politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Anybody got any by-election news from Rochester and Strood?
Comments
-
That's not the whole point of government. It's what the Left think the point of government should be. The key role of the state is to keep order within it and defend the state from enemies abroad. Everything else is an extra.BenM said:
The whole point of goverment f whatever hue is to socially engineer. You're deluded if you think not. Universal education was an act of social engineering!Casino_Royale said:
A shag tax? Taxing single people over 25?Pong said:
Rather than incentivise having children, we could disincentivise not having them instead?Casino_Royale said:
I don't think child benefit of £20 a week makes much of a difference in people's decision to have kids. On the other hand, it costs £12bn a year.Pong said:
Surely having children is the solution to the deficit challenge?Casino_Royale said:
Why can't we just scrap it entirely?chestnut said:
Agreed.The_Last_Boy_Scout said:Another example of an even crazier tax is the High Income Child Benefit Tax - that's even worse because it affects many more people, at lower incomes, and is even harder to administer.
Both taxes are awfully designed.
It's crazily bureaucratic now.
The next government, whoever it is, should merge Child Tax Credit and Child Benefit into one means-tested child allowance with the need to self-assess for HMRC abolished.
They should at the same time introduce some form of limit on the maximum number of eligible children, along with some fail-safe that means it is only paid to people who have contributed in Britain and for children that are resident in Britain.
Having children is one of the most popular activities there is, and we have an ever growing population. I see no reason why the state should continue to subsidise it, particularly when we having a pressing deficit challenge.
I'm gay, I'm not likely to be procreating any time soon, but I'm encouraging all my straight friends to go forth and breed. I need the population pyramid to keep growing if i'm going to have a comfortable retirement in ~40 years...
I can think of far better things to spend the money on.
How about a condom tax?
I don't like it when the government tries to socially engineer society. We need to cut our social security/welfare spend. Child benefit is a good place to start.0 -
I hope you are correct - says the man who guessed 9.99%!Peter_the_Punter said:
The betting markets suggest a 10% win for the Kippers will be about a par score. Seems about right to me.RobC said:It's a nice sunny mild day in Kent but as a general point on R & S it has to be said Reckless who astonishingly achieved 48% of the vote in 2010 in a previously Labour held seat by all accounts was also a fairly good constituency MP and I'd say these factors point the way to this by-election outcome rather than any amount of money spent on campaigning and number of "heavyweights" visiting the constituency. Cameron as the archetypal last minute swatter will find this strategy albeit unavoidable won't win him Rochester.
The Tories haven't helped themselves here by campaigning on negative Ukip territory. They have fallen into the trap where voters think they might as well vote for the real thing (Ukip) than the lite version a la Tolhurst.0 -
In my experience, people who choose to have kids have them when their peer group do. In middle-class circles, that's at a much older age when (generally) both parents are working and earning.state_go_away said:
The trouble is that if there is no child benefit the people who might not then have kids are not the chavs who could not give a chit about their kids (because they will still get 15 times the amount of what they did as child benefit in other benefits) nor the wealthy but the very people who should be having kids (ie the true working class who contribute to the country through labour and would try to raise offspring in a good pleasant way)Casino_Royale said:
Dozens. Paying down the deficit, for one. Investment in education, technological research, science, skills, strategic infrastructure...state_go_away said:
like what? that 12billion is probably very efficiently spent in that it involves little admin (or did) and gets spent mainly on kids development or comfort in some form and crucially is spent by the parents not the stateCasino_Royale said:
I don't think child benefit of £20 a week makes much of a difference in people's decision to have kids. On the other hand, it costs £12bn a year.Pong said:
.Casino_Royale said:
Why can't we just scrap it entirely?chestnut said:The_Last_Boy_Scout said:Another example of an even crazier tax is the High Income Child Benefit Tax - that's even worse because it affects many more people, at lower incomes, and is even harder to administer.
Both taxes are awfully designed.
Having children is one of the most popular activities there is, and we have an ever growing population. I see no reason why the state should continue to subsidise it, particularly when we having a pressing deficit challenge.
I can think of far better things to spend the money on.
If you can't afford to have kids, don't have kids. This welfare is a luxury we cannot afford.
Most who don't have kids (give various reasons) but most ultimately seem to boil down to the fact they don't want the lifestyle change. The fact some later regret this, and are a bit sad they never did, is instructive. The benefit makes virtually no difference.
There was a lot of squealing when this was withdrawn for earners over 50-60k but this has all died down now. People will adjust, and cope.0 -
So no marriage tax breaks?Cyclefree said:
That's not the whole point of government. It's what the Left think the point of government should be. The key role of the state is to keep order within it and defend the state from enemies abroad. Everything else is an extra.BenM said:
The whole point of goverment f whatever hue is to socially engineer. You're deluded if you think not. Universal education was an act of social engineering!Casino_Royale said:
A shag tax? Taxing single people over 25?Pong said:
Rather than incentivise having children, we could disincentivise not having them instead?Casino_Royale said:
I don't think child benefit of £20 a week makes much of a difference in people's decision to have kids. On the other hand, it costs £12bn a year.Pong said:
Surely having children is the solution to the deficit challenge?Casino_Royale said:
Why can't we just scrap it entirely?chestnut said:
Agreed.The_Last_Boy_Scout said:Another example of an even crazier tax is the High Income Child Benefit Tax - that's even worse because it affects many more people, at lower incomes, and is even harder to administer.
Both taxes are awfully designed.
It's crazily bureaucratic now.
The next government, whoever it is, should merge Child Tax Credit and Child Benefit into one means-tested child allowance with the need to self-assess for HMRC abolished.
They should at the same time introduce some form of limit on the maximum number of eligible children, along with some fail-safe that means it is only paid to people who have contributed in Britain and for children that are resident in Britain.
Having children is one of the most popular activities there is, and we have an ever growing population. I see no reason why the state should continue to subsidise it, particularly when we having a pressing deficit challenge.
I'm gay, I'm not likely to be procreating any time soon, but I'm encouraging all my straight friends to go forth and breed. I need the population pyramid to keep growing if i'm going to have a comfortable retirement in ~40 years...
