The sellers having made a five hundred percent profit on their home after 25 years coughing up would be more equitable than the poor old buyer having to front stamp duty at purchase.
This policy would be devastating for Labour in London and home counties marginal Labour seats, the AVERAGE London house price is now over £500k, the same in Hertfordshire
As it stands ANY government taxation kite is shot down by the hostile media and the Conservatives. I have no problem with a sales tax for a property that I have potentially nominally profited by £600,000 over 25 years (mortgage interest repayments notwithstanding).
We now seem to operate in a culture where we demand better social and civil services, better and more expensive defence but without any attempts at a taxation quid pro quo.
We want our cake and we want to eat it.
There have been years where my property went up in value by more than the wage I was being paid. The former attracts no tax, the latter does. Do we want to incentivise people to work, or to indulge in property speculation?
Anyone who suggests charging capital gains tax on private homes is signing their political obituary
Maybe because most people are greedy and want everyone else to pay for them. If I earn £100k this year I would pay £31,400 in tax and NI, if I earned £50k and my house increased in value by £50k then I would pay £10,500 in tax and NI. Why are we taxing work more than sitting on your arse?
I am not sure you quite grasp the politics of this
And by the way any care my wife or I need at our advanced years 81 and 85 will be entirely funded by our home and saving the taxpayer many thousands of pounds
Oh, I get the politics, I wasn't disagreeing with you about the politics. But the parasitical attitude of "I will never contribute towards this society" really annoys me. Even more so when it's combined with utter smugness.
I do not understand why you think homeowners do not contribute towards society
They pay their taxes the same as anyone else and of course that includes council tax
Also as I said our home will pay any care fees we may need
Our son in law parents care fees cost over £260,000 and not one penny was paid by the exchequer
I didn't say that, I said they pay less. As I said if you work hard and earn £100k you pay £31,400 tax and NI, £50k earning and £50k house price increase you pay £10,500 even though your net worth has increased by precisely the same amount. Shouldn't that be equal? There are huge amounts of the British people who cannot even dream of owning a house. They shouldn't be condemned to a modern form of serfdom.
Because it means that the housing market breaks down.
Let’s take a reductio ad absurbum approach.
Mr Andy lives in a property worth, say, £600,000. He bought it 20 years ago for £300,000 so has made a very nice capital gain.
However for reasons best known to himself he has always fancied living in the house next door and when Mr DM decides to move in with his kid as he ages, Mr Andy decides to sell his house and buy Mr DM’s. Luckily the houses are identical in every respect.
However when Mr Andy sells his house for £600,000 (I’m ignoring stamp duty and all fees and expenses for simplicity) he faces a capital gains tax of £75,000. (25% x £300k).
As a result he can’t afford Mr DM’s house. Nor can he afford any house on the street he has spent the last 20 years.
Outcome: he doesn’t sell, and a transaction at fair market prices that would have facilitated an improvement in Mr DM’s life (he gets to move), in Mr Andy’s life (he gets to live in the house he likes), and the buyer of Mr Andy’s house, as well as generating tax revenue for the government (stamp duty and VAT on professional fees) doesn’t happen.
Everyone is worse off as a result of this new tax.
"What is wrong with displaying the Union flag or the St. George's Cross in a patriotic way, even if some far-right groups have co-opted it?"
@kategarraway and @adilray discuss the displaying of flags with Kehinde Andrews, Professor of Black Studies at Birmingham City University, who argues it's provocative and the St George's Cross has become a symbol of racism, while race, culture and identity writer Dr Rakib Ehsan thinks we should be proud of our flag after two councils sparked controversy by taking down St George's and Union flags."
Thing is, I would probably have given significance to his opinion ten years ago. Now I do not give a f*ck. Don't like it? - shut up or leave
That's it. Why should a majority of Brits warp, pervert and abase their sense of identity - the symbolism and self respect - to accommodate professionally aggrieved people like this? They have a grift and they're gonna grift. Even if t's honest, it is a grift. It's how they make a living
We had an empire. It was magnificent and the biggest ever. Sorry but there it is
Is the fact that Britain had an empire a reason for us to be proud - and if so why? How was the British Empire magnificent? Yes, the British Empire was the biggest ever - but was that a good thing and if so why?
It’s difficult to ascribe “a good thing” to size specifically. But, on balance, the world is better place for the various iterations of the British Empire - recognising, of course, that there were significant negatives as well as positives
She loves history, churches, geology, poetry, and surreal jokes
Which is kinda handy as these are many of my favourite things as well
Did you go up it? It costs, but it's worth it. Some of the paintings open up and you can look down...
It's just so incredibly beautiful
I've only beem once before, and that was about 25 years ago. So this was almost like my first visit
Stunning. Just stunning. When I first went in I thought, OK, this is like one of the great French cathedrals - Amiens or Reims - very lovely, but lacking Noom
And then we got to the Octagon and the Noom comes from the sheer effrontery of the architecture. The absurd, dreamy idea of this floating geometrical ceiling-from-heaven, my God the Noom kicks in then. Oh yes. Verily, and yea
Also, the Lady Chapel. Also, the fact it was founded in about 670AD by an Anglo-Saxon princess. Also, the Anglo-Saxon warlords and bishops interred in one of the prettier chantries, including some earl who died at the Battle of Maldon. Also, the presence nearby of Grimes Graves in the Breckland (which we both visited for the first time)
We had a brilliant day out. England can still wildly surprise on the upside, and then some. 90 minutes from the North Circular!
Ely must be in the top ten most-beautiful-cathedrals in the world
I believe when it was built, Ely was surrounded by water. Imagine approaching it in medieval times. The cathedral mirrored by its own reflection. Must have been stupendous.
Yes my wife was singing in Ely cathedral a few weeks ago, magical location
You have a wife???? Who sings in a choir?
Mate, you've been posting on PB for about 107 years, and today we learn you have a wife
This is a bit like Nick Palmer "Swissnick" Day, only with wives and more wholesome
To be fair @HYUFD has mentioned his wife on occasions and I think it is wonderful she sings in Ely choir
Thanks, we are also due a new arrival in November too so can't post as much as I have been
"What is wrong with displaying the Union flag or the St. George's Cross in a patriotic way, even if some far-right groups have co-opted it?"
@kategarraway and @adilray discuss the displaying of flags with Kehinde Andrews, Professor of Black Studies at Birmingham City University, who argues it's provocative and the St George's Cross has become a symbol of racism, while race, culture and identity writer Dr Rakib Ehsan thinks we should be proud of our flag after two councils sparked controversy by taking down St George's and Union flags."
Thing is, I would probably have given significance to his opinion ten years ago. Now I do not give a f*ck. Don't like it? - shut up or leave
That's it. Why should a majority of Brits warp, pervert and abase their sense of identity - the symbolism and self respect - to accommodate professionally aggrieved people like this? They have a grift and they're gonna grift. Even if t's honest, it is a grift. It's how they make a living
We had an empire. It was magnificent and the biggest ever. Sorry but there it is
Is the fact that Britain had an empire a reason for us to be proud - and if so why? How was the British Empire magnificent? Yes, the British Empire was the biggest ever - but was that a good thing and if so why?
It’s difficult to ascribe “a good thing” to size specifically. But, on balance, the world is better place for the various iterations of the British Empire - recognising, of course, that there were significant negatives as well as positives
I think the problem is that the British Empire spanned hundreds of years, and tens of places that were administered with various degrees of competence at various points. One also has to note that our retreat from Empire was not universally well executed.
So: I guess, I'm going for a PB centrist dad response of "it depends". Because while there's a lot we did well (and you could argue that by saving peoples from King Leopold we did them a great service), there are also things with less positive legacies.
"What is wrong with displaying the Union flag or the St. George's Cross in a patriotic way, even if some far-right groups have co-opted it?"
@kategarraway and @adilray discuss the displaying of flags with Kehinde Andrews, Professor of Black Studies at Birmingham City University, who argues it's provocative and the St George's Cross has become a symbol of racism, while race, culture and identity writer Dr Rakib Ehsan thinks we should be proud of our flag after two councils sparked controversy by taking down St George's and Union flags."
Thing is, I would probably have given significance to his opinion ten years ago. Now I do not give a f*ck. Don't like it? - shut up or leave
That's it. Why should a majority of Brits warp, pervert and abase their sense of identity - the symbolism and self respect - to accommodate professionally aggrieved people like this? They have a grift and they're gonna grift. Even if t's honest, it is a grift. It's how they make a living
We had an empire. It was magnificent and the biggest ever. Sorry but there it is
Is the fact that Britain had an empire a reason for us to be proud - and if so why? How was the British Empire magnificent? Yes, the British Empire was the biggest ever - but was that a good thing and if so why?
It’s difficult to ascribe “a good thing” to size specifically. But, on balance, the world is better place for the various iterations of the British Empire - recognising, of course, that there were significant negatives as well as positives
I think the problem is that the British Empire spanned hundreds of years, and tens of places that were administered with various degrees of competence at various points. One also has to note that our retreat from Empire was not universally well executed.
So: I guess, I'm going for a PB centrist dad response of "it depends". Because while there's a lot we did well (and you could argue that by saving peoples from King Leopold we did them a great service), there are also things with less positive legacies.
Of course.
There are definitely negatives - such as the Triple Trade (although Portugal had a big role in that) and the looting of India (who thought that giving control of a country to a publicly listed company was a good idea?). The Opium Wars were not our finest hour either.
But I’d say that spreading enlightenment values worldwide, democracy in and the unification of India, having a power strong enough to enforce the end of the slave trade and, and protecting Europe from Napoleon, Kaiser Bill and Hitler were all strong positives.
On balance the good outweighs the bad. You can’t say that for many empires.
The sellers having made a five hundred percent profit on their home after 25 years coughing up would be more equitable than the poor old buyer having to front stamp duty at purchase.
This policy would be devastating for Labour in London and home counties marginal Labour seats, the AVERAGE London house price is now over £500k, the same in Hertfordshire
As it stands ANY government taxation kite is shot down by the hostile media and the Conservatives. I have no problem with a sales tax for a property that I have potentially nominally profited by £600,000 over 25 years (mortgage interest repayments notwithstanding).
