep resisting, if they hadn't run out of ammunition.
Ukraine, by contrast, is a third the size of Russia. And is being resupplied (albeit not with heavy weaponry) from the West.
There is no evidence at all the Russians have held back their decent equipment or their professional soldiers. Indeed, the photographic evidence of tanks and APCs on trains, is that the kit being shipped to Ukraine now is older and likely to be even less reliable.
And don't forget, a tank once lost is not going to be replaced easily. An NLAW, on the other hand, can much more easily replaced.
So, this whole 'Russians are learning from their mistakes' theory is - while possible - pretty unlikely. They don't have unlimited numbers of young men to throw at the Ukrainians. They don't have unlimited amounts of kit. And they suffer from much a worse worse supply situation than the defenders.
Sometimes it's too late to benefit from learning from your mistakes:
"We've lost all our tanks... but we've learnt from our mistakes, so we're not going to do that again"
Oryx's confirmed Russian equipment losses have gone over 2000 today, with the tank losses (318) now at more than 25% of the initial estimate of 1250 tanks.
And still saying "the amount of equipment destroyed is significantly higher than recorded here"....
Last update I saw said he had another 175 Russian losses to record......
The attrition rate is such that if the Ukrainians weren't losing kit at a reasonable whack too (though apparently less quickly than Russia) you might expect the fightback to start gathering pace quite quickly. A constant rate of losses to a diminishing stock, plus what must surely be a very tired and sleep-deprived army, points to some kind of tipping point. Unless Ukraine is stretched beyond what we realise (which is possible).
Yes, unless the Ukrainian army is also tottering near the point of collapse, then you would expect to see wholesale collapses of the Russian front within the next week or two. Michael Kofman made that point in a podcast recently.
If that's the case, and if Putin accepts the reality of that, then I think we would see a unilateral declaration of a ceasefire by Russia as soon as they have secured Mariupol.
What that overlooks is that Russia has deep reserves of additional forces that were never committed to the Ukraine in the first place, whereas Ukraine has no reserves other than what the West is willing to supply them with. Putin is not going to hold back from committing more of those forces if his own survival depends on it.
The West isn't willing to supply any heavy equipment. For example, even 1% of NATO's stock of tanks is apparently beyond the Pale for an intimidated Biden. So in so far as Ukraine has been able to maintain its stock of servicable AFVs, it's had to rely on capturing and reusing salvagable equipment from the Russians, which reportedly it has done with some success so far. At least tanks can sometimes be salvaged, in contrast to planes. And the idea that Russia will fail to learn from past mistakes and go on repeating the failures of the first month is a big and questionable assumption on which I think the issue will turn.
I don't think that's true.
Firstly, they will have sent their best forces in, hence the fact that many of the officer casualties we know about are among their paratroopers. (It's also worth noting that much of the Russian army - by numbers - is conscripts.)
Secondly, Russia has lots of rebellious edges. The Chechens will be itching to rebel again, and they will be far from the only ones.
Thirdly, Putin will be scared for his own safety. A substantial portion of the armed forces are tied down as Putin's personal guard. He can't use these troops without risking himself.
What exactly don't you think is true?
Clearly the Ukranians aren't being resupplied with any heavy weaponry and aren't going to have much left now that's still uncommitted on which to draw on. Their stocks are going to be degraded unless the Russians fail to learn from their mistakes and carry on abandoning equipment.
As for the Russians, I think it's generally accepted that they thought initially that the invasion was going to be a cakewalk. So why assume that they allocated anything beyond what they thought would be necessary and that there's not a lot there left still to draw on, at least in terms of material? So it's wrong in my book to measure Russia's losses only as a proportion of what they initially thought was necessary to use to win an easy war, and assume that they have nothing else substantial to draw upon.
The historical precedent is that the Finns initially prevailed against the Soviet Union in the first months of the 1939-40 Winter War, before being eventually ground down by weight of numbers allied to the Soviets eventually changing their flawed tactics.
That doesn't mean that Ukraine will not be able to continue to hold things at a near stalemate with Russia able to claim further territory only at an ultimately unacceptable cost. But I think that's the best that Ukraine can hope for, losing a substantial part of the country in the process, and the supply risks mean that there's still a danger that they won't be able to achieve even that.
“ I think it's generally accepted that they thought initially that the invasion was going to be a cakewalk. “
Is that true? I always presumed each time I heard that it’s part of the information war, up to now I thought it would take ages for Russia to take key bits of infrastructure and get into a sort of position to be able to and suppress the main cities. It’s only now I’m beginning to think it’s taking a while, especially in the waterfront theatre.
I havn’t seen a post from Yokes for ages, but they did say let’s assess after two weeks just how slow it’s going. So was a week or two ever really that realistic?
As examples then, I was too young when we went into Iraq and Afghanistan, can’t rember the time lInes, did we have the mission wrapped up in a week?
Another example as counterfactual, this war other way round, NATO taking Ukraine whose backed by Russia and friends of Russia can keep up supply of “defensive weapons” you would be disappointed if we wouldn’t have it done and dusted in week or two? Surely the movement of what you need of heavy stuff where you need it in the country takes longer than that on its own?
Maybe also now in 2020s satellite maps on one hand and precision bombing based on that intel helps take the effective blitzkrieging out of warfare - is that an interesting suggestion? It’s fair to say those whose job it is to defend UK, US NATO members etc have filled note books of useful stuff, this has been a helpful boon to them?
Russia will take mariupol soon...that will free up troops....After that who knows
What actually decides if something is taken? If they claim taken, like sneaky snake would, we would disbelieve them until what proves it exactly? I genuinely don’t know that answer so would like to know.
20% minimum tax on household wealth of over $100 million.
Democrats pushing tax rises on the rich as usual
Only 20%
It’s not even, as I understand it, a wealth tax. It’s an income tax that’s levied on the very very wealthy.
The average income tax paid by these plutocrats was about 9% apparently.
HYUFD talking out of his hat as usual.
It is to the extent that wealthy households not paying 20% of their income in tax will have to pay this top up instead out of their assets and capital to get to the 20% tax
It's an income tax. They pay it out of income. You pay tax at 20% or greater on your income, do have to dig into your assets? How is it ever a wealth tax? Bonkers.
If you own a business that goes up in value but you plan never to sell, then you are being taxed on your wealth
Well I don't know what the rules are in America, but unless there is a capital change (eg revaluation, share issue etc) the reason a business goes up in value is because of the income.
Let’s say a company makes revenues of $100m and grows to $110m with consistent 20% margins and a 10x multiple
Its profits have gone from $20m to $22m and its value from $200m to $220m.
So they are saying you need to pay tax on $20m of increase in value ie $4m at a 20% rate.
But even if you pull all of the income from the business (which is probably not appropriate) your income has only gone up by $2m, so your taxes have gone up at twice the rate of your income
Is that what they are saying. I don't know the American rules but it is not what HYUFD said and you are now talking about taxing unrealised capital gains and not income which is bonkers.
HYUFD was referring to tax on income not unrealised capital. The capital element simply being the metric to decide if the higher income tax rate applied to income. Again I am referring to what HYUFD said. You should only be taxed on income (whether realised or not) and realised capital gains.
They used as a justification that the wealthiest only paid 8% on their income plus unrealised income.
I haven’t looked into the detail but there are 2 options:
1) they are taxing unrealised gains (which is bonkers); or 2) they are manipulating statistics to suggest that the wealthy are paying a very low tax rate by inflating the denominator (which is dodgy as f*ck but sadly plausible)
I don't understand this. "Unrealised gains" only makes sense if you think that only cash is reality. In a fiat currency world, and even not if one, that is obviously not true. It's gibberish. If I own a house or company or painting in what sense am I realising it by swapping it for cash?
OK. Imagine that your entire wealth is in the shares of Joe.com PLC, which makes an innovative app for ordering coffee direct from your phone. You bought GBP1,000 worth of shares at 1p a share.
Suddenly there's crazy mania around coffee ordering apps, and the price of Joe.com spikes to GBP1,000 per share! You are now worth GBP100m!
But you know what: the market in Joe.com is very thin. Only a few thousand shares a day change hands. If you wanted to realise GBP20m to pay your tax bill, it might not even be possible.
Of course, we could allow people to pay their tax bills in shares. But what happens if the price were to fall the next year. Do I get my shares back?
Oryx's confirmed Russian equipment losses have gone over 2000 today, with the tank losses (318) now at more than 25% of the initial estimate of 1250 tanks.
And still saying "the amount of equipment destroyed is significantly higher than recorded here"....
Last update I saw said he had another 175 Russian losses to record......
The attrition rate is such that if the Ukrainians weren't losing kit at a reasonable whack too (though apparently less quickly than Russia) you might expect the fightback to start gathering pace quite quickly. A constant rate of losses to a diminishing stock, plus what must surely be a very tired and sleep-deprived army, points to some kind of tipping point. Unless Ukraine is stretched beyond what we realise (which is possible).
Yes, unless the Ukrainian army is also tottering near the point of collapse, then you would expect to see wholesale collapses of the Russian front within the next week or two. Michael Kofman made that point in a podcast recently.
If that's the case, and if Putin accepts the reality of that, then I think we would see a unilateral declaration of a ceasefire by Russia as soon as they have secured Mariupol.
What that overlooks is that Russia has deep reserves of additional forces that were never committed to the Ukraine in the first place, whereas Ukraine has no reserves other than what the West is willing to supply them with. Putin is not going to hold back from committing more of those forces if his own survival depends on it.
The West isn't willing to supply any heavy equipment. For example, even 1% of NATO's stock of tanks is apparently beyond the Pale for an intimidated Biden. So in so far as Ukraine has been able to maintain its stock of servicable AFVs, it's had to rely on capturing and reusing salvagable equipment from the Russians, which reportedly it has done with some success so far. At least tanks can sometimes be salvaged, in contrast to planes. And the idea that Russia will fail to learn from past mistakes and go on repeating the failures of the first month is a big and questionable assumption on which I think the issue will turn.
I don't think that's true.
Firstly, they will have sent their best forces in, hence the fact that many of the officer casualties we know about are among their paratroopers. (It's also worth noting that much of the Russian army - by numbers - is conscripts.)
Secondly, Russia has lots of rebellious edges. The Chechens will be itching to rebel again, and they will be far from the only ones.
Thirdly, Putin will be scared for his own safety. A substantial portion of the armed forces are tied down as Putin's personal guard. He can't use these troops without risking himself.
What exactly don't you think is true?
Clearly the Ukranians aren't being resupplied with any heavy weaponry and aren't going to have much left now that's still uncommitted on which to draw on. Their stocks are going to be degraded unless the Russians fail to learn from their mistakes and carry on abandoning equipment.
As for the Russians, I think it's generally accepted that they thought initially that the invasion was going to be a cakewalk. So why assume that they allocated anything beyond what they thought would be necessary and that there's not a lot there left still to draw on, at least in terms of material? So it's wrong in my book to measure Russia's losses only as a proportion of what they initially thought was necessary to use to win an easy war, and assume that they have nothing else substantial to draw upon.