I can think of far better things to spend the money on.
How about a condom tax?
I don't like it when the government tries to socially engineer society. We need to cut our social security/welfare spend. Child benefit is a good place to start.0 -
I'm deluded because I don't agree with you on the role of government?BenM said:
The whole point of goverment f whatever hue is to socially engineer. You're deluded if you think not. Universal education was an act of social engineering!Casino_Royale said:
A shag tax? Taxing single people over 25?Pong said:
Rather than incentivise having children, we could disincentivise not having them instead?Casino_Royale said:
I don't think child benefit of £20 a week makes much of a difference in people's decision to have kids. On the other hand, it costs £12bn a year.Pong said:
Surely having children is the solution to the deficit challenge?Casino_Royale said:
Why can't we just scrap it entirely?chestnut said:
Agreed.The_Last_Boy_Scout said:Another example of an even crazier tax is the High Income Child Benefit Tax - that's even worse because it affects many more people, at lower incomes, and is even harder to administer.
Both taxes are awfully designed.
It's crazily bureaucratic now.
The next government, whoever it is, should merge Child Tax Credit and Child Benefit into one means-tested child allowance with the need to self-assess for HMRC abolished.
They should at the same time introduce some form of limit on the maximum number of eligible children, along with some fail-safe that means it is only paid to people who have contributed in Britain and for children that are resident in Britain.
Having children is one of the most popular activities there is, and we have an ever growing population. I see no reason why the state should continue to subsidise it, particularly when we having a pressing deficit challenge.
I'm gay, I'm not likely to be procreating any time soon, but I'm encouraging all my straight friends to go forth and breed. I need the population pyramid to keep growing if i'm going to have a comfortable retirement in ~40 years...
I can think of far better things to spend the money on.
How about a condom tax?
I don't like it when the government tries to socially engineer society. We need to cut our social security/welfare spend. Child benefit is a good place to start.
0 -
I agree. We would have heard similar arguments about student grants, final-salary pensions and mortgage tax relief. There was special pleading for all of them. Everyone loves a freebie.Cyclefree said:
That just sounds like special pleading by parents.Jonathan said:
We all relied on the older generation as well.
I'm in favour of spreading taxes as widely as possible with as few exemptions as possible and, in consequence, lower taxes. Let people decide for themselves what they do with their lives without being distorted by tax impositions, exemptions or the state trying to 'nudge' us.
We're adults. Let's try behaving as such.
I'd like to see more people standing on their own two feet, and taking responsibility for their own decisions. That way we'll get a much more grown-up and responsible society.
State spending should be reserved for things the individual and private sector can't do. Internal and external defence is one: Strategic investments in technology, research, infrastructure and business start-ups another. And it's an absolute imperative we live within our means.0 -
At one time there was a sales tax called Purchase Tax which varied according to the class of goods being sold/purchased. This then morphed into VAT which brought services into taxation.
Why not have another VAT rate (ignore the EU rules as the French do) which is far higher for foods that cause obesity (e.g crisps, biscuits, sugar-filled drinks, cakes, sweets etc) and SKY-tv and other pay channels. At the same time remove VAT from all forms of exercise or exercise related goods.0 -
I repeat what I said below: "I'm in favour of spreading taxes as widely as possible with as few exemptions as possible and, in consequence, lower taxes. Let people decide for themselves what they do with their lives without being distorted by tax impositions, exemptions or the state trying to 'nudge' us."Pong said:
So no marriage tax breaks?Cyclefree said:
That's not the whole point of government. It's what the Left think the point of government should be. The key role of the state is to keep order within it and defend the state from enemies abroad. Everything else is an extra.BenM said:
The whole point of goverment f whatever hue is to socially engineer. You're deluded if you think not. Universal education was an act of social engineering!Casino_Royale said:
A shag tax? Taxing single people over 25?Pong said:
Rather than incentivise having children, we could disincentivise not having them instead?Casino_Royale said:
I don't think child benefit of £20 a week makes much of a difference in people's decision to have kids. On the other hand, it costs £12bn a year.Pong said:
Surely having children is the solution to the deficit challenge?Casino_Royale said:
Why can't we just scrap it entirely?chestnut said:The_Last_Boy_Scout said:Another example of an even crazier tax is the High Income Child Benefit Tax - that's even worse because it affects many more people, at lower incomes, and is even harder to administer.
Both taxes are awfully designed.
Having children is one of the most popular activities there is, and we have an ever growing population. I see no reason why the state should continue to subsidise it, particularly when we having a pressing deficit challenge.
I'm gay, I'm not likely to be procreating any time soon, but I'm encouraging all my straight friends to go forth and breed. I need the population pyramid to keep growing if i'm going to have a comfortable retirement in ~40 years...
I can think of far better things to spend the money on.
How about a condom tax?
I don't like it when the government tries to socially engineer society. We need to cut our social security/welfare spend. Child benefit is a good place to start.
0 -
fair enough for junk food but its a bit tenuous to say that SKY makes you fat imo!!Financier said:At one time there was a sales tax called Purchase Tax which varied according to the class of goods being sold/purchased. This then morphed into VAT which brought services into taxation.
Why not have another VAT rate (ignore the EU rules as the French do) which is far higher for foods that cause obesity (e.g crisps, biscuits, sugar-filled drinks, cakes, sweets etc) and SKY-tv and other pay channels. At the same time remove VAT from all forms of exercise or exercise related goods.0 -
O Flynn wanted to bring that in for The Kippers but the donors made Nige slap him down.Financier said:At one time there was a sales tax called Purchase Tax which varied according to the class of goods being sold/purchased. This then morphed into VAT which brought services into taxation.
Why not have another VAT rate (ignore the EU rules as the French do) which is far higher for foods that cause obesity (e.g crisps, biscuits, sugar-filled drinks, cakes, sweets etc) and SKY-tv and other pay channels. At the same time remove VAT from all forms of exercise or exercise related goods.0 -
Yet another police failure.
Two serving police officers and their former colleague have appeared in court accused of stealing a total of £30,000.
