The problem is how you "pay tax" from a fixed asset such as land without selling it. The NFU are pointing out that smaller farms will have no option than to sell up.
She's says inheritance up to £1m is protected and the farmer immediately shakes his head.
So I am left thing that he, like most of them, seem to have no idea about the actual detail.
Edit: Also - he doesn't look too old. Start giving parcels of the land to your sons now and live 7 years.
He's shaking his head at what he is hearing. That he has been lied to.
No. Not shaking head at lies, just knowing that she and her government believe they are crusaders going after tax relief, like modern day Robin Hood - without a clue what is tax relief and what isn’t.
My dad’s been talking to lots of people, my brothers also full of advice how we get round inheritance changes - like I become the owner of lots more family property stuff. He says if there wasn’t APR before we have to do it like he wanted to anyway, and without it we now do it his way, but that’s not my economic point, the big point is the government are stupid and haven’t thought it through that they getting lots of flack over this, worrying and hurting people, but not even getting the billions of money they told themselves and everyone in public now thinks they are getting! They see themselves ans robbing rich to give poor, but its fantasy. And that is definition of government done crap. Insurance and accountants are the winners making money, so their supporting the demo’s against it, in for other peoples interests not their own, is good.
And Normally I don’t like misleading headlines in papers, but I’m loving the ones saying Labour government will be milking farms for billions IHT, as voters will be left thinking farming community have paid their share “all in it together”. When banner says toot for farmers, people will toot their horns. British are about fair play. But let’s be clear on messaging, those tooting horns need to know it’s not merely an entrepreneurial v socialism fight, as too many on right argue it, the voters need to know APR and BPR are important about national food security too, and British Heritage and way of life is worth protecting with APR and BPR too - though I expect PB Pirates like Barty and Lucky laughing at me as I argue that, as they are unpatriotic dipsticks interested solely in consumerism
It's entirely about entrepreneurialism vs socialism.
Changes in voluntary taxation cause changes in behaviour shocker.
If you get to choose when and how you pay it, and how you structure it, don't be surprised when people structure it so they pay less.
If I'm still in the UK next year I will be paying at most half of what I would have paid pre the capital gains bump, for example.*
Meanwhile the socialists just eagerly look on at us like cash cows and assume we "have to" pay up on what we were planning to pay before, but at a much higher percentage rate.
Shame it doesn't work in real life.
*My financial advisor has suggested that Reeves' budget is a shitshow and an exit tax is incoming to shore up lost revenues, so the smart thing to do would be to leave before it happens.
Wrong. AVP wasn’t simply about entrepreneurship was it? - that’s not the argument to keep it, that stupid Daily Telegraph Daily Mail mindset too easily plays into Labours hands, can’t you see?
Besides, your argument also expect us to believe this Labour government are ardent socialists out to crush every bit of entrepreneurialism in UK and only Truss and LuckyGuy can save us from it? You should edit the Telegraph. Maybe you do.
No. This is a government believing it’s doing long overdue crack down on unnecessary tax reliefs in unbalanced and bankrupt country, but without clue how myopic its actions are and damage they are causing where things are not unnecessary tax reliefs.
It’s about government sums not adding up on this just like that with all reeves recent money grabbing schemes - not only the opposite of what was promised for votes they clearly said wouldn’t touch APR - they won’t even bring in anything like the money headlines claimed - like ending nomdom status costs the UK money not gains any etc. ends up the biggest problem with the budget as budget that’s not balanced, the budget gamble was on growth, but UK and world economy ain’t getting any interesting economic growth for six or seven years at least, says every forecast, maybe there’s too much covid debt around holding everything back, like economic long Covid media economic editors will dub it in a few years time I predict, and likely with volatility in energy there’s more inflation wobbles too to cost everyone in power lots of votes as voters get even poorer than 2019 in 2029. People didn’t put Labour in, they decided to put Cons out (humane out of misery wrung neck sort of thing) What goes round comes around.
This is about food security every bit like investing in Brit volt for our batteries, rather relying on batteries imported from China is a clear threat to UK security.
It’s also about protecting not privilege, not heritage. It’s missing the point that growing populations need food, not simply for survival but happiness, and there’s route to health and happiness through the APR.
Best of luck with that.
And best of luck to you, framing it merely as taking away tax relief on rich and privileged folk, being a damaging attack on UK entrepreneurship, so missing everything the APR is really there for, as protection.
APR is protection for UK farming, where all sorts of people want to do farming these days, as a happy way of life, it’s not about money, or chasing money, because happiness isn’t about money. Where families have done it for a hundred years, they want to keep doing it for reasons other than entrepreneurship, making money, chasing more money, all the lovely money coming in, because quite simply all that lovely money isn’t coming in! profits are not there, not in producers anyway, maybe in those selling it to public, or those in middle taking it from producer and giving it to those who sell to consumer just as the sellers want it - an it that is thankfully now being looked at very suspiciously.
Yet, without making money, or a desire to grow and take over the world, the desire is definitely there to keep going. Heck - that desire is so strong and so relatable you could sell six series of much watched and most therapeutic TV show in the world based on it. With people rooting for the good guys, the farmers, to win.
No. APR was never tax relief, a mere pawn, taken en passant in entrepreneurialism vs socialism game of thrones as you claim. I think you can’t see it. You clearly don’t understand, that when newspapers and MPs think they are helping, by saying don’t take this money away, a lot of people around the country, feeling very hard up themselves and looking around at the underfunded state of things, are easily replying “why the hell not?”
Because it’s not tax relief. It’s keeping an industry alive. And the industry is important because…
Oh, I get you. Don't entirely disagree, either.
My point was simply that these things bring with them all manner of unintended consequences.
The biggest tax swizz - I mean relief - we have at the moment is the personal allowance on primary residences, which allows some to chalk up seven figure gains at 0% while others are expected to put their hand in their pocket, which leads to all manner of other little misallocations - like Dyson buying up vast tracts of farmland to name an egregious example. Why not flat rate CGT and IHT at 10% across the board, for example? End the misallocation.
I'm not sure I agree with your point that agricultural relief is about food security. The land will be there irrespective of who owns it, and Stalinist upheavals and five year plans aside, food will continue to be produced irrespective of who owns it.
Which is why I do think it's a simple argument about socialism vs capitalism, as it is redistributing land from those who own it to new owners while taking a decent rake for the exchequer, and bugger the consequences.
But Reeves has this mad idea that people won't change their behaviour or restructure, which is what I would be looking to do if I owned farmland right now.
“I'm not sure I agree with your point that agricultural relief is about security.”
Remember Malt hus- food doesn’t just equate to survival, but to happiness. To have safe and nutritious food that meets dietary need is vital for an active, happy and healthy life. Agriculture provides half of the food we eat in UK - this clearly is protection to UK consumers from price rises, global supply chain issues bringing health and happiness shortages. Is it not?
Jobs, trade, tax security - Farming industry keeps four million people in jobs, trades, crafts, and skills. Bringing £130B to UK economy useful too to securing government spending commitments.
Environmental security. Farmers don’t just care about the environment, they are its guardians - looking after nature, balancing land use, protecting soil, water, air. 70% of UK land in agricultural use is the UKs carbon sink.
I know the PB Pirates can leap in any second saying rest of world should be allowed to compete and beat us in the supermarkets on a level playing field. But they are wrong, just as anyone would be daft enough to supply UK armed forces with cheaper batteries made for us in China. Similarly grow your own is to be dependent on none. Government help to farming will be identical security money to government help to UK firm providing UK Defence with batteries.
APR is about UK security.
A futurologist I was speaking to the other week reckons it will all be indoor/hydroponic in the middle east in the next 50 years, as they will have the energy supply for heating/cooling etc as required, while most 'outdoor' land will be subject to extreme variances that will reduce yield and make some areas unfarmable. The middle east will be the bread basket because it has limitless space and cheapest solar energy.
Not saying any of that is true, actually it sounded bleeding bonkers to me, but then again, 2024 probably sounds insane to somebody from 1974.
Point is, I'm not sure the UK has the ability to maintain food security for a 70m+ population indefinitely under the current model. I wouldn't be doing what Reeves is doing, heck no. But I would be more focused on energy security... and border security.
The UK isn't food sufficient now, let alone at +3-4c global temperature rise, with all the upheavals of population that will lead to...
There was a somewhat (if not terribly well done) Austrian TV Show (film?) called Halbe Welt that had an initially interesting take on some of these ideas (and the general fall-out of climate changes)
The sun blazes down from the sky with destructive power; exposing oneself to its light means death. People have transposed everyday existence to the night. In the metropolis of HALF WORLD a culture based on various languages and lifeforms has grown rampant. Everyone is looking for a way to survive.
(tl;dr - the first half hour is interesting, then it goes to the dogs. As I remember 20+ years after watching it)
Of the $327m your link had given by the health industry, $129m came from Adelson, so like any other billionaire rather than an issue with the industry as a whole
Digging into Pharma the top donor was Abbott at $5.1m. In total you get to around $40m from the industry.
The appointment of Gabbard gives an extra perspective on this.
Members of President-elect Donald Trump's transition team are drawing up a list of military officers to be fired, potentially to include the Joint Chiefs of Staff. https://x.com/idreesali114/status/1856805210724655564
We may see the Dems imitating Tommy Tuberville.
The GOP leadership knew it was unwise for that procedure to be used.
It says something for the surreal timeline we’re living that the reaction to Trump appointing an actual Putin supporter (not an equivocator, or an isolationist or appeaser, but a full fat Putinist - oh and Assad apologist to boot) to the top national intelligence role in our most powerful geopolitical ally is greeted in some quarters by “ooh, liberal tears, cry harder”.
Suggest this means that the UK should increase defence spending and you'll see more than liberal tears, you'll get full force tantrums from many of them.
The budget significantly increased defence expenditure. I haven't heard any complaints from the left.
It really didn't.
A significant increase would be to a minimum of 3% with immediate effect and planned increases to over 4%.
The NHS is getting an increase 10x the size that defence is.
What do you think the reaction would be if those two increases were now swapped ?
It is a real terms increase over Tory budgets.
You might not like that fact, and might not like the fact that we have the smallest armed forces in Centuries because of Tory cuts, but it is simply true.
I don't like the fact and condemned it at the time.
But the cuts were made during the coalition era.
That same coalition era some claim to have been an era of wondrously competent government.
The UK Armed Forces were 162 000 strong in 2015, 138 000 in 2024, so a 15% cut in numbers since the Coalition ended, despite the increase in international threats.
The Tories running down of the Armed Forces roughly parallels their running down of all public services.
Defence was a Tory portfolio under the Coalition in any case, not an LD one.
That doesn't excuse the Conservative governments since then - though I don't remember any other party calling for increases in defence spending.
But that's all water under the bridge - the decisions now are for Starmer and Reeves to take.
Do they want to increase defence spending and are they willing to increases the taxes to pay for it ?
Now, here's an idea. Why not announce a target - hear me out - a world beating target for increasing spending on $the_thing. And announce tax rises to pay for it.
Then not do it and just spaff the tax rises on something else!
It says something for the surreal timeline we’re living that the reaction to Trump appointing an actual Putin supporter (not an equivocator, or an isolationist or appeaser, but a full fat Putinist - oh and Assad apologist to boot) to the top national intelligence role in our most powerful geopolitical ally is greeted in some quarters by “ooh, liberal tears, cry harder”.
Suggest this means that the UK should increase defence spending and you'll see more than liberal tears, you'll get full force tantrums from many of them.
The budget significantly increased defence expenditure. I haven't heard any complaints from the left.
It really didn't.
A significant increase would be to a minimum of 3% with immediate effect and planned increases to over 4%.
The NHS is getting an increase 10x the size that defence is.
What do you think the reaction would be if those two increases were now swapped ?
It is a real terms increase over Tory budgets.
You might not like that fact, and might not like the fact that we have the smallest armed forces in Centuries because of Tory cuts, but it is simply true.
I don't like the fact and condemned it at the time.
But the cuts were made during the coalition era.
That same coalition era some claim to have been an era of wondrously competent government.
The UK Armed Forces were 162 000 strong in 2015, 138 000 in 2024, so a 15% cut in numbers since the Coalition ended, despite the increase in international threats.
The Tories running down of the Armed Forces roughly parallels their running down of all public services.
Defence was a Tory portfolio under the Coalition in any case, not an LD one.
That doesn't excuse the Conservative governments since then - though I don't remember any other party calling for increases in defence spending.
But that's all water under the bridge - the decisions now are for Starmer and Reeves to take.
Do they want to increase defence spending and are they willing to increases the taxes to pay for it ?
And surely you remember that both Defence Secretary and CoE were Tory portfolios under the Coalition?
And Starmer/Reeves have put in place real terms increases. Something that they deserve credit for surely, especially in light of all the other cost pressures left to them by the last Tory government.
That’s going to be hugely humiliating for Starmer and the Labour government.
The Tory Press, in fact all the press, will back Trump over Starmer on this. Can Starmer claim he has the British people behind him? Or more sensible for Starmer to back down early on in the discussion?
I wonder if Nigel slipped in a clever word…
It’s certainly a move that would leave Starmer and Lammy high and dry without a fishing junk. Very diminished.
The problem is how you "pay tax" from a fixed asset such as land without selling it. The NFU are pointing out that smaller farms will have no option than to sell up.
She's says inheritance up to £1m is protected and the farmer immediately shakes his head.
So I am left thing that he, like most of them, seem to have no idea about the actual detail.
Edit: Also - he doesn't look too old. Start giving parcels of the land to your sons now and live 7 years.
He's shaking his head at what he is hearing. That he has been lied to.
No. Not shaking head at lies, just knowing that she and her government believe they are crusaders going after tax relief, like modern day Robin Hood - without a clue what is tax relief and what isn’t.
My dad’s been talking to lots of people, my brothers also full of advice how we get round inheritance changes - like I become the owner of lots more family property stuff. He says if there wasn’t APR before we have to do it like he wanted to anyway, and without it we now do it his way, but that’s not my economic point, the big point is the government are stupid and haven’t thought it through that they getting lots of flack over this, worrying and hurting people, but not even getting the billions of money they told themselves and everyone in public now thinks they are getting! They see themselves ans robbing rich to give poor, but its fantasy. And that is definition of government done crap. Insurance and accountants are the winners making money, so their supporting the demo’s against it, in for other peoples interests not their own, is good.
And Normally I don’t like misleading headlines in papers, but I’m loving the ones saying Labour government will be milking farms for billions IHT, as voters will be left thinking farming community have paid their share “all in it together”. When banner says toot for farmers, people will toot their horns. British are about fair play. But let’s be clear on messaging, those tooting horns need to know it’s not merely an entrepreneurial v socialism fight, as too many on right argue it, the voters need to know APR and BPR are important about national food security too, and British Heritage and way of life is worth protecting with APR and BPR too - though I expect PB Pirates like Barty and Lucky laughing at me as I argue that, as they are unpatriotic dipsticks interested solely in consumerism
It's entirely about entrepreneurialism vs socialism.
Changes in voluntary taxation cause changes in behaviour shocker.
If you get to choose when and how you pay it, and how you structure it, don't be surprised when people structure it so they pay less.
If I'm still in the UK next year I will be paying at most half of what I would have paid pre the capital gains bump, for example.*
Meanwhile the socialists just eagerly look on at us like cash cows and assume we "have to" pay up on what we were planning to pay before, but at a much higher percentage rate.
Shame it doesn't work in real life.
*My financial advisor has suggested that Reeves' budget is a shitshow and an exit tax is incoming to shore up lost revenues, so the smart thing to do would be to leave before it happens.
Wrong. AVP wasn’t simply about entrepreneurship was it? - that’s not the argument to keep it, that stupid Daily Telegraph Daily Mail mindset too easily plays into Labours hands, can’t you see?
Besides, your argument also expect us to believe this Labour government are ardent socialists out to crush every bit of entrepreneurialism in UK and only Truss and LuckyGuy can save us from it? You should edit the Telegraph. Maybe you do.
No. This is a government believing it’s doing long overdue crack down on unnecessary tax reliefs in unbalanced and bankrupt country, but without clue how myopic its actions are and damage they are causing where things are not unnecessary tax reliefs.
It’s about government sums not adding up on this just like that with all reeves recent money grabbing schemes - not only the opposite of what was promised for votes they clearly said wouldn’t touch APR - they won’t even bring in anything like the money headlines claimed - like ending nomdom status costs the UK money not gains any etc. ends up the biggest problem with the budget as budget that’s not balanced, the budget gamble was on growth, but UK and world economy ain’t getting any interesting economic growth for six or seven years at least, says every forecast, maybe there’s too much covid debt around holding everything back, like economic long Covid media economic editors will dub it in a few years time I predict, and likely with volatility in energy there’s more inflation wobbles too to cost everyone in power lots of votes as voters get even poorer than 2019 in 2029. People didn’t put Labour in, they decided to put Cons out (humane out of misery wrung neck sort of thing) What goes round comes around.
This is about food security every bit like investing in Brit volt for our batteries, rather relying on batteries imported from China is a clear threat to UK security.
It’s also about protecting not privilege, not heritage. It’s missing the point that growing populations need food, not simply for survival but happiness, and there’s route to health and happiness through the APR.
Best of luck with that.
And best of luck to you, framing it merely as taking away tax relief on rich and privileged folk, being a damaging attack on UK entrepreneurship, so missing everything the APR is really there for, as protection.
APR is protection for UK farming, where all sorts of people want to do farming these days, as a happy way of life, it’s not about money, or chasing money, because happiness isn’t about money. Where families have done it for a hundred years, they want to keep doing it for reasons other than entrepreneurship, making money, chasing more money, all the lovely money coming in, because quite simply all that lovely money isn’t coming in! profits are not there, not in producers anyway, maybe in those selling it to public, or those in middle taking it from producer and giving it to those who sell to consumer just as the sellers want it - an it that is thankfully now being looked at very suspiciously.
Yet, without making money, or a desire to grow and take over the world, the desire is definitely there to keep going. Heck - that desire is so strong and so relatable you could sell six series of much watched and most therapeutic TV show in the world based on it. With people rooting for the good guys, the farmers, to win.
No. APR was never tax relief, a mere pawn, taken en passant in entrepreneurialism vs socialism game of thrones as you claim. I think you can’t see it. You clearly don’t understand, that when newspapers and MPs think they are helping, by saying don’t take this money away, a lot of people around the country, feeling very hard up themselves and looking around at the underfunded state of things, are easily replying “why the hell not?”
Because it’s not tax relief. It’s keeping an industry alive. And the industry is important because…
Oh, I get you. Don't entirely disagree, either.
My point was simply that these things bring with them all manner of unintended consequences.
The biggest tax swizz - I mean relief - we have at the moment is the personal allowance on primary residences, which allows some to chalk up seven figure gains at 0% while others are expected to put their hand in their pocket, which leads to all manner of other little misallocations - like Dyson buying up vast tracts of farmland to name an egregious example. Why not flat rate CGT and IHT at 10% across the board, for example? End the misallocation.
I'm not sure I agree with your point that agricultural relief is about food security. The land will be there irrespective of who owns it, and Stalinist upheavals and five year plans aside, food will continue to be produced irrespective of who owns it.
Which is why I do think it's a simple argument about socialism vs capitalism, as it is redistributing land from those who own it to new owners while taking a decent rake for the exchequer, and bugger the consequences.
But Reeves has this mad idea that people won't change their behaviour or restructure, which is what I would be looking to do if I owned farmland right now.
“I'm not sure I agree with your point that agricultural relief is about security.”
Remember Malt hus- food doesn’t just equate to survival, but to happiness. To have safe and nutritious food that meets dietary need is vital for an active, happy and healthy life. Agriculture provides half of the food we eat in UK - this clearly is protection to UK consumers from price rises, global supply chain issues bringing health and happiness shortages. Is it not?
Jobs, trade, tax security - Farming industry keeps four million people in jobs, trades, crafts, and skills. Bringing £130B to UK economy useful too to securing government spending commitments.
Environmental security. Farmers don’t just care about the environment, they are its guardians - looking after nature, balancing land use, protecting soil, water, air. 70% of UK land in agricultural use is the UKs carbon sink.
I know the PB Pirates can leap in any second saying rest of world should be allowed to compete and beat us in the supermarkets on a level playing field. But they are wrong, just as anyone would be daft enough to supply UK armed forces with cheaper batteries made for us in China. Similarly grow your own is to be dependent on none. Government help to farming will be identical security money to government help to UK firm providing UK Defence with batteries.
APR is about UK security.
A futurologist I was speaking to the other week reckons it will all be indoor/hydroponic in the middle east in the next 50 years, as they will have the energy supply for heating/cooling etc as required, while most 'outdoor' land will be subject to extreme variances that will reduce yield and make some areas unfarmable. The middle east will be the bread basket because it has limitless space and cheapest solar energy.
Not saying any of that is true, actually it sounded bleeding bonkers to me, but then again, 2024 probably sounds insane to somebody from 1974.
Point is, I'm not sure the UK has the ability to maintain food security for a 70m+ population indefinitely under the current model. I wouldn't be doing what Reeves is doing, heck no. But I would be more focused on energy security... and border security.
The UK isn't food sufficient now, let alone at +3-4c global temperature rise, with all the upheavals of population that will lead to...
There was a somewhat (if not terribly well done) Austrian TV Show (film?) called Halbe Welt that had an initially interesting take on some of these ideas (and the general fall-out of climate changes)
The sun blazes down from the sky with destructive power; exposing oneself to its light means death. People have transposed everyday existence to the night. In the metropolis of HALF WORLD a culture based on various languages and lifeforms has grown rampant. Everyone is looking for a way to survive.
(tl;dr - the first half hour is interesting, then it goes to the dogs. As I remember 20+ years after watching it)
Something that is really not understood about solar is that the collapsing price means that the difference between the Saudi desert and here is going to be worth much. Even if you need 5x as many solar panels, the additional output cost will be less than the cost of shifting stuff you make in the Saudi desert here.
Which is quite terrifying for some. They are really not going to like a cheap energy society.
That’s going to be hugely humiliating for Starmer and the Labour government.
The Tory Press, in fact all the press, will back Trump over Starmer on this. Can Starmer claim he has the British people behind him? Or more sensible for Starmer to back down early on in the discussion?
I wonder if Nigel slipped in a clever word…
Under my fantasy Commonwealth of the Anglosphere (see upthread), I have the Chagos Islands administered as part of the State of Western Australia. They're roughly the same longitude as the Heard & McDonald Islands (currently an Australian territory), though slightly more inhabitable
That’s going to be hugely humiliating for Starmer and the Labour government.
The Tory Press, in fact all the press, will back Trump over Starmer on this. Can Starmer claim he has the British people behind him? Or more sensible for Starmer to back down early on in the discussion?
I wonder if Nigel slipped in a clever word…
Under my fantasy Commonwealth of the Anglosphere (see upthread), I have the Chagos Islands administered as part of the State of Western Australia. They're roughly the same longitude as the Heard & McDonald Islands (currently an Australian territory), though slightly more inhabitable
Why have a fantasy Commonwealth, when you can become President and make it actually happen?
The problem is how you "pay tax" from a fixed asset such as land without selling it. The NFU are pointing out that smaller farms will have no option than to sell up.
She's says inheritance up to £1m is protected and the farmer immediately shakes his head.
So I am left thing that he, like most of them, seem to have no idea about the actual detail.
Edit: Also - he doesn't look too old. Start giving parcels of the land to your sons now and live 7 years.
He's shaking his head at what he is hearing. That he has been lied to.
No. Not shaking head at lies, just knowing that she and her government believe they are crusaders going after tax relief, like modern day Robin Hood - without a clue what is tax relief and what isn’t.
My dad’s been talking to lots of people, my brothers also full of advice how we get round inheritance changes - like I become the owner of lots more family property stuff. He says if there wasn’t APR before we have to do it like he wanted to anyway, and without it we now do it his way, but that’s not my economic point, the big point is the government are stupid and haven’t thought it through that they getting lots of flack over this, worrying and hurting people, but not even getting the billions of money they told themselves and everyone in public now thinks they are getting! They see themselves ans robbing rich to give poor, but its fantasy. And that is definition of government done crap. Insurance and accountants are the winners making money, so their supporting the demo’s against it, in for other peoples interests not their own, is good.
And Normally I don’t like misleading headlines in papers, but I’m loving the ones saying Labour government will be milking farms for billions IHT, as voters will be left thinking farming community have paid their share “all in it together”. When banner says toot for farmers, people will toot their horns. British are about fair play. But let’s be clear on messaging, those tooting horns need to know it’s not merely an entrepreneurial v socialism fight, as too many on right argue it, the voters need to know APR and BPR are important about national food security too, and British Heritage and way of life is worth protecting with APR and BPR too - though I expect PB Pirates like Barty and Lucky laughing at me as I argue that, as they are unpatriotic dipsticks interested solely in consumerism
It's entirely about entrepreneurialism vs socialism.
Changes in voluntary taxation cause changes in behaviour shocker.
If you get to choose when and how you pay it, and how you structure it, don't be surprised when people structure it so they pay less.
If I'm still in the UK next year I will be paying at most half of what I would have paid pre the capital gains bump, for example.*
Meanwhile the socialists just eagerly look on at us like cash cows and assume we "have to" pay up on what we were planning to pay before, but at a much higher percentage rate.
Shame it doesn't work in real life.
*My financial advisor has suggested that Reeves' budget is a shitshow and an exit tax is incoming to shore up lost revenues, so the smart thing to do would be to leave before it happens.