We now seem to operate in a culture where we demand better social and civil services, better and more expensive defence but without any attempts at a taxation quid pro quo.
We want our cake and we want to eat it.
There have been years where my property went up in value by more than the wage I was being paid. The former attracts no tax, the latter does. Do we want to incentivise people to work, or to indulge in property speculation?
Anyone who suggests charging capital gains tax on private homes is signing their political obituary
Maybe because most people are greedy and want everyone else to pay for them. If I earn £100k this year I would pay £31,400 in tax and NI, if I earned £50k and my house increased in value by £50k then I would pay £10,500 in tax and NI. Why are we taxing work more than sitting on your arse?
I am not sure you quite grasp the politics of this
And by the way any care my wife or I need at our advanced years 81 and 85 will be entirely funded by our home and saving the taxpayer many thousands of pounds
Oh, I get the politics, I wasn't disagreeing with you about the politics. But the parasitical attitude of "I will never contribute towards this society" really annoys me. Even more so when it's combined with utter smugness.
I do not understand why you think homeowners do not contribute towards society
They pay their taxes the same as anyone else and of course that includes council tax
Also as I said our home will pay any care fees we may need
Our son in law parents care fees cost over £260,000 and not one penny was paid by the exchequer
I didn't say that, I said they pay less. As I said if you work hard and earn £100k you pay £31,400 tax and NI, £50k earning and £50k house price increase you pay £10,500 even though your net worth has increased by precisely the same amount. Shouldn't that be equal? There are huge amounts of the British people who cannot even dream of owning a house. They shouldn't be condemned to a modern form of serfdom.
Because it means that the housing market breaks down.
Let’s take a reductio ad absurbum approach.
Mr Andy lives in a property worth, say, £600,000. He bought it 20 years ago for £300,000 so has made a very nice capital gain.
However for reasons best known to himself he has always fancied living in the house next door and when Mr DM decides to move in with his kid as he ages, Mr Andy decides to sell his house and buy Mr DM’s. Luckily the houses are identical in every respect.
However when Mr Andy sells his house for £600,000 (I’m ignoring stamp duty and all fees and expenses for simplicity) he faces a capital gains tax of £75,000. (25% x £300k).
As a result he can’t afford Mr DM’s house. Nor can he afford any house on the street he has spent the last 20 years.
Outcome: he doesn’t sell, and a transaction at fair market prices that would have facilitated an improvement in Mr DM’s life (he gets to move), in Mr Andy’s life (he gets to live in the house he likes), and the buyer of Mr Andy’s house, as well as generating tax revenue for the government (stamp duty and VAT on professional fees) doesn’t happen.
Everyone is worse off as a result of this new tax.
All taxes paid on the case of the transaction suffer the same consequence, including stamp duty.
Which is why they should all be abolished, including stamp duty.
Instead a tax based on the percentage of the property value paid annually is a far cleaner solution, that doesn't have these issues. If you release equity to buy another home of the same value you don't pay a penny extra in tax. If you release equity to downsize then you not only don't get taxed for doing that, instead you get a tax cut - which is quite appropriate as you're doing the right thing we wish to encourage not discourage or penalise.
If your local housing market sees a downturn and your house price falls, or you go into negative equity, then you get a tax cut.
"What is wrong with displaying the Union flag or the St. George's Cross in a patriotic way, even if some far-right groups have co-opted it?"
@kategarraway and @adilray discuss the displaying of flags with Kehinde Andrews, Professor of Black Studies at Birmingham City University, who argues it's provocative and the St George's Cross has become a symbol of racism, while race, culture and identity writer Dr Rakib Ehsan thinks we should be proud of our flag after two councils sparked controversy by taking down St George's and Union flags."
Thing is, I would probably have given significance to his opinion ten years ago. Now I do not give a f*ck. Don't like it? - shut up or leave
That's it. Why should a majority of Brits warp, pervert and abase their sense of identity - the symbolism and self respect - to accommodate professionally aggrieved people like this? They have a grift and they're gonna grift. Even if t's honest, it is a grift. It's how they make a living
We had an empire. It was magnificent and the biggest ever. Sorry but there it is
Is the fact that Britain had an empire a reason for us to be proud - and if so why? How was the British Empire magnificent? Yes, the British Empire was the biggest ever - but was that a good thing and if so why?
It’s difficult to ascribe “a good thing” to size specifically. But, on balance, the world is better place for the various iterations of the British Empire - recognising, of course, that there were significant negatives as well as positives
I think the problem is that the British Empire spanned hundreds of years, and tens of places that were administered with various degrees of competence at various points. One also has to note that our retreat from Empire was not universally well executed.
So: I guess, I'm going for a PB centrist dad response of "it depends". Because while there's a lot we did well (and you could argue that by saving peoples from King Leopold we did them a great service), there are also things with less positive legacies.
Of course.
There are definitely negatives - such as the Triple Trade (although Portugal had a big role in that) and the looting of India (who thought that giving control of a country to a publicly listed company was a good idea?). The Opium Wars were not our finest hour either.
But I’d say that spreading enlightenment values worldwide, democracy in and the unification of India, having a power strong enough to enforce the end of the slave trade and, and protecting Europe from Napoleon, Kaiser Bill and Hitler were all strong positives.
On balance the good outweighs the bad. You can’t say that for many empires.
A very concise and fair assessment of the positives and the negatives of the history of a lengthy period of British Empire building that spanned centuries.
We live in bossy Britain where signs and loudspeakers order us around all day long. It's time to revolt against this patronising dictatorship, says Stuart Jeffries"
The sellers having made a five hundred percent profit on their home after 25 years coughing up would be more equitable than the poor old buyer having to front stamp duty at purchase.
This policy would be devastating for Labour in London and home counties marginal Labour seats, the AVERAGE London house price is now over £500k, the same in Hertfordshire
As it stands ANY government taxation kite is shot down by the hostile media and the Conservatives. I have no problem with a sales tax for a property that I have potentially nominally profited by £600,000 over 25 years (mortgage interest repayments notwithstanding).
We now seem to operate in a culture where we demand better social and civil services, better and more expensive defence but without any attempts at a taxation quid pro quo.
We want our cake and we want to eat it.
There have been years where my property went up in value by more than the wage I was being paid. The former attracts no tax, the latter does. Do we want to incentivise people to work, or to indulge in property speculation?
Anyone who suggests charging capital gains tax on private homes is signing their political obituary
Maybe because most people are greedy and want everyone else to pay for them. If I earn £100k this year I would pay £31,400 in tax and NI, if I earned £50k and my house increased in value by £50k then I would pay £10,500 in tax and NI. Why are we taxing work more than sitting on your arse?
I am not sure you quite grasp the politics of this
And by the way any care my wife or I need at our advanced years 81 and 85 will be entirely funded by our home and saving the taxpayer many thousands of pounds
Oh, I get the politics, I wasn't disagreeing with you about the politics. But the parasitical attitude of "I will never contribute towards this society" really annoys me. Even more so when it's combined with utter smugness.
I do not understand why you think homeowners do not contribute towards society
They pay their taxes the same as anyone else and of course that includes council tax
Also as I said our home will pay any care fees we may need
Our son in law parents care fees cost over £260,000 and not one penny was paid by the exchequer
I didn't say that, I said they pay less. As I said if you work hard and earn £100k you pay £31,400 tax and NI, £50k earning and £50k house price increase you pay £10,500 even though your net worth has increased by precisely the same amount. Shouldn't that be equal? There are huge amounts of the British people who cannot even dream of owning a house. They shouldn't be condemned to a modern form of serfdom.
Because it means that the housing market breaks down.
Let’s take a reductio ad absurbum approach.
Mr Andy lives in a property worth, say, £600,000. He bought it 20 years ago for £300,000 so has made a very nice capital gain.
However for reasons best known to himself he has always fancied living in the house next door and when Mr DM decides to move in with his kid as he ages, Mr Andy decides to sell his house and buy Mr DM’s. Luckily the houses are identical in every respect.
However when Mr Andy sells his house for £600,000 (I’m ignoring stamp duty and all fees and expenses for simplicity) he faces a capital gains tax of £75,000. (25% x £300k).
As a result he can’t afford Mr DM’s house. Nor can he afford any house on the street he has spent the last 20 years.
Outcome: he doesn’t sell, and a transaction at fair market prices that would have facilitated an improvement in Mr DM’s life (he gets to move), in Mr Andy’s life (he gets to live in the house he likes), and the buyer of Mr Andy’s house, as well as generating tax revenue for the government (stamp duty and VAT on professional fees) doesn’t happen.
Everyone is worse off as a result of this new tax.
All taxes paid on the case of the transaction suffer the same consequence, including stamp duty.
Which is why they should all be abolished, including stamp duty.
Instead a tax based on the percentage of the property value paid annually is a far cleaner solution, that doesn't have these issues. If you release equity to buy another home of the same value you don't pay a penny extra in tax. If you release equity to downsize then you not only don't get taxed for doing that, instead you get a tax cut - which is quite appropriate as you're doing the right thing we wish to encourage not discourage or penalise.
If your local housing market sees a downturn and your house price falls, or you go into negative equity, then you get a tax cut.
I was pointing out the flaws of the proposed approach not reforming structure
I agree with the percentage of value approach (although working on the basis of last transaction value plus inflation makes sense).
I would avoid looking at equity value which you imply by your mention of a tax cut for equity release / negative equity because annual revaluations are a pain and you don’t want to inc drive the excessive use of debt
"What is wrong with displaying the Union flag or the St. George's Cross in a patriotic way, even if some far-right groups have co-opted it?"
@kategarraway and @adilray discuss the displaying of flags with Kehinde Andrews, Professor of Black Studies at Birmingham City University, who argues it's provocative and the St George's Cross has become a symbol of racism, while race, culture and identity writer Dr Rakib Ehsan thinks we should be proud of our flag after two councils sparked controversy by taking down St George's and Union flags."
