What should happen is the triple lock should end, the pension age be raised, public sector final salary pensions reformed, and co-funding should be introduced into healthcare, the same way it has now with private pensions.
Big savings in spending offered by all of those but would require immensely strong political leadership.
Public sector final salary pensions were reformed in 2015. I can assure you mine was.
But admitting that takes away one of your standard straw men.
It was reformed in 2015 for those who are still working.
For those who are claiming a final salary pension, nothing was done.
Changing a contract after the fact is not reasonable, but applying tax on a final salary pension at the same rate as the tax applied on those who are working is eminently reasonable.
You just cannot be as thick as you make out. Explain how anyone on a final salary pension pays less tax than anyone else on the same income you absolute bellend. Clue you cannot use your usual NI mince on someone who is not working. The contract was to pay NI for a period like every other person in the country. I wonder if you have ever paid it myself.
You really are as dense as lead.
NI is not a contract, never has been, never will be.
NI is a tax. No more, no less.
It is a tax set by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and can be changed, at Budgets.
It is a tax companies are obliged to collect via PAYE with Income Tax and remitted to HMRC as part of the same P32 payment.
It should be changed to 0% and have Income Tax risen proportionately to balance.
57 years ago today the collapse of tip no 7 at Aberfan happened.
If only we'd learnt the lessons.....
But no.
We continue to put the interests of institutions above those they are meant to serve and treat the victims with callousness and indifference. See the Post Office, Grenfell, blood contamination, Hillsborough etc.,
I wrote about it here - https://www.cyclefree.co.uk/the-price-of-indifference/. It is what I am proudest of writing. It personal because that lack of human empathy and indifference is what so often goes wrong - not just in the events leading up to the tragedy - but in the investigations afterwards and in how we treat those affected. Empathy and emotional intelligence are key to any good investigation and to trying to ensure that we try to avoid the same problems recurring. They are so often lacking, indeed regarded as inessential. And it is why the same problems happen over and over and over again.
Aberfan and its aftermath taught us that.
If you have time please read.
As I’ve said before, the same old scandals coming up again and again, refute the idea that we’ve become kinder.
My wife vividly remembers that from her school days and looking anxiously at the hills around Oban wondering if they were going to move.
What should happen is the triple lock should end, the pension age be raised, public sector final salary pensions reformed, and co-funding should be introduced into healthcare, the same way it has now with private pensions.
Big savings in spending offered by all of those but would require immensely strong political leadership.
Public sector final salary pensions were reformed in 2015. I can assure you mine was. It is now both heavily contributory and accrues on the basis of earnings.
But admitting that takes away one of your standard straw men.
I think all three of Casino's point's are moot, and perhaps verging on the fantastical. Maybe a suitable agenda for around 1994; this is now 2023 .
1 - As you say, Public Sector pensions have been heavily reformed. I have a family member working for the health regulators, who has been continually in a cleft stick between a Health Service pension scheme, and a Civil Servant pension scheme because UKHSA is not quite proper Health Service to some - the employer wants the staff on the cheapest one they can of course.
2 - The UK has been adjusting it's pension age since John Major's time (Pensions Act 1995), and we are now towards the higher end in Europe with a further rise from 66 to 67 in 2026-2028. Plus we have one of the stronger demographic profiles in Western Europe.
3 - The Triple Lock has added at most a small amount - when I calculated it I made it 5-6% a year over inflationary increases since 2010 or whenever it was. The inchoate political fury this generates is bizarre, as is the weight put on it.
There may be other appropriate reforms; they are not these imo.
I'd say that adjustments need to be on the revenue side more than the cost side - perhaps 80:20 or higher. We have have nearly 15 years of salami-slicing, and it is time to reverse ferret - which is why I hope Mr Starmer has some significant rebalancing proposals.
On 2, stagger the pension age (25% at one age, 50% a couple of years later and so on) to reflect the way people actually retire at quite different ages and also often move through part time in between.
On 3, if its so bizarre and minimal, supporters of the triple lock will be quite happy to give up such a trivial benefit to do their bit.
This is interesting re unexpected tax on state pensions, which don't have PAYE deducted because HMG is so useless. And for the sneakily worded denial by HMG. The problem is, as the article makes clear, that a lot of state pensions are above the basic flat rate pension on account of SERPS etc.
Another good reason to significantly raise the basic personal allowance to the equivalent of working full time at minimum wage.
I usualy agree with you, but don't this time. We should be cutting rates, not raising thresholds, especially not the lowest income tax one. The last thing this country needs is yet more freeloaders with no incentive to reduce tax, but a big incentive to demand more spending.
Isn't a major problem for Yousaf that the SNP supporters never wanted Sturgeon to go in the first plac?
It is double-edged. Pro-Sturgeon types wanted Sturgeon to stay on so they are unhappy. Anti-Sturgeon types see Yousaf as continuity-Sturgeon so they are not happy either.
What should happen is the triple lock should end, the pension age be raised, public sector final salary pensions reformed, and co-funding should be introduced into healthcare, the same way it has now with private pensions.
Big savings in spending offered by all of those but would require immensely strong political leadership.
Public sector final salary pensions were reformed in 2015. I can assure you mine was. It is now both heavily contributory and accrues on the basis of earnings.
But admitting that takes away one of your standard straw men.
I think all three of Casino's point's are moot, and perhaps verging on the fantastical. Maybe a suitable agenda for around 1994; this is now 2023 .
1 - As you say, Public Sector pensions have been heavily reformed. I have a family member working for the health regulators, who has been continually in a cleft stick between a Health Service pension scheme, and a Civil Servant pension scheme because UKHSA is not quite proper Health Service to some - the employer wants the staff on the cheapest one they can of course.
2 - The UK has been adjusting it's pension age since John Major's time (Pensions Act 1995), and we are now towards the higher end in Europe with a further rise from 66 to 67 in 2026-2028. Plus we have one of the stronger demographic profiles in Western Europe.
3 - The Triple Lock has added at most a small amount - when I calculated it I made it 5-6% a year over inflationary increases since 2010 or whenever it was. The inchoate political fury this generates is bizarre, as is the weight put on it.
There may be other appropriate reforms; they are not these imo.
I'd say that adjustments need to be on the revenue side more than the cost side - perhaps 80:20 or higher. We have have nearly 15 years of salami-slicing, and it is time to reverse ferret - which is why I hope Mr Starmer has some significant rebalancing proposals.
On 2, stagger the pension age (25% at one age, 50% a couple of years later and so on) to reflect the way people actually retire at quite different ages and also often move through part time in between.
On 3, if its so bizarre and minimal, supporters of the triple lock will be quite happy to give up such a trivial benefit to do their bit.
This is interesting re unexpected tax on state pensions, which don't have PAYE deducted because HMG is so useless. And for the sneakily worded denial by HMG. The problem is, as the article makes clear, that a lot of state pensions are above the basic flat rate pension on account of SERPS etc.
Another good reason to significantly raise the basic personal allowance to the equivalent of working full time at minimum wage.
I usualy agree with you, but don't this time. We should be cutting rates, not raising thresholds, especially not the lowest income tax one. The last thing this country needs is yet more freeloaders with no incentive to reduce tax, but a big incentive to demand more spending.
57 years ago today the collapse of tip no 7 at Aberfan happened.
If only we'd learnt the lessons.....
But no.
We continue to put the interests of institutions above those they are meant to serve and treat the victims with callousness and indifference. See the Post Office, Grenfell, blood contamination, Hillsborough etc.,
I wrote about it here - https://www.cyclefree.co.uk/the-price-of-indifference/. It is what I am proudest of writing. It personal because that lack of human empathy and indifference is what so often goes wrong - not just in the events leading up to the tragedy - but in the investigations afterwards and in how we treat those affected. Empathy and emotional intelligence are key to any good investigation and to trying to ensure that we try to avoid the same problems recurring. They are so often lacking, indeed regarded as inessential. And it is why the same problems happen over and over and over again.
Aberfan and its aftermath taught us that.
If you have time please read.
As I’ve said before, the same old scandals coming up again and again, refute the idea that we’ve become kinder.
My wife vividly remembers that from her school days and looking anxiously at the hills around Oban wondering if they were going to move.
What should happen is the triple lock should end, the pension age be raised, public sector final salary pensions reformed, and co-funding should be introduced into healthcare, the same way it has now with private pensions.
Big savings in spending offered by all of those but would require immensely strong political leadership.
Public sector final salary pensions were reformed in 2015. I can assure you mine was. It is now both heavily contributory and accrues on the basis of earnings.
But admitting that takes away one of your standard straw men.
I think all three of Casino's point's are moot, and perhaps verging on the fantastical. Maybe a suitable agenda for around 1994; this is now 2023 .
1 - As you say, Public Sector pensions have been heavily reformed. I have a family member working for the health regulators, who has been continually in a cleft stick between a Health Service pension scheme, and a Civil Servant pension scheme because UKHSA is not quite proper Health Service to some - the employer wants the staff on the cheapest one they can of course.
2 - The UK has been adjusting it's pension age since John Major's time (Pensions Act 1995), and we are now towards the higher end in Europe with a further rise from 66 to 67 in 2026-2028. Plus we have one of the stronger demographic profiles in Western Europe.
3 - The Triple Lock has added at most a small amount - when I calculated it I made it 5-6% a year over inflationary increases since 2010 or whenever it was. The inchoate political fury this generates is bizarre, as is the weight put on it.
There may be other appropriate reforms; they are not these imo.
I'd say that adjustments need to be on the revenue side more than the cost side - perhaps 80:20 or higher. We have have nearly 15 years of salami-slicing, and it is time to reverse ferret - which is why I hope Mr Starmer has some significant rebalancing proposals.
On 2, stagger the pension age (25% at one age, 50% a couple of years later and so on) to reflect the way people actually retire at quite different ages and also often move through part time in between.
On 3, if its so bizarre and minimal, supporters of the triple lock will be quite happy to give up such a trivial benefit to do their bit.
This is interesting re unexpected tax on state pensions, which don't have PAYE deducted because HMG is so useless. And for the sneakily worded denial by HMG. The problem is, as the article makes clear, that a lot of state pensions are above the basic flat rate pension on account of SERPS etc.
Another good reason to significantly raise the basic personal allowance to the equivalent of working full time at minimum wage.
I usualy agree with you, but don't this time. We should be cutting rates, not raising thresholds, especially not the lowest income tax one. The last thing this country needs is yet more freeloaders with no incentive to reduce tax, but a big incentive to demand more spending.
Its NI which should be cut not income tax.
Merge them.
Whereupon all the oldies say "I paid my stamp".
And they'd be right. NI is what qualifies you for the full state pension. Even if you view that as a legalistic fiction, you'd still need to break that link.
Of course the 2 state solution is dead. There are not two states to do a deal. Israel has occupied and chopped up the West Bank - partly for justified security reasons, partly for religious nut job reasons. And Gaza is a terrorist enclave.
Is not the simple truth that the 2 state solution was never on because the Muslim crazies cannot sanction the Jewish state, and the Jewish crazies are happy to replicate terror with terror of their own.
The crank left repeat the end game: from the river to the sea. A one state solution- the creation for the first time of a Palestinian nation state where Israel now is. So park holier-than-thou we are the oppressed the Jew uniquely is Bad no that isn’t anti-Semitic cos the Jeremy wasn’t how dare you bullshit from the crank left. They don’t want 2 states, they want to remove Israel from existence.
Worse for Israel, remove them from the map is the policy of Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Hamas, Hesbollah, Islamic Jihad etc etc etc. the idea that Israel is the aggressor doesn’t stand up to logic or sanity.
Well, it's for the two parties to the conflict to negotiate and come to whatever settlement they can both accept. Not sure why we should try to have that negotiation for them.
What we can do is to try to help prepare the environment for such a negotiation, by encouraging confidence-building measures. And I think that is only possible if we properly understand the motivations of both sides of the conflict. I've spent the last two weeks feeling entirely hopeless about the conflict, because as far as I could tell it was mainly a very negative sum dispute over land. It's very hard to reach any agreement when that agreement would involve both sides having to crystallise large losses of land.
However, I now start to think that if you view the conflict slightly differently, it is possible to see a basis for an agreement. Israelis, I believe, are primarily concerned with a desire for security. Whereas Palestinians, I believe, are primarily motivated by a desire for justice. This is why the Oslo Peace Process foundered over the right of return. It was asking the Palestinians to give up on a large part of what they would see as a just peace. The Israeli emphasis on security is why the calls for an immediate ceasefire are naive and wrongheaded. In the absence of any confidence-building measure to restore Israel's security, then they must attempt to improve their security - even if just in the short-term - by damaging the ability of Hamas to attack them. So things still look a bit bleak in the short term, but in the long-term these competing desires for security and justice should be easier to reconcile than simply competing claims for the same land would be.
What should happen is the triple lock should end, the pension age be raised, public sector final salary pensions reformed, and co-funding should be introduced into healthcare, the same way it has now with private pensions.
Big savings in spending offered by all of those but would require immensely strong political leadership.
Public sector final salary pensions were reformed in 2015. I can assure you mine was. It is now both heavily contributory and accrues on the basis of earnings.
But admitting that takes away one of your standard straw men.
I think all three of Casino's point's are moot, and perhaps verging on the fantastical. Maybe a suitable agenda for around 1994; this is now 2023 .
1 - As you say, Public Sector pensions have been heavily reformed. I have a family member working for the health regulators, who has been continually in a cleft stick between a Health Service pension scheme, and a Civil Servant pension scheme because UKHSA is not quite proper Health Service to some - the employer wants the staff on the cheapest one they can of course.
2 - The UK has been adjusting it's pension age since John Major's time (Pensions Act 1995), and we are now towards the higher end in Europe with a further rise from 66 to 67 in 2026-2028. Plus we have one of the stronger demographic profiles in Western Europe.
3 - The Triple Lock has added at most a small amount - when I calculated it I made it 5-6% a year over inflationary increases since 2010 or whenever it was. The inchoate political fury this generates is bizarre, as is the weight put on it.
There may be other appropriate reforms; they are not these imo.
I'd say that adjustments need to be on the revenue side more than the cost side - perhaps 80:20 or higher. We have have nearly 15 years of salami-slicing, and it is time to reverse ferret - which is why I hope Mr Starmer has some significant rebalancing proposals.