Wrong. AVP wasn’t simply about entrepreneurship was it? - that’s not the argument to keep it, that stupid Daily Telegraph Daily Mail mindset too easily plays into Labours hands, can’t you see?
Besides, your argument also expect us to believe this Labour government are ardent socialists out to crush every bit of entrepreneurialism in UK and only Truss and LuckyGuy can save us from it? You should edit the Telegraph. Maybe you do.
No. This is a government believing it’s doing long overdue crack down on unnecessary tax reliefs in unbalanced and bankrupt country, but without clue how myopic its actions are and damage they are causing where things are not unnecessary tax reliefs.
It’s about government sums not adding up on this just like that with all reeves recent money grabbing schemes - not only the opposite of what was promised for votes they clearly said wouldn’t touch APR - they won’t even bring in anything like the money headlines claimed - like ending nomdom status costs the UK money not gains any etc. ends up the biggest problem with the budget as budget that’s not balanced, the budget gamble was on growth, but UK and world economy ain’t getting any interesting economic growth for six or seven years at least, says every forecast, maybe there’s too much covid debt around holding everything back, like economic long Covid media economic editors will dub it in a few years time I predict, and likely with volatility in energy there’s more inflation wobbles too to cost everyone in power lots of votes as voters get even poorer than 2019 in 2029. People didn’t put Labour in, they decided to put Cons out (humane out of misery wrung neck sort of thing) What goes round comes around.
This is about food security every bit like investing in Brit volt for our batteries, rather relying on batteries imported from China is a clear threat to UK security.
It’s also about protecting not privilege, not heritage. It’s missing the point that growing populations need food, not simply for survival but happiness, and there’s route to health and happiness through the APR.
Best of luck with that.
And best of luck to you, framing it merely as taking away tax relief on rich and privileged folk, being a damaging attack on UK entrepreneurship, so missing everything the APR is really there for, as protection.
APR is protection for UK farming, where all sorts of people want to do farming these days, as a happy way of life, it’s not about money, or chasing money, because happiness isn’t about money. Where families have done it for a hundred years, they want to keep doing it for reasons other than entrepreneurship, making money, chasing more money, all the lovely money coming in, because quite simply all that lovely money isn’t coming in! profits are not there, not in producers anyway, maybe in those selling it to public, or those in middle taking it from producer and giving it to those who sell to consumer just as the sellers want it - an it that is thankfully now being looked at very suspiciously.
Yet, without making money, or a desire to grow and take over the world, the desire is definitely there to keep going. Heck - that desire is so strong and so relatable you could sell six series of much watched and most therapeutic TV show in the world based on it. With people rooting for the good guys, the farmers, to win.
No. APR was never tax relief, a mere pawn, taken en passant in entrepreneurialism vs socialism game of thrones as you claim. I think you can’t see it. You clearly don’t understand, that when newspapers and MPs think they are helping, by saying don’t take this money away, a lot of people around the country, feeling very hard up themselves and looking around at the underfunded state of things, are easily replying “why the hell not?”
Because it’s not tax relief. It’s keeping an industry alive. And the industry is important because…
Oh, I get you. Don't entirely disagree, either.
My point was simply that these things bring with them all manner of unintended consequences.
The biggest tax swizz - I mean relief - we have at the moment is the personal allowance on primary residences, which allows some to chalk up seven figure gains at 0% while others are expected to put their hand in their pocket, which leads to all manner of other little misallocations - like Dyson buying up vast tracts of farmland to name an egregious example. Why not flat rate CGT and IHT at 10% across the board, for example? End the misallocation.
I'm not sure I agree with your point that agricultural relief is about food security. The land will be there irrespective of who owns it, and Stalinist upheavals and five year plans aside, food will continue to be produced irrespective of who owns it.
Which is why I do think it's a simple argument about socialism vs capitalism, as it is redistributing land from those who own it to new owners while taking a decent rake for the exchequer, and bugger the consequences.
But Reeves has this mad idea that people won't change their behaviour or restructure, which is what I would be looking to do if I owned farmland right now.
“I'm not sure I agree with your point that agricultural relief is about security.”
Remember Malt hus- food doesn’t just equate to survival, but to happiness. To have safe and nutritious food that meets dietary need is vital for an active, happy and healthy life. Agriculture provides half of the food we eat in UK - this clearly is protection to UK consumers from price rises, global supply chain issues bringing health and happiness shortages. Is it not?
Jobs, trade, tax security - Farming industry keeps four million people in jobs, trades, crafts, and skills. Bringing £130B to UK economy useful too to securing government spending commitments.
Environmental security. Farmers don’t just care about the environment, they are its guardians - looking after nature, balancing land use, protecting soil, water, air. 70% of UK land in agricultural use is the UKs carbon sink.
I know the PB Pirates can leap in any second saying rest of world should be allowed to compete and beat us in the supermarkets on a level playing field. But they are wrong, just as anyone would be daft enough to supply UK armed forces with cheaper batteries made for us in China. Similarly grow your own is to be dependent on none. Government help to farming will be identical security money to government help to UK firm providing UK Defence with batteries.
APR is about UK security.
A futurologist I was speaking to the other week reckons it will all be indoor/hydroponic in the middle east in the next 50 years, as they will have the energy supply for heating/cooling etc as required, while most 'outdoor' land will be subject to extreme variances that will reduce yield and make some areas unfarmable. The middle east will be the bread basket because it has limitless space and cheapest solar energy.
Not saying any of that is true, actually it sounded bleeding bonkers to me, but then again, 2024 probably sounds insane to somebody from 1974.
Point is, I'm not sure the UK has the ability to maintain food security for a 70m+ population indefinitely under the current model. I wouldn't be doing what Reeves is doing, heck no. But I would be more focused on energy security... and border security.
The UK isn't food sufficient now, let alone at +3-4c global temperature rise, with all the upheavals of population that will lead to...
There was a somewhat (if not terribly well done) Austrian TV Show (film?) called Halbe Welt that had an initially interesting take on some of these ideas (and the general fall-out of climate changes)
The sun blazes down from the sky with destructive power; exposing oneself to its light means death. People have transposed everyday existence to the night. In the metropolis of HALF WORLD a culture based on various languages and lifeforms has grown rampant. Everyone is looking for a way to survive.
(tl;dr - the first half hour is interesting, then it goes to the dogs. As I remember 20+ years after watching it)
Something that is really not understood about solar is that the collapsing price means that the difference between the Saudi desert and here is going to be worth much. Even if you need 5x as many solar panels, the additional output cost will be less than the cost of shifting stuff you make in the Saudi desert here.
Which is quite terrifying for some. They are really not going to like a cheap energy society.
The hair shirt brigade will loath the thought that Deano is going to get his hot tub.
The problem is how you "pay tax" from a fixed asset such as land without selling it. The NFU are pointing out that smaller farms will have no option than to sell up.
She's says inheritance up to £1m is protected and the farmer immediately shakes his head.
So I am left thing that he, like most of them, seem to have no idea about the actual detail.
Edit: Also - he doesn't look too old. Start giving parcels of the land to your sons now and live 7 years.
He's shaking his head at what he is hearing. That he has been lied to.
No. Not shaking head at lies, just knowing that she and her government believe they are crusaders going after tax relief, like modern day Robin Hood - without a clue what is tax relief and what isn’t.
My dad’s been talking to lots of people, my brothers also full of advice how we get round inheritance changes - like I become the owner of lots more family property stuff. He says if there wasn’t APR before we have to do it like he wanted to anyway, and without it we now do it his way, but that’s not my economic point, the big point is the government are stupid and haven’t thought it through that they getting lots of flack over this, worrying and hurting people, but not even getting the billions of money they told themselves and everyone in public now thinks they are getting! They see themselves ans robbing rich to give poor, but its fantasy. And that is definition of government done crap. Insurance and accountants are the winners making money, so their supporting the demo’s against it, in for other peoples interests not their own, is good.
And Normally I don’t like misleading headlines in papers, but I’m loving the ones saying Labour government will be milking farms for billions IHT, as voters will be left thinking farming community have paid their share “all in it together”. When banner says toot for farmers, people will toot their horns. British are about fair play. But let’s be clear on messaging, those tooting horns need to know it’s not merely an entrepreneurial v socialism fight, as too many on right argue it, the voters need to know APR and BPR are important about national food security too, and British Heritage and way of life is worth protecting with APR and BPR too - though I expect PB Pirates like Barty and Lucky laughing at me as I argue that, as they are unpatriotic dipsticks interested solely in consumerism
It's entirely about entrepreneurialism vs socialism.
Changes in voluntary taxation cause changes in behaviour shocker.
If you get to choose when and how you pay it, and how you structure it, don't be surprised when people structure it so they pay less.
If I'm still in the UK next year I will be paying at most half of what I would have paid pre the capital gains bump, for example.*
Meanwhile the socialists just eagerly look on at us like cash cows and assume we "have to" pay up on what we were planning to pay before, but at a much higher percentage rate.
Shame it doesn't work in real life.
*My financial advisor has suggested that Reeves' budget is a shitshow and an exit tax is incoming to shore up lost revenues, so the smart thing to do would be to leave before it happens.
Wrong. AVP wasn’t simply about entrepreneurship was it? - that’s not the argument to keep it, that stupid Daily Telegraph Daily Mail mindset too easily plays into Labours hands, can’t you see?
Besides, your argument also expect us to believe this Labour government are ardent socialists out to crush every bit of entrepreneurialism in UK and only Truss and LuckyGuy can save us from it? You should edit the Telegraph. Maybe you do.
No. This is a government believing it’s doing long overdue crack down on unnecessary tax reliefs in unbalanced and bankrupt country, but without clue how myopic its actions are and damage they are causing where things are not unnecessary tax reliefs.
It’s about government sums not adding up on this just like that with all reeves recent money grabbing schemes - not only the opposite of what was promised for votes they clearly said wouldn’t touch APR - they won’t even bring in anything like the money headlines claimed - like ending nomdom status costs the UK money not gains any etc. ends up the biggest problem with the budget as budget that’s not balanced, the budget gamble was on growth, but UK and world economy ain’t getting any interesting economic growth for six or seven years at least, says every forecast, maybe there’s too much covid debt around holding everything back, like economic long Covid media economic editors will dub it in a few years time I predict, and likely with volatility in energy there’s more inflation wobbles too to cost everyone in power lots of votes as voters get even poorer than 2019 in 2029. People didn’t put Labour in, they decided to put Cons out (humane out of misery wrung neck sort of thing) What goes round comes around.
This is about food security every bit like investing in Brit volt for our batteries, rather relying on batteries imported from China is a clear threat to UK security.
It’s also about protecting not privilege, not heritage. It’s missing the point that growing populations need food, not simply for survival but happiness, and there’s route to health and happiness through the APR.
Best of luck with that.
And best of luck to you, framing it merely as taking away tax relief on rich and privileged folk, being a damaging attack on UK entrepreneurship, so missing everything the APR is really there for, as protection.
APR is protection for UK farming, where all sorts of people want to do farming these days, as a happy way of life, it’s not about money, or chasing money, because happiness isn’t about money. Where families have done it for a hundred years, they want to keep doing it for reasons other than entrepreneurship, making money, chasing more money, all the lovely money coming in, because quite simply all that lovely money isn’t coming in! profits are not there, not in producers anyway, maybe in those selling it to public, or those in middle taking it from producer and giving it to those who sell to consumer just as the sellers want it - an it that is thankfully now being looked at very suspiciously.
Yet, without making money, or a desire to grow and take over the world, the desire is definitely there to keep going. Heck - that desire is so strong and so relatable you could sell six series of much watched and most therapeutic TV show in the world based on it. With people rooting for the good guys, the farmers, to win.
No. APR was never tax relief, a mere pawn, taken en passant in entrepreneurialism vs socialism game of thrones as you claim. I think you can’t see it. You clearly don’t understand, that when newspapers and MPs think they are helping, by saying don’t take this money away, a lot of people around the country, feeling very hard up themselves and looking around at the underfunded state of things, are easily replying “why the hell not?”
Because it’s not tax relief. It’s keeping an industry alive. And the industry is important because…
Oh, I get you. Don't entirely disagree, either.
My point was simply that these things bring with them all manner of unintended consequences.
The biggest tax swizz - I mean relief - we have at the moment is the personal allowance on primary residences, which allows some to chalk up seven figure gains at 0% while others are expected to put their hand in their pocket, which leads to all manner of other little misallocations - like Dyson buying up vast tracts of farmland to name an egregious example. Why not flat rate CGT and IHT at 10% across the board, for example? End the misallocation.
I'm not sure I agree with your point that agricultural relief is about food security. The land will be there irrespective of who owns it, and Stalinist upheavals and five year plans aside, food will continue to be produced irrespective of who owns it.
Which is why I do think it's a simple argument about socialism vs capitalism, as it is redistributing land from those who own it to new owners while taking a decent rake for the exchequer, and bugger the consequences.
But Reeves has this mad idea that people won't change their behaviour or restructure, which is what I would be looking to do if I owned farmland right now.
“I'm not sure I agree with your point that agricultural relief is about security.”
Remember Malt hus- food doesn’t just equate to survival, but to happiness. To have safe and nutritious food that meets dietary need is vital for an active, happy and healthy life. Agriculture provides half of the food we eat in UK - this clearly is protection to UK consumers from price rises, global supply chain issues bringing health and happiness shortages. Is it not?
Jobs, trade, tax security - Farming industry keeps four million people in jobs, trades, crafts, and skills. Bringing £130B to UK economy useful too to securing government spending commitments.
Environmental security. Farmers don’t just care about the environment, they are its guardians - looking after nature, balancing land use, protecting soil, water, air. 70% of UK land in agricultural use is the UKs carbon sink.
I know the PB Pirates can leap in any second saying rest of world should be allowed to compete and beat us in the supermarkets on a level playing field. But they are wrong, just as anyone would be daft enough to supply UK armed forces with cheaper batteries made for us in China. Similarly grow your own is to be dependent on none. Government help to farming will be identical security money to government help to UK firm providing UK Defence with batteries.
APR is about UK security.
A futurologist I was speaking to the other week reckons it will all be indoor/hydroponic in the middle east in the next 50 years, as they will have the energy supply for heating/cooling etc as required, while most 'outdoor' land will be subject to extreme variances that will reduce yield and make some areas unfarmable. The middle east will be the bread basket because it has limitless space and cheapest solar energy.
Not saying any of that is true, actually it sounded bleeding bonkers to me, but then again, 2024 probably sounds insane to somebody from 1974.
Point is, I'm not sure the UK has the ability to maintain food security for a 70m+ population indefinitely under the current model. I wouldn't be doing what Reeves is doing, heck no. But I would be more focused on energy security... and border security.
The UK isn't food sufficient now, let alone at +3-4c global temperature rise, with all the upheavals of population that will lead to...
There was a somewhat (if not terribly well done) Austrian TV Show (film?) called Halbe Welt that had an initially interesting take on some of these ideas (and the general fall-out of climate changes)
The sun blazes down from the sky with destructive power; exposing oneself to its light means death. People have transposed everyday existence to the night. In the metropolis of HALF WORLD a culture based on various languages and lifeforms has grown rampant. Everyone is looking for a way to survive.
(tl;dr - the first half hour is interesting, then it goes to the dogs. As I remember 20+ years after watching it)
Something that is really not understood about solar is that the collapsing price means that the difference between the Saudi desert and here is going to be worth much. Even if you need 5x as many solar panels, the additional output cost will be less than the cost of shifting stuff you make in the Saudi desert here.
Which is quite terrifying for some. They are really not going to like a cheap energy society.
The hair shirt brigade will loath the thought that Deano is going to get his hot tub.
Wait till they find out about the aluminium smelting.
The worst case scenario for the Trump 2.0 presidency is rapidly becoming reality. Europe may have to treat the US not as an ex-friend, but as an enemy. I can't see any level of intel sharing surviving Gabbard's appointment.
Very likely NATO, AUKUS and five-eyes are all effectively dead.
Must admit I didn't have USA joining the Warsaw Pact on my bingo card.
It says something for the surreal timeline we’re living that the reaction to Trump appointing an actual Putin supporter (not an equivocator, or an isolationist or appeaser, but a full fat Putinist - oh and Assad apologist to boot) to the top national intelligence role in our most powerful geopolitical ally is greeted in some quarters by “ooh, liberal tears, cry harder”.
Suggest this means that the UK should increase defence spending and you'll see more than liberal tears, you'll get full force tantrums from many of them.
The budget significantly increased defence expenditure. I haven't heard any complaints from the left.
It really didn't.
A significant increase would be to a minimum of 3% with immediate effect and planned increases to over 4%.
The NHS is getting an increase 10x the size that defence is.
What do you think the reaction would be if those two increases were now swapped ?
It is a real terms increase over Tory budgets.
You might not like that fact, and might not like the fact that we have the smallest armed forces in Centuries because of Tory cuts, but it is simply true.
I don't like the fact and condemned it at the time.
But the cuts were made during the coalition era.
That same coalition era some claim to have been an era of wondrously competent government.
The UK Armed Forces were 162 000 strong in 2015, 138 000 in 2024, so a 15% cut in numbers since the Coalition ended, despite the increase in international threats.
The Tories running down of the Armed Forces roughly parallels their running down of all public services.
Defence was a Tory portfolio under the Coalition in any case, not an LD one.
That doesn't excuse the Conservative governments since then - though I don't remember any other party calling for increases in defence spending.
But that's all water under the bridge - the decisions now are for Starmer and Reeves to take.
Do they want to increase defence spending and are they willing to increases the taxes to pay for it ?
And surely you remember that both Defence Secretary and CoE were Tory portfolios under the Coalition?
And Starmer/Reeves have put in place real terms increases. Something that they deserve credit for surely, especially in light of all the other cost pressures left to them by the last Tory government.
To govern is to chose.
At the moment Starmer and Reeves have chosen an increase in NHS spending 10x that of the increase in defence spending.
Whether they'll change or maintain that ratio we will see.
Now you might say that Starmer and Reeves are in a difficult position with unpopular decision to take.
And you would be right but so what, they have the job and they have to make the decisions.
It says something for the surreal timeline we’re living that the reaction to Trump appointing an actual Putin supporter (not an equivocator, or an isolationist or appeaser, but a full fat Putinist - oh and Assad apologist to boot) to the top national intelligence role in our most powerful geopolitical ally is greeted in some quarters by “ooh, liberal tears, cry harder”.
Suggest this means that the UK should increase defence spending and you'll see more than liberal tears, you'll get full force tantrums from many of them.
The budget significantly increased defence expenditure. I haven't heard any complaints from the left.
It really didn't.
A significant increase would be to a minimum of 3% with immediate effect and planned increases to over 4%.
The NHS is getting an increase 10x the size that defence is.
What do you think the reaction would be if those two increases were now swapped ?
It is a real terms increase over Tory budgets.
You might not like that fact, and might not like the fact that we have the smallest armed forces in Centuries because of Tory cuts, but it is simply true.
I don't like the fact and condemned it at the time.
But the cuts were made during the coalition era.
That same coalition era some claim to have been an era of wondrously competent government.
The UK Armed Forces were 162 000 strong in 2015, 138 000 in 2024, so a 15% cut in numbers since the Coalition ended, despite the increase in international threats.
The Tories running down of the Armed Forces roughly parallels their running down of all public services.
Defence was a Tory portfolio under the Coalition in any case, not an LD one.
The problem is how you "pay tax" from a fixed asset such as land without selling it. The NFU are pointing out that smaller farms will have no option than to sell up.
She's says inheritance up to £1m is protected and the farmer immediately shakes his head.
So I am left thing that he, like most of them, seem to have no idea about the actual detail.
Edit: Also - he doesn't look too old. Start giving parcels of the land to your sons now and live 7 years.
He's shaking his head at what he is hearing. That he has been lied to.
No. Not shaking head at lies, just knowing that she and her government believe they are crusaders going after tax relief, like modern day Robin Hood - without a clue what is tax relief and what isn’t.
My dad’s been talking to lots of people, my brothers also full of advice how we get round inheritance changes - like I become the owner of lots more family property stuff. He says if there wasn’t APR before we have to do it like he wanted to anyway, and without it we now do it his way, but that’s not my economic point, the big point is the government are stupid and haven’t thought it through that they getting lots of flack over this, worrying and hurting people, but not even getting the billions of money they told themselves and everyone in public now thinks they are getting! They see themselves ans robbing rich to give poor, but its fantasy. And that is definition of government done crap. Insurance and accountants are the winners making money, so their supporting the demo’s against it, in for other peoples interests not their own, is good.
And Normally I don’t like misleading headlines in papers, but I’m loving the ones saying Labour government will be milking farms for billions IHT, as voters will be left thinking farming community have paid their share “all in it together”. When banner says toot for farmers, people will toot their horns. British are about fair play. But let’s be clear on messaging, those tooting horns need to know it’s not merely an entrepreneurial v socialism fight, as too many on right argue it, the voters need to know APR and BPR are important about national food security too, and British Heritage and way of life is worth protecting with APR and BPR too - though I expect PB Pirates like Barty and Lucky laughing at me as I argue that, as they are unpatriotic dipsticks interested solely in consumerism
It's entirely about entrepreneurialism vs socialism.
Changes in voluntary taxation cause changes in behaviour shocker.
If you get to choose when and how you pay it, and how you structure it, don't be surprised when people structure it so they pay less.
If I'm still in the UK next year I will be paying at most half of what I would have paid pre the capital gains bump, for example.*
Meanwhile the socialists just eagerly look on at us like cash cows and assume we "have to" pay up on what we were planning to pay before, but at a much higher percentage rate.
Shame it doesn't work in real life.
*My financial advisor has suggested that Reeves' budget is a shitshow and an exit tax is incoming to shore up lost revenues, so the smart thing to do would be to leave before it happens.
Wrong. AVP wasn’t simply about entrepreneurship was it? - that’s not the argument to keep it, that stupid Daily Telegraph Daily Mail mindset too easily plays into Labours hands, can’t you see?
Besides, your argument also expect us to believe this Labour government are ardent socialists out to crush every bit of entrepreneurialism in UK and only Truss and LuckyGuy can save us from it? You should edit the Telegraph. Maybe you do.
No. This is a government believing it’s doing long overdue crack down on unnecessary tax reliefs in unbalanced and bankrupt country, but without clue how myopic its actions are and damage they are causing where things are not unnecessary tax reliefs.
It’s about government sums not adding up on this just like that with all reeves recent money grabbing schemes - not only the opposite of what was promised for votes they clearly said wouldn’t touch APR - they won’t even bring in anything like the money headlines claimed - like ending nomdom status costs the UK money not gains any etc. ends up the biggest problem with the budget as budget that’s not balanced, the budget gamble was on growth, but UK and world economy ain’t getting any interesting economic growth for six or seven years at least, says every forecast, maybe there’s too much covid debt around holding everything back, like economic long Covid media economic editors will dub it in a few years time I predict, and likely with volatility in energy there’s more inflation wobbles too to cost everyone in power lots of votes as voters get even poorer than 2019 in 2029. People didn’t put Labour in, they decided to put Cons out (humane out of misery wrung neck sort of thing) What goes round comes around.
This is about food security every bit like investing in Brit volt for our batteries, rather relying on batteries imported from China is a clear threat to UK security.
It’s also about protecting not privilege, not heritage. It’s missing the point that growing populations need food, not simply for survival but happiness, and there’s route to health and happiness through the APR.
Best of luck with that.
And best of luck to you, framing it merely as taking away tax relief on rich and privileged folk, being a damaging attack on UK entrepreneurship, so missing everything the APR is really there for, as protection.
APR is protection for UK farming, where all sorts of people want to do farming these days, as a happy way of life, it’s not about money, or chasing money, because happiness isn’t about money. Where families have done it for a hundred years, they want to keep doing it for reasons other than entrepreneurship, making money, chasing more money, all the lovely money coming in, because quite simply all that lovely money isn’t coming in! profits are not there, not in producers anyway, maybe in those selling it to public, or those in middle taking it from producer and giving it to those who sell to consumer just as the sellers want it - an it that is thankfully now being looked at very suspiciously.
Yet, without making money, or a desire to grow and take over the world, the desire is definitely there to keep going. Heck - that desire is so strong and so relatable you could sell six series of much watched and most therapeutic TV show in the world based on it. With people rooting for the good guys, the farmers, to win.
No. APR was never tax relief, a mere pawn, taken en passant in entrepreneurialism vs socialism game of thrones as you claim. I think you can’t see it. You clearly don’t understand, that when newspapers and MPs think they are helping, by saying don’t take this money away, a lot of people around the country, feeling very hard up themselves and looking around at the underfunded state of things, are easily replying “why the hell not?”
Because it’s not tax relief. It’s keeping an industry alive. And the industry is important because…
Oh, I get you. Don't entirely disagree, either.
My point was simply that these things bring with them all manner of unintended consequences.
The biggest tax swizz - I mean relief - we have at the moment is the personal allowance on primary residences, which allows some to chalk up seven figure gains at 0% while others are expected to put their hand in their pocket, which leads to all manner of other little misallocations - like Dyson buying up vast tracts of farmland to name an egregious example. Why not flat rate CGT and IHT at 10% across the board, for example? End the misallocation.
I'm not sure I agree with your point that agricultural relief is about food security. The land will be there irrespective of who owns it, and Stalinist upheavals and five year plans aside, food will continue to be produced irrespective of who owns it.
Which is why I do think it's a simple argument about socialism vs capitalism, as it is redistributing land from those who own it to new owners while taking a decent rake for the exchequer, and bugger the consequences.