South Wales Police constables Christopher Evans, 37, and Michael Stokes, 34, along with ex-Det Sgt Stephen Phillips, 46, denied theft charges at Bridgend magistrates court.
The money is alleged to have been stolen from a Swansea home raided by police in April 2011.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-301328740 -
Corrected : Emily Thornberry is tweeting pictures of white vans. Betting markets haven't responded yet ..0
-
I get the principle - and I'm not necessarily arguing that marriage tax breaks are a good or bad thing - my point is the very act of policy-making involves social engineering.Cyclefree said:
I repeat what I said below: "I'm in favour of spreading taxes as widely as possible with as few exemptions as possible and, in consequence, lower taxes. Let people decide for themselves what they do with their lives without being distorted by tax impositions, exemptions or the state trying to 'nudge' us."Pong said:
So no marriage tax breaks?Cyclefree said:
That's not the whole point of government. It's what the Left think the point of government should be. The key role of the state is to keep order within it and defend the state from enemies abroad. Everything else is an extra.BenM said:
The whole point of goverment f whatever hue is to socially engineer. You're deluded if you think not. Universal education was an act of social engineering!Casino_Royale said:
A shag tax? Taxing single people over 25?Pong said:
Rather than incentivise having children, we could disincentivise not having them instead?Casino_Royale said:
I don't think child benefit of £20 a week makes much of a difference in people's decision to have kids. On the other hand, it costs £12bn a year.Pong said:
Surely having children is the solution to the deficit challenge?Casino_Royale said:
Why can't we just scrap it entirely?chestnut said:The_Last_Boy_Scout said:Another example of an even crazier tax is the High Income Child Benefit Tax - that's even worse because it affects many more people, at lower incomes, and is even harder to administer.
Both taxes are awfully designed.
Having children is one of the most popular activities there is, and we have an ever growing population. I see no reason why the state should continue to subsidise it, particularly when we having a pressing deficit challenge.
I'm gay, I'm not likely to be procreating any time soon, but I'm encouraging all my straight friends to go forth and breed. I need the population pyramid to keep growing if i'm going to have a comfortable retirement in ~40 years...
I can think of far better things to spend the money on.
How about a condom tax?
I don't like it when the government tries to socially engineer society. We need to cut our social security/welfare spend. Child benefit is a good place to start.
An obvious example is the legal and tax benefits of marriage.
Should they be withdrawn altogether to avoid social engineering?0 -
Out in the #togetherwevan with @naushabahkhan because #togetherwekhan
Arf.
Where is the Lib Dem candidate - Labour are at least putting in a token effort, as are the Loonies. Do the Lib Dems want to be beaten into 7th place or w/e ?0 -
I understand tampons were taxed as luxuries at one stage under that system, which sort of makes you think that feminists have a valid point.Financier said:At one time there was a sales tax called Purchase Tax which varied according to the class of goods being sold/purchased. This then morphed into VAT which brought services into taxation.
Why not have another VAT rate (ignore the EU rules as the French do) which is far higher for foods that cause obesity (e.g crisps, biscuits, sugar-filled drinks, cakes, sweets etc) and SKY-tv and other pay channels. At the same time remove VAT from all forms of exercise or exercise related goods.
0 -
Given his previous track record, isn't there a risk he may already have partied to excess later tonight?Ninoinoz said:
Yes, and the piece is unsigned.Luckyguy1983 said:Is the 'wonderful wife' bit in quote marks a little catty? Perhaps she is wonderful, and perhaps he wants to say so publicly.
Is Mark Reckless expected at Dirty Dicks tomorrow?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10590725
0 -
Is Kelly Tolhurst's accent a Medway one? I've known people from that part of the world but I've never come accross one like that before0
-
As a nation we rely on childrearing. The state recognises that public good and taxes those people less as a result.Cyclefree said:
That just sounds like special pleading by parents.Jonathan said:
We all relied on the older generation as well.
I'm in favour of spreading taxes as widely as possible with as few exemptions as possible and, in consequence, lower taxes. Let people decide for themselves what they do with their lives without being distorted by tax impositions, exemptions or the state trying to 'nudge' us.
We're adults. Let's try behaving as such.0 -
What, to combat our declining population?Jonathan said:
As a nation we rely on childrearing. The state recognises that public good and taxes those people less as a result.Cyclefree said:
That just sounds like special pleading by parents.Jonathan said:
We all relied on the older generation as well.
I'm in favour of spreading taxes as widely as possible with as few exemptions as possible and, in consequence, lower taxes. Let people decide for themselves what they do with their lives without being distorted by tax impositions, exemptions or the state trying to 'nudge' us.
We're adults. Let's try behaving as such.
Don't be silly.
0 -
The LibDems have had one lucky break - Bus-Pass Elvis isn't standing.....Pulpstar said:Out in the #togetherwevan with @naushabahkhan because #togetherwekhan
Arf.
Where is the Lib Dem candidate - Labour are at least putting in a token effort, as are the Loonies. Do the Lib Dems want to be beaten into 7th place or w/e ?
I also note the full title of the Green candidate - is "Green Party - Say No To Racism". I wonder who that could be aimed at? Might not do them any harm in hoovering up LibDems and Labour voters on the day...
0 -
I haven't heard any of the details about it, but the Danes recently introduced a tax on butter/fat. If you buy food from a supermarket that itemises the VAT paid on your receipt - like Lidl - then it's easy to see that the present rules are a mess.Financier said:At one time there was a sales tax called Purchase Tax which varied according to the class of goods being sold/purchased. This then morphed into VAT which brought services into taxation.
Why not have another VAT rate (ignore the EU rules as the French do) which is far higher for foods that cause obesity (e.g crisps, biscuits, sugar-filled drinks, cakes, sweets etc) and SKY-tv and other pay channels. At the same time remove VAT from all forms of exercise or exercise related goods.
I would support a straightforward tax on sugar - though at any sort of meaningful rate it would make my home baking of cakes ridiculously expensive.0 -
.0
-
It seems Emily Thornberry is doing her best to steal whatever limelight Reckless may hope to attract in R&S.
Sadly she has done it by standing on a live (political) grenade...0 -
I'm not sold on an asset tax, be it House, Car (is the daily runabout an asset?) jewels, stocks shares, land or pension fund / savings.
