I still prefer a compulsory GE within 3 months of a new PM.
Why? It is back to the old argument. We elect MPs not PMs. Why should those MPs have to seek re-election when they still have a majority? If they can command a majority under the new leader then nothing has changed.
And of course we all know how effective arguing "nothing has changed" is in politics :-)
Nothing has changed is a fact not an opinion. And if it does change then MPs can vote out the Government and get that election.
If we have committed to spending £200bn on supporting energy costs over the next two years and the campaign cut energy usage by just 0.01% the campaign would make a £5m profit.
If it cut energy usage by just 0.5% the campaign would make a £985m profit.
New York employs a whole army of traffic cops who stand at major intersections directing the traffic - all of these junctions are fully signalled, and I wonder whether it’s that NYC drivers aren’t responsible enough to obey traffic signals without someone from NYPD standing there watching them, or that the road layout and signalling has design flaws that mean it needs a cop to sort out the inevitable snarl ups, or perhaps there’s a union agreement protecting these otherwise pointless jobs?
You must have spent getting on for 5k to take a pet dog which looks like a deformed lamb on holiday to the USA with you?
Please continue to inform us of any examples of pointlessness you encounter on your travels.
The idea that taxes should be raised on capital, in order to be reduced on incomes is obviously sensible and fair.
I'm 55 now, and will likely inherit a shedload of money over the next twenty years, when it is merely something that is nice to have, rather than something that is important to my life. It would be far better if younger relatives were paying less income tax.
They already are, Kwarteng has kept the cut in the basic rate of income tax and the poorest don't pay any.
It is high earners still paying 45% of their income at the top rate in tax. Tories by definition believe in conserving capital above all, if you prefer to raise taxes on capital and cut them on income then you are really a Liberal not a Tory.
If you want to raise taxes on capital and income then you are a Socialist
There's nothing special about capital. It's there to be used.
And preserved for the next generation where possible
Society would be better if inheritance were made illegal and each generation had to start from scratch and earn their own way. Evaluate and discuss….
Absolutely not. That is the very opposite of conservatism. Every generation wants to help and support their family. We are not mere economic units to be equalised by the state
I never mentioned being equalised. It’s about people being rewarded for their own effort and ability, rather than being able to coast on the back of previous generations.
There are various well known rich folks who have refused their offspring any inheritance in precisely these grounds.
Yes but meritocracy is mainly a liberal philosophy ultimately not a conservative one which is based on inheritance, tradition and family.
I am a conservative and value inheritance and family more than some utopian meritocratic ideal which is of course not reality for all but a few very successful entrepreneurs or City workers or Premiership footballers.
The idea that taxes should be raised on capital, in order to be reduced on incomes is obviously sensible and fair.
I'm 55 now, and will likely inherit a shedload of money over the next twenty years, when it is merely something that is nice to have, rather than something that is important to my life. It would be far better if younger relatives were paying less income tax.
They already are, Kwarteng has kept the cut in the basic rate of income tax and the poorest don't pay any.
It is high earners still paying 45% of their income at the top rate in tax. Tories by definition believe in conserving capital above all, if you prefer to raise taxes on capital and cut them on income then you are really a Liberal not a Tory.
If you want to raise taxes on capital and income then you are a Socialist
There's nothing special about capital. It's there to be used.
Yes but it depends on what it is being used for. So as a consultant I have built up a reasonable amount of savings for the days/months/years when I am without work. It is the prudent thing to do, and I would not be much chuffed if someone decided to start taxing those savings when I have already paid tax on them as earnings and I am just being sensible in saving for the inevitable downturns.
Surely you put that capital to work in equity markets etc... so it should earn you some income that offsets the tax.
Nope. Because it is money I can't afford to lose. So I don't invest it at all. It is a safety net, not an investment.
Ah fair enough, though I'd imagine any wealth tax would start at a pretty high number so any safety net wouldn't be taxable.
What's a 'high number' and how much you need for a safety net would be open to debate though.
There are already established rules for assessing capital, applied, ironically, to benefit claimants. £6k is all they are allowed. (Although, a property you live in and personal possessions are disregarded.)
Edit: Just to be clear I think the capital allowance would need to be a lot higher for Wealth Tax - say £250k per individual, ignoring their own residence, also ignoring pension pots.
Why ignore residence and pension pots? Very unfair on renters who perhaps save through isas rather than pensions.
Start much higher imo. £5m-£10m.
Separate LVT replacing council tax to catch the reasonably well off but not multi millionaires.
Well, it's another potential approach although £5m - £10m per individual is far too high imo.
Any wealth tax approach needs to be modelled and checked for unintended consequences of course.
ISAs is an interesting one. Some would argue they shouldn't be included but the commitment was only that you wouldn't pay tax on the income and the growth. So I would include them (much to my personal disadvantage).
You'd have to include ISAs and pension funds. Otherwise there's no point. Much to my disadvantage too.
New York employs a whole army of traffic cops who stand at major intersections directing the traffic - all of these junctions are fully signalled, and I wonder whether it’s that NYC drivers aren’t responsible enough to obey traffic signals without someone from NYPD standing there watching them, or that the road layout and signalling has design flaws that mean it needs a cop to sort out the inevitable snarl ups, or perhaps there’s a union agreement protecting these otherwise pointless jobs?
You must have spent getting on for 5k to take a pet dog which looks like a deformed lamb on holiday to the USA with you?
Please continue to inform us of any examples of pointlessness you encounter on your travels.
The idea that taxes should be raised on capital, in order to be reduced on incomes is obviously sensible and fair.
I'm 55 now, and will likely inherit a shedload of money over the next twenty years, when it is merely something that is nice to have, rather than something that is important to my life. It would be far better if younger relatives were paying less income tax.
They already are, Kwarteng has kept the cut in the basic rate of income tax and the poorest don't pay any.
It is high earners still paying 45% of their income at the top rate in tax. Tories by definition believe in conserving capital above all, if you prefer to raise taxes on capital and cut them on income then you are really a Liberal not a Tory.
If you want to raise taxes on capital and income then you are a Socialist
There's nothing special about capital. It's there to be used.
Yes but it depends on what it is being used for. So as a consultant I have built up a reasonable amount of savings for the days/months/years when I am without work. It is the prudent thing to do, and I would not be much chuffed if someone decided to start taxing those savings when I have already paid tax on them as earnings and I am just being sensible in saving for the inevitable downturns.