But Reeves has this mad idea that people won't change their behaviour or restructure, which is what I would be looking to do if I owned farmland right now.
“I'm not sure I agree with your point that agricultural relief is about security.”
Remember Malt hus- food doesn’t just equate to survival, but to happiness. To have safe and nutritious food that meets dietary need is vital for an active, happy and healthy life. Agriculture provides half of the food we eat in UK - this clearly is protection to UK consumers from price rises, global supply chain issues bringing health and happiness shortages. Is it not?
Jobs, trade, tax security - Farming industry keeps four million people in jobs, trades, crafts, and skills. Bringing £130B to UK economy useful too to securing government spending commitments.
Environmental security. Farmers don’t just care about the environment, they are its guardians - looking after nature, balancing land use, protecting soil, water, air. 70% of UK land in agricultural use is the UKs carbon sink.
I know the PB Pirates can leap in any second saying rest of world should be allowed to compete and beat us in the supermarkets on a level playing field. But they are wrong, just as anyone would be daft enough to supply UK armed forces with cheaper batteries made for us in China. Similarly grow your own is to be dependent on none. Government help to farming will be identical security money to government help to UK firm providing UK Defence with batteries.
APR is about UK security.
A futurologist I was speaking to the other week reckons it will all be indoor/hydroponic in the middle east in the next 50 years, as they will have the energy supply for heating/cooling etc as required, while most 'outdoor' land will be subject to extreme variances that will reduce yield and make some areas unfarmable. The middle east will be the bread basket because it has limitless space and cheapest solar energy.
Not saying any of that is true, actually it sounded bleeding bonkers to me, but then again, 2024 probably sounds insane to somebody from 1974.
Point is, I'm not sure the UK has the ability to maintain food security for a 70m+ population indefinitely under the current model. I wouldn't be doing what Reeves is doing, heck no. But I would be more focused on energy security... and border security.
The UK isn't food sufficient now, let alone at +3-4c global temperature rise, with all the upheavals of population that will lead to...
There was a somewhat (if not terribly well done) Austrian TV Show (film?) called Halbe Welt that had an initially interesting take on some of these ideas (and the general fall-out of climate changes)
The sun blazes down from the sky with destructive power; exposing oneself to its light means death. People have transposed everyday existence to the night. In the metropolis of HALF WORLD a culture based on various languages and lifeforms has grown rampant. Everyone is looking for a way to survive.
(tl;dr - the first half hour is interesting, then it goes to the dogs. As I remember 20+ years after watching it)
Something that is really not understood about solar is that the collapsing price means that the difference between the Saudi desert and here is going to be worth much. Even if you need 5x as many solar panels, the additional output cost will be less than the cost of shifting stuff you make in the Saudi desert here.
Which is quite terrifying for some. They are really not going to like a cheap energy society.
The hair shirt brigade will loath the thought that Deano is going to get his hot tub.
Wait till they find out about the aluminium smelting.
Fuck! Yeah!
The thing I'm curious about is what we do with massive excess wind power during storms or overnight.
Much of that will go into charging cars and other batteries, but I assume it could be transformative for something like an electric arc furnace, which have highly flexible production.
That’s going to be hugely humiliating for Starmer and the Labour government.
The Tory Press, in fact all the press, will back Trump over Starmer on this. Can Starmer claim he has the British people behind him? Or more sensible for Starmer to back down early on in the discussion?
I wonder if Nigel slipped in a clever word…
Under my fantasy Commonwealth of the Anglosphere (see upthread), I have the Chagos Islands administered as part of the State of Western Australia. They're roughly the same longitude as the Heard & McDonald Islands (currently an Australian territory), though slightly more inhabitable
By Inauguration Day I suspect a lot of us will be living in fantasy lands in our head, Sunil. I shall have to put together a welcome pack. "This may be the first time you have entered a state of disassociated terror. Don't worry, it's perfectly normal given the circumstances... " and then put "Brazil" on the radio.
I assume you will be providing the transport? (ducks 😃)
I don't really think the headline here is accurate. Far more people had a negative view of Truss. By my Maths Badenoch does slightly better if you remove the don't knows.
The problem is how you "pay tax" from a fixed asset such as land without selling it. The NFU are pointing out that smaller farms will have no option than to sell up.
She's says inheritance up to £1m is protected and the farmer immediately shakes his head.
So I am left thing that he, like most of them, seem to have no idea about the actual detail.
Edit: Also - he doesn't look too old. Start giving parcels of the land to your sons now and live 7 years.
He's shaking his head at what he is hearing. That he has been lied to.
No. Not shaking head at lies, just knowing that she and her government believe they are crusaders going after tax relief, like modern day Robin Hood - without a clue what is tax relief and what isn’t.
My dad’s been talking to lots of people, my brothers also full of advice how we get round inheritance changes - like I become the owner of lots more family property stuff. He says if there wasn’t APR before we have to do it like he wanted to anyway, and without it we now do it his way, but that’s not my economic point, the big point is the government are stupid and haven’t thought it through that they getting lots of flack over this, worrying and hurting people, but not even getting the billions of money they told themselves and everyone in public now thinks they are getting! They see themselves ans robbing rich to give poor, but its fantasy. And that is definition of government done crap. Insurance and accountants are the winners making money, so their supporting the demo’s against it, in for other peoples interests not their own, is good.
And Normally I don’t like misleading headlines in papers, but I’m loving the ones saying Labour government will be milking farms for billions IHT, as voters will be left thinking farming community have paid their share “all in it together”. When banner says toot for farmers, people will toot their horns. British are about fair play. But let’s be clear on messaging, those tooting horns need to know it’s not merely an entrepreneurial v socialism fight, as too many on right argue it, the voters need to know APR and BPR are important about national food security too, and British Heritage and way of life is worth protecting with APR and BPR too - though I expect PB Pirates like Barty and Lucky laughing at me as I argue that, as they are unpatriotic dipsticks interested solely in consumerism
It's entirely about entrepreneurialism vs socialism.
Changes in voluntary taxation cause changes in behaviour shocker.
If you get to choose when and how you pay it, and how you structure it, don't be surprised when people structure it so they pay less.
If I'm still in the UK next year I will be paying at most half of what I would have paid pre the capital gains bump, for example.*
Meanwhile the socialists just eagerly look on at us like cash cows and assume we "have to" pay up on what we were planning to pay before, but at a much higher percentage rate.
Shame it doesn't work in real life.
*My financial advisor has suggested that Reeves' budget is a shitshow and an exit tax is incoming to shore up lost revenues, so the smart thing to do would be to leave before it happens.
Wrong. AVP wasn’t simply about entrepreneurship was it? - that’s not the argument to keep it, that stupid Daily Telegraph Daily Mail mindset too easily plays into Labours hands, can’t you see?
Besides, your argument also expect us to believe this Labour government are ardent socialists out to crush every bit of entrepreneurialism in UK and only Truss and LuckyGuy can save us from it? You should edit the Telegraph. Maybe you do.
No. This is a government believing it’s doing long overdue crack down on unnecessary tax reliefs in unbalanced and bankrupt country, but without clue how myopic its actions are and damage they are causing where things are not unnecessary tax reliefs.
It’s about government sums not adding up on this just like that with all reeves recent money grabbing schemes - not only the opposite of what was promised for votes they clearly said wouldn’t touch APR - they won’t even bring in anything like the money headlines claimed - like ending nomdom status costs the UK money not gains any etc. ends up the biggest problem with the budget as budget that’s not balanced, the budget gamble was on growth, but UK and world economy ain’t getting any interesting economic growth for six or seven years at least, says every forecast, maybe there’s too much covid debt around holding everything back, like economic long Covid media economic editors will dub it in a few years time I predict, and likely with volatility in energy there’s more inflation wobbles too to cost everyone in power lots of votes as voters get even poorer than 2019 in 2029. People didn’t put Labour in, they decided to put Cons out (humane out of misery wrung neck sort of thing) What goes round comes around.
This is about food security every bit like investing in Brit volt for our batteries, rather relying on batteries imported from China is a clear threat to UK security.
It’s also about protecting not privilege, not heritage. It’s missing the point that growing populations need food, not simply for survival but happiness, and there’s route to health and happiness through the APR.
Best of luck with that.
And best of luck to you, framing it merely as taking away tax relief on rich and privileged folk, being a damaging attack on UK entrepreneurship, so missing everything the APR is really there for, as protection.
APR is protection for UK farming, where all sorts of people want to do farming these days, as a happy way of life, it’s not about money, or chasing money, because happiness isn’t about money. Where families have done it for a hundred years, they want to keep doing it for reasons other than entrepreneurship, making money, chasing more money, all the lovely money coming in, because quite simply all that lovely money isn’t coming in! profits are not there, not in producers anyway, maybe in those selling it to public, or those in middle taking it from producer and giving it to those who sell to consumer just as the sellers want it - an it that is thankfully now being looked at very suspiciously.
Yet, without making money, or a desire to grow and take over the world, the desire is definitely there to keep going. Heck - that desire is so strong and so relatable you could sell six series of much watched and most therapeutic TV show in the world based on it. With people rooting for the good guys, the farmers, to win.
No. APR was never tax relief, a mere pawn, taken en passant in entrepreneurialism vs socialism game of thrones as you claim. I think you can’t see it. You clearly don’t understand, that when newspapers and MPs think they are helping, by saying don’t take this money away, a lot of people around the country, feeling very hard up themselves and looking around at the underfunded state of things, are easily replying “why the hell not?”
Because it’s not tax relief. It’s keeping an industry alive. And the industry is important because…
Oh, I get you. Don't entirely disagree, either.
My point was simply that these things bring with them all manner of unintended consequences.
The biggest tax swizz - I mean relief - we have at the moment is the personal allowance on primary residences, which allows some to chalk up seven figure gains at 0% while others are expected to put their hand in their pocket, which leads to all manner of other little misallocations - like Dyson buying up vast tracts of farmland to name an egregious example. Why not flat rate CGT and IHT at 10% across the board, for example? End the misallocation.
I'm not sure I agree with your point that agricultural relief is about food security. The land will be there irrespective of who owns it, and Stalinist upheavals and five year plans aside, food will continue to be produced irrespective of who owns it.
Which is why I do think it's a simple argument about socialism vs capitalism, as it is redistributing land from those who own it to new owners while taking a decent rake for the exchequer, and bugger the consequences.
But Reeves has this mad idea that people won't change their behaviour or restructure, which is what I would be looking to do if I owned farmland right now.
“I'm not sure I agree with your point that agricultural relief is about security.”
Remember Malt hus- food doesn’t just equate to survival, but to happiness. To have safe and nutritious food that meets dietary need is vital for an active, happy and healthy life. Agriculture provides half of the food we eat in UK - this clearly is protection to UK consumers from price rises, global supply chain issues bringing health and happiness shortages. Is it not?
Jobs, trade, tax security - Farming industry keeps four million people in jobs, trades, crafts, and skills. Bringing £130B to UK economy useful too to securing government spending commitments.
Environmental security. Farmers don’t just care about the environment, they are its guardians - looking after nature, balancing land use, protecting soil, water, air. 70% of UK land in agricultural use is the UKs carbon sink.
I know the PB Pirates can leap in any second saying rest of world should be allowed to compete and beat us in the supermarkets on a level playing field. But they are wrong, just as anyone would be daft enough to supply UK armed forces with cheaper batteries made for us in China. Similarly grow your own is to be dependent on none. Government help to farming will be identical security money to government help to UK firm providing UK Defence with batteries.
APR is about UK security.
A futurologist I was speaking to the other week reckons it will all be indoor/hydroponic in the middle east in the next 50 years, as they will have the energy supply for heating/cooling etc as required, while most 'outdoor' land will be subject to extreme variances that will reduce yield and make some areas unfarmable. The middle east will be the bread basket because it has limitless space and cheapest solar energy.
Not saying any of that is true, actually it sounded bleeding bonkers to me, but then again, 2024 probably sounds insane to somebody from 1974.
Point is, I'm not sure the UK has the ability to maintain food security for a 70m+ population indefinitely under the current model. I wouldn't be doing what Reeves is doing, heck no. But I would be more focused on energy security... and border security.
The UK isn't food sufficient now, let alone at +3-4c global temperature rise, with all the upheavals of population that will lead to...
There was a somewhat (if not terribly well done) Austrian TV Show (film?) called Halbe Welt that had an initially interesting take on some of these ideas (and the general fall-out of climate changes)
The sun blazes down from the sky with destructive power; exposing oneself to its light means death. People have transposed everyday existence to the night. In the metropolis of HALF WORLD a culture based on various languages and lifeforms has grown rampant. Everyone is looking for a way to survive.
(tl;dr - the first half hour is interesting, then it goes to the dogs. As I remember 20+ years after watching it)
Something that is really not understood about solar is that the collapsing price means that the difference between the Saudi desert and here is going to be worth much. Even if you need 5x as many solar panels, the additional output cost will be less than the cost of shifting stuff you make in the Saudi desert here.
Which is quite terrifying for some. They are really not going to like a cheap energy society.
The hair shirt brigade will loath the thought that Deano is going to get his hot tub.
Also, once cars are all electric, are they still the devil? I suppose they can still knock down cyclists and clog up towns, but fewer asthma and climate change complaints.
It says something for the surreal timeline we’re living that the reaction to Trump appointing an actual Putin supporter (not an equivocator, or an isolationist or appeaser, but a full fat Putinist - oh and Assad apologist to boot) to the top national intelligence role in our most powerful geopolitical ally is greeted in some quarters by “ooh, liberal tears, cry harder”.
Suggest this means that the UK should increase defence spending and you'll see more than liberal tears, you'll get full force tantrums from many of them.
The budget significantly increased defence expenditure. I haven't heard any complaints from the left.
It really didn't.
A significant increase would be to a minimum of 3% with immediate effect and planned increases to over 4%.
The NHS is getting an increase 10x the size that defence is.
What do you think the reaction would be if those two increases were now swapped ?
It is a real terms increase over Tory budgets.
You might not like that fact, and might not like the fact that we have the smallest armed forces in Centuries because of Tory cuts, but it is simply true.
I don't like the fact and condemned it at the time.
But the cuts were made during the coalition era.
That same coalition era some claim to have been an era of wondrously competent government.
The UK Armed Forces were 162 000 strong in 2015, 138 000 in 2024, so a 15% cut in numbers since the Coalition ended, despite the increase in international threats.
The Tories running down of the Armed Forces roughly parallels their running down of all public services.
Defence was a Tory portfolio under the Coalition in any case, not an LD one.
The problem is how you "pay tax" from a fixed asset such as land without selling it. The NFU are pointing out that smaller farms will have no option than to sell up.
She's says inheritance up to £1m is protected and the farmer immediately shakes his head.
So I am left thing that he, like most of them, seem to have no idea about the actual detail.
Edit: Also - he doesn't look too old. Start giving parcels of the land to your sons now and live 7 years.
He's shaking his head at what he is hearing. That he has been lied to.
No. Not shaking head at lies, just knowing that she and her government believe they are crusaders going after tax relief, like modern day Robin Hood - without a clue what is tax relief and what isn’t.
My dad’s been talking to lots of people, my brothers also full of advice how we get round inheritance changes - like I become the owner of lots more family property stuff. He says if there wasn’t APR before we have to do it like he wanted to anyway, and without it we now do it his way, but that’s not my economic point, the big point is the government are stupid and haven’t thought it through that they getting lots of flack over this, worrying and hurting people, but not even getting the billions of money they told themselves and everyone in public now thinks they are getting! They see themselves ans robbing rich to give poor, but its fantasy. And that is definition of government done crap. Insurance and accountants are the winners making money, so their supporting the demo’s against it, in for other peoples interests not their own, is good.
And Normally I don’t like misleading headlines in papers, but I’m loving the ones saying Labour government will be milking farms for billions IHT, as voters will be left thinking farming community have paid their share “all in it together”. When banner says toot for farmers, people will toot their horns. British are about fair play. But let’s be clear on messaging, those tooting horns need to know it’s not merely an entrepreneurial v socialism fight, as too many on right argue it, the voters need to know APR and BPR are important about national food security too, and British Heritage and way of life is worth protecting with APR and BPR too - though I expect PB Pirates like Barty and Lucky laughing at me as I argue that, as they are unpatriotic dipsticks interested solely in consumerism
It's entirely about entrepreneurialism vs socialism.
Changes in voluntary taxation cause changes in behaviour shocker.
If you get to choose when and how you pay it, and how you structure it, don't be surprised when people structure it so they pay less.
If I'm still in the UK next year I will be paying at most half of what I would have paid pre the capital gains bump, for example.*
Meanwhile the socialists just eagerly look on at us like cash cows and assume we "have to" pay up on what we were planning to pay before, but at a much higher percentage rate.
Shame it doesn't work in real life.
*My financial advisor has suggested that Reeves' budget is a shitshow and an exit tax is incoming to shore up lost revenues, so the smart thing to do would be to leave before it happens.
Wrong. AVP wasn’t simply about entrepreneurship was it? - that’s not the argument to keep it, that stupid Daily Telegraph Daily Mail mindset too easily plays into Labours hands, can’t you see?
Besides, your argument also expect us to believe this Labour government are ardent socialists out to crush every bit of entrepreneurialism in UK and only Truss and LuckyGuy can save us from it? You should edit the Telegraph. Maybe you do.
No. This is a government believing it’s doing long overdue crack down on unnecessary tax reliefs in unbalanced and bankrupt country, but without clue how myopic its actions are and damage they are causing where things are not unnecessary tax reliefs.
It’s about government sums not adding up on this just like that with all reeves recent money grabbing schemes - not only the opposite of what was promised for votes they clearly said wouldn’t touch APR - they won’t even bring in anything like the money headlines claimed - like ending nomdom status costs the UK money not gains any etc. ends up the biggest problem with the budget as budget that’s not balanced, the budget gamble was on growth, but UK and world economy ain’t getting any interesting economic growth for six or seven years at least, says every forecast, maybe there’s too much covid debt around holding everything back, like economic long Covid media economic editors will dub it in a few years time I predict, and likely with volatility in energy there’s more inflation wobbles too to cost everyone in power lots of votes as voters get even poorer than 2019 in 2029. People didn’t put Labour in, they decided to put Cons out (humane out of misery wrung neck sort of thing) What goes round comes around.
This is about food security every bit like investing in Brit volt for our batteries, rather relying on batteries imported from China is a clear threat to UK security.
It’s also about protecting not privilege, not heritage. It’s missing the point that growing populations need food, not simply for survival but happiness, and there’s route to health and happiness through the APR.
Best of luck with that.
And best of luck to you, framing it merely as taking away tax relief on rich and privileged folk, being a damaging attack on UK entrepreneurship, so missing everything the APR is really there for, as protection.
APR is protection for UK farming, where all sorts of people want to do farming these days, as a happy way of life, it’s not about money, or chasing money, because happiness isn’t about money. Where families have done it for a hundred years, they want to keep doing it for reasons other than entrepreneurship, making money, chasing more money, all the lovely money coming in, because quite simply all that lovely money isn’t coming in! profits are not there, not in producers anyway, maybe in those selling it to public, or those in middle taking it from producer and giving it to those who sell to consumer just as the sellers want it - an it that is thankfully now being looked at very suspiciously.
Yet, without making money, or a desire to grow and take over the world, the desire is definitely there to keep going. Heck - that desire is so strong and so relatable you could sell six series of much watched and most therapeutic TV show in the world based on it. With people rooting for the good guys, the farmers, to win.
No. APR was never tax relief, a mere pawn, taken en passant in entrepreneurialism vs socialism game of thrones as you claim. I think you can’t see it. You clearly don’t understand, that when newspapers and MPs think they are helping, by saying don’t take this money away, a lot of people around the country, feeling very hard up themselves and looking around at the underfunded state of things, are easily replying “why the hell not?”
Because it’s not tax relief. It’s keeping an industry alive. And the industry is important because…
Oh, I get you. Don't entirely disagree, either.
My point was simply that these things bring with them all manner of unintended consequences.
The biggest tax swizz - I mean relief - we have at the moment is the personal allowance on primary residences, which allows some to chalk up seven figure gains at 0% while others are expected to put their hand in their pocket, which leads to all manner of other little misallocations - like Dyson buying up vast tracts of farmland to name an egregious example. Why not flat rate CGT and IHT at 10% across the board, for example? End the misallocation.
I'm not sure I agree with your point that agricultural relief is about food security. The land will be there irrespective of who owns it, and Stalinist upheavals and five year plans aside, food will continue to be produced irrespective of who owns it.
Which is why I do think it's a simple argument about socialism vs capitalism, as it is redistributing land from those who own it to new owners while taking a decent rake for the exchequer, and bugger the consequences.
But Reeves has this mad idea that people won't change their behaviour or restructure, which is what I would be looking to do if I owned farmland right now.
“I'm not sure I agree with your point that agricultural relief is about security.”
Remember Malt hus- food doesn’t just equate to survival, but to happiness. To have safe and nutritious food that meets dietary need is vital for an active, happy and healthy life. Agriculture provides half of the food we eat in UK - this clearly is protection to UK consumers from price rises, global supply chain issues bringing health and happiness shortages. Is it not?
Jobs, trade, tax security - Farming industry keeps four million people in jobs, trades, crafts, and skills. Bringing £130B to UK economy useful too to securing government spending commitments.
Environmental security. Farmers don’t just care about the environment, they are its guardians - looking after nature, balancing land use, protecting soil, water, air. 70% of UK land in agricultural use is the UKs carbon sink.
I know the PB Pirates can leap in any second saying rest of world should be allowed to compete and beat us in the supermarkets on a level playing field. But they are wrong, just as anyone would be daft enough to supply UK armed forces with cheaper batteries made for us in China. Similarly grow your own is to be dependent on none. Government help to farming will be identical security money to government help to UK firm providing UK Defence with batteries.
APR is about UK security.
A futurologist I was speaking to the other week reckons it will all be indoor/hydroponic in the middle east in the next 50 years, as they will have the energy supply for heating/cooling etc as required, while most 'outdoor' land will be subject to extreme variances that will reduce yield and make some areas unfarmable. The middle east will be the bread basket because it has limitless space and cheapest solar energy.
Not saying any of that is true, actually it sounded bleeding bonkers to me, but then again, 2024 probably sounds insane to somebody from 1974.
Point is, I'm not sure the UK has the ability to maintain food security for a 70m+ population indefinitely under the current model. I wouldn't be doing what Reeves is doing, heck no. But I would be more focused on energy security... and border security.
The UK isn't food sufficient now, let alone at +3-4c global temperature rise, with all the upheavals of population that will lead to...
There was a somewhat (if not terribly well done) Austrian TV Show (film?) called Halbe Welt that had an initially interesting take on some of these ideas (and the general fall-out of climate changes)
The sun blazes down from the sky with destructive power; exposing oneself to its light means death. People have transposed everyday existence to the night. In the metropolis of HALF WORLD a culture based on various languages and lifeforms has grown rampant. Everyone is looking for a way to survive.
(tl;dr - the first half hour is interesting, then it goes to the dogs. As I remember 20+ years after watching it)
Something that is really not understood about solar is that the collapsing price means that the difference between the Saudi desert and here is going to be worth much. Even if you need 5x as many solar panels, the additional output cost will be less than the cost of shifting stuff you make in the Saudi desert here.
Which is quite terrifying for some. They are really not going to like a cheap energy society.
The hair shirt brigade will loath the thought that Deano is going to get his hot tub.
Wait till they find out about the aluminium smelting.
Fuck! Yeah!
The thing I'm curious about is what we do with massive excess wind power during storms or overnight.
Much of that will go into charging cars and other batteries, but I assume it could be transformative for something like an electric arc furnace, which have highly flexible production.
Most heavy industry processes take poorly to stop/start.
One that might work is using the molten tin as a heat store in a glass works…
But it’s the collapse in battery prices that is locked in, which will make solar 24/7, that will really change things.
The Douglas-Martin Solar Reception Screens are nearly here…..
The problem is how you "pay tax" from a fixed asset such as land without selling it. The NFU are pointing out that smaller farms will have no option than to sell up.
She's says inheritance up to £1m is protected and the farmer immediately shakes his head.
So I am left thing that he, like most of them, seem to have no idea about the actual detail.
Edit: Also - he doesn't look too old. Start giving parcels of the land to your sons now and live 7 years.
He's shaking his head at what he is hearing. That he has been lied to.
No. Not shaking head at lies, just knowing that she and her government believe they are crusaders going after tax relief, like modern day Robin Hood - without a clue what is tax relief and what isn’t.
My dad’s been talking to lots of people, my brothers also full of advice how we get round inheritance changes - like I become the owner of lots more family property stuff. He says if there wasn’t APR before we have to do it like he wanted to anyway, and without it we now do it his way, but that’s not my economic point, the big point is the government are stupid and haven’t thought it through that they getting lots of flack over this, worrying and hurting people, but not even getting the billions of money they told themselves and everyone in public now thinks they are getting! They see themselves ans robbing rich to give poor, but its fantasy. And that is definition of government done crap. Insurance and accountants are the winners making money, so their supporting the demo’s against it, in for other peoples interests not their own, is good.