Thing is, I would probably have given significance to his opinion ten years ago. Now I do not give a f*ck. Don't like it? - shut up or leave
That's it. Why should a majority of Brits warp, pervert and abase their sense of identity - the symbolism and self respect - to accommodate professionally aggrieved people like this? They have a grift and they're gonna grift. Even if t's honest, it is a grift. It's how they make a living
We had an empire. It was magnificent and the biggest ever. Sorry but there it is
Is the fact that Britain had an empire a reason for us to be proud - and if so why? How was the British Empire magnificent? Yes, the British Empire was the biggest ever - but was that a good thing and if so why?
It’s difficult to ascribe “a good thing” to size specifically. But, on balance, the world is better place for the various iterations of the British Empire - recognising, of course, that there were significant negatives as well as positives
I think the problem is that the British Empire spanned hundreds of years, and tens of places that were administered with various degrees of competence at various points. One also has to note that our retreat from Empire was not universally well executed.
So: I guess, I'm going for a PB centrist dad response of "it depends". Because while there's a lot we did well (and you could argue that by saving peoples from King Leopold we did them a great service), there are also things with less positive legacies.
Of course.
There are definitely negatives - such as the Triple Trade (although Portugal had a big role in that) and the looting of India (who thought that giving control of a country to a publicly listed company was a good idea?). The Opium Wars were not our finest hour either.
But I’d say that spreading enlightenment values worldwide, democracy in and the unification of India, having a power strong enough to enforce the end of the slave trade and, and protecting Europe from Napoleon, Kaiser Bill and Hitler were all strong positives.
On balance the good outweighs the bad. You can’t say that for many empires.
Hmm, spreading enlightenment values and democracy was very much not the point of empire. The whole point of Empire was to deny local rule. Democracy was only for British settlers in places like Canada, Australia and Southern Rhodesia. There were early assemblies in the sugar islands of the West Indies, but only for local planters and merchants. If we spread enlightenment values it was very much by accident rather than design, and very much as an afterthought.
"What is wrong with displaying the Union flag or the St. George's Cross in a patriotic way, even if some far-right groups have co-opted it?"
@kategarraway and @adilray discuss the displaying of flags with Kehinde Andrews, Professor of Black Studies at Birmingham City University, who argues it's provocative and the St George's Cross has become a symbol of racism, while race, culture and identity writer Dr Rakib Ehsan thinks we should be proud of our flag after two councils sparked controversy by taking down St George's and Union flags."
Thing is, I would probably have given significance to his opinion ten years ago. Now I do not give a f*ck. Don't like it? - shut up or leave
That's it. Why should a majority of Brits warp, pervert and abase their sense of identity - the symbolism and self respect - to accommodate professionally aggrieved people like this? They have a grift and they're gonna grift. Even if t's honest, it is a grift. It's how they make a living
We had an empire. It was magnificent and the biggest ever. Sorry but there it is
Is the fact that Britain had an empire a reason for us to be proud - and if so why? How was the British Empire magnificent? Yes, the British Empire was the biggest ever - but was that a good thing and if so why?
It’s difficult to ascribe “a good thing” to size specifically. But, on balance, the world is better place for the various iterations of the British Empire - recognising, of course, that there were significant negatives as well as positives
I think the problem is that the British Empire spanned hundreds of years, and tens of places that were administered with various degrees of competence at various points. One also has to note that our retreat from Empire was not universally well executed.
So: I guess, I'm going for a PB centrist dad response of "it depends". Because while there's a lot we did well (and you could argue that by saving peoples from King Leopold we did them a great service), there are also things with less positive legacies.
Of course.
There are definitely negatives - such as the Triple Trade (although Portugal had a big role in that) and the looting of India (who thought that giving control of a country to a publicly listed company was a good idea?). The Opium Wars were not our finest hour either.
But I’d say that spreading enlightenment values worldwide, democracy in and the unification of India, having a power strong enough to enforce the end of the slave trade and, and protecting Europe from Napoleon, Kaiser Bill and Hitler were all strong positives.
On balance the good outweighs the bad. You can’t say that for many empires.
Hmm, spreading enlightenment values and democracy was very much not the point of empire. The whole point of Empire was to deny local rule. Democracy was only for British settlers in places like Canada, Australia and Southern Rhodesia. There were early assemblies in the sugar islands of the West Indies, but only for local planters and merchants. If we spread enlightenment values it was very much by accident rather than design, and very much as an afterthought.
Also, it is possible for somewhere to have democracy and enlightenment values without ever having the blessing of being ruled by Britain.
"What is wrong with displaying the Union flag or the St. George's Cross in a patriotic way, even if some far-right groups have co-opted it?"
@kategarraway and @adilray discuss the displaying of flags with Kehinde Andrews, Professor of Black Studies at Birmingham City University, who argues it's provocative and the St George's Cross has become a symbol of racism, while race, culture and identity writer Dr Rakib Ehsan thinks we should be proud of our flag after two councils sparked controversy by taking down St George's and Union flags."
Thing is, I would probably have given significance to his opinion ten years ago. Now I do not give a f*ck. Don't like it? - shut up or leave
That's it. Why should a majority of Brits warp, pervert and abase their sense of identity - the symbolism and self respect - to accommodate professionally aggrieved people like this? They have a grift and they're gonna grift. Even if t's honest, it is a grift. It's how they make a living
We had an empire. It was magnificent and the biggest ever. Sorry but there it is
Is the fact that Britain had an empire a reason for us to be proud - and if so why? How was the British Empire magnificent? Yes, the British Empire was the biggest ever - but was that a good thing and if so why?
It’s difficult to ascribe “a good thing” to size specifically. But, on balance, the world is better place for the various iterations of the British Empire - recognising, of course, that there were significant negatives as well as positives
I think the problem is that the British Empire spanned hundreds of years, and tens of places that were administered with various degrees of competence at various points. One also has to note that our retreat from Empire was not universally well executed.
So: I guess, I'm going for a PB centrist dad response of "it depends". Because while there's a lot we did well (and you could argue that by saving peoples from King Leopold we did them a great service), there are also things with less positive legacies.
Of course.
There are definitely negatives - such as the Triple Trade (although Portugal had a big role in that) and the looting of India (who thought that giving control of a country to a publicly listed company was a good idea?). The Opium Wars were not our finest hour either.
But I’d say that spreading enlightenment values worldwide, democracy in and the unification of India, having a power strong enough to enforce the end of the slave trade and, and protecting Europe from Napoleon, Kaiser Bill and Hitler were all strong positives.
On balance the good outweighs the bad. You can’t say that for many empires.
Hmm, spreading enlightenment values and democracy was very much not the point of empire. The whole point of Empire was to deny local rule. Democracy was only for British settlers in places like Canada, Australia and Southern Rhodesia. There were early assemblies in the sugar islands of the West Indies, but only for local planters and merchants. If we spread enlightenment values it was very much by accident rather than design, and very much as an afterthought.
You are both correct IMO. There can be more than one 'point' to something, and even at the time, there were differing views on it. The idea that there was one 'point', or even a grand design or plan, is a bit odd. For most of the time, the Empire was a reactionary thing, reacting to events to increase territory and control, or to maintain it.
Rachel Reeves is considering hitting the owners of high-value properties with capital gains tax when they sell their homes
The chancellor is considering using the Autumn Budget to end the current exemption from capital gains tax that people enjoy when they sell their 'primary' residence
Under the plans the current exemption from capital gains tax, known as private residence relief, would come to an end for properties above a certain threshold
Higher-rate taxpayers would pay 24% of any gain they make from the increase in the value of their properties while basic rate taxpayers would have to pay 18%
This would depress house prices, which makes housing more affordable and cuts the country's housing benefit bill. A win-win!
The number of times I've heard "My home is my pension". They must be wondering now.
Has anyone considered the possibility of Labour failing to control spending and the high likelihood of Reform forming the next government? Have the PB community considered a) whether they would stay or b) where they would move to?
"What is wrong with displaying the Union flag or the St. George's Cross in a patriotic way, even if some far-right groups have co-opted it?"
@kategarraway and @adilray discuss the displaying of flags with Kehinde Andrews, Professor of Black Studies at Birmingham City University, who argues it's provocative and the St George's Cross has become a symbol of racism, while race, culture and identity writer Dr Rakib Ehsan thinks we should be proud of our flag after two councils sparked controversy by taking down St George's and Union flags."
Thing is, I would probably have given significance to his opinion ten years ago. Now I do not give a f*ck. Don't like it? - shut up or leave
That's it. Why should a majority of Brits warp, pervert and abase their sense of identity - the symbolism and self respect - to accommodate professionally aggrieved people like this? They have a grift and they're gonna grift. Even if t's honest, it is a grift. It's how they make a living
We had an empire. It was magnificent and the biggest ever. Sorry but there it is
Is the fact that Britain had an empire a reason for us to be proud - and if so why? How was the British Empire magnificent? Yes, the British Empire was the biggest ever - but was that a good thing and if so why?
It’s difficult to ascribe “a good thing” to size specifically. But, on balance, the world is better place for the various iterations of the British Empire - recognising, of course, that there were significant negatives as well as positives
I think the problem is that the British Empire spanned hundreds of years, and tens of places that were administered with various degrees of competence at various points. One also has to note that our retreat from Empire was not universally well executed.
So: I guess, I'm going for a PB centrist dad response of "it depends". Because while there's a lot we did well (and you could argue that by saving peoples from King Leopold we did them a great service), there are also things with less positive legacies.
Of course.
There are definitely negatives - such as the Triple Trade (although Portugal had a big role in that) and the looting of India (who thought that giving control of a country to a publicly listed company was a good idea?). The Opium Wars were not our finest hour either.
But I’d say that spreading enlightenment values worldwide, democracy in and the unification of India, having a power strong enough to enforce the end of the slave trade and, and protecting Europe from Napoleon, Kaiser Bill and Hitler were all strong positives.
On balance the good outweighs the bad. You can’t say that for many empires.
Hmm, spreading enlightenment values and democracy was very much not the point of empire. The whole point of Empire was to deny local rule. Democracy was only for British settlers in places like Canada, Australia and Southern Rhodesia. There were early assemblies in the sugar islands of the West Indies, but only for local planters and merchants. If we spread enlightenment values it was very much by accident rather than design, and very much as an afterthought.