The historical precedent is that the Finns initially prevailed against the Soviet Union in the first months of the 1939-40 Winter War, before being eventually ground down by weight of numbers allied to the Soviets eventually changing their flawed tactics.
That doesn't mean that Ukraine will not be able to continue to hold things at a near stalemate with Russia able to claim further territory only at an ultimately unacceptable cost. But I think that's the best that Ukraine can hope for, losing a substantial part of the country in the process, and the supply risks mean that there's still a danger that they won't be able to achieve even that.
“ I think it's generally accepted that they thought initially that the invasion was going to be a cakewalk. “
Is that true? I always presumed each time I heard that it’s part of the information war, up to now I thought it would take ages for Russia to take key bits of infrastructure and get into a sort of position to be able to and suppress the main cities. It’s only now I’m beginning to think it’s taking a while, especially in the waterfront theatre.
I havn’t seen a post from Yokes for ages, but they did say let’s assess after two weeks just how slow it’s going. So was a week or two ever really that realistic?
As examples then, I was too young when we went into Iraq and Afghanistan, can’t rember the time lInes, did we have the mission wrapped up in a week?
Another example as counterfactual, this war other way round, NATO taking Ukraine whose backed by Russia and friends of Russia can keep up supply of “defensive weapons” you would be disappointed if we wouldn’t have it done and dusted in week or two? Surely the movement of what you need of heavy stuff where you need it in the country takes longer than that on its own?
Maybe also now in 2020s satellite maps on one hand and precision bombing based on that intel helps take the effective blitzkrieging out of warfare - is that an interesting suggestion? It’s fair to say those whose job it is to defend UK, US NATO members etc have filled note books of useful stuff, this has been a helpful boon to them?
Russia will take mariupol soon...that will free up troops....After that who knows
Every town they take requires a garrison. So the idea that they will have more troops available the further they get into Ukraine is for the birds.
Indeed and, as is now being seen with Kherson, taking a town does not mean the gain is pwrmanent.
20% minimum tax on household wealth of over $100 million.
Democrats pushing tax rises on the rich as usual
Only 20%
It’s not even, as I understand it, a wealth tax. It’s an income tax that’s levied on the very very wealthy.
The average income tax paid by these plutocrats was about 9% apparently.
HYUFD talking out of his hat as usual.
It is to the extent that wealthy households not paying 20% of their income in tax will have to pay this top up instead out of their assets and capital to get to the 20% tax
It's an income tax. They pay it out of income. You pay tax at 20% or greater on your income, do have to dig into your assets? How is it ever a wealth tax? Bonkers.
If you own a business that goes up in value but you plan never to sell, then you are being taxed on your wealth
Well I don't know what the rules are in America, but unless there is a capital change (eg revaluation, share issue etc) the reason a business goes up in value is because of the income.
Let’s say a company makes revenues of $100m and grows to $110m with consistent 20% margins and a 10x multiple
Its profits have gone from $20m to $22m and its value from $200m to $220m.
So they are saying you need to pay tax on $20m of increase in value ie $4m at a 20% rate.
But even if you pull all of the income from the business (which is probably not appropriate) your income has only gone up by $2m, so your taxes have gone up at twice the rate of your income
Is that what they are saying. I don't know the American rules but it is not what HYUFD said and you are now talking about taxing unrealised capital gains and not income which is bonkers.
HYUFD was referring to tax on income not unrealised capital. The capital element simply being the metric to decide if the higher income tax rate applied to income. Again I am referring to what HYUFD said. You should only be taxed on income (whether realised or not) and realised capital gains.
They used as a justification that the wealthiest only paid 8% on their income plus unrealised income.
I haven’t looked into the detail but there are 2 options:
1) they are taxing unrealised gains (which is bonkers); or 2) they are manipulating statistics to suggest that the wealthy are paying a very low tax rate by inflating the denominator (which is dodgy as f*ck but sadly plausible)
I don't understand this. "Unrealised gains" only makes sense if you think that only cash is reality. In a fiat currency world, and even not if one, that is obviously not true. It's gibberish. If I own a house or company or painting in what sense am I realising it by swapping it for cash?
OK. Imagine that your entire wealth is in the shares of Joe.com PLC, which makes an innovative app for ordering coffee direct from your phone. You bought GBP1,000 worth of shares at 1p a share.
Suddenly there's crazy mania around coffee ordering apps, and the price of Joe.com spikes to GBP1,000 per share! You are now worth GBP100m!
But you know what: the market in Joe.com is very thin. Only a few thousand shares a day change hands. If you wanted to realise GBP20m to pay your tax bill, it might not even be possible.
Of course, we could allow people to pay their tax bills in shares. But what happens if the price were to fall the next year. Do I get my shares back?
Surely anyone with a year-on-year fluctuating income faces a similar problem. I don't remember HMRC allowing income tax rebates when I had a lean year following a fat one.
I quite like the idea of allowing a tax bill to be paid in illiquid shares btw.
Interesting model they must have. Labour under Sir K are, what, 2 or 3 % ahead in the mid term. Am I mad? Even if Labour get 2% above Con at the GE they are surely not 15 ahead of Cons (from the low base gifted by Corbyn)?
Does Nazi mean something different to them than when we hear it? Do we use it differently in this country? To us is it the whipping boys in war films, who always end up losing with Indiana Jones wiping out battalions single handed on a motor cycle whilst dressed as ticket attendant? For those who lived under occupation the word Nazi brings to mind secret police, knocks on door in night, mass graves full of the political or ethic un pure? 😕
For us it's mostly about the Holocaust, don't you think? - plus family memories and, as you say, movie depictions. Countries that have been occupied primarily think of the massacres that they carried out as they advanced across Eastern Europe. That had the flavour of potential existential threat - to one's country and to many people that one knows - that we've perhaps never experienced in Britain and with luck never will. It's estimated that 18 million Russian civilians were killed during the occupation - roughly 10% of the entire national population and probably nearer 25% of the population in the occupied areas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the_Soviet_Union?msclkid=9caa88adaee211ec9930647162972f06).
This is not to excuse Putin or his military nutcasery. But it's why the Ukrainian toleration of a group like the Azov Brigade who honour the Nazi tradition and maintain armed militia as part of the national army has disturbing resonance for Russians.
Does Putin care particularly? I shouldn't think so - he will have just cynically picked it as a grievance that made sense of the invasion to some older Russians. Denazification is apparently evaporating as an issue now that the peace talks are getting serious.
20% minimum tax on household wealth of over $100 million.
Democrats pushing tax rises on the rich as usual
Only 20%
It’s not even, as I understand it, a wealth tax. It’s an income tax that’s levied on the very very wealthy.
The average income tax paid by these plutocrats was about 9% apparently.
HYUFD talking out of his hat as usual.
It is to the extent that wealthy households not paying 20% of their income in tax will have to pay this top up instead out of their assets and capital to get to the 20% tax
It's an income tax. They pay it out of income. You pay tax at 20% or greater on your income, do have to dig into your assets? How is it ever a wealth tax? Bonkers.
If you own a business that goes up in value but you plan never to sell, then you are being taxed on your wealth
Well I don't know what the rules are in America, but unless there is a capital change (eg revaluation, share issue etc) the reason a business goes up in value is because of the income.
Let’s say a company makes revenues of $100m and grows to $110m with consistent 20% margins and a 10x multiple
Its profits have gone from $20m to $22m and its value from $200m to $220m.
So they are saying you need to pay tax on $20m of increase in value ie $4m at a 20% rate.
But even if you pull all of the income from the business (which is probably not appropriate) your income has only gone up by $2m, so your taxes have gone up at twice the rate of your income
Is that what they are saying. I don't know the American rules but it is not what HYUFD said and you are now talking about taxing unrealised capital gains and not income which is bonkers.
HYUFD was referring to tax on income not unrealised capital. The capital element simply being the metric to decide if the higher income tax rate applied to income. Again I am referring to what HYUFD said. You should only be taxed on income (whether realised or not) and realised capital gains.
They used as a justification that the wealthiest only paid 8% on their income plus unrealised income.
I haven’t looked into the detail but there are 2 options:
1) they are taxing unrealised gains (which is bonkers); or 2) they are manipulating statistics to suggest that the wealthy are paying a very low tax rate by inflating the denominator (which is dodgy as f*ck but sadly plausible)
I don't understand this. "Unrealised gains" only makes sense if you think that only cash is reality. In a fiat currency world, and even not if one, that is obviously not true. It's gibberish. If I own a house or company or painting in what sense am I realising it by swapping it for cash?
OK. Imagine that your entire wealth is in the shares of Joe.com PLC, which makes an innovative app for ordering coffee direct from your phone. You bought GBP1,000 worth of shares at 1p a share.
Suddenly there's crazy mania around coffee ordering apps, and the price of Joe.com spikes to GBP1,000 per share! You are now worth GBP100m!
But you know what: the market in Joe.com is very thin. Only a few thousand shares a day change hands. If you wanted to realise GBP20m to pay your tax bill, it might not even be possible.
Of course, we could allow people to pay their tax bills in shares. But what happens if the price were to fall the next year. Do I get my shares back?
Isn't the problem that those with asset wealth take loans against said assets and use them as liquid currency to avoid taxes. Treating capital gains as income may not be fair but its also not fair that income is taxed at rates significantly higher than 'unearned' wealth.
Oryx's confirmed Russian equipment losses have gone over 2000 today, with the tank losses (318) now at more than 25% of the initial estimate of 1250 tanks.
And still saying "the amount of equipment destroyed is significantly higher than recorded here"....
Last update I saw said he had another 175 Russian losses to record......
The attrition rate is such that if the Ukrainians weren't losing kit at a reasonable whack too (though apparently less quickly than Russia) you might expect the fightback to start gathering pace quite quickly. A constant rate of losses to a diminishing stock, plus what must surely be a very tired and sleep-deprived army, points to some kind of tipping point. Unless Ukraine is stretched beyond what we realise (which is possible).
Yes, unless the Ukrainian army is also tottering near the point of collapse, then you would expect to see wholesale collapses of the Russian front within the next week or two. Michael Kofman made that point in a podcast recently.
If that's the case, and if Putin accepts the reality of that, then I think we would see a unilateral declaration of a ceasefire by Russia as soon as they have secured Mariupol.
What that overlooks is that Russia has deep reserves of additional forces that were never committed to the Ukraine in the first place, whereas Ukraine has no reserves other than what the West is willing to supply them with. Putin is not going to hold back from committing more of those forces if his own survival depends on it.
The West isn't willing to supply any heavy equipment. For example, even 1% of NATO's stock of tanks is apparently beyond the Pale for an intimidated Biden. So in so far as Ukraine has been able to maintain its stock of servicable AFVs, it's had to rely on capturing and reusing salvagable equipment from the Russians, which reportedly it has done with some success so far. At least tanks can sometimes be salvaged, in contrast to planes. And the idea that Russia will fail to learn from past mistakes and go on repeating the failures of the first month is a big and questionable assumption on which I think the issue will turn.