And Normally I don’t like misleading headlines in papers, but I’m loving the ones saying Labour government will be milking farms for billions IHT, as voters will be left thinking farming community have paid their share “all in it together”. When banner says toot for farmers, people will toot their horns. British are about fair play. But let’s be clear on messaging, those tooting horns need to know it’s not merely an entrepreneurial v socialism fight, as too many on right argue it, the voters need to know APR and BPR are important about national food security too, and British Heritage and way of life is worth protecting with APR and BPR too - though I expect PB Pirates like Barty and Lucky laughing at me as I argue that, as they are unpatriotic dipsticks interested solely in consumerism
It's entirely about entrepreneurialism vs socialism.
Changes in voluntary taxation cause changes in behaviour shocker.
If you get to choose when and how you pay it, and how you structure it, don't be surprised when people structure it so they pay less.
If I'm still in the UK next year I will be paying at most half of what I would have paid pre the capital gains bump, for example.*
Meanwhile the socialists just eagerly look on at us like cash cows and assume we "have to" pay up on what we were planning to pay before, but at a much higher percentage rate.
Shame it doesn't work in real life.
*My financial advisor has suggested that Reeves' budget is a shitshow and an exit tax is incoming to shore up lost revenues, so the smart thing to do would be to leave before it happens.
Wrong. AVP wasn’t simply about entrepreneurship was it? - that’s not the argument to keep it, that stupid Daily Telegraph Daily Mail mindset too easily plays into Labours hands, can’t you see?
Besides, your argument also expect us to believe this Labour government are ardent socialists out to crush every bit of entrepreneurialism in UK and only Truss and LuckyGuy can save us from it? You should edit the Telegraph. Maybe you do.
No. This is a government believing it’s doing long overdue crack down on unnecessary tax reliefs in unbalanced and bankrupt country, but without clue how myopic its actions are and damage they are causing where things are not unnecessary tax reliefs.
It’s about government sums not adding up on this just like that with all reeves recent money grabbing schemes - not only the opposite of what was promised for votes they clearly said wouldn’t touch APR - they won’t even bring in anything like the money headlines claimed - like ending nomdom status costs the UK money not gains any etc. ends up the biggest problem with the budget as budget that’s not balanced, the budget gamble was on growth, but UK and world economy ain’t getting any interesting economic growth for six or seven years at least, says every forecast, maybe there’s too much covid debt around holding everything back, like economic long Covid media economic editors will dub it in a few years time I predict, and likely with volatility in energy there’s more inflation wobbles too to cost everyone in power lots of votes as voters get even poorer than 2019 in 2029. People didn’t put Labour in, they decided to put Cons out (humane out of misery wrung neck sort of thing) What goes round comes around.
This is about food security every bit like investing in Brit volt for our batteries, rather relying on batteries imported from China is a clear threat to UK security.
It’s also about protecting not privilege, not heritage. It’s missing the point that growing populations need food, not simply for survival but happiness, and there’s route to health and happiness through the APR.
Best of luck with that.
And best of luck to you, framing it merely as taking away tax relief on rich and privileged folk, being a damaging attack on UK entrepreneurship, so missing everything the APR is really there for, as protection.
APR is protection for UK farming, where all sorts of people want to do farming these days, as a happy way of life, it’s not about money, or chasing money, because happiness isn’t about money. Where families have done it for a hundred years, they want to keep doing it for reasons other than entrepreneurship, making money, chasing more money, all the lovely money coming in, because quite simply all that lovely money isn’t coming in! profits are not there, not in producers anyway, maybe in those selling it to public, or those in middle taking it from producer and giving it to those who sell to consumer just as the sellers want it - an it that is thankfully now being looked at very suspiciously.
Yet, without making money, or a desire to grow and take over the world, the desire is definitely there to keep going. Heck - that desire is so strong and so relatable you could sell six series of much watched and most therapeutic TV show in the world based on it. With people rooting for the good guys, the farmers, to win.
No. APR was never tax relief, a mere pawn, taken en passant in entrepreneurialism vs socialism game of thrones as you claim. I think you can’t see it. You clearly don’t understand, that when newspapers and MPs think they are helping, by saying don’t take this money away, a lot of people around the country, feeling very hard up themselves and looking around at the underfunded state of things, are easily replying “why the hell not?”
Because it’s not tax relief. It’s keeping an industry alive. And the industry is important because…
Oh, I get you. Don't entirely disagree, either.
My point was simply that these things bring with them all manner of unintended consequences.
The biggest tax swizz - I mean relief - we have at the moment is the personal allowance on primary residences, which allows some to chalk up seven figure gains at 0% while others are expected to put their hand in their pocket, which leads to all manner of other little misallocations - like Dyson buying up vast tracts of farmland to name an egregious example. Why not flat rate CGT and IHT at 10% across the board, for example? End the misallocation.
I'm not sure I agree with your point that agricultural relief is about food security. The land will be there irrespective of who owns it, and Stalinist upheavals and five year plans aside, food will continue to be produced irrespective of who owns it.
Which is why I do think it's a simple argument about socialism vs capitalism, as it is redistributing land from those who own it to new owners while taking a decent rake for the exchequer, and bugger the consequences.
But Reeves has this mad idea that people won't change their behaviour or restructure, which is what I would be looking to do if I owned farmland right now.
“I'm not sure I agree with your point that agricultural relief is about security.”
Remember Malt hus- food doesn’t just equate to survival, but to happiness. To have safe and nutritious food that meets dietary need is vital for an active, happy and healthy life. Agriculture provides half of the food we eat in UK - this clearly is protection to UK consumers from price rises, global supply chain issues bringing health and happiness shortages. Is it not?
Jobs, trade, tax security - Farming industry keeps four million people in jobs, trades, crafts, and skills. Bringing £130B to UK economy useful too to securing government spending commitments.
Environmental security. Farmers don’t just care about the environment, they are its guardians - looking after nature, balancing land use, protecting soil, water, air. 70% of UK land in agricultural use is the UKs carbon sink.
I know the PB Pirates can leap in any second saying rest of world should be allowed to compete and beat us in the supermarkets on a level playing field. But they are wrong, just as anyone would be daft enough to supply UK armed forces with cheaper batteries made for us in China. Similarly grow your own is to be dependent on none. Government help to farming will be identical security money to government help to UK firm providing UK Defence with batteries.
APR is about UK security.
A futurologist I was speaking to the other week reckons it will all be indoor/hydroponic in the middle east in the next 50 years, as they will have the energy supply for heating/cooling etc as required, while most 'outdoor' land will be subject to extreme variances that will reduce yield and make some areas unfarmable. The middle east will be the bread basket because it has limitless space and cheapest solar energy.
Not saying any of that is true, actually it sounded bleeding bonkers to me, but then again, 2024 probably sounds insane to somebody from 1974.
Point is, I'm not sure the UK has the ability to maintain food security for a 70m+ population indefinitely under the current model. I wouldn't be doing what Reeves is doing, heck no. But I would be more focused on energy security... and border security.
The UK isn't food sufficient now, let alone at +3-4c global temperature rise, with all the upheavals of population that will lead to...
There was a somewhat (if not terribly well done) Austrian TV Show (film?) called Halbe Welt that had an initially interesting take on some of these ideas (and the general fall-out of climate changes)
The sun blazes down from the sky with destructive power; exposing oneself to its light means death. People have transposed everyday existence to the night. In the metropolis of HALF WORLD a culture based on various languages and lifeforms has grown rampant. Everyone is looking for a way to survive.
(tl;dr - the first half hour is interesting, then it goes to the dogs. As I remember 20+ years after watching it)
Something that is really not understood about solar is that the collapsing price means that the difference between the Saudi desert and here is going to be worth much. Even if you need 5x as many solar panels, the additional output cost will be less than the cost of shifting stuff you make in the Saudi desert here.
Which is quite terrifying for some. They are really not going to like a cheap energy society.
The hair shirt brigade will loath the thought that Deano is going to get his hot tub.
Also, once cars are all electric, are they still the devil? I suppose they can still knock down cyclists and clog up towns, but fewer asthma and climate change complaints.
The next one is people carrying drones. AKA flying cars.
Already been used in Ukraine to carry casualties off the battlefield. The U.K. army is developing a version of this which is basically a flying stretcher. Put the casualty on it and press go….
It says something for the surreal timeline we’re living that the reaction to Trump appointing an actual Putin supporter (not an equivocator, or an isolationist or appeaser, but a full fat Putinist - oh and Assad apologist to boot) to the top national intelligence role in our most powerful geopolitical ally is greeted in some quarters by “ooh, liberal tears, cry harder”.
Suggest this means that the UK should increase defence spending and you'll see more than liberal tears, you'll get full force tantrums from many of them.
The budget significantly increased defence expenditure. I haven't heard any complaints from the left.
It really didn't.
A significant increase would be to a minimum of 3% with immediate effect and planned increases to over 4%.
The NHS is getting an increase 10x the size that defence is.
What do you think the reaction would be if those two increases were now swapped ?
It is a real terms increase over Tory budgets.
You might not like that fact, and might not like the fact that we have the smallest armed forces in Centuries because of Tory cuts, but it is simply true.
I don't like the fact and condemned it at the time.
But the cuts were made during the coalition era.
That same coalition era some claim to have been an era of wondrously competent government.
And they were made because of Labour's disastrous and complacent handling of the economy, and in particular financial regulation, which decimated our tax base and from which the economy has never really recovered.
For what its worth I'll repeat what I've said many times previously:
There needs to be higher taxes of the rich and property.
There needs to be lower spending on the old and poor.
And workers need to work for longer and with higher productivity.
To your points:
1 - How do you stop the rich people leaving? Even if you institute an exit tax, you eventually have a situation where you discourage new entrants. Or the rich simply stop investing. I've turned down two potential investment opportunities this year on the basis that risk/reward is now too unbalanced due to increased tax.
2 - The old vote in disproportionate numbers, plus there are far more poor people than there are rich people, who are able to vote. How do you prevent the old and poor as a majority bloc voting benefits for themselves over and above our ability to pay for them?
3 - How do you deal with the fact that many professions put you "on the scrapheap" by 50, whether that's as a scaffolder or a marketing manager (for very different reasons). What do you *do* with a 75 year old scaffolder or marketing exec when no-one will hire them? Plus the banned convo on AI replacing everything etc.
The problem is how you "pay tax" from a fixed asset such as land without selling it. The NFU are pointing out that smaller farms will have no option than to sell up.
She's says inheritance up to £1m is protected and the farmer immediately shakes his head.
So I am left thing that he, like most of them, seem to have no idea about the actual detail.
Edit: Also - he doesn't look too old. Start giving parcels of the land to your sons now and live 7 years.
He's shaking his head at what he is hearing. That he has been lied to.
No. Not shaking head at lies, just knowing that she and her government believe they are crusaders going after tax relief, like modern day Robin Hood - without a clue what is tax relief and what isn’t.
My dad’s been talking to lots of people, my brothers also full of advice how we get round inheritance changes - like I become the owner of lots more family property stuff. He says if there wasn’t APR before we have to do it like he wanted to anyway, and without it we now do it his way, but that’s not my economic point, the big point is the government are stupid and haven’t thought it through that they getting lots of flack over this, worrying and hurting people, but not even getting the billions of money they told themselves and everyone in public now thinks they are getting! They see themselves ans robbing rich to give poor, but its fantasy. And that is definition of government done crap. Insurance and accountants are the winners making money, so their supporting the demo’s against it, in for other peoples interests not their own, is good.
And Normally I don’t like misleading headlines in papers, but I’m loving the ones saying Labour government will be milking farms for billions IHT, as voters will be left thinking farming community have paid their share “all in it together”. When banner says toot for farmers, people will toot their horns. British are about fair play. But let’s be clear on messaging, those tooting horns need to know it’s not merely an entrepreneurial v socialism fight, as too many on right argue it, the voters need to know APR and BPR are important about national food security too, and British Heritage and way of life is worth protecting with APR and BPR too - though I expect PB Pirates like Barty and Lucky laughing at me as I argue that, as they are unpatriotic dipsticks interested solely in consumerism
It's entirely about entrepreneurialism vs socialism.
Changes in voluntary taxation cause changes in behaviour shocker.
If you get to choose when and how you pay it, and how you structure it, don't be surprised when people structure it so they pay less.
If I'm still in the UK next year I will be paying at most half of what I would have paid pre the capital gains bump, for example.*
Meanwhile the socialists just eagerly look on at us like cash cows and assume we "have to" pay up on what we were planning to pay before, but at a much higher percentage rate.
Shame it doesn't work in real life.
*My financial advisor has suggested that Reeves' budget is a shitshow and an exit tax is incoming to shore up lost revenues, so the smart thing to do would be to leave before it happens.
Wrong. AVP wasn’t simply about entrepreneurship was it? - that’s not the argument to keep it, that stupid Daily Telegraph Daily Mail mindset too easily plays into Labours hands, can’t you see?
Besides, your argument also expect us to believe this Labour government are ardent socialists out to crush every bit of entrepreneurialism in UK and only Truss and LuckyGuy can save us from it? You should edit the Telegraph. Maybe you do.
No. This is a government believing it’s doing long overdue crack down on unnecessary tax reliefs in unbalanced and bankrupt country, but without clue how myopic its actions are and damage they are causing where things are not unnecessary tax reliefs.
It’s about government sums not adding up on this just like that with all reeves recent money grabbing schemes - not only the opposite of what was promised for votes they clearly said wouldn’t touch APR - they won’t even bring in anything like the money headlines claimed - like ending nomdom status costs the UK money not gains any etc. ends up the biggest problem with the budget as budget that’s not balanced, the budget gamble was on growth, but UK and world economy ain’t getting any interesting economic growth for six or seven years at least, says every forecast, maybe there’s too much covid debt around holding everything back, like economic long Covid media economic editors will dub it in a few years time I predict, and likely with volatility in energy there’s more inflation wobbles too to cost everyone in power lots of votes as voters get even poorer than 2019 in 2029. People didn’t put Labour in, they decided to put Cons out (humane out of misery wrung neck sort of thing) What goes round comes around.
This is about food security every bit like investing in Brit volt for our batteries, rather relying on batteries imported from China is a clear threat to UK security.
It’s also about protecting not privilege, not heritage. It’s missing the point that growing populations need food, not simply for survival but happiness, and there’s route to health and happiness through the APR.
Best of luck with that.
And best of luck to you, framing it merely as taking away tax relief on rich and privileged folk, being a damaging attack on UK entrepreneurship, so missing everything the APR is really there for, as protection.
APR is protection for UK farming, where all sorts of people want to do farming these days, as a happy way of life, it’s not about money, or chasing money, because happiness isn’t about money. Where families have done it for a hundred years, they want to keep doing it for reasons other than entrepreneurship, making money, chasing more money, all the lovely money coming in, because quite simply all that lovely money isn’t coming in! profits are not there, not in producers anyway, maybe in those selling it to public, or those in middle taking it from producer and giving it to those who sell to consumer just as the sellers want it - an it that is thankfully now being looked at very suspiciously.
Yet, without making money, or a desire to grow and take over the world, the desire is definitely there to keep going. Heck - that desire is so strong and so relatable you could sell six series of much watched and most therapeutic TV show in the world based on it. With people rooting for the good guys, the farmers, to win.
No. APR was never tax relief, a mere pawn, taken en passant in entrepreneurialism vs socialism game of thrones as you claim. I think you can’t see it. You clearly don’t understand, that when newspapers and MPs think they are helping, by saying don’t take this money away, a lot of people around the country, feeling very hard up themselves and looking around at the underfunded state of things, are easily replying “why the hell not?”
Because it’s not tax relief. It’s keeping an industry alive. And the industry is important because…
Oh, I get you. Don't entirely disagree, either.
My point was simply that these things bring with them all manner of unintended consequences.
The biggest tax swizz - I mean relief - we have at the moment is the personal allowance on primary residences, which allows some to chalk up seven figure gains at 0% while others are expected to put their hand in their pocket, which leads to all manner of other little misallocations - like Dyson buying up vast tracts of farmland to name an egregious example. Why not flat rate CGT and IHT at 10% across the board, for example? End the misallocation.
I'm not sure I agree with your point that agricultural relief is about food security. The land will be there irrespective of who owns it, and Stalinist upheavals and five year plans aside, food will continue to be produced irrespective of who owns it.
Which is why I do think it's a simple argument about socialism vs capitalism, as it is redistributing land from those who own it to new owners while taking a decent rake for the exchequer, and bugger the consequences.
But Reeves has this mad idea that people won't change their behaviour or restructure, which is what I would be looking to do if I owned farmland right now.
“I'm not sure I agree with your point that agricultural relief is about security.”
Remember Malt hus- food doesn’t just equate to survival, but to happiness. To have safe and nutritious food that meets dietary need is vital for an active, happy and healthy life. Agriculture provides half of the food we eat in UK - this clearly is protection to UK consumers from price rises, global supply chain issues bringing health and happiness shortages. Is it not?
Jobs, trade, tax security - Farming industry keeps four million people in jobs, trades, crafts, and skills. Bringing £130B to UK economy useful too to securing government spending commitments.
Environmental security. Farmers don’t just care about the environment, they are its guardians - looking after nature, balancing land use, protecting soil, water, air. 70% of UK land in agricultural use is the UKs carbon sink.
I know the PB Pirates can leap in any second saying rest of world should be allowed to compete and beat us in the supermarkets on a level playing field. But they are wrong, just as anyone would be daft enough to supply UK armed forces with cheaper batteries made for us in China. Similarly grow your own is to be dependent on none. Government help to farming will be identical security money to government help to UK firm providing UK Defence with batteries.
APR is about UK security.
A futurologist I was speaking to the other week reckons it will all be indoor/hydroponic in the middle east in the next 50 years, as they will have the energy supply for heating/cooling etc as required, while most 'outdoor' land will be subject to extreme variances that will reduce yield and make some areas unfarmable. The middle east will be the bread basket because it has limitless space and cheapest solar energy.
Not saying any of that is true, actually it sounded bleeding bonkers to me, but then again, 2024 probably sounds insane to somebody from 1974.
Point is, I'm not sure the UK has the ability to maintain food security for a 70m+ population indefinitely under the current model. I wouldn't be doing what Reeves is doing, heck no. But I would be more focused on energy security... and border security.
The UK isn't food sufficient now, let alone at +3-4c global temperature rise, with all the upheavals of population that will lead to...
There was a somewhat (if not terribly well done) Austrian TV Show (film?) called Halbe Welt that had an initially interesting take on some of these ideas (and the general fall-out of climate changes)
The sun blazes down from the sky with destructive power; exposing oneself to its light means death. People have transposed everyday existence to the night. In the metropolis of HALF WORLD a culture based on various languages and lifeforms has grown rampant. Everyone is looking for a way to survive.
(tl;dr - the first half hour is interesting, then it goes to the dogs. As I remember 20+ years after watching it)
Something that is really not understood about solar is that the collapsing price means that the difference between the Saudi desert and here is going to be worth much. Even if you need 5x as many solar panels, the additional output cost will be less than the cost of shifting stuff you make in the Saudi desert here.
Which is quite terrifying for some. They are really not going to like a cheap energy society.
The hair shirt brigade will loath the thought that Deano is going to get his hot tub.
Wait till they find out about the aluminium smelting.
Fuck! Yeah!
The thing I'm curious about is what we do with massive excess wind power during storms or overnight.
Much of that will go into charging cars and other batteries, but I assume it could be transformative for something like an electric arc furnace, which have highly flexible production.
Most heavy industry processes take poorly to stop/start.
One that might work is using the molten tin as a heat store in a glass works…
But it’s the collapse in battery prices that is locked in, which will make solar 24/7, that will really change things.
The Douglas-Martin Solar Reception Screens are nearly here…..
The most important part of Europe's response right now is Germany. And specifically German elections in February.
Why? Germany had huge fiscal headroom if it wanted to use it. With debt at under 40% of GDP and by far the largest economy in Europe, it could finance the defence of Ukraine and Europe without any (economic) issue. It would also stimulate manufacturing in an economy that will be hard hit by sanctions.
If Europe steps up, then Trump can't force Ukraine to accept defeat. If it doesn't, then it may have no other choice at some point next year.
That is what both gives me hope, and worries me. Germany is at an inflection point. It could go either way
The results of the German election can already be predicted. (spoiler alert) CDU/CSU will easily be the biggest group, and will lead the government, in coalition with either the SPD or the Greens. Obviously getting the fucking FDP out of government is good news, and the CDU and Greens are the parties that have been most clearcut in their rhetorical support for military aid for Ukraine. But I wouldn't get your hopes up. German public opinion seems to be shifting further away from increasing military support for Ukraine.
Also why Germany? Germany has given well over double the amount of military aid to Ukraine than France and Italy combined. Despite France and Italy's combined GDP being much bigger than Germany's, and France having had a much bigger appetite for foreign military involvements since the second World War as well as having the luxury of its own nuclear deterrent plus being a permanent member of the security council. When Germany's biggest EU allies are dragging their feet and doing far less, and IF US support goes, it's hard to imagine Germany suddenly finding the weapons to give Ukraine victory.
So it's difficult to be optimistic whatever the make up of the next German government.
The problem is how you "pay tax" from a fixed asset such as land without selling it. The NFU are pointing out that smaller farms will have no option than to sell up.
She's says inheritance up to £1m is protected and the farmer immediately shakes his head.
So I am left thing that he, like most of them, seem to have no idea about the actual detail.
Edit: Also - he doesn't look too old. Start giving parcels of the land to your sons now and live 7 years.
He's shaking his head at what he is hearing. That he has been lied to.
No. Not shaking head at lies, just knowing that she and her government believe they are crusaders going after tax relief, like modern day Robin Hood - without a clue what is tax relief and what isn’t.
My dad’s been talking to lots of people, my brothers also full of advice how we get round inheritance changes - like I become the owner of lots more family property stuff. He says if there wasn’t APR before we have to do it like he wanted to anyway, and without it we now do it his way, but that’s not my economic point, the big point is the government are stupid and haven’t thought it through that they getting lots of flack over this, worrying and hurting people, but not even getting the billions of money they told themselves and everyone in public now thinks they are getting! They see themselves ans robbing rich to give poor, but its fantasy. And that is definition of government done crap. Insurance and accountants are the winners making money, so their supporting the demo’s against it, in for other peoples interests not their own, is good.
And Normally I don’t like misleading headlines in papers, but I’m loving the ones saying Labour government will be milking farms for billions IHT, as voters will be left thinking farming community have paid their share “all in it together”. When banner says toot for farmers, people will toot their horns. British are about fair play. But let’s be clear on messaging, those tooting horns need to know it’s not merely an entrepreneurial v socialism fight, as too many on right argue it, the voters need to know APR and BPR are important about national food security too, and British Heritage and way of life is worth protecting with APR and BPR too - though I expect PB Pirates like Barty and Lucky laughing at me as I argue that, as they are unpatriotic dipsticks interested solely in consumerism
It's entirely about entrepreneurialism vs socialism.
Changes in voluntary taxation cause changes in behaviour shocker.
If you get to choose when and how you pay it, and how you structure it, don't be surprised when people structure it so they pay less.
If I'm still in the UK next year I will be paying at most half of what I would have paid pre the capital gains bump, for example.*
Meanwhile the socialists just eagerly look on at us like cash cows and assume we "have to" pay up on what we were planning to pay before, but at a much higher percentage rate.
Shame it doesn't work in real life.
*My financial advisor has suggested that Reeves' budget is a shitshow and an exit tax is incoming to shore up lost revenues, so the smart thing to do would be to leave before it happens.
Wrong. AVP wasn’t simply about entrepreneurship was it? - that’s not the argument to keep it, that stupid Daily Telegraph Daily Mail mindset too easily plays into Labours hands, can’t you see?
Besides, your argument also expect us to believe this Labour government are ardent socialists out to crush every bit of entrepreneurialism in UK and only Truss and LuckyGuy can save us from it? You should edit the Telegraph. Maybe you do.
No. This is a government believing it’s doing long overdue crack down on unnecessary tax reliefs in unbalanced and bankrupt country, but without clue how myopic its actions are and damage they are causing where things are not unnecessary tax reliefs.
It’s about government sums not adding up on this just like that with all reeves recent money grabbing schemes - not only the opposite of what was promised for votes they clearly said wouldn’t touch APR - they won’t even bring in anything like the money headlines claimed - like ending nomdom status costs the UK money not gains any etc. ends up the biggest problem with the budget as budget that’s not balanced, the budget gamble was on growth, but UK and world economy ain’t getting any interesting economic growth for six or seven years at least, says every forecast, maybe there’s too much covid debt around holding everything back, like economic long Covid media economic editors will dub it in a few years time I predict, and likely with volatility in energy there’s more inflation wobbles too to cost everyone in power lots of votes as voters get even poorer than 2019 in 2029. People didn’t put Labour in, they decided to put Cons out (humane out of misery wrung neck sort of thing) What goes round comes around.
This is about food security every bit like investing in Brit volt for our batteries, rather relying on batteries imported from China is a clear threat to UK security.
It’s also about protecting not privilege, not heritage. It’s missing the point that growing populations need food, not simply for survival but happiness, and there’s route to health and happiness through the APR.
Best of luck with that.
And best of luck to you, framing it merely as taking away tax relief on rich and privileged folk, being a damaging attack on UK entrepreneurship, so missing everything the APR is really there for, as protection.
APR is protection for UK farming, where all sorts of people want to do farming these days, as a happy way of life, it’s not about money, or chasing money, because happiness isn’t about money. Where families have done it for a hundred years, they want to keep doing it for reasons other than entrepreneurship, making money, chasing more money, all the lovely money coming in, because quite simply all that lovely money isn’t coming in! profits are not there, not in producers anyway, maybe in those selling it to public, or those in middle taking it from producer and giving it to those who sell to consumer just as the sellers want it - an it that is thankfully now being looked at very suspiciously.