On 2, stagger the pension age (25% at one age, 50% a couple of years later and so on) to reflect the way people actually retire at quite different ages and also often move through part time in between.
On 3, if its so bizarre and minimal, supporters of the triple lock will be quite happy to give up such a trivial benefit to do their bit.
This is interesting re unexpected tax on state pensions, which don't have PAYE deducted because HMG is so useless. And for the sneakily worded denial by HMG. The problem is, as the article makes clear, that a lot of state pensions are above the basic flat rate pension on account of SERPS etc.
Why is it unexpected? The rules are pretty clear.
Lots of people not clued up. The problem is that HMRC is not warning them *now*, as the piece explains.
Mrs C, who has a small teacher’s pension, has found herself dropping in and out of the tax bracket over the years. Fortunately she started as a ‘payer’ so the Teachers Pension people automatically check her.
All these word clouds are very dispiriting derogatory and cynical. There seems very little positivity about our country any more, as demonstrated by these opinions of all our leaders.
There used to be a time when we believed in the future, but those optimistic days are gone.
Slagging off of non tory politicians is overdone imo. Most are ok to good. And with this one isn't he 'useless' mainly because it sounds like Yousaf? - although it doesn't really, you have to totally change the 2nd syllable and there are only 2 syllables.
My point is it's more a nickname (like he'd maybe have got at school, kids being what they are) than a qualitative assessment of the man himself. Nicknames can stick. Mine was Chimp. Originally due to prowess at climbing things but after a while most of the people calling me it didn't know that. Same going on here (to some extent) with the Scottish First Minister. Lots of the people calling him useless actually probably like him or don't have an opinion either way.
A thought experiment to prove my point: Imagine his name was Humza Robinson. One can't say what word would dominate his word cloud then but no way would it be 'useless'. QED.
Of course the 2 state solution is dead. There are not two states to do a deal. Israel has occupied and chopped up the West Bank - partly for justified security reasons, partly for religious nut job reasons. And Gaza is a terrorist enclave.
Is not the simple truth that the 2 state solution was never on because the Muslim crazies cannot sanction the Jewish state, and the Jewish crazies are happy to replicate terror with terror of their own.
The crank left repeat the end game: from the river to the sea. A one state solution- the creation for the first time of a Palestinian nation state where Israel now is. So park holier-than-thou we are the oppressed the Jew uniquely is Bad no that isn’t anti-Semitic cos the Jeremy wasn’t how dare you bullshit from the crank left. They don’t want 2 states, they want to remove Israel from existence.
Worse for Israel, remove them from the map is the policy of Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Hamas, Hesbollah, Islamic Jihad etc etc etc. the idea that Israel is the aggressor doesn’t stand up to logic or sanity.
No, and I don’t think this sort of dismissive simplification helps.
We have been much closer to a working 2-state solution in the past. I don’t see the evidence that is was “never on”. Whether it is feasible now after years of continued Israeli settlements in the West Bank is a harder question.
Happy to debate it! My “never on” point was that even back in 2000, the proposed Palestinian state wasn’t acceptable to the Palestinians who preferred war to compromise. The risk to Israel from the Palestinians was the driver of the Israeli demands for compromise, as then demonstrated by the Palestinian switch from peace negotiations to war.
If a viable state couldn’t be founded then, I can’t see how it would be founded now. And again, it is difficult to do so when the elected government is pledged to the destruction of the other state, a position shared by surrounding countries like Iran.
We can’t just give the Israeli governments permission do what they like - some of their acts have been wilfully criminal. But I can understand their position better when most of their neighbours and the counterparty in a 2 state negotiation are pledged to their destruction
What’s telling is that within hours of news of the attacks by Hamas, well before any Israeli retaliation, large numbers of people were out demonstrating - against Israel.
That can only be explained by deep-rooted anti-semitism among those protestors.
"From the River to the Sea". The crank left blame the Jews for violence against Jews. Every pogrom in history is the fault of the victims, the jews bring it on themselves.
Look at the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign statement when Hamas brought medieval slaughter into Israle. No condemnation of beheading babies, no no, its the Jew's fault, and that the just thing to do is to stand in solidarity with the Hamas beheaders. https://palestinecampaign.org/psc-statement-on-escalation-of-violence/
If that isn't anti-semitism, what is?
I wonder if there’s something in the human brain that predisposes us to loathe Jews. Occasionally, I’ve found myself thinking nasty thoughts, before the rational part of my brain kicks in and says, “Why are you thinking that?”
What should happen is the triple lock should end, the pension age be raised, public sector final salary pensions reformed, and co-funding should be introduced into healthcare, the same way it has now with private pensions.
Big savings in spending offered by all of those but would require immensely strong political leadership.
Public sector final salary pensions were reformed in 2015. I can assure you mine was. It is now both heavily contributory and accrues on the basis of earnings.
But admitting that takes away one of your standard straw men.
I think all three of Casino's point's are moot, and perhaps verging on the fantastical. Maybe a suitable agenda for around 1994; this is now 2023 .
1 - As you say, Public Sector pensions have been heavily reformed. I have a family member working for the health regulators, who has been continually in a cleft stick between a Health Service pension scheme, and a Civil Servant pension scheme because UKHSA is not quite proper Health Service to some - the employer wants the staff on the cheapest one they can of course.
2 - The UK has been adjusting it's pension age since John Major's time (Pensions Act 1995), and we are now towards the higher end in Europe with a further rise from 66 to 67 in 2026-2028. Plus we have one of the stronger demographic profiles in Western Europe.
3 - The Triple Lock has added at most a small amount - when I calculated it I made it 5-6% a year over inflationary increases since 2010 or whenever it was. The inchoate political fury this generates is bizarre, as is the weight put on it.
There may be other appropriate reforms; they are not these imo.
I'd say that adjustments need to be on the revenue side more than the cost side - perhaps 80:20 or higher. We have have nearly 15 years of salami-slicing, and it is time to reverse ferret - which is why I hope Mr Starmer has some significant rebalancing proposals.
On 2, stagger the pension age (25% at one age, 50% a couple of years later and so on) to reflect the way people actually retire at quite different ages and also often move through part time in between.
On 3, if its so bizarre and minimal, supporters of the triple lock will be quite happy to give up such a trivial benefit to do their bit.
This is interesting re unexpected tax on state pensions, which don't have PAYE deducted because HMG is so useless. And for the sneakily worded denial by HMG. The problem is, as the article makes clear, that a lot of state pensions are above the basic flat rate pension on account of SERPS etc.
Another good reason to significantly raise the basic personal allowance to the equivalent of working full time at minimum wage.
I usualy agree with you, but don't this time. We should be cutting rates, not raising thresholds, especially not the lowest income tax one. The last thing this country needs is yet more freeloaders with no incentive to reduce tax, but a big incentive to demand more spending.
Its NI which should be cut not income tax.
Merge them.
Whereupon all the oldies say "I paid my stamp".
And they'd be right. NI is what qualifies you for the full state pension. Even if you view that as a legalistic fiction, you'd still need to break that link.
The actual legislation required to abolish employee NI, would be hellishly complicated for this reason.
There’s an awful lot of edge cases, such as UK citizens working abroad.
What should happen is the triple lock should end, the pension age be raised, public sector final salary pensions reformed, and co-funding should be introduced into healthcare, the same way it has now with private pensions.
Big savings in spending offered by all of those but would require immensely strong political leadership.
Public sector final salary pensions were reformed in 2015. I can assure you mine was. It is now both heavily contributory and accrues on the basis of earnings.
But admitting that takes away one of your standard straw men.
I think all three of Casino's point's are moot, and perhaps verging on the fantastical. Maybe a suitable agenda for around 1994; this is now 2023 .
1 - As you say, Public Sector pensions have been heavily reformed. I have a family member working for the health regulators, who has been continually in a cleft stick between a Health Service pension scheme, and a Civil Servant pension scheme because UKHSA is not quite proper Health Service to some - the employer wants the staff on the cheapest one they can of course.
2 - The UK has been adjusting it's pension age since John Major's time (Pensions Act 1995), and we are now towards the higher end in Europe with a further rise from 66 to 67 in 2026-2028. Plus we have one of the stronger demographic profiles in Western Europe.
3 - The Triple Lock has added at most a small amount - when I calculated it I made it 5-6% a year over inflationary increases since 2010 or whenever it was. The inchoate political fury this generates is bizarre, as is the weight put on it.
There may be other appropriate reforms; they are not these imo.
I'd say that adjustments need to be on the revenue side more than the cost side - perhaps 80:20 or higher. We have have nearly 15 years of salami-slicing, and it is time to reverse ferret - which is why I hope Mr Starmer has some significant rebalancing proposals.
On 2, stagger the pension age (25% at one age, 50% a couple of years later and so on) to reflect the way people actually retire at quite different ages and also often move through part time in between.
On 3, if its so bizarre and minimal, supporters of the triple lock will be quite happy to give up such a trivial benefit to do their bit.
This is interesting re unexpected tax on state pensions, which don't have PAYE deducted because HMG is so useless. And for the sneakily worded denial by HMG. The problem is, as the article makes clear, that a lot of state pensions are above the basic flat rate pension on account of SERPS etc.
Why is it unexpected? The rules are pretty clear.
It is unexpected because most people have never had to worry about paying income tax. PAYE magically took care of it.
Quite so.
As did taxation at source of savings interest and dividends, plus a simple A4 form to fill in for claiming tax back.
When HMG suddenly abolished dediction of tax at source, the allowances for savings interest and dividends had much the same effect as most folk didn't have enough of either, but now with the interest rates the way they are, and so on, that's not going to work. There will be lots of new and naive taxpayers many of whon donhave the ability to do online tax returns. And HMRC is already deep in the midden with keeping up with taxpayers thanks to cuts.
The mess over NI payments was bad enough (as many of us know) - this could be it all over again, only much worse - and affecting the Tory client vote.
What should happen is the triple lock should end, the pension age be raised, public sector final salary pensions reformed, and co-funding should be introduced into healthcare, the same way it has now with private pensions.
Big savings in spending offered by all of those but would require immensely strong political leadership.
Public sector final salary pensions were reformed in 2015. I can assure you mine was. It is now both heavily contributory and accrues on the basis of earnings.
But admitting that takes away one of your standard straw men.
I think all three of Casino's point's are moot, and perhaps verging on the fantastical. Maybe a suitable agenda for around 1994; this is now 2023 .
1 - As you say, Public Sector pensions have been heavily reformed. I have a family member working for the health regulators, who has been continually in a cleft stick between a Health Service pension scheme, and a Civil Servant pension scheme because UKHSA is not quite proper Health Service to some - the employer wants the staff on the cheapest one they can of course.
2 - The UK has been adjusting it's pension age since John Major's time (Pensions Act 1995), and we are now towards the higher end in Europe with a further rise from 66 to 67 in 2026-2028. Plus we have one of the stronger demographic profiles in Western Europe.
3 - The Triple Lock has added at most a small amount - when I calculated it I made it 5-6% a year over inflationary increases since 2010 or whenever it was. The inchoate political fury this generates is bizarre, as is the weight put on it.
There may be other appropriate reforms; they are not these imo.
I'd say that adjustments need to be on the revenue side more than the cost side - perhaps 80:20 or higher. We have have nearly 15 years of salami-slicing, and it is time to reverse ferret - which is why I hope Mr Starmer has some significant rebalancing proposals.
On 2, stagger the pension age (25% at one age, 50% a couple of years later and so on) to reflect the way people actually retire at quite different ages and also often move through part time in between.
On 3, if its so bizarre and minimal, supporters of the triple lock will be quite happy to give up such a trivial benefit to do their bit.
This is interesting re unexpected tax on state pensions, which don't have PAYE deducted because HMG is so useless. And for the sneakily worded denial by HMG. The problem is, as the article makes clear, that a lot of state pensions are above the basic flat rate pension on account of SERPS etc.
Another good reason to significantly raise the basic personal allowance to the equivalent of working full time at minimum wage.
I usualy agree with you, but don't this time. We should be cutting rates, not raising thresholds, especially not the lowest income tax one. The last thing this country needs is yet more freeloaders with no incentive to reduce tax, but a big incentive to demand more spending.
I think it’s fair that you’re not paying tax if you’re on minimum wage or drawing a state pension. Many of these people will also be on tax credits so are net recipients anyway, and raising PA will take more people out of that regime at the other end, and the 65% marginal tax rates that go along with it.
The whole tax credits regime, is of course a very expensive mess that subsidizes poorly-paying employers. It’s the sort fo scheme that needs to be very carefully looked at in the context of government saving the serious money that’s required.
The tax credits is just the Speenhamland System on a national scale.
Flagging up a new weekly long-run podcast on the Israel/Gaza continuing situation, from the Telegraph - from a team overlapping with that which has done "Ukraine - the latest".
I've been impressed by the Ukraine podcast, running for approx 45 mins to one hour on weekdays since spring 2022. It has focused on exploring opinions, rather than putting forward a line, and has a daily guest who is someone close to some aspect of the situation. Yesterday's guest was an entrepreneur running a successful App called "Headway" (provides short versions of books), and how the business has survived in wartime.
IMO the hallmark has been a final question to interviewees: "Is there anything you would like to say to our audience that I have not asked you?", which is excellent.
The new one is called "Battlelines: Israel-Gaza", and what I think is the first episode is here:
57 years ago today the collapse of tip no 7 at Aberfan happened.
If only we'd learnt the lessons.....
But no.
We continue to put the interests of institutions above those they are meant to serve and treat the victims with callousness and indifference. See the Post Office, Grenfell, blood contamination, Hillsborough etc.,
I wrote about it here - https://www.cyclefree.co.uk/the-price-of-indifference/. It is what I am proudest of writing. It personal because that lack of human empathy and indifference is what so often goes wrong - not just in the events leading up to the tragedy - but in the investigations afterwards and in how we treat those affected. Empathy and emotional intelligence are key to any good investigation and to trying to ensure that we try to avoid the same problems recurring. They are so often lacking, indeed regarded as inessential. And it is why the same problems happen over and over and over again.
Aberfan and its aftermath taught us that.
If you have time please read.
Many thanks for that. I really hadn't realised the extent to which the Aberfan story anticipated the PO scandal.
What should happen is the triple lock should end, the pension age be raised, public sector final salary pensions reformed, and co-funding should be introduced into healthcare, the same way it has now with private pensions.
Big savings in spending offered by all of those but would require immensely strong political leadership.