You are both correct IMO. There can be more than one 'point' to something, and even at the time, there were differing views on it. The idea that there was one 'point', or even a grand design or plan, is a bit odd. For most of the time, the Empire was a reactionary thing, reacting to events to increase territory and control, or to maintain it.
Or sometimes by accident… there really wasn’t a plan in many cases (such as east Africa)
"What is wrong with displaying the Union flag or the St. George's Cross in a patriotic way, even if some far-right groups have co-opted it?"
@kategarraway and @adilray discuss the displaying of flags with Kehinde Andrews, Professor of Black Studies at Birmingham City University, who argues it's provocative and the St George's Cross has become a symbol of racism, while race, culture and identity writer Dr Rakib Ehsan thinks we should be proud of our flag after two councils sparked controversy by taking down St George's and Union flags."
Thing is, I would probably have given significance to his opinion ten years ago. Now I do not give a f*ck. Don't like it? - shut up or leave
That's it. Why should a majority of Brits warp, pervert and abase their sense of identity - the symbolism and self respect - to accommodate professionally aggrieved people like this? They have a grift and they're gonna grift. Even if t's honest, it is a grift. It's how they make a living
We had an empire. It was magnificent and the biggest ever. Sorry but there it is
Is the fact that Britain had an empire a reason for us to be proud - and if so why? How was the British Empire magnificent? Yes, the British Empire was the biggest ever - but was that a good thing and if so why?
It’s difficult to ascribe “a good thing” to size specifically. But, on balance, the world is better place for the various iterations of the British Empire - recognising, of course, that there were significant negatives as well as positives
I think the problem is that the British Empire spanned hundreds of years, and tens of places that were administered with various degrees of competence at various points. One also has to note that our retreat from Empire was not universally well executed.
So: I guess, I'm going for a PB centrist dad response of "it depends". Because while there's a lot we did well (and you could argue that by saving peoples from King Leopold we did them a great service), there are also things with less positive legacies.
Of course.
There are definitely negatives - such as the Triple Trade (although Portugal had a big role in that) and the looting of India (who thought that giving control of a country to a publicly listed company was a good idea?). The Opium Wars were not our finest hour either.
But I’d say that spreading enlightenment values worldwide, democracy in and the unification of India, having a power strong enough to enforce the end of the slave trade and, and protecting Europe from Napoleon, Kaiser Bill and Hitler were all strong positives.
On balance the good outweighs the bad. You can’t say that for many empires.
Hmm, spreading enlightenment values and democracy was very much not the point of empire. The whole point of Empire was to deny local rule. Democracy was only for British settlers in places like Canada, Australia and Southern Rhodesia. There were early assemblies in the sugar islands of the West Indies, but only for local planters and merchants. If we spread enlightenment values it was very much by accident rather than design, and very much as an afterthought.
You are both correct IMO. There can be more than one 'point' to something, and even at the time, there were differing views on it. The idea that there was one 'point', or even a grand design or plan, is a bit odd. For most of the time, the Empire was a reactionary thing, reacting to events to increase territory and control, or to maintain it.
Or sometimes by accident… there really wasn’t a plan in many cases (such as east Africa)
That's sorta what I meant by 'reactionary': sometimes things were not a "If we do this, then this, then this, then this new territory can be added to the Empire!". Instead, they were more an "Oh, that happened, we have an opportunity here!" or even "Bugger, how did we just get that useless piece of land under our control? Oh well, it's more pink on the map."
I'd also argue that many places in the Empire were of very limited usefulness, except perhaps in wartime, and often cost money to maintain as part of the Empire. Not everywhere was profit - not that that point particularly matters.
"What is wrong with displaying the Union flag or the St. George's Cross in a patriotic way, even if some far-right groups have co-opted it?"
@kategarraway and @adilray discuss the displaying of flags with Kehinde Andrews, Professor of Black Studies at Birmingham City University, who argues it's provocative and the St George's Cross has become a symbol of racism, while race, culture and identity writer Dr Rakib Ehsan thinks we should be proud of our flag after two councils sparked controversy by taking down St George's and Union flags."
Thing is, I would probably have given significance to his opinion ten years ago. Now I do not give a f*ck. Don't like it? - shut up or leave
That's it. Why should a majority of Brits warp, pervert and abase their sense of identity - the symbolism and self respect - to accommodate professionally aggrieved people like this? They have a grift and they're gonna grift. Even if t's honest, it is a grift. It's how they make a living
We had an empire. It was magnificent and the biggest ever. Sorry but there it is
Is the fact that Britain had an empire a reason for us to be proud - and if so why? How was the British Empire magnificent? Yes, the British Empire was the biggest ever - but was that a good thing and if so why?
It’s difficult to ascribe “a good thing” to size specifically. But, on balance, the world is better place for the various iterations of the British Empire - recognising, of course, that there were significant negatives as well as positives
I think the problem is that the British Empire spanned hundreds of years, and tens of places that were administered with various degrees of competence at various points. One also has to note that our retreat from Empire was not universally well executed.
So: I guess, I'm going for a PB centrist dad response of "it depends". Because while there's a lot we did well (and you could argue that by saving peoples from King Leopold we did them a great service), there are also things with less positive legacies.
Of course.
There are definitely negatives - such as the Triple Trade (although Portugal had a big role in that) and the looting of India (who thought that giving control of a country to a publicly listed company was a good idea?). The Opium Wars were not our finest hour either.
But I’d say that spreading enlightenment values worldwide, democracy in and the unification of India, having a power strong enough to enforce the end of the slave trade and, and protecting Europe from Napoleon, Kaiser Bill and Hitler were all strong positives.
On balance the good outweighs the bad. You can’t say that for many empires.
Hmm, spreading enlightenment values and democracy was very much not the point of empire. The whole point of Empire was to deny local rule. Democracy was only for British settlers in places like Canada, Australia and Southern Rhodesia. There were early assemblies in the sugar islands of the West Indies, but only for local planters and merchants. If we spread enlightenment values it was very much by accident rather than design, and very much as an afterthought.
And we invented the concentration camp, imprisoning thousands including many women and children in appalling, abusive conditions in both South Africa and Kenya.
The Empire was picturesque, and glorious, and a swashbuckling adventure. Sometimes it was pious, and sometimes squalid and depraved. Such are human constructs.
That it was undemocratic is a weird, a-historical comment. And not even totally true. My own country, NZ, was first in the world to grant female suffrage, for example. Yet it was totally an outcrop of Empire. The Empire invariably improved the constitutional and economic conditions wherever it settled, even if the name of the game was making money.
Was the Empire “good”? Sometimes. It was certainly the greatest.
Rachel Reeves is considering hitting the owners of high-value properties with capital gains tax when they sell their homes
The chancellor is considering using the Autumn Budget to end the current exemption from capital gains tax that people enjoy when they sell their 'primary' residence
Under the plans the current exemption from capital gains tax, known as private residence relief, would come to an end for properties above a certain threshold
Higher-rate taxpayers would pay 24% of any gain they make from the increase in the value of their properties while basic rate taxpayers would have to pay 18%
This would depress house prices, which makes housing more affordable and cuts the country's housing benefit bill. A win-win!
The number of times I've heard "My home is my pension". They must be wondering now.
Has anyone considered the possibility of Labour failing to control spending and the high likelihood of Reform forming the next government? Have the PB community considered a) whether they would stay or b) where they would move to?
And also what countries would be prepared to accept them......
A rather gruesome sight in our garden: amid a heap of feathers a pigeon's body with a decapitated head and no head to be found. No sign of the corpse having been eaten. Could it be a fox?
Sounds like the work of a hawk to me.
Pigeons are so dozy I've seen them lined up on the fence watching one of their own being torn to shreds just feet away. Hawks feast on these stupid birds.
Pideons really are dozy which is why our garden is regularly littered with pidgeon feathers thanks to two of our three cats, I don't think that the other one has ever caught a bird or a mouse in its life although he has on a few occassions gently brought home a live unharmed rabbit and released it in the house!
Our cats have attacked the fat wood pigeons that arrive in our garden. But their wrath is as nothing compared to if the chickens catch pigeons at their feed lol.
"What is wrong with displaying the Union flag or the St. George's Cross in a patriotic way, even if some far-right groups have co-opted it?"
@kategarraway and @adilray discuss the displaying of flags with Kehinde Andrews, Professor of Black Studies at Birmingham City University, who argues it's provocative and the St George's Cross has become a symbol of racism, while race, culture and identity writer Dr Rakib Ehsan thinks we should be proud of our flag after two councils sparked controversy by taking down St George's and Union flags."
Thing is, I would probably have given significance to his opinion ten years ago. Now I do not give a f*ck. Don't like it? - shut up or leave
That's it. Why should a majority of Brits warp, pervert and abase their sense of identity - the symbolism and self respect - to accommodate professionally aggrieved people like this? They have a grift and they're gonna grift. Even if t's honest, it is a grift. It's how they make a living
We had an empire. It was magnificent and the biggest ever. Sorry but there it is
Is the fact that Britain had an empire a reason for us to be proud - and if so why? How was the British Empire magnificent? Yes, the British Empire was the biggest ever - but was that a good thing and if so why?
As empires go, it was superb
Moally flawless? Of course not, this is humanity. But as an act of will exerted on the world by one small rainy archipelago off northwest Europe? Utterly astonishing and entirely unexampled. The greatest empire ever, in all senses. And I believe the world is better for it existing, by a distance, because one European country or another would have forced the world into modernity, and it was better for the world that it was Christian, Protestant, liberal, Enlightened Britain than any other European rival
Imagine if it had been Ottoman Turkey, or the Germans. Ugh
Thanks. Very interesting.
I’m currently reading Sathnam Sanghera’s Empireland. As he states, and I personally recall, we were taught very little about the British Empire at school. It was, as you say, an extraordinary time in history. Whether it’s something to be proud of - or ashamed of - or both - is not clear to me.
I don't think we were very liberal when we had an Empire ... we were actually very much like Trump. Other countries and people were our consumables.
We only stopped Transports to Australia in ~1870.