Yet, without making money, or a desire to grow and take over the world, the desire is definitely there to keep going. Heck - that desire is so strong and so relatable you could sell six series of much watched and most therapeutic TV show in the world based on it. With people rooting for the good guys, the farmers, to win.
No. APR was never tax relief, a mere pawn, taken en passant in entrepreneurialism vs socialism game of thrones as you claim. I think you can’t see it. You clearly don’t understand, that when newspapers and MPs think they are helping, by saying don’t take this money away, a lot of people around the country, feeling very hard up themselves and looking around at the underfunded state of things, are easily replying “why the hell not?”
Because it’s not tax relief. It’s keeping an industry alive. And the industry is important because…
Oh, I get you. Don't entirely disagree, either.
My point was simply that these things bring with them all manner of unintended consequences.
The biggest tax swizz - I mean relief - we have at the moment is the personal allowance on primary residences, which allows some to chalk up seven figure gains at 0% while others are expected to put their hand in their pocket, which leads to all manner of other little misallocations - like Dyson buying up vast tracts of farmland to name an egregious example. Why not flat rate CGT and IHT at 10% across the board, for example? End the misallocation.
I'm not sure I agree with your point that agricultural relief is about food security. The land will be there irrespective of who owns it, and Stalinist upheavals and five year plans aside, food will continue to be produced irrespective of who owns it.
Which is why I do think it's a simple argument about socialism vs capitalism, as it is redistributing land from those who own it to new owners while taking a decent rake for the exchequer, and bugger the consequences.
But Reeves has this mad idea that people won't change their behaviour or restructure, which is what I would be looking to do if I owned farmland right now.
“I'm not sure I agree with your point that agricultural relief is about security.”
Remember Malt hus- food doesn’t just equate to survival, but to happiness. To have safe and nutritious food that meets dietary need is vital for an active, happy and healthy life. Agriculture provides half of the food we eat in UK - this clearly is protection to UK consumers from price rises, global supply chain issues bringing health and happiness shortages. Is it not?
Jobs, trade, tax security - Farming industry keeps four million people in jobs, trades, crafts, and skills. Bringing £130B to UK economy useful too to securing government spending commitments.
Environmental security. Farmers don’t just care about the environment, they are its guardians - looking after nature, balancing land use, protecting soil, water, air. 70% of UK land in agricultural use is the UKs carbon sink.
I know the PB Pirates can leap in any second saying rest of world should be allowed to compete and beat us in the supermarkets on a level playing field. But they are wrong, just as anyone would be daft enough to supply UK armed forces with cheaper batteries made for us in China. Similarly grow your own is to be dependent on none. Government help to farming will be identical security money to government help to UK firm providing UK Defence with batteries.
APR is about UK security.
A futurologist I was speaking to the other week reckons it will all be indoor/hydroponic in the middle east in the next 50 years, as they will have the energy supply for heating/cooling etc as required, while most 'outdoor' land will be subject to extreme variances that will reduce yield and make some areas unfarmable. The middle east will be the bread basket because it has limitless space and cheapest solar energy.
Not saying any of that is true, actually it sounded bleeding bonkers to me, but then again, 2024 probably sounds insane to somebody from 1974.
Point is, I'm not sure the UK has the ability to maintain food security for a 70m+ population indefinitely under the current model. I wouldn't be doing what Reeves is doing, heck no. But I would be more focused on energy security... and border security.
The UK isn't food sufficient now, let alone at +3-4c global temperature rise, with all the upheavals of population that will lead to...
There was a somewhat (if not terribly well done) Austrian TV Show (film?) called Halbe Welt that had an initially interesting take on some of these ideas (and the general fall-out of climate changes)
The sun blazes down from the sky with destructive power; exposing oneself to its light means death. People have transposed everyday existence to the night. In the metropolis of HALF WORLD a culture based on various languages and lifeforms has grown rampant. Everyone is looking for a way to survive.
(tl;dr - the first half hour is interesting, then it goes to the dogs. As I remember 20+ years after watching it)
Something that is really not understood about solar is that the collapsing price means that the difference between the Saudi desert and here is going to be worth much. Even if you need 5x as many solar panels, the additional output cost will be less than the cost of shifting stuff you make in the Saudi desert here.
Which is quite terrifying for some. They are really not going to like a cheap energy society.
The hair shirt brigade will loath the thought that Deano is going to get his hot tub.
Wait till they find out about the aluminium smelting.
Fuck! Yeah!
The thing I'm curious about is what we do with massive excess wind power during storms or overnight.
Much of that will go into charging cars and other batteries, but I assume it could be transformative for something like an electric arc furnace, which have highly flexible production.
Most heavy industry processes take poorly to stop/start.
One that might work is using the molten tin as a heat store in a glass works…
But it’s the collapse in battery prices that is locked in, which will make solar 24/7, that will really change things.
The Douglas-Martin Solar Reception Screens are nearly here…..
It will make any kind of industry that can scale up production quickly highly attractive - and whatever that industry is likely doesn't exist yet. Exciting times!
I'm as pro-Ukraine as they come but I'm not entirely pessimistic about a Trump Presidency. His first picks at Defence, State and National Security Advisor have not been pro Russian and generally hawkish. Gabbard is an eyebrow raising one though!
It's still possible that Biden could remove the restrictions on UK/French missiles but it only reinforces how hopelessly timid his administration has been expecting Ukraine to fight a timeless war of attrition against a much larger neighbour. Trump may be many things but he probably won't be timid.
The problem is how you "pay tax" from a fixed asset such as land without selling it. The NFU are pointing out that smaller farms will have no option than to sell up.
She's says inheritance up to £1m is protected and the farmer immediately shakes his head.
So I am left thing that he, like most of them, seem to have no idea about the actual detail.
Edit: Also - he doesn't look too old. Start giving parcels of the land to your sons now and live 7 years.
He's shaking his head at what he is hearing. That he has been lied to.
No. Not shaking head at lies, just knowing that she and her government believe they are crusaders going after tax relief, like modern day Robin Hood - without a clue what is tax relief and what isn’t.
My dad’s been talking to lots of people, my brothers also full of advice how we get round inheritance changes - like I become the owner of lots more family property stuff. He says if there wasn’t APR before we have to do it like he wanted to anyway, and without it we now do it his way, but that’s not my economic point, the big point is the government are stupid and haven’t thought it through that they getting lots of flack over this, worrying and hurting people, but not even getting the billions of money they told themselves and everyone in public now thinks they are getting! They see themselves ans robbing rich to give poor, but its fantasy. And that is definition of government done crap. Insurance and accountants are the winners making money, so their supporting the demo’s against it, in for other peoples interests not their own, is good.
And Normally I don’t like misleading headlines in papers, but I’m loving the ones saying Labour government will be milking farms for billions IHT, as voters will be left thinking farming community have paid their share “all in it together”. When banner says toot for farmers, people will toot their horns. British are about fair play. But let’s be clear on messaging, those tooting horns need to know it’s not merely an entrepreneurial v socialism fight, as too many on right argue it, the voters need to know APR and BPR are important about national food security too, and British Heritage and way of life is worth protecting with APR and BPR too - though I expect PB Pirates like Barty and Lucky laughing at me as I argue that, as they are unpatriotic dipsticks interested solely in consumerism
It's entirely about entrepreneurialism vs socialism.
Changes in voluntary taxation cause changes in behaviour shocker.
If you get to choose when and how you pay it, and how you structure it, don't be surprised when people structure it so they pay less.
If I'm still in the UK next year I will be paying at most half of what I would have paid pre the capital gains bump, for example.*
Meanwhile the socialists just eagerly look on at us like cash cows and assume we "have to" pay up on what we were planning to pay before, but at a much higher percentage rate.
Shame it doesn't work in real life.
*My financial advisor has suggested that Reeves' budget is a shitshow and an exit tax is incoming to shore up lost revenues, so the smart thing to do would be to leave before it happens.
Wrong. AVP wasn’t simply about entrepreneurship was it? - that’s not the argument to keep it, that stupid Daily Telegraph Daily Mail mindset too easily plays into Labours hands, can’t you see?
Besides, your argument also expect us to believe this Labour government are ardent socialists out to crush every bit of entrepreneurialism in UK and only Truss and LuckyGuy can save us from it? You should edit the Telegraph. Maybe you do.
No. This is a government believing it’s doing long overdue crack down on unnecessary tax reliefs in unbalanced and bankrupt country, but without clue how myopic its actions are and damage they are causing where things are not unnecessary tax reliefs.
It’s about government sums not adding up on this just like that with all reeves recent money grabbing schemes - not only the opposite of what was promised for votes they clearly said wouldn’t touch APR - they won’t even bring in anything like the money headlines claimed - like ending nomdom status costs the UK money not gains any etc. ends up the biggest problem with the budget as budget that’s not balanced, the budget gamble was on growth, but UK and world economy ain’t getting any interesting economic growth for six or seven years at least, says every forecast, maybe there’s too much covid debt around holding everything back, like economic long Covid media economic editors will dub it in a few years time I predict, and likely with volatility in energy there’s more inflation wobbles too to cost everyone in power lots of votes as voters get even poorer than 2019 in 2029. People didn’t put Labour in, they decided to put Cons out (humane out of misery wrung neck sort of thing) What goes round comes around.
This is about food security every bit like investing in Brit volt for our batteries, rather relying on batteries imported from China is a clear threat to UK security.
It’s also about protecting not privilege, not heritage. It’s missing the point that growing populations need food, not simply for survival but happiness, and there’s route to health and happiness through the APR.
Best of luck with that.
And best of luck to you, framing it merely as taking away tax relief on rich and privileged folk, being a damaging attack on UK entrepreneurship, so missing everything the APR is really there for, as protection.
APR is protection for UK farming, where all sorts of people want to do farming these days, as a happy way of life, it’s not about money, or chasing money, because happiness isn’t about money. Where families have done it for a hundred years, they want to keep doing it for reasons other than entrepreneurship, making money, chasing more money, all the lovely money coming in, because quite simply all that lovely money isn’t coming in! profits are not there, not in producers anyway, maybe in those selling it to public, or those in middle taking it from producer and giving it to those who sell to consumer just as the sellers want it - an it that is thankfully now being looked at very suspiciously.
Yet, without making money, or a desire to grow and take over the world, the desire is definitely there to keep going. Heck - that desire is so strong and so relatable you could sell six series of much watched and most therapeutic TV show in the world based on it. With people rooting for the good guys, the farmers, to win.
No. APR was never tax relief, a mere pawn, taken en passant in entrepreneurialism vs socialism game of thrones as you claim. I think you can’t see it. You clearly don’t understand, that when newspapers and MPs think they are helping, by saying don’t take this money away, a lot of people around the country, feeling very hard up themselves and looking around at the underfunded state of things, are easily replying “why the hell not?”
Because it’s not tax relief. It’s keeping an industry alive. And the industry is important because…
Oh, I get you. Don't entirely disagree, either.
My point was simply that these things bring with them all manner of unintended consequences.
The biggest tax swizz - I mean relief - we have at the moment is the personal allowance on primary residences, which allows some to chalk up seven figure gains at 0% while others are expected to put their hand in their pocket, which leads to all manner of other little misallocations - like Dyson buying up vast tracts of farmland to name an egregious example. Why not flat rate CGT and IHT at 10% across the board, for example? End the misallocation.
I'm not sure I agree with your point that agricultural relief is about food security. The land will be there irrespective of who owns it, and Stalinist upheavals and five year plans aside, food will continue to be produced irrespective of who owns it.
Which is why I do think it's a simple argument about socialism vs capitalism, as it is redistributing land from those who own it to new owners while taking a decent rake for the exchequer, and bugger the consequences.
But Reeves has this mad idea that people won't change their behaviour or restructure, which is what I would be looking to do if I owned farmland right now.
“I'm not sure I agree with your point that agricultural relief is about security.”
Remember Malt hus- food doesn’t just equate to survival, but to happiness. To have safe and nutritious food that meets dietary need is vital for an active, happy and healthy life. Agriculture provides half of the food we eat in UK - this clearly is protection to UK consumers from price rises, global supply chain issues bringing health and happiness shortages. Is it not?
Jobs, trade, tax security - Farming industry keeps four million people in jobs, trades, crafts, and skills. Bringing £130B to UK economy useful too to securing government spending commitments.
Environmental security. Farmers don’t just care about the environment, they are its guardians - looking after nature, balancing land use, protecting soil, water, air. 70% of UK land in agricultural use is the UKs carbon sink.
I know the PB Pirates can leap in any second saying rest of world should be allowed to compete and beat us in the supermarkets on a level playing field. But they are wrong, just as anyone would be daft enough to supply UK armed forces with cheaper batteries made for us in China. Similarly grow your own is to be dependent on none. Government help to farming will be identical security money to government help to UK firm providing UK Defence with batteries.
APR is about UK security.
A futurologist I was speaking to the other week reckons it will all be indoor/hydroponic in the middle east in the next 50 years, as they will have the energy supply for heating/cooling etc as required, while most 'outdoor' land will be subject to extreme variances that will reduce yield and make some areas unfarmable. The middle east will be the bread basket because it has limitless space and cheapest solar energy.
Not saying any of that is true, actually it sounded bleeding bonkers to me, but then again, 2024 probably sounds insane to somebody from 1974.
Point is, I'm not sure the UK has the ability to maintain food security for a 70m+ population indefinitely under the current model. I wouldn't be doing what Reeves is doing, heck no. But I would be more focused on energy security... and border security.
The UK isn't food sufficient now, let alone at +3-4c global temperature rise, with all the upheavals of population that will lead to...
There was a somewhat (if not terribly well done) Austrian TV Show (film?) called Halbe Welt that had an initially interesting take on some of these ideas (and the general fall-out of climate changes)
The sun blazes down from the sky with destructive power; exposing oneself to its light means death. People have transposed everyday existence to the night. In the metropolis of HALF WORLD a culture based on various languages and lifeforms has grown rampant. Everyone is looking for a way to survive.
(tl;dr - the first half hour is interesting, then it goes to the dogs. As I remember 20+ years after watching it)
Something that is really not understood about solar is that the collapsing price means that the difference between the Saudi desert and here is going to be worth much. Even if you need 5x as many solar panels, the additional output cost will be less than the cost of shifting stuff you make in the Saudi desert here.
Which is quite terrifying for some. They are really not going to like a cheap energy society.
The hair shirt brigade will loath the thought that Deano is going to get his hot tub.
Also, once cars are all electric, are they still the devil? I suppose they can still knock down cyclists and clog up towns, but fewer asthma and climate change complaints.
It doesn't resolve most of the issues associated with two-tonne living rooms speeding around cities and towns, but yes, some of the negative externalities are resolved.
I think the advent of the electric bikes, scooters, tuk-tuks etc are the most interesting developments for cities worldwide, particularly in SE Asia. Space, storage, road damage, pollution, range and cost are all much better than their conventional alternatives.
The problem is how you "pay tax" from a fixed asset such as land without selling it. The NFU are pointing out that smaller farms will have no option than to sell up.
She's says inheritance up to £1m is protected and the farmer immediately shakes his head.
So I am left thing that he, like most of them, seem to have no idea about the actual detail.
Edit: Also - he doesn't look too old. Start giving parcels of the land to your sons now and live 7 years.
He's shaking his head at what he is hearing. That he has been lied to.
No. Not shaking head at lies, just knowing that she and her government believe they are crusaders going after tax relief, like modern day Robin Hood - without a clue what is tax relief and what isn’t.
My dad’s been talking to lots of people, my brothers also full of advice how we get round inheritance changes - like I become the owner of lots more family property stuff. He says if there wasn’t APR before we have to do it like he wanted to anyway, and without it we now do it his way, but that’s not my economic point, the big point is the government are stupid and haven’t thought it through that they getting lots of flack over this, worrying and hurting people, but not even getting the billions of money they told themselves and everyone in public now thinks they are getting! They see themselves ans robbing rich to give poor, but its fantasy. And that is definition of government done crap. Insurance and accountants are the winners making money, so their supporting the demo’s against it, in for other peoples interests not their own, is good.
And Normally I don’t like misleading headlines in papers, but I’m loving the ones saying Labour government will be milking farms for billions IHT, as voters will be left thinking farming community have paid their share “all in it together”. When banner says toot for farmers, people will toot their horns. British are about fair play. But let’s be clear on messaging, those tooting horns need to know it’s not merely an entrepreneurial v socialism fight, as too many on right argue it, the voters need to know APR and BPR are important about national food security too, and British Heritage and way of life is worth protecting with APR and BPR too - though I expect PB Pirates like Barty and Lucky laughing at me as I argue that, as they are unpatriotic dipsticks interested solely in consumerism
It's entirely about entrepreneurialism vs socialism.
Changes in voluntary taxation cause changes in behaviour shocker.
If you get to choose when and how you pay it, and how you structure it, don't be surprised when people structure it so they pay less.
If I'm still in the UK next year I will be paying at most half of what I would have paid pre the capital gains bump, for example.*
Meanwhile the socialists just eagerly look on at us like cash cows and assume we "have to" pay up on what we were planning to pay before, but at a much higher percentage rate.
Shame it doesn't work in real life.
*My financial advisor has suggested that Reeves' budget is a shitshow and an exit tax is incoming to shore up lost revenues, so the smart thing to do would be to leave before it happens.
Wrong. AVP wasn’t simply about entrepreneurship was it? - that’s not the argument to keep it, that stupid Daily Telegraph Daily Mail mindset too easily plays into Labours hands, can’t you see?
Besides, your argument also expect us to believe this Labour government are ardent socialists out to crush every bit of entrepreneurialism in UK and only Truss and LuckyGuy can save us from it? You should edit the Telegraph. Maybe you do.
No. This is a government believing it’s doing long overdue crack down on unnecessary tax reliefs in unbalanced and bankrupt country, but without clue how myopic its actions are and damage they are causing where things are not unnecessary tax reliefs.
It’s about government sums not adding up on this just like that with all reeves recent money grabbing schemes - not only the opposite of what was promised for votes they clearly said wouldn’t touch APR - they won’t even bring in anything like the money headlines claimed - like ending nomdom status costs the UK money not gains any etc. ends up the biggest problem with the budget as budget that’s not balanced, the budget gamble was on growth, but UK and world economy ain’t getting any interesting economic growth for six or seven years at least, says every forecast, maybe there’s too much covid debt around holding everything back, like economic long Covid media economic editors will dub it in a few years time I predict, and likely with volatility in energy there’s more inflation wobbles too to cost everyone in power lots of votes as voters get even poorer than 2019 in 2029. People didn’t put Labour in, they decided to put Cons out (humane out of misery wrung neck sort of thing) What goes round comes around.
This is about food security every bit like investing in Brit volt for our batteries, rather relying on batteries imported from China is a clear threat to UK security.
It’s also about protecting not privilege, not heritage. It’s missing the point that growing populations need food, not simply for survival but happiness, and there’s route to health and happiness through the APR.
Best of luck with that.
And best of luck to you, framing it merely as taking away tax relief on rich and privileged folk, being a damaging attack on UK entrepreneurship, so missing everything the APR is really there for, as protection.
APR is protection for UK farming, where all sorts of people want to do farming these days, as a happy way of life, it’s not about money, or chasing money, because happiness isn’t about money. Where families have done it for a hundred years, they want to keep doing it for reasons other than entrepreneurship, making money, chasing more money, all the lovely money coming in, because quite simply all that lovely money isn’t coming in! profits are not there, not in producers anyway, maybe in those selling it to public, or those in middle taking it from producer and giving it to those who sell to consumer just as the sellers want it - an it that is thankfully now being looked at very suspiciously.
Yet, without making money, or a desire to grow and take over the world, the desire is definitely there to keep going. Heck - that desire is so strong and so relatable you could sell six series of much watched and most therapeutic TV show in the world based on it. With people rooting for the good guys, the farmers, to win.
No. APR was never tax relief, a mere pawn, taken en passant in entrepreneurialism vs socialism game of thrones as you claim. I think you can’t see it. You clearly don’t understand, that when newspapers and MPs think they are helping, by saying don’t take this money away, a lot of people around the country, feeling very hard up themselves and looking around at the underfunded state of things, are easily replying “why the hell not?”
Because it’s not tax relief. It’s keeping an industry alive. And the industry is important because…
Oh, I get you. Don't entirely disagree, either.
My point was simply that these things bring with them all manner of unintended consequences.
The biggest tax swizz - I mean relief - we have at the moment is the personal allowance on primary residences, which allows some to chalk up seven figure gains at 0% while others are expected to put their hand in their pocket, which leads to all manner of other little misallocations - like Dyson buying up vast tracts of farmland to name an egregious example. Why not flat rate CGT and IHT at 10% across the board, for example? End the misallocation.
I'm not sure I agree with your point that agricultural relief is about food security. The land will be there irrespective of who owns it, and Stalinist upheavals and five year plans aside, food will continue to be produced irrespective of who owns it.
Which is why I do think it's a simple argument about socialism vs capitalism, as it is redistributing land from those who own it to new owners while taking a decent rake for the exchequer, and bugger the consequences.
But Reeves has this mad idea that people won't change their behaviour or restructure, which is what I would be looking to do if I owned farmland right now.
“I'm not sure I agree with your point that agricultural relief is about security.”
Remember Malt hus- food doesn’t just equate to survival, but to happiness. To have safe and nutritious food that meets dietary need is vital for an active, happy and healthy life. Agriculture provides half of the food we eat in UK - this clearly is protection to UK consumers from price rises, global supply chain issues bringing health and happiness shortages. Is it not?
Jobs, trade, tax security - Farming industry keeps four million people in jobs, trades, crafts, and skills. Bringing £130B to UK economy useful too to securing government spending commitments.
Environmental security. Farmers don’t just care about the environment, they are its guardians - looking after nature, balancing land use, protecting soil, water, air. 70% of UK land in agricultural use is the UKs carbon sink.
I know the PB Pirates can leap in any second saying rest of world should be allowed to compete and beat us in the supermarkets on a level playing field. But they are wrong, just as anyone would be daft enough to supply UK armed forces with cheaper batteries made for us in China. Similarly grow your own is to be dependent on none. Government help to farming will be identical security money to government help to UK firm providing UK Defence with batteries.
APR is about UK security.
A futurologist I was speaking to the other week reckons it will all be indoor/hydroponic in the middle east in the next 50 years, as they will have the energy supply for heating/cooling etc as required, while most 'outdoor' land will be subject to extreme variances that will reduce yield and make some areas unfarmable. The middle east will be the bread basket because it has limitless space and cheapest solar energy.
Not saying any of that is true, actually it sounded bleeding bonkers to me, but then again, 2024 probably sounds insane to somebody from 1974.
Point is, I'm not sure the UK has the ability to maintain food security for a 70m+ population indefinitely under the current model. I wouldn't be doing what Reeves is doing, heck no. But I would be more focused on energy security... and border security.
The UK isn't food sufficient now, let alone at +3-4c global temperature rise, with all the upheavals of population that will lead to...
There was a somewhat (if not terribly well done) Austrian TV Show (film?) called Halbe Welt that had an initially interesting take on some of these ideas (and the general fall-out of climate changes)
The sun blazes down from the sky with destructive power; exposing oneself to its light means death. People have transposed everyday existence to the night. In the metropolis of HALF WORLD a culture based on various languages and lifeforms has grown rampant. Everyone is looking for a way to survive.
(tl;dr - the first half hour is interesting, then it goes to the dogs. As I remember 20+ years after watching it)
Something that is really not understood about solar is that the collapsing price means that the difference between the Saudi desert and here is going to be worth much. Even if you need 5x as many solar panels, the additional output cost will be less than the cost of shifting stuff you make in the Saudi desert here.
Which is quite terrifying for some. They are really not going to like a cheap energy society.
The hair shirt brigade will loath the thought that Deano is going to get his hot tub.
Wait till they find out about the aluminium smelting.
Fuck! Yeah!
The thing I'm curious about is what we do with massive excess wind power during storms or overnight.
Much of that will go into charging cars and other batteries, but I assume it could be transformative for something like an electric arc furnace, which have highly flexible production.
Most heavy industry processes take poorly to stop/start.
One that might work is using the molten tin as a heat store in a glass works…
But it’s the collapse in battery prices that is locked in, which will make solar 24/7, that will really change things.
The Douglas-Martin Solar Reception Screens are nearly here…..
It will make any kind of industry that can scale up production quickly highly attractive - and whatever that industry is likely doesn't exist yet. Exciting times!
Historically, production has been driven by cheap energy.
Monte Testaccio was a testament to the cheap energy of slaves, for the Romans.
The industrial revolution was kicked off by advances in water power, followed by steam power. As that ascended from Newcombe to turbines, industry scaled again and again to match it. Something that is barely understood - the biggest watermills ran on a dozen HP or so. A handful of kilowatts. We now count our world in gigawatts. 6 orders of magnitude....
For decades now, the economy has gone up and down with the price of oil. What happens when that cost craters. permanently?
The most important part of Europe's response right now is Germany. And specifically German elections in February.
Why? Germany had huge fiscal headroom if it wanted to use it. With debt at under 40% of GDP and by far the largest economy in Europe, it could finance the defence of Ukraine and Europe without any (economic) issue. It would also stimulate manufacturing in an economy that will be hard hit by sanctions.
If Europe steps up, then Trump can't force Ukraine to accept defeat. If it doesn't, then it may have no other choice at some point next year.