Public sector final salary pensions were reformed in 2015. I can assure you mine was. It is now both heavily contributory and accrues on the basis of earnings.
But admitting that takes away one of your standard straw men.
I think all three of Casino's point's are moot, and perhaps verging on the fantastical. Maybe a suitable agenda for around 1994; this is now 2023 .
1 - As you say, Public Sector pensions have been heavily reformed. I have a family member working for the health regulators, who has been continually in a cleft stick between a Health Service pension scheme, and a Civil Servant pension scheme because UKHSA is not quite proper Health Service to some - the employer wants the staff on the cheapest one they can of course.
2 - The UK has been adjusting it's pension age since John Major's time (Pensions Act 1995), and we are now towards the higher end in Europe with a further rise from 66 to 67 in 2026-2028. Plus we have one of the stronger demographic profiles in Western Europe.
3 - The Triple Lock has added at most a small amount - when I calculated it I made it 5-6% a year over inflationary increases since 2010 or whenever it was. The inchoate political fury this generates is bizarre, as is the weight put on it.
There may be other appropriate reforms; they are not these imo.
I'd say that adjustments need to be on the revenue side more than the cost side - perhaps 80:20 or higher. We have have nearly 15 years of salami-slicing, and it is time to reverse ferret - which is why I hope Mr Starmer has some significant rebalancing proposals.
On 2, stagger the pension age (25% at one age, 50% a couple of years later and so on) to reflect the way people actually retire at quite different ages and also often move through part time in between.
On 3, if its so bizarre and minimal, supporters of the triple lock will be quite happy to give up such a trivial benefit to do their bit.
This is interesting re unexpected tax on state pensions, which don't have PAYE deducted because HMG is so useless. And for the sneakily worded denial by HMG. The problem is, as the article makes clear, that a lot of state pensions are above the basic flat rate pension on account of SERPS etc.
Another good reason to significantly raise the basic personal allowance to the equivalent of working full time at minimum wage.
I usualy agree with you, but don't this time. We should be cutting rates, not raising thresholds, especially not the lowest income tax one. The last thing this country needs is yet more freeloaders with no incentive to reduce tax, but a big incentive to demand more spending.
Its NI which should be cut not income tax.
Merge them.
Politically inconvenient. The separation into two taxes allows three things convenient for government and better off talking heads.
1) The headline rate of tax, 20%, is massively lower than the real rate
2) The interaction of IT/NI means that the 40% higher rate for +£50k people is a much less big jump than it looks. It is in fact from about 32% to 40%. This quietly suits the ruling class and better off people. The media never draw attention to either (1) or (2)
3) It is a convenient way of imposing an employment tax.
Flagging up a new weekly long-run podcast on the Israel/Gaza continuing situation, from the Telegraph - from a team overlapping with that which has done "Ukraine - the latest".
I've been impressed by the Ukraine podcast, running for approx 45 mins to one hour on weekdays since spring 2022. It has focused on exploring opinions, rather than putting forward a line, and has a daily guest who is someone close to some aspect of the situation. Yesterday's guest was an entrepreneur running a successful App called "Headway" (provides short versions of books), and how the business has survived in wartime.
IMO the hallmark has been a final question to interviewees: "Is there anything you would like to say to our audience that I have not asked you?", which is excellent.
The new one is called "Battlelines: Israel-Gaza", and what I think is the first episode is here:
57 years ago today the collapse of tip no 7 at Aberfan happened.
If only we'd learnt the lessons.....
But no.
We continue to put the interests of institutions above those they are meant to serve and treat the victims with callousness and indifference. See the Post Office, Grenfell, blood contamination, Hillsborough etc.,
I wrote about it here - https://www.cyclefree.co.uk/the-price-of-indifference/. It is what I am proudest of writing. It personal because that lack of human empathy and indifference is what so often goes wrong - not just in the events leading up to the tragedy - but in the investigations afterwards and in how we treat those affected. Empathy and emotional intelligence are key to any good investigation and to trying to ensure that we try to avoid the same problems recurring. They are so often lacking, indeed regarded as inessential. And it is why the same problems happen over and over and over again.
Aberfan and its aftermath taught us that.
If you have time please read.
As I’ve said before, the same old scandals coming up again and again, refute the idea that we’ve become kinder.
My wife vividly remembers that from her school days and looking anxiously at the hills around Oban wondering if they were going to move.
Apologies for my flippant response earlier. It should have been deleted - I hadn't read the context
What should happen is the triple lock should end, the pension age be raised, public sector final salary pensions reformed, and co-funding should be introduced into healthcare, the same way it has now with private pensions.
Big savings in spending offered by all of those but would require immensely strong political leadership.
Public sector final salary pensions were reformed in 2015. I can assure you mine was. It is now both heavily contributory and accrues on the basis of earnings.
But admitting that takes away one of your standard straw men.
I think all three of Casino's point's are moot, and perhaps verging on the fantastical. Maybe a suitable agenda for around 1994; this is now 2023 .
1 - As you say, Public Sector pensions have been heavily reformed. I have a family member working for the health regulators, who has been continually in a cleft stick between a Health Service pension scheme, and a Civil Servant pension scheme because UKHSA is not quite proper Health Service to some - the employer wants the staff on the cheapest one they can of course.
2 - The UK has been adjusting it's pension age since John Major's time (Pensions Act 1995), and we are now towards the higher end in Europe with a further rise from 66 to 67 in 2026-2028. Plus we have one of the stronger demographic profiles in Western Europe.
3 - The Triple Lock has added at most a small amount - when I calculated it I made it 5-6% a year over inflationary increases since 2010 or whenever it was. The inchoate political fury this generates is bizarre, as is the weight put on it.
There may be other appropriate reforms; they are not these imo.
I'd say that adjustments need to be on the revenue side more than the cost side - perhaps 80:20 or higher. We have have nearly 15 years of salami-slicing, and it is time to reverse ferret - which is why I hope Mr Starmer has some significant rebalancing proposals.
On 2, stagger the pension age (25% at one age, 50% a couple of years later and so on) to reflect the way people actually retire at quite different ages and also often move through part time in between.
On 3, if its so bizarre and minimal, supporters of the triple lock will be quite happy to give up such a trivial benefit to do their bit.
This is interesting re unexpected tax on state pensions, which don't have PAYE deducted because HMG is so useless. And for the sneakily worded denial by HMG. The problem is, as the article makes clear, that a lot of state pensions are above the basic flat rate pension on account of SERPS etc.
Another good reason to significantly raise the basic personal allowance to the equivalent of working full time at minimum wage.
I usualy agree with you, but don't this time. We should be cutting rates, not raising thresholds, especially not the lowest income tax one. The last thing this country needs is yet more freeloaders with no incentive to reduce tax, but a big incentive to demand more spending.
Its NI which should be cut not income tax.
Merge them.
Whereupon all the oldies say "I paid my stamp".
Which makes no difference at all.
It's a tax. Always has been. Paying "your stamps" doesn't exempt working age people from continuing to pay the tax either.
I've nearly maxed out my "stamps" already. Will still have another two decades of paying the tax ahead even under the existing rules. Because it's a tax.
All these word clouds are very dispiriting derogatory and cynical. There seems very little positivity about our country any more, as demonstrated by these opinions of all our leaders.
There used to be a time when we believed in the future, but those optimistic days are gone.
Slagging off of non tory politicians is overdone imo. Most are ok to good. And with this one isn't he 'useless' mainly because it sounds like Yousaf? - although it doesn't really, you have to totally change the 2nd syllable and there are only 2 syllables.
My point is it's more a nickname (like he'd maybe have got at school, kids being what they are) than a qualitative assessment of the man himself. Nicknames can stick. Mine was Chimp. Originally due to prowess at climbing things but after a while most of the people calling me it didn't know that. Same going on here (to some extent) with the Scottish First Minister. Lots of the people calling him useless actually probably like him or don't have an opinion either way.
A thought experiment to prove my point: Imagine his name was Humza Robinson. One can't say what word would dominate his word cloud then but no way would it be 'useless'. QED.
If you boil this post down, it's just partisanship.
Your view is that slagging off Tory politicians is fine but doing it to non-Tory politicians is just not cricket.
Indications are emerging that they plan to cut IHT and/or Stamp Duty next Spring. That would be electioneering in its purest form.
IHT should not be cut. Tax on unearned wealth needs to be increased not decreased.
If the Tories abolish IHT then Labour should just make Income Tax apply in full to all Inheritances. No special IHT rate or allowances.
Unearned and earned income should be taxed at the same rate. And if not the same rate, then unearned should be taxed higher.
Instead presently earned salaries are the highest taxed thing around, it is economically backwards, completely insane, bad for productivity and simply unfair too.
What should happen is the triple lock should end, the pension age be raised, public sector final salary pensions reformed, and co-funding should be introduced into healthcare, the same way it has now with private pensions.
Big savings in spending offered by all of those but would require immensely strong political leadership.
Public sector final salary pensions were reformed in 2015. I can assure you mine was. It is now both heavily contributory and accrues on the basis of earnings.
But admitting that takes away one of your standard straw men.
I think all three of Casino's point's are moot, and perhaps verging on the fantastical. Maybe a suitable agenda for around 1994; this is now 2023 .
1 - As you say, Public Sector pensions have been heavily reformed. I have a family member working for the health regulators, who has been continually in a cleft stick between a Health Service pension scheme, and a Civil Servant pension scheme because UKHSA is not quite proper Health Service to some - the employer wants the staff on the cheapest one they can of course.
2 - The UK has been adjusting it's pension age since John Major's time (Pensions Act 1995), and we are now towards the higher end in Europe with a further rise from 66 to 67 in 2026-2028. Plus we have one of the stronger demographic profiles in Western Europe.
3 - The Triple Lock has added at most a small amount - when I calculated it I made it 5-6% a year over inflationary increases since 2010 or whenever it was. The inchoate political fury this generates is bizarre, as is the weight put on it.
There may be other appropriate reforms; they are not these imo.
I'd say that adjustments need to be on the revenue side more than the cost side - perhaps 80:20 or higher. We have have nearly 15 years of salami-slicing, and it is time to reverse ferret - which is why I hope Mr Starmer has some significant rebalancing proposals.
On 2, stagger the pension age (25% at one age, 50% a couple of years later and so on) to reflect the way people actually retire at quite different ages and also often move through part time in between.
On 3, if its so bizarre and minimal, supporters of the triple lock will be quite happy to give up such a trivial benefit to do their bit.
This is interesting re unexpected tax on state pensions, which don't have PAYE deducted because HMG is so useless. And for the sneakily worded denial by HMG. The problem is, as the article makes clear, that a lot of state pensions are above the basic flat rate pension on account of SERPS etc.
There is nothing new about any of this. Fiscal drag + wealthier pensioners mean more have to deal with it. (Lots of interest payments on deposits are also paid gross). All state pensioners know that the state pension is paid gross but is taxable. It makes life a bit simpler for a few million poorer pensioners who don't have to interact with HMRC to get back tax they should not have paid in the first place.
On fiscal drag, BTW, this means that millions of FT workers only on minimum wage are paying thousands in IT/NI, which is nuts.
Sure but lots of people don't know that. That's part of the problem.
On the minimum wage: quite so.
As suggested in the article, these are SERPS Second Pensions, which are on top of the state pension but afaics still state payments - with no "PAYE-type" system existing to collect any tax owed,
The cost effective way to collect that, I would suggest, is to create one rather than have up to 2 million more tax returns to deal with.
It is a couple of years away, so there should be time to tackle it - if we had a Government that thought more than 10 minutes in advance.
Of course the 2 state solution is dead. There are not two states to do a deal. Israel has occupied and chopped up the West Bank - partly for justified security reasons, partly for religious nut job reasons. And Gaza is a terrorist enclave.
Is not the simple truth that the 2 state solution was never on because the Muslim crazies cannot sanction the Jewish state, and the Jewish crazies are happy to replicate terror with terror of their own.
The crank left repeat the end game: from the river to the sea. A one state solution- the creation for the first time of a Palestinian nation state where Israel now is. So park holier-than-thou we are the oppressed the Jew uniquely is Bad no that isn’t anti-Semitic cos the Jeremy wasn’t how dare you bullshit from the crank left. They don’t want 2 states, they want to remove Israel from existence.
Worse for Israel, remove them from the map is the policy of Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Hamas, Hesbollah, Islamic Jihad etc etc etc. the idea that Israel is the aggressor doesn’t stand up to logic or sanity.
No, and I don’t think this sort of dismissive simplification helps.
We have been much closer to a working 2-state solution in the past. I don’t see the evidence that is was “never on”. Whether it is feasible now after years of continued Israeli settlements in the West Bank is a harder question.
Happy to debate it! My “never on” point was that even back in 2000, the proposed Palestinian state wasn’t acceptable to the Palestinians who preferred war to compromise. The risk to Israel from the Palestinians was the driver of the Israeli demands for compromise, as then demonstrated by the Palestinian switch from peace negotiations to war.
If a viable state couldn’t be founded then, I can’t see how it would be founded now. And again, it is difficult to do so when the elected government is pledged to the destruction of the other state, a position shared by surrounding countries like Iran.
We can’t just give the Israeli governments permission do what they like - some of their acts have been wilfully criminal. But I can understand their position better when most of their neighbours and the counterparty in a 2 state negotiation are pledged to their destruction
What’s telling is that within hours of news of the attacks by Hamas, well before any Israeli retaliation, large numbers of people were out demonstrating - against Israel.
That can only be explained by deep-rooted anti-semitism among those protestors.
"From the River to the Sea". The crank left blame the Jews for violence against Jews. Every pogrom in history is the fault of the victims, the jews bring it on themselves.
Look at the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign statement when Hamas brought medieval slaughter into Israle. No condemnation of beheading babies, no no, its the Jew's fault, and that the just thing to do is to stand in solidarity with the Hamas beheaders. https://palestinecampaign.org/psc-statement-on-escalation-of-violence/
If that isn't anti-semitism, what is?
I wonder if there’s something in the human brain that predisposes us to loathe Jews. Occasionally, I’ve found myself thinking nasty thoughts, before the rational part of my brain kicks in and says, “Why are you thinking that?”
Maybe something sub-conscious anchored in the origins of Christianity and Islam (both of which split from an original sort of common Judaism), their relative success over history, including the fact no-one really likes money-lending, and the predisposition to suspicion toward tightly-knit successful groups?