You're judging yesterday by the standards of today though. Compare it instead to any other empire of the time - French, Belgian, Turkish, Russian, Spanish, Portuguese. Or any further back in history - Mongol, Moghul, Aztec, Arab, Roman. It's hard to argue that it wasn't a better fate to end up under British rule.
Well, definitely better than being under Belgian rule.
France is more nuanced: they had their moments, both positively and negatively. You can argue that their making their remaining imperial possessions part of France proper (French Guyana, for instance) offered a better 'out' than happened for British ones.
To be strictly accurate, better than being under the personal rule of Leopold King of the Belgians.
Rachel Reeves is considering hitting the owners of high-value properties with capital gains tax when they sell their homes
The chancellor is considering using the Autumn Budget to end the current exemption from capital gains tax that people enjoy when they sell their 'primary' residence
Under the plans the current exemption from capital gains tax, known as private residence relief, would come to an end for properties above a certain threshold
Higher-rate taxpayers would pay 24% of any gain they make from the increase in the value of their properties while basic rate taxpayers would have to pay 18%
This would depress house prices, which makes housing more affordable and cuts the country's housing benefit bill. A win-win!
The number of times I've heard "My home is my pension". They must be wondering now.
Has anyone considered the possibility of Labour failing to control spending and the high likelihood of Reform forming the next government? Have the PB community considered a) whether they would stay or b) where they would move to?
I’ll be 63 by the next election. I’m not going to leave. Where would I go ?
The sellers having made a five hundred percent profit on their home after 25 years coughing up would be more equitable than the poor old buyer having to front stamp duty at purchase.
This policy would be devastating for Labour in London and home counties marginal Labour seats, the AVERAGE London house price is now over £500k, the same in Hertfordshire
As it stands ANY government taxation kite is shot down by the hostile media and the Conservatives. I have no problem with a sales tax for a property that I have potentially nominally profited by £600,000 over 25 years (mortgage interest repayments notwithstanding).
We now seem to operate in a culture where we demand better social and civil services, better and more expensive defence but without any attempts at a taxation quid pro quo.
We want our cake and we want to eat it.
There have been years where my property went up in value by more than the wage I was being paid. The former attracts no tax, the latter does. Do we want to incentivise people to work, or to indulge in property speculation?
Anyone who suggests charging capital gains tax on private homes is signing their political obituary
Maybe because most people are greedy and want everyone else to pay for them. If I earn £100k this year I would pay £31,400 in tax and NI, if I earned £50k and my house increased in value by £50k then I would pay £10,500 in tax and NI. Why are we taxing work more than sitting on your arse?
you eejit if no-one earned decent money they could not buy houses , which cost a fortune to upkeep so most profit is imaginary, and so no-one would have feck all and pay no tax Bloody communist , next it will be how can someone buy steak and I only get cabbage, we should all get cabbage.
I noticed this sort of thing when having a coffee at the British Library a few months ago. They expected me to add a tip to the price of a cup of coffee.
Southwark Cathedral also! Religion is an expensive hobby.
So, the Bank of England's MPC, tasked with using interest rates to manage inflation with a target rate of 2%, decided to cut rates when inflation was way above target and now inflation's risen.
I am very surprised. Shocked. As astonished as when I got a letter that my account interest rate had been reduced following the Bank of England's decision.
My assumption is that all these "leaks" in the press about IHT and council tax are ideas from the Treasury being shared in real time.
All of which will damage confidence and dampen growth all the way into the Autumn, just as it did last year but it doesn't mean Rachel Reeves is actually going to do it.
She'd have to be very "brave" to touch people's houses.
Went to the Trent Bridge Hundred fixture today and it was almost like watching a test match with the slow scoring but it was still absolutely riveting for cricket fans. Shows how you can have a Hundred contest without every other ball going for 4 or 6. Interesting.
It made a strong case for Ahmed's inclusion to Australia imo
I noticed this sort of thing when having a coffee at the British Library a few months ago. They expected me to add a tip to the price of a cup of coffee.
Southwark Cathedral also! Religion is an expensive hobby.
The British Library expected you to add Southwark Cathedral to the price of a cup of coffee?
Take India. If empires are bad, then why does Modi invoke the Chola Empire - a vast, religion-based, militaristic and trading empire with a large navy - as the way forward for a developed India? Why does he give background support for Russia in its imperialist ambitions in Ukraine?
If empires are bad, and he wants reparations for what the British empire did, why does he support Russia building an empire? Why was the Chola Empire admirable, and the British Empire not?
My assumption is that all these "leaks" in the press about IHT and council tax are ideas from the Treasury being shared in real time.
All of which will damage confidence and dampen growth all the way into the Autumn, just as it did last year but it doesn't mean Rachel Reeves is actually going to do it.
She'd have to be very "brave" to touch people's houses.
The question you have to ask is what are they actually planning to do given the complete insanity of capital gains tax on primary properties especially as there is no mention of limiting it to downsizing.
Went to the Trent Bridge Hundred fixture today and it was almost like watching a test match with the slow scoring but it was still absolutely riveting for cricket fans. Shows how you can have a Hundred contest without every other ball going for 4 or 6. Interesting.
It made a strong case for Ahmed's inclusion to Australia imo
I cannot for the life of me understand why he didn't play the last two Tests against India. With due respect to Dawson, who is a fine cricketer, he is a better one and about 15 years younger.
I'd also say he's a match for Bethell with the bat, and an incomparably finer bowler.
My assumption is that all these "leaks" in the press about IHT and council tax are ideas from the Treasury being shared in real time.
All of which will damage confidence and dampen growth all the way into the Autumn, just as it did last year but it doesn't mean Rachel Reeves is actually going to do it.
She'd have to be very "brave" to touch people's houses.
The question you have to ask is what are they actually planning to do given the complete insanity of capital gains tax on primary properties especially as there is no mention of limiting it to downsizing.
We're still discussing the thread header after 600+ comments and twelve hours.
This is why I don't think that any government will touch property taxes...
The sellers having made a five hundred percent profit on their home after 25 years coughing up would be more equitable than the poor old buyer having to front stamp duty at purchase.
This policy would be devastating for Labour in London and home counties marginal Labour seats, the AVERAGE London house price is now over £500k, the same in Hertfordshire
As it stands ANY government taxation kite is shot down by the hostile media and the Conservatives. I have no problem with a sales tax for a property that I have potentially nominally profited by £600,000 over 25 years (mortgage interest repayments notwithstanding).
We now seem to operate in a culture where we demand better social and civil services, better and more expensive defence but without any attempts at a taxation quid pro quo.
We want our cake and we want to eat it.
There have been years where my property went up in value by more than the wage I was being paid. The former attracts no tax, the latter does. Do we want to incentivise people to work, or to indulge in property speculation?
Anyone who suggests charging capital gains tax on private homes is signing their political obituary
Maybe because most people are greedy and want everyone else to pay for them. If I earn £100k this year I would pay £31,400 in tax and NI, if I earned £50k and my house increased in value by £50k then I would pay £10,500 in tax and NI. Why are we taxing work more than sitting on your arse?
you eejit if no-one earned decent money they could not buy houses , which cost a fortune to upkeep so most profit is imaginary, and so no-one would have feck all and pay no tax Bloody communist , next it will be how can someone buy steak and I only get cabbage, we should all get cabbage.
Well we need to tax something, not least to keep you Scots in the style to which you have become accustomed.
My assumption is that all these "leaks" in the press about IHT and council tax are ideas from the Treasury being shared in real time.
All of which will damage confidence and dampen growth all the way into the Autumn, just as it did last year but it doesn't mean Rachel Reeves is actually going to do it.
She'd have to be very "brave" to touch people's houses.
The question you have to ask is what are they actually planning to do given the complete insanity of capital gains tax on primary properties especially as there is no mention of limiting it to downsizing.
We're still discussing the thread header after 600+ comments and twelve hours.
This is why I don't think that any government will touch property taxes...
So, the Bank of England's MPC, tasked with using interest rates to manage inflation with a target rate of 2%, decided to cut rates when inflation was way above target and now inflation's risen.
I am very surprised. Shocked. As astonished as when I got a letter that my account interest rate had been reduced following the Bank of England's decision.
Take India. If empires are bad, then why does Modi invoke the Chola Empire - a vast, religion-based, militaristic and trading empire with a large navy - as the way forward for a developed India? Why does he give background support for Russia in its imperialist ambitions in Ukraine?
If empires are bad, and he wants reparations for what the British empire did, why does he support Russia building an empire? Why was the Chola Empire admirable, and the British Empire not?
The sellers having made a five hundred percent profit on their home after 25 years coughing up would be more equitable than the poor old buyer having to front stamp duty at purchase.
This policy would be devastating for Labour in London and home counties marginal Labour seats, the AVERAGE London house price is now over £500k, the same in Hertfordshire
As it stands ANY government taxation kite is shot down by the hostile media and the Conservatives. I have no problem with a sales tax for a property that I have potentially nominally profited by £600,000 over 25 years (mortgage interest repayments notwithstanding).
We now seem to operate in a culture where we demand better social and civil services, better and more expensive defence but without any attempts at a taxation quid pro quo.
We want our cake and we want to eat it.
There have been years where my property went up in value by more than the wage I was being paid. The former attracts no tax, the latter does. Do we want to incentivise people to work, or to indulge in property speculation?
Anyone who suggests charging capital gains tax on private homes is signing their political obituary
Maybe because most people are greedy and want everyone else to pay for them. If I earn £100k this year I would pay £31,400 in tax and NI, if I earned £50k and my house increased in value by £50k then I would pay £10,500 in tax and NI. Why are we taxing work more than sitting on your arse?
you eejit if no-one earned decent money they could not buy houses , which cost a fortune to upkeep so most profit is imaginary, and so no-one would have feck all and pay no tax Bloody communist , next it will be how can someone buy steak and I only get cabbage, we should all get cabbage.
Well we need to tax something, not least to keep you Scots in the style to which you have become accustomed.
LOL , I pay a fortune every year to keep England's 4* hotels packed out.
"What is wrong with displaying the Union flag or the St. George's Cross in a patriotic way, even if some far-right groups have co-opted it?"