I don't think that's true.
Firstly, they will have sent their best forces in, hence the fact that many of the officer casualties we know about are among their paratroopers. (It's also worth noting that much of the Russian army - by numbers - is conscripts.)
Secondly, Russia has lots of rebellious edges. The Chechens will be itching to rebel again, and they will be far from the only ones.
Thirdly, Putin will be scared for his own safety. A substantial portion of the armed forces are tied down as Putin's personal guard. He can't use these troops without risking himself.
What exactly don't you think is true?
Clearly the Ukranians aren't being resupplied with any heavy weaponry and aren't going to have much left now that's still uncommitted on which to draw on. Their stocks are going to be degraded unless the Russians fail to learn from their mistakes and carry on abandoning equipment.
As for the Russians, I think it's generally accepted that they thought initially that the invasion was going to be a cakewalk. So why assume that they allocated anything beyond what they thought would be necessary and that there's not a lot there left still to draw on, at least in terms of material? So it's wrong in my book to measure Russia's losses only as a proportion of what they initially thought was necessary to use to win an easy war, and assume that they have nothing else substantial to draw upon.
The historical precedent is that the Finns initially prevailed against the Soviet Union in the first months of the 1939-40 Winter War, before being eventually ground down by weight of numbers allied to the Soviets eventually changing their flawed tactics.
That doesn't mean that Ukraine will not be able to continue to hold things at a near stalemate with Russia able to claim further territory only at an ultimately unacceptable cost. But I think that's the best that Ukraine can hope for, losing a substantial part of the country in the process, and the supply risks mean that there's still a danger that they won't be able to achieve even that.
I think the Finnish analogy is vastly overdone.
Finland was a tiny country next to Russia, and was being resupplied by exactly no-one. Finland had about 4.5 million people in it in 1940, as against 190 million in the Soviet Union. Heck, the Red Army outnumbered Finns by almost 2:1 in 1940. And the Finns would probably have been able to keep resisting, if they hadn't run out of ammunition.
Ukraine, by contrast, is a third the size of Russia. And is being resupplied (albeit not with heavy weaponry) from the West.
There is no evidence at all the Russians have held back their decent equipment or their professional soldiers. Indeed, the photographic evidence of tanks and APCs on trains, is that the kit being shipped to Ukraine now is older and likely to be even less reliable.
And don't forget, a tank once lost is not going to be replaced easily. An NLAW, on the other hand, can much more easily replaced.
So, this whole 'Russians are learning from their mistakes' theory is - while possible - pretty unlikely. They don't have unlimited numbers of young men to throw at the Ukrainians. They don't have unlimited amounts of kit. And they suffer from much a worse worse supply situation than the defenders.
I honestly think the conflict is in the balance. The repeated failure of many people to acknowledge that Ukraine has several advantages over the Russians - better leadership, better morale and the fact they are defending with the help of their civilian population rather than attacking.
20% minimum tax on household wealth of over $100 million.
Democrats pushing tax rises on the rich as usual
Only 20%
It’s not even, as I understand it, a wealth tax. It’s an income tax that’s levied on the very very wealthy.
The average income tax paid by these plutocrats was about 9% apparently.
HYUFD talking out of his hat as usual.
It is to the extent that wealthy households not paying 20% of their income in tax will have to pay this top up instead out of their assets and capital to get to the 20% tax
It's an income tax. They pay it out of income. You pay tax at 20% or greater on your income, do have to dig into your assets? How is it ever a wealth tax? Bonkers.
If you own a business that goes up in value but you plan never to sell, then you are being taxed on your wealth
Well I don't know what the rules are in America, but unless there is a capital change (eg revaluation, share issue etc) the reason a business goes up in value is because of the income.
Let’s say a company makes revenues of $100m and grows to $110m with consistent 20% margins and a 10x multiple
Its profits have gone from $20m to $22m and its value from $200m to $220m.
So they are saying you need to pay tax on $20m of increase in value ie $4m at a 20% rate.
But even if you pull all of the income from the business (which is probably not appropriate) your income has only gone up by $2m, so your taxes have gone up at twice the rate of your income
Is that what they are saying. I don't know the American rules but it is not what HYUFD said and you are now talking about taxing unrealised capital gains and not income which is bonkers.
HYUFD was referring to tax on income not unrealised capital. The capital element simply being the metric to decide if the higher income tax rate applied to income. Again I am referring to what HYUFD said. You should only be taxed on income (whether realised or not) and realised capital gains.
They used as a justification that the wealthiest only paid 8% on their income plus unrealised income.
I haven’t looked into the detail but there are 2 options:
1) they are taxing unrealised gains (which is bonkers); or 2) they are manipulating statistics to suggest that the wealthy are paying a very low tax rate by inflating the denominator (which is dodgy as f*ck but sadly plausible)
I don't understand this. "Unrealised gains" only makes sense if you think that only cash is reality. In a fiat currency world, and even not if one, that is obviously not true. It's gibberish. If I own a house or company or painting in what sense am I realising it by swapping it for cash?
OK. Imagine that your entire wealth is in the shares of Joe.com PLC, which makes an innovative app for ordering coffee direct from your phone. You bought GBP1,000 worth of shares at 1p a share.
Suddenly there's crazy mania around coffee ordering apps, and the price of Joe.com spikes to GBP1,000 per share! You are now worth GBP100m!
But you know what: the market in Joe.com is very thin. Only a few thousand shares a day change hands. If you wanted to realise GBP20m to pay your tax bill, it might not even be possible.
Of course, we could allow people to pay their tax bills in shares. But what happens if the price were to fall the next year. Do I get my shares back?
Isn't the problem that those with asset wealth take loans against said assets and use them as liquid currency to avoid taxes. Treating capital gains as income may not be fair but its also not fair that income is taxed at rates significantly higher than 'unearned' wealth.
That's a fair point, and that's definitely an issue.
But is worth noting that this is a little bit of a risky strategy: if the value of your asset falls, you run into the risk that you can't both pay back the loan and the capital gains taxes you owe on the sale of the asset.
Edit to add: maybe simple treat personal loans secured on business assets taxable income.
20% minimum tax on household wealth of over $100 million.
Democrats pushing tax rises on the rich as usual
Only 20%
It’s not even, as I understand it, a wealth tax. It’s an income tax that’s levied on the very very wealthy.
The average income tax paid by these plutocrats was about 9% apparently.
HYUFD talking out of his hat as usual.
It is to the extent that wealthy households not paying 20% of their income in tax will have to pay this top up instead out of their assets and capital to get to the 20% tax
It's an income tax. They pay it out of income. You pay tax at 20% or greater on your income, do have to dig into your assets? How is it ever a wealth tax? Bonkers.
If you own a business that goes up in value but you plan never to sell, then you are being taxed on your wealth
Well I don't know what the rules are in America, but unless there is a capital change (eg revaluation, share issue etc) the reason a business goes up in value is because of the income.
Let’s say a company makes revenues of $100m and grows to $110m with consistent 20% margins and a 10x multiple
Its profits have gone from $20m to $22m and its value from $200m to $220m.
So they are saying you need to pay tax on $20m of increase in value ie $4m at a 20% rate.
But even if you pull all of the income from the business (which is probably not appropriate) your income has only gone up by $2m, so your taxes have gone up at twice the rate of your income
Is that what they are saying. I don't know the American rules but it is not what HYUFD said and you are now talking about taxing unrealised capital gains and not income which is bonkers.
HYUFD was referring to tax on income not unrealised capital. The capital element simply being the metric to decide if the higher income tax rate applied to income. Again I am referring to what HYUFD said. You should only be taxed on income (whether realised or not) and realised capital gains.
They used as a justification that the wealthiest only paid 8% on their income plus unrealised income.
I haven’t looked into the detail but there are 2 options:
1) they are taxing unrealised gains (which is bonkers); or 2) they are manipulating statistics to suggest that the wealthy are paying a very low tax rate by inflating the denominator (which is dodgy as f*ck but sadly plausible)
I don't understand this. "Unrealised gains" only makes sense if you think that only cash is reality. In a fiat currency world, and even not if one, that is obviously not true. It's gibberish. If I own a house or company or painting in what sense am I realising it by swapping it for cash?
Maybe it makes more sense to think about Capital Assets and Income. The former help generate the income on which you are taxed as it arises. However because you keep the former for many years you do not tax any gain on the former until and if it arises. This seems fair as you haven't generated a means of doing so and as asset prices fluctuate it is only fair to use the purchase and sale prices to calculate the tax.
This of course ignores the possibility of a wealth tax in addition which is a different kettle of fish.
Does Nazi mean something different to them than when we hear it? Do we use it differently in this country? To us is it the whipping boys in war films, who always end up losing with Indiana Jones wiping out battalions single handed on a motor cycle whilst dressed as ticket attendant? For those who lived under occupation the word Nazi brings to mind secret police, knocks on door in night, mass graves full of the political or ethic un pure? 😕
For us it's mostly about the Holocaust, don't you think? - plus family memories and, as you say, movie depictions. Countries that have been occupied primarily think of the massacres that they carried out as they advanced across Eastern Europe. That had the flavour of potential existential threat - to one's country and to many people that one knows - that we've perhaps never experienced in Britain and with luck never will. It's estimated that 18 million Russian civilians were killed during the occupation - roughly 10% of the entire national population and probably nearer 25% of the population in the occupied areas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the_Soviet_Union?msclkid=9caa88adaee211ec9930647162972f06).
This is not to excuse Putin or his military nutcasery. But it's why the Ukrainian toleration of a group like the Azov Brigade who honour the Nazi tradition and maintain armed militia as part of the national army has disturbing resonance for Russians.
Does Putin care particularly? I shouldn't think so - he will have just cynically picked it as a grievance that made sense of the invasion to some older Russians. Denazification is apparently evaporating as an issue now that the peace talks are getting serious.
There might have been 18 million Soviet civilians killed but they certainly weren't all Russian.
The areas occupied by the Germans were mostly Ukraine, Byelorussia and the Baltics.
Not to mention that the Soviets themselves dealt in large scale civilian persecution at that time.
Or that the Soviets were perfectly happy being allied to Germany when it allowed them to invade, occupy and brutally oppress other countries.
Does Nazi mean something different to them than when we hear it? Do we use it differently in this country? To us is it the whipping boys in war films, who always end up losing with Indiana Jones wiping out battalions single handed on a motor cycle whilst dressed as ticket attendant? For those who lived under occupation the word Nazi brings to mind secret police, knocks on door in night, mass graves full of the political or ethic un pure? 😕
For us it's mostly about the Holocaust, don't you think? - plus family memories and, as you say, movie depictions. Countries that have been occupied primarily think of the massacres that they carried out as they advanced across Eastern Europe. That had the flavour of potential existential threat - to one's country and to many people that one knows - that we've perhaps never experienced in Britain and with luck never will. It's estimated that 18 million Russian civilians were killed during the occupation - roughly 10% of the entire national population and probably nearer 25% of the population in the occupied areas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the_Soviet_Union?msclkid=9caa88adaee211ec9930647162972f06).
This is not to excuse Putin or his military nutcasery. But it's why the Ukrainian toleration of a group like the Azov Brigade who honour the Nazi tradition and maintain armed militia as part of the national army has disturbing resonance for Russians.
Does Putin care particularly? I shouldn't think so - he will have just cynically picked it as a grievance that made sense of the invasion to some older Russians. Denazification is apparently evaporating as an issue now that the peace talks are getting serious.
Small point. 18 million Soviet civilian deaths does not equal 18 million Russian civilian deaths. Many of the Civilians killed were Ukranians, Belarussians, Balts, Poles and Jews etc.
One reason calling the Ukranians Nazis is so offensive is because the Ukranians suffered very heavily under Nazi occupation. Sure, there were Ukranian collaborators, but there were Russian collaborators too.
"The home secretary said: "She deserves our profound gratitude for her decades of public service and leadership in policing, as well as our best wishes for the future.
""Dame Cressida has shown exceptional dedication to fighting crime in London and beyond throughout her time as Commissioner, as the first woman to hold the role of commissioner."
"She added: "The circumstances in which the outgoing MPS Commissioner is leaving her role warrant a closer look at the legislation which governs the suspension and removal of the commissioner."
"Outgoing chief inspector of constabulary Sir Tom Winsor will carry out the review."
Another pointless review by another pointless Poo-Bah which will be read by one poor civil servant, summarised then ignored.
I think a review would be very necessary, I think we all want to know how the hell she didn't lose her job long before now.
I suspect the terms of the review may preclude that question getting answered though.
I suspect the review is all about allowing the Home Secretary rather than the London Mayor to make the decision.
It's a power grab by the HS over the Mayor.
Dick was such an embarrassment that Priti must be spitting feathers that by dumping Dick, Khan stole a march on her. I for one still cannot believe the Operation Commander who gave the order to blow De Menezes away hasn't been a Junior Criminology Lecturer for the last sixteen and three quarter years.
Does the HS want to put the new dick in herself, or prefer to let the mayor do it for her?
One of the complaints about tax evasion in the US is that loopholes allow some wealthy persons to treat what looks like income to most of us, as capital gains. According to news accounts that's quite common among hedge fund managers.
Similarly, corporation profits can be used to buy back shares, rather than distributed in taxable dividends. (That was illegal until a rule change in the 1980s.) This can be extremely profitable for company officials, who have been granted options on company shares, as part of their pay.
There is an unrelated matter, which has allowed many wealthy persons to escape audits. After the Lois Lerner scandal during the Obama administration, the Republicans acted by cutting the enforcement budget for the IRS. Reformers argue that restoring it to a proper level would yield billions every year -- and make the tax system fairer.
Having said those things, I must immediately add that I have chosen to have a life, rather than become a tax expert.
Sir Kir Royale Starmer has weighed in on The Hollywood Slap
"In the UK, Keir Starmer said Smith’s actions at the Oscars fell on the “wrong side of the line”. The Labour leader said: “Of course there are circumstances and anybody who insults family members excites something quite emotional in all of us. But, on the other hand, to go up and hit someone in that way is wrong, I’m afraid … It was the Oscars, it’s got all the cameras there, millions of people watching.""
There is something inherently and intrinsically cringe-worthy about Starmer. I'm not sure what it is. eg these remarks are unexceptional. This side, that side, blah blah, centrist Papa is centrist
Yet something about the fact these remarks exist makes the soul shrivel. It could be an issue come the GE. Boris does not do this to the voter (tho he does many other bad and unseemly things, of course)
It's almost as if you've already decided to vote Tory at the next GE. Shocked I am.
I'm certainly not voting for Starmer. I've never voted Labour in my life and I'm not going to be persuaded by this lame and boring dork
I have in the past voted Green, Lib Dem, you name it. But never Labour. However, as you say, my vote is therefore unimportant. I'm not a potential switcher
My point is that I can't see Starmer enthusing many actual switchers. His aim seems to be to bore everyone into acceptance. Hmm. Boris is a tenacious, proven and wily campaigner, with a track record of victory. Starmer is not
2024 is probably going to be close, and if forced to bet at gunpoint with my own actual cash I'd have a narrow Tory maj as favourite, right now. Starmer just isn't all that
Does Nazi mean something different to them than when we hear it? Do we use it differently in this country? To us is it the whipping boys in war films, who always end up losing with Indiana Jones wiping out battalions single handed on a motor cycle whilst dressed as ticket attendant? For those who lived under occupation the word Nazi brings to mind secret police, knocks on door in night, mass graves full of the political or ethic un pure? 😕
For us it's mostly about the Holocaust, don't you think? - plus family memories and, as you say, movie depictions. Countries that have been occupied primarily think of the massacres that they carried out as they advanced across Eastern Europe. That had the flavour of potential existential threat - to one's country and to many people that one knows - that we've perhaps never experienced in Britain and with luck never will. It's estimated that 18 million Russian civilians were killed during the occupation - roughly 10% of the entire national population and probably nearer 25% of the population in the occupied areas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the_Soviet_Union?msclkid=9caa88adaee211ec9930647162972f06).
This is not to excuse Putin or his military nutcasery. But it's why the Ukrainian toleration of a group like the Azov Brigade who honour the Nazi tradition and maintain armed militia as part of the national army has disturbing resonance for Russians.
Does Putin care particularly? I shouldn't think so - he will have just cynically picked it as a grievance that made sense of the invasion to some older Russians. Denazification is apparently evaporating as an issue now that the peace talks are getting serious.
Small point. 18 million Soviet civilian deaths does not equal 18 million Russian civilian deaths. Many of the Civilians killed were Ukranians, Belarussians, Balts, Poles and Jews etc.
One reason calling the Ukranians Nazis is so offensive is because the Ukranians suffered very heavily under Nazi occupation. Sure, there were Ukranian collaborators, but there were Russian collaborators too.
Given that Poland and Ukraine exist amicably now despite their history of conflict:
Does Nazi mean something different to them than when we hear it? Do we use it differently in this country? To us is it the whipping boys in war films, who always end up losing with Indiana Jones wiping out battalions single handed on a motor cycle whilst dressed as ticket attendant? For those who lived under occupation the word Nazi brings to mind secret police, knocks on door in night, mass graves full of the political or ethic un pure? 😕
For us it's mostly about the Holocaust, don't you think? - plus family memories and, as you say, movie depictions. Countries that have been occupied primarily think of the massacres that they carried out as they advanced across Eastern Europe. That had the flavour of potential existential threat - to one's country and to many people that one knows - that we've perhaps never experienced in Britain and with luck never will. It's estimated that 18 million Russian civilians were killed during the occupation - roughly 10% of the entire national population and probably nearer 25% of the population in the occupied areas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the_Soviet_Union?msclkid=9caa88adaee211ec9930647162972f06).
This is not to excuse Putin or his military nutcasery. But it's why the Ukrainian toleration of a group like the Azov Brigade who honour the Nazi tradition and maintain armed militia as part of the national army has disturbing resonance for Russians.
Does Putin care particularly? I shouldn't think so - he will have just cynically picked it as a grievance that made sense of the invasion to some older Russians. Denazification is apparently evaporating as an issue now that the peace talks are getting serious.
Small point. 18 million Soviet civilian deaths does not equal 18 million Russian civilian deaths. Many of the Civilians killed were Ukranians, Belarussians, Balts, Poles and Jews etc.
One reason calling the Ukranians Nazis is so offensive is because the Ukranians suffered very heavily under Nazi occupation. Sure, there were Ukranian collaborators, but there were Russian collaborators too.
And as Timothy Snyder has pointed out, far more Ukrainians fought against the Nazis than fought for them.
"The home secretary said: "She deserves our profound gratitude for her decades of public service and leadership in policing, as well as our best wishes for the future.
""Dame Cressida has shown exceptional dedication to fighting crime in London and beyond throughout her time as Commissioner, as the first woman to hold the role of commissioner."
"She added: "The circumstances in which the outgoing MPS Commissioner is leaving her role warrant a closer look at the legislation which governs the suspension and removal of the commissioner."
"Outgoing chief inspector of constabulary Sir Tom Winsor will carry out the review."
Another pointless review by another pointless Poo-Bah which will be read by one poor civil servant, summarised then ignored.
I think a review would be very necessary, I think we all want to know how the hell she didn't lose her job long before now.
I suspect the terms of the review may preclude that question getting answered though.
I suspect the review is all about allowing the Home Secretary rather than the London Mayor to make the decision.
It's a power grab by the HS over the Mayor.
Dick was such an embarrassment that Priti must be spitting feathers that by dumping Dick, Khan stole a march on her. I for one still cannot believe the Operation Commander who gave the order to blow De Menezes away hasn't been a Junior Criminology Lecturer for the last sixteen and three quarter years.
Does the HS want to put the new dick in herself, or prefer to let the mayor do it for her?
"Ooooh, Matron! Take her away!"
🤦♀️ That’s why I didn’t get a reply to the question trust PB to see a double entendres in everything?
Anyway. I’ll do a potted newspaper round up. A right smorgasbord of information FT has printed “fears of stagflation” 😕 Abromovich poisoned by chocolate on every paper. 😕 Good News from the Express. Sunak has promised the return of triple lock pensions, pensions will go up 7.4%. Why havn’t everyone else using that big story? The Telegraph uses Sunak’s quote “I never said I was a tax cutter”. Which Guto Hari has orders from Big Dog to set to music, in fact little i has PM and Chancellor war about to go nuclear. The star is the best read at the moment, I’ve added the app to my devices. They have key news from space.Don’t look up there is an asteroid coming close, and a solar storm. A profession footballer eaten by piranha fish and the sniper nun with 40 kills. They also have proof Stilton Cheese is sexist, which they’ve put on page 3 And the Metro has the Duke of York “back on parade”.
And now I will say my prayers and go to bed. Shopping day tomorrow 🙂
"The home secretary said: "She deserves our profound gratitude for her decades of public service and leadership in policing, as well as our best wishes for the future.
""Dame Cressida has shown exceptional dedication to fighting crime in London and beyond throughout her time as Commissioner, as the first woman to hold the role of commissioner."
"She added: "The circumstances in which the outgoing MPS Commissioner is leaving her role warrant a closer look at the legislation which governs the suspension and removal of the commissioner."
"Outgoing chief inspector of constabulary Sir Tom Winsor will carry out the review."
Another pointless review by another pointless Poo-Bah which will be read by one poor civil servant, summarised then ignored.
I think a review would be very necessary, I think we all want to know how the hell she didn't lose her job long before now.
I suspect the terms of the review may preclude that question getting answered though.
I suspect the review is all about allowing the Home Secretary rather than the London Mayor to make the decision.
It's a power grab by the HS over the Mayor.
Dick was such an embarrassment that Priti must be spitting feathers that by dumping Dick, Khan stole a march on her. I for one still cannot believe the Operation Commander who gave the order to blow De Menezes away hasn't been a Junior Criminology Lecturer for the last sixteen and three quarter years.
Does the HS want to put the new dick in herself, or prefer to let the mayor do it for her?
"Ooooh, Matron! Take her away!"
🤦♀️ That’s why I didn’t get a reply to the question trust PB to see a double entendres in everything?
Anyway. I’ll do a potted newspaper round up. A right smorgasbord of information FT has printed “fears of stagflation” 😕 Abromovich poisoned by chocolate on every paper. 😕 Good News from the Express. Sunak has promised the return of triple lock pensions, pensions will go up 7.4%. Why havn’t everyone else using that big story? The Telegraph uses Sunak’s quote “I never said I was a tax cutter”. Which Guto Hari has orders from Big Dog to set to music, in fact little i has PM and Chancellor war about to go nuclear. The star is the best read at the moment, I’ve added the app to my devices. They have key news from space.Don’t look up there is an asteroid coming close, and a solar storm. A profession footballer eaten by piranha fish and the sniper nun with 40 kills. They also have proof Stilton Cheese is sexist, which they’ve put on page 3 And the Metro has the Duke of York “back on parade”.
And now I will say my prayers and go to bed. Shopping day tomorrow 🙂
My wife asked me for a double entendre. So I gave her one.
One of the complaints about tax evasion in the US is that loopholes allow some wealthy persons to treat what looks like income to most of us, as capital gains. According to news accounts that's quite common among hedge fund managers.
Similarly, corporation profits can be used to buy back shares, rather than distributed in taxable dividends. (That was illegal until a rule change in the 1980s.) This can be extremely profitable for company officials, who have been granted options on company shares, as part of their pay.
There is an unrelated matter, which has allowed many wealthy persons to escape audits. After the Lois Lerner scandal during the Obama administration, the Republicans acted by cutting the enforcement budget for the IRS. Reformers argue that restoring it to a proper level would yield billions every year -- and make the tax system fairer.
Having said those things, I must immediately add that I have chosen to have a life, rather than become a tax expert.
The 'carried interest' loophole, so beloved of private equity executives, was substantially (although not completely) eliminated by President Trump.
"The home secretary said: "She deserves our profound gratitude for her decades of public service and leadership in policing, as well as our best wishes for the future.
""Dame Cressida has shown exceptional dedication to fighting crime in London and beyond throughout her time as Commissioner, as the first woman to hold the role of commissioner."
"She added: "The circumstances in which the outgoing MPS Commissioner is leaving her role warrant a closer look at the legislation which governs the suspension and removal of the commissioner."
"Outgoing chief inspector of constabulary Sir Tom Winsor will carry out the review."
Another pointless review by another pointless Poo-Bah which will be read by one poor civil servant, summarised then ignored.
I think a review would be very necessary, I think we all want to know how the hell she didn't lose her job long before now.
I suspect the terms of the review may preclude that question getting answered though.
I suspect the review is all about allowing the Home Secretary rather than the London Mayor to make the decision.
It's a power grab by the HS over the Mayor.
Dick was such an embarrassment that Priti must be spitting feathers that by dumping Dick, Khan stole a march on her. I for one still cannot believe the Operation Commander who gave the order to blow De Menezes away hasn't been a Junior Criminology Lecturer for the last sixteen and three quarter years.
Does the HS want to put the new dick in herself, or prefer to let the mayor do it for her?
"Ooooh, Matron! Take her away!"
🤦♀️ That’s why I didn’t get a reply to the question trust PB to see a double entendres in everything?
Anyway. I’ll do a potted newspaper round up. A right smorgasbord of information FT has printed “fears of stagflation” 😕 Abromovich poisoned by chocolate on every paper. 😕 Good News from the Express. Sunak has promised the return of triple lock pensions, pensions will go up 7.4%. Why havn’t everyone else using that big story? The Telegraph uses Sunak’s quote “I never said I was a tax cutter”. Which Guto Hari has orders from Big Dog to set to music, in fact little i has PM and Chancellor war about to go nuclear. The star is the best read at the moment, I’ve added the app to my devices. They have key news from space.Don’t look up there is an asteroid coming close, and a solar storm. A profession footballer eaten by piranha fish and the sniper nun with 40 kills. They also have proof Stilton Cheese is sexist, which they’ve put on page 3 And the Metro has the Duke of York “back on parade”.
And now I will say my prayers and go to bed. Shopping day tomorrow 🙂
My wife asked me for a double entendre. So I gave her one.
It actually doesn't matter what prompted this particular comment from David Baddiel, which is part of a wider group of comments - he's bloody right. Certainly I've done it myself, but I'm not alone. I have a phrase for this, which is naive sophistication. People who think they will appear sophisticated, that is, by naively thinking, with a raised sophisticated eyebrow, that "nothing is what it seems." Truth is, quite a lot of things are what they seem.
One of the complaints about tax evasion in the US is that loopholes allow some wealthy persons to treat what looks like income to most of us, as capital gains. According to news accounts that's quite common among hedge fund managers.
Similarly, corporation profits can be used to buy back shares, rather than distributed in taxable dividends. (That was illegal until a rule change in the 1980s.) This can be extremely profitable for company officials, who have been granted options on company shares, as part of their pay.
There is an unrelated matter, which has allowed many wealthy persons to escape audits. After the Lois Lerner scandal during the Obama administration, the Republicans acted by cutting the enforcement budget for the IRS. Reformers argue that restoring it to a proper level would yield billions every year -- and make the tax system fairer.
Having said those things, I must immediately add that I have chosen to have a life, rather than become a tax expert.
I summarised that executives were directly manipulating buyback times for personal gain. And buybacks may well be hindering inward investment as incentives in the contracts of senior management are linked to the share price and no one cares how you get there.
Now it seems like Biden will prevent executives from cashing out straight after a buyback.
Does Nazi mean something different to them than when we hear it? Do we use it differently in this country? To us is it the whipping boys in war films, who always end up losing with Indiana Jones wiping out battalions single handed on a motor cycle whilst dressed as ticket attendant? For those who lived under occupation the word Nazi brings to mind secret police, knocks on door in night, mass graves full of the political or ethic un pure? 😕
For us it's mostly about the Holocaust, don't you think? - plus family memories and, as you say, movie depictions. Countries that have been occupied primarily think of the massacres that they carried out as they advanced across Eastern Europe. That had the flavour of potential existential threat - to one's country and to many people that one knows - that we've perhaps never experienced in Britain and with luck never will. It's estimated that 18 million Russian civilians were killed during the occupation - roughly 10% of the entire national population and probably nearer 25% of the population in the occupied areas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the_Soviet_Union?msclkid=9caa88adaee211ec9930647162972f06).
This is not to excuse Putin or his military nutcasery. But it's why the Ukrainian toleration of a group like the Azov Brigade who honour the Nazi tradition and maintain armed militia as part of the national army has disturbing resonance for Russians.
Does Putin care particularly? I shouldn't think so - he will have just cynically picked it as a grievance that made sense of the invasion to some older Russians. Denazification is apparently evaporating as an issue now that the peace talks are getting serious.
Small point. 18 million Soviet civilian deaths does not equal 18 million Russian civilian deaths. Many of the Civilians killed were Ukranians, Belarussians, Balts, Poles and Jews etc.
One reason calling the Ukranians Nazis is so offensive is because the Ukranians suffered very heavily under Nazi occupation. Sure, there were Ukranian collaborators, but there were Russian collaborators too.
And as Timothy Snyder has pointed out, far more Ukrainians fought against the Nazis than fought for them.
Sir Kir Royale Starmer has weighed in on The Hollywood Slap
"In the UK, Keir Starmer said Smith’s actions at the Oscars fell on the “wrong side of the line”. The Labour leader said: “Of course there are circumstances and anybody who insults family members excites something quite emotional in all of us. But, on the other hand, to go up and hit someone in that way is wrong, I’m afraid … It was the Oscars, it’s got all the cameras there, millions of people watching.""
There is something inherently and intrinsically cringe-worthy about Starmer. I'm not sure what it is. eg these remarks are unexceptional. This side, that side, blah blah, centrist Papa is centrist
Yet something about the fact these remarks exist makes the soul shrivel. It could be an issue come the GE. Boris does not do this to the voter (tho he does many other bad and unseemly things, of course)
It's almost as if you've already decided to vote Tory at the next GE. Shocked I am.
I'm certainly not voting for Starmer. I've never voted Labour in my life and I'm not going to be persuaded by this lame and boring dork
I have in the past voted Green, Lib Dem, you name it. But never Labour. However, as you say, my vote is therefore unimportant. I'm not a potential switcher
My point is that I can't see Starmer enthusing many actual switchers. His aim seems to be to bore everyone into acceptance. Hmm. Boris is a tenacious, proven and wily campaigner, with a track record of victory. Starmer is not
2024 is probably going to be close, and if forced to bet at gunpoint with my own actual cash I'd have a narrow Tory maj as favourite, right now. Starmer just isn't all that
Hey, Leon, brother.
Posters couple of days ago, like Farooq ka ka ka, said I am you!
How would you like it if you were me! 😂
Are you just as excited as me about article how sexy hair can be on a sexy lady?
Does Nazi mean something different to them than when we hear it? Do we use it differently in this country? To us is it the whipping boys in war films, who always end up losing with Indiana Jones wiping out battalions single handed on a motor cycle whilst dressed as ticket attendant? For those who lived under occupation the word Nazi brings to mind secret police, knocks on door in night, mass graves full of the political or ethic un pure? 😕
For us it's mostly about the Holocaust, don't you think? - plus family memories and, as you say, movie depictions. Countries that have been occupied primarily think of the massacres that they carried out as they advanced across Eastern Europe. That had the flavour of potential existential threat - to one's country and to many people that one knows - that we've perhaps never experienced in Britain and with luck never will. It's estimated that 18 million Russian civilians were killed during the occupation - roughly 10% of the entire national population and probably nearer 25% of the population in the occupied areas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the_Soviet_Union?msclkid=9caa88adaee211ec9930647162972f06).
This is not to excuse Putin or his military nutcasery. But it's why the Ukrainian toleration of a group like the Azov Brigade who honour the Nazi tradition and maintain armed militia as part of the national army has disturbing resonance for Russians.
Does Putin care particularly? I shouldn't think so - he will have just cynically picked it as a grievance that made sense of the invasion to some older Russians. Denazification is apparently evaporating as an issue now that the peace talks are getting serious.
Small point. 18 million Soviet civilian deaths does not equal 18 million Russian civilian deaths. Many of the Civilians killed were Ukranians, Belarussians, Balts, Poles and Jews etc.
One reason calling the Ukranians Nazis is so offensive is because the Ukranians suffered very heavily under Nazi occupation. Sure, there were Ukranian collaborators, but there were Russian collaborators too.
And as Timothy Snyder has pointed out, far more Ukrainians fought against the Nazis than fought for them.
And Zelensky is Jewish himself.
Plus these things can be bigged up in information war, like how close they are to governments, because every country has Neo Nazi groups.
Sir Kir Royale Starmer has weighed in on The Hollywood Slap
"In the UK, Keir Starmer said Smith’s actions at the Oscars fell on the “wrong side of the line”. The Labour leader said: “Of course there are circumstances and anybody who insults family members excites something quite emotional in all of us. But, on the other hand, to go up and hit someone in that way is wrong, I’m afraid … It was the Oscars, it’s got all the cameras there, millions of people watching.""
There is something inherently and intrinsically cringe-worthy about Starmer. I'm not sure what it is. eg these remarks are unexceptional. This side, that side, blah blah, centrist Papa is centrist
Yet something about the fact these remarks exist makes the soul shrivel. It could be an issue come the GE. Boris does not do this to the voter (tho he does many other bad and unseemly things, of course)
It's almost as if you've already decided to vote Tory at the next GE. Shocked I am.
I'm certainly not voting for Starmer. I've never voted Labour in my life and I'm not going to be persuaded by this lame and boring dork
I have in the past voted Green, Lib Dem, you name it. But never Labour. However, as you say, my vote is therefore unimportant. I'm not a potential switcher
My point is that I can't see Starmer enthusing many actual switchers. His aim seems to be to bore everyone into acceptance. Hmm. Boris is a tenacious, proven and wily campaigner, with a track record of victory. Starmer is not
2024 is probably going to be close, and if forced to bet at gunpoint with my own actual cash I'd have a narrow Tory maj as favourite, right now. Starmer just isn't all that
Hey, Leon, brother.
Posters couple of days ago, like Farooq ka ka ka, said I am you!
How would you like it if you were me! 😂
Are you just as excited as me about article how sexy hair can be on a sexy lady?
Sir Kir Royale Starmer has weighed in on The Hollywood Slap
"In the UK, Keir Starmer said Smith’s actions at the Oscars fell on the “wrong side of the line”. The Labour leader said: “Of course there are circumstances and anybody who insults family members excites something quite emotional in all of us. But, on the other hand, to go up and hit someone in that way is wrong, I’m afraid … It was the Oscars, it’s got all the cameras there, millions of people watching.""
There is something inherently and intrinsically cringe-worthy about Starmer. I'm not sure what it is. eg these remarks are unexceptional. This side, that side, blah blah, centrist Papa is centrist
Yet something about the fact these remarks exist makes the soul shrivel. It could be an issue come the GE. Boris does not do this to the voter (tho he does many other bad and unseemly things, of course)
It's almost as if you've already decided to vote Tory at the next GE. Shocked I am.
I'm certainly not voting for Starmer. I've never voted Labour in my life and I'm not going to be persuaded by this lame and boring dork
I have in the past voted Green, Lib Dem, you name it. But never Labour. However, as you say, my vote is therefore unimportant. I'm not a potential switcher
My point is that I can't see Starmer enthusing many actual switchers. His aim seems to be to bore everyone into acceptance. Hmm. Boris is a tenacious, proven and wily campaigner, with a track record of victory. Starmer is not
2024 is probably going to be close, and if forced to bet at gunpoint with my own actual cash I'd have a narrow Tory maj as favourite, right now. Starmer just isn't all that
Hey, Leon, brother.
Posters couple of days ago, like Farooq ka ka ka, said I am you!
How would you like it if you were me! 😂
Are you just as excited as me about article how sexy hair can be on a sexy lady?
"Will Smith vs Chris Rock shows toxic masculinity always has the last word It’s possible to defend a woman without resorting to an attention-seeking “protection” narrative. By Johanna Thomas-Corr"
Good morning from seat 4A of easyJet's 06:10 Aberdeen to Gatwick flight. A few fog patches on the drive down but nothing too horrible.
New rented parking space at Premier Inn is 7 minutes walk to the terminal, not 5 as advertised. Usual mega efficiency at security and pretty much straight into the Speedy Boarding queue.
Does Nazi mean something different to them than when we hear it? Do we use it differently in this country? To us is it the whipping boys in war films, who always end up losing with Indiana Jones wiping out battalions single handed on a motor cycle whilst dressed as ticket attendant? For those who lived under occupation the word Nazi brings to mind secret police, knocks on door in night, mass graves full of the political or ethic un pure? 😕
For us it's mostly about the Holocaust, don't you think? - plus family memories and, as you say, movie depictions. Countries that have been occupied primarily think of the massacres that they carried out as they advanced across Eastern Europe. That had the flavour of potential existential threat - to one's country and to many people that one knows - that we've perhaps never experienced in Britain and with luck never will. It's estimated that 18 million Russian civilians were killed during the occupation - roughly 10% of the entire national population and probably nearer 25% of the population in the occupied areas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the_Soviet_Union?msclkid=9caa88adaee211ec9930647162972f06).
This is not to excuse Putin or his military nutcasery. But it's why the Ukrainian toleration of a group like the Azov Brigade who honour the Nazi tradition and maintain armed militia as part of the national army has disturbing resonance for Russians.
Does Putin care particularly? I shouldn't think so - he will have just cynically picked it as a grievance that made sense of the invasion to some older Russians. Denazification is apparently evaporating as an issue now that the peace talks are getting serious.
Note there were more Ukrainian casualties in the Red Army than there wee Russian fighting against Hitler - and much those “occupied areas” were Ukraine. And for decades it was illegal in Russia to mention the existence of the Molotov Ribbentrop pact.
Don’t forget that ‘Ukraine” did not exist at the start of WWII - its current lands, nascent states in the aftermath of WWI, were conquered and divided between Poland and Soviet Russia. Stalin perpetrated his own version of genocide on Soviet Ukraine in the 1930s.
Note also that the current Russian army in Ukraine is probably majority non Russia - reluctant ethnic minority conscript, many of whom have no idea why they are there.
The disturbing historical parallels of genocide - the attempted erase of a nation through mass killing and deportations - tend in quite another direction.
Does Nazi mean something different to them than when we hear it? Do we use it differently in this country? To us is it the whipping boys in war films, who always end up losing with Indiana Jones wiping out battalions single handed on a motor cycle whilst dressed as ticket attendant? For those who lived under occupation the word Nazi brings to mind secret police, knocks on door in night, mass graves full of the political or ethic un pure? 😕
For us it's mostly about the Holocaust, don't you think? - plus family memories and, as you say, movie depictions. Countries that have been occupied primarily think of the massacres that they carried out as they advanced across Eastern Europe. That had the flavour of potential existential threat - to one's country and to many people that one knows - that we've perhaps never experienced in Britain and with luck never will. It's estimated that 18 million Russian civilians were killed during the occupation - roughly 10% of the entire national population and probably nearer 25% of the population in the occupied areas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the_Soviet_Union?msclkid=9caa88adaee211ec9930647162972f06).
This is not to excuse Putin or his military nutcasery. But it's why the Ukrainian toleration of a group like the Azov Brigade who honour the Nazi tradition and maintain armed militia as part of the national army has disturbing resonance for Russians.
Does Putin care particularly? I shouldn't think so - he will have just cynically picked it as a grievance that made sense of the invasion to some older Russians. Denazification is apparently evaporating as an issue now that the peace talks are getting serious.
Small point. 18 million Soviet civilian deaths does not equal 18 million Russian civilian deaths. Many of the Civilians killed were Ukranians, Belarussians, Balts, Poles and Jews etc.
One reason calling the Ukranians Nazis is so offensive is because the Ukranians suffered very heavily under Nazi occupation. Sure, there were Ukranian collaborators, but there were Russian collaborators too.
Starting with Molotov. Plus Georgian collaborators (Stalin).
As for Nick Palmer’s point about the Azov Brigade, has he seen the commander of Putin’s elite brigade? The one with all those swastika tattoos?
Interesting thread (note that much of the Russian army is recruited from the poorer parts of the Russian state).
https://mobile.twitter.com/sumlenny/status/1508398726099914756 In many tapped phone calls between Russian soldiers and their relatives (Russians steal UKR mobile phones, use them, SBU taps) they tell same story: how rich Ukraine is, how much they have looted, and how cool ppl lived here. Some saw asphalt and street lights for the first time...
Does Nazi mean something different to them than when we hear it? Do we use it differently in this country? To us is it the whipping boys in war films, who always end up losing with Indiana Jones wiping out battalions single handed on a motor cycle whilst dressed as ticket attendant? For those who lived under occupation the word Nazi brings to mind secret police, knocks on door in night, mass graves full of the political or ethic un pure? 😕
For us it's mostly about the Holocaust, don't you think? - plus family memories and, as you say, movie depictions. Countries that have been occupied primarily think of the massacres that they carried out as they advanced across Eastern Europe. That had the flavour of potential existential threat - to one's country and to many people that one knows - that we've perhaps never experienced in Britain and with luck never will. It's estimated that 18 million Russian civilians were killed during the occupation - roughly 10% of the entire national population and probably nearer 25% of the population in the occupied areas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the_Soviet_Union?msclkid=9caa88adaee211ec9930647162972f06).
This is not to excuse Putin or his military nutcasery. But it's why the Ukrainian toleration of a group like the Azov Brigade who honour the Nazi tradition and maintain armed militia as part of the national army has disturbing resonance for Russians.
Does Putin care particularly? I shouldn't think so - he will have just cynically picked it as a grievance that made sense of the invasion to some older Russians. Denazification is apparently evaporating as an issue now that the peace talks are getting serious.
Small point. 18 million Soviet civilian deaths does not equal 18 million Russian civilian deaths. Many of the Civilians killed were Ukranians, Belarussians, Balts, Poles and Jews etc.
One reason calling the Ukranians Nazis is so offensive is because the Ukranians suffered very heavily under Nazi occupation. Sure, there were Ukranian collaborators, but there were Russian collaborators too.
Starting with Molotov. Plus Georgian collaborators (Stalin).
As for Nick Palmer’s point about the Azov Brigade, has he seen the commander of Putin’s elite brigade? The one with all those swastika tattoos?
Oryx's confirmed Russian equipment losses have gone over 2000 today, with the tank losses (318) now at more than 25% of the initial estimate of 1250 tanks.
And still saying "the amount of equipment destroyed is significantly higher than recorded here"....
Last update I saw said he had another 175 Russian losses to record......
The attrition rate is such that if the Ukrainians weren't losing kit at a reasonable whack too (though apparently less quickly than Russia) you might expect the fightback to start gathering pace quite quickly. A constant rate of losses to a diminishing stock, plus what must surely be a very tired and sleep-deprived army, points to some kind of tipping point. Unless Ukraine is stretched beyond what we realise (which is possible).
Yes, unless the Ukrainian army is also tottering near the point of collapse, then you would expect to see wholesale collapses of the Russian front within the next week or two. Michael Kofman made that point in a podcast recently.
If that's the case, and if Putin accepts the reality of that, then I think we would see a unilateral declaration of a ceasefire by Russia as soon as they have secured Mariupol.
What that overlooks is that Russia has deep reserves of additional forces that were never committed to the Ukraine in the first place, whereas Ukraine has no reserves other than what the West is willing to supply them with. Putin is not going to hold back from committing more of those forces if his own survival depends on it.
The West isn't willing to supply any heavy equipment. For example, even 1% of NATO's stock of tanks is apparently beyond the Pale for an intimidated Biden. So in so far as Ukraine has been able to maintain its stock of servicable AFVs, it's had to rely on capturing and reusing salvagable equipment from the Russians, which reportedly it has done with some success so far. At least tanks can sometimes be salvaged, in contrast to planes. And the idea that Russia will fail to learn from past mistakes and go on repeating the failures of the first month is a big and questionable assumption on which I think the issue will turn.
I don't think that's true.
Firstly, they will have sent their best forces in, hence the fact that many of the officer casualties we know about are among their paratroopers. (It's also worth noting that much of the Russian army - by numbers - is conscripts.)
Secondly, Russia has lots of rebellious edges. The Chechens will be itching to rebel again, and they will be far from the only ones.
Thirdly, Putin will be scared for his own safety. A substantial portion of the armed forces are tied down as Putin's personal guard. He can't use these troops without risking himself.
What exactly don't you think is true?
Clearly the Ukranians aren't being resupplied with any heavy weaponry and aren't going to have much left now that's still uncommitted on which to draw on. Their stocks are going to be degraded unless the Russians fail to learn from their mistakes and carry on abandoning equipment.
As for the Russians, I think it's generally accepted that they thought initially that the invasion was going to be a cakewalk. So why assume that they allocated anything beyond what they thought would be necessary and that there's not a lot there left still to draw on, at least in terms of material? So it's wrong in my book to measure Russia's losses only as a proportion of what they initially thought was necessary to use to win an easy war, and assume that they have nothing else substantial to draw upon.
The historical precedent is that the Finns initially prevailed against the Soviet Union in the first months of the 1939-40 Winter War, before being eventually ground down by weight of numbers allied to the Soviets eventually changing their flawed tactics.
That doesn't mean that Ukraine will not be able to continue to hold things at a near stalemate with Russia able to claim further territory only at an ultimately unacceptable cost. But I think that's the best that Ukraine can hope for, losing a substantial part of the country in the process, and the supply risks mean that there's still a danger that they won't be able to achieve even that.
“ I think it's generally accepted that they thought initially that the invasion was going to be a cakewalk. “
Is that true? I always presumed each time I heard that it’s part of the information war, up to now I thought it would take ages for Russia to take key bits of infrastructure and get into a sort of position to be able to and suppress the main cities. It’s only now I’m beginning to think it’s taking a while, especially in the waterfront theatre.
I havn’t seen a post from Yokes for ages, but they did say let’s assess after two weeks just how slow it’s going. So was a week or two ever really that realistic?
As examples then, I was too young when we went into Iraq and Afghanistan, can’t rember the time lInes, did we have the mission wrapped up in a week?
Another example as counterfactual, this war other way round, NATO taking Ukraine whose backed by Russia and friends of Russia can keep up supply of “defensive weapons” you would be disappointed if we wouldn’t have it done and dusted in week or two? Surely the movement of what you need of heavy stuff where you need it in the country takes longer than that on its own?
Maybe also now in 2020s satellite maps on one hand and precision bombing based on that intel helps take the effective blitzkrieging out of warfare - is that an interesting suggestion? It’s fair to say those whose job it is to defend UK, US NATO members etc have filled note books of useful stuff, this has been a helpful boon to them?
Russia will take mariupol soon...that will free up troops....After that who knows
What actually decides if something is taken? If they claim taken, like sneaky snake would, we would disbelieve them until what proves it exactly? I genuinely don’t know that answer so would like to know.
It's encirclement followed by clearing. Flat by flat searches for weaponry and enemy combatants. Seeing as Mariupol had about 14k Ukranian army there, and the fact they're not giving up even though they're cut off - well the city must really be starting to hum now.
I see three plausible scenarios for the Russian future:
1. North Korea 2. Imperial Reboot 3. Jubilee
Since Ukraine is resolved to fight, the choice of a Russian historical track ultimately depends upon the resolve of the West. Today I'll outline the North Korea scenario 🧵
Does Nazi mean something different to them than when we hear it? Do we use it differently in this country? To us is it the whipping boys in war films, who always end up losing with Indiana Jones wiping out battalions single handed on a motor cycle whilst dressed as ticket attendant? For those who lived under occupation the word Nazi brings to mind secret police, knocks on door in night, mass graves full of the political or ethic un pure? 😕
For us it's mostly about the Holocaust, don't you think? - plus family memories and, as you say, movie depictions. Countries that have been occupied primarily think of the massacres that they carried out as they advanced across Eastern Europe. That had the flavour of potential existential threat - to one's country and to many people that one knows - that we've perhaps never experienced in Britain and with luck never will. It's estimated that 18 million Russian civilians were killed during the occupation - roughly 10% of the entire national population and probably nearer 25% of the population in the occupied areas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the_Soviet_Union?msclkid=9caa88adaee211ec9930647162972f06).
This is not to excuse Putin or his military nutcasery. But it's why the Ukrainian toleration of a group like the Azov Brigade who honour the Nazi tradition and maintain armed militia as part of the national army has disturbing resonance for Russians.
Does Putin care particularly? I shouldn't think so - he will have just cynically picked it as a grievance that made sense of the invasion to some older Russians. Denazification is apparently evaporating as an issue now that the peace talks are getting serious.
Small point. 18 million Soviet civilian deaths does not equal 18 million Russian civilian deaths. Many of the Civilians killed were Ukranians, Belarussians, Balts, Poles and Jews etc.
One reason calling the Ukranians Nazis is so offensive is because the Ukranians suffered very heavily under Nazi occupation. Sure, there were Ukranian collaborators, but there were Russian collaborators too.
Welll said. And, close to 5 million Ukrainian served in the Red Army or with partisans, far in excess of the number who served the Nazis.
Comments
I suspect the terms of the review may preclude that question getting answered though.
Off to GB News for me.
Still value nonetheless.
I don't think we disagree. I was simply making the point that if the tax is just on INCOME you don't need to go into capital if you are paying only 20% other than if the income is fully reinvested, but even then tax is always payable currently unless you have some relief like capital allowances.
Live in @SkyNews at 10
- DS staff involved in #partygate told Met abt to update on fines
- Met started process & to issue 1st fines to c20 people - no-one notified yet
- Earliest will be tmrw expected to be straightforward cases
- PM not likely in this 1st tranche (see above)
Don't they realise that the Smarkets bet requires Boris to be fined by the end of March?
I always wondered how deeply match fixing is in to snooker, as you would only have to pay off one person to have your results?
https://unherd.com/2022/03/will-chechnyas-gamble-in-ukraine-backfire/
Ukraine releases list of identities of more than 600 alleged FSB agents, some of whom could possibly be operating in Britain
Ukraine has released a list of what it claims are the identities of more than 600 Russian spies, including one who appears to fancy himself as James Bond, in a bid to embarrass Moscow.
The list of 620 agents working for Russia’s FSB security agency, who are meant to stay in the shadows, exposes their passports, phone numbers and even their drinking habits.
They are paying 20% in income tax.
But the politico is claiming they are paying only a 10% rate to try and manipulate the public (“it’s outrageous they are paying so little!”) by saying it is 20/(100+100)=10% while ignoring the fact that they have no legal requirement to pay tax on unrealised gains at present
Might as well start the formal review into this investigation now to save time - break open the WhatsApp conversations.
It would help if you actually understood what you post.
"In the UK, Keir Starmer said Smith’s actions at the Oscars fell on the “wrong side of the line”. The Labour leader said: “Of course there are circumstances and anybody who insults family members excites something quite emotional in all of us. But, on the other hand, to go up and hit someone in that way is wrong, I’m afraid … It was the Oscars, it’s got all the cameras there, millions of people watching.""
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2022/mar/28/celebrities-react-will-smith-hitting-chris-rock-the-oscars
Oh dear
There is something inherently and intrinsically cringe-worthy about Starmer. I'm not sure what it is. eg these remarks are unexceptional. This side, that side, blah blah, centrist Papa is centrist
Yet something about the fact these remarks exist makes the soul shrivel. It could be an issue come the GE. Boris does not do this to the voter (tho he does many other bad and unseemly things, of course)
"This is a way Bigger Deal in my opinion than many people are acknowledging and truly indicates to me that NATO may be Planning Air Combat Operations and I will explain in this thread why I think that is now probable:"
https://twitter.com/sentdefender/status/1508517296138031104
Yes, I know that lots of Conservative MPs harrumphed about waiting for the investigation to be concluded, but that was then and now the time is not ripe... (continued until the Conservatives lose 94 seats)
Is that true? I always presumed each time I heard that it’s part of the information war, up to now I thought it would take ages for Russia to take key bits of infrastructure and get into a sort of position to be able to and suppress the main cities. It’s only now I’m beginning to think it’s taking a while, especially in the waterfront theatre.
I havn’t seen a post from Yokes for ages, but they did say let’s assess after two weeks just how slow it’s going. So was a week or two ever really that realistic?
As examples then, I was too young when we went into Iraq and Afghanistan, can’t rember the time lInes, did we have the mission wrapped up in a week?
Another example as counterfactual, this war other way round, NATO taking Ukraine whose backed by Russia and friends of Russia can keep up supply of “defensive weapons” you would be disappointed if we wouldn’t have it done and dusted in week or two? Surely the movement of what you need of heavy stuff where you need it in the country takes longer than that on its own?
Maybe also now in 2020s satellite maps on one hand and precision bombing based on that intel helps take the effective blitzkrieging out of warfare - is that an interesting suggestion? It’s fair to say those whose job it is to defend UK, US NATO members etc have filled note books of useful stuff, this has been a helpful boon to them?
Dick was such an embarrassment that Priti must be spitting feathers that by dumping Dick, Khan stole a march on her. I for one still cannot believe the Operation Commander who gave the order to blow De Menezes away hasn't been a Junior Criminology Lecturer for the last sixteen and three quarter years.
"Roman Abramovich confirms he and two Ukrainian negotiators were ‘blinded for several hours and had skin peel off their faces and hands’ in suspected poisoning attack after peace talks in Kyiv"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10660555/Roman-Abramovich-suffered-suspected-POISONING-Ukraine-peace-negotiators.html
The duke denounced slavery as “abhorrent” and said “it should never have happened” but Sir Keir suggested he could have said more – and may do so in future.
'William “could have gone further”, Sir Keir said, but he acknowledged “it’s a difficult one”.
“I think that he may go further in the future.”
“William and Kate went on an important trip with important messages, including messages about the changing nature of the Commonwealth going forwards, and that is difficult.”
The Labour leader said it was important for the Commonwealth to modernise to strengthen the bonds with the UK.
But he was it was a “bit odd” for the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge to ride in the back of the same Land Rover that the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh used 60 years ago.
“In a sense, what William and Kate were doing – which I applaud – is saying: ‘We’re looking to the future’, but that all harked of the past, so I didn’t quite see how that actually fit that well with the aim of their trip.”
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/caribbean-william-and-kate-keir-belize-commonwealth-b990852.html
To your second. Yes. Sadly very true. It is super difficult to prove. And for those not in the top 60 or so you're on minimum wage. Even the very best miss occasionally. For anyone who's tried to play, it is a wonder they ever pot anything. So look at the betting patterns not the play.
As I said. It's a odds value bet.
Also, to answer your question, is the war crisis still at stage of rally round not the moment for that? It’s going off the news more quiet and inoffensive it’s become?
Also, has big dog done things in the last month, such as the war, to rebuild his credibility at home? Hard to say to be honest? At times he has come across rubbish and liability, especially in the commons and in speeches?
Strange odd language.
Better to say it all went a bit Eastenders on Christmas Day, or something like that, which millions could actually connect with.
I have tried to play, at home against my dad, as we had table in a spare room, so yes the professionals make the impossible look easy! So the table set just sits against a wall most the time! I am sure I pot even less at pool, much to my other half’s disgust when we team up against people!
Whether you like it or not, the Land Rover incident looked terrible. As far as the hands through the fence was concerned that was a damned if they do, damned if they don't incident.
Surely Starmer is entitled to comment, and all the better without controversy.
He could of course have said something like "the Queen has come to love the Commonwealth, partly because it supplies her with regular cheering crowds of flag-waving piccaninnies."
Also what did you mean by short term. If you are talking about dealing rather than investing that is different to a normal holding and would be income, but that is a special case. Analogous to a builders housing stock compared to a house owner or an aircraft manufacturers compared to an airline. One is stock creating income, the other is capital.
These distinctions matter.As I said words matter.
Is there anything that Sir K doesn't think is "a difficult one"?
The sun rises in the east?
https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/local-news/mayor-big-combined-authority-step-6868951
The odd fluke, decent/dismal split of the pack in a couple of frames can make all the difference to the result.
Most all of the pros are capable of clearing the table given one chance.
It isn't analagous to a horse being faster than the other
Finland was a tiny country next to Russia, and was being resupplied by exactly no-one. Finland had about 4.5 million people in it in 1940, as against 190 million in the Soviet Union. Heck, the Red Army outnumbered Finns by almost 2:1 in 1940. And the Finns would probably have been able to keep resisting, if they hadn't run out of ammunition.
Ukraine, by contrast, is a third the size of Russia. And is being resupplied (albeit not with heavy weaponry) from the West.
There is no evidence at all the Russians have held back their decent equipment or their professional soldiers. Indeed, the photographic evidence of tanks and APCs on trains, is that the kit being shipped to Ukraine now is older and likely to be even less reliable.
And don't forget, a tank once lost is not going to be replaced easily. An NLAW, on the other hand, can much more easily replaced.
So, this whole 'Russians are learning from their mistakes' theory is - while possible - pretty unlikely. They don't have unlimited numbers of young men to throw at the Ukrainians. They don't have unlimited amounts of kit. And they suffer from much a worse worse supply situation than the defenders.
You are just trying to get out of the fact that you did say income when you meant capital aren't you?
"We've lost all our tanks... but we've learnt from our mistakes, so we're not going to do that again"
Lab 285
Con 270
SNP 55
LD 16
PC 4
Grn 1
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2022/01/britain-predicts
The LD figure seem a bit low. A rainbow coalition excluding the SNP would still be about 20 seats short of a majority.
Massive LOL.
Are they on drugs?
Suddenly there's crazy mania around coffee ordering apps, and the price of Joe.com spikes to GBP1,000 per share! You are now worth GBP100m!
But you know what: the market in Joe.com is very thin. Only a few thousand shares a day change hands. If you wanted to realise GBP20m to pay your tax bill, it might not even be possible.
Of course, we could allow people to pay their tax bills in shares. But what happens if the price were to fall the next year. Do I get my shares back?
LOL
Is Tony Blair leading the modern Labour party according to the NS magazine?
I quite like the idea of allowing a tax bill to be paid in illiquid shares btw.
This is not to excuse Putin or his military nutcasery. But it's why the Ukrainian toleration of a group like the Azov Brigade who honour the Nazi tradition and maintain armed militia as part of the national army has disturbing resonance for Russians.
Does Putin care particularly? I shouldn't think so - he will have just cynically picked it as a grievance that made sense of the invasion to some older Russians. Denazification is apparently evaporating as an issue now that the peace talks are getting serious.
But is worth noting that this is a little bit of a risky strategy: if the value of your asset falls, you run into the risk that you can't both pay back the loan and the capital gains taxes you owe on the sale of the asset.
Edit to add: maybe simple treat personal loans secured on business assets taxable income.
This of course ignores the possibility of a wealth tax in addition which is a different kettle of fish.
The areas occupied by the Germans were mostly Ukraine, Byelorussia and the Baltics.
Not to mention that the Soviets themselves dealt in large scale civilian persecution at that time.
Or that the Soviets were perfectly happy being allied to Germany when it allowed them to invade, occupy and brutally oppress other countries.
One reason calling the Ukranians Nazis is so offensive is because the Ukranians suffered very heavily under Nazi occupation. Sure, there were Ukranian collaborators, but there were Russian collaborators too.
Similarly, corporation profits can be used to buy back shares, rather than distributed in taxable dividends. (That was illegal until a rule change in the 1980s.) This can be extremely profitable for company officials, who have been granted options on company shares, as part of their pay.
There is an unrelated matter, which has allowed many wealthy persons to escape audits. After the Lois Lerner scandal during the Obama administration, the Republicans acted by cutting the enforcement budget for the IRS. Reformers argue that restoring it to a proper level would yield billions every year -- and make the tax system fairer.
Having said those things, I must immediately add that I have chosen to have a life, rather than become a tax expert.
I have in the past voted Green, Lib Dem, you name it. But never Labour. However, as you say, my vote is therefore unimportant. I'm not a potential switcher
My point is that I can't see Starmer enthusing many actual switchers. His aim seems to be to bore everyone into acceptance. Hmm. Boris is a tenacious, proven and wily campaigner, with a track record of victory. Starmer is not
2024 is probably going to be close, and if forced to bet at gunpoint with my own actual cash I'd have a narrow Tory maj as favourite, right now. Starmer just isn't all that
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacification_of_Ukrainians_in_Eastern_Galicia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacres_of_Poles_in_Volhynia_and_Eastern_Galicia
the claims that Russia deserves some 'special understanding' for its invasions and oppressions are pretty nauseating.
Anyway. I’ll do a potted newspaper round up. A right smorgasbord of information
FT has printed “fears of stagflation” 😕
Abromovich poisoned by chocolate on every paper. 😕
Good News from the Express. Sunak has promised the return of triple lock pensions, pensions will go up 7.4%. Why havn’t everyone else using that big story? The Telegraph uses Sunak’s quote “I never said I was a tax cutter”. Which Guto Hari has orders from Big Dog to set to music, in fact little i has PM and Chancellor war about to go nuclear.
The star is the best read at the moment, I’ve added the app to my devices. They have key news from space.Don’t look up there is an asteroid coming close, and a solar storm. A profession footballer eaten by piranha fish and the sniper nun with 40 kills. They also have proof Stilton Cheese is sexist, which they’ve put on page 3
And the Metro has the Duke of York “back on parade”.
And now I will say my prayers and go to bed. Shopping day tomorrow 🙂
There’s a new podcast just landed which seems pretty good (I’m on Ep 2).
. .
I have a phrase for this, which is naive sophistication. People who think they will appear sophisticated, that is, by naively thinking, with a raised sophisticated eyebrow, that "nothing is what it seems." Truth is, quite a lot of things are what they seem.
https://twitter.com/Baddiel/status/1508446158401769483
Key point: "The Trump administration's 2017 tax legislation framework made no mention of doing away with the carried interest tax break. "
https://capitalisnt.com/episodes/3bbba378-3bbba378
I summarised that executives were directly manipulating buyback times for personal gain. And buybacks may well be hindering inward investment as incentives in the contracts of senior management are linked to the share price and no one cares how you get there.
Now it seems like Biden will prevent executives from cashing out straight after a buyback.
Posters couple of days ago, like Farooq ka ka ka, said I am you!
How would you like it if you were me! 😂
Are you just as excited as me about article how sexy hair can be on a sexy lady?
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/real-life/onlyfans-model-says-bush-sexy-26549055
Don’t beat about the bush like Starmer!
Is this the German’s bigging it up? 😠
https://www.dw.com/en/the-azov-battalion-extremists-defending-mariupol/a-61151151
https://www.bellingcat.com/tag/azov/
"But you don't drink, Sunil!"
Oh, yeah
It’s possible to defend a woman without resorting to an attention-seeking “protection” narrative.
By Johanna Thomas-Corr"
https://www.newstatesman.com/comment/2022/03/will-smith-vs-chris-rock-shows-toxic-masculinity-always-has-the-last-word
New rented parking space at Premier Inn is 7 minutes walk to the terminal, not 5 as advertised. Usual mega efficiency at security and pretty much straight into the Speedy Boarding queue.
This commuting to London thing is a doddle.
Don’t forget that ‘Ukraine” did not exist at the start of WWII - its current lands, nascent states in the aftermath of WWI, were conquered and divided between Poland and Soviet Russia. Stalin perpetrated his own version of genocide on Soviet Ukraine in the 1930s.
Note also that the current Russian army in Ukraine is probably majority non Russia - reluctant ethnic minority conscript, many of whom have no idea why they are there.
The disturbing historical parallels of genocide - the attempted erase of a nation through mass killing and deportations - tend in quite another direction.
As for Nick Palmer’s point about the Azov Brigade, has he seen the commander of Putin’s elite brigade? The one with all those swastika tattoos?
https://mobile.twitter.com/sumlenny/status/1508398726099914756
In many tapped phone calls between Russian soldiers and their relatives (Russians steal UKR mobile phones, use them, SBU taps) they tell same story: how rich Ukraine is, how much they have looted, and how cool ppl lived here. Some saw asphalt and street lights for the first time...
I see three plausible scenarios for the Russian future:
1. North Korea
2. Imperial Reboot
3. Jubilee
Since Ukraine is resolved to fight, the choice of a Russian historical track ultimately depends upon the resolve of the West. Today I'll outline the North Korea scenario 🧵
https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1508576670587895810
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/03/28/keir-starmer-refuses-answer-whether-woman-can-have-penis-latest/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10660679/amp/Keir-Starmer-refuses-say-woman-penis-flounders-trans-rights-debate.html
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/starmer-unable-to-say-whether-a-woman-can-have-a-penis-hbbw2sspw
https://news-24.fr/squirming-sir-keir-starmer-verse-de-lessence-sur-la-flamboyante-ligne-trans-du-labour-en-refusant-de-dire-si-les-femmes-peuvent-avoir-des-penis/amp/