That is what both gives me hope, and worries me. Germany is at an inflection point. It could go either way
The results of the German election can already be predicted. (spoiler alert) CDU/CSU will easily be the biggest group, and will lead the government, in coalition with either the SPD or the Greens. Obviously getting the fucking FDP out of government is good news, and the CDU and Greens are the parties that have been most clearcut in their rhetorical support for military aid for Ukraine. But I wouldn't get your hopes up. German public opinion seems to be shifting further away from increasing military support for Ukraine.
Also why Germany? Germany has given well over double the amount of military aid to Ukraine than France and Italy combined. Despite France and Italy's combined GDP being much bigger than Germany's, and France having had a much bigger appetite for foreign military involvements since the second World War as well as having the luxury of its own nuclear deterrent plus being a permanent member of the security council. When Germany's biggest EU allies are dragging their feet and doing far less, and IF US support goes, it's hard to imagine Germany suddenly finding the weapons to give Ukraine victory.
So it's difficult to be optimistic whatever the make up of the next German government.
Germany has the Taurus missiles and Merz wants to send them.
That’s going to be hugely humiliating for Starmer and the Labour government.
The Tory Press, in fact all the press, will back Trump over Starmer on this. Can Starmer claim he has the British people behind him? Or more sensible for Starmer to back down early on in the discussion?
I wonder if Nigel slipped in a clever word…
It’s certainly a move that would leave Starmer and Lammy high and dry without a fishing junk. Very diminished.
Been reading up on this and Yep. Looks like Trump can easily veto Starmer and Labour, calling them unsafe and unsound on world security as he does so.
The Daily Mail, Nigel Farage, PBs Leon, amongst other opinion forming notables are going to absolutely love this. Anabob, Kinabalu, MexPet won’t be seen for weeks. Sadly.
But how should the Badenoch BigG Love In, play it? Any dangers for them making a false step with UK government forced into Chagos about turn?
The Official Conservative Party position is Starmer’s give away is a huge security mistake, citing the same reasoning Trump has as he blocked it, so they have to stick with that?
I know in the 1960s the UK Conservative opposition sided with the US government against the British Government on things, like UK entry into the Vietnam War, but how did it go down at the time? Any lessons to learn from then to help Kemi in what is coming? To side with Trump on Chagos, despite Trump not being popular in UK, but then against him on the Ukraine carve up? A confusing mixed bag for both UK voters and the Trump regime, that doesn’t win friends from either?
For what its worth I'll repeat what I've said many times previously:
There needs to be higher taxes of the rich and property.
There needs to be lower spending on the old and poor.
And workers need to work for longer and with higher productivity.
To your points:
1 - How do you stop the rich people leaving? Even if you institute an exit tax, you eventually have a situation where you discourage new entrants. Or the rich simply stop investing. I've turned down two potential investment opportunities this year on the basis that risk/reward is now too unbalanced due to increased tax.
2 - The old vote in disproportionate numbers, plus there are far more poor people than there are rich people, who are able to vote. How do you prevent the old and poor as a majority bloc voting benefits for themselves over and above our ability to pay for them?
3 - How do you deal with the fact that many professions put you "on the scrapheap" by 50, whether that's as a scaffolder or a marketing manager (for very different reasons). What do you *do* with a 75 year old scaffolder or marketing exec when no-one will hire them? Plus the banned convo on AI replacing everything etc.
I didn't say it was going to be easy.
As someone once said "we're all in this together" and together we're all going to have some pain.
And we'll need leaders who will have to spell out that bad news.
Rather a pity that Starmer and Reeves have already dabbled in the freebie trough.
The problem is how you "pay tax" from a fixed asset such as land without selling it. The NFU are pointing out that smaller farms will have no option than to sell up.
She's says inheritance up to £1m is protected and the farmer immediately shakes his head.
So I am left thing that he, like most of them, seem to have no idea about the actual detail.
Edit: Also - he doesn't look too old. Start giving parcels of the land to your sons now and live 7 years.
He's shaking his head at what he is hearing. That he has been lied to.
No. Not shaking head at lies, just knowing that she and her government believe they are crusaders going after tax relief, like modern day Robin Hood - without a clue what is tax relief and what isn’t.
My dad’s been talking to lots of people, my brothers also full of advice how we get round inheritance changes - like I become the owner of lots more family property stuff. He says if there wasn’t APR before we have to do it like he wanted to anyway, and without it we now do it his way, but that’s not my economic point, the big point is the government are stupid and haven’t thought it through that they getting lots of flack over this, worrying and hurting people, but not even getting the billions of money they told themselves and everyone in public now thinks they are getting! They see themselves ans robbing rich to give poor, but its fantasy. And that is definition of government done crap. Insurance and accountants are the winners making money, so their supporting the demo’s against it, in for other peoples interests not their own, is good.
And Normally I don’t like misleading headlines in papers, but I’m loving the ones saying Labour government will be milking farms for billions IHT, as voters will be left thinking farming community have paid their share “all in it together”. When banner says toot for farmers, people will toot their horns. British are about fair play. But let’s be clear on messaging, those tooting horns need to know it’s not merely an entrepreneurial v socialism fight, as too many on right argue it, the voters need to know APR and BPR are important about national food security too, and British Heritage and way of life is worth protecting with APR and BPR too - though I expect PB Pirates like Barty and Lucky laughing at me as I argue that, as they are unpatriotic dipsticks interested solely in consumerism
It's entirely about entrepreneurialism vs socialism.
Changes in voluntary taxation cause changes in behaviour shocker.
If you get to choose when and how you pay it, and how you structure it, don't be surprised when people structure it so they pay less.
If I'm still in the UK next year I will be paying at most half of what I would have paid pre the capital gains bump, for example.*
Meanwhile the socialists just eagerly look on at us like cash cows and assume we "have to" pay up on what we were planning to pay before, but at a much higher percentage rate.
Shame it doesn't work in real life.
*My financial advisor has suggested that Reeves' budget is a shitshow and an exit tax is incoming to shore up lost revenues, so the smart thing to do would be to leave before it happens.
Wrong. AVP wasn’t simply about entrepreneurship was it? - that’s not the argument to keep it, that stupid Daily Telegraph Daily Mail mindset too easily plays into Labours hands, can’t you see?
Besides, your argument also expect us to believe this Labour government are ardent socialists out to crush every bit of entrepreneurialism in UK and only Truss and LuckyGuy can save us from it? You should edit the Telegraph. Maybe you do.
No. This is a government believing it’s doing long overdue crack down on unnecessary tax reliefs in unbalanced and bankrupt country, but without clue how myopic its actions are and damage they are causing where things are not unnecessary tax reliefs.
It’s about government sums not adding up on this just like that with all reeves recent money grabbing schemes - not only the opposite of what was promised for votes they clearly said wouldn’t touch APR - they won’t even bring in anything like the money headlines claimed - like ending nomdom status costs the UK money not gains any etc. ends up the biggest problem with the budget as budget that’s not balanced, the budget gamble was on growth, but UK and world economy ain’t getting any interesting economic growth for six or seven years at least, says every forecast, maybe there’s too much covid debt around holding everything back, like economic long Covid media economic editors will dub it in a few years time I predict, and likely with volatility in energy there’s more inflation wobbles too to cost everyone in power lots of votes as voters get even poorer than 2019 in 2029. People didn’t put Labour in, they decided to put Cons out (humane out of misery wrung neck sort of thing) What goes round comes around.
This is about food security every bit like investing in Brit volt for our batteries, rather relying on batteries imported from China is a clear threat to UK security.
It’s also about protecting not privilege, not heritage. It’s missing the point that growing populations need food, not simply for survival but happiness, and there’s route to health and happiness through the APR.
Best of luck with that.
And best of luck to you, framing it merely as taking away tax relief on rich and privileged folk, being a damaging attack on UK entrepreneurship, so missing everything the APR is really there for, as protection.
APR is protection for UK farming, where all sorts of people want to do farming these days, as a happy way of life, it’s not about money, or chasing money, because happiness isn’t about money. Where families have done it for a hundred years, they want to keep doing it for reasons other than entrepreneurship, making money, chasing more money, all the lovely money coming in, because quite simply all that lovely money isn’t coming in! profits are not there, not in producers anyway, maybe in those selling it to public, or those in middle taking it from producer and giving it to those who sell to consumer just as the sellers want it - an it that is thankfully now being looked at very suspiciously.
Yet, without making money, or a desire to grow and take over the world, the desire is definitely there to keep going. Heck - that desire is so strong and so relatable you could sell six series of much watched and most therapeutic TV show in the world based on it. With people rooting for the good guys, the farmers, to win.
No. APR was never tax relief, a mere pawn, taken en passant in entrepreneurialism vs socialism game of thrones as you claim. I think you can’t see it. You clearly don’t understand, that when newspapers and MPs think they are helping, by saying don’t take this money away, a lot of people around the country, feeling very hard up themselves and looking around at the underfunded state of things, are easily replying “why the hell not?”
Because it’s not tax relief. It’s keeping an industry alive. And the industry is important because…
Oh, I get you. Don't entirely disagree, either.
My point was simply that these things bring with them all manner of unintended consequences.
The biggest tax swizz - I mean relief - we have at the moment is the personal allowance on primary residences, which allows some to chalk up seven figure gains at 0% while others are expected to put their hand in their pocket, which leads to all manner of other little misallocations - like Dyson buying up vast tracts of farmland to name an egregious example. Why not flat rate CGT and IHT at 10% across the board, for example? End the misallocation.
I'm not sure I agree with your point that agricultural relief is about food security. The land will be there irrespective of who owns it, and Stalinist upheavals and five year plans aside, food will continue to be produced irrespective of who owns it.
Which is why I do think it's a simple argument about socialism vs capitalism, as it is redistributing land from those who own it to new owners while taking a decent rake for the exchequer, and bugger the consequences.
But Reeves has this mad idea that people won't change their behaviour or restructure, which is what I would be looking to do if I owned farmland right now.
“I'm not sure I agree with your point that agricultural relief is about security.”
Remember Malt hus- food doesn’t just equate to survival, but to happiness. To have safe and nutritious food that meets dietary need is vital for an active, happy and healthy life. Agriculture provides half of the food we eat in UK - this clearly is protection to UK consumers from price rises, global supply chain issues bringing health and happiness shortages. Is it not?
Jobs, trade, tax security - Farming industry keeps four million people in jobs, trades, crafts, and skills. Bringing £130B to UK economy useful too to securing government spending commitments.
Environmental security. Farmers don’t just care about the environment, they are its guardians - looking after nature, balancing land use, protecting soil, water, air. 70% of UK land in agricultural use is the UKs carbon sink.
I know the PB Pirates can leap in any second saying rest of world should be allowed to compete and beat us in the supermarkets on a level playing field. But they are wrong, just as anyone would be daft enough to supply UK armed forces with cheaper batteries made for us in China. Similarly grow your own is to be dependent on none. Government help to farming will be identical security money to government help to UK firm providing UK Defence with batteries.
APR is about UK security.
A futurologist I was speaking to the other week reckons it will all be indoor/hydroponic in the middle east in the next 50 years, as they will have the energy supply for heating/cooling etc as required, while most 'outdoor' land will be subject to extreme variances that will reduce yield and make some areas unfarmable. The middle east will be the bread basket because it has limitless space and cheapest solar energy.
Not saying any of that is true, actually it sounded bleeding bonkers to me, but then again, 2024 probably sounds insane to somebody from 1974.
Point is, I'm not sure the UK has the ability to maintain food security for a 70m+ population indefinitely under the current model. I wouldn't be doing what Reeves is doing, heck no. But I would be more focused on energy security... and border security.
The UK isn't food sufficient now, let alone at +3-4c global temperature rise, with all the upheavals of population that will lead to...
There was a somewhat (if not terribly well done) Austrian TV Show (film?) called Halbe Welt that had an initially interesting take on some of these ideas (and the general fall-out of climate changes)
The sun blazes down from the sky with destructive power; exposing oneself to its light means death. People have transposed everyday existence to the night. In the metropolis of HALF WORLD a culture based on various languages and lifeforms has grown rampant. Everyone is looking for a way to survive.
(tl;dr - the first half hour is interesting, then it goes to the dogs. As I remember 20+ years after watching it)
Something that is really not understood about solar is that the collapsing price means that the difference between the Saudi desert and here is going to be worth much. Even if you need 5x as many solar panels, the additional output cost will be less than the cost of shifting stuff you make in the Saudi desert here.
Which is quite terrifying for some. They are really not going to like a cheap energy society.
The hair shirt brigade will loath the thought that Deano is going to get his hot tub.
Wait till they find out about the aluminium smelting.
Fuck! Yeah!
The thing I'm curious about is what we do with massive excess wind power during storms or overnight.
Much of that will go into charging cars and other batteries, but I assume it could be transformative for something like an electric arc furnace, which have highly flexible production.
Most heavy industry processes take poorly to stop/start.
One that might work is using the molten tin as a heat store in a glass works…
But it’s the collapse in battery prices that is locked in, which will make solar 24/7, that will really change things.
The Douglas-Martin Solar Reception Screens are nearly here…..
It will make any kind of industry that can scale up production quickly highly attractive - and whatever that industry is likely doesn't exist yet. Exciting times!
Historically, production has been driven by cheap energy.
Monte Testaccio was a testament to the cheap energy of slaves, for the Romans.
The industrial revolution was kicked off by advances in water power, followed by steam power. As that ascended from Newcombe to turbines, industry scaled again and again to match it. Something that is barely understood - the biggest watermills ran on a dozen HP or so. A handful of kilowatts. We now count our world in gigawatts. 6 orders of magnitude....
For decades now, the economy has gone up and down with the price of oil. What happens when that cost craters. permanently?
The government might end up paying people to take on excess energy (a bit like oil storage during the first few weeks of COVID). Completely upends all the economics.
Donald Trump's nomination of Rep. Matt Gaetz to be Attorney General is telling.
In June, Gaetz ripped Attorney General Merrick Garland over the 'justice' system's coordinated effort to go after Donald Trump.
Gaetz: "You've told us it's a dangerous conspiracy theory to allege that the DOJ is communicating with state and local prosecutions against Trump."
"You can clear it all up for us right now. Will the DOJ provide to the committee all documents between the department and Alvin Bragg's office and Fani Willis' office and Leticia James' office?..."
That’s going to be hugely humiliating for Starmer and the Labour government.
The Tory Press, in fact all the press, will back Trump over Starmer on this. Can Starmer claim he has the British people behind him? Or more sensible for Starmer to back down early on in the discussion?
I wonder if Nigel slipped in a clever word…
It’s certainly a move that would leave Starmer and Lammy high and dry without a fishing junk. Very diminished.
The problem is how you "pay tax" from a fixed asset such as land without selling it. The NFU are pointing out that smaller farms will have no option than to sell up.
She's says inheritance up to £1m is protected and the farmer immediately shakes his head.
So I am left thing that he, like most of them, seem to have no idea about the actual detail.
Edit: Also - he doesn't look too old. Start giving parcels of the land to your sons now and live 7 years.
He's shaking his head at what he is hearing. That he has been lied to.
No. Not shaking head at lies, just knowing that she and her government believe they are crusaders going after tax relief, like modern day Robin Hood - without a clue what is tax relief and what isn’t.
My dad’s been talking to lots of people, my brothers also full of advice how we get round inheritance changes - like I become the owner of lots more family property stuff. He says if there wasn’t APR before we have to do it like he wanted to anyway, and without it we now do it his way, but that’s not my economic point, the big point is the government are stupid and haven’t thought it through that they getting lots of flack over this, worrying and hurting people, but not even getting the billions of money they told themselves and everyone in public now thinks they are getting! They see themselves ans robbing rich to give poor, but its fantasy. And that is definition of government done crap. Insurance and accountants are the winners making money, so their supporting the demo’s against it, in for other peoples interests not their own, is good.
And Normally I don’t like misleading headlines in papers, but I’m loving the ones saying Labour government will be milking farms for billions IHT, as voters will be left thinking farming community have paid their share “all in it together”. When banner says toot for farmers, people will toot their horns. British are about fair play. But let’s be clear on messaging, those tooting horns need to know it’s not merely an entrepreneurial v socialism fight, as too many on right argue it, the voters need to know APR and BPR are important about national food security too, and British Heritage and way of life is worth protecting with APR and BPR too - though I expect PB Pirates like Barty and Lucky laughing at me as I argue that, as they are unpatriotic dipsticks interested solely in consumerism
It's entirely about entrepreneurialism vs socialism.
Changes in voluntary taxation cause changes in behaviour shocker.
If you get to choose when and how you pay it, and how you structure it, don't be surprised when people structure it so they pay less.
If I'm still in the UK next year I will be paying at most half of what I would have paid pre the capital gains bump, for example.*
Meanwhile the socialists just eagerly look on at us like cash cows and assume we "have to" pay up on what we were planning to pay before, but at a much higher percentage rate.
Shame it doesn't work in real life.
*My financial advisor has suggested that Reeves' budget is a shitshow and an exit tax is incoming to shore up lost revenues, so the smart thing to do would be to leave before it happens.
Wrong. AVP wasn’t simply about entrepreneurship was it? - that’s not the argument to keep it, that stupid Daily Telegraph Daily Mail mindset too easily plays into Labours hands, can’t you see?
Besides, your argument also expect us to believe this Labour government are ardent socialists out to crush every bit of entrepreneurialism in UK and only Truss and LuckyGuy can save us from it? You should edit the Telegraph. Maybe you do.
No. This is a government believing it’s doing long overdue crack down on unnecessary tax reliefs in unbalanced and bankrupt country, but without clue how myopic its actions are and damage they are causing where things are not unnecessary tax reliefs.
It’s about government sums not adding up on this just like that with all reeves recent money grabbing schemes - not only the opposite of what was promised for votes they clearly said wouldn’t touch APR - they won’t even bring in anything like the money headlines claimed - like ending nomdom status costs the UK money not gains any etc. ends up the biggest problem with the budget as budget that’s not balanced, the budget gamble was on growth, but UK and world economy ain’t getting any interesting economic growth for six or seven years at least, says every forecast, maybe there’s too much covid debt around holding everything back, like economic long Covid media economic editors will dub it in a few years time I predict, and likely with volatility in energy there’s more inflation wobbles too to cost everyone in power lots of votes as voters get even poorer than 2019 in 2029. People didn’t put Labour in, they decided to put Cons out (humane out of misery wrung neck sort of thing) What goes round comes around.
This is about food security every bit like investing in Brit volt for our batteries, rather relying on batteries imported from China is a clear threat to UK security.
It’s also about protecting not privilege, not heritage. It’s missing the point that growing populations need food, not simply for survival but happiness, and there’s route to health and happiness through the APR.
Best of luck with that.
And best of luck to you, framing it merely as taking away tax relief on rich and privileged folk, being a damaging attack on UK entrepreneurship, so missing everything the APR is really there for, as protection.
APR is protection for UK farming, where all sorts of people want to do farming these days, as a happy way of life, it’s not about money, or chasing money, because happiness isn’t about money. Where families have done it for a hundred years, they want to keep doing it for reasons other than entrepreneurship, making money, chasing more money, all the lovely money coming in, because quite simply all that lovely money isn’t coming in! profits are not there, not in producers anyway, maybe in those selling it to public, or those in middle taking it from producer and giving it to those who sell to consumer just as the sellers want it - an it that is thankfully now being looked at very suspiciously.
Yet, without making money, or a desire to grow and take over the world, the desire is definitely there to keep going. Heck - that desire is so strong and so relatable you could sell six series of much watched and most therapeutic TV show in the world based on it. With people rooting for the good guys, the farmers, to win.
No. APR was never tax relief, a mere pawn, taken en passant in entrepreneurialism vs socialism game of thrones as you claim. I think you can’t see it. You clearly don’t understand, that when newspapers and MPs think they are helping, by saying don’t take this money away, a lot of people around the country, feeling very hard up themselves and looking around at the underfunded state of things, are easily replying “why the hell not?”
Because it’s not tax relief. It’s keeping an industry alive. And the industry is important because…
Oh, I get you. Don't entirely disagree, either.
My point was simply that these things bring with them all manner of unintended consequences.
The biggest tax swizz - I mean relief - we have at the moment is the personal allowance on primary residences, which allows some to chalk up seven figure gains at 0% while others are expected to put their hand in their pocket, which leads to all manner of other little misallocations - like Dyson buying up vast tracts of farmland to name an egregious example. Why not flat rate CGT and IHT at 10% across the board, for example? End the misallocation.
I'm not sure I agree with your point that agricultural relief is about food security. The land will be there irrespective of who owns it, and Stalinist upheavals and five year plans aside, food will continue to be produced irrespective of who owns it.
Which is why I do think it's a simple argument about socialism vs capitalism, as it is redistributing land from those who own it to new owners while taking a decent rake for the exchequer, and bugger the consequences.
But Reeves has this mad idea that people won't change their behaviour or restructure, which is what I would be looking to do if I owned farmland right now.
“I'm not sure I agree with your point that agricultural relief is about security.”
Remember Malt hus- food doesn’t just equate to survival, but to happiness. To have safe and nutritious food that meets dietary need is vital for an active, happy and healthy life. Agriculture provides half of the food we eat in UK - this clearly is protection to UK consumers from price rises, global supply chain issues bringing health and happiness shortages. Is it not?
Jobs, trade, tax security - Farming industry keeps four million people in jobs, trades, crafts, and skills. Bringing £130B to UK economy useful too to securing government spending commitments.
Environmental security. Farmers don’t just care about the environment, they are its guardians - looking after nature, balancing land use, protecting soil, water, air. 70% of UK land in agricultural use is the UKs carbon sink.
I know the PB Pirates can leap in any second saying rest of world should be allowed to compete and beat us in the supermarkets on a level playing field. But they are wrong, just as anyone would be daft enough to supply UK armed forces with cheaper batteries made for us in China. Similarly grow your own is to be dependent on none. Government help to farming will be identical security money to government help to UK firm providing UK Defence with batteries.
APR is about UK security.
A futurologist I was speaking to the other week reckons it will all be indoor/hydroponic in the middle east in the next 50 years, as they will have the energy supply for heating/cooling etc as required, while most 'outdoor' land will be subject to extreme variances that will reduce yield and make some areas unfarmable. The middle east will be the bread basket because it has limitless space and cheapest solar energy.
Not saying any of that is true, actually it sounded bleeding bonkers to me, but then again, 2024 probably sounds insane to somebody from 1974.
Point is, I'm not sure the UK has the ability to maintain food security for a 70m+ population indefinitely under the current model. I wouldn't be doing what Reeves is doing, heck no. But I would be more focused on energy security... and border security.
The UK isn't food sufficient now, let alone at +3-4c global temperature rise, with all the upheavals of population that will lead to...
There was a somewhat (if not terribly well done) Austrian TV Show (film?) called Halbe Welt that had an initially interesting take on some of these ideas (and the general fall-out of climate changes)
The sun blazes down from the sky with destructive power; exposing oneself to its light means death. People have transposed everyday existence to the night. In the metropolis of HALF WORLD a culture based on various languages and lifeforms has grown rampant. Everyone is looking for a way to survive.
(tl;dr - the first half hour is interesting, then it goes to the dogs. As I remember 20+ years after watching it)
Something that is really not understood about solar is that the collapsing price means that the difference between the Saudi desert and here is going to be worth much. Even if you need 5x as many solar panels, the additional output cost will be less than the cost of shifting stuff you make in the Saudi desert here.
Which is quite terrifying for some. They are really not going to like a cheap energy society.
The hair shirt brigade will loath the thought that Deano is going to get his hot tub.
Wait till they find out about the aluminium smelting.
Fuck! Yeah!
The thing I'm curious about is what we do with massive excess wind power during storms or overnight.
Much of that will go into charging cars and other batteries, but I assume it could be transformative for something like an electric arc furnace, which have highly flexible production.
Most heavy industry processes take poorly to stop/start.
One that might work is using the molten tin as a heat store in a glass works…
But it’s the collapse in battery prices that is locked in, which will make solar 24/7, that will really change things.
The Douglas-Martin Solar Reception Screens are nearly here…..
It will make any kind of industry that can scale up production quickly highly attractive - and whatever that industry is likely doesn't exist yet. Exciting times!
Historically, production has been driven by cheap energy.
Monte Testaccio was a testament to the cheap energy of slaves, for the Romans.
The industrial revolution was kicked off by advances in water power, followed by steam power. As that ascended from Newcombe to turbines, industry scaled again and again to match it. Something that is barely understood - the biggest watermills ran on a dozen HP or so. A handful of kilowatts. We now count our world in gigawatts. 6 orders of magnitude....
For decades now, the economy has gone up and down with the price of oil. What happens when that cost craters. permanently?
The government might end up paying people to take on excess energy (a bit like oil storage during the first few weeks of COVID). Completely upends all the economics.
Why? If the price of 'leccy gets negative... this may sound crazy. But it just might go unused.
Social conformity is such a strong force. That must be the reason why the Democrats didn't change course over the last few years despite the fact that Donald Trump was waiting in the wings if they didn't.
Social conformity is such a strong force. That must be the reason why the Democrats didn't change course over the last few years despite the fact that Donald Trump was waiting in the wings if they didn't.
They didn't take seriously the possibility that he would actually win. There's a good clip from Jon Stewart where he talks about this.
That’s going to be hugely humiliating for Starmer and the Labour government.
The Tory Press, in fact all the press, will back Trump over Starmer on this. Can Starmer claim he has the British people behind him? Or more sensible for Starmer to back down early on in the discussion?