Surely you put that capital to work in equity markets etc... so it should earn you some income that offsets the tax.
Nope. Because it is money I can't afford to lose. So I don't invest it at all. It is a safety net, not an investment.
Ah fair enough, though I'd imagine any wealth tax would start at a pretty high number so any safety net wouldn't be taxable.
What's a 'high number' and how much you need for a safety net would be open to debate though.
There are already established rules for assessing capital, applied, ironically, to benefit claimants. £6k is all they are allowed. (Although, a property you live in and personal possessions are disregarded.)
Edit: Just to be clear I think the capital allowance would need to be a lot higher for Wealth Tax - say £250k per individual, ignoring their own residence, also ignoring pension pots.
Why ignore residence and pension pots? Very unfair on renters who perhaps save through isas rather than pensions.
Start much higher imo. £5m-£10m.
Separate LVT replacing council tax to catch the reasonably well off but not multi millionaires.
Well, it's another potential approach although £5m - £10m per individual is far too high imo.
Any wealth tax approach needs to be modelled and checked for unintended consequences of course.
ISAs is an interesting one. Some would argue they shouldn't be included but the commitment was only that you wouldn't pay tax on the income and the growth. So I would include them (much to my personal disadvantage).
You'd have to include ISAs and pension funds. Otherwise there's no point. Much to my disadvantage too.
If we have committed to spending £200bn on supporting energy costs over the next two years and the campaign cut energy usage by just 0.01% the campaign would make a £5m profit.
If it cut energy usage by just 0.5% the campaign would make a £985m profit.
This is before the environmental benefits and maintaining supply benefits. She really is very thick and even more obstinate.
If we have committed to spending £200bn on supporting energy costs over the next two years and the campaign cut energy usage by just 0.01% the campaign would make a £5m profit.
If it cut energy usage by just 0.5% the campaign would make a £985m profit.
Not just costs would be saved, but we could be saved power cuts.
The idea that taxes should be raised on capital, in order to be reduced on incomes is obviously sensible and fair.
I'm 55 now, and will likely inherit a shedload of money over the next twenty years, when it is merely something that is nice to have, rather than something that is important to my life. It would be far better if younger relatives were paying less income tax.
They already are, Kwarteng has kept the cut in the basic rate of income tax and the poorest don't pay any.
It is high earners still paying 45% of their income at the top rate in tax. Tories by definition believe in conserving capital above all, if you prefer to raise taxes on capital and cut them on income then you are really a Liberal not a Tory.
If you want to raise taxes on capital and income then you are a Socialist
There's nothing special about capital. It's there to be used.
And preserved for the next generation where possible
Society would be better if inheritance were made illegal and each generation had to start from scratch and earn their own way. Evaluate and discuss….
Absolutely not. That is the very opposite of conservatism. Every generation wants to help and support their family. We are not mere economic units to be equalised by the state
I never mentioned being equalised. It’s about people being rewarded for their own effort and ability, rather than being able to coast on the back of previous generations.
There are various well known rich folks who have refused their offspring any inheritance in precisely these grounds.
Yes but meritocracy is mainly a liberal philosophy ultimately not a conservative one which is based on inheritance, tradition and family.
I am a conservative and value inheritance and family more than some utopian meritocratic ideal which is of course not reality for all but a few very successful entrepreneurs or City workers or Premiership footballers.
Belief in the absence of reasoning or logic - next you’re going to surprise the forum by announcing that you’re a religious believer?
New York employs a whole army of traffic cops who stand at major intersections directing the traffic - all of these junctions are fully signalled, and I wonder whether it’s that NYC drivers aren’t responsible enough to obey traffic signals without someone from NYPD standing there watching them, or that the road layout and signalling has design flaws that mean it needs a cop to sort out the inevitable snarl ups, or perhaps there’s a union agreement protecting these otherwise pointless jobs?
You must have spent getting on for 5k to take a pet dog which looks like a deformed lamb on holiday to the USA with you?
Please continue to inform us of any examples of pointlessness you encounter on your travels.
..
Doing a Morrissey impersonation. That's impressive
How about a £15m campaign to get people to save energy that would likely claw us back a few of the £bn she has cost the nation in the last couple of weeks?
How about a £15m campaign to get people to save energy that would likely claw us back a few of the £bn she has cost the nation in the last couple of weeks?
It's completely mad. She's a complete liability for the nation. Tory MPs bottled it when they put her into the final two instead of Kemi.
New York employs a whole army of traffic cops who stand at major intersections directing the traffic - all of these junctions are fully signalled, and I wonder whether it’s that NYC drivers aren’t responsible enough to obey traffic signals without someone from NYPD standing there watching them, or that the road layout and signalling has design flaws that mean it needs a cop to sort out the inevitable snarl ups, or perhaps there’s a union agreement protecting these otherwise pointless jobs?
You must have spent getting on for 5k to take a pet dog which looks like a deformed lamb on holiday to the USA with you?
Please continue to inform us of any examples of pointlessness you encounter on your travels.
..
Try worming it
The vets in Philadelphia just done that, charging about five times what it would cost in Europe for the same.
Why, I don’t know, but I do have sufficient photos of my dog doing his number ones and twos to post below any further of your posts that clearly ask to be so adorned…
How about a £15m campaign to get people to save energy that would likely claw us back a few of the £bn she has cost the nation in the last couple of weeks?
OK, fair enough, I was a bit quick there. Blocking that does seem utterly daft and I was arguing for a suitable campaign on a previous thread.
Although it won't really solve the issue to any large degree.
The blame should go back as far as Cameron at least.
How about a £15m campaign to get people to save energy that would likely claw us back a few of the £bn she has cost the nation in the last couple of weeks?
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 5h According to this piece, JRM says encouraging people to cut their energy usage is “condescending” & “assuming people are stupid”. But that's wrong. The govt has subsidised bills. So people do not have the market-appropriate incentives to cut energy use.
The idea that taxes should be raised on capital, in order to be reduced on incomes is obviously sensible and fair.
I'm 55 now, and will likely inherit a shedload of money over the next twenty years, when it is merely something that is nice to have, rather than something that is important to my life. It would be far better if younger relatives were paying less income tax.