There are multiple reasons:
Start with houses, then in time other things at lower values can easily be added.
Houses are often jointly owned, we don't do joint taxation
There should be a balance against borrowings to fund the asset
It becomes very complex for numerous reasons
It is subjective to assess the value of an item prior to sale
If you accept the premiss that it is both easy and likely that the range of goods subject to asset tax would inexorably increase, then the ability to evade or avoid will be equally increased.
I understand the concept that taxing assets may encourage them to be invested in productive activity rather than left sitting in the corner gathering dust. However, there are already numerous incentives to invest in new companies and ventures, some of them good schemes and some abused for tax advantage.
Collection of existing taxes should be better. Evaders should be chased to the ends of the world and given severe punishment. Avoidance should be reduced drastically by legislation to close the loopholes.
There is an argument to be had about taxation of the capital gain on the sale of an asset. Cost of the asset + index linked increase for ownership period + costs to maintain the asset = total that can be offset against the sale price realised for the asset. Which as it is a calculation opens up mega avenues for abuse.0 -
George Eaton @georgeeaton 1m
New Survation/Unite poll on Rochester: Ukip 48% (+48), Con 33% (-16), Lab 16% (-13), Lib Dems 1% (-16).
EDIT: John Rentoul @JohnRentoul 21s
@georgeeaton Old Survation poll, George.0 -
If it weren't for those rock solid LD to Lab switchers, Lab would be in real trouble.Tissue_Price said:George Eaton @georgeeaton 1m
New Survation/Unite poll on Rochester: Ukip 48% (+48), Con 33% (-16), Lab 16% (-13), Lib Dems 1% (-16).
EDIT: John Rentoul @JohnRentoul 21s
@georgeeaton Old Survation poll, George.
0 -
Bizarre to release it now? Is it definitely a new poll? Is this a poll that UKIP were holding back?Tissue_Price said:George Eaton @georgeeaton 1m
New Survation/Unite poll on Rochester: Ukip 48% (+48), Con 33% (-16), Lab 16% (-13), Lib Dems 1% (-16).
Farage said something about expecting to win by at least 15% - was he basing it on this poll?
if it's reliable, then the over 10.5% seems decent;
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/rochester-and-strood-by-election/ukip-winning-margin0 -
First child per family, or first child per wife?Cyclefree said:If child benefit is paid at all, it should be paid only for the first child, generously, if possible, and to the mother. There's an argument for saying that it should be paid only for the first 5 years of the child's life. And also an argument for taxing it.
0 -
FTPP: MorrisDancer, according to the BBC survey, I most resemble women in Oman. (I haven't been there so can't say if it is good or bad).0
-
We'll get both. If by some oversight you manage to accumulate some assets out of what's left of your income, they'll take the asset as well.antifrank said:We need to move from the taxation of income to the taxation of assets. After all, income is a mediocre proxy for wealth.
0 -
What[s the basis of the state's entitlement to take someone's estate?rcs1000 said:
I agree 100%. I think, at the very simplest level, we should move to a recipient tax, rather than an estate tax. Treat inheritance as what it is: unearned income.state_go_away said:
I tend to vote Conservative because I generally think they are on the side of aspiration but if the Tories do have a fault its that they covert exemption on inheritance taxation more than anything else. If ,because of a property tax on high value homes , heirs get less money on death that is a good thing imo -it creates a more level playing field for others to aspire to get onrcs1000 said:
From a straight economics perspective, you're absolutely right. By taxing assets, you discourage inefficient use of capital.state_go_away said:
I think the state should be smaller than it is (hence my name) but there is a huge national debt and if taxation does have to be raised I would prefer it to be more balanced towards assets than income. I said on the earlier thread I though a better way of property tax would be an extension of the rates bands but the labour mansion tax is hardly a vote loser, unfair or even socialist imoMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Nose, welcome to pb.com and cheers for the info.
Mr. Away, people often live in houses for many years. That doesn't mean it's legitimate to hurl an extra tax their way. Just because someone has money doesn't mean it's valid for the state to try desperately to think of a way to seize it. Fair taxation doesn't mean ever more taxation.
IMO it takes a particular sort of pessimist to start moaning about having to pay some extra tax because their house has shot up in value to over £2 million however many years they have lived in it!!
0 -
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2842472/Opponents-foreign-aid-spending-Little-Englanders-says-Lib-Dem-minister-UK-gives-720million-climate-fund.html
I'm starting to wonder about Surbiton and Kingston.0 -
Isn't it currently the case that if a couple separate, they can end up significantly better off in terms of taxes and/or benefits, and that as a results some couples are separating "for tax reasons" whilst presumably carrying on their relationship unofficially.Pong said:
I get the principle - and I'm not necessarily arguing that marriage tax breaks are a good or bad thing - my point is the very act of policy-making involves social engineering.Cyclefree said:
I repeat what I said below: "I'm in favour of spreading taxes as widely as possible with as few exemptions as possible and, in consequence, lower taxes. Let people decide for themselves what they do with their lives without being distorted by tax impositions, exemptions or the state trying to 'nudge' us."Pong said:
So no marriage tax breaks?Cyclefree said:
That's not the whole point of government. It's what the Left think the point of government should be. The key role of the state is to keep order within it and defend the state from enemies abroad. Everything else is an extra.BenM said:
The whole point of goverment f whatever hue is to socially engineer. You're deluded if you think not. Universal education was an act of social engineering!Casino_Royale said:
A shag tax? Taxing single people over 25?Pong said:
Rather than incentivise having children, we could disincentivise not having them instead?Casino_Royale said:
I don't think child benefit of £20 a week makes much of a difference in people's decision to have kids. On the other hand, it costs £12bn a year.
I can think of far better things to spend the money on.
How about a condom tax?
I don't like it when the government tries to socially engineer society. We need to cut our social security/welfare spend. Child benefit is a good place to start.
An obvious example is the legal and tax benefits of marriage.
Should they be withdrawn altogether to avoid social engineering?