I wonder if Nigel slipped in a clever word…
It’s certainly a move that would leave Starmer and Lammy high and dry without a fishing junk. Very diminished.
Been reading up on this and Yep. Looks like Trump can easily veto Starmer and Labour, calling them unsafe and unsound on world security as he does so.
The Daily Mail, Nigel Farage, PBs Leon, amongst other opinion forming notables are going to absolutely love this. Anabob, Kinabalu, MexPet won’t be seen for weeks. Sadly.
But how should the Badenoch BigG Love In, play it? Any dangers for them making a false step with UK government forced into Chagos about turn?
The Official Conservative Party position is Starmer’s give away is a huge security mistake, citing the same reasoning Trump has as he blocked it, so they have to stick with that?
I know in the 1960s the UK Conservative opposition sided with the US government against the British Government on things, like UK entry into the Vietnam War, but how did it go down at the time? Any lessons to learn from then to help Kemi in what is coming? To side with Trump on Chagos, despite Trump not being popular in UK, but then against him on the Ukraine carve up? A confusing mixed bag for both UK voters and the Trump regime, that doesn’t win friends from either?
Good points Rampant Rabbit . If Mr Trump believes the UK Government to be unacceptable to US interests, remember the US has two golf resorts in Scotland, perhaps he needs to demand a rerun of the highly contentious and unfair July general election. Remember RefCon beat Labour by six percentage points. In the new election a dream team result of Prime Minister Farage and High Commissioner to the USA, Lord Johnson would surely satisfy the Tango man.
A completely ludicrous (or Ludachris as the Americans would say these days, either through ignorance or in reverence to the rapper of the same name) post I know, but no more insane than the PB Trumpian triumphalism (mainly on the assumption that Trump can bring down Starmer and replace him with a right wing lapdog) that PB has become over the last ten days. Senior Poster Glenn is riding this wave like the dead president characters from Point Break. Talking of dead Presidents, which one will Trump have carved into an image of himself at Mount Rushmore? I reckon Roosevelt.
That’s going to be hugely humiliating for Starmer and the Labour government.
The Tory Press, in fact all the press, will back Trump over Starmer on this. Can Starmer claim he has the British people behind him? Or more sensible for Starmer to back down early on in the discussion?
I wonder if Nigel slipped in a clever word…
It’s certainly a move that would leave Starmer and Lammy high and dry without a fishing junk. Very diminished.
Been reading up on this and Yep. Looks like Trump can easily veto Starmer and Labour, calling them unsafe and unsound on world security as he does so.
The Daily Mail, Nigel Farage, PBs Leon, amongst other opinion forming notables are going to absolutely love this. Anabob, Kinabalu, MexPet won’t be seen for weeks. Sadly.
But how should the Badenoch BigG Love In, play it? Any dangers for them making a false step with UK government forced into Chagos about turn?
The Official Conservative Party position is Starmer’s give away is a huge security mistake, citing the same reasoning Trump has as he blocked it, so they have to stick with that?
I know in the 1960s the UK Conservative opposition sided with the US government against the British Government on things, like UK entry into the Vietnam War, but how did it go down at the time? Any lessons to learn from then to help Kemi in what is coming? To side with Trump on Chagos, despite Trump not being popular in UK, but then against him on the Ukraine carve up? A confusing mixed bag for both UK voters and the Trump regime, that doesn’t win friends from either?
Good points Rampant Rabbit . If Mr Trump believes the UK Government to be unacceptable to US interests, remember the US has two golf resorts in Scotland, perhaps he needs to demand a rerun of the highly contentious and unfair July general election. Remember RefCon beat Labour by six percentage points. In the new election a dream team result of Prime Minister Farage and High Commissioner to the USA, Lord Johnson would surely satisfy the Tango man.
A completely ludicrous (or Ludachris as the Americans would say these days, either through ignorance or in reverence to the rapper of the same name) post I know, but no more insane than the PB Trumpian triumphalism (mainly on the assumption that Trump can bring down Starmer and replace him with a right wing lapdog) that PB has become over the last ten days. Senior Poster Glenn is riding this wave like the dead president characters from Point Break. Talking of dead Presidents, which one will Trump have carved into an image of himself at Mount Rushmore? I reckon Roosevelt.
Mad enough for you Rabbit?
Top Dollar : Maybe we oughta just video tape this, play it back in slow motion
Well the Conservatives lost control of it after Brexit and big time! Or did they? Boris Johnson did promise us he would replace the shortfall after he kicked all the Poles out " from our friends on the Indian Subcontinent" ( my paraphrase, but accurate nonetheless).
The Labour Government need a war on woke too if the PB narrative is anything to go by. It's all the fault of some nebulous intangible called woke, apparently.
That’s going to be hugely humiliating for Starmer and the Labour government.
The Tory Press, in fact all the press, will back Trump over Starmer on this. Can Starmer claim he has the British people behind him? Or more sensible for Starmer to back down early on in the discussion?
I wonder if Nigel slipped in a clever word…
It’s certainly a move that would leave Starmer and Lammy high and dry without a fishing junk. Very diminished.
Been reading up on this and Yep. Looks like Trump can easily veto Starmer and Labour, calling them unsafe and unsound on world security as he does so.
The Daily Mail, Nigel Farage, PBs Leon, amongst other opinion forming notables are going to absolutely love this. Anabob, Kinabalu, MexPet won’t be seen for weeks. Sadly.
But how should the Badenoch BigG Love In, play it? Any dangers for them making a false step with UK government forced into Chagos about turn?
The Official Conservative Party position is Starmer’s give away is a huge security mistake, citing the same reasoning Trump has as he blocked it, so they have to stick with that?
I know in the 1960s the UK Conservative opposition sided with the US government against the British Government on things, like UK entry into the Vietnam War, but how did it go down at the time? Any lessons to learn from then to help Kemi in what is coming? To side with Trump on Chagos, despite Trump not being popular in UK, but then against him on the Ukraine carve up? A confusing mixed bag for both UK voters and the Trump regime, that doesn’t win friends from either?
Good points Rampant Rabbit . If Mr Trump believes the UK Government to be unacceptable to US interests, remember the US has two golf resorts in Scotland, perhaps he needs to demand a rerun of the highly contentious and unfair July general election. Remember RefCon beat Labour by six percentage points. In the new election a dream team result of Prime Minister Farage and High Commissioner to the USA, Lord Johnson would surely satisfy the Tango man.
A completely ludicrous (or Ludachris as the Americans would say these days, either through ignorance or in reverence to the rapper of the same name) post I know, but no more insane than the PB Trumpian triumphalism (mainly on the assumption that Trump can bring down Starmer and replace him with a right wing lapdog) that PB has become over the last ten days. Senior Poster Glenn is riding this wave like the dead president characters from Point Break. Talking of dead Presidents, which one will Trump have carved into an image of himself at Mount Rushmore? I reckon Roosevelt.
Mad enough for you Rabbit?
Reading between the lines, you concede Trump and Farage have pulled off a clear knockdown of Starmer and Labour in just round 1 already, with the Chagos Cross Punch?
This is a big, defining political news story for some time to come. And daft Labour walked right on to it.
I’ll leave it for others to answer the political history questions I set then. Anything for Kemi to learn from 1960’s, how Tory LOTO sides with US President against the British government?
Though next Wednesday’s PMQs will be sooooooo easy for Kemi, merely pointing out, her own side wouldn’t be sitting there, embarrassed on the government benches thanks to the Chagos Comeuppance, as they wouldn’t have made the stupid and utterly needless Chagos mistake in the first place.
Oddly enough, Labour governments tend to be slightly more successful on implementing immigration policies that Conservative ones, possibly because Labour immigration policies are more likely to actually be carried out by officialdom.
That’s going to be hugely humiliating for Starmer and the Labour government.
The Tory Press, in fact all the press, will back Trump over Starmer on this. Can Starmer claim he has the British people behind him? Or more sensible for Starmer to back down early on in the discussion?
I wonder if Nigel slipped in a clever word…
It’s certainly a move that would leave Starmer and Lammy high and dry without a fishing junk. Very diminished.
That’s going to be hugely humiliating for Starmer and the Labour government.
The Tory Press, in fact all the press, will back Trump over Starmer on this. Can Starmer claim he has the British people behind him? Or more sensible for Starmer to back down early on in the discussion?
I wonder if Nigel slipped in a clever word…
It’s certainly a move that would leave Starmer and Lammy high and dry without a fishing junk. Very diminished.
Social conformity is such a strong force. That must be the reason why the Democrats didn't change course over the last few years despite the fact that Donald Trump was waiting in the wings if they didn't.
They didn't take seriously the possibility that he would actually win. There's a good clip from Jon Stewart where he talks about this.
The left is captured by radicals which limits their ability to change. Centrism/pragmatism is dead. Every election is an existential struggle between good and evil with the alternative being too difficult to contemplate.
If Trump blocks the handing over of Chago Islands, is David Lammy going to leave twitter in protest ;-)
If Trump’s first achievement is to leave David Lammy with egg on his face, then that’s not a bad start. Did the foreign secretary not think that such a significant announcement a fortnight before the US election might be a little risky?
Intreresting that Norway and Sweden, once front runners in the cashless society idea, are now rapidly backtracking and legislating to ensure cash is universally accepted and recommending that everyone keeps a stash of it for emergency/security reasons. Apparently freaked by how easy it is to bring down the cashless transaction systems.
If Trump blocks the handing over of Chago Islands, is David Lammy going to leave twitter in protest ;-)
If Trump’s first achievement is to leave David Lammy with egg on his face, then that’s not a bad start. Did the foreign secretary not think that such a significant announcement a fortnight before the US election might be a little risky?
Chagos – will voters really care? There was going to be a change and now there isn't so life will continue as it has done for decades. Those vanishing few who want change will blame Trump, not Lammy, and everyone else is spared the bother of trying to find the place on a map.
If Trump blocks the handing over of Chago Islands, is David Lammy going to leave twitter in protest ;-)
If Trump’s first achievement is to leave David Lammy with egg on his face, then that’s not a bad start. Did the foreign secretary not think that such a significant announcement a fortnight before the US election might be a little risky?
The Labour party are subject to the same political forces as the democrats.
"The left has to win, otherwise the world is going to end; and we must never concede to the forces of 'fascism'."
Intreresting that Norway and Sweden, once front runners in the cashless society idea, are now rapidly backtracking and legislating to ensure cash is universally accepted and recommending that everyone keeps a stash of it for emergency/security reasons. Apparently freaked by how easy it is to bring down the cashless transaction systems.
Contactless payment systems work fine for the day-to-day, the problems come when there’s an emergency. Which now includes a foreign state actor hacking the payment systems, as well as the natural winds and floods that usually cause power failures.
The other reason to keep cash is for payments you want to keep of the record, perhaps you’re applying for a mortgage and don’t want your bank (or your wife!) to see just how much ends up with a bookie or the local pub.
@MattW Bit late but yes, the Roman role of Dictator lasted one year. It had a sort of deputy, the magister equitum (master of horse). When Quintus Fabius Maximus' famous delaying tactics offended the sense of Roman aggression, his deputy was voted to have equal powers and they split the army between them. But, generally, the Dictator had sole authority and resigned after a year.
Intreresting that Norway and Sweden, once front runners in the cashless society idea, are now rapidly backtracking and legislating to ensure cash is universally accepted and recommending that everyone keeps a stash of it for emergency/security reasons. Apparently freaked by how easy it is to bring down the cashless transaction systems.
Contactless payment systems work fine for the day-to-day, the problems come when there’s an emergency. Which now includes a foreign state actor hacking the payment systems, as well as the natural winds and floods that usually cause power failures.
The other reason to keep cash is for payments you want to keep of the record, perhaps you’re applying for a mortgage and don’t want your bank (or your wife!) to see just how much ends up with a bookie or the local pub.
Good morning
Another reason cash is important is that our 11 year old grandson demands cash for his Saturday morning jobs for his Grandma, so he can repay his 13 year sister in cash for the cash she has lent him from her Saturday morning jobs with her other Grandma
This is quite a good example of state dysfunction. There is a housing crisis caused by failings in government policy which leads to more vulnerable people presenting as homeless. Councils then have to house them. They have no means of housing them aside from hotel accommodation because of the housing crisis. Then the government ombudsman requires the Council's to comphensate the people presenting as homeless for providing inadequate housing (ie hotel accommodation). One Council (Leicester) has just turned around and said we aren't paying these fines anymore.
A long-form video that might be of interest to @Leon and @RochdalePioneers . It posits how automated vehicles may impact the built and lived environment if we are not very careful.
Intreresting that Norway and Sweden, once front runners in the cashless society idea, are now rapidly backtracking and legislating to ensure cash is universally accepted and recommending that everyone keeps a stash of it for emergency/security reasons. Apparently freaked by how easy it is to bring down the cashless transaction systems.
A couple of decades ago I worked on developing a computer specifically to allow online banking from home in those countries. The idea was that apparently suicide rates go up in winter in Scandinavia, so people could use t'Internet to keep connected (improving mood (*)) and also not need to go out to banks any more...
(*) I used to think the Internet was a boon for society. In many ways it is now looking more like a curse.
A tweet on 'free speech' Twitter which touches on the deportations:
"Honey I’m going to touch your hand when I tell you this but if you aren’t a wasp you aren’t white and if you aren’t white you’re just beans with a side of rice to actual white people and a little piece of paper will never change that"
No, I won't link to it.
For many people, the 'deportations' are not about deporting illegals. It is about getting rid of anyone not like them. Or people they do not like.
Intreresting that Norway and Sweden, once front runners in the cashless society idea, are now rapidly backtracking and legislating to ensure cash is universally accepted and recommending that everyone keeps a stash of it for emergency/security reasons. Apparently freaked by how easy it is to bring down the cashless transaction systems.
Contactless payment systems work fine for the day-to-day, the problems come when there’s an emergency. Which now includes a foreign state actor hacking the payment systems, as well as the natural winds and floods that usually cause power failures.
The other reason to keep cash is for payments you want to keep of the record, perhaps you’re applying for a mortgage and don’t want your bank (or your wife!) to see just how much ends up with a bookie or the local pub.
Good morning
Another reason cash is important is that our 11 year old grandson demands cash for his Saturday morning jobs for his Grandma, so he can repay his 13 year sister in cash for the cash she has lent him from her Saturday morning jobs with her other Grandma
I do have concerns that electronic money will reduce the connections kids have with money - and it's something we're struggling with with our son. It is easier to budget when you have a set amount of cash in your hand, than just figures on a screen.
As an aside, he has an annoying habit if saying 'five dollars' instead of 'five pounds' - because references to dollars dominate on the Internet and amongst his (UK) friends.
Social conformity is such a strong force. That must be the reason why the Democrats didn't change course over the last few years despite the fact that Donald Trump was waiting in the wings if they didn't.
They didn't take seriously the possibility that he would actually win. There's a good clip from Jon Stewart where he talks about this.
The left is captured by radicals which limits their ability to change. Centrism/pragmatism is dead. Every election is an existential struggle between good and evil with the alternative being too difficult to contemplate.
Well, we are about to spend the next four years testing that thesis to destruction...
Mr. Jessop, it's disconcerting how many people, who presumably have actually encountered technology, think getting rid of physical money won't create occasional but colossal problems.
A tweet on 'free speech' Twitter which touches on the deportations:
"Honey I’m going to touch your hand when I tell you this but if you aren’t a wasp you aren’t white and if you aren’t white you’re just beans with a side of rice to actual white people and a little piece of paper will never change that"
No, I won't link to it.
For many people, the 'deportations' are not about deporting illegals. It is about getting rid of anyone not like them. Or people they do not like.
I think people are being incredibly naive about these deportations, what they're about and how they might play out. It's not hard to see a path that leads to the invocation of the Insurrection Act and the deployment of the US military internally. Indeed, that may be one of the objectives.
Social conformity is such a strong force. That must be the reason why the Democrats didn't change course over the last few years despite the fact that Donald Trump was waiting in the wings if they didn't.
They didn't take seriously the possibility that he would actually win. There's a good clip from Jon Stewart where he talks about this.
The left is captured by radicals which limits their ability to change. Centrism/pragmatism is dead. Every election is an existential struggle between good and evil with the alternative being too difficult to contemplate.
And the right aren't captured by radicals?
Only one side has decided to go along with someone who wanted to lead an insurrection.
Gaetz's resignation from Congress comes two days before the House Ethics Committee was set to vote on releasing a "highly damaging" report outlining its investigation into him.
that two Republican senators have already texted him to say they will not vote to confirm Matt Gaetz for AG.
It would need 4 GOP Senators to scupper his confirmation and of course we can’t rule out Trump using the recess . And any member of Congress defying the Dear Leader will probably face death threats from the Maga mob .
The latter is the issue for a lot of what is coming imho.
As I have said before on here, he will be after that third term from day one. Who is going to stand in his way?
The third term isn’t happening . Notwithstanding his age the constitution is clear on that .
And, if somehow the two-term limit was abolished, Barack Obama would come back and kick his ass in the 2028 election.
Intreresting that Norway and Sweden, once front runners in the cashless society idea, are now rapidly backtracking and legislating to ensure cash is universally accepted and recommending that everyone keeps a stash of it for emergency/security reasons. Apparently freaked by how easy it is to bring down the cashless transaction systems.
Contactless payment systems work fine for the day-to-day, the problems come when there’s an emergency. Which now includes a foreign state actor hacking the payment systems, as well as the natural winds and floods that usually cause power failures.
The other reason to keep cash is for payments you want to keep of the record, perhaps you’re applying for a mortgage and don’t want your bank (or your wife!) to see just how much ends up with a bookie or the local pub.
Good morning
Another reason cash is important is that our 11 year old grandson demands cash for his Saturday morning jobs for his Grandma, so he can repay his 13 year sister in cash for the cash she has lent him from her Saturday morning jobs with her other Grandma
I do have concerns that electronic money will reduce the connections kids have with money - and it's something we're struggling with with our son. It is easier to budget when you have a set amount of cash in your hand, than just figures on a screen.
As an aside, he has an annoying habit if saying 'five dollars' instead of 'five pounds' - because references to dollars dominate on the Internet and amongst his (UK) friends.
Intreresting that Norway and Sweden, once front runners in the cashless society idea, are now rapidly backtracking and legislating to ensure cash is universally accepted and recommending that everyone keeps a stash of it for emergency/security reasons. Apparently freaked by how easy it is to bring down the cashless transaction systems.
Contactless payment systems work fine for the day-to-day, the problems come when there’s an emergency. Which now includes a foreign state actor hacking the payment systems, as well as the natural winds and floods that usually cause power failures.
The other reason to keep cash is for payments you want to keep of the record, perhaps you’re applying for a mortgage and don’t want your bank (or your wife!) to see just how much ends up with a bookie or the local pub.
Good morning
Another reason cash is important is that our 11 year old grandson demands cash for his Saturday morning jobs for his Grandma, so he can repay his 13 year sister in cash for the cash she has lent him from her Saturday morning jobs with her other Grandma
I do have concerns that electronic money will reduce the connections kids have with money - and it's something we're struggling with with our son. It is easier to budget when you have a set amount of cash in your hand, than just figures on a screen.
As an aside, he has an annoying habit if saying 'five dollars' instead of 'five pounds' - because references to dollars dominate on the Internet and amongst his (UK) friends.
It's interesting how that goes around and comes around. Andy Capp used to be full of "'arf a dollar".
My 11-year-old-today (birthday!) struggles a bit with cash (it's too much faff) but finds their "kids bank account/card" really easy for budgeting and saving with its pots and wotnot. But that only became effective once they got a phone for walking to school last year. It was 100% too abstract until then.
That’s going to be hugely humiliating for Starmer and the Labour government.
The Tory Press, in fact all the press, will back Trump over Starmer on this. Can Starmer claim he has the British people behind him? Or more sensible for Starmer to back down early on in the discussion?
I wonder if Nigel slipped in a clever word…
It’s certainly a move that would leave Starmer and Lammy high and dry without a fishing junk. Very diminished.
Just rejoice at that news.
Hold your rejoicing.
All the front page linked to says is that Trump is "seeking legal advice", not that the deal is being reversed.
Even if he gets favourable advice and files something, don't forget he's lost just about every lawsuit he's ever been involved with, at least if the other side has had the stamina to see it through.
The problem is how you "pay tax" from a fixed asset such as land without selling it. The NFU are pointing out that smaller farms will have no option than to sell up.
She's says inheritance up to £1m is protected and the farmer immediately shakes his head.
So I am left thing that he, like most of them, seem to have no idea about the actual detail.
Edit: Also - he doesn't look too old. Start giving parcels of the land to your sons now and live 7 years.
He's shaking his head at what he is hearing. That he has been lied to.
No. Not shaking head at lies, just knowing that she and her government believe they are crusaders going after tax relief, like modern day Robin Hood - without a clue what is tax relief and what isn’t.
My dad’s been talking to lots of people, my brothers also full of advice how we get round inheritance changes - like I become the owner of lots more family property stuff. He says if there wasn’t APR before we have to do it like he wanted to anyway, and without it we now do it his way, but that’s not my economic point, the big point is the government are stupid and haven’t thought it through that they getting lots of flack over this, worrying and hurting people, but not even getting the billions of money they told themselves and everyone in public now thinks they are getting! They see themselves ans robbing rich to give poor, but its fantasy. And that is definition of government done crap. Insurance and accountants are the winners making money, so their supporting the demo’s against it, in for other peoples interests not their own, is good.
And Normally I don’t like misleading headlines in papers, but I’m loving the ones saying Labour government will be milking farms for billions IHT, as voters will be left thinking farming community have paid their share “all in it together”. When banner says toot for farmers, people will toot their horns. British are about fair play. But let’s be clear on messaging, those tooting horns need to know it’s not merely an entrepreneurial v socialism fight, as too many on right argue it, the voters need to know APR and BPR are important about national food security too, and British Heritage and way of life is worth protecting with APR and BPR too - though I expect PB Pirates like Barty and Lucky laughing at me as I argue that, as they are unpatriotic dipsticks interested solely in consumerism
It's entirely about entrepreneurialism vs socialism.
Changes in voluntary taxation cause changes in behaviour shocker.
If you get to choose when and how you pay it, and how you structure it, don't be surprised when people structure it so they pay less.
If I'm still in the UK next year I will be paying at most half of what I would have paid pre the capital gains bump, for example.*
Meanwhile the socialists just eagerly look on at us like cash cows and assume we "have to" pay up on what we were planning to pay before, but at a much higher percentage rate.
Shame it doesn't work in real life.
*My financial advisor has suggested that Reeves' budget is a shitshow and an exit tax is incoming to shore up lost revenues, so the smart thing to do would be to leave before it happens.
Wrong. AVP wasn’t simply about entrepreneurship was it? - that’s not the argument to keep it, that stupid Daily Telegraph Daily Mail mindset too easily plays into Labours hands, can’t you see?
Besides, your argument also expect us to believe this Labour government are ardent socialists out to crush every bit of entrepreneurialism in UK and only Truss and LuckyGuy can save us from it? You should edit the Telegraph. Maybe you do.
No. This is a government believing it’s doing long overdue crack down on unnecessary tax reliefs in unbalanced and bankrupt country, but without clue how myopic its actions are and damage they are causing where things are not unnecessary tax reliefs.
It’s about government sums not adding up on this just like that with all reeves recent money grabbing schemes - not only the opposite of what was promised for votes they clearly said wouldn’t touch APR - they won’t even bring in anything like the money headlines claimed - like ending nomdom status costs the UK money not gains any etc. ends up the biggest problem with the budget as budget that’s not balanced, the budget gamble was on growth, but UK and world economy ain’t getting any interesting economic growth for six or seven years at least, says every forecast, maybe there’s too much covid debt around holding everything back, like economic long Covid media economic editors will dub it in a few years time I predict, and likely with volatility in energy there’s more inflation wobbles too to cost everyone in power lots of votes as voters get even poorer than 2019 in 2029. People didn’t put Labour in, they decided to put Cons out (humane out of misery wrung neck sort of thing) What goes round comes around.
This is about food security every bit like investing in Brit volt for our batteries, rather relying on batteries imported from China is a clear threat to UK security.
It’s also about protecting not privilege, not heritage. It’s missing the point that growing populations need food, not simply for survival but happiness, and there’s route to health and happiness through the APR.
Best of luck with that.
And best of luck to you, framing it merely as taking away tax relief on rich and privileged folk, being a damaging attack on UK entrepreneurship, so missing everything the APR is really there for, as protection.
APR is protection for UK farming, where all sorts of people want to do farming these days, as a happy way of life, it’s not about money, or chasing money, because happiness isn’t about money. Where families have done it for a hundred years, they want to keep doing it for reasons other than entrepreneurship, making money, chasing more money, all the lovely money coming in, because quite simply all that lovely money isn’t coming in! profits are not there, not in producers anyway, maybe in those selling it to public, or those in middle taking it from producer and giving it to those who sell to consumer just as the sellers want it - an it that is thankfully now being looked at very suspiciously.
Yet, without making money, or a desire to grow and take over the world, the desire is definitely there to keep going. Heck - that desire is so strong and so relatable you could sell six series of much watched and most therapeutic TV show in the world based on it. With people rooting for the good guys, the farmers, to win.
No. APR was never tax relief, a mere pawn, taken en passant in entrepreneurialism vs socialism game of thrones as you claim. I think you can’t see it. You clearly don’t understand, that when newspapers and MPs think they are helping, by saying don’t take this money away, a lot of people around the country, feeling very hard up themselves and looking around at the underfunded state of things, are easily replying “why the hell not?”