They already are, Kwarteng has kept the cut in the basic rate of income tax and the poorest don't pay any.
It is high earners still paying 45% of their income at the top rate in tax. Tories by definition believe in conserving capital above all, if you prefer to raise taxes on capital and cut them on income then you are really a Liberal not a Tory.
If you want to raise taxes on capital and income then you are a Socialist
There's nothing special about capital. It's there to be used.
And preserved for the next generation where possible
Why? Why should some people get an advantage over others because of their accident of birth.
Because life is not fair and all attempts to make it fair in the way you want usually end up making it worse. I work to make sure my kids have a better start than I had. That is human nature and you trying to deny it is frankly perverse.
And you really think that if people were banned from leaving an inheritance it would end up with the Government? All they would do would be to spend it on stuff the Government couldn't get their hands on and make sure there was nothing left for your state coffers. The vast majority of people resent paying tax even if they know it is for a purpose and they will certainly find a way around anything you might introduce to try and capture that money.
I agree with your post entirely. I could have written a longer reply to HYUFD but I was trying to make a point. I have no desire to change the current set up. My objection to hyufd's post is that it his desire to preserve it for the next generation rather than that being what just happens. As you say it is natural human nature and I am generally not keen on government interference to change this. However it should definitely not be policy to positively encourage it. It is not good to have policies which positively encourage a 'us' and 'them' society where people know their place. However there is nothing wrong with parents naturally helping their kids. Teaching them to stand on their own two feet is however probably worth more than money.
If we have committed to spending £200bn on supporting energy costs over the next two years and the campaign cut energy usage by just 0.01% the campaign would make a £5m profit.
If it cut energy usage by just 0.5% the campaign would make a £985m profit.
This is before the environmental benefits and maintaining supply benefits. She really is very thick and even more obstinate.
As I say, she is obsessed to the point of being demented by her own fantasy made-up view of liberty.
New York employs a whole army of traffic cops who stand at major intersections directing the traffic - all of these junctions are fully signalled, and I wonder whether it’s that NYC drivers aren’t responsible enough to obey traffic signals without someone from NYPD standing there watching them, or that the road layout and signalling has design flaws that mean it needs a cop to sort out the inevitable snarl ups, or perhaps there’s a union agreement protecting these otherwise pointless jobs?
You must have spent getting on for 5k to take a pet dog which looks like a deformed lamb on holiday to the USA with you?
Please continue to inform us of any examples of pointlessness you encounter on your travels.
..
Is it only me who wonders why a wicker emu is pecking your dogs arse?
How about a £15m campaign to get people to save energy that would likely claw us back a few of the £bn she has cost the nation in the last couple of weeks?
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 5h According to this piece, JRM says encouraging people to cut their energy usage is “condescending” & “assuming people are stupid”. But that's wrong. The govt has subsidised bills. So people do not have the market-appropriate incentives to cut energy use.
Labour writes to cabinet secretary demanding answers about Liz Truss's aide Mark Fullbrook joining No10 via lobbying firm. Raises Qs about "potential financial advantages, conflict of interest, national security and access to sensitive government information". https://twitter.com/joepike/status/1578128676910235655
Less than brilliant personnel decision, by a less than brilliant prime minister.
Liz Truss really is the Tory Corbyn. Absolutely insane. At least we managed to avoid Corbyn but Liz Truss has been foisted on the nation by 80k Tory activists who are completely removed from reality.
"Truss has also been clear she does not want to tell people how to live"
Yet another massive policy mistake by a total liability of a PM. She is even more of a disaster than peeps like me on PB predicted. Totally obsessed by her own warped ideas.
Max is on his anti-pensioner rant again. But I fully support him.
What’s more, polling evidence suggests that old people don’t give a fuck. Something like 5/6 think the young just need to stop whining and eat fewer avocados.
Why isn't there a like-for-like comparison? Compare young people today with older people when they were young, not young people today with older people today.
Ok. Typical comparisons as obviously exceptions and variations across each cohort.
Todays Young - Can't afford decent housing, ever rising tax burden, student debt effectively extra tax, work til 70 with reasonable possibility of state pension being abolished by the time they can claim it. Will be poorer than their parents, may not be able to afford to raise a family and often have the indignity of returning to parental home.
Previous couple of generations whilst young. Decent housing achievable on median salaries, strong asset growth through working life, retirement in fifties or early sixties by choice not unusual, one parent often able to stay at home for years when kids young. Richer than their parents.
Worth pointing out that those couple of post war generations were pretty unique in terms of the economic development at the time. Go back one more generation and you find young who could not afford their own house - perhaps ever, with large multigenerational families all living together, more often than not in rented accommodation and with very poor pension or retirement provision.
I am not using this as an argument against what you are saying. I agree we need to rebalance. But I wonder if the last couple of generations were really just a post war boom aberration and we are now unfortunately returning to the norm.
One thing I would say - particularly with regard to single working families - is that where I think we have gone most wrong is in allowing companies to drive down wages as a means of increasing profits. This is why I like the minimum wage so much and think it should be increased significantly. The social security system since WW2 has allowed companies to pay wages below a basic living standard and effectively use the taxpayer to subsidise their wage bill. This is something that should be dealt with, most simply by increasing the minimum wage significantly. It should not be the case in the UK or the rest of Europe that companies are able to pay full time employees wages that are below a living wage and expect the taxpayer to make up the difference.
No because the fixes are available, ranging from easy to difficult -
Make owning a home cheaper and letting existing private residential property economically unviable.
Cut student fees back down to what I paid (£1k per year) and massively increase university funding.
Fix the DB pension liabilities carried by the state and private sectors.
Increase DC minimum contributions to 8% employee and 5% employer and no longer allow opting out.
Increase the minimum wage to make it enough to live on.
Put a lifetime cap on healthcare costs, ending the effective unlimited liability carried by the state.
Stop funding type diabetes treatment in full on the NHS, make prescriptions for self inflicted chronic diseases chargeable again.
State pension taper for high earning individuals (like my dad) for whom it is pin money coupled with an increase in the state pension for those people it isnt pin money so they can have a better standard of living in old age.
Merging of NI, employer and employee, with income tax.
Raising CT to 30% and having unlimited investment allowances for capital, research and development for businesses of all sizes.
Huge, huge investment in education and skills, literal doubling of the education budget so that university fees can be cut and education standards can be raised.