0 -
That would favour faiths and practices where more than one wife is valid. What happens about concubines?weejonnie said:
First child per family, or first child per wife?Cyclefree said:If child benefit is paid at all, it should be paid only for the first child, generously, if possible, and to the mother. There's an argument for saying that it should be paid only for the first 5 years of the child's life. And also an argument for taxing it.
0 -
That Thornberry tweet is all over the place. Blimey.
0 -
From which it follows that, if in the past your income was £10k and your house was worth £30k, and if now the respective figures are £25k and £125k, you must have been undertaxed in the past if a mansion tax is fair now.Cyclefree said:
Oh don't be ridiculous!state_go_away said:
it is indeed an unlucky man to not be able to control his house price going beyond £2 million and therefore ,whilst gaining upteen hundreds of thousands on his house will mean he pays a few thousand in a property tax!!-Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Flashman (deceased), not only that, the variations in its value are usually not down to the individual. It's entirely beyond the average man's control whether his house's value rises or falls dramatically, and one's house is not an easy thing to change.
I am not affected by the mansion tax. However my income has gone up about two and a half times since I bought my house 25 years ago. My house has gone up in value - allegedly - by much more than that. I do not have hundreds of thousands more as a result of this alleged increase in value.
Whenever Labour says "fair" I replace it with "spiteful" and see if the sentence makes more sense. It always does.
0 -
Power. Physical power. The ability to remove your money with the threat of force - over which it has a monopoly.Bond_James_Bond said:
What[s the basis of the state's entitlement to take someone's estate?rcs1000 said:
I agree 100%. I think, at the very simplest level, we should move to a recipient tax, rather than an estate tax. Treat inheritance as what it is: unearned income.state_go_away said:
I tend to vote Conservative because I generally think they are on the side of aspiration but if the Tories do have a fault its that they covert exemption on inheritance taxation more than anything else. If ,because of a property tax on high value homes , heirs get less money on death that is a good thing imo -it creates a more level playing field for others to aspire to get onrcs1000 said:
From a straight economics perspective, you're absolutely right. By taxing assets, you discourage inefficient use of capital.state_go_away said:
I think the state should be smaller than it is (hence my name) but there is a huge national debt and if taxation does have to be raised I would prefer it to be more balanced towards assets than income. I said on the earlier thread I though a better way of property tax would be an extension of the rates bands but the labour mansion tax is hardly a vote loser, unfair or even socialist imoMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Nose, welcome to pb.com and cheers for the info.
Mr. Away, people often live in houses for many years. That doesn't mean it's legitimate to hurl an extra tax their way. Just because someone has money doesn't mean it's valid for the state to try desperately to think of a way to seize it. Fair taxation doesn't mean ever more taxation.
IMO it takes a particular sort of pessimist to start moaning about having to pay some extra tax because their house has shot up in value to over £2 million however many years they have lived in it!!0 -
Each woman gets child benefit for one child - her eldest.weejonnie said:
First child per family, or first child per wife?Cyclefree said:If child benefit is paid at all, it should be paid only for the first child, generously, if possible, and to the mother. There's an argument for saying that it should be paid only for the first 5 years of the child's life. And also an argument for taxing it.
0 -
Con Gain.taffys said:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2842472/Opponents-foreign-aid-spending-Little-Englanders-says-Lib-Dem-minister-UK-gives-720million-climate-fund.html
I'm starting to wonder about Surbiton and Kingston.
0 -
Mad of Kippers to hype up an old poll showing them winning by streets - not good for the kipper GOTV operation.0
-
-
Fieldwork was conducted by telephone from 27-28 October.Tissue_Price said:George Eaton @georgeeaton 1m
New Survation/Unite poll on Rochester: Ukip 48% (+48), Con 33% (-16), Lab 16% (-13), Lib Dems 1% (-16).
EDIT: John Rentoul @JohnRentoul 21s
@georgeeaton Old Survation poll, George.0 -
any exit poll news?0
-
Or indeed just removing it from your bank account without asking you... works for HMRCPatrick said:
Power. Physical power. The ability to remove your money with the threat of force - over which it has a monopoly.Bond_James_Bond said:
What[s the basis of the state's entitlement to take someone's estate?rcs1000 said:
I agree 100%. I think, at the very simplest level, we should move to a recipient tax, rather than an estate tax. Treat inheritance as what it is: unearned income.state_go_away said:
I tend to vote Conservative because I generally think they are on the side of aspiration but if the Tories do have a fault its that they covert exemption on inheritance taxation more than anything else. If ,because of a property tax on high value homes , heirs get less money on death that is a good thing imo -it creates a more level playing field for others to aspire to get onrcs1000 said:
From a straight economics perspective, you're absolutely right. By taxing assets, you discourage inefficient use of capital.state_go_away said:
I think the state should be smaller than it is (hence my name) but there is a huge national debt and if taxation does have to be raised I would prefer it to be more balanced towards assets than income. I said on the earlier thread I though a better way of property tax would be an extension of the rates bands but the labour mansion tax is hardly a vote loser, unfair or even socialist imoMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Nose, welcome to pb.com and cheers for the info.
Mr. Away, people often live in houses for many years. That doesn't mean it's legitimate to hurl an extra tax their way. Just because someone has money doesn't mean it's valid for the state to try desperately to think of a way to seize it. Fair taxation doesn't mean ever more taxation.
IMO it takes a particular sort of pessimist to start moaning about having to pay some extra tax because their house has shot up in value to over £2 million however many years they have lived in it!!0 -
Union leaders have accepted the first Wales-only pay deal offered to NHS staff.
The Welsh government put forward a two-year offer which includes a 1% pay rise from next April.
The deal covering 77,000 NHS staff excluding doctors and dentists was hailed by Health Minister Mark Drakeford as a "credit to all parties"......
It includes a cash payment this year, the introduction of the living wage for the lowest paid from January, and a 1% rise across the board from April.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-30120726
That is 1 NHS person for every 40 people!0 -
That's pretty close to my own back-of-an-envelope guesstimate, and reflects the way Betfair has been trading for a while now, albeit in very light trading.Pong said:
Bizarre to release it now? Is it definitely a new poll? Is this a poll that UKIP were holding back?Tissue_Price said:George Eaton @georgeeaton 1m
New Survation/Unite poll on Rochester: Ukip 48% (+48), Con 33% (-16), Lab 16% (-13), Lib Dems 1% (-16).
