is he the oldest ever former President or UK prime minister?
Yes. Runners up are James Callaghan (died the day before his 93rd birthday) and George H. Bush (94).
Carter deserves some sort of record. He was a lousy president in many ways, but was probably also the single most decent and well-meaning man ever to be President and has done far more good than almost any other human in the years since his defeat.
1. Scrap council tax and do a 2% annual property tax already, payable by estates or on sale if you can’t pay in the year.
2. Inheritance tax at 20% for all non property assets.
On point 1, are we talking about an annual valuation of every property or simply applying an inflationary uplift base don he house price index in a particular area.
So, let's say Stodge Towers is worth £500k - I would therefore pay £10k per year in property tax. That's well in front of Council Tax. What would you do with commercial property - apply a similar figure?
What about Land Value Taxation ( a good old LD policy) rather than a property tax? Tax the land your property is on rather than the property so for a block of flats the freeholder gets to pay for the land while the leaseholders are taxed on their property.
Reduce the tax to 1%, include land and think about commercial property.
Annual appraisal. Yes, all property treated equally. Yes, you would pay £10k. Tough.
The current Council Tax raises £36.3 billion as far as I can recall. If I have to pay approximately 9x what I pay in Council Tax through your new Property Tax the total amount raised would be in the region of £325 billion.
That's not a small amount - how would that be re-allocated to local authorities? Would this mitigate other forms of taxation - Mrs Stodge might well argue if we have to pay so much more in Property Tax we'll be spending less in other areas which will impact other tax receipts (VAT for example as spending is reduced).
Presumably rents would rise sharply as landlords would seek to recover their Property Tax costs from tenants.
We've still not considered commercial property and unused or undeveloped land
Fund local government properly. Reduce income tax accordingly. Renters no longer pay council tax, and landlord’s ability to recover from tenants will be limited by what the market will bear.
Why shouldn't renters pay Council tax? They use local services the same as everyone else. And before you answer - I rent.
What we might need is say, a local tax where everyone pays the same amount, or an amount as a % of their income. An induvial local tax....?
Council tax administration is a nightmare. Collecting tax from renters is a total waste of time.
Allocate a share of VAT to local services if you want.
Fair enough but I don't know why collecting Council Tax from renters is a waste of time. I have to pay it - it's part of my tenancy agreement to do so and the Council wasted no time in knowing I was here.
High turnover rental properties maybe difficult to police - but most renters would expect to pay it (why wouldn't they) and do. Just because you rent doesn't mean you don't use local services/infrastructure.
It's a taboo word but a poll tax is actually the best solution. Tax the person.
Overall we tax income too highly, and wealth not enough.
Good luck with your poll tax.
Quite. It's politically impossible, although in my opinion quite an elegant solution. And actually fair. If you're well off you pay the same as someone who may not be as much, but the flipside is that the more well-off (relatively) use local services, especially welfare, much less.
Which is why the problem of local funding will never be addressed because it's toxic to even look at. And never will be.
Your system would be incredibly regressive, and not solve local government funding issues.
I'll just have to disagree and leave it there. How it is in any way equitable for people who wear the sin of being "rich" (whatever that means and how you measure it) to pay disproportionately more for services they don't/mostly don't use, whilst those that use them the most pay the minimum, or nothing, is madness. And the anthesis of "fair".
The terms "regressive" and "progressive" are complete crap. One persons "progressive" is the other persons "regressive" and vice-versa.
I mean, since you don’t believe the words “fair”, “rich” or “progressive” have any worthwhile meaning you can be safely ignored.
1. Scrap council tax and do a 2% annual property tax already, payable by estates or on sale if you can’t pay in the year.
2. Inheritance tax at 20% for all non property assets.
On point 1, are we talking about an annual valuation of every property or simply applying an inflationary uplift base don he house price index in a particular area.
So, let's say Stodge Towers is worth £500k - I would therefore pay £10k per year in property tax. That's well in front of Council Tax. What would you do with commercial property - apply a similar figure?
What about Land Value Taxation ( a good old LD policy) rather than a property tax? Tax the land your property is on rather than the property so for a block of flats the freeholder gets to pay for the land while the leaseholders are taxed on their property.
Reduce the tax to 1%, include land and think about commercial property.
Annual appraisal. Yes, all property treated equally. Yes, you would pay £10k. Tough.
The current Council Tax raises £36.3 billion as far as I can recall. If I have to pay approximately 9x what I pay in Council Tax through your new Property Tax the total amount raised would be in the region of £325 billion.
That's not a small amount - how would that be re-allocated to local authorities? Would this mitigate other forms of taxation - Mrs Stodge might well argue if we have to pay so much more in Property Tax we'll be spending less in other areas which will impact other tax receipts (VAT for example as spending is reduced).
Presumably rents would rise sharply as landlords would seek to recover their Property Tax costs from tenants.
We've still not considered commercial property and unused or undeveloped land
Fund local government properly. Reduce income tax accordingly. Renters no longer pay council tax, and landlord’s ability to recover from tenants will be limited by what the market will bear.
Why shouldn't renters pay Council tax? They use local services the same as everyone else. And before you answer - I rent.
What we might need is say, a local tax where everyone pays the same amount, or an amount as a % of their income. An induvial local tax....?
Council tax administration is a nightmare. Collecting tax from renters is a total waste of time.
Allocate a share of VAT to local services if you want.
Fair enough but I don't know why collecting Council Tax from renters is a waste of time. I have to pay it - it's part of my tenancy agreement to do so and the Council wasted no time in knowing I was here.
High turnover rental properties maybe difficult to police - but most renters would expect to pay it (why wouldn't they) and do. Just because you rent doesn't mean you don't use local services/infrastructure.
It's a taboo word but a poll tax is actually the best solution. Tax the person.
Overall we tax income too highly, and wealth not enough.
Good luck with your poll tax.
Quite. It's politically impossible, although in my opinion quite an elegant solution. And actually fair. If you're well off you pay the same as someone who may not be as much, but the flipside is that the more well-off (relatively) use local services, especially welfare, much less.
Which is why the problem of local funding will never be addressed because it's toxic to even look at. And never will be.
Your system would be incredibly regressive, and not solve local government funding issues.
I'll just have to disagree and leave it there. How it is in any way equitable for people who wear the sin of being "rich" (whatever that means and how you measure it) to pay disproportionately more for services they don't/mostly don't use, whilst those that use them the most pay the minimum, or nothing, is madness. And the anthesis of "fair".
The terms "regressive" and "progressive" are complete crap. One persons "progressive" is the other persons "regressive" and vice-versa.
I mean, since you don’t believe the words “fair”, “rich” or “progressive” have any worthwhile meaning you can be safely ignored.
File under loon.
They don't have a true meaning - they're all relative terms.
Truss tells Sun readers: "This government is on your side. "Together, we will get through this and put Britain on the path to long-term success." But hinted she could cut benefits, saying: "I’m on the side of people who work hard."
Truss tells Sun readers: "This government is on your side. "Together, we will get through this and put Britain on the path to long-term success." But hinted she could cut benefits, saying: "I’m on the side of people who work hard."
Sorry @Cyclefree, the sympathy plea isn't working. Those same workers have guaranteed job security. They also have generous pensions compared with the private security. One of the biggest issues with this country is that the NHS has been raised into some form of religion, with its workers treated as saints on earth. Enough of this crap.
Truss tells Sun readers: "This government is on your side. "Together, we will get through this and put Britain on the path to long-term success." But hinted she could cut benefits, saying: "I’m on the side of people who work hard."
Truss tells Sun readers: "This government is on your side. "Together, we will get through this and put Britain on the path to long-term success." But hinted she could cut benefits, saying: "I’m on the side of people who work hard."
People don't want to hear it anymore. What she is saying is not vaguely credible because her party have been in government for 12 years. If there is a problem, it is the conservatives fault.
Good news for purveyors of economic orthodoxy if Truss can announce and attempt to carry out as many mainstays of extreme libertarian tea partyism as possible and totally cock them all up between now and 2024.
Rather like the unions did for industrial strategy and cooperative labour relations in the 70s - destroy an entire ideology in the minds of the British public for a generation.
is he the oldest ever former President or UK prime minister?
Yes. Runners up are James Callaghan (died the day before his 93rd birthday) and George H. Bush (94).
Carter deserves some sort of record. He was a lousy president in many ways, but was probably also the single most decent and well-meaning man ever to be President and has done far more good than almost any other human in the years since his defeat.
Important moment here - Levelling Up Secretary Simon Clarke tells the Times that the “very large” welfare state needs to be trimmed. This is the clearest yet that some serious spending cuts are on the way. This is where we are headed:
A vat of popcorn large enough simply doesn't exist. The government have decided that: a) they have a mandate from their large majority, and b) they are the smartest people in the room, and c) people really will thank them afterwards
So when they announce they are taking an axe to public services, to the welfare state, to disability support AND that your mortgage can go up 40% see if they care AND that the most well off not only will get oceans of cash but deserve it AND if you will struggle cos of this then WORK HARDER.
Labour's lead could be 60 points. For all that Leon frets about Putin nuking the UK, surely the source of the nuking is Truss? She is setting out to absolutely destroy this country and has this bonkers idea that people will thank her for it.
Tory MPs. Time for her to be politically Zhukov'd.
But also, at some level, Truss knows that this stuff is political dynamite. Powerful but those silly voters will never support it because they don't know what's good for them.
So it has to be done by co-opting a majority won on a very different platform.
1. Scrap council tax and do a 2% annual property tax already, payable by estates or on sale if you can’t pay in the year.
2. Inheritance tax at 20% for all non property assets.
On point 1, are we talking about an annual valuation of every property or simply applying an inflationary uplift base don he house price index in a particular area.
So, let's say Stodge Towers is worth £500k - I would therefore pay £10k per year in property tax. That's well in front of Council Tax. What would you do with commercial property - apply a similar figure?
What about Land Value Taxation ( a good old LD policy) rather than a property tax? Tax the land your property is on rather than the property so for a block of flats the freeholder gets to pay for the land while the leaseholders are taxed on their property.
Reduce the tax to 1%, include land and think about commercial property.
Annual appraisal. Yes, all property treated equally. Yes, you would pay £10k. Tough.
The current Council Tax raises £36.3 billion as far as I can recall. If I have to pay approximately 9x what I pay in Council Tax through your new Property Tax the total amount raised would be in the region of £325 billion.
That's not a small amount - how would that be re-allocated to local authorities? Would this mitigate other forms of taxation - Mrs Stodge might well argue if we have to pay so much more in Property Tax we'll be spending less in other areas which will impact other tax receipts (VAT for example as spending is reduced).
Presumably rents would rise sharply as landlords would seek to recover their Property Tax costs from tenants.
We've still not considered commercial property and unused or undeveloped land
Fund local government properly. Reduce income tax accordingly. Renters no longer pay council tax, and landlord’s ability to recover from tenants will be limited by what the market will bear.
Why shouldn't renters pay Council tax? They use local services the same as everyone else. And before you answer - I rent.
What we might need is say, a local tax where everyone pays the same amount, or an amount as a % of their income. An induvial local tax....?
Council tax administration is a nightmare. Collecting tax from renters is a total waste of time.
Allocate a share of VAT to local services if you want.
Fair enough but I don't know why collecting Council Tax from renters is a waste of time. I have to pay it - it's part of my tenancy agreement to do so and the Council wasted no time in knowing I was here.
High turnover rental properties maybe difficult to police - but most renters would expect to pay it (why wouldn't they) and do. Just because you rent doesn't mean you don't use local services/infrastructure.
It's a taboo word but a poll tax is actually the best solution. Tax the person.
Overall we tax income too highly, and wealth not enough.
Good luck with your poll tax.
Quite. It's politically impossible, although in my opinion quite an elegant solution. And actually fair. If you're well off you pay the same as someone who may not be as much, but the flipside is that the more well-off (relatively) use local services, especially welfare, much less.
Which is why the problem of local funding will never be addressed because it's toxic to even look at. And never will be.
Your system would be incredibly regressive, and not solve local government funding issues.
I'll just have to disagree and leave it there. How it is in any way equitable for people who wear the sin of being "rich" (whatever that means and how you measure it) to pay disproportionately more for services they don't/mostly don't use, whilst those that use them the most pay the minimum, or nothing, is madness. And the anthesis of "fair".
The terms "regressive" and "progressive" are complete crap. One persons "progressive" is the other persons "regressive" and vice-versa.
I mean, since you don’t believe the words “fair”, “rich” or “progressive” have any worthwhile meaning you can be safely ignored.
File under loon.
They don't have a true meaning - they're all relative terms.
File under idiot.
Strange comment. Just because things are relative doesn't mean they aren't real. You can't beard-stroke your way out of the fact that fairness is a thing that's fairly well understood by most people.
Sorry @Cyclefree, the sympathy plea isn't working. Those same workers have guaranteed job security. They also have generous pensions compared with the private security. One of the biggest issues with this country is that the NHS has been raised into some form of religion, with its workers treated as saints on earth. Enough of this crap.
"Treated as saints on earth".
'Lower band NHS staff are struggling to afford to get to work and feed their families because of the rising cost of living and are quitting the NHS for better paid jobs, creating more hard-to-fill vacancies, NHS bosses have warned.
The impact of the rise in the cost of living on staff health and wellbeing has been highlighted in a survey of leaders of NHS hospital, mental health, community, and ambulance services in England by their representative organisation NHS Providers.'
Truss tells Sun readers: "This government is on your side. "Together, we will get through this and put Britain on the path to long-term success." But hinted she could cut benefits, saying: "I’m on the side of people who work hard."
This is some kind of Pinochet-style hijack of government.
They won’t get away with this.
Who is going to stop them?
Dunno. But she is failing to bring any real constituency with her.
Thatcher had Mondeo Man etc.
Truss has just blown up their mortgages, is going to put them on a zero hours contract, and has explained that they can fuck off unless they earn over £155k.
The constituency she's aiming for are the generation below that who don't currently vote Tory but would stand to gain the most from the kind of rebalancing she wants.
1. Scrap council tax and do a 2% annual property tax already, payable by estates or on sale if you can’t pay in the year.
2. Inheritance tax at 20% for all non property assets.
On point 1, are we talking about an annual valuation of every property or simply applying an inflationary uplift base don he house price index in a particular area.
So, let's say Stodge Towers is worth £500k - I would therefore pay £10k per year in property tax. That's well in front of Council Tax. What would you do with commercial property - apply a similar figure?
What about Land Value Taxation ( a good old LD policy) rather than a property tax? Tax the land your property is on rather than the property so for a block of flats the freeholder gets to pay for the land while the leaseholders are taxed on their property.
Reduce the tax to 1%, include land and think about commercial property.
Annual appraisal. Yes, all property treated equally. Yes, you would pay £10k. Tough.
The current Council Tax raises £36.3 billion as far as I can recall. If I have to pay approximately 9x what I pay in Council Tax through your new Property Tax the total amount raised would be in the region of £325 billion.
That's not a small amount - how would that be re-allocated to local authorities? Would this mitigate other forms of taxation - Mrs Stodge might well argue if we have to pay so much more in Property Tax we'll be spending less in other areas which will impact other tax receipts (VAT for example as spending is reduced).
Presumably rents would rise sharply as landlords would seek to recover their Property Tax costs from tenants.
We've still not considered commercial property and unused or undeveloped land
Fund local government properly. Reduce income tax accordingly. Renters no longer pay council tax, and landlord’s ability to recover from tenants will be limited by what the market will bear.
Why shouldn't renters pay Council tax? They use local services the same as everyone else. And before you answer - I rent.
What we might need is say, a local tax where everyone pays the same amount, or an amount as a % of their income. An induvial local tax....?
Council tax administration is a nightmare. Collecting tax from renters is a total waste of time.
Allocate a share of VAT to local services if you want.
Fair enough but I don't know why collecting Council Tax from renters is a waste of time. I have to pay it - it's part of my tenancy agreement to do so and the Council wasted no time in knowing I was here.
High turnover rental properties maybe difficult to police - but most renters would expect to pay it (why wouldn't they) and do. Just because you rent doesn't mean you don't use local services/infrastructure.
It's a taboo word but a poll tax is actually the best solution. Tax the person.
Overall we tax income too highly, and wealth not enough.
Good luck with your poll tax.
Quite. It's politically impossible, although in my opinion quite an elegant solution. And actually fair. If you're well off you pay the same as someone who may not be as much, but the flipside is that the more well-off (relatively) use local services, especially welfare, much less.
Which is why the problem of local funding will never be addressed because it's toxic to even look at. And never will be.
Your system would be incredibly regressive, and not solve local government funding issues.
I'll just have to disagree and leave it there. How it is in any way equitable for people who wear the sin of being "rich" (whatever that means and how you measure it) to pay disproportionately more for services they don't/mostly don't use, whilst those that use them the most pay the minimum, or nothing, is madness. And the anthesis of "fair".
The terms "regressive" and "progressive" are complete crap. One persons "progressive" is the other persons "regressive" and vice-versa.
I mean, since you don’t believe the words “fair”, “rich” or “progressive” have any worthwhile meaning you can be safely ignored.
File under loon.
They don't have a true meaning - they're all relative terms.
File under idiot.
You'll struggle to communicate if you limit yourself to terms that aren't relative.
This is some kind of Pinochet-style hijack of government.
They won’t get away with this.
Who is going to stop them?
Dunno. But she is failing to bring any real constituency with her.
Thatcher had Mondeo Man etc.
Truss has just blown up their mortgages, is going to put them on a zero hours contract, and has explained that they can fuck off unless they earn over £155k.
The constituency she's aiming for are the generation below that who don't currently vote Tory but would stand to gain the most from the kind of rebalancing she wants.
1. Scrap council tax and do a 2% annual property tax already, payable by estates or on sale if you can’t pay in the year.
2. Inheritance tax at 20% for all non property assets.
On point 1, are we talking about an annual valuation of every property or simply applying an inflationary uplift base don he house price index in a particular area.
So, let's say Stodge Towers is worth £500k - I would therefore pay £10k per year in property tax. That's well in front of Council Tax. What would you do with commercial property - apply a similar figure?
What about Land Value Taxation ( a good old LD policy) rather than a property tax? Tax the land your property is on rather than the property so for a block of flats the freeholder gets to pay for the land while the leaseholders are taxed on their property.
Reduce the tax to 1%, include land and think about commercial property.
Annual appraisal. Yes, all property treated equally. Yes, you would pay £10k. Tough.
The current Council Tax raises £36.3 billion as far as I can recall. If I have to pay approximately 9x what I pay in Council Tax through your new Property Tax the total amount raised would be in the region of £325 billion.
That's not a small amount - how would that be re-allocated to local authorities? Would this mitigate other forms of taxation - Mrs Stodge might well argue if we have to pay so much more in Property Tax we'll be spending less in other areas which will impact other tax receipts (VAT for example as spending is reduced).
Presumably rents would rise sharply as landlords would seek to recover their Property Tax costs from tenants.
We've still not considered commercial property and unused or undeveloped land
Fund local government properly. Reduce income tax accordingly. Renters no longer pay council tax, and landlord’s ability to recover from tenants will be limited by what the market will bear.
Why shouldn't renters pay Council tax? They use local services the same as everyone else. And before you answer - I rent.
What we might need is say, a local tax where everyone pays the same amount, or an amount as a % of their income. An induvial local tax....?
Council tax administration is a nightmare. Collecting tax from renters is a total waste of time.
Allocate a share of VAT to local services if you want.
Fair enough but I don't know why collecting Council Tax from renters is a waste of time. I have to pay it - it's part of my tenancy agreement to do so and the Council wasted no time in knowing I was here.
High turnover rental properties maybe difficult to police - but most renters would expect to pay it (why wouldn't they) and do. Just because you rent doesn't mean you don't use local services/infrastructure.
It's a taboo word but a poll tax is actually the best solution. Tax the person.
Overall we tax income too highly, and wealth not enough.
Good luck with your poll tax.
Quite. It's politically impossible, although in my opinion quite an elegant solution. And actually fair. If you're well off you pay the same as someone who may not be as much, but the flipside is that the more well-off (relatively) use local services, especially welfare, much less.
Which is why the problem of local funding will never be addressed because it's toxic to even look at. And never will be.
Your system would be incredibly regressive, and not solve local government funding issues.
I'll just have to disagree and leave it there. How it is in any way equitable for people who wear the sin of being "rich" (whatever that means and how you measure it) to pay disproportionately more for services they don't/mostly don't use, whilst those that use them the most pay the minimum, or nothing, is madness. And the anthesis of "fair".
The terms "regressive" and "progressive" are complete crap. One persons "progressive" is the other persons "regressive" and vice-versa.
I mean, since you don’t believe the words “fair”, “rich” or “progressive” have any worthwhile meaning you can be safely ignored.
File under loon.
Why? It's a fair point. If somebody pays a lot for a service they don't use - and vice versa - then it's not equitable, it's a p1ss take.
My point to any such argument would be "if you wealthy, you have an obligation to support society. It may not seem fair but then life isn't in some many ways." However, for you to say "file under loon" for what is a reasonable point suggests a lack of intellectual rigour on your point more than anything else
This is some kind of Pinochet-style hijack of government.
They won’t get away with this.
Who is going to stop them?
Dunno. But she is failing to bring any real constituency with her.
Thatcher had Mondeo Man etc.
Truss has just blown up their mortgages, is going to put them on a zero hours contract, and has explained that they can fuck off unless they earn over £155k.
The constituency she's aiming for are the generation below that who don't currently vote Tory but would stand to gain the most from the kind of rebalancing she wants.
Run this theory past me!
The only public spending they seem prepared not to totally slash is...erm... the triple lock for the 70 and 80 year olds.
Sorry @Cyclefree, the sympathy plea isn't working. Those same workers have guaranteed job security. They also have generous pensions compared with the private security. One of the biggest issues with this country is that the NHS has been raised into some form of religion, with its workers treated as saints on earth. Enough of this crap.
"Treated as saints on earth".
'Lower band NHS staff are struggling to afford to get to work and feed their families because of the rising cost of living and are quitting the NHS for better paid jobs, creating more hard-to-fill vacancies, NHS bosses have warned.
The impact of the rise in the cost of living on staff health and wellbeing has been highlighted in a survey of leaders of NHS hospital, mental health, community, and ambulance services in England by their representative organisation NHS Providers.'
Do you know how many Catholic saints died in needlessly horrible ways? TheKitchenCabinet is right. Many of them are being treated like saints: spat on by those in purple robes and broken and burned by those who do their bidding.
1. Scrap council tax and do a 2% annual property tax already, payable by estates or on sale if you can’t pay in the year.
2. Inheritance tax at 20% for all non property assets.
On point 1, are we talking about an annual valuation of every property or simply applying an inflationary uplift base don he house price index in a particular area.
So, let's say Stodge Towers is worth £500k - I would therefore pay £10k per year in property tax. That's well in front of Council Tax. What would you do with commercial property - apply a similar figure?
What about Land Value Taxation ( a good old LD policy) rather than a property tax? Tax the land your property is on rather than the property so for a block of flats the freeholder gets to pay for the land while the leaseholders are taxed on their property.
Reduce the tax to 1%, include land and think about commercial property.
Annual appraisal. Yes, all property treated equally. Yes, you would pay £10k. Tough.
The current Council Tax raises £36.3 billion as far as I can recall. If I have to pay approximately 9x what I pay in Council Tax through your new Property Tax the total amount raised would be in the region of £325 billion.
That's not a small amount - how would that be re-allocated to local authorities? Would this mitigate other forms of taxation - Mrs Stodge might well argue if we have to pay so much more in Property Tax we'll be spending less in other areas which will impact other tax receipts (VAT for example as spending is reduced).
Presumably rents would rise sharply as landlords would seek to recover their Property Tax costs from tenants.
We've still not considered commercial property and unused or undeveloped land
Fund local government properly. Reduce income tax accordingly. Renters no longer pay council tax, and landlord’s ability to recover from tenants will be limited by what the market will bear.
Why shouldn't renters pay Council tax? They use local services the same as everyone else. And before you answer - I rent.
What we might need is say, a local tax where everyone pays the same amount, or an amount as a % of their income. An induvial local tax....?
Council tax administration is a nightmare. Collecting tax from renters is a total waste of time.
Allocate a share of VAT to local services if you want.
Fair enough but I don't know why collecting Council Tax from renters is a waste of time. I have to pay it - it's part of my tenancy agreement to do so and the Council wasted no time in knowing I was here.
High turnover rental properties maybe difficult to police - but most renters would expect to pay it (why wouldn't they) and do. Just because you rent doesn't mean you don't use local services/infrastructure.
It's a taboo word but a poll tax is actually the best solution. Tax the person.
Overall we tax income too highly, and wealth not enough.
Good luck with your poll tax.
Quite. It's politically impossible, although in my opinion quite an elegant solution. And actually fair. If you're well off you pay the same as someone who may not be as much, but the flipside is that the more well-off (relatively) use local services, especially welfare, much less.
Which is why the problem of local funding will never be addressed because it's toxic to even look at. And never will be.
Your system would be incredibly regressive, and not solve local government funding issues.
I'll just have to disagree and leave it there. How it is in any way equitable for people who wear the sin of being "rich" (whatever that means and how you measure it) to pay disproportionately more for services they don't/mostly don't use, whilst those that use them the most pay the minimum, or nothing, is madness. And the anthesis of "fair".
The terms "regressive" and "progressive" are complete crap. One persons "progressive" is the other persons "regressive" and vice-versa.
Well, for those who actually earned their wealth (which is probably a minority), generally they became rich on the foundations of a state that provides a healthy educated population, law and justice, transport and energy infrastructure, publicly-funded research etc. We live (pace Thatcher) in a society and those who benefit most from it should put the most back.
1. Scrap council tax and do a 2% annual property tax already, payable by estates or on sale if you can’t pay in the year.
2. Inheritance tax at 20% for all non property assets.
On point 1, are we talking about an annual valuation of every property or simply applying an inflationary uplift base don he house price index in a particular area.
So, let's say Stodge Towers is worth £500k - I would therefore pay £10k per year in property tax. That's well in front of Council Tax. What would you do with commercial property - apply a similar figure?
What about Land Value Taxation ( a good old LD policy) rather than a property tax? Tax the land your property is on rather than the property so for a block of flats the freeholder gets to pay for the land while the leaseholders are taxed on their property.
Reduce the tax to 1%, include land and think about commercial property.
Annual appraisal. Yes, all property treated equally. Yes, you would pay £10k. Tough.
The current Council Tax raises £36.3 billion as far as I can recall. If I have to pay approximately 9x what I pay in Council Tax through your new Property Tax the total amount raised would be in the region of £325 billion.
That's not a small amount - how would that be re-allocated to local authorities? Would this mitigate other forms of taxation - Mrs Stodge might well argue if we have to pay so much more in Property Tax we'll be spending less in other areas which will impact other tax receipts (VAT for example as spending is reduced).
Presumably rents would rise sharply as landlords would seek to recover their Property Tax costs from tenants.
We've still not considered commercial property and unused or undeveloped land
Fund local government properly. Reduce income tax accordingly. Renters no longer pay council tax, and landlord’s ability to recover from tenants will be limited by what the market will bear.
Why shouldn't renters pay Council tax? They use local services the same as everyone else. And before you answer - I rent.
What we might need is say, a local tax where everyone pays the same amount, or an amount as a % of their income. An induvial local tax....?
Council tax administration is a nightmare. Collecting tax from renters is a total waste of time.
Allocate a share of VAT to local services if you want.
Fair enough but I don't know why collecting Council Tax from renters is a waste of time. I have to pay it - it's part of my tenancy agreement to do so and the Council wasted no time in knowing I was here.
High turnover rental properties maybe difficult to police - but most renters would expect to pay it (why wouldn't they) and do. Just because you rent doesn't mean you don't use local services/infrastructure.
It's a taboo word but a poll tax is actually the best solution. Tax the person.
Overall we tax income too highly, and wealth not enough.
Good luck with your poll tax.
Quite. It's politically impossible, although in my opinion quite an elegant solution. And actually fair. If you're well off you pay the same as someone who may not be as much, but the flipside is that the more well-off (relatively) use local services, especially welfare, much less.
Which is why the problem of local funding will never be addressed because it's toxic to even look at. And never will be.
Your system would be incredibly regressive, and not solve local government funding issues.
I'll just have to disagree and leave it there. How it is in any way equitable for people who wear the sin of being "rich" (whatever that means and how you measure it) to pay disproportionately more for services they don't/mostly don't use, whilst those that use them the most pay the minimum, or nothing, is madness. And the anthesis of "fair".
The terms "regressive" and "progressive" are complete crap. One persons "progressive" is the other persons "regressive" and vice-versa.
I mean, since you don’t believe the words “fair”, “rich” or “progressive” have any worthwhile meaning you can be safely ignored.
File under loon.
Why? It's a fair point. If somebody pays a lot for a service they don't use - and vice versa - then it's not equitable, it's a p1ss take.
My point to any such argument would be "if you wealthy, you have an obligation to support society. It may not seem fair but then life isn't in some many ways." However, for you to say "file under loon" for what is a reasonable point suggests a lack of intellectual rigour on your point more than anything else
One month ago, everyone was panicking over households going bankrupt because of utility bills. The Government then stepped in and the issue of 'fuel poverty' has gone very quiet.
It will be the same with rising interest rates and mortgage holders
Truss tells Sun readers: "This government is on your side. "Together, we will get through this and put Britain on the path to long-term success." But hinted she could cut benefits, saying: "I’m on the side of people who work hard."
Omfg ! Many of those on benefits are actually working . It’s despicable to add more misery onto the poorest.
My loathing for Truss continues to rocket .
Leadsom, one if the few MPs defending Truss in public, was on the radio earlier explaining such cuts would be doing them a favour.
They don't even understand the UC system that IDS created. The whole point was (and we can debate whether it works later) to make work pay. Huge numbers on it are... wait for it, Liz... actually working their nuts off in jobs that have shit wages.
This is some kind of Pinochet-style hijack of government.
They won’t get away with this.
Who is going to stop them?
Dunno. But she is failing to bring any real constituency with her.
Thatcher had Mondeo Man etc.
Truss has just blown up their mortgages, is going to put them on a zero hours contract, and has explained that they can fuck off unless they earn over £155k.
The constituency she's aiming for are the generation below that who don't currently vote Tory but would stand to gain the most from the kind of rebalancing she wants.
Run this theory past me!
The only public spending they seem prepared not to totally slash is...erm... the triple lock for the 70 and 80 year olds.
People under 35 are getting completely screwed over by the existing order. Hiking interest rates and cutting taxes on earned income shifts the economic balance in their favour, even if she does keep the triple lock.
1. Scrap council tax and do a 2% annual property tax already, payable by estates or on sale if you can’t pay in the year.
2. Inheritance tax at 20% for all non property assets.
On point 1, are we talking about an annual valuation of every property or simply applying an inflationary uplift base don he house price index in a particular area.
So, let's say Stodge Towers is worth £500k - I would therefore pay £10k per year in property tax. That's well in front of Council Tax. What would you do with commercial property - apply a similar figure?
What about Land Value Taxation ( a good old LD policy) rather than a property tax? Tax the land your property is on rather than the property so for a block of flats the freeholder gets to pay for the land while the leaseholders are taxed on their property.
Reduce the tax to 1%, include land and think about commercial property.
Annual appraisal. Yes, all property treated equally. Yes, you would pay £10k. Tough.
The current Council Tax raises £36.3 billion as far as I can recall. If I have to pay approximately 9x what I pay in Council Tax through your new Property Tax the total amount raised would be in the region of £325 billion.
That's not a small amount - how would that be re-allocated to local authorities? Would this mitigate other forms of taxation - Mrs Stodge might well argue if we have to pay so much more in Property Tax we'll be spending less in other areas which will impact other tax receipts (VAT for example as spending is reduced).
Presumably rents would rise sharply as landlords would seek to recover their Property Tax costs from tenants.
We've still not considered commercial property and unused or undeveloped land
Fund local government properly. Reduce income tax accordingly. Renters no longer pay council tax, and landlord’s ability to recover from tenants will be limited by what the market will bear.
Why shouldn't renters pay Council tax? They use local services the same as everyone else. And before you answer - I rent.
What we might need is say, a local tax where everyone pays the same amount, or an amount as a % of their income. An induvial local tax....?
Council tax administration is a nightmare. Collecting tax from renters is a total waste of time.
Allocate a share of VAT to local services if you want.
Fair enough but I don't know why collecting Council Tax from renters is a waste of time. I have to pay it - it's part of my tenancy agreement to do so and the Council wasted no time in knowing I was here.
High turnover rental properties maybe difficult to police - but most renters would expect to pay it (why wouldn't they) and do. Just because you rent doesn't mean you don't use local services/infrastructure.
It's a taboo word but a poll tax is actually the best solution. Tax the person.
Overall we tax income too highly, and wealth not enough.
Good luck with your poll tax.
Quite. It's politically impossible, although in my opinion quite an elegant solution. And actually fair. If you're well off you pay the same as someone who may not be as much, but the flipside is that the more well-off (relatively) use local services, especially welfare, much less.
Which is why the problem of local funding will never be addressed because it's toxic to even look at. And never will be.
Your system would be incredibly regressive, and not solve local government funding issues.
I'll just have to disagree and leave it there. How it is in any way equitable for people who wear the sin of being "rich" (whatever that means and how you measure it) to pay disproportionately more for services they don't/mostly don't use, whilst those that use them the most pay the minimum, or nothing, is madness. And the anthesis of "fair".
The terms "regressive" and "progressive" are complete crap. One persons "progressive" is the other persons "regressive" and vice-versa.
I mean, since you don’t believe the words “fair”, “rich” or “progressive” have any worthwhile meaning you can be safely ignored.
File under loon.
Why? It's a fair point. If somebody pays a lot for a service they don't use - and vice versa - then it's not equitable, it's a p1ss take.
My point to any such argument would be "if you wealthy, you have an obligation to support society. It may not seem fair but then life isn't in some many ways." However, for you to say "file under loon" for what is a reasonable point suggests a lack of intellectual rigour on your point more than anything else
is he the oldest ever former President or UK prime minister?
Yes. Runners up are James Callaghan (died the day before his 93rd birthday) and George H. Bush (94).
Carter deserves some sort of record. He was a lousy president in many ways, but was probably also the single most decent and well-meaning man ever to be President and has done far more good than almost any other human in the years since his defeat.
He was also quite a good president in some ways.
Such as?
Decades ahead of his time on energy policy; emphasis on education (the first to make it a cabinet post): peacemaker (Camp David accords) for example.
Atypically honest, and sadly not effective enough at the political arts to be more effective. But the idea that he was a lousy President is, IMO at least, wrong.
One month ago, everyone was panicking over households going bankrupt because of utility bills. The Government then stepped in and the issue of 'fuel poverty' has gone very quiet.
It will be the same with rising interest rates and mortgage holders
No mate, it hasn't. Hence the outrage today of Truss's lie about no household having to spend over £2500 on energy when that figure is the average. Look outside your comfortable bubble and plenty of people are still really rather worried.
I hope Truss makes it to the election. Seeing her on the campaign trail really is going to be utterly hilarious. It will make May's 2017 election campaign look inspirational.
Truss tells Sun readers: "This government is on your side. "Together, we will get through this and put Britain on the path to long-term success." But hinted she could cut benefits, saying: "I’m on the side of people who work hard."
1. Scrap council tax and do a 2% annual property tax already, payable by estates or on sale if you can’t pay in the year.
2. Inheritance tax at 20% for all non property assets.
On point 1, are we talking about an annual valuation of every property or simply applying an inflationary uplift base don he house price index in a particular area.
So, let's say Stodge Towers is worth £500k - I would therefore pay £10k per year in property tax. That's well in front of Council Tax. What would you do with commercial property - apply a similar figure?
What about Land Value Taxation ( a good old LD policy) rather than a property tax? Tax the land your property is on rather than the property so for a block of flats the freeholder gets to pay for the land while the leaseholders are taxed on their property.
Reduce the tax to 1%, include land and think about commercial property.
Annual appraisal. Yes, all property treated equally. Yes, you would pay £10k. Tough.
The current Council Tax raises £36.3 billion as far as I can recall. If I have to pay approximately 9x what I pay in Council Tax through your new Property Tax the total amount raised would be in the region of £325 billion.
That's not a small amount - how would that be re-allocated to local authorities? Would this mitigate other forms of taxation - Mrs Stodge might well argue if we have to pay so much more in Property Tax we'll be spending less in other areas which will impact other tax receipts (VAT for example as spending is reduced).
Presumably rents would rise sharply as landlords would seek to recover their Property Tax costs from tenants.
We've still not considered commercial property and unused or undeveloped land
Fund local government properly. Reduce income tax accordingly. Renters no longer pay council tax, and landlord’s ability to recover from tenants will be limited by what the market will bear.
Why shouldn't renters pay Council tax? They use local services the same as everyone else. And before you answer - I rent.
What we might need is say, a local tax where everyone pays the same amount, or an amount as a % of their income. An induvial local tax....?
Council tax administration is a nightmare. Collecting tax from renters is a total waste of time.
Allocate a share of VAT to local services if you want.
Fair enough but I don't know why collecting Council Tax from renters is a waste of time. I have to pay it - it's part of my tenancy agreement to do so and the Council wasted no time in knowing I was here.
High turnover rental properties maybe difficult to police - but most renters would expect to pay it (why wouldn't they) and do. Just because you rent doesn't mean you don't use local services/infrastructure.
It's a taboo word but a poll tax is actually the best solution. Tax the person.
Overall we tax income too highly, and wealth not enough.
Good luck with your poll tax.
Quite. It's politically impossible, although in my opinion quite an elegant solution. And actually fair. If you're well off you pay the same as someone who may not be as much, but the flipside is that the more well-off (relatively) use local services, especially welfare, much less.
Which is why the problem of local funding will never be addressed because it's toxic to even look at. And never will be.
Your system would be incredibly regressive, and not solve local government funding issues.
I'll just have to disagree and leave it there. How it is in any way equitable for people who wear the sin of being "rich" (whatever that means and how you measure it) to pay disproportionately more for services they don't/mostly don't use, whilst those that use them the most pay the minimum, or nothing, is madness. And the anthesis of "fair".
The terms "regressive" and "progressive" are complete crap. One persons "progressive" is the other persons "regressive" and vice-versa.
I mean, since you don’t believe the words “fair”, “rich” or “progressive” have any worthwhile meaning you can be safely ignored.
File under loon.
Why? It's a fair point. If somebody pays a lot for a service they don't use - and vice versa - then it's not equitable, it's a p1ss take.
My point to any such argument would be "if you wealthy, you have an obligation to support society. It may not seem fair but then life isn't in some many ways." However, for you to say "file under loon" for what is a reasonable point suggests a lack of intellectual rigour on your point more than anything else
1. Scrap council tax and do a 2% annual property tax already, payable by estates or on sale if you can’t pay in the year.
2. Inheritance tax at 20% for all non property assets.
On point 1, are we talking about an annual valuation of every property or simply applying an inflationary uplift base don he house price index in a particular area.
So, let's say Stodge Towers is worth £500k - I would therefore pay £10k per year in property tax. That's well in front of Council Tax. What would you do with commercial property - apply a similar figure?
What about Land Value Taxation ( a good old LD policy) rather than a property tax? Tax the land your property is on rather than the property so for a block of flats the freeholder gets to pay for the land while the leaseholders are taxed on their property.
Reduce the tax to 1%, include land and think about commercial property.
Annual appraisal. Yes, all property treated equally. Yes, you would pay £10k. Tough.
The current Council Tax raises £36.3 billion as far as I can recall. If I have to pay approximately 9x what I pay in Council Tax through your new Property Tax the total amount raised would be in the region of £325 billion.
That's not a small amount - how would that be re-allocated to local authorities? Would this mitigate other forms of taxation - Mrs Stodge might well argue if we have to pay so much more in Property Tax we'll be spending less in other areas which will impact other tax receipts (VAT for example as spending is reduced).
Presumably rents would rise sharply as landlords would seek to recover their Property Tax costs from tenants.
We've still not considered commercial property and unused or undeveloped land
Fund local government properly. Reduce income tax accordingly. Renters no longer pay council tax, and landlord’s ability to recover from tenants will be limited by what the market will bear.
Why shouldn't renters pay Council tax? They use local services the same as everyone else. And before you answer - I rent.
What we might need is say, a local tax where everyone pays the same amount, or an amount as a % of their income. An induvial local tax....?
Council tax administration is a nightmare. Collecting tax from renters is a total waste of time.
Allocate a share of VAT to local services if you want.
Fair enough but I don't know why collecting Council Tax from renters is a waste of time. I have to pay it - it's part of my tenancy agreement to do so and the Council wasted no time in knowing I was here.
High turnover rental properties maybe difficult to police - but most renters would expect to pay it (why wouldn't they) and do. Just because you rent doesn't mean you don't use local services/infrastructure.
It's a taboo word but a poll tax is actually the best solution. Tax the person.
Overall we tax income too highly, and wealth not enough.
Good luck with your poll tax.
Quite. It's politically impossible, although in my opinion quite an elegant solution. And actually fair. If you're well off you pay the same as someone who may not be as much, but the flipside is that the more well-off (relatively) use local services, especially welfare, much less.
Which is why the problem of local funding will never be addressed because it's toxic to even look at. And never will be.
Your system would be incredibly regressive, and not solve local government funding issues.
I'll just have to disagree and leave it there. How it is in any way equitable for people who wear the sin of being "rich" (whatever that means and how you measure it) to pay disproportionately more for services they don't/mostly don't use, whilst those that use them the most pay the minimum, or nothing, is madness. And the anthesis of "fair".
The terms "regressive" and "progressive" are complete crap. One persons "progressive" is the other persons "regressive" and vice-versa.
I mean, since you don’t believe the words “fair”, “rich” or “progressive” have any worthwhile meaning you can be safely ignored.
File under loon.
They don't have a true meaning - they're all relative terms.
File under idiot.
Strange comment. Just because things are relative doesn't mean they aren't real. You can't beard-stroke your way out of the fact that fairness is a thing that's fairly well understood by most people.
So what's "fair"? It's not a "well understood" concept. There is no objective "fair". It's a word used by children and (to use your phrase)" beard-stroking" pseudo-intellectual lefties to justify their hatred of anyone who dares to earn more than they do.
Is it "fair" a train driver earns more than a nurse? Is it "fair" a Union leader earns upwards of 10 ten times more than the workers he claims to represent?
Or is it "fair" that through hard-work and toil someone becomes "rich" (again whatever that means) and a government says "sorry - but we're taking a lot more form you now because some people haven't done as well as you".
1. Scrap council tax and do a 2% annual property tax already, payable by estates or on sale if you can’t pay in the year.
2. Inheritance tax at 20% for all non property assets.
On point 1, are we talking about an annual valuation of every property or simply applying an inflationary uplift base don he house price index in a particular area.
So, let's say Stodge Towers is worth £500k - I would therefore pay £10k per year in property tax. That's well in front of Council Tax. What would you do with commercial property - apply a similar figure?
What about Land Value Taxation ( a good old LD policy) rather than a property tax? Tax the land your property is on rather than the property so for a block of flats the freeholder gets to pay for the land while the leaseholders are taxed on their property.
Reduce the tax to 1%, include land and think about commercial property.
Annual appraisal. Yes, all property treated equally. Yes, you would pay £10k. Tough.
The current Council Tax raises £36.3 billion as far as I can recall. If I have to pay approximately 9x what I pay in Council Tax through your new Property Tax the total amount raised would be in the region of £325 billion.
That's not a small amount - how would that be re-allocated to local authorities? Would this mitigate other forms of taxation - Mrs Stodge might well argue if we have to pay so much more in Property Tax we'll be spending less in other areas which will impact other tax receipts (VAT for example as spending is reduced).
Presumably rents would rise sharply as landlords would seek to recover their Property Tax costs from tenants.
We've still not considered commercial property and unused or undeveloped land
Fund local government properly. Reduce income tax accordingly. Renters no longer pay council tax, and landlord’s ability to recover from tenants will be limited by what the market will bear.
Why shouldn't renters pay Council tax? They use local services the same as everyone else. And before you answer - I rent.
What we might need is say, a local tax where everyone pays the same amount, or an amount as a % of their income. An induvial local tax....?
Council tax administration is a nightmare. Collecting tax from renters is a total waste of time.
Allocate a share of VAT to local services if you want.
Fair enough but I don't know why collecting Council Tax from renters is a waste of time. I have to pay it - it's part of my tenancy agreement to do so and the Council wasted no time in knowing I was here.
High turnover rental properties maybe difficult to police - but most renters would expect to pay it (why wouldn't they) and do. Just because you rent doesn't mean you don't use local services/infrastructure.
It's a taboo word but a poll tax is actually the best solution. Tax the person.
Overall we tax income too highly, and wealth not enough.
Good luck with your poll tax.
Quite. It's politically impossible, although in my opinion quite an elegant solution. And actually fair. If you're well off you pay the same as someone who may not be as much, but the flipside is that the more well-off (relatively) use local services, especially welfare, much less.
Which is why the problem of local funding will never be addressed because it's toxic to even look at. And never will be.
Your system would be incredibly regressive, and not solve local government funding issues.
I'll just have to disagree and leave it there. How it is in any way equitable for people who wear the sin of being "rich" (whatever that means and how you measure it) to pay disproportionately more for services they don't/mostly don't use, whilst those that use them the most pay the minimum, or nothing, is madness. And the anthesis of "fair".
The terms "regressive" and "progressive" are complete crap. One persons "progressive" is the other persons "regressive" and vice-versa.
I mean, since you don’t believe the words “fair”, “rich” or “progressive” have any worthwhile meaning you can be safely ignored.
File under loon.
Why? It's a fair point. If somebody pays a lot for a service they don't use - and vice versa - then it's not equitable, it's a p1ss take.
My point to any such argument would be "if you wealthy, you have an obligation to support society. It may not seem fair but then life isn't in some many ways." However, for you to say "file under loon" for what is a reasonable point suggests a lack of intellectual rigour on your point more than anything else
Because it is part of living in a society. We all contribute whether or not we need stuff. I no longer have kids at school - should I expect a tax break because I put less demands on teachers? I do not live in Scotland, so why no give me another discount for all Scottish spending? I have not been in a hospital for years so why should I pay for the NHS?
It is nothing more than Libertarian nit-picking and it is all rubbish. Great in theory and for heated debates, but in the real world, it is a load of unworkable cr*p from people who want to have their cake and eat it.
And Truss & Co are going to test it to destruction.
Sorry @Cyclefree, the sympathy plea isn't working. Those same workers have guaranteed job security. They also have generous pensions compared with the private security. One of the biggest issues with this country is that the NHS has been raised into some form of religion, with its workers treated as saints on earth. Enough of this crap.
"Treated as saints on earth".
'Lower band NHS staff are struggling to afford to get to work and feed their families because of the rising cost of living and are quitting the NHS for better paid jobs, creating more hard-to-fill vacancies, NHS bosses have warned.
The impact of the rise in the cost of living on staff health and wellbeing has been highlighted in a survey of leaders of NHS hospital, mental health, community, and ambulance services in England by their representative organisation NHS Providers.'
As it is the same for everyone on a low wage such as cleaners in offices or those who work in the kitchens.
Everyone is getting shafted on this who is poor. This whole idea that NHS staff are somewhat more deserving than others who are on low wages is a farce. They are in a far more secure position than a privately employed worker in a similar job.
I hope Truss makes it to the election. Seeing her on the campaign trail really is going to be utterly hilarious. It will make May's 2017 election campaign look inspirational.
"Give us your vote so we can boot you repeatedly in the bollocks" is going to be a fascinating electoral campaign strategy.
Both Little White Lies and The A.V. Club have emphasized the film's contemporary relevance, especially in light of political events such as Brexit.[37][38] According to the former, the film paints a "nightmarish picture of a Britain woefully unprepared for what is coming, and reduced, when it does come, to isolation, collapse and medieval regression, with a failed health service, very little food being harvested, mass homelessness, and the pound and the penny losing all value."[37]
Brexit had been bad, but not quite as bad as that.
1. Scrap council tax and do a 2% annual property tax already, payable by estates or on sale if you can’t pay in the year.
2. Inheritance tax at 20% for all non property assets.
On point 1, are we talking about an annual valuation of every property or simply applying an inflationary uplift base don he house price index in a particular area.
So, let's say Stodge Towers is worth £500k - I would therefore pay £10k per year in property tax. That's well in front of Council Tax. What would you do with commercial property - apply a similar figure?
What about Land Value Taxation ( a good old LD policy) rather than a property tax? Tax the land your property is on rather than the property so for a block of flats the freeholder gets to pay for the land while the leaseholders are taxed on their property.
Reduce the tax to 1%, include land and think about commercial property.
Annual appraisal. Yes, all property treated equally. Yes, you would pay £10k. Tough.
The current Council Tax raises £36.3 billion as far as I can recall. If I have to pay approximately 9x what I pay in Council Tax through your new Property Tax the total amount raised would be in the region of £325 billion.
That's not a small amount - how would that be re-allocated to local authorities? Would this mitigate other forms of taxation - Mrs Stodge might well argue if we have to pay so much more in Property Tax we'll be spending less in other areas which will impact other tax receipts (VAT for example as spending is reduced).
Presumably rents would rise sharply as landlords would seek to recover their Property Tax costs from tenants.
We've still not considered commercial property and unused or undeveloped land
Fund local government properly. Reduce income tax accordingly. Renters no longer pay council tax, and landlord’s ability to recover from tenants will be limited by what the market will bear.
Why shouldn't renters pay Council tax? They use local services the same as everyone else. And before you answer - I rent.
What we might need is say, a local tax where everyone pays the same amount, or an amount as a % of their income. An induvial local tax....?
Council tax administration is a nightmare. Collecting tax from renters is a total waste of time.
Allocate a share of VAT to local services if you want.
Fair enough but I don't know why collecting Council Tax from renters is a waste of time. I have to pay it - it's part of my tenancy agreement to do so and the Council wasted no time in knowing I was here.
High turnover rental properties maybe difficult to police - but most renters would expect to pay it (why wouldn't they) and do. Just because you rent doesn't mean you don't use local services/infrastructure.
It's a taboo word but a poll tax is actually the best solution. Tax the person.
Overall we tax income too highly, and wealth not enough.
Good luck with your poll tax.
Quite. It's politically impossible, although in my opinion quite an elegant solution. And actually fair. If you're well off you pay the same as someone who may not be as much, but the flipside is that the more well-off (relatively) use local services, especially welfare, much less.
Which is why the problem of local funding will never be addressed because it's toxic to even look at. And never will be.
Your system would be incredibly regressive, and not solve local government funding issues.
I'll just have to disagree and leave it there. How it is in any way equitable for people who wear the sin of being "rich" (whatever that means and how you measure it) to pay disproportionately more for services they don't/mostly don't use, whilst those that use them the most pay the minimum, or nothing, is madness. And the anthesis of "fair".
The terms "regressive" and "progressive" are complete crap. One persons "progressive" is the other persons "regressive" and vice-versa.
I mean, since you don’t believe the words “fair”, “rich” or “progressive” have any worthwhile meaning you can be safely ignored.
File under loon.
Why? It's a fair point. If somebody pays a lot for a service they don't use - and vice versa - then it's not equitable, it's a p1ss take.
My point to any such argument would be "if you wealthy, you have an obligation to support society. It may not seem fair but then life isn't in some many ways." However, for you to say "file under loon" for what is a reasonable point suggests a lack of intellectual rigour on your point more than anything else
Underneath your verbiage, you seem to be arguing either for a completely flat rate of tax, or increasing uses of a “user pays” model.
I’m happy to debate such ideas, but can’t be arsed playing “pin the tail on the lobotomy” with someone who argues that regressive and progressive are meaningless terms.
Important moment here - Levelling Up Secretary Simon Clarke tells the Times that the “very large” welfare state needs to be trimmed. This is the clearest yet that some serious spending cuts are on the way. This is where we are headed:
"“But we had to do something different. We had no other choice.”
Why?
Cos Truss says so and a load of tory members believed her nonsense.
There is a big flaw with the "Something had to be done. So we did something." approach. Everything bad happening after that gets blamed on the thing you did, even if not actually related.
1. Scrap council tax and do a 2% annual property tax already, payable by estates or on sale if you can’t pay in the year.
2. Inheritance tax at 20% for all non property assets.
On point 1, are we talking about an annual valuation of every property or simply applying an inflationary uplift base don he house price index in a particular area.
So, let's say Stodge Towers is worth £500k - I would therefore pay £10k per year in property tax. That's well in front of Council Tax. What would you do with commercial property - apply a similar figure?
What about Land Value Taxation ( a good old LD policy) rather than a property tax? Tax the land your property is on rather than the property so for a block of flats the freeholder gets to pay for the land while the leaseholders are taxed on their property.
Reduce the tax to 1%, include land and think about commercial property.
Annual appraisal. Yes, all property treated equally. Yes, you would pay £10k. Tough.
The current Council Tax raises £36.3 billion as far as I can recall. If I have to pay approximately 9x what I pay in Council Tax through your new Property Tax the total amount raised would be in the region of £325 billion.
That's not a small amount - how would that be re-allocated to local authorities? Would this mitigate other forms of taxation - Mrs Stodge might well argue if we have to pay so much more in Property Tax we'll be spending less in other areas which will impact other tax receipts (VAT for example as spending is reduced).
Presumably rents would rise sharply as landlords would seek to recover their Property Tax costs from tenants.
We've still not considered commercial property and unused or undeveloped land
Fund local government properly. Reduce income tax accordingly. Renters no longer pay council tax, and landlord’s ability to recover from tenants will be limited by what the market will bear.
Why shouldn't renters pay Council tax? They use local services the same as everyone else. And before you answer - I rent.
What we might need is say, a local tax where everyone pays the same amount, or an amount as a % of their income. An induvial local tax....?
Council tax administration is a nightmare. Collecting tax from renters is a total waste of time.
Allocate a share of VAT to local services if you want.
Fair enough but I don't know why collecting Council Tax from renters is a waste of time. I have to pay it - it's part of my tenancy agreement to do so and the Council wasted no time in knowing I was here.
High turnover rental properties maybe difficult to police - but most renters would expect to pay it (why wouldn't they) and do. Just because you rent doesn't mean you don't use local services/infrastructure.
It's a taboo word but a poll tax is actually the best solution. Tax the person.
Overall we tax income too highly, and wealth not enough.
Good luck with your poll tax.
Quite. It's politically impossible, although in my opinion quite an elegant solution. And actually fair. If you're well off you pay the same as someone who may not be as much, but the flipside is that the more well-off (relatively) use local services, especially welfare, much less.
Which is why the problem of local funding will never be addressed because it's toxic to even look at. And never will be.
Your system would be incredibly regressive, and not solve local government funding issues.
I'll just have to disagree and leave it there. How it is in any way equitable for people who wear the sin of being "rich" (whatever that means and how you measure it) to pay disproportionately more for services they don't/mostly don't use, whilst those that use them the most pay the minimum, or nothing, is madness. And the anthesis of "fair".
The terms "regressive" and "progressive" are complete crap. One persons "progressive" is the other persons "regressive" and vice-versa.
I mean, since you don’t believe the words “fair”, “rich” or “progressive” have any worthwhile meaning you can be safely ignored.
File under loon.
Why? It's a fair point. If somebody pays a lot for a service they don't use - and vice versa - then it's not equitable, it's a p1ss take.
My point to any such argument would be "if you wealthy, you have an obligation to support society. It may not seem fair but then life isn't in some many ways." However, for you to say "file under loon" for what is a reasonable point suggests a lack of intellectual rigour on your point more than anything else
Because it is part of living in a society. We all contribute whether or not we need stuff. I no longer have kids at school - should I expect a tax break because I put less demands on teachers? I do not live in Scotland, so why no give me another discount for all Scottish spending? I have not been in a hospital for years so why should I pay for the NHS?
It is nothing more than Libertarian nit-picking and it is all rubbish. Great in theory and for heated debates, but in the real world, it is a load of unworkable cr*p from people who want to have their cake and eat it.
And Truss & Co are going to test it to destruction.
I agree with you. I don't have kids but I'm happy to pay to an education system because society works that way. We all have to contribute and we all have to play our part.
However, dismissing an argument which I don't believe in but which is a fair argument in itself as "file under loon" is just a lazy attempt not to debate the issue.
Truss tells Sun readers: "This government is on your side. "Together, we will get through this and put Britain on the path to long-term success." But hinted she could cut benefits, saying: "I’m on the side of people who work hard."
Truss tells Sun readers: "This government is on your side. "Together, we will get through this and put Britain on the path to long-term success." But hinted she could cut benefits, saying: "I’m on the side of people who work hard."
I hope Truss makes it to the election. Seeing her on the campaign trail really is going to be utterly hilarious. It will make May's 2017 election campaign look inspirational.
"Give us your vote so we can boot you repeatedly in the bollocks" is going to be a fascinating electoral campaign strategy.
Your destitution and homelessness is for the great good and the glory of Britannia.
Why are you people not more grateful of the opportunity to lay down your mortgages for my bonkers ideology?
Truss tells Sun readers: "This government is on your side. "Together, we will get through this and put Britain on the path to long-term success." But hinted she could cut benefits, saying: "I’m on the side of people who work hard."
1. Scrap council tax and do a 2% annual property tax already, payable by estates or on sale if you can’t pay in the year.
2. Inheritance tax at 20% for all non property assets.
On point 1, are we talking about an annual valuation of every property or simply applying an inflationary uplift base don he house price index in a particular area.
So, let's say Stodge Towers is worth £500k - I would therefore pay £10k per year in property tax. That's well in front of Council Tax. What would you do with commercial property - apply a similar figure?
What about Land Value Taxation ( a good old LD policy) rather than a property tax? Tax the land your property is on rather than the property so for a block of flats the freeholder gets to pay for the land while the leaseholders are taxed on their property.
Reduce the tax to 1%, include land and think about commercial property.
Annual appraisal. Yes, all property treated equally. Yes, you would pay £10k. Tough.
The current Council Tax raises £36.3 billion as far as I can recall. If I have to pay approximately 9x what I pay in Council Tax through your new Property Tax the total amount raised would be in the region of £325 billion.
That's not a small amount - how would that be re-allocated to local authorities? Would this mitigate other forms of taxation - Mrs Stodge might well argue if we have to pay so much more in Property Tax we'll be spending less in other areas which will impact other tax receipts (VAT for example as spending is reduced).
Presumably rents would rise sharply as landlords would seek to recover their Property Tax costs from tenants.
We've still not considered commercial property and unused or undeveloped land
Fund local government properly. Reduce income tax accordingly. Renters no longer pay council tax, and landlord’s ability to recover from tenants will be limited by what the market will bear.
Why shouldn't renters pay Council tax? They use local services the same as everyone else. And before you answer - I rent.
What we might need is say, a local tax where everyone pays the same amount, or an amount as a % of their income. An induvial local tax....?
Council tax administration is a nightmare. Collecting tax from renters is a total waste of time.
Allocate a share of VAT to local services if you want.
Fair enough but I don't know why collecting Council Tax from renters is a waste of time. I have to pay it - it's part of my tenancy agreement to do so and the Council wasted no time in knowing I was here.
High turnover rental properties maybe difficult to police - but most renters would expect to pay it (why wouldn't they) and do. Just because you rent doesn't mean you don't use local services/infrastructure.
It's a taboo word but a poll tax is actually the best solution. Tax the person.
Overall we tax income too highly, and wealth not enough.
Good luck with your poll tax.
Quite. It's politically impossible, although in my opinion quite an elegant solution. And actually fair. If you're well off you pay the same as someone who may not be as much, but the flipside is that the more well-off (relatively) use local services, especially welfare, much less.
Which is why the problem of local funding will never be addressed because it's toxic to even look at. And never will be.
Your system would be incredibly regressive, and not solve local government funding issues.
I'll just have to disagree and leave it there. How it is in any way equitable for people who wear the sin of being "rich" (whatever that means and how you measure it) to pay disproportionately more for services they don't/mostly don't use, whilst those that use them the most pay the minimum, or nothing, is madness. And the anthesis of "fair".
The terms "regressive" and "progressive" are complete crap. One persons "progressive" is the other persons "regressive" and vice-versa.
I mean, since you don’t believe the words “fair”, “rich” or “progressive” have any worthwhile meaning you can be safely ignored.
File under loon.
Why? It's a fair point. If somebody pays a lot for a service they don't use - and vice versa - then it's not equitable, it's a p1ss take.
My point to any such argument would be "if you wealthy, you have an obligation to support society. It may not seem fair but then life isn't in some many ways." However, for you to say "file under loon" for what is a reasonable point suggests a lack of intellectual rigour on your point more than anything else
Underneath your verbiage, you seem to be arguing either for a completely flat rate of tax, or increasing uses of a “user pays” model.
I’m happy to debate such ideas, but can’t be arsed playing “pin the tail on the lobotomy” with someone who argues that regressive and progressive are meaningless terms.
Wrong.
What I said was I am happy to pay my share of taxes - even though I don't have children and so don't use the education system nor claim benefits nor use the NHS much - because I recognise that is necessary for society.
What I am saying is your line of "file under loon" is wrong. There is a line of argument that says if I pay for services I don't use, it's unfair. I don't agree with it. But it is a reasonable point, not loon-ish.
I hope Truss makes it to the election. Seeing her on the campaign trail really is going to be utterly hilarious. It will make May's 2017 election campaign look inspirational.
Another few weeks of Trussonomics will be enough to start the revolution. It will take a while to get through the Show Trials...
1. Scrap council tax and do a 2% annual property tax already, payable by estates or on sale if you can’t pay in the year.
2. Inheritance tax at 20% for all non property assets.
On point 1, are we talking about an annual valuation of every property or simply applying an inflationary uplift base don he house price index in a particular area.
So, let's say Stodge Towers is worth £500k - I would therefore pay £10k per year in property tax. That's well in front of Council Tax. What would you do with commercial property - apply a similar figure?
What about Land Value Taxation ( a good old LD policy) rather than a property tax? Tax the land your property is on rather than the property so for a block of flats the freeholder gets to pay for the land while the leaseholders are taxed on their property.
Reduce the tax to 1%, include land and think about commercial property.
Annual appraisal. Yes, all property treated equally. Yes, you would pay £10k. Tough.
The current Council Tax raises £36.3 billion as far as I can recall. If I have to pay approximately 9x what I pay in Council Tax through your new Property Tax the total amount raised would be in the region of £325 billion.
That's not a small amount - how would that be re-allocated to local authorities? Would this mitigate other forms of taxation - Mrs Stodge might well argue if we have to pay so much more in Property Tax we'll be spending less in other areas which will impact other tax receipts (VAT for example as spending is reduced).
Presumably rents would rise sharply as landlords would seek to recover their Property Tax costs from tenants.
We've still not considered commercial property and unused or undeveloped land
Fund local government properly. Reduce income tax accordingly. Renters no longer pay council tax, and landlord’s ability to recover from tenants will be limited by what the market will bear.
Why shouldn't renters pay Council tax? They use local services the same as everyone else. And before you answer - I rent.
What we might need is say, a local tax where everyone pays the same amount, or an amount as a % of their income. An induvial local tax....?
Council tax administration is a nightmare. Collecting tax from renters is a total waste of time.
Allocate a share of VAT to local services if you want.
Fair enough but I don't know why collecting Council Tax from renters is a waste of time. I have to pay it - it's part of my tenancy agreement to do so and the Council wasted no time in knowing I was here.
High turnover rental properties maybe difficult to police - but most renters would expect to pay it (why wouldn't they) and do. Just because you rent doesn't mean you don't use local services/infrastructure.
It's a taboo word but a poll tax is actually the best solution. Tax the person.
Overall we tax income too highly, and wealth not enough.
Good luck with your poll tax.
Quite. It's politically impossible, although in my opinion quite an elegant solution. And actually fair. If you're well off you pay the same as someone who may not be as much, but the flipside is that the more well-off (relatively) use local services, especially welfare, much less.
Which is why the problem of local funding will never be addressed because it's toxic to even look at. And never will be.
Your system would be incredibly regressive, and not solve local government funding issues.
I'll just have to disagree and leave it there. How it is in any way equitable for people who wear the sin of being "rich" (whatever that means and how you measure it) to pay disproportionately more for services they don't/mostly don't use, whilst those that use them the most pay the minimum, or nothing, is madness. And the anthesis of "fair".
The terms "regressive" and "progressive" are complete crap. One persons "progressive" is the other persons "regressive" and vice-versa.
I mean, since you don’t believe the words “fair”, “rich” or “progressive” have any worthwhile meaning you can be safely ignored.
File under loon.
They don't have a true meaning - they're all relative terms.
File under idiot.
You'll struggle to communicate if you limit yourself to terms that aren't relative.
Kinabalu wants fairness and redistribution as long as he can keep that nice house in hampstead from which he sneers at the unenlightened plebs
9/30 - Someone in #Russia dumped just USD $13 million in Gazprom stock and the price instantly crashed by 17%. Cleaned out all the limit buy orders down to 189.42 rubles from 231. At $80 billion market cap, that's a $13 billion crash. #Liquidity Russian style. House of Cards. https://twitter.com/igorsushko/status/1575961430108434432/photo/1
1. Scrap council tax and do a 2% annual property tax already, payable by estates or on sale if you can’t pay in the year.
2. Inheritance tax at 20% for all non property assets.
On point 1, are we talking about an annual valuation of every property or simply applying an inflationary uplift base don he house price index in a particular area.
So, let's say Stodge Towers is worth £500k - I would therefore pay £10k per year in property tax. That's well in front of Council Tax. What would you do with commercial property - apply a similar figure?
What about Land Value Taxation ( a good old LD policy) rather than a property tax? Tax the land your property is on rather than the property so for a block of flats the freeholder gets to pay for the land while the leaseholders are taxed on their property.
Reduce the tax to 1%, include land and think about commercial property.
Annual appraisal. Yes, all property treated equally. Yes, you would pay £10k. Tough.
The current Council Tax raises £36.3 billion as far as I can recall. If I have to pay approximately 9x what I pay in Council Tax through your new Property Tax the total amount raised would be in the region of £325 billion.
That's not a small amount - how would that be re-allocated to local authorities? Would this mitigate other forms of taxation - Mrs Stodge might well argue if we have to pay so much more in Property Tax we'll be spending less in other areas which will impact other tax receipts (VAT for example as spending is reduced).
Presumably rents would rise sharply as landlords would seek to recover their Property Tax costs from tenants.
We've still not considered commercial property and unused or undeveloped land
Fund local government properly. Reduce income tax accordingly. Renters no longer pay council tax, and landlord’s ability to recover from tenants will be limited by what the market will bear.
Why shouldn't renters pay Council tax? They use local services the same as everyone else. And before you answer - I rent.
What we might need is say, a local tax where everyone pays the same amount, or an amount as a % of their income. An induvial local tax....?
Council tax administration is a nightmare. Collecting tax from renters is a total waste of time.
Allocate a share of VAT to local services if you want.
Fair enough but I don't know why collecting Council Tax from renters is a waste of time. I have to pay it - it's part of my tenancy agreement to do so and the Council wasted no time in knowing I was here.
High turnover rental properties maybe difficult to police - but most renters would expect to pay it (why wouldn't they) and do. Just because you rent doesn't mean you don't use local services/infrastructure.
It's a taboo word but a poll tax is actually the best solution. Tax the person.
Overall we tax income too highly, and wealth not enough.
Good luck with your poll tax.
Quite. It's politically impossible, although in my opinion quite an elegant solution. And actually fair. If you're well off you pay the same as someone who may not be as much, but the flipside is that the more well-off (relatively) use local services, especially welfare, much less.
Which is why the problem of local funding will never be addressed because it's toxic to even look at. And never will be.
Your system would be incredibly regressive, and not solve local government funding issues.
I'll just have to disagree and leave it there. How it is in any way equitable for people who wear the sin of being "rich" (whatever that means and how you measure it) to pay disproportionately more for services they don't/mostly don't use, whilst those that use them the most pay the minimum, or nothing, is madness. And the anthesis of "fair".