These are policy examples that would help to address the balance between older people and working people. Neither Labour nor the Tories have the cojones to pursue any of them.
With all due respect, there is a necessity to have a functional rental market, because there are clearly circumstances where it is better to rent than to own.
What we don't want is the tail (rentals) to wag the property market dog.
Note I said existing property, have tax free routes for people to build new property and rent it out.
Even that's a bit draconian.
If I am seconded to the US for two years, it's better than my home is rented out than it sits empty.
Likewise, if a family is posted to the UK, they will want to rent a family home, not a "rental only apartment".
How about a £15m campaign to get people to save energy that would likely claw us back a few of the £bn she has cost the nation in the last couple of weeks?
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 5h According to this piece, JRM says encouraging people to cut their energy usage is “condescending” & “assuming people are stupid”. But that's wrong. The govt has subsidised bills. So people do not have the market-appropriate incentives to cut energy use.
Sensible libertarianism is a perfectly respectable political philosophy.
But she’s completely trashing it in the eyes of the British electorate.
The new post-Truss consensus looks like it’ll be May/Johnson style moderately big state conservatism vs Starmerite managerialism for the next few elections, imo.
Liz Truss really is the Tory Corbyn. Absolutely insane. At least we managed to avoid Corbyn but Liz Truss has been foisted on the nation by 80k Tory activists who are completely removed from reality.
Liz Truss really is the Tory Corbyn. Absolutely insane. At least we managed to avoid Corbyn but Liz Truss has been foisted on the nation by 80k Tory activists who are completely removed from reality.
Oi! That's my mum that you are talking about!
You should have a strong word with her. Else it will be Suella next.
Modesty prevents me from saying that I posted on here several times during the summer that she had the look to me of someone who the power would go straight to their head within weeks.
Surely the thing about this debate about who should select Tory leader is this:
Tory Party members are mentalists.
I know that's an easy political jibe with a big dollop of truth to it, but there's a broader issue in party members choosing a leader.
It tends to favour purity over electability, extremism over unity, and making the individual, self selecting member feel good over giving the country someone who might form a stable, competent government.
I'd note Labour members chose Corbyn. Twice.
*all* parties can suffer this. However, this specific problem is that Truss is Prime Minister. Jezbollah was not PM and not close to being PM.
The same truth is there for both. A party leader has to have the support of MPs. Jezza lost the majority of Labour MPs in 2016 and staggered along for another 3 years in a state of war with his own party. Truss was not selected by MPs and they are openly at war with her.
My particular beef with Labour members (or, in fairness, certain Labour members) over Corbyn is that they made Labour unelectable and foisted Johnson (and Truss) on us with a sizable Parliamentary majority. Now they sit back, all smug, and say "You see, we were right!"
You weren't right, you self-indulgent donkey f***ers. You can all eat a massive slice of blame pie until you puke.
Anyway, other than that, I think they are fine and am totally over it.
You will be gratified to know that I have, coincidentally, discovered in my current history book that in the 1860s or so, they used to bang people up in Dartmoor for life for 'bestiality with an ass', and also 'indecent behaviour with a she-ass'. The authors did wonder what the difference was, but showed a deplorable degree of focus on their main topic by refusing to dive down that particular diverticulum.
I thought it was a hanging offence.
Also how did anyone ever get caught at it in pre CCTV days?
I'm not an expert and don't want to do an internet search (!) but suspect a lot of those were condemnation to death then - what was the word? - alleviated to life sentences. As with gay men in the early C19, but timing is important, though: it's quite possible sentencing was reduced anyway by then.
As for the latter, I dunno, but for one thing there would be far, far more people around the average farm in those days - maybe 20X?
Thread on situation in Ukraine. TL;DR - Quiet couple of days whilst Ukraine prepares. Calm before the storm.
SitRep - 06/10 - "Silence for the storm?"
Today was relatively quiet, just like yesterday. We saw some confirmations from settlements liberated by AFU. In Kherson the AFU consolidated gains and are preparing... To the north, the AFU is approaching the town of Svatove.
Liz Truss really is the Tory Corbyn. Absolutely insane. At least we managed to avoid Corbyn but Liz Truss has been foisted on the nation by 80k Tory activists who are completely removed from reality.
No the Tory Corbyn is Suella Braverman who may well be the next Tory leader.
Drunk on a bizarre conception of ideology. Advice and tips on how to save energy doesn't impinge on any bugger's freedom at all.
And this is one instance where Bartys faith in market forces is bang on target: price is the mechanism which most efficiently tells people to reduce consumption. She won't use that and won't use anything else either.
Sensible libertarianism is a perfectly respectable political philosophy.
But she’s completely trashing it in the eyes of the British electorate.
The new post-Truss consensus looks like it’ll be May/Johnson style moderately big state conservatism vs Starmerite managerialism for the next few elections, imo.
The idea that taxes should be raised on capital, in order to be reduced on incomes is obviously sensible and fair.
I'm 55 now, and will likely inherit a shedload of money over the next twenty years, when it is merely something that is nice to have, rather than something that is important to my life. It would be far better if younger relatives were paying less income tax.
They already are, Kwarteng has kept the cut in the basic rate of income tax and the poorest don't pay any.
It is high earners still paying 45% of their income at the top rate in tax. Tories by definition believe in conserving capital above all, if you prefer to raise taxes on capital and cut them on income then you are really a Liberal not a Tory.
If you want to raise taxes on capital and income then you are a Socialist
There's nothing special about capital. It's there to be used.
And preserved for the next generation where possible
Society would be better if inheritance were made illegal and each generation had to start from scratch and earn their own way. Evaluate and discuss….
Absolutely not. That is the very opposite of conservatism. Every generation wants to help and support their family. We are not mere economic units to be equalised by the state
I never mentioned being equalised. It’s about people being rewarded for their own effort and ability, rather than being able to coast on the back of previous generations.
There are various well known rich folks who have refused their offspring any inheritance in precisely these grounds.
Yes but meritocracy is mainly a liberal philosophy ultimately not a conservative one which is based on inheritance, tradition and family.
I am a conservative and value inheritance and family more than some utopian meritocratic ideal which is of course not reality for all but a few very successful entrepreneurs or City workers or Premiership footballers.
Belief in the absence of reasoning or logic - next you’re going to surprise the forum by announcing that you’re a religious believer?