Farage said something about expecting to win by at least 15% - was he basing it on this poll?
if it's reliable, then the over 10.5% seems decent;
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/rochester-and-strood-by-election/ukip-winning-margin
The Labour vote is a bit higher than I would have expected, and suggests not quite a UKIP rout - but Reckless and Farage would buy 15% right now, I'm sure.
So would I. My lopsided portfolio will not be embarrassing me just yet, if those figures are right.0 -
Instead of the state finding ever more ways of taking our money, it should be taking the minimum necessary to fund the essential functions of the state.
The discussion that ought to be had is what those essential functions are and how much should we spend on them. The state does far too much and, in consequence, does much of it badly and ineffectively, taxes us too much and we feel that the money is wasted.
Do less. Do it better. Raise the money effectively. Spend it sensibly. And the state should never ever forget that it is spending our money.0 -
Con Gain.
There's an active UKIP presence there too, I've seen them in Kingston town centre.
Might be enough for Davey to squeak back in??0 -
To me it looks like she was showing someone who doesn't want any more canvassers to come to their door.Ishmael_X said:
I feel really, really stupid about this, but what point is the tweet making (and doesn't she know she ought to obscure number plates)?taffys said:That Thornberry tweet is all over the place. Blimey.
0 -
What is the state of the mansion tax going to be for people while mansions in foreign jurisdictions I wonder, mansion tax on a few billionaires islands might raise a few quid.0
-
Peter Oborne describes Mark Reckless as a "brutish and low-grade specimen":
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11242034/No-sign-yet-of-a-solution-to-the-shambles-within-the-Tory-party.html0 -
Hmmm...depends why they've done it.TGOHF said:Mad of Kippers to hype up an old poll showing them winning by streets - not good for the kipper GOTV operation.
Might suggest they are confident. They are sure to have private polling that is much more recent and if their GOTV op is going ok, and they think they're going to beat 15%, why not release it.
If only I could get on with Skybet..... Grrrrr!
0 -
That Thornberry tweet is all over the place. Blimey.
It's a terrible indictment of the detached tory party, snobbish and sneering - yes it's not to my taste - but as a Tory you can't be pompous like that, sometimes the tory arrogance is a real achilles heel.
Too many tweets make a ....0 -
Everyone talks about Child Benefit but it is Child Tax Credits that are the huge payer.Casino_Royale said:
I don't think child benefit of £20 a week makes much of a difference in people's decision to have kids. On the other hand, it costs £12bn a year.Pong said:
Surely having children is the solution to the deficit challenge?Casino_Royale said:
Why can't we just scrap it entirely?chestnut said:
Agreed.The_Last_Boy_Scout said:Another example of an even crazier tax is the High Income Child Benefit Tax - that's even worse because it affects many more people, at lower incomes, and is even harder to administer.
Both taxes are awfully designed.
It's crazily bureaucratic now.
The next government, whoever it is, should merge Child Tax Credit and Child Benefit into one means-tested child allowance with the need to self-assess for HMRC abolished.
They should at the same time introduce some form of limit on the maximum number of eligible children, along with some fail-safe that means it is only paid to people who have contributed in Britain and for children that are resident in Britain.
Having children is one of the most popular activities there is, and we have an ever growing population. I see no reason why the state should continue to subsidise it, particularly when we having a pressing deficit challenge.
I'm gay, I'm not likely to be procreating any time soon, but I'm encouraging all my straight friends to go forth and breed. I need the population pyramid to keep growing if i'm going to have a comfortable retirement in ~40 years...
I can think of far better things to spend the money on.
8 million households get Child Benefit.
4 million households get Child Tax Credits.
And those 4 million households get, on average, just over £100 per week of Child Tax Credits. They then, of course, also get Child Benefit on top.
So Child Tax Credits are not just being paid to very poor people. They are being paid to 50% of people with children. And they are massive.
And they are not a "tax credit" in the sense of a reduction of tax paid. Anyone in receipt of the above average of just over £100 per week will have paid far, far less tax than that. So they end up in their pocket with more than their gross earnings from employment.0 -
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2014/nov/20/polls-rochester-strood-byelection-mark-reckless-ukip-liveCyclefree said:
Not much. But it is dreadfully easy to read into it a sneering just stepped in dogshit attitude towards the WWC from Thornberry from it.
Like the Parris piece on Clacton, in a picture.0 -
Picture of a white van on a car-port with three Union flags hanging from the windows of the house.Cyclefree said:
"Welcome to Rochester". presumably a dig a 'white-van-man' - those who have deserted Labour for UKIP.0 -
What does it say?
Nothing. It is a photo.
But when you see it, you will get it.0 -
Transporting voters in R ans S this evening. Chatting to colleagues who have been here all day. They report blue camp quite cheerful and also confirm what I found earlier this week that many Kippers intend to vote Blue at GE.
0 -
I agree completely, but then I am not sitting on my sofa playing on a xbox while someone else it out at work paying for it.Cyclefree said:Instead of the state finding ever more ways of taking our money, it should be taking the minimum necessary to fund the essential functions of the state.
The discussion that ought to be had is what those essential functions are and how much should we spend on them. The state does far too much and, in consequence, does much of it badly and ineffectively, taxes us too much and we feel that the money is wasted.
Do less. Do it better. Raise the money effectively. Spend it sensibly. And the state should never ever forget that it is spending our money.
Re your last sentence, I am not sure the Treasury would agree,
Sir Humphrey: "Taxation isn't about what you need."
Jim Hacker: "Oh, what is it about?"
Sir Humphrey: "Prime Minister, the Treasury doesn't work out what they need to spend and then think how to raise the money."
Jim Hacker: "What does it do?"
Sir Humphrey: "They pitch for as much as they think they can get away with and then think what to spend it on."