@kategarraway and @adilray discuss the displaying of flags with Kehinde Andrews, Professor of Black Studies at Birmingham City University, who argues it's provocative and the St George's Cross has become a symbol of racism, while race, culture and identity writer Dr Rakib Ehsan thinks we should be proud of our flag after two councils sparked controversy by taking down St George's and Union flags."
Thing is, I would probably have given significance to his opinion ten years ago. Now I do not give a f*ck. Don't like it? - shut up or leave
That's it. Why should a majority of Brits warp, pervert and abase their sense of identity - the symbolism and self respect - to accommodate professionally aggrieved people like this? They have a grift and they're gonna grift. Even if t's honest, it is a grift. It's how they make a living
We had an empire. It was magnificent and the biggest ever. Sorry but there it is
Is the fact that Britain had an empire a reason for us to be proud - and if so why? How was the British Empire magnificent? Yes, the British Empire was the biggest ever - but was that a good thing and if so why?
It’s difficult to ascribe “a good thing” to size specifically. But, on balance, the world is better place for the various iterations of the British Empire - recognising, of course, that there were significant negatives as well as positives
I think the problem is that the British Empire spanned hundreds of years, and tens of places that were administered with various degrees of competence at various points. One also has to note that our retreat from Empire was not universally well executed.
So: I guess, I'm going for a PB centrist dad response of "it depends". Because while there's a lot we did well (and you could argue that by saving peoples from King Leopold we did them a great service), there are also things with less positive legacies.
Of course.
There are definitely negatives - such as the Triple Trade (although Portugal had a big role in that) and the looting of India (who thought that giving control of a country to a publicly listed company was a good idea?). The Opium Wars were not our finest hour either.
But I’d say that spreading enlightenment values worldwide, democracy in and the unification of India, having a power strong enough to enforce the end of the slave trade and, and protecting Europe from Napoleon, Kaiser Bill and Hitler were all strong positives.
On balance the good outweighs the bad. You can’t say that for many empires.
Hmm, spreading enlightenment values and democracy was very much not the point of empire. The whole point of Empire was to deny local rule. Democracy was only for British settlers in places like Canada, Australia and Southern Rhodesia. There were early assemblies in the sugar islands of the West Indies, but only for local planters and merchants. If we spread enlightenment values it was very much by accident rather than design, and very much as an afterthought.
If that's true then the Empire would never have broken up, it'd have defaulted to violent oppression, and we wouldn't have the world we have today.
You're really objecting to the fact geopolitics was done differently 100-300 years ago but here's the thing: without the British Empire we'd still live in a world of Empires and not the liberal and open one we have today. Might would make Right. We wouldn't have stable borders, the UN, the Commonwealth, human rights, or international rule of law. We'd have a blood and iron free for all.
It broke up because it's people absorbed enlightenment values and then demanded their own freedom - and then supported those same principles being applied globally - so in its success it also sowed the seeds of its own demise.
"What is wrong with displaying the Union flag or the St. George's Cross in a patriotic way, even if some far-right groups have co-opted it?"
@kategarraway and @adilray discuss the displaying of flags with Kehinde Andrews, Professor of Black Studies at Birmingham City University, who argues it's provocative and the St George's Cross has become a symbol of racism, while race, culture and identity writer Dr Rakib Ehsan thinks we should be proud of our flag after two councils sparked controversy by taking down St George's and Union flags."
Thing is, I would probably have given significance to his opinion ten years ago. Now I do not give a f*ck. Don't like it? - shut up or leave
That's it. Why should a majority of Brits warp, pervert and abase their sense of identity - the symbolism and self respect - to accommodate professionally aggrieved people like this? They have a grift and they're gonna grift. Even if t's honest, it is a grift. It's how they make a living
We had an empire. It was magnificent and the biggest ever. Sorry but there it is
Is the fact that Britain had an empire a reason for us to be proud - and if so why? How was the British Empire magnificent? Yes, the British Empire was the biggest ever - but was that a good thing and if so why?
It’s difficult to ascribe “a good thing” to size specifically. But, on balance, the world is better place for the various iterations of the British Empire - recognising, of course, that there were significant negatives as well as positives
I think the problem is that the British Empire spanned hundreds of years, and tens of places that were administered with various degrees of competence at various points. One also has to note that our retreat from Empire was not universally well executed.
So: I guess, I'm going for a PB centrist dad response of "it depends". Because while there's a lot we did well (and you could argue that by saving peoples from King Leopold we did them a great service), there are also things with less positive legacies.
Of course.
There are definitely negatives - such as the Triple Trade (although Portugal had a big role in that) and the looting of India (who thought that giving control of a country to a publicly listed company was a good idea?). The Opium Wars were not our finest hour either.
But I’d say that spreading enlightenment values worldwide, democracy in and the unification of India, having a power strong enough to enforce the end of the slave trade and, and protecting Europe from Napoleon, Kaiser Bill and Hitler were all strong positives.
On balance the good outweighs the bad. You can’t say that for many empires.
Hmm, spreading enlightenment values and democracy was very much not the point of empire. The whole point of Empire was to deny local rule. Democracy was only for British settlers in places like Canada, Australia and Southern Rhodesia. There were early assemblies in the sugar islands of the West Indies, but only for local planters and merchants. If we spread enlightenment values it was very much by accident rather than design, and very much as an afterthought.
And we invented the concentration camp, imprisoning thousands including many women and children in appalling, abusive conditions in both South Africa and Kenya.
No we didn't. Spain invented the "campo de concentración" during the Cuban War of Independence.
"What is wrong with displaying the Union flag or the St. George's Cross in a patriotic way, even if some far-right groups have co-opted it?"
@kategarraway and @adilray discuss the displaying of flags with Kehinde Andrews, Professor of Black Studies at Birmingham City University, who argues it's provocative and the St George's Cross has become a symbol of racism, while race, culture and identity writer Dr Rakib Ehsan thinks we should be proud of our flag after two councils sparked controversy by taking down St George's and Union flags."
Thing is, I would probably have given significance to his opinion ten years ago. Now I do not give a f*ck. Don't like it? - shut up or leave
That's it. Why should a majority of Brits warp, pervert and abase their sense of identity - the symbolism and self respect - to accommodate professionally aggrieved people like this? They have a grift and they're gonna grift. Even if t's honest, it is a grift. It's how they make a living
We had an empire. It was magnificent and the biggest ever. Sorry but there it is
Is the fact that Britain had an empire a reason for us to be proud - and if so why? How was the British Empire magnificent? Yes, the British Empire was the biggest ever - but was that a good thing and if so why?
It’s difficult to ascribe “a good thing” to size specifically. But, on balance, the world is better place for the various iterations of the British Empire - recognising, of course, that there were significant negatives as well as positives
I think the problem is that the British Empire spanned hundreds of years, and tens of places that were administered with various degrees of competence at various points. One also has to note that our retreat from Empire was not universally well executed.
So: I guess, I'm going for a PB centrist dad response of "it depends". Because while there's a lot we did well (and you could argue that by saving peoples from King Leopold we did them a great service), there are also things with less positive legacies.
Of course.
There are definitely negatives - such as the Triple Trade (although Portugal had a big role in that) and the looting of India (who thought that giving control of a country to a publicly listed company was a good idea?). The Opium Wars were not our finest hour either.
But I’d say that spreading enlightenment values worldwide, democracy in and the unification of India, having a power strong enough to enforce the end of the slave trade and, and protecting Europe from Napoleon, Kaiser Bill and Hitler were all strong positives.
On balance the good outweighs the bad. You can’t say that for many empires.
Hmm, spreading enlightenment values and democracy was very much not the point of empire. The whole point of Empire was to deny local rule. Democracy was only for British settlers in places like Canada, Australia and Southern Rhodesia. There were early assemblies in the sugar islands of the West Indies, but only for local planters and merchants. If we spread enlightenment values it was very much by accident rather than design, and very much as an afterthought.
And we invented the concentration camp, imprisoning thousands including many women and children in appalling, abusive conditions in both South Africa and Kenya.
No we didn't. Spain invented the "campo de concentración" during the Cuban War of Independence.
Never let it be said that the BE couldn’t recognise a good idea and run with it.
The sellers having made a five hundred percent profit on their home after 25 years coughing up would be more equitable than the poor old buyer having to front stamp duty at purchase.
This policy would be devastating for Labour in London and home counties marginal Labour seats, the AVERAGE London house price is now over £500k, the same in Hertfordshire
As it stands ANY government taxation kite is shot down by the hostile media and the Conservatives. I have no problem with a sales tax for a property that I have potentially nominally profited by £600,000 over 25 years (mortgage interest repayments notwithstanding).
We now seem to operate in a culture where we demand better social and civil services, better and more expensive defence but without any attempts at a taxation quid pro quo.
We want our cake and we want to eat it.
There have been years where my property went up in value by more than the wage I was being paid. The former attracts no tax, the latter does. Do we want to incentivise people to work, or to indulge in property speculation?
Anyone who suggests charging capital gains tax on private homes is signing their political obituary
Maybe because most people are greedy and want everyone else to pay for them. If I earn £100k this year I would pay £31,400 in tax and NI, if I earned £50k and my house increased in value by £50k then I would pay £10,500 in tax and NI. Why are we taxing work more than sitting on your arse?
I am not sure you quite grasp the politics of this
And by the way any care my wife or I need at our advanced years 81 and 85 will be entirely funded by our home and saving the taxpayer many thousands of pounds
Oh, I get the politics, I wasn't disagreeing with you about the politics. But the parasitical attitude of "I will never contribute towards this society" really annoys me. Even more so when it's combined with utter smugness.
I do not understand why you think homeowners do not contribute towards society
They pay their taxes the same as anyone else and of course that includes council tax
Also as I said our home will pay any care fees we may need
Our son in law parents care fees cost over £260,000 and not one penny was paid by the exchequer
I didn't say that, I said they pay less. As I said if you work hard and earn £100k you pay £31,400 tax and NI, £50k earning and £50k house price increase you pay £10,500 even though your net worth has increased by precisely the same amount. Shouldn't that be equal? There are huge amounts of the British people who cannot even dream of owning a house. They shouldn't be condemned to a modern form of serfdom.