Because it’s not tax relief. It’s keeping an industry alive. And the industry is important because…
Oh, I get you. Don't entirely disagree, either.
My point was simply that these things bring with them all manner of unintended consequences.
The biggest tax swizz - I mean relief - we have at the moment is the personal allowance on primary residences, which allows some to chalk up seven figure gains at 0% while others are expected to put their hand in their pocket, which leads to all manner of other little misallocations - like Dyson buying up vast tracts of farmland to name an egregious example. Why not flat rate CGT and IHT at 10% across the board, for example? End the misallocation.
I'm not sure I agree with your point that agricultural relief is about food security. The land will be there irrespective of who owns it, and Stalinist upheavals and five year plans aside, food will continue to be produced irrespective of who owns it.
Which is why I do think it's a simple argument about socialism vs capitalism, as it is redistributing land from those who own it to new owners while taking a decent rake for the exchequer, and bugger the consequences.
But Reeves has this mad idea that people won't change their behaviour or restructure, which is what I would be looking to do if I owned farmland right now.
“I'm not sure I agree with your point that agricultural relief is about security.”
Remember Malt hus- food doesn’t just equate to survival, but to happiness. To have safe and nutritious food that meets dietary need is vital for an active, happy and healthy life. Agriculture provides half of the food we eat in UK - this clearly is protection to UK consumers from price rises, global supply chain issues bringing health and happiness shortages. Is it not?
Jobs, trade, tax security - Farming industry keeps four million people in jobs, trades, crafts, and skills. Bringing £130B to UK economy useful too to securing government spending commitments.
Environmental security. Farmers don’t just care about the environment, they are its guardians - looking after nature, balancing land use, protecting soil, water, air. 70% of UK land in agricultural use is the UKs carbon sink.
I know the PB Pirates can leap in any second saying rest of world should be allowed to compete and beat us in the supermarkets on a level playing field. But they are wrong, just as anyone would be daft enough to supply UK armed forces with cheaper batteries made for us in China. Similarly grow your own is to be dependent on none. Government help to farming will be identical security money to government help to UK firm providing UK Defence with batteries.
APR is about UK security.
A futurologist I was speaking to the other week reckons it will all be indoor/hydroponic in the middle east in the next 50 years, as they will have the energy supply for heating/cooling etc as required, while most 'outdoor' land will be subject to extreme variances that will reduce yield and make some areas unfarmable. The middle east will be the bread basket because it has limitless space and cheapest solar energy.
Not saying any of that is true, actually it sounded bleeding bonkers to me, but then again, 2024 probably sounds insane to somebody from 1974.
Point is, I'm not sure the UK has the ability to maintain food security for a 70m+ population indefinitely under the current model. I wouldn't be doing what Reeves is doing, heck no. But I would be more focused on energy security... and border security.
The UK isn't food sufficient now, let alone at +3-4c global temperature rise, with all the upheavals of population that will lead to...
There was a somewhat (if not terribly well done) Austrian TV Show (film?) called Halbe Welt that had an initially interesting take on some of these ideas (and the general fall-out of climate changes)
The sun blazes down from the sky with destructive power; exposing oneself to its light means death. People have transposed everyday existence to the night. In the metropolis of HALF WORLD a culture based on various languages and lifeforms has grown rampant. Everyone is looking for a way to survive.
(tl;dr - the first half hour is interesting, then it goes to the dogs. As I remember 20+ years after watching it)
Something that is really not understood about solar is that the collapsing price means that the difference between the Saudi desert and here is going to be worth much. Even if you need 5x as many solar panels, the additional output cost will be less than the cost of shifting stuff you make in the Saudi desert here.
Which is quite terrifying for some. They are really not going to like a cheap energy society.
The hair shirt brigade will loath the thought that Deano is going to get his hot tub.
Wait till they find out about the aluminium smelting.
Fuck! Yeah!
The thing I'm curious about is what we do with massive excess wind power during storms or overnight.
Much of that will go into charging cars and other batteries, but I assume it could be transformative for something like an electric arc furnace, which have highly flexible production.
Most heavy industry processes take poorly to stop/start.
One that might work is using the molten tin as a heat store in a glass works…
But it’s the collapse in battery prices that is locked in, which will make solar 24/7, that will really change things.
The Douglas-Martin Solar Reception Screens are nearly here…..
It will make any kind of industry that can scale up production quickly highly attractive - and whatever that industry is likely doesn't exist yet. Exciting times!
Historically, production has been driven by cheap energy.
Monte Testaccio was a testament to the cheap energy of slaves, for the Romans.
The industrial revolution was kicked off by advances in water power, followed by steam power. As that ascended from Newcombe to turbines, industry scaled again and again to match it. Something that is barely understood - the biggest watermills ran on a dozen HP or so. A handful of kilowatts. We now count our world in gigawatts. 6 orders of magnitude....
For decades now, the economy has gone up and down with the price of oil. What happens when that cost craters. permanently?
The government might end up paying people to take on excess energy (a bit like oil storage during the first few weeks of COVID). Completely upends all the economics.
They don't have to. Simply reform the electricity market, introduce regional (or local) pricing, and the market will do that.
It would mean far higher capacity utilisation, and so cheaper prices for everyone, overall.
Social conformity is such a strong force. That must be the reason why the Democrats didn't change course over the last few years despite the fact that Donald Trump was waiting in the wings if they didn't.
They didn't take seriously the possibility that he would actually win. There's a good clip from Jon Stewart where he talks about this.
The left is captured by radicals which limits their ability to change. Centrism/pragmatism is dead. Every election is an existential struggle between good and evil with the alternative being too difficult to contemplate.
Merrick Garland is the current Attorney General. Trump has nominated Matt Gaetz to replace him. One of these two people has been credibly accused of sex trafficking. I’m quite happy to consider one of these a good appointment and one of them an evil appointment.
Gaetz's resignation from Congress comes two days before the House Ethics Committee was set to vote on releasing a "highly damaging" report outlining its investigation into him.
Not adding anything new here, but Matt Gaetz has serious personal baggage that, in the normal course, would make him a nonstarter for AG. If the Senate confirms him, it will signal that they have completely and totally capitulated to Trump. https://x.com/baseballot/status/1856818170276757762
Which makes it fairly likely. I would predict two GOP holdouts, which isn't enough.
Intreresting that Norway and Sweden, once front runners in the cashless society idea, are now rapidly backtracking and legislating to ensure cash is universally accepted and recommending that everyone keeps a stash of it for emergency/security reasons. Apparently freaked by how easy it is to bring down the cashless transaction systems.
Contactless payment systems work fine for the day-to-day, the problems come when there’s an emergency. Which now includes a foreign state actor hacking the payment systems, as well as the natural winds and floods that usually cause power failures.
The other reason to keep cash is for payments you want to keep of the record, perhaps you’re applying for a mortgage and don’t want your bank (or your wife!) to see just how much ends up with a bookie or the local pub.
Good morning
Another reason cash is important is that our 11 year old grandson demands cash for his Saturday morning jobs for his Grandma, so he can repay his 13 year sister in cash for the cash she has lent him from her Saturday morning jobs with her other Grandma
I do have concerns that electronic money will reduce the connections kids have with money - and it's something we're struggling with with our son. It is easier to budget when you have a set amount of cash in your hand, than just figures on a screen.
As an aside, he has an annoying habit if saying 'five dollars' instead of 'five pounds' - because references to dollars dominate on the Internet and amongst his (UK) friends.
It's interesting how that goes around and comes around. Andy Capp used to be full of "'arf a dollar".
My 11-year-old-today (birthday!) struggles a bit with cash (it's too much faff) but finds their "kids bank account/card" really easy for budgeting and saving with its pots and wotnot. But that only became effective once they got a phone for walking to school last year. It was 100% too abstract until then.
A dollar was five bob (five shillings) so half a dollar was half a crown, which was the 2/6 coin.
@MattW Bit late but yes, the Roman role of Dictator lasted one year. It had a sort of deputy, the magister equitum (master of horse). When Quintus Fabius Maximus' famous delaying tactics offended the sense of Roman aggression, his deputy was voted to have equal powers and they split the army between them. But, generally, the Dictator had sole authority and resigned after a year.
Thanks.
I'm not sure if @HorseCorrectBattery will be happy about the existence of a "Master of Horse".
Social conformity is such a strong force. That must be the reason why the Democrats didn't change course over the last few years despite the fact that Donald Trump was waiting in the wings if they didn't.
They didn't take seriously the possibility that he would actually win. There's a good clip from Jon Stewart where he talks about this.
The left is captured by radicals which limits their ability to change. Centrism/pragmatism is dead. Every election is an existential struggle between good and evil with the alternative being too difficult to contemplate.
Merrick Garland is the current Attorney General. Trump has nominated Matt Gaetz to replace him. One of these two people has been credibly accused of sex trafficking. I’m quite happy to consider one of these a good appointment and one of them an evil appointment.
Merrick Garland was not a good appointment.
There are numerous articles from a Dem perspective along these lines:
From that report, it looks like Homebase was bought and stuffed up by the new owners, possibly more than once.
Wesfarmers had bought Homebase in 2016 and immediately sacked Homebase's senior management team.
It admitted making a number of "self-induced" blunders, such as underestimating winter demand for a range of items from heaters to cleaning and storage, and dropping popular kitchen and bathroom ranges.
Capitalism is too important to be left to capitalists.
If a company is badly managed it goes bust.
So frigging what?
Goodbye to Homebase, hello to better managed firms who can better serve their customers and not take bad decisions that bankrupt the firm.
Is Wickes still around? 15 years or so ago I worked for a firm which supplied them, Homebase, Focus/Do-it-all (didn't they all get rolled into Homebase?) and B&Q amoungst others.
B&Q were scum to deal with, utterly ruthless. Also ripped off their customers - some products we packaged for them were half the price packaged differently in Wickes.
Wickes were best - good to deal with as a supplier. Homebase we fairly incompetent, and not very competitively priced, I'm amazed they lasted as long as they did.
Wickes is very much still around, got a new kitchen from them last year.
Bloody nightmare to get it installed, as they kept sending the wrong bits, but it's very nice now it's in.
I have a trade account at B&Q which just about makes them competitive with Wickes, although I prefer the latter.
Not wanting to cause trouble, but do you have the 10% trade discount at Wickes?
And the further 10% (ie 9%) you can get by using the correct reloadable prepaid card, if eligible?
I haven't, as they weren't giving them away like confetti like they were at B&Q.
To be fair I was buying stuff for a charitable exercise, so it was vaguely justifiable at the time.
Might give it a go if I find another project...sounds like it might be worthwhile.
It's very much worthwhile, you just need to take slight care with how you describe yourself. Go for something like "house renovator", or "gardener".
The saving money game at Wickes is a little different than it used to be, when they had lots of continuous and occasional "4 for 3" and so on, so timing could be tweaked for bank holidays etc. They were always the best for certain bulk materials, such as Postcrete, as long as you had X (usually 4 or 5) bags. But Postcrete, like plaster, can't be kept for *that* long.
Another big thing can be delivery charges. Wickes have a threshold of maybe a £250 order for free delivery, and £25 or something for less than that, whilst around here Travis Perkins used to charge about £5.
When Buildhub started back in 2016, I posted a pinned thread that has loads of wrinkles on it. A basic technique as ever is to climb up the supply chain - so the same fencing stuff (if they have it on their range) from your local agricultural supplier will be about 2/3 less than from Wickes, and perhaps 80% less than B&Q. I still get 3.6m half round fencing rails (twas fun collecting 25 in a Vauxhall Corsa) for about £6, for example, and the smallest 5'6" 2-3" knocker-posts for ~£2.
I tend not to bother with B&Q, unless only they have it, as their trade discounts seem to be only on random products, unless eg it is a sheet material and I can work their free-cutting-up service. TBF by far the best ever discount I had anywhere was when their computer had the decimal point in the wrong place on a batch of nearly 30sqm of flooring I needed; it was all in my car in minutes once they had said "yes, that's right". 90% off .
Social conformity is such a strong force. That must be the reason why the Democrats didn't change course over the last few years despite the fact that Donald Trump was waiting in the wings if they didn't.
They didn't take seriously the possibility that he would actually win. There's a good clip from Jon Stewart where he talks about this.
The left is captured by radicals which limits their ability to change. Centrism/pragmatism is dead. Every election is an existential struggle between good and evil with the alternative being too difficult to contemplate.
Merrick Garland is the current Attorney General. Trump has nominated Matt Gaetz to replace him. One of these two people has been credibly accused of sex trafficking. I’m quite happy to consider one of these a good appointment and one of them an evil appointment.
Merrick Garland was not a good appointment.
There are numerous articles from a Dem perspective along these lines:
AFAICS Merrick Garland was one reason why the Trump prosecutions took so long, which is one of several things that mean he is going to be in the White House rather than the USA version of Wormwood Scrubs or Broadmoor.
On the RFK appointment quite a lot of the saner young right wing YouTubers my other half likes are very keen on him. They don't mention vaccines but they like his public health focus (fitness etc) and his antipathy to what they cal big pharma. In a country where very hairy prescription meds are advertised on TV you can see their point. US citizens needs to pray that people within the HHS can channel his energies on those two things rather than vaccines.
Comments
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107070/
The sun blazes down from the sky with destructive power; exposing oneself to its light means death. People have transposed everyday existence to the night. In the metropolis of HALF WORLD a culture based on various languages and lifeforms has grown rampant. Everyone is looking for a way to survive.
(tl;dr - the first half hour is interesting, then it goes to the dogs. As I remember 20+ years after watching it)
Of the $327m your link had given by the health industry, $129m came from Adelson, so like any other billionaire rather than an issue with the industry as a whole
Digging into Pharma the top donor was Abbott at $5.1m. In total you get to around $40m from the industry.
Not that much in a US context
The GOP leadership knew it was unwise for that procedure to be used.
Then not do it and just spaff the tax rises on something else!
#3 Profit!
And Starmer/Reeves have put in place real terms increases. Something that they deserve credit for surely, especially in light of all the other cost pressures left to them by the last Tory government.
https://www.tomorrowspapers.co.uk/independent-front-page-2024-11-14/
That’s going to be hugely humiliating for Starmer and the Labour government.
The Tory Press, in fact all the press, will back Trump over Starmer on this. Can Starmer claim he has the British people behind him? Or more sensible for Starmer to back down early on in the discussion?
I wonder if Nigel slipped in a clever word…
It’s certainly a move that would leave Starmer and Lammy high and dry without a fishing junk. Very diminished.
Which is quite terrifying for some. They are really not going to like a cheap energy society.
You dreamer.
Fuck! Yeah!
At the moment Starmer and Reeves have chosen an increase in NHS spending 10x that of the increase in defence spending.
Whether they'll change or maintain that ratio we will see.
Now you might say that Starmer and Reeves are in a difficult position with unpopular decision to take.
And you would be right but so what, they have the job and they have to make the decisions.
There needs to be higher taxes of the rich and property.
There needs to be lower spending on the old and poor.
And workers need to work for longer and with higher productivity.
Much of that will go into charging cars and other batteries, but I assume it could be transformative for something like an electric arc furnace, which have highly flexible production.
I assume you will be providing the transport? (ducks 😃)
One that might work is using the molten tin as a heat store in a glass works…
But it’s the collapse in battery prices that is locked in, which will make solar 24/7, that will really change things.
The Douglas-Martin Solar Reception Screens are nearly here…..
Already been used in Ukraine to carry casualties off the battlefield. The U.K. army is developing a version of this which is basically a flying stretcher. Put the casualty on it and press go….
1 - How do you stop the rich people leaving? Even if you institute an exit tax, you eventually have a situation where you discourage new entrants. Or the rich simply stop investing. I've turned down two potential investment opportunities this year on the basis that risk/reward is now too unbalanced due to increased tax.
2 - The old vote in disproportionate numbers, plus there are far more poor people than there are rich people, who are able to vote. How do you prevent the old and poor as a majority bloc voting benefits for themselves over and above our ability to pay for them?
3 - How do you deal with the fact that many professions put you "on the scrapheap" by 50, whether that's as a scaffolder or a marketing manager (for very different reasons). What do you *do* with a 75 year old scaffolder or marketing exec when no-one will hire them? Plus the banned convo on AI replacing everything etc.
You knew I'd look it up...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_There_Be_Light_(Heinlein_short_story)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Roads_Must_Roll
Also why Germany? Germany has given well over double the amount of military aid to Ukraine than France and Italy combined. Despite France and Italy's combined GDP being much bigger than Germany's, and France having had a much bigger appetite for foreign military involvements since the second World War as well as having the luxury of its own nuclear deterrent plus being a permanent member of the security council. When Germany's biggest EU allies are dragging their feet and doing far less, and IF US support goes, it's hard to imagine Germany suddenly finding the weapons to give Ukraine victory.
So it's difficult to be optimistic whatever the make up of the next German government.
It's still possible that Biden could remove the restrictions on UK/French missiles but it only reinforces how hopelessly timid his administration has been expecting Ukraine to fight a timeless war of attrition against a much larger neighbour. Trump may be many things but he probably won't be timid.
I think the advent of the electric bikes, scooters, tuk-tuks etc are the most interesting developments for cities worldwide, particularly in SE Asia. Space, storage, road damage, pollution, range and cost are all much better than their conventional alternatives.
Monte Testaccio was a testament to the cheap energy of slaves, for the Romans.
The industrial revolution was kicked off by advances in water power, followed by steam power. As that ascended from Newcombe to turbines, industry scaled again and again to match it. Something that is barely understood - the biggest watermills ran on a dozen HP or so. A handful of kilowatts. We now count our world in gigawatts. 6 orders of magnitude....
For decades now, the economy has gone up and down with the price of oil. What happens when that cost craters. permanently?
The Daily Mail, Nigel Farage, PBs Leon, amongst other opinion forming notables are going to absolutely love this.
Anabob, Kinabalu, MexPet won’t be seen for weeks. Sadly.
But how should the Badenoch BigG Love In, play it? Any dangers for them making a false step with UK government forced into Chagos about turn?
The Official Conservative Party position is Starmer’s give away is a huge security mistake, citing the same reasoning Trump has as he blocked it, so they have to stick with that?
I know in the 1960s the UK Conservative opposition sided with the US government against the British Government on things, like UK entry into the Vietnam War, but how did it go down at the time? Any lessons to learn from then to help Kemi in what is coming? To side with Trump on Chagos, despite Trump not being popular in UK, but then against him on the Ukraine carve up? A confusing mixed bag for both UK voters and the Trump regime, that doesn’t win friends from either?
As someone once said "we're all in this together" and together we're all going to have some pain.
And we'll need leaders who will have to spell out that bad news.
Rather a pity that Starmer and Reeves have already dabbled in the freebie trough.
Donald Trump's nomination of Rep. Matt Gaetz to be Attorney General is telling.
In June, Gaetz ripped Attorney General Merrick Garland over the 'justice' system's coordinated effort to go after Donald Trump.
Gaetz: "You've told us it's a dangerous conspiracy theory to allege that the DOJ is communicating with state and local prosecutions against Trump."
"You can clear it all up for us right now. Will the DOJ provide to the committee all documents between the department and Alvin Bragg's office and Fani Willis' office and Leticia James' office?..."
https://x.com/thechiefnerd/status/1855100057252446690
A completely ludicrous (or Ludachris as the Americans would say these days, either through ignorance or in reverence to the rapper of the same name) post I know, but no more insane than the PB Trumpian triumphalism (mainly on the assumption that Trump can bring down Starmer and replace him with a right wing lapdog) that PB has become over the last ten days. Senior Poster Glenn is riding this wave like the dead president characters from Point Break. Talking of dead Presidents, which one will Trump have carved into an image of himself at Mount Rushmore? I reckon Roosevelt.
Mad enough for you Rabbit?
Top Dollar : Maybe we oughta just video tape this, play it back in slow motion
The Labour Government need a war on woke too if the PB narrative is anything to go by. It's all the fault of some nebulous intangible called woke, apparently.
"Why I gave up on cash
Contactless is now irresistible
Ann Wroe"
https://unherd.com/2024/11/why-i-gave-up-on-cash/
This is a big, defining political news story for some time to come. And daft Labour walked right on to it.
I’ll leave it for others to answer the political history questions I set then. Anything for Kemi to learn from 1960’s, how Tory LOTO sides with US President against the British government?
Though next Wednesday’s PMQs will be sooooooo easy for Kemi, merely pointing out, her own side wouldn’t be sitting there, embarrassed on the government benches thanks to the Chagos Comeuppance, as they wouldn’t have made the stupid and utterly needless Chagos mistake in the first place.
It doesn’t make any sense.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/oct/30/sweden-and-norway-rethink-cashless-society-plans-over-russia-security-fears
"The left has to win, otherwise the world is going to end; and we must never concede to the forces of 'fascism'."
The other reason to keep cash is for payments you want to keep of the record, perhaps you’re applying for a mortgage and don’t want your bank (or your wife!) to see just how much ends up with a bookie or the local pub.
“Trump’s nomination of Matt Gaetz raises eyebrows in Washington”
https://babylonbee.com/news/trump-nomination-of-matt-gaetz-raises-eyebrows
@MattW Bit late but yes, the Roman role of Dictator lasted one year. It had a sort of deputy, the magister equitum (master of horse). When Quintus Fabius Maximus' famous delaying tactics offended the sense of Roman aggression, his deputy was voted to have equal powers and they split the army between them. But, generally, the Dictator had sole authority and resigned after a year.
Another reason cash is important is that our 11 year old grandson demands cash for his Saturday morning jobs for his Grandma, so he can repay his 13 year sister in cash for the cash she has lent him from her Saturday morning jobs with her other Grandma
This is quite a good example of state dysfunction. There is a housing crisis caused by failings in government policy which leads to more vulnerable people presenting as homeless. Councils then have to house them. They have no means of housing them aside from hotel accommodation because of the housing crisis. Then the government ombudsman requires the Council's to comphensate the people presenting as homeless for providing inadequate housing (ie hotel accommodation). One Council (Leicester) has just turned around and said we aren't paying these fines anymore.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=040ejWnFkj0
TL:DW: history shows it isn't positive, and we shouldn't trust the companies.
(*) I used to think the Internet was a boon for society. In many ways it is now looking more like a curse.
"Honey I’m going to touch your hand when I tell you this but if you aren’t a wasp you aren’t white and if you aren’t white you’re just beans with a side of rice to actual white people and a little piece of paper will never change that"
No, I won't link to it.
For many people, the 'deportations' are not about deporting illegals. It is about getting rid of anyone not like them. Or people they do not like.
As an aside, he has an annoying habit if saying 'five dollars' instead of 'five pounds' - because references to dollars dominate on the Internet and amongst his (UK) friends.
Only one side has decided to go along with someone who wanted to lead an insurrection.
Then they turn into Gordon Gekko.
My 11-year-old-today (birthday!) struggles a bit with cash (it's too much faff) but finds their "kids bank account/card" really easy for budgeting and saving with its pots and wotnot. But that only became effective once they got a phone for walking to school last year. It was 100% too abstract until then.
All the front page linked to says is that Trump is "seeking legal advice", not that the deal is being reversed.
Even if he gets favourable advice and files something, don't forget he's lost just about every lawsuit he's ever been involved with, at least if the other side has had the stamina to see it through.
Sorry to be a party pooper.
NEW THREAD
Simply reform the electricity market, introduce regional (or local) pricing, and the market will do that.
It would mean far higher capacity utilisation, and so cheaper prices for everyone, overall.
https://x.com/baseballot/status/1856818170276757762
Which makes it fairly likely.
I would predict two GOP holdouts, which isn't enough.
I'm not sure if @HorseCorrectBattery will be happy about the existence of a "Master of Horse".
There are numerous articles from a Dem perspective along these lines:
https://prospect.org/justice/2023-08-03-merrick-garland-failed-america/
The saving money game at Wickes is a little different than it used to be, when they had lots of continuous and occasional "4 for 3" and so on, so timing could be tweaked for bank holidays etc. They were always the best for certain bulk materials, such as Postcrete, as long as you had X (usually 4 or 5) bags. But Postcrete, like plaster, can't be kept for *that* long.
Another big thing can be delivery charges. Wickes have a threshold of maybe a £250 order for free delivery, and £25 or something for less than that, whilst around here Travis Perkins used to charge about £5.
When Buildhub started back in 2016, I posted a pinned thread that has loads of wrinkles on it. A basic technique as ever is to climb up the supply chain - so the same fencing stuff (if they have it on their range) from your local agricultural supplier will be about 2/3 less than from Wickes, and perhaps 80% less than B&Q. I still get 3.6m half round fencing rails (twas fun collecting 25 in a Vauxhall Corsa) for about £6, for example, and the smallest 5'6" 2-3" knocker-posts for ~£2.
I tend not to bother with B&Q, unless only they have it, as their trade discounts seem to be only on random products, unless eg it is a sheet material and I can work their free-cutting-up service. TBF by far the best ever discount I had anywhere was when their computer had the decimal point in the wrong place on a batch of nearly 30sqm of flooring I needed; it was all in my car in minutes once they had said "yes, that's right". 90% off
Link:
https://forum.buildhub.org.uk/topic/426-creditdebit-reward-cards-discounts-etc/
AFAICS Merrick Garland was one reason why the Trump prosecutions took so long, which is one of several things that mean he is going to be in the White House rather than the USA version of Wormwood Scrubs or Broadmoor.