0 -
You didn't appreciate the sarcasm - think about it.Cyclefree said:
Each woman gets child benefit for one child - her eldest.weejonnie said:
First child per family, or first child per wife?Cyclefree said:If child benefit is paid at all, it should be paid only for the first child, generously, if possible, and to the mother. There's an argument for saying that it should be paid only for the first 5 years of the child's life. And also an argument for taxing it.
0 -
Perhaps Ms Thornberry is a West Ham fan ?0
-
Absolutely right on every point.Cyclefree said:Instead of the state finding ever more ways of taking our money, it should be taking the minimum necessary to fund the essential functions of the state.
The discussion that ought to be had is what those essential functions are and how much should we spend on them. The state does far too much and, in consequence, does much of it badly and ineffectively, taxes us too much and we feel that the money is wasted.
Do less. Do it better. Raise the money effectively. Spend it sensibly. And the state should never ever forget that it is spending our money.
We also need a welfare system that acts as a safety net and nothing more. The idea that the state should pay people benefits to raise their standard of living above the basic minimum is abhorrent. As such, the idea that people should then be taxed on their benefits - indicating they are getting more than the basic safety net - is ludicrous.
I am sure most people are very glad I will never get within a million miles of any political power but if I did the first immediate act I would try to take would be to remove any and all government handouts from anyone earning more than the average income. Then I could start working down from there.0 -
If the latest poll is true, you'd need quite a big chunk to do that.impartial said:Transporting voters in R ans S this evening. Chatting to colleagues who have been here all day. They report blue camp quite cheerful and also confirm what I found earlier this week that many Kippers intend to vote Blue at GE.
And that's if they don't realise they actually like Reckless more when he can stand up and talk more freely in parliament.0 -
Apologies on the poll - as per the edit that's an old poll.
It's come to something when Labour MPs are getting pwned by the Sunday Sport:
Sunday Sport @thesundaysport ·
@EmilyThornberry Hold on love. Are you a Labour MP or Hyacinth Bucket?
https://twitter.com/thesundaysport/status/5354577936090603530 -
Thornberry has obviously had a cheeky tenner on UKIP gain Newham !0
-
Chances are the flags were left up from the england game on tuesday night.weejonnie said:
Picture of a white van on a car-port with three Union flags hanging from the windows of the house.Cyclefree said:
"Welcome to Rochester". presumably a dig a 'white-van-man' - those who have deserted Labour for UKIP.
Unless someone bothers to knock on the door, we'll never know...0 -
Labour MP Emily Thornberry has tweeted a photo of a house in Rochester adorned with English flags and a white van on the drive.
What point was she trying to make?0 -
No, I'm sure you can't. Perhaps you should think about it a bit. There are multiple flaws in your analysis.Ishmael_X said:
Your imported youngsters contribute (in the best case scenario) for a bit. On a future date, partly ascertainable in each individual case (because we can forecast retirement but not illness/unemployment), we pay back more than we were paid in the first place. Can't see the flaw in the analogy myself.antifrank said:
Congratulations on possibly the worst pb analogy of the year.Ishmael_X said:
I got my first payday loan at the beginning of this month. That's worked really well so far, too.antifrank said:
Fortunately, we have the option of immigration, which means that we can import the young people at an economically useful age without having to go through the expensive bit of raising them. It's worked really well so far.rcs1000 said:
The Total Fertility Ratio is the UK is well below 2.1. So, you would have a growing number of old people supported by a diminishing number of young people. If you want to see how disastrous that is economically, look at Japan or Italy.Casino_Royale said:
Why can't we just scrap it entirely?chestnut said:
Agreed.The_Last_Boy_Scout said:Another example of an even crazier tax is the High Income Child Benefit Tax - that's even worse because it affects many more people, at lower incomes, and is even harder to administer.
Both taxes are awfully designed.
It's crazily bureaucratic now.
The next government, whoever it is, should merge Child Tax Credit and Child Benefit into one means-tested child allowance with the need to self-assess for HMRC abolished.
They should at the same time introduce some form of limit on the maximum number of eligible children, along with some fail-safe that means it is only paid to people who have contributed in Britain and for children that are resident in Britain.
Having children is one of the most popular activities there is, and we have an ever growing population. I see no reason why the state should continue to subsidise it, particularly when we having a pressing deficit challenge.0 -
Thornberry's tweet which explains why her party isn't going to win Rochester today:
twitter.com/EmilyThornberry/status/5354505561990758400 -
http://www.cityam.com/1416499967/has-emily-thornberry-finished-labour-rochester-and-strood-one-tweet
No, they were already finished.0 -
Is Heaver a lurker here ^_~ ?
Michael Heaver @Michael_Heaver 3m3 minutes agoPulpstar said:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2014/nov/20/polls-rochester-strood-byelection-mark-reckless-ukip-liveCyclefree said:
Not much. But it is dreadfully easy to read into it a sneering just stepped in dogshit attitude towards the WWC from Thornberry from it.
Like the Parris piece on Clacton, in a picture.
Combo of Emily Thornberry/Matthew Parris straddling both establishment parties perfectly illustrates why purple alternative has sprung up.
0 -
the latest poll is nearly as old as you!Socrates said:
If the latest poll is true, you'd need quite a big chunk to do that.impartial said:Transporting voters in R ans S this evening. Chatting to colleagues who have been here all day. They report blue camp quite cheerful and also confirm what I found earlier this week that many Kippers intend to vote Blue at GE.
And that's if they don't realise they actually like Reckless more when he can stand up and talk more freely in parliament.0 -
Surely that's not how people in the Medway area used to speak a few decades ago? It's been influenced by estuary English from Essex and east London.BenM said:
Yes.Roger said:Is Kelly Tolhurst's accent a Medway one? I've known people from that part of the world but I've never come accross one like that before
0 -
I find it staggering that a family can have an income of £58,000 a year and still get handouts from the government. Small admittedly (£545 a year) but still ludicrous.MikeL said:
Everyone talks about Child Benefit but it is Child Tax Credits that are the huge payer.Casino_Royale said:
I don't think child benefit of £20 a week makes much of a difference in people's decision to have kids. On the other hand, it costs £12bn a year.Pong said:
Surely having children is the solution to the deficit challenge?Casino_Royale said:
Why can't we just scrap it entirely?chestnut said:
Agreed.The_Last_Boy_Scout said:Another example of an even crazier tax is the High Income Child Benefit Tax - that's even worse because it affects many more people, at lower incomes, and is even harder to administer.