Funny how supposed 'reason and logic' always ends up leading to secular liberalism with secular liberals like you!
The idea that taxes should be raised on capital, in order to be reduced on incomes is obviously sensible and fair.
I'm 55 now, and will likely inherit a shedload of money over the next twenty years, when it is merely something that is nice to have, rather than something that is important to my life. It would be far better if younger relatives were paying less income tax.
They already are, Kwarteng has kept the cut in the basic rate of income tax and the poorest don't pay any.
It is high earners still paying 45% of their income at the top rate in tax. Tories by definition believe in conserving capital above all, if you prefer to raise taxes on capital and cut them on income then you are really a Liberal not a Tory.
If you want to raise taxes on capital and income then you are a Socialist
There's nothing special about capital. It's there to be used.
And preserved for the next generation where possible
Society would be better if inheritance were made illegal and each generation had to start from scratch and earn their own way. Evaluate and discuss….
Absolutely not. That is the very opposite of conservatism. Every generation wants to help and support their family. We are not mere economic units to be equalised by the state
I never mentioned being equalised. It’s about people being rewarded for their own effort and ability, rather than being able to coast on the back of previous generations.
There are various well known rich folks who have refused their offspring any inheritance in precisely these grounds.
Yes but meritocracy is mainly a liberal philosophy ultimately not a conservative one which is based on inheritance, tradition and family.
I am a conservative and value inheritance and family more than some utopian meritocratic ideal which is of course not reality for all but a few very successful entrepreneurs or City workers or Premiership footballers.
Belief in the absence of reasoning or logic - next you’re going to surprise the forum by announcing that you’re a religious believer?
Funny how supposed 'reason and logic' always ends up leading to secular liberalism with secular liberals like you!
So ANY blackout is going to be explicitly linked to Liz.
She is a total liability
She really is worse than Corbyn. Labour must be loving this.
She's removed the price signal for reducing energy this winter and now blocks any non-price signals as in her head this is the Big Bad State telling people what to do.
So what does she believe in? Cos it aint Hayek who she is supposed to worship as he would I think be in favour of not removing the former.
The idea that taxes should be raised on capital, in order to be reduced on incomes is obviously sensible and fair.
I'm 55 now, and will likely inherit a shedload of money over the next twenty years, when it is merely something that is nice to have, rather than something that is important to my life. It would be far better if younger relatives were paying less income tax.
They already are, Kwarteng has kept the cut in the basic rate of income tax and the poorest don't pay any.
It is high earners still paying 45% of their income at the top rate in tax. Tories by definition believe in conserving capital above all, if you prefer to raise taxes on capital and cut them on income then you are really a Liberal not a Tory.
If you want to raise taxes on capital and income then you are a Socialist
There's nothing special about capital. It's there to be used.
And preserved for the next generation where possible
Society would be better if inheritance were made illegal and each generation had to start from scratch and earn their own way. Evaluate and discuss….
Absolutely not. That is the very opposite of conservatism. Every generation wants to help and support their family. We are not mere economic units to be equalised by the state
I never mentioned being equalised. It’s about people being rewarded for their own effort and ability, rather than being able to coast on the back of previous generations.
There are various well known rich folks who have refused their offspring any inheritance in precisely these grounds.
Yes but meritocracy is mainly a liberal philosophy ultimately not a conservative one which is based on inheritance, tradition and family.
I am a conservative and value inheritance and family more than some utopian meritocratic ideal which is of course not reality for all but a few very successful entrepreneurs or City workers or Premiership footballers.
Belief in the absence of reasoning or logic - next you’re going to surprise the forum by announcing that you’re a religious believer?
Funny how supposed 'reason and logic' always ends up leading to secular liberalism with secular liberals like you!
Surf the crest of the wave, don’t live your life having let the wave pass you by.
The idea that taxes should be raised on capital, in order to be reduced on incomes is obviously sensible and fair.
I'm 55 now, and will likely inherit a shedload of money over the next twenty years, when it is merely something that is nice to have, rather than something that is important to my life. It would be far better if younger relatives were paying less income tax.
They already are, Kwarteng has kept the cut in the basic rate of income tax and the poorest don't pay any.
It is high earners still paying 45% of their income at the top rate in tax. Tories by definition believe in conserving capital above all, if you prefer to raise taxes on capital and cut them on income then you are really a Liberal not a Tory.
If you want to raise taxes on capital and income then you are a Socialist
There's nothing special about capital. It's there to be used.
And preserved for the next generation where possible
Society would be better if inheritance were made illegal and each generation had to start from scratch and earn their own way. Evaluate and discuss….
Absolutely not. That is the very opposite of conservatism. Every generation wants to help and support their family. We are not mere economic units to be equalised by the state
I never mentioned being equalised. It’s about people being rewarded for their own effort and ability, rather than being able to coast on the back of previous generations.
There are various well known rich folks who have refused their offspring any inheritance in precisely these grounds.
Yes but meritocracy is mainly a liberal philosophy ultimately not a conservative one which is based on inheritance, tradition and family.
I am a conservative and value inheritance and family more than some utopian meritocratic ideal which is of course not reality for all but a few very successful entrepreneurs or City workers or Premiership footballers.
Belief in the absence of reasoning or logic - next you’re going to surprise the forum by announcing that you’re a religious believer?
Funny how supposed 'reason and logic' always ends up leading to secular liberalism with secular liberals like you!
Surf the crest of the wave, don’t live your life having let the wave pass you by.
So ANY blackout is going to be explicitly linked to Liz.
She is a total liability
She really is worse than Corbyn. Labour must be loving this.
She's removed the price signal for reducing energy this winter and now blocks any non-price signals as in her head this is the Big Bad State telling people what to do.
So what does she believe in? Cos it aint Hayek who she is supposed to worship as he would I think be in favour of not removing the former.
It is pretty clear that she is out of her depth, incompetent and an all round disaster at the job she has been appointed to do.
The idea that taxes should be raised on capital, in order to be reduced on incomes is obviously sensible and fair.
I'm 55 now, and will likely inherit a shedload of money over the next twenty years, when it is merely something that is nice to have, rather than something that is important to my life. It would be far better if younger relatives were paying less income tax.
They already are, Kwarteng has kept the cut in the basic rate of income tax and the poorest don't pay any.