Because it means that the housing market breaks down.
Let’s take a reductio ad absurbum approach.
Mr Andy lives in a property worth, say, £600,000. He bought it 20 years ago for £300,000 so has made a very nice capital gain.
However for reasons best known to himself he has always fancied living in the house next door and when Mr DM decides to move in with his kid as he ages, Mr Andy decides to sell his house and buy Mr DM’s. Luckily the houses are identical in every respect.
However when Mr Andy sells his house for £600,000 (I’m ignoring stamp duty and all fees and expenses for simplicity) he faces a capital gains tax of £75,000. (25% x £300k).
As a result he can’t afford Mr DM’s house. Nor can he afford any house on the street he has spent the last 20 years.
Outcome: he doesn’t sell, and a transaction at fair market prices that would have facilitated an improvement in Mr DM’s life (he gets to move), in Mr Andy’s life (he gets to live in the house he likes), and the buyer of Mr Andy’s house, as well as generating tax revenue for the government (stamp duty and VAT on professional fees) doesn’t happen.
Everyone is worse off as a result of this new tax.
Plus if I live in a house for say twenty years, how much money have I spent maintaining improving it? Can I write that off against tax as a business would? We’ve ploughed loads into a huge extension, our house price will undoubtedly have gone up - is that liable for the tax? I paid VAT on the building work already.
The sentence "Families will find even less of granny’s inheritance trickling down." reveals an odd assumption which most of us make without thinking about it. Why should we model our society on the assumption that money will come down from our grandparents, bearing in mind that many people don't have rich grandparents, and they may have had complex relationships with multiple descendants.
Certainly the State should step in where needed. But assisting people in looking after themselves where they can needs to be part of the solution.
One advantage of taxing inheritance as income by the recipient is that it is inherently redistribute. Either it is paid as tax by the wealthy, or passed to those on lower incomes, like grandkids etc.
I agree that it is insanity to tax the estate rather than the recipient.
If I'm not in danger of oversharing... When my mother died, my sister and I received an inheritance. The estate paid inheritance tax, then we each got half of what was left. Fine. It's not a joy paying tax, but someone has to pay tax. I'm OK with that.
Now, my father has died, earlier in the year. (No condolences necessary!) However, he was living in the US and the inheritance is partly in IRAs. There's no tax on the estate, but when we cash in the IRAs in the US and bring the money into the UK, we have to pay income tax. (I'm simplifying. There's more complicated family details.)
This has given me experience of taxing the estate versus taxing the personal income.
Because I have a well-paid job, I will pay lots of income tax on my share from my father. My sister gets the same share, but she's a housewife (with a husband with a well-paid job), so she'll pay much less income tax on her share. We get equal shares before tax, but I get substantially less after tax.
I earn more than my office mate, so I pay more in income tax. That feels fair. Yet it feels unfair that I am "meant" to get an equal share of an inheritance, but get less. The estate tax felt fair. The tax was paid and we split the rest. This doesn't.
These are first world problems, I'm getting a chunk of money - woo! Maybe I'm just pissed because I'm losing out, but that's my gut reaction to why you should tax the estate rather than the recipient.
Never a good time for your parents to pass away. You have my condolences.
On the wider point, what you're saying is - even for very liberal left-wing people like you - is that people don't much like inheritance tax when it hits them?
The sentence "Families will find even less of granny’s inheritance trickling down." reveals an odd assumption which most of us make without thinking about it. Why should we model our society on the assumption that money will come down from our grandparents, bearing in mind that many people don't have rich grandparents, and they may have had complex relationships with multiple descendants.
Certainly the State should step in where needed. But assisting people in looking after themselves where they can needs to be part of the solution.
I'd infinitely prefer to have my parents alive for forever.
However, it's their money and not the Government's.
The sentence "Families will find even less of granny’s inheritance trickling down." reveals an odd assumption which most of us make without thinking about it. Why should we model our society on the assumption that money will come down from our grandparents, bearing in mind that many people don't have rich grandparents, and they may have had complex relationships with multiple descendants.
Certainly the State should step in where needed. But assisting people in looking after themselves where they can needs to be part of the solution.
One advantage of taxing inheritance as income by the recipient is that it is inherently redistribute. Either it is paid as tax by the wealthy, or passed to those on lower incomes, like grandkids etc.
I agree that it is insanity to tax the estate rather than the recipient.
If I'm not in danger of oversharing... When my mother died, my sister and I received an inheritance. The estate paid inheritance tax, then we each got half of what was left. Fine. It's not a joy paying tax, but someone has to pay tax. I'm OK with that.
Now, my father has died, earlier in the year. (No condolences necessary!) However, he was living in the US and the inheritance is partly in IRAs. There's no tax on the estate, but when we cash in the IRAs in the US and bring the money into the UK, we have to pay income tax. (I'm simplifying. There's more complicated family details.)
This has given me experience of taxing the estate versus taxing the personal income.
Because I have a well-paid job, I will pay lots of income tax on my share from my father. My sister gets the same share, but she's a housewife (with a husband with a well-paid job), so she'll pay much less income tax on her share. We get equal shares before tax, but I get substantially less after tax.
I earn more than my office mate, so I pay more in income tax. That feels fair. Yet it feels unfair that I am "meant" to get an equal share of an inheritance, but get less. The estate tax felt fair. The tax was paid and we split the rest. This doesn't.
These are first world problems, I'm getting a chunk of money - woo! Maybe I'm just pissed because I'm losing out, but that's my gut reaction to why you should tax the estate rather than the recipient.
Never a good time for your parents to pass away. You have my condolences.
On the wider point, what you're saying is - even for very liberal left-wing people like you - is that people don't much like inheritance tax when it hits them?
If so, I agree.
Actually, as I read it, inheritance tax on the estate is preferable to income tax in this example.
"What is wrong with displaying the Union flag or the St. George's Cross in a patriotic way, even if some far-right groups have co-opted it?"
@kategarraway and @adilray discuss the displaying of flags with Kehinde Andrews, Professor of Black Studies at Birmingham City University, who argues it's provocative and the St George's Cross has become a symbol of racism, while race, culture and identity writer Dr Rakib Ehsan thinks we should be proud of our flag after two councils sparked controversy by taking down St George's and Union flags."
Thing is, I would probably have given significance to his opinion ten years ago. Now I do not give a f*ck. Don't like it? - shut up or leave
That's it. Why should a majority of Brits warp, pervert and abase their sense of identity - the symbolism and self respect - to accommodate professionally aggrieved people like this? They have a grift and they're gonna grift. Even if t's honest, it is a grift. It's how they make a living
We had an empire. It was magnificent and the biggest ever. Sorry but there it is
Is the fact that Britain had an empire a reason for us to be proud - and if so why? How was the British Empire magnificent? Yes, the British Empire was the biggest ever - but was that a good thing and if so why?
It’s difficult to ascribe “a good thing” to size specifically. But, on balance, the world is better place for the various iterations of the British Empire - recognising, of course, that there were significant negatives as well as positives
I think the problem is that the British Empire spanned hundreds of years, and tens of places that were administered with various degrees of competence at various points. One also has to note that our retreat from Empire was not universally well executed.
So: I guess, I'm going for a PB centrist dad response of "it depends". Because while there's a lot we did well (and you could argue that by saving peoples from King Leopold we did them a great service), there are also things with less positive legacies.
Of course.
There are definitely negatives - such as the Triple Trade (although Portugal had a big role in that) and the looting of India (who thought that giving control of a country to a publicly listed company was a good idea?). The Opium Wars were not our finest hour either.
But I’d say that spreading enlightenment values worldwide, democracy in and the unification of India, having a power strong enough to enforce the end of the slave trade and, and protecting Europe from Napoleon, Kaiser Bill and Hitler were all strong positives.
On balance the good outweighs the bad. You can’t say that for many empires.
Hmm, spreading enlightenment values and democracy was very much not the point of empire. The whole point of Empire was to deny local rule. Democracy was only for British settlers in places like Canada, Australia and Southern Rhodesia. There were early assemblies in the sugar islands of the West Indies, but only for local planters and merchants. If we spread enlightenment values it was very much by accident rather than design, and very much as an afterthought.
If that's true then the Empire would never have broken up, it'd have defaulted to violent oppression, and we wouldn't have the world we have today.
You're really objecting to the fact geopolitics was done differently 100-300 years ago but here's the thing: without the British Empire we'd still live in a world of Empires and not the liberal and open one we have today. Might would make Right. We wouldn't have stable borders, the UN, the Commonwealth, human rights, or international rule of law. We'd have a blood and iron free for all.
It broke up because it's people absorbed enlightenment values and then demanded their own freedom - and then supported those same principles being applied globally - so in its success it also sowed the seeds of its own demise.
All except Scotland and Wales who are kept in captivity
The sentence "Families will find even less of granny’s inheritance trickling down." reveals an odd assumption which most of us make without thinking about it. Why should we model our society on the assumption that money will come down from our grandparents, bearing in mind that many people don't have rich grandparents, and they may have had complex relationships with multiple descendants.
Certainly the State should step in where needed. But assisting people in looking after themselves where they can needs to be part of the solution.
One advantage of taxing inheritance as income by the recipient is that it is inherently redistribute. Either it is paid as tax by the wealthy, or passed to those on lower incomes, like grandkids etc.
I agree that it is insanity to tax the estate rather than the recipient.
If I'm not in danger of oversharing... When my mother died, my sister and I received an inheritance. The estate paid inheritance tax, then we each got half of what was left. Fine. It's not a joy paying tax, but someone has to pay tax. I'm OK with that.
Now, my father has died, earlier in the year. (No condolences necessary!) However, he was living in the US and the inheritance is partly in IRAs. There's no tax on the estate, but when we cash in the IRAs in the US and bring the money into the UK, we have to pay income tax. (I'm simplifying. There's more complicated family details.)
This has given me experience of taxing the estate versus taxing the personal income.
Because I have a well-paid job, I will pay lots of income tax on my share from my father. My sister gets the same share, but she's a housewife (with a husband with a well-paid job), so she'll pay much less income tax on her share. We get equal shares before tax, but I get substantially less after tax.
I earn more than my office mate, so I pay more in income tax. That feels fair. Yet it feels unfair that I am "meant" to get an equal share of an inheritance, but get less. The estate tax felt fair. The tax was paid and we split the rest. This doesn't.
These are first world problems, I'm getting a chunk of money - woo! Maybe I'm just pissed because I'm losing out, but that's my gut reaction to why you should tax the estate rather than the recipient.
Never a good time for your parents to pass away. You have my condolences.
On the wider point, what you're saying is - even for very liberal left-wing people like you - is that people don't much like inheritance tax when it hits them?
If so, I agree.
To be fair I think he’s actually saying the opposite, that treating inheritance as income means that people of higher income need to pay more tax on their inheritances than people of lower income. He will have to pay tax at 40% or 45%, whereas his sister will pay 0% or 20%. He’s arguing in favour of taxing the estate rather than the recipient, having experienced both.
The sellers having made a five hundred percent profit on their home after 25 years coughing up would be more equitable than the poor old buyer having to front stamp duty at purchase.
This policy would be devastating for Labour in London and home counties marginal Labour seats, the AVERAGE London house price is now over £500k, the same in Hertfordshire
As it stands ANY government taxation kite is shot down by the hostile media and the Conservatives. I have no problem with a sales tax for a property that I have potentially nominally profited by £600,000 over 25 years (mortgage interest repayments notwithstanding).
We now seem to operate in a culture where we demand better social and civil services, better and more expensive defence but without any attempts at a taxation quid pro quo.
We want our cake and we want to eat it.
There have been years where my property went up in value by more than the wage I was being paid. The former attracts no tax, the latter does. Do we want to incentivise people to work, or to indulge in property speculation?
Anyone who suggests charging capital gains tax on private homes is signing their political obituary
Maybe because most people are greedy and want everyone else to pay for them. If I earn £100k this year I would pay £31,400 in tax and NI, if I earned £50k and my house increased in value by £50k then I would pay £10,500 in tax and NI. Why are we taxing work more than sitting on your arse?
I am not sure you quite grasp the politics of this
And by the way any care my wife or I need at our advanced years 81 and 85 will be entirely funded by our home and saving the taxpayer many thousands of pounds
Oh, I get the politics, I wasn't disagreeing with you about the politics. But the parasitical attitude of "I will never contribute towards this society" really annoys me. Even more so when it's combined with utter smugness.
I do not understand why you think homeowners do not contribute towards society
They pay their taxes the same as anyone else and of course that includes council tax
Also as I said our home will pay any care fees we may need
Our son in law parents care fees cost over £260,000 and not one penny was paid by the exchequer
I didn't say that, I said they pay less. As I said if you work hard and earn £100k you pay £31,400 tax and NI, £50k earning and £50k house price increase you pay £10,500 even though your net worth has increased by precisely the same amount. Shouldn't that be equal? There are huge amounts of the British people who cannot even dream of owning a house. They shouldn't be condemned to a modern form of serfdom.
Because it means that the housing market breaks down.
Let’s take a reductio ad absurbum approach.
Mr Andy lives in a property worth, say, £600,000. He bought it 20 years ago for £300,000 so has made a very nice capital gain.
However for reasons best known to himself he has always fancied living in the house next door and when Mr DM decides to move in with his kid as he ages, Mr Andy decides to sell his house and buy Mr DM’s. Luckily the houses are identical in every respect.
However when Mr Andy sells his house for £600,000 (I’m ignoring stamp duty and all fees and expenses for simplicity) he faces a capital gains tax of £75,000. (25% x £300k).
As a result he can’t afford Mr DM’s house. Nor can he afford any house on the street he has spent the last 20 years.
Outcome: he doesn’t sell, and a transaction at fair market prices that would have facilitated an improvement in Mr DM’s life (he gets to move), in Mr Andy’s life (he gets to live in the house he likes), and the buyer of Mr Andy’s house, as well as generating tax revenue for the government (stamp duty and VAT on professional fees) doesn’t happen.
Everyone is worse off as a result of this new tax.
Plus if I live in a house for say twenty years, how much money have I spent maintaining improving it? Can I write that off against tax as a business would? We’ve ploughed loads into a huge extension, our house price will undoubtedly have gone up - is that liable for the tax? I paid VAT on the building work already.
I think that's the biggest issue with the CGT method - you'd need some complex allowances system to take account of stuff like that. You could even apply a 200% allowance for solar panels, heat pumps etc, but the whole thing becomes a mess quickly.
Ed Davey says that calling Palestine Action terrorists is wrong. Good.
Violent attacks on businesses and Police officers one of whom ended up in hospitals.
Sabotaging planes and other assets intended for use in Ukraine and other places
They’re a terrorist group. Fuck them.
This moron supports them as it’s a cosy, middle class, obsession.
He explicitly does not.
You seem to be the one obsessed here.
I responded to a comment about it. Hardly obsessive. I didn’t instigate the discussion.
I was suggesting your obsession is with the LibDems, FWIW.
You are complaining about someone having an obsession with the Libdems on a site full of political anoraks talking about politics, betting, and mens shed TV topical issues because they happened to mention the only newsworthy thing that their party Leader Ed Davey has uttered all summer?
Comments
Let’s take a reductio ad absurbum approach.
Mr Andy lives in a property worth, say, £600,000. He bought it 20 years ago for £300,000 so has made a very nice capital gain.
However for reasons best known to himself he has always fancied living in the house next door and when Mr DM decides to move in with his kid as he ages, Mr Andy decides to sell his house and buy Mr DM’s. Luckily the houses are identical in every respect.
However when Mr Andy sells his house for £600,000 (I’m ignoring stamp duty and all fees and expenses for simplicity) he faces a capital gains tax of £75,000. (25% x £300k).
As a result he can’t afford Mr DM’s house. Nor can he afford any house on the street he has spent the last 20 years.
Outcome: he doesn’t sell, and a transaction at fair market prices that would have facilitated an improvement in Mr DM’s life (he gets to move), in Mr Andy’s life (he gets to live in the house he likes), and the buyer of Mr Andy’s house, as well as generating tax revenue for the government (stamp duty and VAT on professional fees) doesn’t happen.
Everyone is worse off as a result of this new tax.
So: I guess, I'm going for a PB centrist dad response of "it depends". Because while there's a lot we did well (and you could argue that by saving peoples from King Leopold we did them a great service), there are also things with less positive legacies.
There are definitely negatives - such as the Triple Trade (although Portugal had a big role in that) and the looting of India (who thought that giving control of a country to a publicly listed company was a good idea?). The Opium Wars were not our finest hour either.
But I’d say that spreading enlightenment values worldwide, democracy in and the unification of India, having a power strong enough to enforce the end of the slave trade and, and protecting Europe from Napoleon, Kaiser Bill and Hitler were all strong positives.
On balance the good outweighs the bad. You can’t say that for many empires.
Which is why they should all be abolished, including stamp duty.
Instead a tax based on the percentage of the property value paid annually is a far cleaner solution, that doesn't have these issues. If you release equity to buy another home of the same value you don't pay a penny extra in tax. If you release equity to downsize then you not only don't get taxed for doing that, instead you get a tax cut - which is quite appropriate as you're doing the right thing we wish to encourage not discourage or penalise.
If your local housing market sees a downturn and your house price falls, or you go into negative equity, then you get a tax cut.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/jun/19/britishidentity.stuartjeffries
"The sheer hell of bossy Britain
We live in bossy Britain where signs and loudspeakers order us around all day long. It's time to revolt against this patronising dictatorship, says Stuart Jeffries"
I agree with the percentage of value approach (although working on the basis of last transaction value plus inflation makes sense).
I would avoid looking at equity value which you imply by your mention of a tax cut for equity release / negative equity because annual revaluations are a pain and you don’t want to inc drive the excessive use of debt
Has anyone considered the possibility of Labour failing to control spending and the high likelihood of Reform forming the next government? Have the PB community considered a) whether they would stay or b) where they would move to?
I'd also argue that many places in the Empire were of very limited usefulness, except perhaps in wartime, and often cost money to maintain as part of the Empire. Not everywhere was profit - not that that point particularly matters.
That it was undemocratic is a weird, a-historical comment.
And not even totally true. My own country, NZ, was first in the world to grant female suffrage, for example. Yet it was totally an outcrop of Empire. The Empire invariably improved the constitutional and economic conditions wherever it settled, even if the name of the game was making money.
Was the Empire “good”? Sometimes. It was certainly the greatest.
Bloody communist , next it will be how can someone buy steak and I only get cabbage, we should all get cabbage.
All going swimmingly.
I am very surprised. Shocked. As astonished as when I got a letter that my account interest rate had been reduced following the Bank of England's decision.
All of which will damage confidence and dampen growth all the way into the Autumn, just as it did last year but it doesn't mean Rachel Reeves is actually going to do it.
She'd have to be very "brave" to touch people's houses.
Take India. If empires are bad, then why does Modi invoke the Chola Empire - a vast, religion-based, militaristic and trading empire with a large navy - as the way forward for a developed India? Why does he give background support for Russia in its imperialist ambitions in Ukraine?
If empires are bad, and he wants reparations for what the British empire did, why does he support Russia building an empire? Why was the Chola Empire admirable, and the British Empire not?
I'd also say he's a match for Bethell with the bat, and an incomparably finer bowler.
This is why I don't think that any government will touch property taxes...
But oddly only about the empire they coincidentally identify with.
Then two posters come along with posts with zero content, just "You disagree with me, you stoopid!"
You're really objecting to the fact geopolitics was done differently 100-300 years ago but here's the thing: without the British Empire we'd still live in a world of Empires and not the liberal and open one we have today. Might would make Right. We wouldn't have stable borders, the UN, the Commonwealth, human rights, or international rule of law. We'd have a blood and iron free for all.
It broke up because it's people absorbed enlightenment values and then demanded their own freedom - and then supported those same principles being applied globally - so in its success it also sowed the seeds of its own demise.
NEW THREAD
On the wider point, what you're saying is - even for very liberal left-wing people like you - is that people don't much like inheritance tax when it hits them?
If so, I agree.
However, it's their money and not the Government's.