Both taxes are awfully designed.
It's crazily bureaucratic now.
The next government, whoever it is, should merge Child Tax Credit and Child Benefit into one means-tested child allowance with the need to self-assess for HMRC abolished.
They should at the same time introduce some form of limit on the maximum number of eligible children, along with some fail-safe that means it is only paid to people who have contributed in Britain and for children that are resident in Britain.
Having children is one of the most popular activities there is, and we have an ever growing population. I see no reason why the state should continue to subsidise it, particularly when we having a pressing deficit challenge.
I'm gay, I'm not likely to be procreating any time soon, but I'm encouraging all my straight friends to go forth and breed. I need the population pyramid to keep growing if i'm going to have a comfortable retirement in ~40 years...
I can think of far better things to spend the money on.
8 million households get Child Benefit.
4 million households get Child Tax Credits.
And those 4 million households get, on average, just over £100 per week of Child Tax Credits. They then, of course, also get Child Benefit on top.
So Child Tax Credits are not just being paid to very poor people. They are being paid to 50% of people with children. And they are massive.
And they are not a "tax credit" in the sense of a reduction of tax paid. Anyone in receipt of the above average of just over £100 per week will have paid far, far less tax than that. So they end up in their pocket with more than their gross earnings from employment.0 -
UKIP have now been backed off the board in the Betfair straight win market.0
-
Thornberry's tweet which explains why her party isn't going to win Rochester today:
''too many white working class people''0 -
Most say the nightmare is Ed by defaultSocrates said:
If the latest poll is true, you'd need quite a big chunk to do that.impartial said:Transporting voters in R ans S this evening. Chatting to colleagues who have been here all day. They report blue camp quite cheerful and also confirm what I found earlier this week that many Kippers intend to vote Blue at GE.
And that's if they don't realise they actually like Reckless more when he can stand up and talk more freely in parliament.0 -
Not just you. I suggested that welfare spending was far too high on Facebook yesterday, and would do something similar, and my socialist friends all went ballistic, and started 'liking' each other's responses.Richard_Tyndall said:
Absolutely right on every point.Cyclefree said:Instead of the state finding ever more ways of taking our money, it should be taking the minimum necessary to fund the essential functions of the state.
The discussion that ought to be had is what those essential functions are and how much should we spend on them. The state does far too much and, in consequence, does much of it badly and ineffectively, taxes us too much and we feel that the money is wasted.
Do less. Do it better. Raise the money effectively. Spend it sensibly. And the state should never ever forget that it is spending our money.
We also need a welfare system that acts as a safety net and nothing more. The idea that the state should pay people benefits to raise their standard of living above the basic minimum is abhorrent. As such, the idea that people should then be taxed on their benefits - indicating they are getting more than the basic safety net - is ludicrous.
I am sure most people are very glad I will never get within a million miles of any political power but if I did the first immediate act I would try to take would be to remove any and all government handouts from anyone earning more than the average income. Then I could start working down from there.0 -
You can still get 1-41 at Unibet and 1-100 generally.Peter_the_Punter said:UKIP have now been backed off the board in the Betfair straight win market.
Anyone who has backed the Tories heavily should perhaps consider rescuing that penny in the pound !0 -
To be fair, there are now many in the Conservative party who think the same. Although Labour has the worst of it in terms of despising their own people.AndyJS said:Thornberry's tweet which explains why her party isn't going to win Rochester today:
twitter.com/EmilyThornberry/status/5354505561990758400 -
Tories are so bigoted a Labour MP is not allowed to tweet photos on the campaign trail.
A look at Emily Thornberry's feed show's she's been tweeting a few photos today.0 -
That Sunday Sport tweet is delicious.
A Tory win today would be bloody amazing, but totally unlikely. Will enjoy settling down with a case of Blue Nun for the by-election special.0 -
Has Emily Thornberry defected to the Tories? Er, no thanks...!Scrapheap_as_was said:That Thornberry tweet is all over the place. Blimey.
It's a terrible indictment of the detached tory party, snobbish and sneering - yes it's not to my taste - but as a Tory you can't be pompous like that, sometimes the tory arrogance is a real achilles heel.
Too many tweets make a ....
The Islington bunker mind-set writ large.
0 -
Old Holborn @Holbornlolz
@WikiGuido @EmilyThornberry Culture shock after leaving Islington for an hour. "Where is the humous and organic falafals?"
Giggle.0 -
Why is Emily Thornberry MP trending on Twitter?
*Innocent Face*0 -
-
I'm one of Ms Thornberry's constituents. I had hummus for lunch today and I pondered about organic falafels as well.Indigo said:Old Holborn @Holbornlolz
@WikiGuido @EmilyThornberry Culture shock after leaving Islington for an hour. "Where is the humous and organic falafals?"
Giggle.
#teamislington0 -
Bradford was a shock result, but not to those who had been reading the betting runes.RobD said:That Sunday Sport tweet is delicious.
A Tory win today would be bloody amazing, but totally unlikely. Will enjoy settling down with a case of Blue Nun for the by-election special.
When was the last truly shocking by-election declaration? It was so far back it was probably a LibDem win!
0 -
@tnewtondunn: A prediction: @EmilyThornberry will "clarify" what she meant by her England flags/white van tweet from #Rochester within the hour.
And she has done...
@MrHarryCole: Wow! RT @TomMcTague: Emily Thornberry tells MailOnline: ‘It was a house covered in British flags. I’ve never seen anything like it before.'
@MrHarryCole: Get her a spade RT @mattholehouse: "My point is that it's a remarkable image of a house completely covered in flags. There's three of them."0 -
Emily Thornberry's tweet mocking white van man on the day of a by-election has to rank as of the most stupid moves by a senior politician for many years.
I feel a bit sorry for Ms Khan, the Labour candidate in Rochester.0
![[Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/d2ea526b1b06ed109333f390c7ae956b_100.png)