It is high earners still paying 45% of their income at the top rate in tax. Tories by definition believe in conserving capital above all, if you prefer to raise taxes on capital and cut them on income then you are really a Liberal not a Tory.
If you want to raise taxes on capital and income then you are a Socialist
There's nothing special about capital. It's there to be used.
And preserved for the next generation where possible
Society would be better if inheritance were made illegal and each generation had to start from scratch and earn their own way. Evaluate and discuss….
Absolutely not. That is the very opposite of conservatism. Every generation wants to help and support their family. We are not mere economic units to be equalised by the state
I never mentioned being equalised. It’s about people being rewarded for their own effort and ability, rather than being able to coast on the back of previous generations.
There are various well known rich folks who have refused their offspring any inheritance in precisely these grounds.
Yes but meritocracy is mainly a liberal philosophy ultimately not a conservative one which is based on inheritance, tradition and family.
I am a conservative and value inheritance and family more than some utopian meritocratic ideal which is of course not reality for all but a few very successful entrepreneurs or City workers or Premiership footballers.
Belief in the absence of reasoning or logic - next you’re going to surprise the forum by announcing that you’re a religious believer?
Funny how supposed 'reason and logic' always ends up leading to secular liberalism with secular liberals like you!
The idea that taxes should be raised on capital, in order to be reduced on incomes is obviously sensible and fair.
I'm 55 now, and will likely inherit a shedload of money over the next twenty years, when it is merely something that is nice to have, rather than something that is important to my life. It would be far better if younger relatives were paying less income tax.
They already are, Kwarteng has kept the cut in the basic rate of income tax and the poorest don't pay any.
It is high earners still paying 45% of their income at the top rate in tax. Tories by definition believe in conserving capital above all, if you prefer to raise taxes on capital and cut them on income then you are really a Liberal not a Tory.
If you want to raise taxes on capital and income then you are a Socialist
There's nothing special about capital. It's there to be used.
And preserved for the next generation where possible
Society would be better if inheritance were made illegal and each generation had to start from scratch and earn their own way. Evaluate and discuss….
Absolutely not. That is the very opposite of conservatism. Every generation wants to help and support their family. We are not mere economic units to be equalised by the state
I never mentioned being equalised. It’s about people being rewarded for their own effort and ability, rather than being able to coast on the back of previous generations.
There are various well known rich folks who have refused their offspring any inheritance in precisely these grounds.
Yes but meritocracy is mainly a liberal philosophy ultimately not a conservative one which is based on inheritance, tradition and family.
I am a conservative and value inheritance and family more than some utopian meritocratic ideal which is of course not reality for all but a few very successful entrepreneurs or City workers or Premiership footballers.
Belief in the absence of reasoning or logic - next you’re going to surprise the forum by announcing that you’re a religious believer?
Funny how supposed 'reason and logic' always ends up leading to secular liberalism with secular liberals like you!
Surf the crest of the wave, don’t live your life having let the wave pass you by.
Waves come and go, it is preserving the sea that is more important
The idea that taxes should be raised on capital, in order to be reduced on incomes is obviously sensible and fair.
I'm 55 now, and will likely inherit a shedload of money over the next twenty years, when it is merely something that is nice to have, rather than something that is important to my life. It would be far better if younger relatives were paying less income tax.
They already are, Kwarteng has kept the cut in the basic rate of income tax and the poorest don't pay any.
It is high earners still paying 45% of their income at the top rate in tax. Tories by definition believe in conserving capital above all, if you prefer to raise taxes on capital and cut them on income then you are really a Liberal not a Tory.
If you want to raise taxes on capital and income then you are a Socialist
There's nothing special about capital. It's there to be used.
And preserved for the next generation where possible
Why? Why should some people get an advantage over others because of their accident of birth.
Because that is the essence of conservatism. You are not a conservative so why should I care what you think about it?
All inheritances over £1 million are taxed anyway but conservatives believe families are best able to help the next generation not the state
Firstly I note someone had off topic your post. That is not on. There is no reason for someone to do that even if they disagree. Nothing wrong with your post.
In reply to your points:
You should care what I think. I care about what others think about stuff regardless of politics. Why would you not care.
I'm not looking to change the inheritance rules.
As you know I am against state interference so I don't understand your last point.
I am simply against the notion that it is a positive thing. It is a fact of life and all parents will try and help their kids, but it does result in an unfair if inevitable inequality in life. Why should one person benefit more than another through their accident of birth.
The idea that taxes should be raised on capital, in order to be reduced on incomes is obviously sensible and fair.
I'm 55 now, and will likely inherit a shedload of money over the next twenty years, when it is merely something that is nice to have, rather than something that is important to my life. It would be far better if younger relatives were paying less income tax.
They already are, Kwarteng has kept the cut in the basic rate of income tax and the poorest don't pay any.
It is high earners still paying 45% of their income at the top rate in tax. Tories by definition believe in conserving capital above all, if you prefer to raise taxes on capital and cut them on income then you are really a Liberal not a Tory.
If you want to raise taxes on capital and income then you are a Socialist
There's nothing special about capital. It's there to be used.
Yes but it depends on what it is being used for. So as a consultant I have built up a reasonable amount of savings for the days/months/years when I am without work. It is the prudent thing to do, and I would not be much chuffed if someone decided to start taxing those savings when I have already paid tax on them as earnings and I am just being sensible in saving for the inevitable downturns.
Surely you put that capital to work in equity markets etc... so it should earn you some income that offsets the tax.
Nope. Because it is money I can't afford to lose. So I don't invest it at all. It is a safety net, not an investment.
Ah fair enough, though I'd imagine any wealth tax would start at a pretty high number so any safety net wouldn't be taxable.
What's a 'high number' and how much you need for a safety net would be open to debate though.
There are already established rules for assessing capital, applied, ironically, to benefit claimants. £6k is all they are allowed. (Although, a property you live in and personal possessions are disregarded.)
Edit: Just to be clear I think the capital allowance would need to be a lot higher for Wealth Tax - say £250k per individual, ignoring their own residence, also ignoring pension pots.
Why ignore residence and pension pots? Very unfair on renters who perhaps save through isas rather than pensions.
Start much higher imo. £5m-£10m.
Separate LVT replacing council tax to catch the reasonably well off but not multi millionaires.