But, as I said the other day, Israel is where all left-wing prejudices meet.
Indications are emerging that they plan to cut IHT and/or Stamp Duty next Spring. That would be electioneering in its purest form.
IHT should not be cut. Tax on unearned wealth needs to be increased not decreased.
Totally. And surely we don't want to be (yet again) trying to prop up the housing market either. I can hardly think of 2 less suitable things for a government to be doing right now. Still, I'm not 20 points behind in the polls with an election looming. Walk a mile in the other man's shoes etc.
All these word clouds are very dispiriting derogatory and cynical. There seems very little positivity about our country any more, as demonstrated by these opinions of all our leaders.
There used to be a time when we believed in the future, but those optimistic days are gone.
Brexit fractured the country and there's no way of unfracturing it. There is no commonality of purpose anymore. The country is even more split than it was in 2016. I notice that even support for Israel or Palestine divided most clearly down Leavers and Remainers.
I think that divide is probably simply showing the Median age of Remainers is lower than Leavers.
All these word clouds are very dispiriting derogatory and cynical. There seems very little positivity about our country any more, as demonstrated by these opinions of all our leaders.
There used to be a time when we believed in the future, but those optimistic days are gone.
Slagging off of non tory politicians is overdone imo. Most are ok to good. And with this one isn't he 'useless' mainly because it sounds like Yousaf? - although it doesn't really, you have to totally change the 2nd syllable and there are only 2 syllables.
My point is it's more a nickname (like he'd maybe have got at school, kids being what they are) than a qualitative assessment of the man himself. Nicknames can stick. Mine was Chimp. Originally due to prowess at climbing things but after a while most of the people calling me it didn't know that. Same going on here (to some extent) with the Scottish First Minister. Lots of the people calling him useless actually probably like him or don't have an opinion either way.
A thought experiment to prove my point: Imagine his name was Humza Robinson. One can't say what word would dominate his word cloud then but no way would it be 'useless'. QED.
If you boil this post down, it's just partisanship.
Your view is that slagging off Tory politicians is fine but doing it to non-Tory politicians is just not cricket.
Kini didn't mention Tory pols, and indeed he's one of the few on PB IIRC who don't like the use of nicknames, eg.Boris for Mr Johnson.
What should happen is the triple lock should end, the pension age be raised, public sector final salary pensions reformed, and co-funding should be introduced into healthcare, the same way it has now with private pensions.
Big savings in spending offered by all of those but would require immensely strong political leadership.
Public sector final salary pensions were reformed in 2015. I can assure you mine was. It is now both heavily contributory and accrues on the basis of earnings.
But admitting that takes away one of your standard straw men.
I think all three of Casino's point's are moot, and perhaps verging on the fantastical. Maybe a suitable agenda for around 1994; this is now 2023 .
1 - As you say, Public Sector pensions have been heavily reformed. I have a family member working for the health regulators, who has been continually in a cleft stick between a Health Service pension scheme, and a Civil Servant pension scheme because UKHSA is not quite proper Health Service to some - the employer wants the staff on the cheapest one they can of course.
2 - The UK has been adjusting it's pension age since John Major's time (Pensions Act 1995), and we are now towards the higher end in Europe with a further rise from 66 to 67 in 2026-2028. Plus we have one of the stronger demographic profiles in Western Europe.
3 - The Triple Lock has added at most a small amount - when I calculated it I made it 5-6% a year over inflationary increases since 2010 or whenever it was. The inchoate political fury this generates is bizarre, as is the weight put on it.
There may be other appropriate reforms; they are not these imo.
I'd say that adjustments need to be on the revenue side more than the cost side - perhaps 80:20 or higher. We have have nearly 15 years of salami-slicing, and it is time to reverse ferret - which is why I hope Mr Starmer has some significant rebalancing proposals.
On 2, stagger the pension age (25% at one age, 50% a couple of years later and so on) to reflect the way people actually retire at quite different ages and also often move through part time in between.
On 3, if its so bizarre and minimal, supporters of the triple lock will be quite happy to give up such a trivial benefit to do their bit.
This is interesting re unexpected tax on state pensions, which don't have PAYE deducted because HMG is so useless. And for the sneakily worded denial by HMG. The problem is, as the article makes clear, that a lot of state pensions are above the basic flat rate pension on account of SERPS etc.
There is nothing new about any of this. Fiscal drag + wealthier pensioners mean more have to deal with it. (Lots of interest payments on deposits are also paid gross). All state pensioners know that the state pension is paid gross but is taxable. It makes life a bit simpler for a few million poorer pensioners who don't have to interact with HMRC to get back tax they should not have paid in the first place.
On fiscal drag, BTW, this means that millions of FT workers only on minimum wage are paying thousands in IT/NI, which is nuts.
Sure but lots of people don't know that. That's part of the problem.
On the minimum wage: quite so.
As suggested in the article, these are SERPS Second Pensions, which are on top of the state pension but afaics still state payments - with no "PAYE-type" system existing to collect any tax owed,
The cost effective way to collect that, I would suggest, is to create one rather than have up to 2 million more tax returns to deal with.
It is a couple of years away, so there should be time to tackle it - if we had a Government that thought more than 10 minutes in advance.
And giving anyone with a state pension of any size a P60 for each tax year would be a huge improvement when it comes to checking tax (needs to be done even if there is no return to make otax to pay). As I know from doing c. 20 tax returns for my parents.
All these word clouds are very dispiriting derogatory and cynical. There seems very little positivity about our country any more, as demonstrated by these opinions of all our leaders.
There used to be a time when we believed in the future, but those optimistic days are gone.
Slagging off of non tory politicians is overdone imo. Most are ok to good. And with this one isn't he 'useless' mainly because it sounds like Yousaf? - although it doesn't really, you have to totally change the 2nd syllable and there are only 2 syllables.
My point is it's more a nickname (like he'd maybe have got at school, kids being what they are) than a qualitative assessment of the man himself. Nicknames can stick. Mine was Chimp. Originally due to prowess at climbing things but after a while most of the people calling me it didn't know that. Same going on here (to some extent) with the Scottish First Minister. Lots of the people calling him useless actually probably like him or don't have an opinion either way.
A thought experiment to prove my point: Imagine his name was Humza Robinson. One can't say what word would dominate his word cloud then but no way would it be 'useless'. QED.
If you boil this post down, it's just partisanship.
Your view is that slagging off Tory politicians is fine but doing it to non-Tory politicians is just not cricket.
Kini didn't mention Tory pols, and indeed he's one of the few on PB IIRC who don't like the use of nicknames, eg.Boris for Mr Johnson.
All these word clouds are very dispiriting derogatory and cynical. There seems very little positivity about our country any more, as demonstrated by these opinions of all our leaders.
There used to be a time when we believed in the future, but those optimistic days are gone.
Slagging off of non tory politicians is overdone imo. Most are ok to good. And with this one isn't he 'useless' mainly because it sounds like Yousaf? - although it doesn't really, you have to totally change the 2nd syllable and there are only 2 syllables.
My point is it's more a nickname (like he'd maybe have got at school, kids being what they are) than a qualitative assessment of the man himself. Nicknames can stick. Mine was Chimp. Originally due to prowess at climbing things but after a while most of the people calling me it didn't know that. Same going on here (to some extent) with the Scottish First Minister. Lots of the people calling him useless actually probably like him or don't have an opinion either way.
A thought experiment to prove my point: Imagine his name was Humza Robinson. One can't say what word would dominate his word cloud then but no way would it be 'useless'. QED.
If you boil this post down, it's just partisanship.
Your view is that slagging off Tory politicians is fine but doing it to non-Tory politicians is just not cricket.
Kini didn't mention Tory pols, and indeed he's one of the few on PB IIRC who don't like the use of nicknames, eg.Boris for Mr Johnson.
eh? Boris is his chosen name
It is his *chosen* name - very much part of his self created persona. As problematic in its way as saying, e.g. Useless or Beer Korma.
Indications are emerging that they plan to cut IHT and/or Stamp Duty next Spring. That would be electioneering in its purest form.
Would it? Kwasi Kwarteng cut stamp duty a year ago without lasting benefit to Liz Truss's or the Conservatives' popularity. The IHT threshold could be raised, or standardised at £1 million for all families not just married ones, but abolition would be greeted by a million Labour posterstweets Xs saying how much squillionaires Rishi and Jeremy Hunt would benefit.
A little story for a wet Friday night. Near my house I found a wallet in the road. When opening it I found a bank card, some cash, a library and a youth club card. And also a front door key. The person who dropped it is 14 and could be locked out so I set out to find him….1/6 https://twitter.com/ConfedMatthew/status/1715404477275009458
57 years ago today the collapse of tip no 7 at Aberfan happened.
If only we'd learnt the lessons.....
But no.
We continue to put the interests of institutions above those they are meant to serve and treat the victims with callousness and indifference. See the Post Office, Grenfell, blood contamination, Hillsborough etc.,
I wrote about it here - https://www.cyclefree.co.uk/the-price-of-indifference/. It is what I am proudest of writing. It personal because that lack of human empathy and indifference is what so often goes wrong - not just in the events leading up to the tragedy - but in the investigations afterwards and in how we treat those affected. Empathy and emotional intelligence are key to any good investigation and to trying to ensure that we try to avoid the same problems recurring. They are so often lacking, indeed regarded as inessential. And it is why the same problems happen over and over and over again.
Aberfan and its aftermath taught us that.
If you have time please read.
Glad I followed the link. The next example will probably be the NHS managers in the Lucy Letby case.
All these word clouds are very dispiriting derogatory and cynical. There seems very little positivity about our country any more, as demonstrated by these opinions of all our leaders.
There used to be a time when we believed in the future, but those optimistic days are gone.
Slagging off of non tory politicians is overdone imo. Most are ok to good. And with this one isn't he 'useless' mainly because it sounds like Yousaf? - although it doesn't really, you have to totally change the 2nd syllable and there are only 2 syllables.
My point is it's more a nickname (like he'd maybe have got at school, kids being what they are) than a qualitative assessment of the man himself. Nicknames can stick. Mine was Chimp. Originally due to prowess at climbing things but after a while most of the people calling me it didn't know that. Same going on here (to some extent) with the Scottish First Minister. Lots of the people calling him useless actually probably like him or don't have an opinion either way.
A thought experiment to prove my point: Imagine his name was Humza Robinson. One can't say what word would dominate his word cloud then but no way would it be 'useless'. QED.
If you boil this post down, it's just partisanship.
Your view is that slagging off Tory politicians is fine but doing it to non-Tory politicians is just not cricket.
Kini didn't mention Tory pols, and indeed he's one of the few on PB IIRC who don't like the use of nicknames, eg.Boris for Mr Johnson.
He said slagging off of non Tory politicians is overdone, the implication being that doing it to Tory politicians is not.
If the point was that doing it to politicians overall was overdone then "Tory", as the fulcrum, would not have been mentioned at all.
All these word clouds are very dispiriting derogatory and cynical. There seems very little positivity about our country any more, as demonstrated by these opinions of all our leaders.
There used to be a time when we believed in the future, but those optimistic days are gone.
Slagging off of non tory politicians is overdone imo. Most are ok to good. And with this one isn't he 'useless' mainly because it sounds like Yousaf? - although it doesn't really, you have to totally change the 2nd syllable and there are only 2 syllables.
My point is it's more a nickname (like he'd maybe have got at school, kids being what they are) than a qualitative assessment of the man himself. Nicknames can stick. Mine was Chimp. Originally due to prowess at climbing things but after a while most of the people calling me it didn't know that. Same going on here (to some extent) with the Scottish First Minister. Lots of the people calling him useless actually probably like him or don't have an opinion either way.
A thought experiment to prove my point: Imagine his name was Humza Robinson. One can't say what word would dominate his word cloud then but no way would it be 'useless'. QED.
If you boil this post down, it's just partisanship.
Your view is that slagging off Tory politicians is fine but doing it to non-Tory politicians is just not cricket.
Kini didn't mention Tory pols, and indeed he's one of the few on PB IIRC who don't like the use of nicknames, eg.Boris for Mr Johnson.
eh? Boris is his chosen name
It is his *chosen* name - very much part of his self created persona. As problematic in its way as saying, e.g. Useless or Beer Korma.
Indications are emerging that they plan to cut IHT and/or Stamp Duty next Spring. That would be electioneering in its purest form.
It's not electioneering, it's simply being so far out of touch it's insane.
The problems in our tax system that need addressing are the insanely high marginal tax rates people have to pay, especially at cliff edges. Not IHT.
Stamp Duty shouldn't be cut, it should be abolished in full along with Council Tax and replaced with a LVT. Taxing mobility is a bloody stupid idea.
IHT is far more unpopular than it ought to be.
IMHO, the government should uprate personal allowances with inflation.
I think part of the problem is that IHT opposition plays on emotions. Death is sad, mournful, taxes aren't pleasant at the best of times, so the idea of a "death tax" is doubly-unpopular as the two get unreasonably linked.
Take the emotion out of it, there should not be a specific Inheritance Tax. Simply report any income from Inheritances as part of Income. Have probate handle the tax side like PAYE so it is deducted at source, at the relevant recipients income tax rate (which should include what is currently NI of course), like any other income.
Start taxing all incomes no matter how they're earned at the same rate and there'll be plenty of revenues to end any obscene cliff edge rates via tax cuts and simplification, as well as to spend on investing in the country too.
All these word clouds are very dispiriting derogatory and cynical. There seems very little positivity about our country any more, as demonstrated by these opinions of all our leaders.
There used to be a time when we believed in the future, but those optimistic days are gone.
Slagging off of non tory politicians is overdone imo. Most are ok to good. And with this one isn't he 'useless' mainly because it sounds like Yousaf? - although it doesn't really, you have to totally change the 2nd syllable and there are only 2 syllables.
My point is it's more a nickname (like he'd maybe have got at school, kids being what they are) than a qualitative assessment of the man himself. Nicknames can stick. Mine was Chimp. Originally due to prowess at climbing things but after a while most of the people calling me it didn't know that. Same going on here (to some extent) with the Scottish First Minister. Lots of the people calling him useless actually probably like him or don't have an opinion either way.
A thought experiment to prove my point: Imagine his name was Humza Robinson. One can't say what word would dominate his word cloud then but no way would it be 'useless'. QED.
If you boil this post down, it's just partisanship.
Your view is that slagging off Tory politicians is fine but doing it to non-Tory politicians is just not cricket.
Kini didn't mention Tory pols, and indeed he's one of the few on PB IIRC who don't like the use of nicknames, eg.Boris for Mr Johnson.
He said slagging off of non Tory politicians is overdone, the implication being that doing it to Tory politicians is not.
If the point was that doing it to politicians overall was overdone then "Tory", as the fulcrum, would not have been mentioned at all.
No. The clear implication is fair shares equally. Your interpretation is one assumption too far.
Indications are emerging that they plan to cut IHT and/or Stamp Duty next Spring. That would be electioneering in its purest form.
IHT should not be cut. Tax on unearned wealth needs to be increased not decreased.
Totally. And surely we don't want to be (yet again) trying to prop up the housing market either. I can hardly think of 2 less suitable things for a government to be doing right now. Still, I'm not 20 points behind in the polls with an election looming. Walk a mile in the other man's shoes etc.
The graduated stamp duty system we have now works well. However we don't want any more distortions such as Help to Buy or ISAs available simply to support paying a deposit (LISAs) as these simply artificially inflate the housing market
And of course a large stamp duty loading for second properties is a good thing. We have 3% here but Scotland now has 6%. Can't we have 6% too? 👍
Of course the 2 state solution is dead. There are not two states to do a deal. Israel has occupied and chopped up the West Bank - partly for justified security reasons, partly for religious nut job reasons. And Gaza is a terrorist enclave.
Is not the simple truth that the 2 state solution was never on because the Muslim crazies cannot sanction the Jewish state, and the Jewish crazies are happy to replicate terror with terror of their own.
The crank left repeat the end game: from the river to the sea. A one state solution- the creation for the first time of a Palestinian nation state where Israel now is. So park holier-than-thou we are the oppressed the Jew uniquely is Bad no that isn’t anti-Semitic cos the Jeremy wasn’t how dare you bullshit from the crank left. They don’t want 2 states, they want to remove Israel from existence.
Worse for Israel, remove them from the map is the policy of Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Hamas, Hesbollah, Islamic Jihad etc etc etc. the idea that Israel is the aggressor doesn’t stand up to logic or sanity.
No, and I don’t think this sort of dismissive simplification helps.
We have been much closer to a working 2-state solution in the past. I don’t see the evidence that is was “never on”. Whether it is feasible now after years of continued Israeli settlements in the West Bank is a harder question.
Happy to debate it! My “never on” point was that even back in 2000, the proposed Palestinian state wasn’t acceptable to the Palestinians who preferred war to compromise. The risk to Israel from the Palestinians was the driver of the Israeli demands for compromise, as then demonstrated by the Palestinian switch from peace negotiations to war.
If a viable state couldn’t be founded then, I can’t see how it would be founded now. And again, it is difficult to do so when the elected government is pledged to the destruction of the other state, a position shared by surrounding countries like Iran.
We can’t just give the Israeli governments permission do what they like - some of their acts have been wilfully criminal. But I can understand their position better when most of their neighbours and the counterparty in a 2 state negotiation are pledged to their destruction
2000 was the time that I was in the West Bank. Even then the Apartheid occupation had made a viable West Bank Palestinian state impossible, being cut into tiny Bantustans by settlements, settler only roads and military roadblocks. The contrast with the liberality and freedom of Tel Aviv was striking.
The only peace Israel envisages for the West Bank is permanent armed occupation.
Indications are emerging that they plan to cut IHT and/or Stamp Duty next Spring. That would be electioneering in its purest form.
IHT should not be cut. Tax on unearned wealth needs to be increased not decreased.
If the Tories abolish IHT then Labour should just make Income Tax apply in full to all Inheritances. No special IHT rate or allowances.
Unearned and earned income should be taxed at the same rate. And if not the same rate, then unearned should be taxed higher.
Instead presently earned salaries are the highest taxed thing around, it is economically backwards, completely insane, bad for productivity and simply unfair too.
Agreeing with Bart again on the first point - one simple reform of IHT would be:
1 - Transfer liability to the recipient. 2 - Treat anything received as income (debatable over which year (year of death, year of probate or year of distribution) - which will give a tax free allowance of up to the level of the Personal Allowance, and an IHT tax rate with a maximum marginal rate of the same as the Additional Rate of income tax. That's ignoring the Gordon Brown special tax rate when the Personal Allowance is withdrawn.
Other wrinkles are also needed - such as addressing lifetime gifts, especially the "tax free regular gifts out of income not needed by the giver to live on", which creates the possibility of large tax free incomes for the children of wealthy people. I think I have summarised that correctly - that one just needs to be abolished.
The quality of new housing is often dreadful. It's because the market isn't functioning and the developers know they can sell anything no matter how bad. The only real answer, short of massively increasing supply, is much more effective regulation through building control. Make it cost them if they build substandard.
On Humza, the "useless" tag is baked in. I really doubt he can ever overcome it, unfairly or fairly. And there will be never ending bad news so far as public services in Scotland are concerned between now and the GE. Them's the breaks.
Of course the 2 state solution is dead. There are not two states to do a deal. Israel has occupied and chopped up the West Bank - partly for justified security reasons, partly for religious nut job reasons. And Gaza is a terrorist enclave.
Is not the simple truth that the 2 state solution was never on because the Muslim crazies cannot sanction the Jewish state, and the Jewish crazies are happy to replicate terror with terror of their own.
The crank left repeat the end game: from the river to the sea. A one state solution- the creation for the first time of a Palestinian nation state where Israel now is. So park holier-than-thou we are the oppressed the Jew uniquely is Bad no that isn’t anti-Semitic cos the Jeremy wasn’t how dare you bullshit from the crank left. They don’t want 2 states, they want to remove Israel from existence.
Worse for Israel, remove them from the map is the policy of Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Hamas, Hesbollah, Islamic Jihad etc etc etc. the idea that Israel is the aggressor doesn’t stand up to logic or sanity.
No, and I don’t think this sort of dismissive simplification helps.
We have been much closer to a working 2-state solution in the past. I don’t see the evidence that is was “never on”. Whether it is feasible now after years of continued Israeli settlements in the West Bank is a harder question.
Happy to debate it! My “never on” point was that even back in 2000, the proposed Palestinian state wasn’t acceptable to the Palestinians who preferred war to compromise. The risk to Israel from the Palestinians was the driver of the Israeli demands for compromise, as then demonstrated by the Palestinian switch from peace negotiations to war.
If a viable state couldn’t be founded then, I can’t see how it would be founded now. And again, it is difficult to do so when the elected government is pledged to the destruction of the other state, a position shared by surrounding countries like Iran.
We can’t just give the Israeli governments permission do what they like - some of their acts have been wilfully criminal. But I can understand their position better when most of their neighbours and the counterparty in a 2 state negotiation are pledged to their destruction
What’s telling is that within hours of news of the attacks by Hamas, well before any Israeli retaliation, large numbers of people were out demonstrating - against Israel.
That can only be explained by deep-rooted anti-semitism among those protestors.
"From the River to the Sea". The crank left blame the Jews for violence against Jews. Every pogrom in history is the fault of the victims, the jews bring it on themselves.
Look at the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign statement when Hamas brought medieval slaughter into Israle. No condemnation of beheading babies, no no, its the Jew's fault, and that the just thing to do is to stand in solidarity with the Hamas beheaders. https://palestinecampaign.org/psc-statement-on-escalation-of-violence/
If that isn't anti-semitism, what is?
I wonder if there’s something in the human brain that predisposes us to loathe Jews. Occasionally, I’ve found myself thinking nasty thoughts, before the rational part of my brain kicks in and says, “Why are you thinking that?”
Maybe something sub-conscious anchored in the origins of Christianity and Islam (both of which split from an original sort of common Judaism), their relative success over history, including the fact no-one really likes money-lending, and the predisposition to suspicion toward tightly-knit successful groups?
But, as I said the other day, Israel is where all left-wing prejudices meet.
On the Christian side, the Jerusalem debate (as recorded in Acts of the Apostles) wrt whether Christians should be subject to the demands of Jewish Ritual Law is interesting background, and whether the Christian message was intended for Gentiles.
St Paul essentially won that debate, and we are where we are.
That's one part of scripture that has been used (imo abused) to try and justify hostility to Jewish people.
Indications are emerging that they plan to cut IHT and/or Stamp Duty next Spring. That would be electioneering in its purest form.
IHT should not be cut. Tax on unearned wealth needs to be increased not decreased.
If the Tories abolish IHT then Labour should just make Income Tax apply in full to all Inheritances. No special IHT rate or allowances.
Unearned and earned income should be taxed at the same rate. And if not the same rate, then unearned should be taxed higher.
Instead presently earned salaries are the highest taxed thing around, it is economically backwards, completely insane, bad for productivity and simply unfair too.
In a general sense I agree with you, but I think you neglect the practical difficulties involved.
One of the reasons that income from employment is relatively highly taxed is because it is relatively easy to tax (although there are limits, hence IR35). Inheritance is much harder to tax. If a house, for example, is not owned by your parent, and doesn't pass into your ownership on their death, but remains, undisturbed, in the ownership some sort of beneficial family trust, then what inheritance is there to tax?
I agree that inheritance should be taxed, as unearned income, but doing so effectively, fairly and simply appears to be quite difficult. This is why something like land value tax, or proportional property tax, are more attractive alternatives.
The bold move from Labour would be to abolish IHT themselves, on the basis that it's only paid by those just wealthy enough to have assets above the threshold, but not wealthy enough to set up all the trusts and other legal ruses that enable the very rich to avoid most of it. And in its place bring in more effective ways of taxing unearned income and accumulated wealth.
Indications are emerging that they plan to cut IHT and/or Stamp Duty next Spring. That would be electioneering in its purest form.
IHT should not be cut. Tax on unearned wealth needs to be increased not decreased.
If the Tories abolish IHT then Labour should just make Income Tax apply in full to all Inheritances. No special IHT rate or allowances.
Unearned and earned income should be taxed at the same rate. And if not the same rate, then unearned should be taxed higher.
Instead presently earned salaries are the highest taxed thing around, it is economically backwards, completely insane, bad for productivity and simply unfair too.
Agreeing with Bart again on the first point - one simple reform of IHT would be:
1 - Transfer liability to the recipient. 2 - Treat anything received as income (debatable over which year (year of death, year of probate or year of distribution) - which will give a tax free allowance of up to the level of the Personal Allowance, and an IHT tax rate with a maximum marginal rate of the same as the Additional Rate of income tax. That's ignoring the Gordon Brown special tax rate when the Personal Allowance is withdrawn.
Other wrinkles are also needed - such as addressing lifetime gifts, especially the "tax free regular gifts out of income not needed by the giver to live on", which creates the possibility of large tax free incomes for the children of wealthy people. I think I have summarised that correctly - that one just needs to be abolished.
The special tax rate is one of those anomalies that should be abolished in full in any comprehensive tax changes, and that abolition could be easily afforded by changing taxes such as is being discussed.
There should not be any cliff edges. If you want to argue for a higher tax rate at £100k then it should be higher whether £100k or £500k or £10mn, not a mammoth cliff edge at £100k, then dropping down afterwards again.
Especially with current insanities such as that someone on £101k takes home considerably less than someone on £99k. That should never be the case.
Indications are emerging that they plan to cut IHT and/or Stamp Duty next Spring. That would be electioneering in its purest form.
IHT should not be cut. Tax on unearned wealth needs to be increased not decreased.
If the Tories abolish IHT then Labour should just make Income Tax apply in full to all Inheritances. No special IHT rate or allowances.
Unearned and earned income should be taxed at the same rate. And if not the same rate, then unearned should be taxed higher.
Instead presently earned salaries are the highest taxed thing around, it is economically backwards, completely insane, bad for productivity and simply unfair too.
Agreeing with Bart again on the first point - one simple reform of IHT would be:
1 - Transfer liability to the recipient. 2 - Treat anything received as income (debatable over which year (year of death, year of probate or year of distribution) - which will give a tax free allowance of up to the level of the Personal Allowance, and an IHT tax rate with a maximum marginal rate of the same as the Additional Rate of income tax. That's ignoring the Gordon Brown special tax rate when the Personal Allowance is withdrawn.
Other wrinkles are also needed - such as addressing lifetime gifts, especially the "tax free regular gifts out of income not needed by the giver to live on", which creates the possibility of large tax free incomes for the children of wealthy people. I think I have summarised that correctly - that one just needs to be abolished.
And a massive tightening of this loophole over agricultural land. Supposed to be for genuine family farmers handing on not for fat cats who are buying land to avoid IHT.
Of course the 2 state solution is dead. There are not two states to do a deal. Israel has occupied and chopped up the West Bank - partly for justified security reasons, partly for religious nut job reasons. And Gaza is a terrorist enclave.
Is not the simple truth that the 2 state solution was never on because the Muslim crazies cannot sanction the Jewish state, and the Jewish crazies are happy to replicate terror with terror of their own.
The crank left repeat the end game: from the river to the sea. A one state solution- the creation for the first time of a Palestinian nation state where Israel now is. So park holier-than-thou we are the oppressed the Jew uniquely is Bad no that isn’t anti-Semitic cos the Jeremy wasn’t how dare you bullshit from the crank left. They don’t want 2 states, they want to remove Israel from existence.
Worse for Israel, remove them from the map is the policy of Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Hamas, Hesbollah, Islamic Jihad etc etc etc. the idea that Israel is the aggressor doesn’t stand up to logic or sanity.
No, and I don’t think this sort of dismissive simplification helps.
We have been much closer to a working 2-state solution in the past. I don’t see the evidence that is was “never on”. Whether it is feasible now after years of continued Israeli settlements in the West Bank is a harder question.
Happy to debate it! My “never on” point was that even back in 2000, the proposed Palestinian state wasn’t acceptable to the Palestinians who preferred war to compromise. The risk to Israel from the Palestinians was the driver of the Israeli demands for compromise, as then demonstrated by the Palestinian switch from peace negotiations to war.
If a viable state couldn’t be founded then, I can’t see how it would be founded now. And again, it is difficult to do so when the elected government is pledged to the destruction of the other state, a position shared by surrounding countries like Iran.
We can’t just give the Israeli governments permission do what they like - some of their acts have been wilfully criminal. But I can understand their position better when most of their neighbours and the counterparty in a 2 state negotiation are pledged to their destruction
What’s telling is that within hours of news of the attacks by Hamas, well before any Israeli retaliation, large numbers of people were out demonstrating - against Israel.
That can only be explained by deep-rooted anti-semitism among those protestors.
"From the River to the Sea". The crank left blame the Jews for violence against Jews. Every pogrom in history is the fault of the victims, the jews bring it on themselves.
Look at the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign statement when Hamas brought medieval slaughter into Israle. No condemnation of beheading babies, no no, its the Jew's fault, and that the just thing to do is to stand in solidarity with the Hamas beheaders. https://palestinecampaign.org/psc-statement-on-escalation-of-violence/
If that isn't anti-semitism, what is?
I wonder if there’s something in the human brain that predisposes us to loathe Jews. Occasionally, I’ve found myself thinking nasty thoughts, before the rational part of my brain kicks in and says, “Why are you thinking that?”
Personally, I find antisemitism quite baffling. While I can understand, though of course not condone racism as fear of those who look different, and xenophobia and religious intolerance as fear of those who behave differently, I can see no reason why Jews should be singled out for hatred any more than any other group. I simply don't understand why just being Jewish appears to provoke such strong antipathy in so many people. Although I am atheist and find all religion a bit weird, I don't find Judaism any odder or more threatening than other religions.
Indications are emerging that they plan to cut IHT and/or Stamp Duty next Spring. That would be electioneering in its purest form.
IHT should not be cut. Tax on unearned wealth needs to be increased not decreased.
If the Tories abolish IHT then Labour should just make Income Tax apply in full to all Inheritances. No special IHT rate or allowances.
Unearned and earned income should be taxed at the same rate. And if not the same rate, then unearned should be taxed higher.
Instead presently earned salaries are the highest taxed thing around, it is economically backwards, completely insane, bad for productivity and simply unfair too.
Cancelling IHT is a good one for Tories since it will force Labour to say what they would do and putting it straight back on would probably not be a good idea for them.
I presume chess-playing Reeves has wargamed out what to do if Sunak does abolish IHT.
Of course the 2 state solution is dead. There are not two states to do a deal. Israel has occupied and chopped up the West Bank - partly for justified security reasons, partly for religious nut job reasons. And Gaza is a terrorist enclave.
Is not the simple truth that the 2 state solution was never on because the Muslim crazies cannot sanction the Jewish state, and the Jewish crazies are happy to replicate terror with terror of their own.
The crank left repeat the end game: from the river to the sea. A one state solution- the creation for the first time of a Palestinian nation state where Israel now is. So park holier-than-thou we are the oppressed the Jew uniquely is Bad no that isn’t anti-Semitic cos the Jeremy wasn’t how dare you bullshit from the crank left. They don’t want 2 states, they want to remove Israel from existence.
Worse for Israel, remove them from the map is the policy of Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Hamas, Hesbollah, Islamic Jihad etc etc etc. the idea that Israel is the aggressor doesn’t stand up to logic or sanity.
Well, it's for the two parties to the conflict to negotiate and come to whatever settlement they can both accept. Not sure why we should try to have that negotiation for them.
What we can do is to try to help prepare the environment for such a negotiation, by encouraging confidence-building measures. And I think that is only possible if we properly understand the motivations of both sides of the conflict. I've spent the last two weeks feeling entirely hopeless about the conflict, because as far as I could tell it was mainly a very negative sum dispute over land. It's very hard to reach any agreement when that agreement would involve both sides having to crystallise large losses of land.
However, I now start to think that if you view the conflict slightly differently, it is possible to see a basis for an agreement. Israelis, I believe, are primarily concerned with a desire for security. Whereas Palestinians, I believe, are primarily motivated by a desire for justice. This is why the Oslo Peace Process foundered over the right of return. It was asking the Palestinians to give up on a large part of what they would see as a just peace. The Israeli emphasis on security is why the calls for an immediate ceasefire are naive and wrongheaded. In the absence of any confidence-building measure to restore Israel's security, then they must attempt to improve their security - even if just in the short-term - by damaging the ability of Hamas to attack them. So things still look a bit bleak in the short term, but in the long-term these competing desires for security and justice should be easier to reconcile than simply competing claims for the same land would be.
That reasonable and principled account neglects the fact that Netenyahu has spent years fracturing the Palestinians ability - and indeed desire - to negotiate by undermining Abbas in favour of Hamas.
(Which, incidentally, is one reason there was so little IDF presence on the border breached by the Hamas terrorists.)
A Gaza completely cut off from the West Bank makes that dynamic permanent.
Indications are emerging that they plan to cut IHT and/or Stamp Duty next Spring. That would be electioneering in its purest form.
Would it? Kwasi Kwarteng cut stamp duty a year ago without lasting benefit to Liz Truss's or the Conservatives' popularity. The IHT threshold could be raised, or standardised at £1 million for all families not just married ones, but abolition would be greeted by a million Labour posterstweets Xs saying how much squillionaires Rishi and Jeremy Hunt would benefit.
The problem with only millionaires paying IHT is that it encourages the idea that only millionaires should pay any tax.
Indications are emerging that they plan to cut IHT and/or Stamp Duty next Spring. That would be electioneering in its purest form.
Would it? Kwasi Kwarteng cut stamp duty a year ago without lasting benefit to Liz Truss's or the Conservatives' popularity. The IHT threshold could be raised, or standardised at £1 million for all families not just married ones, but abolition would be greeted by a million Labour posterstweets Xs saying how much squillionaires Rishi and Jeremy Hunt would benefit.
The problem with only millionaires paying IHT is that it encourages the idea that only millionaires should pay any tax.
Yes, the amount of politicians and think tanks suggesting Sainsbury's check if you are a millionaire before charging you VAT, fuel duty and alcohol duty is really getting out of hand.
Indications are emerging that they plan to cut IHT and/or Stamp Duty next Spring. That would be electioneering in its purest form.
It's not electioneering, it's simply being so far out of touch it's insane.
The problems in our tax system that need addressing are the insanely high marginal tax rates people have to pay, especially at cliff edges. Not IHT.
Stamp Duty shouldn't be cut, it should be abolished in full along with Council Tax and replaced with a LVT. Taxing mobility is a bloody stupid idea.
IHT is far more unpopular than it ought to be.
IMHO, the government should uprate personal allowances with inflation.
I must be one of the few on here who still thinks IHT unfair and the rate too high.
But, my top priority would be smoothing out all the crazy tax anomalies.
It wouldn't necessarily win huge numbers of votes straight away, but I think it's the right thing to do - both for people and the economy.
Agree with the latter part. The cliff edge and complication at £100k is moronic. It exists only so the government can claim the rate is still 40p, when anyone with half a brain cell knows that it is not. Just make it 45p if necessary but get rid of the ludicrous attack on the PA.
Indications are emerging that they plan to cut IHT and/or Stamp Duty next Spring. That would be electioneering in its purest form.
IHT should not be cut. Tax on unearned wealth needs to be increased not decreased.
If the Tories abolish IHT then Labour should just make Income Tax apply in full to all Inheritances. No special IHT rate or allowances.
Unearned and earned income should be taxed at the same rate. And if not the same rate, then unearned should be taxed higher.
Instead presently earned salaries are the highest taxed thing around, it is economically backwards, completely insane, bad for productivity and simply unfair too.
Agreeing with Bart again on the first point - one simple reform of IHT would be:
1 - Transfer liability to the recipient. 2 - Treat anything received as income (debatable over which year (year of death, year of probate or year of distribution) - which will give a tax free allowance of up to the level of the Personal Allowance, and an IHT tax rate with a maximum marginal rate of the same as the Additional Rate of income tax. That's ignoring the Gordon Brown special tax rate when the Personal Allowance is withdrawn.
Other wrinkles are also needed - such as addressing lifetime gifts, especially the "tax free regular gifts out of income not needed by the giver to live on", which creates the possibility of large tax free incomes for the children of wealthy people. I think I have summarised that correctly - that one just needs to be abolished.
The special tax rate is one of those anomalies that should be abolished in full in any comprehensive tax changes, and that abolition could be easily afforded by changing taxes such as is being discussed.
There should not be any cliff edges. If you want to argue for a higher tax rate at £100k then it should be higher whether £100k or £500k or £10mn, not a mammoth cliff edge at £100k, then dropping down afterwards again.
Especially with current insanities such as that someone on £101k takes home considerably less than someone on £99k. That should never be the case.
There is the related issue of benefits being stopped as you go into six figures. Whether people on £100,000 should be getting child benefits in the first place is a separate question but whatever your views on means-tested or universal benefits, that seems an odd cut-off.
Of course the 2 state solution is dead. There are not two states to do a deal. Israel has occupied and chopped up the West Bank - partly for justified security reasons, partly for religious nut job reasons. And Gaza is a terrorist enclave.
Is not the simple truth that the 2 state solution was never on because the Muslim crazies cannot sanction the Jewish state, and the Jewish crazies are happy to replicate terror with terror of their own.
The crank left repeat the end game: from the river to the sea. A one state solution- the creation for the first time of a Palestinian nation state where Israel now is. So park holier-than-thou we are the oppressed the Jew uniquely is Bad no that isn’t anti-Semitic cos the Jeremy wasn’t how dare you bullshit from the crank left. They don’t want 2 states, they want to remove Israel from existence.
Worse for Israel, remove them from the map is the policy of Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Hamas, Hesbollah, Islamic Jihad etc etc etc. the idea that Israel is the aggressor doesn’t stand up to logic or sanity.
No, and I don’t think this sort of dismissive simplification helps.
We have been much closer to a working 2-state solution in the past. I don’t see the evidence that is was “never on”. Whether it is feasible now after years of continued Israeli settlements in the West Bank is a harder question.
Happy to debate it! My “never on” point was that even back in 2000, the proposed Palestinian state wasn’t acceptable to the Palestinians who preferred war to compromise. The risk to Israel from the Palestinians was the driver of the Israeli demands for compromise, as then demonstrated by the Palestinian switch from peace negotiations to war.
If a viable state couldn’t be founded then, I can’t see how it would be founded now. And again, it is difficult to do so when the elected government is pledged to the destruction of the other state, a position shared by surrounding countries like Iran.
We can’t just give the Israeli governments permission do what they like - some of their acts have been wilfully criminal. But I can understand their position better when most of their neighbours and the counterparty in a 2 state negotiation are pledged to their destruction
2000 was the time that I was in the West Bank. Even then the Apartheid occupation had made a viable West Bank Palestinian state impossible, being cut into tiny Bantustans by settlements, settler only roads and military roadblocks. The contrast with the liberality and freedom of Tel Aviv was striking.
The only peace Israel envisages for the West Bank is permanent armed occupation.
Must have been an interesting time. I do remember reading about the divisions within the West Bank - not viable in that form as you say. But surely that position could have evolved - and the Israeli proposal was the evolution of land allocations, elevated roads / railways to connect Gaza etc.
Not perfect, but a start. Better than what we got instead.
Indications are emerging that they plan to cut IHT and/or Stamp Duty next Spring. That would be electioneering in its purest form.
Expect plenty of that in the next year.
Or Rishi Sunak really is a "useless" politician.
I'd love to see him run things calmly for this final year, do no harm, just keep the seat warm for SKS, but I guess that's not how the world works. GEs are what politics is all about once they get close. So I do cut him some slack. He has to give it everything, leave nothing on the pitch between now and next October. He has to somehow turn it around and avoid a real thrashing. Perhaps he can. 200 seats is the magic number. This is what Sunak will be aiming for and who's to say he can't do it?
Indications are emerging that they plan to cut IHT and/or Stamp Duty next Spring. That would be electioneering in its purest form.
IHT should not be cut. Tax on unearned wealth needs to be increased not decreased.
If the Tories abolish IHT then Labour should just make Income Tax apply in full to all Inheritances. No special IHT rate or allowances.
Unearned and earned income should be taxed at the same rate. And if not the same rate, then unearned should be taxed higher.
Instead presently earned salaries are the highest taxed thing around, it is economically backwards, completely insane, bad for productivity and simply unfair too.
Cancelling IHT is a good one for Tories since it will force Labour to say what they would do and putting it straight back on would probably not be a good idea for them.
I presume chess-playing Reeves has wargamed out what to do if Sunak does abolish IHT.
Where are the Tories going to find 7 billion a year to fund the IHT scrapping ?
The problem for the Tories is that whilst public services are crumbling tax cuts or scrapping the IHT just look like desperate attempts to grab votes whilst ignoring those issues.
Indications are emerging that they plan to cut IHT and/or Stamp Duty next Spring. That would be electioneering in its purest form.
IHT should not be cut. Tax on unearned wealth needs to be increased not decreased.
If the Tories abolish IHT then Labour should just make Income Tax apply in full to all Inheritances. No special IHT rate or allowances.
Unearned and earned income should be taxed at the same rate. And if not the same rate, then unearned should be taxed higher.
Instead presently earned salaries are the highest taxed thing around, it is economically backwards, completely insane, bad for productivity and simply unfair too.
Cancelling IHT is a good one for Tories since it will force Labour to say what they would do and putting it straight back on would probably not be a good idea for them.
I presume chess-playing Reeves has wargamed out what to do if Sunak does abolish IHT.
Where are the Tories going to find 7 billion a year to fund the IHT scrapping ?
The problem for the Tories is that whilst public services are crumbling tax cuts or scrapping the IHT just look like desperate attempts to grab votes whilst ignoring those issues.
Cut disability benefits and other payments for the workshy.
Indications are emerging that they plan to cut IHT and/or Stamp Duty next Spring. That would be electioneering in its purest form.
IHT should not be cut. Tax on unearned wealth needs to be increased not decreased.
If the Tories abolish IHT then Labour should just make Income Tax apply in full to all Inheritances. No special IHT rate or allowances.
Unearned and earned income should be taxed at the same rate. And if not the same rate, then unearned should be taxed higher.
Instead presently earned salaries are the highest taxed thing around, it is economically backwards, completely insane, bad for productivity and simply unfair too.
In a general sense I agree with you, but I think you neglect the practical difficulties involved.
One of the reasons that income from employment is relatively highly taxed is because it is relatively easy to tax (although there are limits, hence IR35). Inheritance is much harder to tax. If a house, for example, is not owned by your parent, and doesn't pass into your ownership on their death, but remains, undisturbed, in the ownership some sort of beneficial family trust, then what inheritance is there to tax?
I agree that inheritance should be taxed, as unearned income, but doing so effectively, fairly and simply appears to be quite difficult. This is why something like land value tax, or proportional property tax, are more attractive alternatives.
The bold move from Labour would be to abolish IHT themselves, on the basis that it's only paid by those just wealthy enough to have assets above the threshold, but not wealthy enough to set up all the trusts and other legal ruses that enable the very rich to avoid most of it. And in its place bring in more effective ways of taxing unearned income and accumulated wealth.
Just because something is easy to tax, does not mean it should be taxed. Worse I think that salaried incomes are higher taxed because politicians, their donors, their friends (in all parties), luvvies etc can get money from non-salaried income easier than regular people so its a borderline corrupt way to ensure regular people pay more than they and their connections do.
Also unearned income is the least elastic form of income. Earned incomes are far more elastic, people can choose not to go for a promotion if its going to take them over the edge, find ways to shelter their earnings, work fewer hours, work abroad etc
Economically we should be taxing consistently, and if there's higher rates it should be on that which is either inelastic or that which we wish to discourage (eg smoking/pollution).
Earnings is higher taxed despite being both more elastic, and not something to discourage.
The distortion is completely economically counterproductive and is one of the reasons the country is so unproductive, because the most productive individuals (those who work for their living) are those whose efforts are most taxed.
I'd have IHT allowances set at the higher of 1) £500,000 or 2) the net sum you retain after having paid income tax/CGT. If you have already paid tax on it, you should be able to pass it on as you choose - without the state taking another bite.
Indications are emerging that they plan to cut IHT and/or Stamp Duty next Spring. That would be electioneering in its purest form.
Expect plenty of that in the next year.
Or Rishi Sunak really is a "useless" politician.
I'd love to see him run things calmly for this final year, do no harm, just keep the seat warm for SKS, but I guess that's not how the world works. GEs are what politics is all about once they get close. So I do cut him some slack. He has to give it everything, leave nothing on the pitch between now and next October. He has to somehow turn it around and avoid a real thrashing. Perhaps he can. 200 seats is the magic number. This is what Sunak will be aiming for and who's to say he can't do it?
I suspect CON supporters will typically privately be hoping for 250 min and would take that now. I would.
Indications are emerging that they plan to cut IHT and/or Stamp Duty next Spring. That would be electioneering in its purest form.
IHT should not be cut. Tax on unearned wealth needs to be increased not decreased.
If the Tories abolish IHT then Labour should just make Income Tax apply in full to all Inheritances. No special IHT rate or allowances.
Unearned and earned income should be taxed at the same rate. And if not the same rate, then unearned should be taxed higher.
Instead presently earned salaries are the highest taxed thing around, it is economically backwards, completely insane, bad for productivity and simply unfair too.
Cancelling IHT is a good one for Tories since it will force Labour to say what they would do and putting it straight back on would probably not be a good idea for them.
I presume chess-playing Reeves has wargamed out what to do if Sunak does abolish IHT.
Where are the Tories going to find 7 billion a year to fund the IHT scrapping ?
The problem for the Tories is that whilst public services are crumbling tax cuts or scrapping the IHT just look like desperate attempts to grab votes whilst ignoring those issues.
Cut disability benefits and other payments for the workshy.
Yes I forgot for a minute just how cruel they can be . Silly me , of course they’ll go after them.
Indications are emerging that they plan to cut IHT and/or Stamp Duty next Spring. That would be electioneering in its purest form.
IHT should not be cut. Tax on unearned wealth needs to be increased not decreased.
If the Tories abolish IHT then Labour should just make Income Tax apply in full to all Inheritances. No special IHT rate or allowances.
Unearned and earned income should be taxed at the same rate. And if not the same rate, then unearned should be taxed higher.
Instead presently earned salaries are the highest taxed thing around, it is economically backwards, completely insane, bad for productivity and simply unfair too.
Agreeing with Bart again on the first point - one simple reform of IHT would be:
1 - Transfer liability to the recipient. 2 - Treat anything received as income (debatable over which year (year of death, year of probate or year of distribution) - which will give a tax free allowance of up to the level of the Personal Allowance, and an IHT tax rate with a maximum marginal rate of the same as the Additional Rate of income tax. That's ignoring the Gordon Brown special tax rate when the Personal Allowance is withdrawn.
Other wrinkles are also needed - such as addressing lifetime gifts, especially the "tax free regular gifts out of income not needed by the giver to live on", which creates the possibility of large tax free incomes for the children of wealthy people. I think I have summarised that correctly - that one just needs to be abolished.
The special tax rate is one of those anomalies that should be abolished in full in any comprehensive tax changes, and that abolition could be easily afforded by changing taxes such as is being discussed.
There should not be any cliff edges. If you want to argue for a higher tax rate at £100k then it should be higher whether £100k or £500k or £10mn, not a mammoth cliff edge at £100k, then dropping down afterwards again.
Especially with current insanities such as that someone on £101k takes home considerably less than someone on £99k. That should never be the case.
The effect of that, of course, is that lots of people work 4-day weeks and/or shovel all their cash above £100k into their pension pots rather than taking it as income and paying the tax.
I'm confident it actually costs HMG money but they just can't see it or face the politics of sorting it down.
Again, comes down to the courage and quality of our leaders.
People will look at the state of services and infrastructure, look at the timing pre election of tax cuts, and conclude it’s a cynical attempt to buy votes
Indications are emerging that they plan to cut IHT and/or Stamp Duty next Spring. That would be electioneering in its purest form.
IHT should not be cut. Tax on unearned wealth needs to be increased not decreased.
If the Tories abolish IHT then Labour should just make Income Tax apply in full to all Inheritances. No special IHT rate or allowances.
Unearned and earned income should be taxed at the same rate. And if not the same rate, then unearned should be taxed higher.
Instead presently earned salaries are the highest taxed thing around, it is economically backwards, completely insane, bad for productivity and simply unfair too.
In a general sense I agree with you, but I think you neglect the practical difficulties involved.
One of the reasons that income from employment is relatively highly taxed is because it is relatively easy to tax (although there are limits, hence IR35). Inheritance is much harder to tax. If a house, for example, is not owned by your parent, and doesn't pass into your ownership on their death, but remains, undisturbed, in the ownership some sort of beneficial family trust, then what inheritance is there to tax?
I agree that inheritance should be taxed, as unearned income, but doing so effectively, fairly and simply appears to be quite difficult. This is why something like land value tax, or proportional property tax, are more attractive alternatives.
The bold move from Labour would be to abolish IHT themselves, on the basis that it's only paid by those just wealthy enough to have assets above the threshold, but not wealthy enough to set up all the trusts and other legal ruses that enable the very rich to avoid most of it. And in its place bring in more effective ways of taxing unearned income and accumulated wealth.
Indications are emerging that they plan to cut IHT and/or Stamp Duty next Spring. That would be electioneering in its purest form.
Expect plenty of that in the next year.
Or Rishi Sunak really is a "useless" politician.
I'd love to see him run things calmly for this final year, do no harm, just keep the seat warm for SKS, but I guess that's not how the world works. GEs are what politics is all about once they get close. So I do cut him some slack. He has to give it everything, leave nothing on the pitch between now and next October. He has to somehow turn it around and avoid a real thrashing. Perhaps he can. 200 seats is the magic number. This is what Sunak will be aiming for and who's to say he can't do it?
I suspect CON supporters will typically privately be hoping for 250 min and would take that now. I would.
The smarter ones would probably take 200 now.
On the Betfair Tory Seat Losses market, over 200 losses is now favorite at 2/1. I think it's a buy at that price.
What should happen is the triple lock should end, the pension age be raised, public sector final salary pensions reformed, and co-funding should be introduced into healthcare, the same way it has now with private pensions.
Big savings in spending offered by all of those but would require immensely strong political leadership.
Public sector final salary pensions were reformed in 2015. I can assure you mine was.
But admitting that takes away one of your standard straw men.
It was reformed in 2015 for those who are still working.
For those who are claiming a final salary pension, nothing was done.
Changing a contract after the fact is not reasonable, but applying tax on a final salary pension at the same rate as the tax applied on those who are working is eminently reasonable.
You just cannot be as thick as you make out. Explain how anyone on a final salary pension pays less tax than anyone else on the same income you absolute bellend. Clue you cannot use your usual NI mince on someone who is not working. The contract was to pay NI for a period like every other person in the country. I wonder if you have ever paid it myself.
You really are as dense as lead.
NI is not a contract, never has been, never will be.
NI is a tax. No more, no less.
It is a tax set by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and can be changed, at Budgets.
It is a tax companies are obliged to collect via PAYE with Income Tax and remitted to HMRC as part of the same P32 payment.
It should be changed to 0% and have Income Tax risen proportionately to balance.
It has been one of the greatest ever marketing efforts that people think it is.
People will look at the state of services and infrastructure, look at the timing pre election of tax cuts, and conclude it’s a cynical attempt to buy votes
Indications are emerging that they plan to cut IHT and/or Stamp Duty next Spring. That would be electioneering in its purest form.
IHT should not be cut. Tax on unearned wealth needs to be increased not decreased.
If the Tories abolish IHT then Labour should just make Income Tax apply in full to all Inheritances. No special IHT rate or allowances.
Unearned and earned income should be taxed at the same rate. And if not the same rate, then unearned should be taxed higher.
Instead presently earned salaries are the highest taxed thing around, it is economically backwards, completely insane, bad for productivity and simply unfair too.
Agreeing with Bart again on the first point - one simple reform of IHT would be:
1 - Transfer liability to the recipient. 2 - Treat anything received as income (debatable over which year (year of death, year of probate or year of distribution) - which will give a tax free allowance of up to the level of the Personal Allowance, and an IHT tax rate with a maximum marginal rate of the same as the Additional Rate of income tax. That's ignoring the Gordon Brown special tax rate when the Personal Allowance is withdrawn.
Other wrinkles are also needed - such as addressing lifetime gifts, especially the "tax free regular gifts out of income not needed by the giver to live on", which creates the possibility of large tax free incomes for the children of wealthy people. I think I have summarised that correctly - that one just needs to be abolished.
The special tax rate is one of those anomalies that should be abolished in full in any comprehensive tax changes, and that abolition could be easily afforded by changing taxes such as is being discussed.
There should not be any cliff edges. If you want to argue for a higher tax rate at £100k then it should be higher whether £100k or £500k or £10mn, not a mammoth cliff edge at £100k, then dropping down afterwards again.
Especially with current insanities such as that someone on £101k takes home considerably less than someone on £99k. That should never be the case.
The effect of that, of course, is that lots of people work 4-day weeks and/or shovel all their cash above £100k into their pension pots rather than taking it as income and paying the tax.
I'm confident it actually costs HMG money but they just can't see it or face the politics of sorting it down.
Again, comes down to the courage and quality of our leaders.
Absolutely right. The current system is so moronic I’m stunned that it has endured so long.
Indications are emerging that they plan to cut IHT and/or Stamp Duty next Spring. That would be electioneering in its purest form.
IHT should not be cut. Tax on unearned wealth needs to be increased not decreased.
If the Tories abolish IHT then Labour should just make Income Tax apply in full to all Inheritances. No special IHT rate or allowances.
Unearned and earned income should be taxed at the same rate. And if not the same rate, then unearned should be taxed higher.
Instead presently earned salaries are the highest taxed thing around, it is economically backwards, completely insane, bad for productivity and simply unfair too.
In a general sense I agree with you, but I think you neglect the practical difficulties involved.
One of the reasons that income from employment is relatively highly taxed is because it is relatively easy to tax (although there are limits, hence IR35). Inheritance is much harder to tax. If a house, for example, is not owned by your parent, and doesn't pass into your ownership on their death, but remains, undisturbed, in the ownership some sort of beneficial family trust, then what inheritance is there to tax?
I agree that inheritance should be taxed, as unearned income, but doing so effectively, fairly and simply appears to be quite difficult. This is why something like land value tax, or proportional property tax, are more attractive alternatives.
The bold move from Labour would be to abolish IHT themselves, on the basis that it's only paid by those just wealthy enough to have assets above the threshold, but not wealthy enough to set up all the trusts and other legal ruses that enable the very rich to avoid most of it. And in its place bring in more effective ways of taxing unearned income and accumulated wealth.
Just because something is easy to tax, does not mean it should be taxed. Worse I think that salaried incomes are higher taxed because politicians, their donors, their friends (in all parties), luvvies etc can get money from non-salaried income easier than regular people so its a borderline corrupt way to ensure regular people pay more than they and their connections do.
Also unearned income is the least elastic form of income. Earned incomes are far more elastic, people can choose not to go for a promotion if its going to take them over the edge, find ways to shelter their earnings, work fewer hours, work abroad etc
Economically we should be taxing consistently, and if there's higher rates it should be on that which is either inelastic or that which we wish to discourage (eg smoking/pollution).
Earnings is higher taxed despite being both more elastic, and not something to discourage.
The distortion is completely economically counterproductive and is one of the reasons the country is so unproductive, because the most productive individuals (those who work for their living) are those whose efforts are most taxed.
Indications are emerging that they plan to cut IHT and/or Stamp Duty next Spring. That would be electioneering in its purest form.
IHT should not be cut. Tax on unearned wealth needs to be increased not decreased.
If the Tories abolish IHT then Labour should just make Income Tax apply in full to all Inheritances. No special IHT rate or allowances.
Unearned and earned income should be taxed at the same rate. And if not the same rate, then unearned should be taxed higher.
Instead presently earned salaries are the highest taxed thing around, it is economically backwards, completely insane, bad for productivity and simply unfair too.
In a general sense I agree with you, but I think you neglect the practical difficulties involved.
One of the reasons that income from employment is relatively highly taxed is because it is relatively easy to tax (although there are limits, hence IR35). Inheritance is much harder to tax. If a house, for example, is not owned by your parent, and doesn't pass into your ownership on their death, but remains, undisturbed, in the ownership some sort of beneficial family trust, then what inheritance is there to tax?
I agree that inheritance should be taxed, as unearned income, but doing so effectively, fairly and simply appears to be quite difficult. This is why something like land value tax, or proportional property tax, are more attractive alternatives.
The bold move from Labour would be to abolish IHT themselves, on the basis that it's only paid by those just wealthy enough to have assets above the threshold, but not wealthy enough to set up all the trusts and other legal ruses that enable the very rich to avoid most of it. And in its place bring in more effective ways of taxing unearned income and accumulated wealth.
Just because something is easy to tax, does not mean it should be taxed. Worse I think that salaried incomes are higher taxed because politicians, their donors, their friends (in all parties), luvvies etc can get money from non-salaried income easier than regular people so its a borderline corrupt way to ensure regular people pay more than they and their connections do.
Also unearned income is the least elastic form of income. Earned incomes are far more elastic, people can choose not to go for a promotion if its going to take them over the edge, find ways to shelter their earnings, work fewer hours, work abroad etc
Economically we should be taxing consistently, and if there's higher rates it should be on that which is either inelastic or that which we wish to discourage (eg smoking/pollution).
Earnings is higher taxed despite being both more elastic, and not something to discourage.
The distortion is completely economically counterproductive and is one of the reasons the country is so unproductive, because the most productive individuals (those who work for their living) are those whose efforts are most taxed.
The point, in its most simple form, is that you can only tax those things it is possible to tax.
It is possible to tax income from employment.
I would argue that our experience with Inheritance Tax shows that it is nearly impossible to tax income from inheritance. There are too many ways to obscure ownership of family assets to be able to tax the transfer of those assets on death.
I'm not arguing in favour of taxing income, but if you want to increase tax on something other than income in order to reduce taxes on income then you have to find a tax that will work, and a tax on inheritance isn't it.
People will look at the state of services and infrastructure, look at the timing pre election of tax cuts, and conclude it’s a cynical attempt to buy votes
Who is arguing for tax cuts? I can see a lot of posts arguing for sensible simplification of taxes (eg at £100k) but not overall tax cuts. Indeed I suggested making a new 45p bracket at £100k but ending the absurd false incentive whereby the PA is attacked at £100,001.
People will look at the state of services and infrastructure, look at the timing pre election of tax cuts, and conclude it’s a cynical attempt to buy votes
Which of course it will be.
Look, like everyone I like lower taxes. But a) they've delivered very poorly on the taxes taken to date, so there will be skepticism that we should lower how much is being taken in even though we'd all want that, because so much investment is needed in things. b) Whilst there are good arguments about the downsides of higher taxation it doesn't help that the most prominent groups advocating for it are 'thinktanks' whose sole purpose is to say, come wind or rain or snow, that lower taxes are the answer to everything. Basically you cannot trust a damn word they say, no more than you can trust any other lobbyist which automatically advocates for a wealth tax or carbon tax or whatever. Am I to believe they'd change their messaging if their 'analysis' showed something else? Like hell. c) Many politicians who want to prioritise it have been caught out selling absurdly simplistic ideas based on wishes and dreams, which undercuts the good arguments they have about it, and then whinging about how no one will listen to them.
Abolish IHT and tax the all legacy recipients at around 5%
Why should unearned windfalls be taxed at 5% when some marginal employment taxes are well over 50%?
I chose 5% to roughly equal the current receipts (£7bn) from IHT in steady-state
And, of course, once instituted, simple to raise over time.
Simplicity and universality is the key to good taxes. No exceptions/loopholes for lawyers/accountants to feed off
What is the official reason for all those exceptions and loopholes anyway? They seem to produce little benefit other than for people who can afford the advice and effort to take advantage of it, and surely better designed rules obviate the need for complex schemes which benefit limited numbers of well off people?
Don’t be silly. We’ll wait for a solitary survey showing a reduction in the Labour lead of two points then spend innumerable pixels explaining how Israel has given Sundance The Comeback Kid the big mo.
I'd have IHT allowances set at the higher of 1) £500,000 or 2) the net sum you retain after having paid income tax/CGT. If you have already paid tax on it, you should be able to pass it on as you choose - without the state taking another bite.
So groceries should be VAT-free if paid for out of taxed income? That is absurd. Odd that rich people apply their double tax argument only to rich people's taxes like IHT and CGT and not to VAT paid by the poor. Well, not odd exactly...
Comments
NI is not a contract, never has been, never will be.
NI is a tax. No more, no less.
It is a tax set by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and can be changed, at Budgets.
It is a tax companies are obliged to collect via PAYE with Income Tax and remitted to HMRC as part of the same P32 payment.
It should be changed to 0% and have Income Tax risen proportionately to balance.
What we can do is to try to help prepare the environment for such a negotiation, by encouraging confidence-building measures. And I think that is only possible if we properly understand the motivations of both sides of the conflict. I've spent the last two weeks feeling entirely hopeless about the conflict, because as far as I could tell it was mainly a very negative sum dispute over land. It's very hard to reach any agreement when that agreement would involve both sides having to crystallise large losses of land.
However, I now start to think that if you view the conflict slightly differently, it is possible to see a basis for an agreement. Israelis, I believe, are primarily concerned with a desire for security. Whereas Palestinians, I believe, are primarily motivated by a desire for justice. This is why the Oslo Peace Process foundered over the right of return. It was asking the Palestinians to give up on a large part of what they would see as a just peace. The Israeli emphasis on security is why the calls for an immediate ceasefire are naive and wrongheaded. In the absence of any confidence-building measure to restore Israel's security, then they must attempt to improve their security - even if just in the short-term - by damaging the ability of Hamas to attack them. So things still look a bit bleak in the short term, but in the long-term these competing desires for security and justice should be easier to reconcile than simply competing claims for the same land would be.
There’s an awful lot of edge cases, such as UK citizens working abroad.
As did taxation at source of savings interest and dividends, plus a simple A4 form to fill in for claiming tax back.
When HMG suddenly abolished dediction of tax at source, the allowances for savings interest and dividends had much the same effect as most folk didn't have enough of either, but now with the interest rates the way they are, and so on, that's not going to work. There will be lots of new and naive taxpayers many of whon donhave the ability to do online tax returns. And HMRC is already deep in the midden with keeping up with taxpayers thanks to cuts.
The mess over NI payments was bad enough (as many of us know) - this could be it all over again, only much worse - and affecting the Tory client vote.
I've been impressed by the Ukraine podcast, running for approx 45 mins to one hour on weekdays since spring 2022. It has focused on exploring opinions, rather than putting forward a line, and has a daily guest who is someone close to some aspect of the situation. Yesterday's guest was an entrepreneur running a successful App called "Headway" (provides short versions of books), and how the business has survived in wartime.
IMO the hallmark has been a final question to interviewees: "Is there anything you would like to say to our audience that I have not asked you?", which is excellent.
The new one is called "Battlelines: Israel-Gaza", and what I think is the first episode is here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKIkBLRcy_I
1) The headline rate of tax, 20%, is massively lower than the real rate
2) The interaction of IT/NI means that the 40% higher rate for +£50k people is a much less big jump than it looks. It is in fact from about 32% to 40%. This quietly suits the ruling class and better off people. The media never draw attention to either (1) or (2)
3) It is a convenient way of imposing an employment tax.
It's a tax. Always has been. Paying "your stamps" doesn't exempt working age people from continuing to pay the tax either.
I've nearly maxed out my "stamps" already. Will still have another two decades of paying the tax ahead even under the existing rules. Because it's a tax.
The problems in our tax system that need addressing are the insanely high marginal tax rates people have to pay, especially at cliff edges. Not IHT.
Stamp Duty shouldn't be cut, it should be abolished in full along with Council Tax and replaced with a LVT. Taxing mobility is a bloody stupid idea.
Or Rishi Sunak really is a "useless" politician.
Buying a brand new property these days is often less of a dream home, more a living nightmare. With housebuilders – and their shareholders – making huge profits, how come so many new builds aren’t up to scratch?
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2023/oct/21/cracked-tiles-wonky-gutters-leaning-walls-why-are-britains-new-houses-so-rubbish
Your view is that slagging off Tory politicians is fine but doing it to non-Tory politicians is just not cricket.
Unfortunately I am not expecting much joy in the rugby either.
IMHO, the government should uprate personal allowances with inflation.
Unearned and earned income should be taxed at the same rate. And if not the same rate, then unearned should be taxed higher.
Instead presently earned salaries are the highest taxed thing around, it is economically backwards, completely insane, bad for productivity and simply unfair too.
The cost effective way to collect that, I would suggest, is to create one rather than have up to 2 million more tax returns to deal with.
It is a couple of years away, so there should be time to tackle it - if we had a Government that thought more than 10 minutes in advance.
But, as I said the other day, Israel is where all left-wing prejudices meet.
posterstweetsXs saying how much squillionaires Rishi and Jeremy Hunt would benefit.https://twitter.com/ConfedMatthew/status/1715404477275009458
If the point was that doing it to politicians overall was overdone then "Tory", as the fulcrum, would not have been mentioned at all.
Take the emotion out of it, there should not be a specific Inheritance Tax. Simply report any income from Inheritances as part of Income. Have probate handle the tax side like PAYE so it is deducted at source, at the relevant recipients income tax rate (which should include what is currently NI of course), like any other income.
Start taxing all incomes no matter how they're earned at the same rate and there'll be plenty of revenues to end any obscene cliff edge rates via tax cuts and simplification, as well as to spend on investing in the country too.
And of course a large stamp duty loading for second properties is a good thing. We have 3% here but Scotland now has 6%. Can't we have 6% too? 👍
The only peace Israel envisages for the West Bank is permanent armed occupation.
1 - Transfer liability to the recipient.
2 - Treat anything received as income (debatable over which year (year of death, year of probate or year of distribution) - which will give a tax free allowance of up to the level of the Personal Allowance, and an IHT tax rate with a maximum marginal rate of the same as the Additional Rate of income tax. That's ignoring the Gordon Brown special tax rate when the Personal Allowance is withdrawn.
Other wrinkles are also needed - such as addressing lifetime gifts, especially the "tax free regular gifts out of income not needed by the giver to live on", which creates the possibility of large tax free incomes for the children of wealthy people. I think I have summarised that correctly - that one just needs to be abolished.
But, my top priority would be smoothing out all the crazy tax anomalies.
It wouldn't necessarily win huge numbers of votes straight away, but I think it's the right thing to do - both for people and the economy.
St Paul essentially won that debate, and we are where we are.
That's one part of scripture that has been used (imo abused) to try and justify hostility to Jewish people.
Are you up for that?
One of the reasons that income from employment is relatively highly taxed is because it is relatively easy to tax (although there are limits, hence IR35). Inheritance is much harder to tax. If a house, for example, is not owned by your parent, and doesn't pass into your ownership on their death, but remains, undisturbed, in the ownership some sort of beneficial family trust, then what inheritance is there to tax?
I agree that inheritance should be taxed, as unearned income, but doing so effectively, fairly and simply appears to be quite difficult. This is why something like land value tax, or proportional property tax, are more attractive alternatives.
The bold move from Labour would be to abolish IHT themselves, on the basis that it's only paid by those just wealthy enough to have assets above the threshold, but not wealthy enough to set up all the trusts and other legal ruses that enable the very rich to avoid most of it. And in its place bring in more effective ways of taxing unearned income and accumulated wealth.
There should not be any cliff edges. If you want to argue for a higher tax rate at £100k then it should be higher whether £100k or £500k or £10mn, not a mammoth cliff edge at £100k, then dropping down afterwards again.
Especially with current insanities such as that someone on £101k takes home considerably less than someone on £99k. That should never be the case.
I presume chess-playing Reeves has wargamed out what to do if Sunak does abolish IHT.
(Which, incidentally, is one reason there was so little IDF presence on the border breached by the Hamas terrorists.)
A Gaza completely cut off from the West Bank makes that dynamic permanent.
Not perfect, but a start. Better than what we got instead.
It's how the main family home is treated that concerns me.
The problem for the Tories is that whilst public services are crumbling tax cuts or scrapping the IHT just look like desperate attempts to grab votes whilst ignoring those issues.
Also unearned income is the least elastic form of income. Earned incomes are far more elastic, people can choose not to go for a promotion if its going to take them over the edge, find ways to shelter their earnings, work fewer hours, work abroad etc
Economically we should be taxing consistently, and if there's higher rates it should be on that which is either inelastic or that which we wish to discourage (eg smoking/pollution).
Earnings is higher taxed despite being both more elastic, and not something to discourage.
The distortion is completely economically counterproductive and is one of the reasons the country is so unproductive, because the most productive individuals (those who work for their living) are those whose efforts are most taxed.
I'm confident it actually costs HMG money but they just can't see it or face the politics of sorting it down.
Again, comes down to the courage and quality of our leaders.
People will look at the state of services and infrastructure, look at the timing pre election of tax cuts, and conclude it’s a cynical attempt to buy votes
I would suggest something like a 150k nil rate inheritance personal allowance lifetime limit, another 150k @ 20% and the rest taxed as other income.
How much would that raise then?
And you could use that to lower those income tax rates, including NI.
I don't want to see an overall tax rise, but I do want to see those working for a living taxed less.
Why should Rishi Sunak pitch fruitlessly for left-wing votes just so they dislike him a little bit less but still don't vote for him?
On the Betfair Tory Seat Losses market, over 200 losses is now favorite at 2/1. I think it's a buy at that price.
https://wethink.report/polls/labour-stretches-lead-in-polls-over-tories-after-double-by-election-drubbing/
It is possible to tax income from employment.
I would argue that our experience with Inheritance Tax shows that it is nearly impossible to tax income from inheritance. There are too many ways to obscure ownership of family assets to be able to tax the transfer of those assets on death.
I'm not arguing in favour of taxing income, but if you want to increase tax on something other than income in order to reduce taxes on income then you have to find a tax that will work, and a tax on inheritance isn't it.
Look, like everyone I like lower taxes. But a) they've delivered very poorly on the taxes taken to date, so there will be skepticism that we should lower how much is being taken in even though we'd all want that, because so much investment is needed in things. b) Whilst there are good arguments about the downsides of higher taxation it doesn't help that the most prominent groups advocating for it are 'thinktanks' whose sole purpose is to say, come wind or rain or snow, that lower taxes are the answer to everything. Basically you cannot trust a damn word they say, no more than you can trust any other lobbyist which automatically advocates for a wealth tax or carbon tax or whatever. Am I to believe they'd change their messaging if their 'analysis' showed something else? Like hell. c) Many politicians who want to prioritise it have been caught out selling absurdly simplistic ideas based on wishes and dreams, which undercuts the good arguments they have about it, and then whinging about how no one will listen to them.