The terms "regressive" and "progressive" are complete crap. One persons "progressive" is the other persons "regressive" and vice-versa.
I mean, since you don’t believe the words “fair”, “rich” or “progressive” have any worthwhile meaning you can be safely ignored.
File under loon.
Why? It's a fair point. If somebody pays a lot for a service they don't use - and vice versa - then it's not equitable, it's a p1ss take.
My point to any such argument would be "if you wealthy, you have an obligation to support society. It may not seem fair but then life isn't in some many ways." However, for you to say "file under loon" for what is a reasonable point suggests a lack of intellectual rigour on your point more than anything else
Underneath your verbiage, you seem to be arguing either for a completely flat rate of tax, or increasing uses of a “user pays” model.
I’m happy to debate such ideas, but can’t be arsed playing “pin the tail on the lobotomy” with someone who argues that regressive and progressive are meaningless terms.
Wrong.
What I said was I am happy to pay my share of taxes - even though I don't have children and so don't use the education system nor claim benefits nor use the NHS much - because I recognise that is necessary for society.
What I am saying is your line of "file under loon" is wrong. There is a line of argument that says if I pay for services I don't use, it's unfair. I don't agree with it. But it is a reasonable point, not loon-ish.
My objection is to the idea that it’s notions of progressiveness (or regressiveness) are meaningless.
It’s impossible to debate if the interlocutor won’t accept standard ways of describing things.
In my experience, such people are loons. So too, probably, are those who go out to bat for loons.
1. Scrap council tax and do a 2% annual property tax already, payable by estates or on sale if you can’t pay in the year.
2. Inheritance tax at 20% for all non property assets.
On point 1, are we talking about an annual valuation of every property or simply applying an inflationary uplift base don he house price index in a particular area.
So, let's say Stodge Towers is worth £500k - I would therefore pay £10k per year in property tax. That's well in front of Council Tax. What would you do with commercial property - apply a similar figure?
What about Land Value Taxation ( a good old LD policy) rather than a property tax? Tax the land your property is on rather than the property so for a block of flats the freeholder gets to pay for the land while the leaseholders are taxed on their property.
Reduce the tax to 1%, include land and think about commercial property.
Annual appraisal. Yes, all property treated equally. Yes, you would pay £10k. Tough.
The current Council Tax raises £36.3 billion as far as I can recall. If I have to pay approximately 9x what I pay in Council Tax through your new Property Tax the total amount raised would be in the region of £325 billion.
That's not a small amount - how would that be re-allocated to local authorities? Would this mitigate other forms of taxation - Mrs Stodge might well argue if we have to pay so much more in Property Tax we'll be spending less in other areas which will impact other tax receipts (VAT for example as spending is reduced).
Presumably rents would rise sharply as landlords would seek to recover their Property Tax costs from tenants.
We've still not considered commercial property and unused or undeveloped land
Fund local government properly. Reduce income tax accordingly. Renters no longer pay council tax, and landlord’s ability to recover from tenants will be limited by what the market will bear.
Why shouldn't renters pay Council tax? They use local services the same as everyone else. And before you answer - I rent.
What we might need is say, a local tax where everyone pays the same amount, or an amount as a % of their income. An induvial local tax....?
Council tax administration is a nightmare. Collecting tax from renters is a total waste of time.
Allocate a share of VAT to local services if you want.
Fair enough but I don't know why collecting Council Tax from renters is a waste of time. I have to pay it - it's part of my tenancy agreement to do so and the Council wasted no time in knowing I was here.
High turnover rental properties maybe difficult to police - but most renters would expect to pay it (why wouldn't they) and do. Just because you rent doesn't mean you don't use local services/infrastructure.
It's a taboo word but a poll tax is actually the best solution. Tax the person.
Overall we tax income too highly, and wealth not enough.
Good luck with your poll tax.
Quite. It's politically impossible, although in my opinion quite an elegant solution. And actually fair. If you're well off you pay the same as someone who may not be as much, but the flipside is that the more well-off (relatively) use local services, especially welfare, much less.
Which is why the problem of local funding will never be addressed because it's toxic to even look at. And never will be.
Your system would be incredibly regressive, and not solve local government funding issues.
I'll just have to disagree and leave it there. How it is in any way equitable for people who wear the sin of being "rich" (whatever that means and how you measure it) to pay disproportionately more for services they don't/mostly don't use, whilst those that use them the most pay the minimum, or nothing, is madness. And the anthesis of "fair".
The terms "regressive" and "progressive" are complete crap. One persons "progressive" is the other persons "regressive" and vice-versa.
I mean, since you don’t believe the words “fair”, “rich” or “progressive” have any worthwhile meaning you can be safely ignored.
File under loon.
They don't have a true meaning - they're all relative terms.
File under idiot.
Strange comment. Just because things are relative doesn't mean they aren't real. You can't beard-stroke your way out of the fact that fairness is a thing that's fairly well understood by most people.
So what's "fair"? It's not a "well understood" concept. There is no objective "fair". It's a word used by children and (to use your phrase)" beard-stroking" pseudo-intellectual lefties to justify their hatred of anyone who dares to earn more than they do.
Is it "fair" a train driver earns more than a nurse? Is it "fair" a Union leader earns upwards of 10 ten times more than the workers he claims to represent?
Or is it "fair" that through hard-work and toil someone becomes "rich" (again whatever that means) and a government says "sorry - but we're taking a lot more form you now because some people haven't done as well as you".
Is that "fair"?
You're the one doing the beard stroking about this: there's a rich philosophical tradition, taken up by those in political debates when they have their backs to the cliff, to question the very meaning of a word. It's a rich seam to mine and it sometimes works, but not because it's an honest or productive endeavour; it's a form of nerd-sniping. Take somebody who wants in earnest to show that you're wrong, and distract them with the problem of defining something that well understood but is hard to express.
I know how these conversations go, so I won't play the game. I will point out that the idea of fairness is so fundamental that it exists even in our cousin species: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg
Fairness is relative, but it's a concept that has such a profound meaning to us that people (and monkeys) will literally throw away something beneficial because they perceive the distribution of goods as unfair. Don't try to pretend that it doesn't mean anything at all just because instantiations of the concept are contested.
There's excitement on twitter that fighting has reached the outskirts of Kreminna, as the AFU push to exploit their recent gains. For all the talk of OPSEC photos seem to make their way on to twitter very quickly when a new town or village is liberated, so we'll find out quite soon whether another collapse of the front is in progress.
How much of success in life is about merit and how much is luck? Work that out, and you can start a conversation about how much redistribution is fair. Probably the answer is both, which is what makes the debate so messy. But when these debates get clogged up with self-made men and women who worship their creator and him/her alone... That's not good.
Besides, zooming out, being here and now is a fairly solid prize in the lottery of life. Shame if anyone screws that up.
is he the oldest ever former President or UK prime minister?
Yes. Runners up are James Callaghan (died the day before his 93rd birthday) and George H. Bush (94).
Carter deserves some sort of record. He was a lousy president in many ways, but was probably also the single most decent and well-meaning man ever to be President and has done far more good than almost any other human in the years since his defeat.
He was also quite a good president in some ways.
Such as?
Decades ahead of his time on energy policy; emphasis on education (the first to make it a cabinet post): peacemaker (Camp David accords) for example.
Atypically honest, and sadly not effective enough at the political arts to be more effective. But the idea that he was a lousy President is, IMO at least, wrong.
Camp David - correct
Education - can't really agree. Just because he made Education a cabinet post doesn't mean he had a successful education policy. Arguably, Carter's time saw the start of the decline in the US public education system (which was great) because he was influenced too much by the unions.
Energy policy - mixed. Remember in the 1970s, the biggest fear was a cooling planet, not a rising temperature one.
Truss tells Sun readers: "This government is on your side. "Together, we will get through this and put Britain on the path to long-term success." But hinted she could cut benefits, saying: "I’m on the side of people who work hard."
Omfg ! Many of those on benefits are actually working . It’s despicable to add more misery onto the poorest.
My loathing for Truss continues to rocket .
Leadsom, one if the few MPs defending Truss in public, was on the radio earlier explaining such cuts would be doing them a favour.
Leadsom is another idiot.
On this evidence, definitely.
It was obvious years ago - back when she ran for leader. Her statements were merely vacuous repetitions of things other people had said and when she was questioned on them she went quiet with that glazed expression that suggests brain overload.
If anyone ever mistook her for a serious politician, the light must have been bad. Or she might have been standing next to Dominic Raaaab or Mad Nad
Both Little White Lies and The A.V. Club have emphasized the film's contemporary relevance, especially in light of political events such as Brexit.[37][38] According to the former, the film paints a "nightmarish picture of a Britain woefully unprepared for what is coming, and reduced, when it does come, to isolation, collapse and medieval regression, with a failed health service, very little food being harvested, mass homelessness, and the pound and the penny losing all value."[37]
Brexit had been bad, but not quite as bad as that.
Do you know, back in the 1970s HMG was still operating a network of food stores to provide some sort of reserve. (One of them was in the nissen huts at East Fortune airfield - I may have mentioned coming across it when I went to the embryonic air museum on part of the airfield and wandering around the rest: stacks of ship's biscuits in plastic crates.)
1. Scrap council tax and do a 2% annual property tax already, payable by estates or on sale if you can’t pay in the year.
2. Inheritance tax at 20% for all non property assets.
On point 1, are we talking about an annual valuation of every property or simply applying an inflationary uplift base don he house price index in a particular area.
So, let's say Stodge Towers is worth £500k - I would therefore pay £10k per year in property tax. That's well in front of Council Tax. What would you do with commercial property - apply a similar figure?
What about Land Value Taxation ( a good old LD policy) rather than a property tax? Tax the land your property is on rather than the property so for a block of flats the freeholder gets to pay for the land while the leaseholders are taxed on their property.
Reduce the tax to 1%, include land and think about commercial property.
Annual appraisal. Yes, all property treated equally. Yes, you would pay £10k. Tough.
The current Council Tax raises £36.3 billion as far as I can recall. If I have to pay approximately 9x what I pay in Council Tax through your new Property Tax the total amount raised would be in the region of £325 billion.
That's not a small amount - how would that be re-allocated to local authorities? Would this mitigate other forms of taxation - Mrs Stodge might well argue if we have to pay so much more in Property Tax we'll be spending less in other areas which will impact other tax receipts (VAT for example as spending is reduced).
Presumably rents would rise sharply as landlords would seek to recover their Property Tax costs from tenants.
We've still not considered commercial property and unused or undeveloped land
Fund local government properly. Reduce income tax accordingly. Renters no longer pay council tax, and landlord’s ability to recover from tenants will be limited by what the market will bear.
Why shouldn't renters pay Council tax? They use local services the same as everyone else. And before you answer - I rent.
What we might need is say, a local tax where everyone pays the same amount, or an amount as a % of their income. An induvial local tax....?
Council tax administration is a nightmare. Collecting tax from renters is a total waste of time.
Allocate a share of VAT to local services if you want.
Fair enough but I don't know why collecting Council Tax from renters is a waste of time. I have to pay it - it's part of my tenancy agreement to do so and the Council wasted no time in knowing I was here.
High turnover rental properties maybe difficult to police - but most renters would expect to pay it (why wouldn't they) and do. Just because you rent doesn't mean you don't use local services/infrastructure.
It's a taboo word but a poll tax is actually the best solution. Tax the person.
Overall we tax income too highly, and wealth not enough.
Good luck with your poll tax.
Quite. It's politically impossible, although in my opinion quite an elegant solution. And actually fair. If you're well off you pay the same as someone who may not be as much, but the flipside is that the more well-off (relatively) use local services, especially welfare, much less.
Which is why the problem of local funding will never be addressed because it's toxic to even look at. And never will be.
Your system would be incredibly regressive, and not solve local government funding issues.
I'll just have to disagree and leave it there. How it is in any way equitable for people who wear the sin of being "rich" (whatever that means and how you measure it) to pay disproportionately more for services they don't/mostly don't use, whilst those that use them the most pay the minimum, or nothing, is madness. And the anthesis of "fair".
The terms "regressive" and "progressive" are complete crap. One persons "progressive" is the other persons "regressive" and vice-versa.
I mean, since you don’t believe the words “fair”, “rich” or “progressive” have any worthwhile meaning you can be safely ignored.
File under loon.
Why? It's a fair point. If somebody pays a lot for a service they don't use - and vice versa - then it's not equitable, it's a p1ss take.
My point to any such argument would be "if you wealthy, you have an obligation to support society. It may not seem fair but then life isn't in some many ways." However, for you to say "file under loon" for what is a reasonable point suggests a lack of intellectual rigour on your point more than anything else
Underneath your verbiage, you seem to be arguing either for a completely flat rate of tax, or increasing uses of a “user pays” model.
I’m happy to debate such ideas, but can’t be arsed playing “pin the tail on the lobotomy” with someone who argues that regressive and progressive are meaningless terms.
Wrong.
What I said was I am happy to pay my share of taxes - even though I don't have children and so don't use the education system nor claim benefits nor use the NHS much - because I recognise that is necessary for society.
What I am saying is your line of "file under loon" is wrong. There is a line of argument that says if I pay for services I don't use, it's unfair. I don't agree with it. But it is a reasonable point, not loon-ish.
Thanks.
Although we may disagree on the issue being debated, which is perfectly fine and why we're here, it's actually heartening to see some people at least who respect debate without recourse to silly dismissives because it's not their world-view.
Anyway, I respect your eloquently put argument(s) against what I was saying. I suppose I'm just a loon for daring to have a different opinion (in some people's minds).
One month ago, everyone was panicking over households going bankrupt because of utility bills. The Government then stepped in and the issue of 'fuel poverty' has gone very quiet.
It will be the same with rising interest rates and mortgage holders
No mate, it hasn't. Hence the outrage today of Truss's lie about no household having to spend over £2500 on energy when that figure is the average. Look outside your comfortable bubble and plenty of people are still really rather worried.
Sorry pal, there's plenty of people I know - and in my family - who are not comfortable and the issue has slipped down the list. It doesn't come up in the topic of conversation.
1. Scrap council tax and do a 2% annual property tax already, payable by estates or on sale if you can’t pay in the year.
2. Inheritance tax at 20% for all non property assets.
On point 1, are we talking about an annual valuation of every property or simply applying an inflationary uplift base don he house price index in a particular area.
So, let's say Stodge Towers is worth £500k - I would therefore pay £10k per year in property tax. That's well in front of Council Tax. What would you do with commercial property - apply a similar figure?
What about Land Value Taxation ( a good old LD policy) rather than a property tax? Tax the land your property is on rather than the property so for a block of flats the freeholder gets to pay for the land while the leaseholders are taxed on their property.
Reduce the tax to 1%, include land and think about commercial property.
Annual appraisal. Yes, all property treated equally. Yes, you would pay £10k. Tough.
The current Council Tax raises £36.3 billion as far as I can recall. If I have to pay approximately 9x what I pay in Council Tax through your new Property Tax the total amount raised would be in the region of £325 billion.
That's not a small amount - how would that be re-allocated to local authorities? Would this mitigate other forms of taxation - Mrs Stodge might well argue if we have to pay so much more in Property Tax we'll be spending less in other areas which will impact other tax receipts (VAT for example as spending is reduced).
Presumably rents would rise sharply as landlords would seek to recover their Property Tax costs from tenants.
We've still not considered commercial property and unused or undeveloped land
Fund local government properly. Reduce income tax accordingly. Renters no longer pay council tax, and landlord’s ability to recover from tenants will be limited by what the market will bear.
Why shouldn't renters pay Council tax? They use local services the same as everyone else. And before you answer - I rent.
What we might need is say, a local tax where everyone pays the same amount, or an amount as a % of their income. An induvial local tax....?
Council tax administration is a nightmare. Collecting tax from renters is a total waste of time.
Allocate a share of VAT to local services if you want.
Fair enough but I don't know why collecting Council Tax from renters is a waste of time. I have to pay it - it's part of my tenancy agreement to do so and the Council wasted no time in knowing I was here.
High turnover rental properties maybe difficult to police - but most renters would expect to pay it (why wouldn't they) and do. Just because you rent doesn't mean you don't use local services/infrastructure.
It's a taboo word but a poll tax is actually the best solution. Tax the person.
Overall we tax income too highly, and wealth not enough.
Good luck with your poll tax.
Quite. It's politically impossible, although in my opinion quite an elegant solution. And actually fair. If you're well off you pay the same as someone who may not be as much, but the flipside is that the more well-off (relatively) use local services, especially welfare, much less.
Which is why the problem of local funding will never be addressed because it's toxic to even look at. And never will be.
Your system would be incredibly regressive, and not solve local government funding issues.
I'll just have to disagree and leave it there. How it is in any way equitable for people who wear the sin of being "rich" (whatever that means and how you measure it) to pay disproportionately more for services they don't/mostly don't use, whilst those that use them the most pay the minimum, or nothing, is madness. And the anthesis of "fair".
The terms "regressive" and "progressive" are complete crap. One persons "progressive" is the other persons "regressive" and vice-versa.
I mean, since you don’t believe the words “fair”, “rich” or “progressive” have any worthwhile meaning you can be safely ignored.
File under loon.
Why? It's a fair point. If somebody pays a lot for a service they don't use - and vice versa - then it's not equitable, it's a p1ss take.
My point to any such argument would be "if you wealthy, you have an obligation to support society. It may not seem fair but then life isn't in some many ways." However, for you to say "file under loon" for what is a reasonable point suggests a lack of intellectual rigour on your point more than anything else
Underneath your verbiage, you seem to be arguing either for a completely flat rate of tax, or increasing uses of a “user pays” model.
I’m happy to debate such ideas, but can’t be arsed playing “pin the tail on the lobotomy” with someone who argues that regressive and progressive are meaningless terms.
Wrong.
What I said was I am happy to pay my share of taxes - even though I don't have children and so don't use the education system nor claim benefits nor use the NHS much - because I recognise that is necessary for society.
What I am saying is your line of "file under loon" is wrong. There is a line of argument that says if I pay for services I don't use, it's unfair. I don't agree with it. But it is a reasonable point, not loon-ish.
My objection is to the idea that it’s notions of progressiveness (or regressiveness) are meaningless.
It’s impossible to debate if the interlocutor won’t accept standard ways of describing things.
In my experience, such people are loons. So too, probably, are those who go out to bat for loons.
I've seen this so much. The underlying conceptual model seems to be "we can't agree on some instances of a concept, therefore the concept should be wholly rejected." It's a granite-dense package of logical fallacies, dressed up pleasingly as intellectualism, with a noble heritage going back at least as far as Descartes. But it does, as you say, have more than a whiff of loony about it.
1. Scrap council tax and do a 2% annual property tax already, payable by estates or on sale if you can’t pay in the year.
2. Inheritance tax at 20% for all non property assets.
On point 1, are we talking about an annual valuation of every property or simply applying an inflationary uplift base don he house price index in a particular area.
So, let's say Stodge Towers is worth £500k - I would therefore pay £10k per year in property tax. That's well in front of Council Tax. What would you do with commercial property - apply a similar figure?
What about Land Value Taxation ( a good old LD policy) rather than a property tax? Tax the land your property is on rather than the property so for a block of flats the freeholder gets to pay for the land while the leaseholders are taxed on their property.
Reduce the tax to 1%, include land and think about commercial property.
Annual appraisal. Yes, all property treated equally. Yes, you would pay £10k. Tough.
The current Council Tax raises £36.3 billion as far as I can recall. If I have to pay approximately 9x what I pay in Council Tax through your new Property Tax the total amount raised would be in the region of £325 billion.
That's not a small amount - how would that be re-allocated to local authorities? Would this mitigate other forms of taxation - Mrs Stodge might well argue if we have to pay so much more in Property Tax we'll be spending less in other areas which will impact other tax receipts (VAT for example as spending is reduced).
Presumably rents would rise sharply as landlords would seek to recover their Property Tax costs from tenants.
We've still not considered commercial property and unused or undeveloped land
Fund local government properly. Reduce income tax accordingly. Renters no longer pay council tax, and landlord’s ability to recover from tenants will be limited by what the market will bear.
Why shouldn't renters pay Council tax? They use local services the same as everyone else. And before you answer - I rent.
What we might need is say, a local tax where everyone pays the same amount, or an amount as a % of their income. An induvial local tax....?
Council tax administration is a nightmare. Collecting tax from renters is a total waste of time.
Allocate a share of VAT to local services if you want.
Fair enough but I don't know why collecting Council Tax from renters is a waste of time. I have to pay it - it's part of my tenancy agreement to do so and the Council wasted no time in knowing I was here.
High turnover rental properties maybe difficult to police - but most renters would expect to pay it (why wouldn't they) and do. Just because you rent doesn't mean you don't use local services/infrastructure.
It's a taboo word but a poll tax is actually the best solution. Tax the person.
Overall we tax income too highly, and wealth not enough.
Good luck with your poll tax.
Quite. It's politically impossible, although in my opinion quite an elegant solution. And actually fair. If you're well off you pay the same as someone who may not be as much, but the flipside is that the more well-off (relatively) use local services, especially welfare, much less.
Which is why the problem of local funding will never be addressed because it's toxic to even look at. And never will be.
Your system would be incredibly regressive, and not solve local government funding issues.
I'll just have to disagree and leave it there. How it is in any way equitable for people who wear the sin of being "rich" (whatever that means and how you measure it) to pay disproportionately more for services they don't/mostly don't use, whilst those that use them the most pay the minimum, or nothing, is madness. And the anthesis of "fair".
The terms "regressive" and "progressive" are complete crap. One persons "progressive" is the other persons "regressive" and vice-versa.
I mean, since you don’t believe the words “fair”, “rich” or “progressive” have any worthwhile meaning you can be safely ignored.
File under loon.
Why? It's a fair point. If somebody pays a lot for a service they don't use - and vice versa - then it's not equitable, it's a p1ss take.
My point to any such argument would be "if you wealthy, you have an obligation to support society. It may not seem fair but then life isn't in some many ways." However, for you to say "file under loon" for what is a reasonable point suggests a lack of intellectual rigour on your point more than anything else
Underneath your verbiage, you seem to be arguing either for a completely flat rate of tax, or increasing uses of a “user pays” model.
I’m happy to debate such ideas, but can’t be arsed playing “pin the tail on the lobotomy” with someone who argues that regressive and progressive are meaningless terms.
Wrong.
What I said was I am happy to pay my share of taxes - even though I don't have children and so don't use the education system nor claim benefits nor use the NHS much - because I recognise that is necessary for society.
What I am saying is your line of "file under loon" is wrong. There is a line of argument that says if I pay for services I don't use, it's unfair. I don't agree with it. But it is a reasonable point, not loon-ish.
My objection is to the idea that it’s notions of progressiveness (or regressiveness) are meaningless.
It’s impossible to debate if the interlocutor won’t accept standard ways of describing things.
In my experience, such people are loons. So too, probably, are those who go out to bat for loons.
Loonies, please: don't slander NE Scots farmworkers (however unintentionally). I'm descended from one.
1. Scrap council tax and do a 2% annual property tax already, payable by estates or on sale if you can’t pay in the year.
2. Inheritance tax at 20% for all non property assets.
On point 1, are we talking about an annual valuation of every property or simply applying an inflationary uplift base don he house price index in a particular area.
So, let's say Stodge Towers is worth £500k - I would therefore pay £10k per year in property tax. That's well in front of Council Tax. What would you do with commercial property - apply a similar figure?
What about Land Value Taxation ( a good old LD policy) rather than a property tax? Tax the land your property is on rather than the property so for a block of flats the freeholder gets to pay for the land while the leaseholders are taxed on their property.
Reduce the tax to 1%, include land and think about commercial property.
Annual appraisal. Yes, all property treated equally. Yes, you would pay £10k. Tough.
The current Council Tax raises £36.3 billion as far as I can recall. If I have to pay approximately 9x what I pay in Council Tax through your new Property Tax the total amount raised would be in the region of £325 billion.
That's not a small amount - how would that be re-allocated to local authorities? Would this mitigate other forms of taxation - Mrs Stodge might well argue if we have to pay so much more in Property Tax we'll be spending less in other areas which will impact other tax receipts (VAT for example as spending is reduced).
Presumably rents would rise sharply as landlords would seek to recover their Property Tax costs from tenants.
We've still not considered commercial property and unused or undeveloped land
Fund local government properly. Reduce income tax accordingly. Renters no longer pay council tax, and landlord’s ability to recover from tenants will be limited by what the market will bear.
Why shouldn't renters pay Council tax? They use local services the same as everyone else. And before you answer - I rent.
What we might need is say, a local tax where everyone pays the same amount, or an amount as a % of their income. An induvial local tax....?
Council tax administration is a nightmare. Collecting tax from renters is a total waste of time.
Allocate a share of VAT to local services if you want.
Fair enough but I don't know why collecting Council Tax from renters is a waste of time. I have to pay it - it's part of my tenancy agreement to do so and the Council wasted no time in knowing I was here.
High turnover rental properties maybe difficult to police - but most renters would expect to pay it (why wouldn't they) and do. Just because you rent doesn't mean you don't use local services/infrastructure.
It's a taboo word but a poll tax is actually the best solution. Tax the person.
Overall we tax income too highly, and wealth not enough.
Good luck with your poll tax.
Quite. It's politically impossible, although in my opinion quite an elegant solution. And actually fair. If you're well off you pay the same as someone who may not be as much, but the flipside is that the more well-off (relatively) use local services, especially welfare, much less.
Which is why the problem of local funding will never be addressed because it's toxic to even look at. And never will be.
Your system would be incredibly regressive, and not solve local government funding issues.
I'll just have to disagree and leave it there. How it is in any way equitable for people who wear the sin of being "rich" (whatever that means and how you measure it) to pay disproportionately more for services they don't/mostly don't use, whilst those that use them the most pay the minimum, or nothing, is madness. And the anthesis of "fair".
The terms "regressive" and "progressive" are complete crap. One persons "progressive" is the other persons "regressive" and vice-versa.
I mean, since you don’t believe the words “fair”, “rich” or “progressive” have any worthwhile meaning you can be safely ignored.
File under loon.
Why? It's a fair point. If somebody pays a lot for a service they don't use - and vice versa - then it's not equitable, it's a p1ss take.
My point to any such argument would be "if you wealthy, you have an obligation to support society. It may not seem fair but then life isn't in some many ways." However, for you to say "file under loon" for what is a reasonable point suggests a lack of intellectual rigour on your point more than anything else
Underneath your verbiage, you seem to be arguing either for a completely flat rate of tax, or increasing uses of a “user pays” model.
I’m happy to debate such ideas, but can’t be arsed playing “pin the tail on the lobotomy” with someone who argues that regressive and progressive are meaningless terms.
Wrong.
What I said was I am happy to pay my share of taxes - even though I don't have children and so don't use the education system nor claim benefits nor use the NHS much - because I recognise that is necessary for society.
What I am saying is your line of "file under loon" is wrong. There is a line of argument that says if I pay for services I don't use, it's unfair. I don't agree with it. But it is a reasonable point, not loon-ish.
My objection is to the idea that it’s notions of progressiveness (or regressiveness) are meaningless.
It’s impossible to debate if the interlocutor won’t accept standard ways of describing things. In my experience, such people are loons.
So too, probably, are those who go out to bat for loons.
Right. So what you are saying is that if you actually defend the right of someone to have a different line of argument, you are probably a loon.
And you are amongst the first to wade in criticising anyone who bangs on about cancel culture.
You're not a loon. But you definitely do sound like a pr1ck.
Back when BoZo was first caught doing outrageous things in Downing Street, people assumed he would follow political, ethical and moral norms, but we found out he just didn't give a fuck.
The same sort of people are saying that the Truss plans to cut benefits to pay for tax cuts for millionaires is politically toxic, and therefore can't happen.
She doesn't give a fuck.
That's the plan.
The only people that can stop it, are the same people who didn't stop BoZo
How much of success in life is about merit and how much is luck? Work that out, and you can start a conversation about how much redistribution is fair. Probably the answer is both, which is what makes the debate so messy. But when these debates get clogged up with self-made men and women who worship their creator and him/her alone... That's not good.
Besides, zooming out, being here and now is a fairly solid prize in the lottery of life. Shame if anyone screws that up.
Another thing about success is that in order for some people to succeed others have to fail. Simply put, we can't all be professionals, when we still need shelf-stackers, cleaners, fruit-pickers, etc. Is it right to say that the bottom x% in society have "failed", and should be forced to suffer for their failure, when that failure is an inevitable relative failure?
Even if all the people in the crappest jobs are doing those jobs entirely on relative lack of merit, there is always going to be a bottom x% of society, and those people deserve to live with dignity and security too.
One month ago, everyone was panicking over households going bankrupt because of utility bills. The Government then stepped in and the issue of 'fuel poverty' has gone very quiet.
It will be the same with rising interest rates and mortgage holders
No mate, it hasn't. Hence the outrage today of Truss's lie about no household having to spend over £2500 on energy when that figure is the average. Look outside your comfortable bubble and plenty of people are still really rather worried.
Sorry pal, there's plenty of people I know - and in my family - who are not comfortable and the issue has slipped down the list. It doesn't come up in the topic of conversation.
Well, I'm looking at the whatsapp right now, and people talking about doing a meter reading today because October is tomorrow and they think it'll save them money, and the neighbourhood group swapping tips on saving energy. This it today, literally this evening. I don't know where you are but it's been pissing it down and windy today, and people here can feel what that means for their pockets. Happy for you if your reality doesn't include this level of worry, but real people out here have not gone "quiet" about it.
S&P puts UK on -ve outlook. On Sept. 23, the U. K. government announced a plan to reduce a range of taxes, in addition to its previously communicated intentions to extend wide-ranging support to households on energy bills…..As a result,.. https://twitter.com/BBCSimonJack/status/1575969434900271104
Back when BoZo was first caught doing outrageous things in Downing Street, people assumed he would follow political, ethical and moral norms, but we found out he just didn't give a fuck.
The same sort of people are saying that the Truss plans to cut benefits to pay for tax cuts for millionaires is politically toxic, and therefore can't happen.
She doesn't give a fuck.
That's the plan.
The only people that can stop it, are the same people who didn't stop BoZo
When people said that partygate was relatively trivial in the grand scheme of things, perhaps they should have been listened to. Whatever you thought of BoJo, you couldn't argue (although some people tried to), that he didn't have personal legitimacy.
https://twitter.com/Simon_Nixon/status/1575475626143846401 Britain's financial crisis is the result of a six-year, Brexit-driven flight from reality in which any institution that provides unwelcome advice is dismissed as part of a giant left-wing, woke Remoaner plot…
Of course Murdock is not exactly unconnected with any of that.
There's excitement on twitter that fighting has reached the outskirts of Kreminna, as the AFU push to exploit their recent gains. For all the talk of OPSEC photos seem to make their way on to twitter very quickly when a new town or village is liberated, so we'll find out quite soon whether another collapse of the front is in progress.
Brilliant news from the front. The Russians are on tbe point of collapse there bu the sound of things.
The Oryx stats have also been very interesting over the past week or so - Russia running at an equipment loss ratio of 10:1 or more vs Ukraine. That's up from the 3.5-4 to 1 a few months back. That suggests a collapsing army
https://twitter.com/Simon_Nixon/status/1575475626143846401 Britain's financial crisis is the result of a six-year, Brexit-driven flight from reality in which any institution that provides unwelcome advice is dismissed as part of a giant left-wing, woke Remoaner plot…
Simon Clarke says that the markets’ response to the mini-budget was factored in as a possibility from the start. I don’t actually believe this - he just thinks it’s the less unacceptable answer - but if it’s true it’s absolutely damning. https://twitter.com/thhamilton/status/1575969215441694721/photo/1
Back when BoZo was first caught doing outrageous things in Downing Street, people assumed he would follow political, ethical and moral norms, but we found out he just didn't give a fuck.
The same sort of people are saying that the Truss plans to cut benefits to pay for tax cuts for millionaires is politically toxic, and therefore can't happen.
She doesn't give a fuck.
That's the plan.
The only people that can stop it, are the same people who didn't stop BoZo
When people said that partygate was relatively trivial in the grand scheme of things, perhaps they should have been listened to. Whatever you thought of BoJo, you couldn't argue (although some people tried to), that he didn't have personal legitimacy.
He was a liar and a chancer. One law for us and another for him. He did not give a d*mn about us
Truss is just the same breed of cat, but playing the game a bit differently,
https://twitter.com/Simon_Nixon/status/1575475626143846401 Britain's financial crisis is the result of a six-year, Brexit-driven flight from reality in which any institution that provides unwelcome advice is dismissed as part of a giant left-wing, woke Remoaner plot…
Simon Clarke says that the markets’ response to the mini-budget was factored in as a possibility from the start. I don’t actually believe this - he just thinks it’s the less unacceptable answer - but if it’s true it’s absolutely damning. https://twitter.com/thhamilton/status/1575969215441694721/photo/1
Comments
File under loon.
File under idiot.
Happens every so often.
The Russians just committed most of their Luhansk reserves to salvage anything out of Lyman.
That S.E. AFU push from Kupyansk is a 'block Russian supplies going south from Svatove and collapse the whole front' move.
I think we have passed the major Russian collapse inflection point. It isn't whether the Russians will collapse in Northern Luhansk now.
It is how far can the AFU push during the forthcoming Russian collapse.
https://twitter.com/TrentTelenko/status/1575950613761794049
Rather like the unions did for industrial strategy and cooperative labour relations in the 70s - destroy an entire ideology in the minds of the British public for a generation.
She is pure toxin imho. An absolute voter repellent agent. Those that say she is Tory Corbyn are right.
Wipe out awaits.
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1575952073065222146
So it has to be done by co-opting a majority won on a very different platform.
You can't beard-stroke your way out of the fact that fairness is a thing that's fairly well understood by most people.
'Lower band NHS staff are struggling to afford to get to work and feed their families because of the rising cost of living and are quitting the NHS for better paid jobs, creating more hard-to-fill vacancies, NHS bosses have warned.
The impact of the rise in the cost of living on staff health and wellbeing has been highlighted in a survey of leaders of NHS hospital, mental health, community, and ambulance services in England by their representative organisation NHS Providers.'
https://www.bmj.com/content/378/bmj.o2364
We “had to act”.
The “market is to blame because it doesn’t understand / is wedded to an outdated orthodoxy”.
It is sadly necessary for austerity 3.0, as a result of this current crisis, “which started in Moscow”.
Unless you are rich, or a banker, or both.
https://mobile.twitter.com/garius/status/1563111065386307585
Well, as in getting towards his target of 7% interest rates. LOL. That's probably 9% on actual mortgages and will probably mean civil unrest.
My point to any such argument would be "if you wealthy, you have an obligation to support society. It may not seem fair but then life isn't in some many ways." However, for you to say "file under loon" for what is a reasonable point suggests a lack of intellectual rigour on your point more than anything else
The only public spending they seem prepared not to totally slash is...erm... the triple lock for the 70 and 80 year olds.
TheKitchenCabinet is right. Many of them are being treated like saints: spat on by those in purple robes and broken and burned by those who do their bidding.
It will be the same with rising interest rates and mortgage holders
‘Truss said the tax cuts would not be paid for by austerity, adding: “I’m very clear, I’m not planning public spending reductions.”
10 weeks later: https://twitter.com/ashcowburn/status/1575965525816922112/photo/1
Atypically honest, and sadly not effective enough at the political arts to be more effective. But the idea that he was a lousy President is, IMO at least, wrong.
Is it "fair" a train driver earns more than a nurse? Is it "fair" a Union leader earns upwards of 10 ten times more than the workers he claims to represent?
Or is it "fair" that through hard-work and toil someone becomes "rich" (again whatever that means) and a government says "sorry - but we're taking a lot more form you now because some people haven't done as well as you".
Is that "fair"?
It is nothing more than Libertarian nit-picking and it is all rubbish. Great in theory and for heated debates, but in the real world, it is a load of unworkable cr*p from people who want to have their cake and eat it.
And Truss & Co are going to test it to destruction.
Everyone is getting shafted on this who is poor. This whole idea that NHS staff are somewhat more deserving than others who are on low wages is a farce. They are in a far more secure position than a privately employed worker in a similar job.
Both Little White Lies and The A.V. Club have emphasized the film's contemporary relevance, especially in light of political events such as Brexit.[37][38] According to the former, the film paints a "nightmarish picture of a Britain woefully unprepared for what is coming, and reduced, when it does come, to isolation, collapse and medieval regression, with a failed health service, very little food being harvested, mass homelessness, and the pound and the penny losing all value."[37]
Brexit had been bad, but not quite as bad as that.
I’m happy to debate such ideas, but can’t be arsed playing “pin the tail on the lobotomy” with someone who argues that regressive and progressive are meaningless terms.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/09/30/best-week-pound-since-2020-market-recovers-mini-budget-crash/
Everything bad happening after that gets blamed on the thing you did, even if not actually related.
However, dismissing an argument which I don't believe in but which is a fair argument in itself as "file under loon" is just a lazy attempt not to debate the issue.
Excellent, and richly deserved.
https://twitter.com/AdamParkhomenko/status/1573328911286534145
Why are you people not more grateful of the opportunity to lay down your mortgages for my bonkers ideology?
https://twitter.com/curiousuktelly/status/1289101193621504000
What I said was I am happy to pay my share of taxes - even though I don't have children and so don't use the education system nor claim benefits nor use the NHS much - because I recognise that is necessary for society.
What I am saying is your line of "file under loon" is wrong. There is a line of argument that says if I pay for services I don't use, it's unfair. I don't agree with it. But it is a reasonable point, not loon-ish.
One mile long, weighs a ton.
It’s impossible to debate if the interlocutor won’t accept standard ways of describing things.
In my experience, such people are loons.
So too, probably, are those who go out to bat for loons.
I know how these conversations go, so I won't play the game. I will point out that the idea of fairness is so fundamental that it exists even in our cousin species: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg
Fairness is relative, but it's a concept that has such a profound meaning to us that people (and monkeys) will literally throw away something beneficial because they perceive the distribution of goods as unfair. Don't try to pretend that it doesn't mean anything at all just because instantiations of the concept are contested.
Probably the answer is both, which is what makes the debate so messy. But when these debates get clogged up with self-made men and women who worship their creator and him/her alone... That's not good.
Besides, zooming out, being here and now is a fairly solid prize in the lottery of life. Shame if anyone screws that up.
In broad daylight.
And only 40m odd witnesses.
Education - can't really agree. Just because he made Education a cabinet post doesn't mean he had a successful education policy. Arguably, Carter's time saw the start of the decline in the US public education system (which was great) because he was influenced too much by the unions.
Energy policy - mixed. Remember in the 1970s, the biggest fear was a cooling planet, not a rising temperature one.
If anyone ever mistook her for a serious politician, the light must have been bad. Or she might have been standing next to Dominic Raaaab or Mad Nad
Now? Just-in-time supermarkets.
Although we may disagree on the issue being debated, which is perfectly fine and why we're here, it's actually heartening to see some people at least who respect debate without recourse to silly dismissives because it's not their world-view.
Anyway, I respect your eloquently put argument(s) against what I was saying. I suppose I'm just a loon for daring to have a different opinion (in some people's minds).
And you are amongst the first to wade in criticising anyone who bangs on about cancel culture.
You're not a loon. But you definitely do sound like a pr1ck.
Back when BoZo was first caught doing outrageous things in Downing Street, people assumed he would follow political, ethical and moral norms, but we found out he just didn't give a fuck.
The same sort of people are saying that the Truss plans to cut benefits to pay for tax cuts for millionaires is politically toxic, and therefore can't happen.
She doesn't give a fuck.
That's the plan.
The only people that can stop it, are the same people who didn't stop BoZo
Even if all the people in the crappest jobs are doing those jobs entirely on relative lack of merit, there is always going to be a bottom x% of society, and those people deserve to live with dignity and security too.
Night all, anyway.
https://twitter.com/BBCSimonJack/status/1575969434900271104
https://twitter.com/Simon_Nixon/status/1575475626143846401
Britain's financial crisis is the result of a six-year, Brexit-driven flight from reality in which any institution that provides unwelcome advice is dismissed as part of a giant left-wing, woke Remoaner plot…
Of course Murdock is not exactly unconnected with any of that.
The Oryx stats have also been very interesting over the past week or so - Russia running at an equipment loss ratio of 10:1 or more vs Ukraine. That's up from the 3.5-4 to 1 a few months back. That suggests a collapsing army
Truss is just the same breed of cat, but playing the game a bit differently,
Neither of them are fit for office.
A liar and a loon,
These people are dangerous, acutely so.
Get rid with extreme prejudice.
It's like the TV series Chernobyl but even darker, and smarter. The regression to primitive medieval life, and the guttural language? Superb
Is it terrifying? Not quite. Desolating, yes
https://twitter.com/Rebel44CZ/status/1575950331296763904