Well, it's another potential approach although £5m - £10m per individual is far too high imo.
Any wealth tax approach needs to be modelled and checked for unintended consequences of course.
ISAs is an interesting one. Some would argue they shouldn't be included but the commitment was only that you wouldn't pay tax on the income and the growth. So I would include them (much to my personal disadvantage).
You'd have to include ISAs and pension funds. Otherwise there's no point. Much to my disadvantage too.
Yes, you're right.
I disagree. It gets massively complicated. Just tax property - it’s clean, simple and impossible to hide. Otherwise people can bury gold in their back yard for future generations to dig up
I work literally round the corner from where the stabbing was, I've walked down Bishopsgate for lunch many days. Terrifying.
Seen some posts earlier, this is police by City of London Police and has nothing to do with Sadiq Khan, he does not manage City of London Police, prayers the people involved are okay and the criminals get chucked in jail for life
Liz Truss really is the Tory Corbyn. Absolutely insane. At least we managed to avoid Corbyn but Liz Truss has been foisted on the nation by 80k Tory activists who are completely removed from reality.
No the Tory Corbyn is Suella Braverman who may well be the next Tory leader.
Truss is just an ideological libertarian
They are all bonkers. Brexit and Boris cleaned out all the sane ones and left only the swivel-eyed loons in charge.
Liz Truss really is the Tory Corbyn. Absolutely insane. At least we managed to avoid Corbyn but Liz Truss has been foisted on the nation by 80k Tory activists who are completely removed from reality.
So ANY blackout is going to be explicitly linked to Liz.
She is a total liability
Why not trust people to do the right thing? Most people are already making an effort to use less energy.
Why not just remind them now and again via a tv advert?
What is it the financier says in succession when he hears they're trying to buy a network of TV news stations? Something like "TV... oh yeah, I remember them. I think they still have one at my gym."
The average person under the age of 45 now watches half the amount of TV they were watching in 2010 - and a lot of us simply don't watch it at all.
In parts of Europe they are shutting down public buildings this winter, and turning off streetlights to save electricity. Here we basically seem to have a policy of unlimited subsidy to encourage consumption, even though this actually helps Russia and Putin, who we are blaming for the situation, by increasing the demand for gas. What a world.
What surprises me with Liz Truss is just how niche her version of free-market libertarianism has been revealed to be. I (and perhaps she) always assumed that it had some sort of significant following in the country at large, but hardly anyone seems to be buying into it at all. Perhaps the noisiness of its adherents made it seem more mainstream than it actually was.
And once Truss is gone, and the Tories all rally round a sensible cabinet doing sensible things?
Dream On, horse… you are on 200 seats and not won anything yet.
Nah, the cabinet are fuckwits too.
The Tory MPs need to get in a large room with a giant whiteboard, settle on a leader then settle on a Cabinet they could get behind, then present it as a fait accompli. There's still plenty of talent that has been sidelined by Truss. They'd still have 2 years to make a decent stab at running the country.
Is there a reason why the French graffiti artists call him 'Poutine' as in FUCK POUTINE?
We can't both be right....
What makes you think the transliteration rules from Russian to French are the same as from Russian to English? Why should they be?
Khrouchtchev (French) - Khrushchev (English) In German he's Chruschtschow. In Russian his name has only 6 letters: Хрущёв
The reason Путин is transliterated into French with an 'e' on the end is because "putin" would sound like "putain". The 'e' is necessary so the final vowel is pronounced reasonably similarly to how it's pronounced in Russian.
No journalist has the breadth of knowledge or the guts to notice the weird pillar that Truss always uses as a lectern stand.
Of course if Elon Musk ever tweets about how it refers to the Apprentice Pillar at Rosslyn, journalists will parrot the same until they're blue in the face. They'll think they're well sophisticated cynics for knowing about it.
Liz Truss really is the Tory Corbyn. Absolutely insane. At least we managed to avoid Corbyn but Liz Truss has been foisted on the nation by 80k Tory activists who are completely removed from reality.
No the Tory Corbyn is Suella Braverman who may well be the next Tory leader.
Truss is just an ideological libertarian
How many times can you change your ideology and still be called an ideological anything?
The idea that taxes should be raised on capital, in order to be reduced on incomes is obviously sensible and fair.
I'm 55 now, and will likely inherit a shedload of money over the next twenty years, when it is merely something that is nice to have, rather than something that is important to my life. It would be far better if younger relatives were paying less income tax.
They already are, Kwarteng has kept the cut in the basic rate of income tax and the poorest don't pay any.
It is high earners still paying 45% of their income at the top rate in tax. Tories by definition believe in conserving capital above all, if you prefer to raise taxes on capital and cut them on income then you are really a Liberal not a Tory.
If you want to raise taxes on capital and income then you are a Socialist
There's nothing special about capital. It's there to be used.
And preserved for the next generation where possible
Why? Why should some people get an advantage over others because of their accident of birth.
Because that is the essence of conservatism. You are not a conservative so why should I care what you think about it?
All inheritances over £1 million are taxed anyway but conservatives believe families are best able to help the next generation not the state
Firstly I note someone had off topic your post. That is not on. There is no reason for someone to do that even if they disagree. Nothing wrong with your post.
In reply to your points:
You should care what I think. I care about what others think about stuff regardless of politics. Why would you not care.
I'm not looking to change the inheritance rules.
As you know I am against state interference so I don't understand your last point.
I am simply against the notion that it is a positive thing. It is a fact of life and all parents will try and help their kids, but it does result in an unfair if inevitable inequality in life. Why should one person benefit more than another through their accident of birth.
As conservatives believe ideologically family helps people better than the state or just the free market unlike socialists or libertarians respectively
Is there a reason why the French graffiti artists call him 'Poutine' as in FUCK POUTINE?
We can't both be right....
What makes you think the transliteration rules from Russian to French are the same as from Russian to English? Why should they be?
Khrouchtchev (French) - Khrushchev (English) In German he's Chruschtschow. In Russian his name has only 6 letters: Хрущёв
The reason Путин is transliterated into French with an 'e' on the end is because "putin" would sound like "putain". The 'e' is necessary so the final vowel is pronounced reasonably similarly to how it's pronounced in Russian.
As for the first vowel, in French "ou" is pronounced differently from "u". "Ou" in French is closer than "u" to the Russian phoneme, the first vowel in the Russian president's name, which is transliterated into English as "u".
What surprises me with Liz Truss is just how niche her version of free-market libertarianism has been revealed to be. I (and perhaps she) always assumed that it had some sort of significant following in the country at large, but hardly anyone seems to be buying into it at all. Perhaps the noisiness of its adherents made it seem more mainstream than it actually was.
Partly wrong time. Covid showed us all as a more communitarian country where in extremis we held each others hands and worked together in the common purpose.
Sensible libertarianism is a perfectly respectable political philosophy.
But she’s completely trashing it in the eyes of the British electorate.
The new post-Truss consensus looks like it’ll be May/Johnson style moderately big state conservatism vs Starmerite managerialism for the next few elections, imo.
Never heard anyone criticise freedom before in the way you're doing.
I work literally round the corner from where the stabbing was, I've walked down Bishopsgate for lunch many days. Terrifying.
Seen some posts earlier, this is police by City of London Police and has nothing to do with Sadiq Khan, he does not manage City of London Police, prayers the people involved are okay and the criminals get chucked in jail for life
I doubt that the attacker was a resident of the City though. The issue with knife crime is the permissive culture in Greater London that has allowed walking around with a deadly weapon to become normalised
Comments
If it cut energy usage by just 0.5% the campaign would make a £985m profit.
..
Yes but meritocracy is mainly a liberal philosophy ultimately not a conservative one which is based on inheritance, tradition and family.
I am a conservative and value inheritance and family more than some utopian meritocratic ideal which is of course not reality for all but a few very successful entrepreneurs or City workers or Premiership footballers.
‘It’s a stupid decision. The campaign was entirely practical, it was about saving people money. It wasn’t about lecturing them’
They argue cost of campaign relative to savings made it a no brainer
https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1578137386273349635
What "Action" could the PM take to fix the problem?
Not very libertarian, I suppose.
So ANY blackout is going to be explicitly linked to Liz.
She is a total liability
Why, I don’t know, but I do have sufficient photos of my dog doing his number ones and twos to post below any further of your posts that clearly ask to be so adorned…
Although it won't really solve the issue to any large degree.
The blame should go back as far as Cameron at least.
Andrew Lilico
@andrew_lilico
·
5h
According to this piece, JRM says encouraging people to cut their energy usage is “condescending” & “assuming people are stupid”. But that's wrong. The govt has subsidised bills. So people do not have the market-appropriate incentives to cut energy use.
https://twitter.com/andrew_lilico
Another disaster from the membership vote.
This will end in disaster unless MPs act soon.
Power cuts and we'll not a see another Tory government for a generation.
Praise be for electing her.
Yet another massive policy mistake by a total liability of a PM. She is even more of a disaster than peeps like me on PB predicted. Totally obsessed by her own warped ideas.
Can Labour poll higher? Seems they might.
If I am seconded to the US for two years, it's better than my home is rented out than it sits empty.
Likewise, if a family is posted to the UK, they will want to rent a family home, not a "rental only apartment".
Although no evidence in the article that any of this was caused by the Labour.
Sensible libertarianism is a perfectly respectable political philosophy.
But she’s completely trashing it in the eyes of the British electorate.
The new post-Truss consensus looks like it’ll be May/Johnson style moderately big state conservatism vs Starmerite managerialism for the next few elections, imo.
Truss as PM: I will block any measure that could stop there being blackouts.
Oxford PPE? The degree course should be shut down for the good of the country.
Advice and tips on how to save energy doesn't impinge on any bugger's freedom at all.
She's madder than a box of green squirrels.
She's just out of her depth. Most of us would be.
SitRep - 06/10 - "Silence for the storm?"
Today was relatively quiet, just like yesterday. We saw some confirmations from settlements liberated by AFU. In Kherson the AFU consolidated gains and are preparing... To the north, the AFU is approaching the town of Svatove.
1/X
https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1578139461325443072
Truss is just an ideological libertarian
There's enough material here for an entire conference.
And our first indications that Labour coming back in England makes them more popular in Scotland and so the idea of a coalition of chaos goes away.
Labour majority is on, for the first time it is my central forecast.
So what does she believe in? Cos it aint Hayek who she is supposed to worship as he would I think be in favour of not removing the former.
There'll be another one soon.
Strong and stable!
In reply to your points:
You should care what I think. I care about what others think about stuff regardless of politics. Why would you not care.
I'm not looking to change the inheritance rules.
As you know I am against state interference so I don't understand your last point.
I am simply against the notion that it is a positive thing. It is a fact of life and all parents will try and help their kids, but it does result in an unfair if inevitable inequality in life. Why should one person benefit more than another through their accident of birth.
Seen some posts earlier, this is police by City of London Police and has nothing to do with Sadiq Khan, he does not manage City of London Police, prayers the people involved are okay and the criminals get chucked in jail for life
The average person under the age of 45 now watches half the amount of TV they were watching in 2010 - and a lot of us simply don't watch it at all.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/269918/daily-tv-viewing-time-in-the-uk-by-age/
Here we basically seem to have a policy of unlimited subsidy to encourage consumption, even though this actually helps Russia and Putin, who we are blaming for the situation, by increasing the demand for gas. What a world.
LOL.
We can't both be right....
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poutine#:~:text=Poutine (Quebec French: [put͡sɪn,competing claims regarding its invention.
Dream On, horse… you are on 200 seats and not won anything yet.
This is the Tory party after all.
Khrouchtchev (French) - Khrushchev (English)
In German he's Chruschtschow.
In Russian his name has only 6 letters: Хрущёв
The reason Путин is transliterated into French with an 'e' on the end is because "putin" would sound like "putain". The 'e' is necessary so the final vowel is pronounced reasonably similarly to how it's pronounced in Russian.
https://twitter.com/GlasnostGone/status/1577937466572636162
No need to wear a seat belt?
No crash helmets on motorbikes?
Scrap the safety standards for furniture so that it can catch fire more easily?
She's an ideological nutter.
Two years of this? Please, no.
Of course if Elon Musk ever tweets about how it refers to the Apprentice Pillar at Rosslyn, journalists will parrot the same until they're blue in the face. They'll think they're well sophisticated cynics for knowing about it.
That's why he's Poutine in French.
Truss is completely out of sync with this.
Still, no chance of any xmas lockdown this year.
https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk