This is the best Christmas present me, my family and my friends could have had. I can now safely sleep at night, that is how bad it has been. Especially for those older than me with serious health issues. Bad news for agricultural valuers of course who would have made a fortune over the arguing the toss over the values of farms. It takes my estate out of the danger zone and so we can now look forwards to building the shed which we have needed for many years.
I had expected this to become a jockeying point when the new Labour leader was selected or else it to be put off for a year, and a year and a year.
They pointed the shotgun at the whole farming industry. We stood up to them and they have blinked. But we won't forget, no we won't forget ...
That is the whole point
The farmers will not forgive or vote labour because of this
They also voted en masse for Brexit and then realised they had screwed themselves. They are the ultimate selfish opportunists who believe the world owes them a living. Of course they won't vote labour.
British farmers do appear to be cretinous, as a class. Brexit is exhibit 1.
However, if you care about land use and food quality, then you need to care about farmers.
Reeves’s problem is she actively hates much of the country, including farmers.
The amount of political capital burnt in this thing is incredible. Ultimately, the correct decision, tax should be targeted at investors and companies buying land. The vast majority of farm estates will now be exempt, providing they make use of the £5m spouse allowance
The people benefiting from this change are those sitting on a highly tax efficient asset worth many millions who quite sincerely and genuinely want to keep it that way and don't see why they should pay the same tax as say someone running a productive business.
We have to concede an extremely effective lobbying exercise by wealthy landowners but we don't really need to agree with the principle of it. It's far more egregious than WFA for example.
Those who are genuinely worried about family farming would be far better off looking at *incomes* - for instance, supermarket buying practices - and food security.
But this lobbying has been all about protecting capital investment.
It's like houses - those who have houses are treated far better than those without when it comes to IHT. No wonder the values are distorted.
IHT is theft!
Property is theft comrade.
Your family member dies, you're bereaved, and you're left with a massive bill to Haitch-MRC - how does that work?
A family member dies and you're left a massive unearned pot of gold. How is that fair?
Because your family member worked hard all their life and should be allowed to dispose of their savings as they see fit?
Just be grateful and pay the tax.
Let’s say someone has a big success and gets paid a £1m bonus on April 1. They pay income tax on it under PAYE.
They then die on April 8.
And you think the government should have the right to double dip on that income simply because the individual concerned has died?
Yes. The person who has died obviously doesn't care. And the person who inherits is a lucky sod.
The fundamental difference is that I believe people own their assets. You clearly believe that they have them on suffrance from the government
Where have you been living? The latter is the *entire* basis of the UK under His Maj. Bloody Scots Law still talks of taking land by seisin.
The government have spent it's first year and a half looking for trouble. If one of the Palestine Action people die on hunger strike it will be very serious for them. They seem to have gone out of their way to alienate people.
Seeing Greta Thunburg arrested just makes them look ridiculous. People have been very patient with Starmer but I think it's time to get themselves a LABOUR leader. I'd go with Streeting. As much to wash away the detritus that's attached to them as anything else
Why? They're choosing to commit suicide. The government now support that right. Do you want them force-fed?
This is the best Christmas present me, my family and my friends could have had. I can now safely sleep at night, that is how bad it has been. Especially for those older than me with serious health issues. Bad news for agricultural valuers of course who would have made a fortune over the arguing the toss over the values of farms. It takes my estate out of the danger zone and so we can now look forwards to building the shed which we have needed for many years.
I had expected this to become a jockeying point when the new Labour leader was selected or else it to be put off for a year, and a year and a year.
They pointed the shotgun at the whole farming industry. We stood up to them and they have blinked. But we won't forget, no we won't forget ...
That is the whole point
The farmers will not forgive or vote labour because of this
They also voted en masse for Brexit and then realised they had screwed themselves. They are the ultimate selfish opportunists who believe the world owes them a living. Of course they won't vote labour.
British farmers do appear to be cretinous, as a class. Brexit is exhibit 1.
However, if you care about land use and food quality, then you need to care about farmers.
Reeves’s problem is she actively hates much of the country, including farmers.
The amount of political capital burnt in this thing is incredible. Ultimately, the correct decision, tax should be targeted at investors and companies buying land. The vast majority of farm estates will now be exempt, providing they make use of the £5m spouse allowance
The people benefiting from this change are those sitting on a highly tax efficient asset worth many millions who quite sincerely and genuinely want to keep it that way and don't see why they should pay the same tax as say someone running a productive business.
We have to concede an extremely effective lobbying exercise by wealthy landowners but we don't really need to agree with the principle of it. It's far more egregious than WFA for example.
Those who are genuinely worried about family farming would be far better off looking at *incomes* - for instance, supermarket buying practices - and food security.
But this lobbying has been all about protecting capital investment.
It's like houses - those who have houses are treated far better than those without when it comes to IHT. No wonder the values are distorted.
IHT is theft!
Property is theft comrade.
Your family member dies, you're bereaved, and you're left with a massive bill to Haitch-MRC - how does that work?
You are not paying the bill. Your dead relative is. You have to tax somebody, and dead people are better than live ones.
By those terms my dead relative has arisen from the grave to change his will and deny HMRC any money.
Anyway, the split between housing and other assets is indeed daft as pointed out earlier.
My relative moved into a small detached bungalow which was eminently suitable for his needs. This being the Flatlands it cost rather less than the (double) threshold.
In theory he could have moved into a larger property than he needed and by doing so saved about £60k in IHT.
I'm not sure the government really wants to encourage that.
Yes but by downsizing he realised a load of cash he could spend on cruising or just getting pissed.
Well, care costs was about all he could spend it on, and he didn't need it for that. So it was just a loss, other than a slightly lower council tax.
This is the best Christmas present me, my family and my friends could have had. I can now safely sleep at night, that is how bad it has been. Especially for those older than me with serious health issues. Bad news for agricultural valuers of course who would have made a fortune over the arguing the toss over the values of farms. It takes my estate out of the danger zone and so we can now look forwards to building the shed which we have needed for many years.
I had expected this to become a jockeying point when the new Labour leader was selected or else it to be put off for a year, and a year and a year.
They pointed the shotgun at the whole farming industry. We stood up to them and they have blinked. But we won't forget, no we won't forget ...
That is the whole point
The farmers will not forgive or vote labour because of this
They also voted en masse for Brexit and then realised they had screwed themselves. They are the ultimate selfish opportunists who believe the world owes them a living. Of course they won't vote labour.
British farmers do appear to be cretinous, as a class. Brexit is exhibit 1.
However, if you care about land use and food quality, then you need to care about farmers.
Reeves’s problem is she actively hates much of the country, including farmers.
The amount of political capital burnt in this thing is incredible. Ultimately, the correct decision, tax should be targeted at investors and companies buying land. The vast majority of farm estates will now be exempt, providing they make use of the £5m spouse allowance
The people benefiting from this change are those sitting on a highly tax efficient asset worth many millions who quite sincerely and genuinely want to keep it that way and don't see why they should pay the same tax as say someone running a productive business.
We have to concede an extremely effective lobbying exercise by wealthy landowners but we don't really need to agree with the principle of it. It's far more egregious than WFA for example.
Those who are genuinely worried about family farming would be far better off looking at *incomes* - for instance, supermarket buying practices - and food security.
But this lobbying has been all about protecting capital investment.
It's like houses - those who have houses are treated far better than those without when it comes to IHT. No wonder the values are distorted.
IHT is theft!
Property is theft comrade.
Your family member dies, you're bereaved, and you're left with a massive bill to Haitch-MRC - how does that work?
A family member dies and you're left a massive unearned pot of gold. How is that fair?
Because your family member worked hard all their life and should be allowed to dispose of their savings as they see fit?
Just be grateful and pay the tax.
Let’s say someone has a big success and gets paid a £1m bonus on April 1. They pay income tax on it under PAYE.
They then die on April 8.
And you think the government should have the right to double dip on that income simply because the individual concerned has died?
Yes. The person who has died obviously doesn't care. And the person who inherits is a lucky sod.
The fundamental difference is that I believe people own their assets. You clearly believe that they have them on suffrance from the government
If they're dead, they obviously don't own them. The inheritors are just lucky. The IHT is for the common good. NHS, defence, roads.
This is the best Christmas present me, my family and my friends could have had. I can now safely sleep at night, that is how bad it has been. Especially for those older than me with serious health issues. Bad news for agricultural valuers of course who would have made a fortune over the arguing the toss over the values of farms. It takes my estate out of the danger zone and so we can now look forwards to building the shed which we have needed for many years.
I had expected this to become a jockeying point when the new Labour leader was selected or else it to be put off for a year, and a year and a year.
They pointed the shotgun at the whole farming industry. We stood up to them and they have blinked. But we won't forget, no we won't forget ...
That is the whole point
The farmers will not forgive or vote labour because of this
They also voted en masse for Brexit and then realised they had screwed themselves. They are the ultimate selfish opportunists who believe the world owes them a living. Of course they won't vote labour.
British farmers do appear to be cretinous, as a class. Brexit is exhibit 1.
However, if you care about land use and food quality, then you need to care about farmers.
Reeves’s problem is she actively hates much of the country, including farmers.
The amount of political capital burnt in this thing is incredible. Ultimately, the correct decision, tax should be targeted at investors and companies buying land. The vast majority of farm estates will now be exempt, providing they make use of the £5m spouse allowance
The people benefiting from this change are those sitting on a highly tax efficient asset worth many millions who quite sincerely and genuinely want to keep it that way and don't see why they should pay the same tax as say someone running a productive business.
We have to concede an extremely effective lobbying exercise by wealthy landowners but we don't really need to agree with the principle of it. It's far more egregious than WFA for example.
Those who are genuinely worried about family farming would be far better off looking at *incomes* - for instance, supermarket buying practices - and food security.
But this lobbying has been all about protecting capital investment.
It's like houses - those who have houses are treated far better than those without when it comes to IHT. No wonder the values are distorted.
IHT is theft!
Property is theft comrade.
Your family member dies, you're bereaved, and you're left with a massive bill to Haitch-MRC - how does that work?
A family member dies and you're left a massive unearned pot of gold. How is that fair?
Because your family member worked hard all their life and should be allowed to dispose of their savings as they see fit?
Just be grateful and pay the tax.
Let’s say someone has a big success and gets paid a £1m bonus on April 1. They pay income tax on it under PAYE.
They then die on April 8.
And you think the government should have the right to double dip on that income simply because the individual concerned has died?
Yes. The person who has died obviously doesn't care. And the person who inherits is a lucky sod.
The fundamental difference is that I believe people own their assets. You clearly believe that they have them on suffrance from the government
Isn't that how it works with a monarchy, that they own everything, but they grant everyone else temporary title to bits of it?
My children will be lucky sods. Though everything I spend, I mentally deduct 40% IHT they won't have to pay. So everything seems very cheap. 40% discount. Hence my holiday in Martinique followed by a skiing holiday in the Dolomites. My kids encourage me.
StKI-ing = Spending the Kids Inheritance!
Though Mrs C and I don't like the word 'kids'. We raised three children, not baby goats.
This is the best Christmas present me, my family and my friends could have had. I can now safely sleep at night, that is how bad it has been. Especially for those older than me with serious health issues. Bad news for agricultural valuers of course who would have made a fortune over the arguing the toss over the values of farms. It takes my estate out of the danger zone and so we can now look forwards to building the shed which we have needed for many years.
I had expected this to become a jockeying point when the new Labour leader was selected or else it to be put off for a year, and a year and a year.
They pointed the shotgun at the whole farming industry. We stood up to them and they have blinked. But we won't forget, no we won't forget ...
That is the whole point
The farmers will not forgive or vote labour because of this
They also voted en masse for Brexit and then realised they had screwed themselves. They are the ultimate selfish opportunists who believe the world owes them a living. Of course they won't vote labour.
British farmers do appear to be cretinous, as a class. Brexit is exhibit 1.
However, if you care about land use and food quality, then you need to care about farmers.
Reeves’s problem is she actively hates much of the country, including farmers.
The amount of political capital burnt in this thing is incredible. Ultimately, the correct decision, tax should be targeted at investors and companies buying land. The vast majority of farm estates will now be exempt, providing they make use of the £5m spouse allowance
The people benefiting from this change are those sitting on a highly tax efficient asset worth many millions who quite sincerely and genuinely want to keep it that way and don't see why they should pay the same tax as say someone running a productive business.
We have to concede an extremely effective lobbying exercise by wealthy landowners but we don't really need to agree with the principle of it. It's far more egregious than WFA for example.
Those who are genuinely worried about family farming would be far better off looking at *incomes* - for instance, supermarket buying practices - and food security.
But this lobbying has been all about protecting capital investment.
It's like houses - those who have houses are treated far better than those without when it comes to IHT. No wonder the values are distorted.
IHT is theft!
Property is theft comrade.
Your family member dies, you're bereaved, and you're left with a massive bill to Haitch-MRC - how does that work?
A family member dies and you're left a massive unearned pot of gold. How is that fair?
Because your family member worked hard all their life and should be allowed to dispose of their savings as they see fit?
Just be grateful and pay the tax.
Let’s say someone has a big success and gets paid a £1m bonus on April 1. They pay income tax on it under PAYE.
They then die on April 8.
And you think the government should have the right to double dip on that income simply because the individual concerned has died?
The government essentially taxes money every time it moves from one person/company to another. There are very few transactions that are free of taxation.
Why should inheritance stick out as one such transaction that is untaxed?
Because all other transactions create value (or perceived value). In theory the government is taking a slice of the increase in the value not the principal.
Why are you keener on taxing activity that creates value than activity which does not ?
This is the best Christmas present me, my family and my friends could have had. I can now safely sleep at night, that is how bad it has been. Especially for those older than me with serious health issues. Bad news for agricultural valuers of course who would have made a fortune over the arguing the toss over the values of farms. It takes my estate out of the danger zone and so we can now look forwards to building the shed which we have needed for many years.
I had expected this to become a jockeying point when the new Labour leader was selected or else it to be put off for a year, and a year and a year.
They pointed the shotgun at the whole farming industry. We stood up to them and they have blinked. But we won't forget, no we won't forget ...
That is the whole point
The farmers will not forgive or vote labour because of this
They also voted en masse for Brexit and then realised they had screwed themselves. They are the ultimate selfish opportunists who believe the world owes them a living. Of course they won't vote labour.
British farmers do appear to be cretinous, as a class. Brexit is exhibit 1.
However, if you care about land use and food quality, then you need to care about farmers.
Reeves’s problem is she actively hates much of the country, including farmers.
The amount of political capital burnt in this thing is incredible. Ultimately, the correct decision, tax should be targeted at investors and companies buying land. The vast majority of farm estates will now be exempt, providing they make use of the £5m spouse allowance
The people benefiting from this change are those sitting on a highly tax efficient asset worth many millions who quite sincerely and genuinely want to keep it that way and don't see why they should pay the same tax as say someone running a productive business.
We have to concede an extremely effective lobbying exercise by wealthy landowners but we don't really need to agree with the principle of it. It's far more egregious than WFA for example.
Those who are genuinely worried about family farming would be far better off looking at *incomes* - for instance, supermarket buying practices - and food security.
But this lobbying has been all about protecting capital investment.
It's like houses - those who have houses are treated far better than those without when it comes to IHT. No wonder the values are distorted.
IHT is theft!
Property is theft comrade.
Your family member dies, you're bereaved, and you're left with a massive bill to Haitch-MRC - how does that work?
A family member dies and you're left a massive unearned pot of gold. How is that fair?
Because your family member worked hard all their life and should be allowed to dispose of their savings as they see fit?
Just be grateful and pay the tax.
Let’s say someone has a big success and gets paid a £1m bonus on April 1. They pay income tax on it under PAYE.
They then die on April 8.
And you think the government should have the right to double dip on that income simply because the individual concerned has died?
Yes. The person who has died obviously doesn't care. And the person who inherits is a lucky sod.
The fundamental difference is that I believe people own their assets. You clearly believe that they have them on suffrance from the government
Isn't that how it works with a monarchy, that they own everything, but they grant everyone else temporary title to bits of it?
Based on this polling I wouldn’t be surprised the Tories ahead of Reform at some point in quarter one of 2026, if present trends hold, not consistently but on an outlier basis.
Word missing there?
On the substantive point, am I right in thinking as well that Farage is at the same time the oldest and the least experienced of the four major party leaders? He's not likely to be improving now as he ages and he's never been in cabinet.
He has considerable political experience, but very little parliamentary experience. The latter is not that much of a barrier anymore, he will have had 4-5 years of it by the time of the next election which is not that far off several modern PMs, though the odds woudl also be that he has extremely few MPs in his ranks with much parliamentary let alone governmental experience, which may be a more significant factor.
He has lots of Parliamentary experience. The European Parliament that is. Plus he was leader of the EFDD political group in the Parliament https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe_of_Freedom_and_Direct_Democracy . I don't like him (obvs) but he is familiar with parliamentary procedure.
Based on this polling I wouldn’t be surprised the Tories ahead of Reform at some point in quarter one of 2026, if present trends hold, not consistently but on an outlier basis.
Word missing there?
On the substantive point, am I right in thinking as well that Farage is at the same time the oldest and the least experienced of the four major party leaders? He's not likely to be improving now as he ages and he's never been in cabinet.
No, Starmer is about 18 months older than Farage.
Blair and Cameron had never been in government before they became PM.
Fair enough on the first point.
Cameron and Blair had both been Leaders of the Opposition. Farage hasn't even done that.
Indeed he quite often skives off Parliament. I think he finds it boring because its not all about him.
This has recently set me wondering if Nigel Farage might bail soon. He is rarely in the Commons or in Clacton, and does not even seem to have much to say about Streeting or Lammy advocating customs unions with the EU, an issue you'd think would be mother's milk to him. Is he still interested in politics? (That said, maybe he is just under the weather as there are some nasty bugs doing the rounds.)
I wonder if the 'I can't really remember what happened 50 years ago but I definitely did not say those racist and antisemitic things' row has put his gas at a peep. The one time I saw Farage address the issue directly he seemed uncharacteristically shifty and evasive.
28 witnesses, including Jewish students, and written communications amongst teachers, is quite a lot to dismiss as "lies, all lies". Tice is that crass imo; Farage is not.
It's also quite awkward with respect to Farage's position on Israel, and the portrayal of Muslims as The Mortal Enemy of Western Civilisation.
Witnesses at the time (as in recording in diaries, letters etc) or witnesses ‘recalling’ events of 50 years ago. Very big difference, as all good historians know.
28 witnesses seems pretty corroborative to me. The man’s a bully, and a spiv, and has been so since his earliest years.
I haven’t cared enough to look at what he did at school in detail, but isn’t prancing around with your arm in the air attention seeking rather than bullying?
Farage is deeply unpleasant man who is probably a racist. Spending 5 minutes reading a guardian article to confirm those views isn’t a good use of my time
So why did you venture in with your first comment about it being attention seeking not bullying then?
Because it was an interesting discussion.
Not all of the conversations on here are entirely fact based and it’s a better board for it
Ok but hang on.
Post 1: You counter the 'bully' allegations with "wasn't it just attention seeking?"
Post2: You say you don't care enough to read the details to see if it was indeed just attention seeking.
Post3: Whilst still not caring to check if it was just attention seeking you say it's nevertheless interesting.
Really rather odd. But, look, you're not in the dock, and it is Christmas, so that's probably enough on the matter. I note your overall 'deeply unpleasant and probably a racist' assessment of the bloke we're talking about. Big tick for that.
Not at all. Very easy to reconcile.
I’m aware he behaved badly at school but haven’t checked into details. The only thing that has stuck in my mind is him walking around making nazi salutes. Which to my mind is more childishly trying to shock people/seek attention. But it may be he did other stuff which was more targeted at specific individuals (which for me is the threshold of bullying).
But whether he’s a spiv and a bully or a spiv and an attention seeker won’t materially change how I view him in the round, so would rather do more uplifting things with my time
Ok, so just a snippet to give you a flavour.
He would torment a particular Jewish pupil by continually leaning in close and saying, "should have gassed you all".
With gas enunciated as "gassssssss" to mimic the sound of it hissing into the chambers at the death camps.
It seems to me that despite all this being so long ago it does actually matter. Boys (I was one once) behave abominably about all sorts of things. Stuff was said, and done, that we didn't want our mum to know about.
But there is sub-optimal stuff that tells you generically what boys can be like, and their disgusting minds. And there is stuff which goes to deeper aspects of character. Such stuff is, if true, the example here.
That's what I think too. But it doesn't really matter what me and you think. What matters is what people who are open to him as PM make of it.
My children will be lucky sods. Though everything I spend, I mentally deduct 40% IHT they won't have to pay. So everything seems very cheap. 40% discount. Hence my holiday in Martinique followed by a skiing holiday in the Dolomites. My kids encourage me.
StKI-ing = Spending the Kids Inheritance!
Though Mrs C and I don't like the word 'kids'. We raised three children, not baby goats.
I entirely agree on the latter. Seems disrespectful, too.
This is the best Christmas present me, my family and my friends could have had. I can now safely sleep at night, that is how bad it has been. Especially for those older than me with serious health issues. Bad news for agricultural valuers of course who would have made a fortune over the arguing the toss over the values of farms. It takes my estate out of the danger zone and so we can now look forwards to building the shed which we have needed for many years.
I had expected this to become a jockeying point when the new Labour leader was selected or else it to be put off for a year, and a year and a year.
They pointed the shotgun at the whole farming industry. We stood up to them and they have blinked. But we won't forget, no we won't forget ...
That is the whole point
The farmers will not forgive or vote labour because of this
They also voted en masse for Brexit and then realised they had screwed themselves. They are the ultimate selfish opportunists who believe the world owes them a living. Of course they won't vote labour.
British farmers do appear to be cretinous, as a class. Brexit is exhibit 1.
However, if you care about land use and food quality, then you need to care about farmers.
Reeves’s problem is she actively hates much of the country, including farmers.
The amount of political capital burnt in this thing is incredible. Ultimately, the correct decision, tax should be targeted at investors and companies buying land. The vast majority of farm estates will now be exempt, providing they make use of the £5m spouse allowance
The people benefiting from this change are those sitting on a highly tax efficient asset worth many millions who quite sincerely and genuinely want to keep it that way and don't see why they should pay the same tax as say someone running a productive business.
We have to concede an extremely effective lobbying exercise by wealthy landowners but we don't really need to agree with the principle of it. It's far more egregious than WFA for example.
Those who are genuinely worried about family farming would be far better off looking at *incomes* - for instance, supermarket buying practices - and food security.
But this lobbying has been all about protecting capital investment.
It's like houses - those who have houses are treated far better than those without when it comes to IHT. No wonder the values are distorted.
IHT is theft!
Property is theft comrade.
Your family member dies, you're bereaved, and you're left with a massive bill to Haitch-MRC - how does that work?
A family member dies and you're left a massive unearned pot of gold. How is that fair?
Because your family member worked hard all their life and should be allowed to dispose of their savings as they see fit?
Just be grateful and pay the tax.
Let’s say someone has a big success and gets paid a £1m bonus on April 1. They pay income tax on it under PAYE.
They then die on April 8.
And you think the government should have the right to double dip on that income simply because the individual concerned has died?
Yes. The person who has died obviously doesn't care. And the person who inherits is a lucky sod.
The fundamental difference is that I believe people own their assets. You clearly believe that they have them on suffrance from the government
If they're dead, they obviously don't own them. The inheritors are just lucky. The IHT is for the common good. NHS, defence, roads.
Only if you believe that the State is a force for good, rather than a necessary evil which is closer to my position. As such we should be continually limiting both its powers and its ability to do stuff (by, for example, limiting the funds it has available).
This is the best Christmas present me, my family and my friends could have had. I can now safely sleep at night, that is how bad it has been. Especially for those older than me with serious health issues. Bad news for agricultural valuers of course who would have made a fortune over the arguing the toss over the values of farms. It takes my estate out of the danger zone and so we can now look forwards to building the shed which we have needed for many years.
I had expected this to become a jockeying point when the new Labour leader was selected or else it to be put off for a year, and a year and a year.
They pointed the shotgun at the whole farming industry. We stood up to them and they have blinked. But we won't forget, no we won't forget ...
That is the whole point
The farmers will not forgive or vote labour because of this
They also voted en masse for Brexit and then realised they had screwed themselves. They are the ultimate selfish opportunists who believe the world owes them a living. Of course they won't vote labour.
British farmers do appear to be cretinous, as a class. Brexit is exhibit 1.
However, if you care about land use and food quality, then you need to care about farmers.
Reeves’s problem is she actively hates much of the country, including farmers.
The amount of political capital burnt in this thing is incredible. Ultimately, the correct decision, tax should be targeted at investors and companies buying land. The vast majority of farm estates will now be exempt, providing they make use of the £5m spouse allowance
The people benefiting from this change are those sitting on a highly tax efficient asset worth many millions who quite sincerely and genuinely want to keep it that way and don't see why they should pay the same tax as say someone running a productive business.
We have to concede an extremely effective lobbying exercise by wealthy landowners but we don't really need to agree with the principle of it. It's far more egregious than WFA for example.
Those who are genuinely worried about family farming would be far better off looking at *incomes* - for instance, supermarket buying practices - and food security.
But this lobbying has been all about protecting capital investment.
It's like houses - those who have houses are treated far better than those without when it comes to IHT. No wonder the values are distorted.
IHT is theft!
Property is theft comrade.
Your family member dies, you're bereaved, and you're left with a massive bill to Haitch-MRC - how does that work?
A family member dies and you're left a massive unearned pot of gold. How is that fair?
Because your family member worked hard all their life and should be allowed to dispose of their savings as they see fit?
Just be grateful and pay the tax.
Let’s say someone has a big success and gets paid a £1m bonus on April 1. They pay income tax on it under PAYE.
They then die on April 8.
And you think the government should have the right to double dip on that income simply because the individual concerned has died?
Nobody should receive a £1m bonus just for doing their job, especially if they work for a business so stupid as to pay the bonus on April 1.
This is the best Christmas present me, my family and my friends could have had. I can now safely sleep at night, that is how bad it has been. Especially for those older than me with serious health issues. Bad news for agricultural valuers of course who would have made a fortune over the arguing the toss over the values of farms. It takes my estate out of the danger zone and so we can now look forwards to building the shed which we have needed for many years.
I had expected this to become a jockeying point when the new Labour leader was selected or else it to be put off for a year, and a year and a year.
They pointed the shotgun at the whole farming industry. We stood up to them and they have blinked. But we won't forget, no we won't forget ...
That is the whole point
The farmers will not forgive or vote labour because of this
They also voted en masse for Brexit and then realised they had screwed themselves. They are the ultimate selfish opportunists who believe the world owes them a living. Of course they won't vote labour.
British farmers do appear to be cretinous, as a class. Brexit is exhibit 1.
However, if you care about land use and food quality, then you need to care about farmers.
Reeves’s problem is she actively hates much of the country, including farmers.
The amount of political capital burnt in this thing is incredible. Ultimately, the correct decision, tax should be targeted at investors and companies buying land. The vast majority of farm estates will now be exempt, providing they make use of the £5m spouse allowance
The people benefiting from this change are those sitting on a highly tax efficient asset worth many millions who quite sincerely and genuinely want to keep it that way and don't see why they should pay the same tax as say someone running a productive business.
We have to concede an extremely effective lobbying exercise by wealthy landowners but we don't really need to agree with the principle of it. It's far more egregious than WFA for example.
Those who are genuinely worried about family farming would be far better off looking at *incomes* - for instance, supermarket buying practices - and food security.
But this lobbying has been all about protecting capital investment.
It's like houses - those who have houses are treated far better than those without when it comes to IHT. No wonder the values are distorted.
IHT is theft!
Property is theft comrade.
Your family member dies, you're bereaved, and you're left with a massive bill to Haitch-MRC - how does that work?
You are not paying the bill. Your dead relative is. You have to tax somebody, and dead people are better than live ones.
By those terms my dead relative has arisen from the grave to change his will and deny HMRC any money.
Anyway, the split between housing and other assets is indeed daft as pointed out earlier.
My relative moved into a small detached bungalow which was eminently suitable for his needs. This being the Flatlands it cost rather less than the (double) threshold.
In theory he could have moved into a larger property than he needed and by doing so saved about £60k in IHT.
I'm not sure the government really wants to encourage that.
Yes but by downsizing he realised a load of cash he could spend on cruising or just getting pissed.
Well, care costs was about all he could spend it on, and he didn't need it for that. So it was just a loss, other than a slightly lower council tax.
My children will be lucky sods. Though everything I spend, I mentally deduct 40% IHT they won't have to pay. So everything seems very cheap. 40% discount. Hence my holiday in Martinique followed by a skiing holiday in the Dolomites. My kids encourage me.
Inheritance tax = the encouragement of selfishness. Discuss.
The government have spent it's first year and a half looking for trouble. If one of the Palestine Action people die of hunger strike it will be very serious for them. They seem to have gone out of their way to alienate people. Seeing Greta Thunburg arrested just makes them look ridiculous. People have been very patient with Starmer but I think it's now time to get themselves a LABOUR leader. I'd go with Streeting. As much to wash away the detritus that's attached to them as anything else
Leaving aside the merits of the PA proscription, is Greta Thunberg still flavour of the month? I don't seem to stumble upon news about her very much anymore, though I get the impression she has predominantly transitioned from environmental causes to the palestinian cause, so it feels like she needs to get arrested to get attention, which makes it less compelling than, say, reports than 100 grannies have been arrested for doign the same.
Greta has I think become addicted to the fact of being Greta, and become more of a self-caricature in the process. It’s a shame, but she was always too far down the sanctimonious spectrum.
Franchising yourself into multiple issues is a mistake too. The examplar of a clearly defined, focused environmental campaigner who has stuck neatly to an easily digestible script is Feargal Sharkey. That’s how to do it.
The government have spent it's first year and a half looking for trouble. If one of the Palestine Action people die on hunger strike it will be very serious for them. They seem to have gone out of their way to alienate people.
Seeing Greta Thunburg arrested just makes them look ridiculous. People have been very patient with Starmer but I think it's time to get themselves a LABOUR leader. I'd go with Streeting. As much to wash away the detritus that's attached to them as anything else
the hunger strikers. If they die their choice. I see one has stopped today. As for Greta, all performative
My children will be lucky sods. Though everything I spend, I mentally deduct 40% IHT they won't have to pay. So everything seems very cheap. 40% discount. Hence my holiday in Martinique followed by a skiing holiday in the Dolomites. My kids encourage me.
StKI-ing = Spending the Kids Inheritance!
Though Mrs C and I don't like the word 'kids'. We raised three children, not baby goats.
Based on this polling I wouldn’t be surprised the Tories ahead of Reform at some point in quarter one of 2026, if present trends hold, not consistently but on an outlier basis.
Word missing there?
On the substantive point, am I right in thinking as well that Farage is at the same time the oldest and the least experienced of the four major party leaders? He's not likely to be improving now as he ages and he's never been in cabinet.
No, Starmer is about 18 months older than Farage.
Blair and Cameron had never been in government before they became PM.
Fair enough on the first point.
Cameron and Blair had both been Leaders of the Opposition. Farage hasn't even done that.
Indeed he quite often skives off Parliament. I think he finds it boring because its not all about him.
This has recently set me wondering if Nigel Farage might bail soon. He is rarely in the Commons or in Clacton, and does not even seem to have much to say about Streeting or Lammy advocating customs unions with the EU, an issue you'd think would be mother's milk to him. Is he still interested in politics? (That said, maybe he is just under the weather as there are some nasty bugs doing the rounds.)
I wonder if the 'I can't really remember what happened 50 years ago but I definitely did not say those racist and antisemitic things' row has put his gas at a peep. The one time I saw Farage address the issue directly he seemed uncharacteristically shifty and evasive.
28 witnesses, including Jewish students, and written communications amongst teachers, is quite a lot to dismiss as "lies, all lies". Tice is that crass imo; Farage is not.
It's also quite awkward with respect to Farage's position on Israel, and the portrayal of Muslims as The Mortal Enemy of Western Civilisation.
Witnesses at the time (as in recording in diaries, letters etc) or witnesses ‘recalling’ events of 50 years ago. Very big difference, as all good historians know.
28 witnesses seems pretty corroborative to me. The man’s a bully, and a spiv, and has been so since his earliest years.
I haven’t cared enough to look at what he did at school in detail, but isn’t prancing around with your arm in the air attention seeking rather than bullying?
Farage is deeply unpleasant man who is probably a racist. Spending 5 minutes reading a guardian article to confirm those views isn’t a good use of my time
So why did you venture in with your first comment about it being attention seeking not bullying then?
Because it was an interesting discussion.
Not all of the conversations on here are entirely fact based and it’s a better board for it
Ok but hang on.
Post 1: You counter the 'bully' allegations with "wasn't it just attention seeking?"
Post2: You say you don't care enough to read the details to see if it was indeed just attention seeking.
Post3: Whilst still not caring to check if it was just attention seeking you say it's nevertheless interesting.
Really rather odd. But, look, you're not in the dock, and it is Christmas, so that's probably enough on the matter. I note your overall 'deeply unpleasant and probably a racist' assessment of the bloke we're talking about. Big tick for that.
Not at all. Very easy to reconcile.
I’m aware he behaved badly at school but haven’t checked into details. The only thing that has stuck in my mind is him walking around making nazi salutes. Which to my mind is more childishly trying to shock people/seek attention. But it may be he did other stuff which was more targeted at specific individuals (which for me is the threshold of bullying).
But whether he’s a spiv and a bully or a spiv and an attention seeker won’t materially change how I view him in the round, so would rather do more uplifting things with my time
Ok, so just a snippet to give you a flavour.
He would torment a particular Jewish pupil by continually leaning in close and saying, "should have gassed you all".
With gas enunciated as "gassssssss" to mimic the sound of it hissing into the chambers at the death camps.
A pedant notes that the most common Nazi gas chambers used Prussia acid crystals that produce cyanide when moist, so no gas would have been hissing into the chamber. I don’t expect Farage would have known that. But then I’m probably being disingenuous.
No that's good knowledge. No dark inference taken from your supplying it.
Had I fallen victim to the Holocaust, I’d far rather have died in the mass shooting phase, than the gassing phase. Death by gas is prolonged and agonising.
This is the best Christmas present me, my family and my friends could have had. I can now safely sleep at night, that is how bad it has been. Especially for those older than me with serious health issues. Bad news for agricultural valuers of course who would have made a fortune over the arguing the toss over the values of farms. It takes my estate out of the danger zone and so we can now look forwards to building the shed which we have needed for many years.
I had expected this to become a jockeying point when the new Labour leader was selected or else it to be put off for a year, and a year and a year.
They pointed the shotgun at the whole farming industry. We stood up to them and they have blinked. But we won't forget, no we won't forget ...
That is the whole point
The farmers will not forgive or vote labour because of this
They also voted en masse for Brexit and then realised they had screwed themselves. They are the ultimate selfish opportunists who believe the world owes them a living. Of course they won't vote labour.
British farmers do appear to be cretinous, as a class. Brexit is exhibit 1.
However, if you care about land use and food quality, then you need to care about farmers.
Reeves’s problem is she actively hates much of the country, including farmers.
The amount of political capital burnt in this thing is incredible. Ultimately, the correct decision, tax should be targeted at investors and companies buying land. The vast majority of farm estates will now be exempt, providing they make use of the £5m spouse allowance
The people benefiting from this change are those sitting on a highly tax efficient asset worth many millions who quite sincerely and genuinely want to keep it that way and don't see why they should pay the same tax as say someone running a productive business.
We have to concede an extremely effective lobbying exercise by wealthy landowners but we don't really need to agree with the principle of it. It's far more egregious than WFA for example.
Those who are genuinely worried about family farming would be far better off looking at *incomes* - for instance, supermarket buying practices - and food security.
But this lobbying has been all about protecting capital investment.
It's like houses - those who have houses are treated far better than those without when it comes to IHT. No wonder the values are distorted.
IHT is theft!
Property is theft comrade.
Your family member dies, you're bereaved, and you're left with a massive bill to Haitch-MRC - how does that work?
A family member dies and you're left a massive unearned pot of gold. How is that fair?
Because your family member worked hard all their life and should be allowed to dispose of their savings as they see fit?
Just be grateful and pay the tax.
Let’s say someone has a big success and gets paid a £1m bonus on April 1. They pay income tax on it under PAYE.
They then die on April 8.
And you think the government should have the right to double dip on that income simply because the individual concerned has died?
Well yes, because there is effectively a tax on dying.
The person who earned it, after all, has no further use for the money.
Your argument is circulate. You’re saying the government should have the right because it has the right.
There is tax on value creating activity (I include transaction taxes like VAT in that as there is a willing buyer / willing seller). Death should not be a trigger for further tax - it’s just a transfer of existing assets from one name to another.
In which case, tax bequests received as income.
A transfer is not income. That’s why it is called a “transfer”.
Not sure what the difference is between income from a dead relative and income from an employer. Oh and they tax Bank interest too. A friend did a volunteer year after university and money he received from friends and relatives for his upkeep was taxable.
My children will be lucky sods. Though everything I spend, I mentally deduct 40% IHT they won't have to pay. So everything seems very cheap. 40% discount. Hence my holiday in Martinique followed by a skiing holiday in the Dolomites. My kids encourage me.
StKI-ing = Spending the Kids Inheritance!
Though Mrs C and I don't like the word 'kids'. We raised three children, not baby goats.
My eldest kid is a pensioner.
Our eldest 'child' is only a couple of years from being an 'official' OAP. He's already pensioned off from his firm.
This is the best Christmas present me, my family and my friends could have had. I can now safely sleep at night, that is how bad it has been. Especially for those older than me with serious health issues. Bad news for agricultural valuers of course who would have made a fortune over the arguing the toss over the values of farms. It takes my estate out of the danger zone and so we can now look forwards to building the shed which we have needed for many years.
I had expected this to become a jockeying point when the new Labour leader was selected or else it to be put off for a year, and a year and a year.
They pointed the shotgun at the whole farming industry. We stood up to them and they have blinked. But we won't forget, no we won't forget ...
That is the whole point
The farmers will not forgive or vote labour because of this
They also voted en masse for Brexit and then realised they had screwed themselves. They are the ultimate selfish opportunists who believe the world owes them a living. Of course they won't vote labour.
British farmers do appear to be cretinous, as a class. Brexit is exhibit 1.
However, if you care about land use and food quality, then you need to care about farmers.
Reeves’s problem is she actively hates much of the country, including farmers.
The amount of political capital burnt in this thing is incredible. Ultimately, the correct decision, tax should be targeted at investors and companies buying land. The vast majority of farm estates will now be exempt, providing they make use of the £5m spouse allowance
The people benefiting from this change are those sitting on a highly tax efficient asset worth many millions who quite sincerely and genuinely want to keep it that way and don't see why they should pay the same tax as say someone running a productive business.
We have to concede an extremely effective lobbying exercise by wealthy landowners but we don't really need to agree with the principle of it. It's far more egregious than WFA for example.
Those who are genuinely worried about family farming would be far better off looking at *incomes* - for instance, supermarket buying practices - and food security.
But this lobbying has been all about protecting capital investment.
It's like houses - those who have houses are treated far better than those without when it comes to IHT. No wonder the values are distorted.
IHT is theft!
Property is theft comrade.
Your family member dies, you're bereaved, and you're left with a massive bill to Haitch-MRC - how does that work?
A family member dies and you're left a massive unearned pot of gold. How is that fair?
Because your family member worked hard all their life and should be allowed to dispose of their savings as they see fit?
Just be grateful and pay the tax.
Let’s say someone has a big success and gets paid a £1m bonus on April 1. They pay income tax on it under PAYE.
They then die on April 8.
And you think the government should have the right to double dip on that income simply because the individual concerned has died?
Well yes, because there is effectively a tax on dying.
The person who earned it, after all, has no further use for the money.
Your argument is circulate. You’re saying the government should have the right because it has the right.
There is tax on value creating activity (I include transaction taxes like VAT in that as there is a willing buyer / willing seller). Death should not be a trigger for further tax - it’s just a transfer of existing assets from one name to another.
In which case, tax bequests received as income.
A transfer is not income. That’s why it is called a “transfer”.
Not sure what the difference is between income from a dead relative and income from an employer. Oh and they tax Bank interest too. A friend did a volunteer year after university and money he received from friends and relatives for his upkeep was taxable.
When you get paid for work, there is labour involved. When you receive interest, there is capital involved.
Bad news. Massive growth over the last 2 years in the US
Yeah, they need to tax and regulate far more to achieve the pathetic growth of the EU and the UK
I wonder how reliable US growth stats can be, when they result in outcomes that are so poor. GDP per head is 70% higher in the USA than the UK, but the median wage is only 20% higher. Overall, human development is slightly lower in the USA than here.
Based on this polling I wouldn’t be surprised the Tories ahead of Reform at some point in quarter one of 2026, if present trends hold, not consistently but on an outlier basis.
Word missing there?
On the substantive point, am I right in thinking as well that Farage is at the same time the oldest and the least experienced of the four major party leaders? He's not likely to be improving now as he ages and he's never been in cabinet.
He has considerable political experience, but very little parliamentary experience. The latter is not that much of a barrier anymore, he will have had 4-5 years of it by the time of the next election which is not that far off several modern PMs, though the odds woudl also be that he has extremely few MPs in his ranks with much parliamentary let alone governmental experience, which may be a more significant factor.
He has lots of Parliamentary experience. The European Parliament that is. Plus he was leader of the EFDD political group in the Parliament https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe_of_Freedom_and_Direct_Democracy . I don't like him (obvs) but he is familiar with parliamentary procedure.
True, but that won't be directly translatable which is I why I did not include it no matter how worthy the EP is. The specific oddities and how to get things done, and even the need to get things done as governing party or main opposition, is a bit of different beast.
Similarly he has experience of leading a party, but leading MPs is not directly comparable either, as several political leaders have discovered - and when people like Corbyn and Boris attempted to play up their support beyond parliament and ignore/belittle the role of their MPs, it did not go well for them (Corbyn in fairness faced hostile MPs from the start), so that will be a new challenge for PM Nigel as well.
The government have spent it's first year and a half looking for trouble. If one of the Palestine Action people die of hunger strike it will be very serious for them. They seem to have gone out of their way to alienate people. Seeing Greta Thunburg arrested just makes them look ridiculous. People have been very patient with Starmer but I think it's now time to get themselves a LABOUR leader. I'd go with Streeting. As much to wash away the detritus that's attached to them as anything else
Leaving aside the merits of the PA proscription, is Greta Thunberg still flavour of the month? I don't seem to stumble upon news about her very much anymore, though I get the impression she has predominantly transitioned from environmental causes to the palestinian cause, so it feels like she needs to get arrested to get attention, which makes it less compelling than, say, reports than 100 grannies have been arrested for doign the same.
Matt Ridley in a recent Speccie article (worth a read), suggesting that the bottom has fallen out of the climate change market:
A top climate scientist is warning climate change will wipe out humanity unless we stop using fossil fuels over the next five years,’ tweeted Greta Thunberg in 2018. Five years later she deleted her tweet and shortly after decided that Palestine was a more promising way of staying in the limelight.
The right wing edgelord mind is incapable of understanding that atmospheric physics isn’t an Oxford Union debate but an actual thing.
For balance (see Greta) it’s also true that the lefty perma-campaign mind has a hard time understanding that the laws of thermodynamics don’t have a moral compass.
This is why the world needs centrist dads.
Meanwhile the earth continues to warm in a monotonic way, pretty much precisely as modelled.
This is the best Christmas present me, my family and my friends could have had. I can now safely sleep at night, that is how bad it has been. Especially for those older than me with serious health issues. Bad news for agricultural valuers of course who would have made a fortune over the arguing the toss over the values of farms. It takes my estate out of the danger zone and so we can now look forwards to building the shed which we have needed for many years.
I had expected this to become a jockeying point when the new Labour leader was selected or else it to be put off for a year, and a year and a year.
They pointed the shotgun at the whole farming industry. We stood up to them and they have blinked. But we won't forget, no we won't forget ...
That is the whole point
The farmers will not forgive or vote labour because of this
They also voted en masse for Brexit and then realised they had screwed themselves. They are the ultimate selfish opportunists who believe the world owes them a living. Of course they won't vote labour.
British farmers do appear to be cretinous, as a class. Brexit is exhibit 1.
However, if you care about land use and food quality, then you need to care about farmers.
Reeves’s problem is she actively hates much of the country, including farmers.
The amount of political capital burnt in this thing is incredible. Ultimately, the correct decision, tax should be targeted at investors and companies buying land. The vast majority of farm estates will now be exempt, providing they make use of the £5m spouse allowance
The people benefiting from this change are those sitting on a highly tax efficient asset worth many millions who quite sincerely and genuinely want to keep it that way and don't see why they should pay the same tax as say someone running a productive business.
We have to concede an extremely effective lobbying exercise by wealthy landowners but we don't really need to agree with the principle of it. It's far more egregious than WFA for example.
Those who are genuinely worried about family farming would be far better off looking at *incomes* - for instance, supermarket buying practices - and food security.
But this lobbying has been all about protecting capital investment.
It's like houses - those who have houses are treated far better than those without when it comes to IHT. No wonder the values are distorted.
IHT is theft!
Property is theft comrade.
Your family member dies, you're bereaved, and you're left with a massive bill to Haitch-MRC - how does that work?
A family member dies and you're left a massive unearned pot of gold. How is that fair?
Because your family member worked hard all their life and should be allowed to dispose of their savings as they see fit?
Just be grateful and pay the tax.
Let’s say someone has a big success and gets paid a £1m bonus on April 1. They pay income tax on it under PAYE.
They then die on April 8.
And you think the government should have the right to double dip on that income simply because the individual concerned has died?
Well yes, because there is effectively a tax on dying.
The person who earned it, after all, has no further use for the money.
Your argument is circulate. You’re saying the government should have the right because it has the right.
There is tax on value creating activity (I include transaction taxes like VAT in that as there is a willing buyer / willing seller). Death should not be a trigger for further tax - it’s just a transfer of existing assets from one name to another.
In which case, tax bequests received as income.
A transfer is not income. That’s why it is called a “transfer”.
Not sure what the difference is between income from a dead relative and income from an employer. Oh and they tax Bank interest too. A friend did a volunteer year after university and money he received from friends and relatives for his upkeep was taxable.
When you get paid for work, there is labour involved. When you receive interest, there is capital involved.
This is the best Christmas present me, my family and my friends could have had. I can now safely sleep at night, that is how bad it has been. Especially for those older than me with serious health issues. Bad news for agricultural valuers of course who would have made a fortune over the arguing the toss over the values of farms. It takes my estate out of the danger zone and so we can now look forwards to building the shed which we have needed for many years.
I had expected this to become a jockeying point when the new Labour leader was selected or else it to be put off for a year, and a year and a year.
They pointed the shotgun at the whole farming industry. We stood up to them and they have blinked. But we won't forget, no we won't forget ...
That is the whole point
The farmers will not forgive or vote labour because of this
They also voted en masse for Brexit and then realised they had screwed themselves. They are the ultimate selfish opportunists who believe the world owes them a living. Of course they won't vote labour.
British farmers do appear to be cretinous, as a class. Brexit is exhibit 1.
However, if you care about land use and food quality, then you need to care about farmers.
Reeves’s problem is she actively hates much of the country, including farmers.
The amount of political capital burnt in this thing is incredible. Ultimately, the correct decision, tax should be targeted at investors and companies buying land. The vast majority of farm estates will now be exempt, providing they make use of the £5m spouse allowance
The people benefiting from this change are those sitting on a highly tax efficient asset worth many millions who quite sincerely and genuinely want to keep it that way and don't see why they should pay the same tax as say someone running a productive business.
We have to concede an extremely effective lobbying exercise by wealthy landowners but we don't really need to agree with the principle of it. It's far more egregious than WFA for example.
Those who are genuinely worried about family farming would be far better off looking at *incomes* - for instance, supermarket buying practices - and food security.
But this lobbying has been all about protecting capital investment.
It's like houses - those who have houses are treated far better than those without when it comes to IHT. No wonder the values are distorted.
IHT is theft!
Property is theft comrade.
Your family member dies, you're bereaved, and you're left with a massive bill to Haitch-MRC - how does that work?
A family member dies and you're left a massive unearned pot of gold. How is that fair?
Because your family member worked hard all their life and should be allowed to dispose of their savings as they see fit?
Just be grateful and pay the tax.
Let’s say someone has a big success and gets paid a £1m bonus on April 1. They pay income tax on it under PAYE.
They then die on April 8.
And you think the government should have the right to double dip on that income simply because the individual concerned has died?
The government essentially taxes money every time it moves from one person/company to another. There are very few transactions that are free of taxation.
Why should inheritance stick out as one such transaction that is untaxed?
Because all other transactions create value (or perceived value). In theory the government is taking a slice of the increase in the value not the principal.
Just pay the tax advisor. Winging to the government won't help but at least you'll save some money and make an accountant very happty.
Bad news. Massive growth over the last 2 years in the US
Yeah, they need to tax and regulate far more to achieve the pathetic growth of the EU and the UK
I wonder how reliable US growth stats can be, when they result in outcomes that are so poor. GDP per head is 70% higher in the USA than the UK, but the median wage is only 20% higher. Overall, human development is slightly lower in the USA than here.
GDP statistics are heavily driven by corporate profits. See also Ireland.
The other thing is the US confusingly quotes GDP growth stats on an annualised basis. So “growing at 4.3% in q4” means it grew by about 1% in the quarter, in ONS language.
The government have spent it's first year and a half looking for trouble. If one of the Palestine Action people die of hunger strike it will be very serious for them. They seem to have gone out of their way to alienate people. Seeing Greta Thunburg arrested just makes them look ridiculous. People have been very patient with Starmer but I think it's now time to get themselves a LABOUR leader. I'd go with Streeting. As much to wash away the detritus that's attached to them as anything else
Leaving aside the merits of the PA proscription, is Greta Thunberg still flavour of the month? I don't seem to stumble upon news about her very much anymore, though I get the impression she has predominantly transitioned from environmental causes to the palestinian cause, so it feels like she needs to get arrested to get attention, which makes it less compelling than, say, reports than 100 grannies have been arrested for doign the same.
Greta has I think become addicted to the fact of being Greta, and become more of a self-caricature in the process. It’s a shame, but she was always too far down the sanctimonious spectrum.
Franchising yourself into multiple issues is a mistake too. The examplar of a clearly defined, focused environmental campaigner who has stuck neatly to an easily digestible script is Feargal Sharkey. That’s how to do it.
Without looking into it too much I wonder if it is a case of everythingism, in that it is presumed by too many people, including campaigners, that if you support X you have to not only support Y, but speak out about it as well, even if it really has no real relation to X*.
Palestine is often an example, as with the new Unison head saying she will defend the interests of the working class, and that that 'requires' support the 'freedom struggle' of the Palestinian people. Now, I don't see any issue with people supporting the working class and the people of Palestine, many do just that, but I really don't see how one 'requires' the other.
* people can broaden their areas of focus of course, but I think the risk there is becoming just another politician, elected or otherwise. Many might have presumed various political opinions to Greta when she was primarily an environmental campaigner, but remove any ambiguity at all and wlill she even be listened to on that subject anymore?
I sometimes wonder if the fact I have zero chance of inheriting any assets affects my ability to get very worked up about the principle of inheritance taxation.
Bad news. Massive growth over the last 2 years in the US
Yeah, they need to tax and regulate far more to achieve the pathetic growth of the EU and the UK
I wonder how reliable US growth stats can be, when they result in outcomes that are so poor. GDP per head is 70% higher in the USA than the UK, but the median wage is only 20% higher. Overall, human development is slightly lower in the USA than here.
GDP statistics are heavily driven by corporate profits. See also Ireland.
The other thing is the US confusingly quotes GDP growth stats on an annualised basis. So “growing at 4.3% in q4” means it grew by about 1% in the quarter, in ONS language.
When was the last time we managed that though? No matter the caveat.
I sometimes wonder if the fact I have zero chance of inheriting any assets affects my ability to get very worked up about the principle of inheritance taxation.
I on the other hand stand to inherit assets - with a 40% haircut - so my ability to get worked up about people much richer than me having to pay rather less than I will is similarly affected.
I sometimes wonder if the fact I have zero chance of inheriting any assets affects my ability to get very worked up about the principle of inheritance taxation.
I think it is more a "feels" thing. I'll probably inherit a significant amount (to a normal person (and myself...), perhaps crumbs to some of the pb elite)), and think it weird that it would be taxed less strictly than me working hard.
Maybe if it was from a family business rather than well paid professional jobs I might think differently as that would create more attachment between the money, bequestors and the future so I can see where the farmers are coming from, but ultimately we are skint, and someone has to be taxed more and very few of the candidates for that will like it either.
I don't know how good the methodology would be (I don't know how to judge it), but for a fragile and divided place some of these summaries do not particularly surprise.
One year into Syria’s political transition, this second round of ETANA’s public opinion survey reveals a transition that remains fragile and unevenly legitimised. Perceptions of safety, freedoms, women’s rights, services and economic management continue to divide sharply along regional, sectarian and educational lines...
At the political level, the survey shows that input legitimacy is anchored more in the person of President Al-Sharaa than in the institutions meant to carry the transition forward. Trust in transparency, in the government’s decision-making processes, and representation, including by the new parliament, is limited and highly uneven. Approval of Al-Sharaa’s performance is significantly higher. https://etanasyria.org/survey-results-public-opinion-in-transitional-syria-one-year-into-the-transition/
I sometimes wonder if the fact I have zero chance of inheriting any assets affects my ability to get very worked up about the principle of inheritance taxation.
I'm evidently quite progressive when it comes to taxation, but I do find IHT very difficult to justify on both the principle and - in particular - the application. You typically pay it when you don't have the wherewithal or family trust to avoid it (e.g. the generous 7 year rule), or when you die suddenly. I'm not sure why that is taxable while the £10,000s that my parents have given me for housing and education is not.
A obvious political transaction to me is to replace IHT with a ongoing asset tax - particularly on housing. Or perhaps some sort of link to social care insurance.
I sometimes wonder if the fact I have zero chance of inheriting any assets affects my ability to get very worked up about the principle of inheritance taxation.
I inherited shitloads and highly recommend it as a life "hack". I paid a lot of IHT on farmland in the 26 counties though.
My children will be lucky sods. Though everything I spend, I mentally deduct 40% IHT they won't have to pay. So everything seems very cheap. 40% discount. Hence my holiday in Martinique followed by a skiing holiday in the Dolomites. My kids encourage me.
Inheritance tax = the encouragement of selfishness. Discuss.
That generation will probably be the last one that gets to indulge itself like that.
Bad news. Massive growth over the last 2 years in the US
Yeah, they need to tax and regulate far more to achieve the pathetic growth of the EU and the UK
I wonder how reliable US growth stats can be, when they result in outcomes that are so poor. GDP per head is 70% higher in the USA than the UK, but the median wage is only 20% higher. Overall, human development is slightly lower in the USA than here.
GDP statistics are heavily driven by corporate profits. See also Ireland.
The other thing is the US confusingly quotes GDP growth stats on an annualised basis. So “growing at 4.3% in q4” means it grew by about 1% in the quarter, in ONS language.
When was the last time we managed that though? No matter the caveat.
Q1 2024 was 0.8% which works out as 3.3% annualised. But we notably lack the corporate profits distortion because of how transfer pricing now works since the CT rate went up to 25%. Cut it to 17% and watch GDP stats go skyward, even if wages don’t move much.
One thing successive US administrations have got right is CT policy.
I sometimes wonder if the fact I have zero chance of inheriting any assets affects my ability to get very worked up about the principle of inheritance taxation.
I think it is more a "feels" thing. I'll probably inherit a significant amount (to a normal person (and myself...), perhaps crumbs to some of the pb elite)), and think it weird that it would be taxed less strictly than me working hard.
Maybe if it was from a family business rather than well paid professional jobs I might think differently as that would create more attachment between the money, bequestors and the future so I can see where the farmers are coming from, but ultimately we are skint, and someone has to be taxed more and very few of the candidates for that will like it either.
Simple fix to IHT. Cut it in half to 20% like most of our peers, and people will, if not gladly pay it, then not bother actively to avoid it. I strongly suspect IHT is a laffer-affected tax.
Bad news. Massive growth over the last 2 years in the US
Yeah, they need to tax and regulate far more to achieve the pathetic growth of the EU and the UK
I wonder how reliable US growth stats can be, when they result in outcomes that are so poor. GDP per head is 70% higher in the USA than the UK, but the median wage is only 20% higher. Overall, human development is slightly lower in the USA than here.
GDP statistics are heavily driven by corporate profits. See also Ireland.
The other thing is the US confusingly quotes GDP growth stats on an annualised basis. So “growing at 4.3% in q4” means it grew by about 1% in the quarter, in ONS language.
When was the last time we managed that though? No matter the caveat.
Q1 2022, but that was the unloading after COVID (where it peaked at 17% Q3 2020).
I sometimes wonder if the fact I have zero chance of inheriting any assets affects my ability to get very worked up about the principle of inheritance taxation.
I think it is more a "feels" thing. I'll probably inherit a significant amount (to a normal person (and myself...), perhaps crumbs to some of the pb elite)), and think it weird that it would be taxed less strictly than me working hard.
Maybe if it was from a family business rather than well paid professional jobs I might think differently as that would create more attachment between the money, bequestors and the future so I can see where the farmers are coming from, but ultimately we are skint, and someone has to be taxed more and very few of the candidates for that will like it either.
Simple fix to IHT. Cut it in half to 20% like most of our peers, and people will, if not gladly pay it, then not bother actively to avoid it. I strongly suspect IHT is a laffer-affected tax.
Either that. Or they will still moan about and say the easy solution is to cut it in half to 10%.
My children will be lucky sods. Though everything I spend, I mentally deduct 40% IHT they won't have to pay. So everything seems very cheap. 40% discount. Hence my holiday in Martinique followed by a skiing holiday in the Dolomites. My kids encourage me.
This site seems to be fairly well-off, male, centre-left socially liberal Boomers these days.
My children will be lucky sods. Though everything I spend, I mentally deduct 40% IHT they won't have to pay. So everything seems very cheap. 40% discount. Hence my holiday in Martinique followed by a skiing holiday in the Dolomites. My kids encourage me.
This site seems to be fairly well-off, male, centre-left socially liberal Boomers these days.
I sometimes wonder if the fact I have zero chance of inheriting any assets affects my ability to get very worked up about the principle of inheritance taxation.
I think it is more a "feels" thing. I'll probably inherit a significant amount (to a normal person (and myself...), perhaps crumbs to some of the pb elite)), and think it weird that it would be taxed less strictly than me working hard.
Maybe if it was from a family business rather than well paid professional jobs I might think differently as that would create more attachment between the money, bequestors and the future so I can see where the farmers are coming from, but ultimately we are skint, and someone has to be taxed more and very few of the candidates for that will like it either.
Simple fix to IHT. Cut it in half to 20% like most of our peers, and people will, if not gladly pay it, then not bother actively to avoid it. I strongly suspect IHT is a laffer-affected tax.
That would work for me. I would have paid 20%. I refuse to pay 40%, so charity it is.
I sometimes wonder if the fact I have zero chance of inheriting any assets affects my ability to get very worked up about the principle of inheritance taxation.
I think it is more a "feels" thing. I'll probably inherit a significant amount (to a normal person (and myself...), perhaps crumbs to some of the pb elite)), and think it weird that it would be taxed less strictly than me working hard.
Maybe if it was from a family business rather than well paid professional jobs I might think differently as that would create more attachment between the money, bequestors and the future so I can see where the farmers are coming from, but ultimately we are skint, and someone has to be taxed more and very few of the candidates for that will like it either.
Simple fix to IHT. Cut it in half to 20% like most of our peers, and people will, if not gladly pay it, then not bother actively to avoid it. I strongly suspect IHT is a laffer-affected tax.
Absolutely - but that's because it's so easily avoidable - only 5% of estates pay it. Short of some more radical reform, I'd suggest tightening the rules up would be a better solution.
I guess a 90% unavoidable rate would be like the Philosopher's Stone, and stop people dying. You'd have people on life support for decades, and mad court cases about cryogenics.
I sometimes wonder if the fact I have zero chance of inheriting any assets affects my ability to get very worked up about the principle of inheritance taxation.
I think it is more a "feels" thing. I'll probably inherit a significant amount (to a normal person (and myself...), perhaps crumbs to some of the pb elite)), and think it weird that it would be taxed less strictly than me working hard.
Maybe if it was from a family business rather than well paid professional jobs I might think differently as that would create more attachment between the money, bequestors and the future so I can see where the farmers are coming from, but ultimately we are skint, and someone has to be taxed more and very few of the candidates for that will like it either.
Simple fix to IHT. Cut it in half to 20% like most of our peers, and people will, if not gladly pay it, then not bother actively to avoid it. I strongly suspect IHT is a laffer-affected tax.
That would work for me. I would have paid 20%. I refuse to pay 40%, so charity it is.
To society giving 40% to charity is better than giving 20% to government. Not because charity is better than government, but because 40% is better than 20%.
I sometimes wonder if the fact I have zero chance of inheriting any assets affects my ability to get very worked up about the principle of inheritance taxation.
I'm evidently quite progressive when it comes to taxation, but I do find IHT very difficult to justify on both the principle and - in particular - the application. You typically pay it when you don't have the wherewithal or family trust to avoid it (e.g. the generous 7 year rule), or when you die suddenly. I'm not sure why that is taxable while the £10,000s that my parents have given me for housing and education is not.
A obvious political transaction to me is to replace IHT with a ongoing asset tax - particularly on housing. Or perhaps some sort of link to social care insurance.
I'm not particularly strongly concerned about "principles" in the taxation system. We have to collectively pay for the things we want the state to do, and exactly how we do that is then a mix of:
* What have we traditionally taxed? * Does this tax seem to be mostly landing on people who the public thinks can afford to pay it? * Are we having any excessive negative economic or other side effects? * Is it something that's practically simple to tax (i.e. where the state can easily figure out the liability and extract the money)? * Can we get general public consent for the idea of the tax?
"Fairness" and progressiveness matter for building consent and getting better outcomes, but sometimes practicality wins.
The quip about plucking the goose is getting at a fundamental reality, I think.
Based on this polling I wouldn’t be surprised the Tories ahead of Reform at some point in quarter one of 2026, if present trends hold, not consistently but on an outlier basis.
Word missing there?
On the substantive point, am I right in thinking as well that Farage is at the same time the oldest and the least experienced of the four major party leaders? He's not likely to be improving now as he ages and he's never been in cabinet.
No, Starmer is about 18 months older than Farage.
Blair and Cameron had never been in government before they became PM.
Fair enough on the first point.
Cameron and Blair had both been Leaders of the Opposition. Farage hasn't even done that.
Indeed he quite often skives off Parliament. I think he finds it boring because its not all about him.
This has recently set me wondering if Nigel Farage might bail soon. He is rarely in the Commons or in Clacton, and does not even seem to have much to say about Streeting or Lammy advocating customs unions with the EU, an issue you'd think would be mother's milk to him. Is he still interested in politics? (That said, maybe he is just under the weather as there are some nasty bugs doing the rounds.)
I wonder if the 'I can't really remember what happened 50 years ago but I definitely did not say those racist and antisemitic things' row has put his gas at a peep. The one time I saw Farage address the issue directly he seemed uncharacteristically shifty and evasive.
28 witnesses, including Jewish students, and written communications amongst teachers, is quite a lot to dismiss as "lies, all lies". Tice is that crass imo; Farage is not.
It's also quite awkward with respect to Farage's position on Israel, and the portrayal of Muslims as The Mortal Enemy of Western Civilisation.
Witnesses at the time (as in recording in diaries, letters etc) or witnesses ‘recalling’ events of 50 years ago. Very big difference, as all good historians know.
28 witnesses seems pretty corroborative to me. The man’s a bully, and a spiv, and has been so since his earliest years.
I haven’t cared enough to look at what he did at school in detail, but isn’t prancing around with your arm in the air attention seeking rather than bullying?
Farage is deeply unpleasant man who is probably a racist. Spending 5 minutes reading a guardian article to confirm those views isn’t a good use of my time
So why did you venture in with your first comment about it being attention seeking not bullying then?
Because it was an interesting discussion.
Not all of the conversations on here are entirely fact based and it’s a better board for it
Ok but hang on.
Post 1: You counter the 'bully' allegations with "wasn't it just attention seeking?"
Post2: You say you don't care enough to read the details to see if it was indeed just attention seeking.
Post3: Whilst still not caring to check if it was just attention seeking you say it's nevertheless interesting.
Really rather odd. But, look, you're not in the dock, and it is Christmas, so that's probably enough on the matter. I note your overall 'deeply unpleasant and probably a racist' assessment of the bloke we're talking about. Big tick for that.
Not at all. Very easy to reconcile.
I’m aware he behaved badly at school but haven’t checked into details. The only thing that has stuck in my mind is him walking around making nazi salutes. Which to my mind is more childishly trying to shock people/seek attention. But it may be he did other stuff which was more targeted at specific individuals (which for me is the threshold of bullying).
But whether he’s a spiv and a bully or a spiv and an attention seeker won’t materially change how I view him in the round, so would rather do more uplifting things with my time
Ok, so just a snippet to give you a flavour.
He would torment a particular Jewish pupil by continually leaning in close and saying, "should have gassed you all".
With gas enunciated as "gassssssss" to mimic the sound of it hissing into the chambers at the death camps.
A pedant notes that the most common Nazi gas chambers used Prussia acid crystals that produce cyanide when moist, so no gas would have been hissing into the chamber. I don’t expect Farage would have known that. But then I’m probably being disingenuous.
No that's good knowledge. No dark inference taken from your supplying it.
Had I fallen victim to the Holocaust, I’d far rather have died in the mass shooting phase, than the gassing phase. Death by gas is prolonged and agonising.
No good options. Not sure off being made to strip off, then lie down on a pile of corpses in a ditch waiting for your bullet is better or worse.
The more I read, the more horrifying it is, especially now I have a toddler. The accounts of the deaths of children is particularly harrowing. And so many of the killers believed they were doing a tough but necessary job. That’s brainwashing and hatred for you.
I sometimes wonder if the fact I have zero chance of inheriting any assets affects my ability to get very worked up about the principle of inheritance taxation.
I'm evidently quite progressive when it comes to taxation, but I do find IHT very difficult to justify on both the principle and - in particular - the application. You typically pay it when you don't have the wherewithal or family trust to avoid it (e.g. the generous 7 year rule), or when you die suddenly. I'm not sure why that is taxable while the £10,000s that my parents have given me for housing and education is not.
A obvious political transaction to me is to replace IHT with a ongoing asset tax - particularly on housing. Or perhaps some sort of link to social care insurance.
I'm not particularly strongly concerned about "principles" in the taxation system. We have to collectively pay for the things we want the state to do, and exactly how we do that is then a mix of:
* What have we traditionally taxed? * Does this tax seem to be mostly landing on people who the public thinks can afford to pay it? * Are we having any excessive negative economic or other side effects? * Is it something that's practically simple to tax (i.e. where the state can easily figure out the liability and extract the money)? * Can we get general public consent for the idea of the tax?
"Fairness" and progressiveness matter for building consent and getting better outcomes, but sometimes practicality wins.
The quip about plucking the goose is getting at a fundamental reality, I think.
I sometimes wonder if the fact I have zero chance of inheriting any assets affects my ability to get very worked up about the principle of inheritance taxation.
I think it is more a "feels" thing. I'll probably inherit a significant amount (to a normal person (and myself...), perhaps crumbs to some of the pb elite)), and think it weird that it would be taxed less strictly than me working hard.
Maybe if it was from a family business rather than well paid professional jobs I might think differently as that would create more attachment between the money, bequestors and the future so I can see where the farmers are coming from, but ultimately we are skint, and someone has to be taxed more and very few of the candidates for that will like it either.
Simple fix to IHT. Cut it in half to 20% like most of our peers, and people will, if not gladly pay it, then not bother actively to avoid it. I strongly suspect IHT is a laffer-affected tax.
That would work for me. I would have paid 20%. I refuse to pay 40%, so charity it is.
We don’t have IHT or CGT. We have 20% income tax plus a 2% Long Term Care Tax on top. 5% VAT equivalent. I do however appreciate that the UK has so many more structural issues it needs to cover but there must be a half way house.
Corporate tax rates are banded Zero for normal businesses (shops, marketing companies) and Law Firms. Regulated Finance companies pay 10% whilst larger retail (profits over £2m pa), Property income/development and utility companies 20%.
I sometimes wonder if the fact I have zero chance of inheriting any assets affects my ability to get very worked up about the principle of inheritance taxation.
If you pm me I’ll put a tenner in my will for you…
I sometimes wonder if the fact I have zero chance of inheriting any assets affects my ability to get very worked up about the principle of inheritance taxation.
I think it is more a "feels" thing. I'll probably inherit a significant amount (to a normal person (and myself...), perhaps crumbs to some of the pb elite)), and think it weird that it would be taxed less strictly than me working hard.
Maybe if it was from a family business rather than well paid professional jobs I might think differently as that would create more attachment between the money, bequestors and the future so I can see where the farmers are coming from, but ultimately we are skint, and someone has to be taxed more and very few of the candidates for that will like it either.
I think that many of our freehold family farms only came into existence due to death duties on large aristocratic estates, with land sold to tenant farmers to pay the tax. At the end of enclosures there were a lot of tenant farmers, a lot of very large landholdings and a relatively small number of small freeholders.
The history of landholding in this country is not one of freehold family farms, it is mostly of turning peasants with traditional rights into a landless working class, and consolidating land ownership amongst the aristocracy. It was only Death Duties (and more recently IHT) that had reversed things..
I sometimes wonder if the fact I have zero chance of inheriting any assets affects my ability to get very worked up about the principle of inheritance taxation.
I think it is more a "feels" thing. I'll probably inherit a significant amount (to a normal person (and myself...), perhaps crumbs to some of the pb elite)), and think it weird that it would be taxed less strictly than me working hard.
Maybe if it was from a family business rather than well paid professional jobs I might think differently as that would create more attachment between the money, bequestors and the future so I can see where the farmers are coming from, but ultimately we are skint, and someone has to be taxed more and very few of the candidates for that will like it either.
Simple fix to IHT. Cut it in half to 20% like most of our peers, and people will, if not gladly pay it, then not bother actively to avoid it. I strongly suspect IHT is a laffer-affected tax.
Fuck it - just make EVERY tax 20%. No need for fancy accountants then.
The government have spent it's first year and a half looking for trouble. If one of the Palestine Action people die of hunger strike it will be very serious for them. They seem to have gone out of their way to alienate people. Seeing Greta Thunburg arrested just makes them look ridiculous. People have been very patient with Starmer but I think it's now time to get themselves a LABOUR leader. I'd go with Streeting. As much to wash away the detritus that's attached to them as anything else
Leaving aside the merits of the PA proscription, is Greta Thunberg still flavour of the month? I don't seem to stumble upon news about her very much anymore, though I get the impression she has predominantly transitioned from environmental causes to the palestinian cause, so it feels like she needs to get arrested to get attention, which makes it less compelling than, say, reports than 100 grannies have been arrested for doign the same.
Greta has I think become addicted to the fact of being Greta, and become more of a self-caricature in the process. It’s a shame, but she was always too far down the sanctimonious spectrum.
Franchising yourself into multiple issues is a mistake too. The examplar of a clearly defined, focused environmental campaigner who has stuck neatly to an easily digestible script is Feargal Sharkey. That’s how to do it.
Without looking into it too much I wonder if it is a case of everythingism, in that it is presumed by too many people, including campaigners, that if you support X you have to not only support Y, but speak out about it as well, even if it really has no real relation to X*.
Palestine is often an example, as with the new Unison head saying she will defend the interests of the working class, and that that 'requires' support the 'freedom struggle' of the Palestinian people. Now, I don't see any issue with people supporting the working class and the people of Palestine, many do just that, but I really don't see how one 'requires' the other.
* people can broaden their areas of focus of course, but I think the risk there is becoming just another politician, elected or otherwise. Many might have presumed various political opinions to Greta when she was primarily an environmental campaigner, but remove any ambiguity at all and wlill she even be listened to on that subject anymore?
I have mixed feelings about this.
On the one hand I've normally been a bit dismissive of single issue campaigners. There is more than one thing wrong with the world, and many issues affect each other. You also see different single issues often pitted against each other, as though they're in opposition, so it helped if advocates for change have a broader outlook.
That said, concentrating on a single issue has the benefit of focus and simplicity, and makes it easier to build a broad base of support. An advocate for action on climate change shouldn't particularly care if a potential ally is pro-Palestinian or pro-Zionist. Both sides of that argument can be on either side of the debate on ending usage of fossil fuels.
The government have spent it's first year and a half looking for trouble. If one of the Palestine Action people die of hunger strike it will be very serious for them. They seem to have gone out of their way to alienate people. Seeing Greta Thunburg arrested just makes them look ridiculous. People have been very patient with Starmer but I think it's now time to get themselves a LABOUR leader. I'd go with Streeting. As much to wash away the detritus that's attached to them as anything else
Leaving aside the merits of the PA proscription, is Greta Thunberg still flavour of the month? I don't seem to stumble upon news about her very much anymore, though I get the impression she has predominantly transitioned from environmental causes to the palestinian cause, so it feels like she needs to get arrested to get attention, which makes it less compelling than, say, reports than 100 grannies have been arrested for doign the same.
Greta has I think become addicted to the fact of being Greta, and become more of a self-caricature in the process. It’s a shame, but she was always too far down the sanctimonious spectrum.
Franchising yourself into multiple issues is a mistake too. The examplar of a clearly defined, focused environmental campaigner who has stuck neatly to an easily digestible script is Feargal Sharkey. That’s how to do it.
I hope we deport her and give her a lifetime ban from re-entering the UK as we would with other terrorist supporters. No need for her to sit in jail.
Twas ever thus. People relatively contented with their lives but convinced the country’s going to the dogs. Hence why so many in the comfortable middle class vote Green, YP or Reform.
I sometimes wonder if the fact I have zero chance of inheriting any assets affects my ability to get very worked up about the principle of inheritance taxation.
I'm evidently quite progressive when it comes to taxation, but I do find IHT very difficult to justify on both the principle and - in particular - the application. You typically pay it when you don't have the wherewithal or family trust to avoid it (e.g. the generous 7 year rule), or when you die suddenly. I'm not sure why that is taxable while the £10,000s that my parents have given me for housing and education is not.
A obvious political transaction to me is to replace IHT with a ongoing asset tax - particularly on housing. Or perhaps some sort of link to social care insurance.
I'm not particularly strongly concerned about "principles" in the taxation system. We have to collectively pay for the things we want the state to do, and exactly how we do that is then a mix of:
* What have we traditionally taxed? * Does this tax seem to be mostly landing on people who the public thinks can afford to pay it? * Are we having any excessive negative economic or other side effects? * Is it something that's practically simple to tax (i.e. where the state can easily figure out the liability and extract the money)? * Can we get general public consent for the idea of the tax?
"Fairness" and progressiveness matter for building consent and getting better outcomes, but sometimes practicality wins.
The quip about plucking the goose is getting at a fundamental reality, I think.
The more accurate goose quip is this one:
"The law locks up the man or woman Who steals the goose from off the common, But lets the greater felon loose Who steals the common from the goose."
The government have spent it's first year and a half looking for trouble. If one of the Palestine Action people die of hunger strike it will be very serious for them. They seem to have gone out of their way to alienate people. Seeing Greta Thunburg arrested just makes them look ridiculous. People have been very patient with Starmer but I think it's now time to get themselves a LABOUR leader. I'd go with Streeting. As much to wash away the detritus that's attached to them as anything else
Leaving aside the merits of the PA proscription, is Greta Thunberg still flavour of the month? I don't seem to stumble upon news about her very much anymore, though I get the impression she has predominantly transitioned from environmental causes to the palestinian cause, so it feels like she needs to get arrested to get attention, which makes it less compelling than, say, reports than 100 grannies have been arrested for doign the same.
Greta has I think become addicted to the fact of being Greta, and become more of a self-caricature in the process. It’s a shame, but she was always too far down the sanctimonious spectrum.
Franchising yourself into multiple issues is a mistake too. The examplar of a clearly defined, focused environmental campaigner who has stuck neatly to an easily digestible script is Feargal Sharkey. That’s how to do it.
I hope we deport her and give her a lifetime ban from re-entering the UK as we would with other terrorist supporters. No need for her to sit in jail.
deport this, deport that, you got a veritable obsession
I sometimes wonder if the fact I have zero chance of inheriting any assets affects my ability to get very worked up about the principle of inheritance taxation.
I think it is more a "feels" thing. I'll probably inherit a significant amount (to a normal person (and myself...), perhaps crumbs to some of the pb elite)), and think it weird that it would be taxed less strictly than me working hard.
Maybe if it was from a family business rather than well paid professional jobs I might think differently as that would create more attachment between the money, bequestors and the future so I can see where the farmers are coming from, but ultimately we are skint, and someone has to be taxed more and very few of the candidates for that will like it either.
I think that many of our freehold family farms only came into existence due to death duties on large aristocratic estates, with land sold to tenant farmers to pay the tax. At the end of enclosures there were a lot of tenant farmers, a lot of very large landholdings and a relatively small number of small freeholders.
The history of landholding in this country is not one of freehold family farms, it is mostly of turning peasants with traditional rights into a landless working class, and consolidating land ownership amongst the aristocracy. It was only Death Duties (and more recently IHT) that had reversed things..
Most people in the UK have not been peasants since the industrial revolution and most over 40s in the UK own their own house either outright or with a mortgage. There are also now more freehold family farms in the UK than landowning aristocrats
I sometimes wonder if the fact I have zero chance of inheriting any assets affects my ability to get very worked up about the principle of inheritance taxation.
I think it is more a "feels" thing. I'll probably inherit a significant amount (to a normal person (and myself...), perhaps crumbs to some of the pb elite)), and think it weird that it would be taxed less strictly than me working hard.
Maybe if it was from a family business rather than well paid professional jobs I might think differently as that would create more attachment between the money, bequestors and the future so I can see where the farmers are coming from, but ultimately we are skint, and someone has to be taxed more and very few of the candidates for that will like it either.
I think that many of our freehold family farms only came into existence due to death duties on large aristocratic estates, with land sold to tenant farmers to pay the tax. At the end of enclosures there were a lot of tenant farmers, a lot of very large landholdings and a relatively small number of small freeholders.
The history of landholding in this country is not one of freehold family farms, it is mostly of turning peasants with traditional rights into a landless working class, and consolidating land ownership amongst the aristocracy. It was only Death Duties (and more recently IHT) that had reversed things..
Conversely, I would say that life as a peasant was (for the majority), always pretty rough, and when people got the opportunity to obtain better-paid work in cities, and the new industrial towns, they availed themselves of it.
A typical village had a Big Man, and several better off peasants, but the large majority were always dependent on the former, whether or not they owned their small holdings.
I sometimes wonder if the fact I have zero chance of inheriting any assets affects my ability to get very worked up about the principle of inheritance taxation.
I think it is more a "feels" thing. I'll probably inherit a significant amount (to a normal person (and myself...), perhaps crumbs to some of the pb elite)), and think it weird that it would be taxed less strictly than me working hard.
Maybe if it was from a family business rather than well paid professional jobs I might think differently as that would create more attachment between the money, bequestors and the future so I can see where the farmers are coming from, but ultimately we are skint, and someone has to be taxed more and very few of the candidates for that will like it either.
Simple fix to IHT. Cut it in half to 20% like most of our peers, and people will, if not gladly pay it, then not bother actively to avoid it. I strongly suspect IHT is a laffer-affected tax.
That would work for me. I would have paid 20%. I refuse to pay 40%, so charity it is.
To society giving 40% to charity is better than giving 20% to government. Not because charity is better than government, but because 40% is better than 20%.
It is 100% vs 20%, of course. It does depend what you mean by 'society', but I'd better not open that can of worms.
I wonder what would happen if instead of paying tax people were allowed to donate to a cause of their choice.
Would anyone give their money for an aircraft carrier? A missile for Ukraine? The PM's expenses? Mr Smith's pension?
I sometimes wonder if the fact I have zero chance of inheriting any assets affects my ability to get very worked up about the principle of inheritance taxation.
I think it is more a "feels" thing. I'll probably inherit a significant amount (to a normal person (and myself...), perhaps crumbs to some of the pb elite)), and think it weird that it would be taxed less strictly than me working hard.
Maybe if it was from a family business rather than well paid professional jobs I might think differently as that would create more attachment between the money, bequestors and the future so I can see where the farmers are coming from, but ultimately we are skint, and someone has to be taxed more and very few of the candidates for that will like it either.
I visited my mother recently, and it seems like she's lost all her money on this McCarthy & Stone leasehold retirement flat that she moved into a while ago, and she feels quite bitter about it.
One of the other residents left their flat to the Salvation Army, and it sounds like they're going to struggle not to lose money on the bequest.
People really like to pass money onto their kids once they don't need it anymore. It is a strong emotional thing.
This is the best Christmas present me, my family and my friends could have had. I can now safely sleep at night, that is how bad it has been. Especially for those older than me with serious health issues. Bad news for agricultural valuers of course who would have made a fortune over the arguing the toss over the values of farms. It takes my estate out of the danger zone and so we can now look forwards to building the shed which we have needed for many years.
I had expected this to become a jockeying point when the new Labour leader was selected or else it to be put off for a year, and a year and a year.
They pointed the shotgun at the whole farming industry. We stood up to them and they have blinked. But we won't forget, no we won't forget ...
That is the whole point
The farmers will not forgive or vote labour because of this
They also voted en masse for Brexit and then realised they had screwed themselves. They are the ultimate selfish opportunists who believe the world owes them a living. Of course they won't vote labour.
British farmers do appear to be cretinous, as a class. Brexit is exhibit 1.
However, if you care about land use and food quality, then you need to care about farmers.
Reeves’s problem is she actively hates much of the country, including farmers.
The amount of political capital burnt in this thing is incredible. Ultimately, the correct decision, tax should be targeted at investors and companies buying land. The vast majority of farm estates will now be exempt, providing they make use of the £5m spouse allowance
The people benefiting from this change are those sitting on a highly tax efficient asset worth many millions who quite sincerely and genuinely want to keep it that way and don't see why they should pay the same tax as say someone running a productive business.
We have to concede an extremely effective lobbying exercise by wealthy landowners but we don't really need to agree with the principle of it. It's far more egregious than WFA for example.
Those who are genuinely worried about family farming would be far better off looking at *incomes* - for instance, supermarket buying practices - and food security.
But this lobbying has been all about protecting capital investment.
It's like houses - those who have houses are treated far better than those without when it comes to IHT. No wonder the values are distorted.
IHT is theft!
Property is theft comrade.
Your family member dies, you're bereaved, and you're left with a massive bill to Haitch-MRC - how does that work?
A family member dies and you're left a massive unearned pot of gold. How is that fair?
Because your family member worked hard all their life and should be allowed to dispose of their savings as they see fit?
Just be grateful and pay the tax.
Let’s say someone has a big success and gets paid a £1m bonus on April 1. They pay income tax on it under PAYE.
They then die on April 8.
And you think the government should have the right to double dip on that income simply because the individual concerned has died?
Yes. The person who has died obviously doesn't care. And the person who inherits is a lucky sod.
The fundamental difference is that I believe people own their assets. You clearly believe that they have them on suffrance from the government
If they're dead, they obviously don't own them. The inheritors are just lucky. The IHT is for the common good. NHS, defence, roads.
This is the best Christmas present me, my family and my friends could have had. I can now safely sleep at night, that is how bad it has been. Especially for those older than me with serious health issues. Bad news for agricultural valuers of course who would have made a fortune over the arguing the toss over the values of farms. It takes my estate out of the danger zone and so we can now look forwards to building the shed which we have needed for many years.
I had expected this to become a jockeying point when the new Labour leader was selected or else it to be put off for a year, and a year and a year.
They pointed the shotgun at the whole farming industry. We stood up to them and they have blinked. But we won't forget, no we won't forget ...
That is the whole point
The farmers will not forgive or vote labour because of this
They also voted en masse for Brexit and then realised they had screwed themselves. They are the ultimate selfish opportunists who believe the world owes them a living. Of course they won't vote labour.
British farmers do appear to be cretinous, as a class. Brexit is exhibit 1.
However, if you care about land use and food quality, then you need to care about farmers.
Reeves’s problem is she actively hates much of the country, including farmers.
The amount of political capital burnt in this thing is incredible. Ultimately, the correct decision, tax should be targeted at investors and companies buying land. The vast majority of farm estates will now be exempt, providing they make use of the £5m spouse allowance
The people benefiting from this change are those sitting on a highly tax efficient asset worth many millions who quite sincerely and genuinely want to keep it that way and don't see why they should pay the same tax as say someone running a productive business.
We have to concede an extremely effective lobbying exercise by wealthy landowners but we don't really need to agree with the principle of it. It's far more egregious than WFA for example.
Those who are genuinely worried about family farming would be far better off looking at *incomes* - for instance, supermarket buying practices - and food security.
But this lobbying has been all about protecting capital investment.
It's like houses - those who have houses are treated far better than those without when it comes to IHT. No wonder the values are distorted.
IHT is theft!
Property is theft comrade.
Your family member dies, you're bereaved, and you're left with a massive bill to Haitch-MRC - how does that work?
A family member dies and you're left a massive unearned pot of gold. How is that fair?
Because your family member worked hard all their life and should be allowed to dispose of their savings as they see fit?
Just be grateful and pay the tax.
Let’s say someone has a big success and gets paid a £1m bonus on April 1. They pay income tax on it under PAYE.
They then die on April 8.
And you think the government should have the right to double dip on that income simply because the individual concerned has died?
Yes. The person who has died obviously doesn't care. And the person who inherits is a lucky sod.
The fundamental difference is that I believe people own their assets. You clearly believe that they have them on suffrance from the government
If they're dead, they obviously don't own them. The inheritors are just lucky. The IHT is for the common good. NHS, defence, roads.
I sometimes wonder if the fact I have zero chance of inheriting any assets affects my ability to get very worked up about the principle of inheritance taxation.
The government have spent it's first year and a half looking for trouble. If one of the Palestine Action people die of hunger strike it will be very serious for them. They seem to have gone out of their way to alienate people. Seeing Greta Thunburg arrested just makes them look ridiculous. People have been very patient with Starmer but I think it's now time to get themselves a LABOUR leader. I'd go with Streeting. As much to wash away the detritus that's attached to them as anything else
Leaving aside the merits of the PA proscription, is Greta Thunberg still flavour of the month? I don't seem to stumble upon news about her very much anymore, though I get the impression she has predominantly transitioned from environmental causes to the palestinian cause, so it feels like she needs to get arrested to get attention, which makes it less compelling than, say, reports than 100 grannies have been arrested for doign the same.
Greta has I think become addicted to the fact of being Greta, and become more of a self-caricature in the process. It’s a shame, but she was always too far down the sanctimonious spectrum.
Franchising yourself into multiple issues is a mistake too. The examplar of a clearly defined, focused environmental campaigner who has stuck neatly to an easily digestible script is Feargal Sharkey. That’s how to do it.
I hope we deport her and give her a lifetime ban from re-entering the UK as we would with other terrorist supporters. No need for her to sit in jail.
deport this, deport that, you got a veritable obsession
Deport the bitter academics who put off women from having babies, surely?
Disappointed to see Labour water down inheritance tax plan. It gains them no votes and loses them valuable tax revenue.
They have actually saved a few family farms though should have gone further and scrapped the family farm amd family business tax completely. If Reeves has made some welfare cuts and not caved to Labour backbenchers and scrapped the 2 child benefit cap she wouldn't have needed extra tax revenue
I sometimes wonder if the fact I have zero chance of inheriting any assets affects my ability to get very worked up about the principle of inheritance taxation.
I think it is more a "feels" thing. I'll probably inherit a significant amount (to a normal person (and myself...), perhaps crumbs to some of the pb elite)), and think it weird that it would be taxed less strictly than me working hard.
Maybe if it was from a family business rather than well paid professional jobs I might think differently as that would create more attachment between the money, bequestors and the future so I can see where the farmers are coming from, but ultimately we are skint, and someone has to be taxed more and very few of the candidates for that will like it either.
Simple fix to IHT. Cut it in half to 20% like most of our peers, and people will, if not gladly pay it, then not bother actively to avoid it. I strongly suspect IHT is a laffer-affected tax.
That would work for me. I would have paid 20%. I refuse to pay 40%, so charity it is.
To society giving 40% to charity is better than giving 20% to government. Not because charity is better than government, but because 40% is better than 20%.
It is 100% vs 20%, of course. It does depend what you mean by 'society', but I'd better not open that can of worms.
I wonder what would happen if instead of paying tax people were allowed to donate to a cause of their choice.
Would anyone give their money for an aircraft carrier? A missile for Ukraine? The PM's expenses? Mr Smith's pension?
That doesn't quite work for practical reasons, but what could work is giving people the option to allocate the last 5% of their tax to a particular government department or project.
The Thunberg arrest will be interesting. The police have arrested over 2,500 people so far and haven't secured a single conviction. Whatever you think of PA, the Terrorism Act, or these individuals more generally, I think it's alarming that the state can detain that many people and not actually bother to apply the law and justify it, particularly in such a sensitive area of politics , free speech and protest. The Bob Vylan arrest is a case in point.
Edit: her poster was in support of the people who had been arrested, not PA specifically. Hmmm.
I sometimes wonder if the fact I have zero chance of inheriting any assets affects my ability to get very worked up about the principle of inheritance taxation.
I think it is more a "feels" thing. I'll probably inherit a significant amount (to a normal person (and myself...), perhaps crumbs to some of the pb elite)), and think it weird that it would be taxed less strictly than me working hard.
Maybe if it was from a family business rather than well paid professional jobs I might think differently as that would create more attachment between the money, bequestors and the future so I can see where the farmers are coming from, but ultimately we are skint, and someone has to be taxed more and very few of the candidates for that will like it either.
I visited my mother recently, and it seems like she's lost all her money on this McCarthy & Stone leasehold retirement flat that she moved into a while ago, and she feels quite bitter about it.
One of the other residents left their flat to the Salvation Army, and it sounds like they're going to struggle not to lose money on the bequest.
People really like to pass money onto their kids once they don't need it anymore. It is a strong emotional thing.
Retirement flats can be very complicated. I would not be the Sally Army in those circs, but they should know what they are doing.
Based on this polling I wouldn’t be surprised the Tories ahead of Reform at some point in quarter one of 2026, if present trends hold, not consistently but on an outlier basis.
Word missing there?
On the substantive point, am I right in thinking as well that Farage is at the same time the oldest and the least experienced of the four major party leaders? He's not likely to be improving now as he ages and he's never been in cabinet.
No, Starmer is about 18 months older than Farage.
Blair and Cameron had never been in government before they became PM.
Fair enough on the first point.
Cameron and Blair had both been Leaders of the Opposition. Farage hasn't even done that.
Indeed he quite often skives off Parliament. I think he finds it boring because its not all about him.
This has recently set me wondering if Nigel Farage might bail soon. He is rarely in the Commons or in Clacton, and does not even seem to have much to say about Streeting or Lammy advocating customs unions with the EU, an issue you'd think would be mother's milk to him. Is he still interested in politics? (That said, maybe he is just under the weather as there are some nasty bugs doing the rounds.)
I wonder if the 'I can't really remember what happened 50 years ago but I definitely did not say those racist and antisemitic things' row has put his gas at a peep. The one time I saw Farage address the issue directly he seemed uncharacteristically shifty and evasive.
28 witnesses, including Jewish students, and written communications amongst teachers, is quite a lot to dismiss as "lies, all lies". Tice is that crass imo; Farage is not.
It's also quite awkward with respect to Farage's position on Israel, and the portrayal of Muslims as The Mortal Enemy of Western Civilisation.
Witnesses at the time (as in recording in diaries, letters etc) or witnesses ‘recalling’ events of 50 years ago. Very big difference, as all good historians know.
28 witnesses seems pretty corroborative to me. The man’s a bully, and a spiv, and has been so since his earliest years.
I haven’t cared enough to look at what he did at school in detail, but isn’t prancing around with your arm in the air attention seeking rather than bullying?
Farage is deeply unpleasant man who is probably a racist. Spending 5 minutes reading a guardian article to confirm those views isn’t a good use of my time
So why did you venture in with your first comment about it being attention seeking not bullying then?
Because it was an interesting discussion.
Not all of the conversations on here are entirely fact based and it’s a better board for it
Ok but hang on.
Post 1: You counter the 'bully' allegations with "wasn't it just attention seeking?"
Post2: You say you don't care enough to read the details to see if it was indeed just attention seeking.
Post3: Whilst still not caring to check if it was just attention seeking you say it's nevertheless interesting.
Really rather odd. But, look, you're not in the dock, and it is Christmas, so that's probably enough on the matter. I note your overall 'deeply unpleasant and probably a racist' assessment of the bloke we're talking about. Big tick for that.
Not at all. Very easy to reconcile.
I’m aware he behaved badly at school but haven’t checked into details. The only thing that has stuck in my mind is him walking around making nazi salutes. Which to my mind is more childishly trying to shock people/seek attention. But it may be he did other stuff which was more targeted at specific individuals (which for me is the threshold of bullying).
But whether he’s a spiv and a bully or a spiv and an attention seeker won’t materially change how I view him in the round, so would rather do more uplifting things with my time
Ok, so just a snippet to give you a flavour.
He would torment a particular Jewish pupil by continually leaning in close and saying, "should have gassed you all".
With gas enunciated as "gassssssss" to mimic the sound of it hissing into the chambers at the death camps.
A pedant notes that the most common Nazi gas chambers used Prussia acid crystals that produce cyanide when moist, so no gas would have been hissing into the chamber. I don’t expect Farage would have known that. But then I’m probably being disingenuous.
No that's good knowledge. No dark inference taken from your supplying it.
Had I fallen victim to the Holocaust, I’d far rather have died in the mass shooting phase, than the gassing phase. Death by gas is prolonged and agonising.
No good options. Not sure off being made to strip off, then lie down on a pile of corpses in a ditch waiting for your bullet is better or worse.
The more I read, the more horrifying it is, especially now I have a toddler. The accounts of the deaths of children is particularly harrowing. And so many of the killers believed they were doing a tough but necessary job. That’s brainwashing and hatred for you.
Can we talk about reform in the same bracket?
What continues to ‘puzzle’ me is why great and great-great nephews and nieces of those who died are in the IDF and attacking the residents of the West Bank. (May be wrong about the generations)
I sometimes wonder if the fact I have zero chance of inheriting any assets affects my ability to get very worked up about the principle of inheritance taxation.
I think it is more a "feels" thing. I'll probably inherit a significant amount (to a normal person (and myself...), perhaps crumbs to some of the pb elite)), and think it weird that it would be taxed less strictly than me working hard.
Maybe if it was from a family business rather than well paid professional jobs I might think differently as that would create more attachment between the money, bequestors and the future so I can see where the farmers are coming from, but ultimately we are skint, and someone has to be taxed more and very few of the candidates for that will like it either.
I visited my mother recently, and it seems like she's lost all her money on this McCarthy & Stone leasehold retirement flat that she moved into a while ago, and she feels quite bitter about it.
One of the other residents left their flat to the Salvation Army, and it sounds like they're going to struggle not to lose money on the bequest.
People really like to pass money onto their kids once they don't need it anymore. It is a strong emotional thing.
Why is there low demand on resale for those retirement flats? Feels like it should have been a growth market over the last couple of decades such that even with charges leaseholders shouldn't come out too badly.
I sometimes wonder if the fact I have zero chance of inheriting any assets affects my ability to get very worked up about the principle of inheritance taxation.
I think it is more a "feels" thing. I'll probably inherit a significant amount (to a normal person (and myself...), perhaps crumbs to some of the pb elite)), and think it weird that it would be taxed less strictly than me working hard.
Maybe if it was from a family business rather than well paid professional jobs I might think differently as that would create more attachment between the money, bequestors and the future so I can see where the farmers are coming from, but ultimately we are skint, and someone has to be taxed more and very few of the candidates for that will like it either.
Simple fix to IHT. Cut it in half to 20% like most of our peers, and people will, if not gladly pay it, then not bother actively to avoid it. I strongly suspect IHT is a laffer-affected tax.
That would work for me. I would have paid 20%. I refuse to pay 40%, so charity it is.
To society giving 40% to charity is better than giving 20% to government. Not because charity is better than government, but because 40% is better than 20%.
It is 100% vs 20%, of course. It does depend what you mean by 'society', but I'd better not open that can of worms.
I wonder what would happen if instead of paying tax people were allowed to donate to a cause of their choice.
Would anyone give their money for an aircraft carrier? A missile for Ukraine? The PM's expenses? Mr Smith's pension?
That doesn't quite work for practical reasons, but what could work is giving people the option to allocate the last 5% of their tax to a particular government department or project.
I quite agree it wouldn't work, but it would be interesting to see.
The government have spent it's first year and a half looking for trouble. If one of the Palestine Action people die of hunger strike it will be very serious for them. They seem to have gone out of their way to alienate people. Seeing Greta Thunburg arrested just makes them look ridiculous. People have been very patient with Starmer but I think it's now time to get themselves a LABOUR leader. I'd go with Streeting. As much to wash away the detritus that's attached to them as anything else
Leaving aside the merits of the PA proscription, is Greta Thunberg still flavour of the month? I don't seem to stumble upon news about her very much anymore, though I get the impression she has predominantly transitioned from environmental causes to the palestinian cause, so it feels like she needs to get arrested to get attention, which makes it less compelling than, say, reports than 100 grannies have been arrested for doign the same.
Greta has I think become addicted to the fact of being Greta, and become more of a self-caricature in the process. It’s a shame, but she was always too far down the sanctimonious spectrum.
Franchising yourself into multiple issues is a mistake too. The examplar of a clearly defined, focused environmental campaigner who has stuck neatly to an easily digestible script is Feargal Sharkey. That’s how to do it.
I hope we deport her and give her a lifetime ban from re-entering the UK as we would with other terrorist supporters. No need for her to sit in jail.
deport this, deport that, you got a veritable obsession
Peak obsession is when those lads threaten to deport themselves to foreign climes because 'Britain is such a shithole' (I think that's pretty much a direct quote).
I sometimes wonder if the fact I have zero chance of inheriting any assets affects my ability to get very worked up about the principle of inheritance taxation.
I think it is more a "feels" thing. I'll probably inherit a significant amount (to a normal person (and myself...), perhaps crumbs to some of the pb elite)), and think it weird that it would be taxed less strictly than me working hard.
Maybe if it was from a family business rather than well paid professional jobs I might think differently as that would create more attachment between the money, bequestors and the future so I can see where the farmers are coming from, but ultimately we are skint, and someone has to be taxed more and very few of the candidates for that will like it either.
Simple fix to IHT. Cut it in half to 20% like most of our peers, and people will, if not gladly pay it, then not bother actively to avoid it. I strongly suspect IHT is a laffer-affected tax.
That would work for me. I would have paid 20%. I refuse to pay 40%, so charity it is.
To society giving 40% to charity is better than giving 20% to government. Not because charity is better than government, but because 40% is better than 20%.
It is 100% vs 20%, of course. It does depend what you mean by 'society', but I'd better not open that can of worms.
I wonder what would happen if instead of paying tax people were allowed to donate to a cause of their choice.
Would anyone give their money for an aircraft carrier? A missile for Ukraine? The PM's expenses? Mr Smith's pension?
That doesn't quite work for practical reasons, but what could work is giving people the option to allocate the last 5% of their tax to a particular government department or project.
I suspect that what would happen is that the government would just end up reshuffling what it did with the 95% it did have control over in order to get everything funded. Plus you risk the "donkey sanctuary charity" problem that a few famous photogenic projects get wildly over funded beyond what they can usefully use.
I sometimes wonder if the fact I have zero chance of inheriting any assets affects my ability to get very worked up about the principle of inheritance taxation.
I think it is more a "feels" thing. I'll probably inherit a significant amount (to a normal person (and myself...), perhaps crumbs to some of the pb elite)), and think it weird that it would be taxed less strictly than me working hard.
Maybe if it was from a family business rather than well paid professional jobs I might think differently as that would create more attachment between the money, bequestors and the future so I can see where the farmers are coming from, but ultimately we are skint, and someone has to be taxed more and very few of the candidates for that will like it either.
Simple fix to IHT. Cut it in half to 20% like most of our peers, and people will, if not gladly pay it, then not bother actively to avoid it. I strongly suspect IHT is a laffer-affected tax.
That would work for me. I would have paid 20%. I refuse to pay 40%, so charity it is.
To society giving 40% to charity is better than giving 20% to government. Not because charity is better than government, but because 40% is better than 20%.
It is 100% vs 20%, of course. It does depend what you mean by 'society', but I'd better not open that can of worms.
I wonder what would happen if instead of paying tax people were allowed to donate to a cause of their choice.
Would anyone give their money for an aircraft carrier? A missile for Ukraine? The PM's expenses? Mr Smith's pension?
That doesn't quite work for practical reasons, but what could work is giving people the option to allocate the last 5% of their tax to a particular government department or project.
I suspect that what would happen is that the government would just end up reshuffling what it did with the 95% it did have control over in order to get everything funded. Plus you risk the "donkey sanctuary charity" problem that a few famous photogenic projects get wildly over funded beyond what they can usefully use.
Yes, the allocations would probably have to be limited to cabinet department level, perhaps with exceptions for something the scale of HS2.
Based on this polling I wouldn’t be surprised the Tories ahead of Reform at some point in quarter one of 2026, if present trends hold, not consistently but on an outlier basis.
Word missing there?
On the substantive point, am I right in thinking as well that Farage is at the same time the oldest and the least experienced of the four major party leaders? He's not likely to be improving now as he ages and he's never been in cabinet.
No, Starmer is about 18 months older than Farage.
Blair and Cameron had never been in government before they became PM.
Fair enough on the first point.
Cameron and Blair had both been Leaders of the Opposition. Farage hasn't even done that.
Indeed he quite often skives off Parliament. I think he finds it boring because its not all about him.
This has recently set me wondering if Nigel Farage might bail soon. He is rarely in the Commons or in Clacton, and does not even seem to have much to say about Streeting or Lammy advocating customs unions with the EU, an issue you'd think would be mother's milk to him. Is he still interested in politics? (That said, maybe he is just under the weather as there are some nasty bugs doing the rounds.)
I wonder if the 'I can't really remember what happened 50 years ago but I definitely did not say those racist and antisemitic things' row has put his gas at a peep. The one time I saw Farage address the issue directly he seemed uncharacteristically shifty and evasive.
28 witnesses, including Jewish students, and written communications amongst teachers, is quite a lot to dismiss as "lies, all lies". Tice is that crass imo; Farage is not.
It's also quite awkward with respect to Farage's position on Israel, and the portrayal of Muslims as The Mortal Enemy of Western Civilisation.
Witnesses at the time (as in recording in diaries, letters etc) or witnesses ‘recalling’ events of 50 years ago. Very big difference, as all good historians know.
28 witnesses seems pretty corroborative to me. The man’s a bully, and a spiv, and has been so since his earliest years.
I haven’t cared enough to look at what he did at school in detail, but isn’t prancing around with your arm in the air attention seeking rather than bullying?
Farage is deeply unpleasant man who is probably a racist. Spending 5 minutes reading a guardian article to confirm those views isn’t a good use of my time
So why did you venture in with your first comment about it being attention seeking not bullying then?
Because it was an interesting discussion.
Not all of the conversations on here are entirely fact based and it’s a better board for it
Ok but hang on.
Post 1: You counter the 'bully' allegations with "wasn't it just attention seeking?"
Post2: You say you don't care enough to read the details to see if it was indeed just attention seeking.
Post3: Whilst still not caring to check if it was just attention seeking you say it's nevertheless interesting.
Really rather odd. But, look, you're not in the dock, and it is Christmas, so that's probably enough on the matter. I note your overall 'deeply unpleasant and probably a racist' assessment of the bloke we're talking about. Big tick for that.
Not at all. Very easy to reconcile.
I’m aware he behaved badly at school but haven’t checked into details. The only thing that has stuck in my mind is him walking around making nazi salutes. Which to my mind is more childishly trying to shock people/seek attention. But it may be he did other stuff which was more targeted at specific individuals (which for me is the threshold of bullying).
But whether he’s a spiv and a bully or a spiv and an attention seeker won’t materially change how I view him in the round, so would rather do more uplifting things with my time
Ok, so just a snippet to give you a flavour.
He would torment a particular Jewish pupil by continually leaning in close and saying, "should have gassed you all".
With gas enunciated as "gassssssss" to mimic the sound of it hissing into the chambers at the death camps.
A pedant notes that the most common Nazi gas chambers used Prussia acid crystals that produce cyanide when moist, so no gas would have been hissing into the chamber. I don’t expect Farage would have known that. But then I’m probably being disingenuous.
No that's good knowledge. No dark inference taken from your supplying it.
Had I fallen victim to the Holocaust, I’d far rather have died in the mass shooting phase, than the gassing phase. Death by gas is prolonged and agonising.
No good options. Not sure off being made to strip off, then lie down on a pile of corpses in a ditch waiting for your bullet is better or worse.
The more I read, the more horrifying it is, especially now I have a toddler. The accounts of the deaths of children is particularly harrowing. And so many of the killers believed they were doing a tough but necessary job. That’s brainwashing and hatred for you.
Can we talk about reform in the same bracket?
What continues to ‘puzzle’ me is why great and great-great nephews and nieces of those who died are in the IDF and attacking the residents of the West Bank. (May be wrong about the generations)
I don’t find that in the least bit surprising. People who have been on the receiving end of injustice will often conclude that you’re either giving the beating, or taking it.
I sometimes wonder if the fact I have zero chance of inheriting any assets affects my ability to get very worked up about the principle of inheritance taxation.
I think it is more a "feels" thing. I'll probably inherit a significant amount (to a normal person (and myself...), perhaps crumbs to some of the pb elite)), and think it weird that it would be taxed less strictly than me working hard.
Maybe if it was from a family business rather than well paid professional jobs I might think differently as that would create more attachment between the money, bequestors and the future so I can see where the farmers are coming from, but ultimately we are skint, and someone has to be taxed more and very few of the candidates for that will like it either.
I visited my mother recently, and it seems like she's lost all her money on this McCarthy & Stone leasehold retirement flat that she moved into a while ago, and she feels quite bitter about it.
One of the other residents left their flat to the Salvation Army, and it sounds like they're going to struggle not to lose money on the bequest.
People really like to pass money onto their kids once they don't need it anymore. It is a strong emotional thing.
Why is there low demand on resale for those retirement flats? Feels like it should have been a growth market over the last couple of decades such that even with charges leaseholders shouldn't come out too badly.
I think it's similar to Park Homes or Static Holiday Caravans, or back in the day Time Shares. There can be quite abusive management practices, around service charges and resale especially. There are also parallels to some of the problems with newbuild leasehold.
McCarthy and Stone have come in for significant criticism. It will partly be about *them* because they have a large market share.
My children will be lucky sods. Though everything I spend, I mentally deduct 40% IHT they won't have to pay. So everything seems very cheap. 40% discount. Hence my holiday in Martinique followed by a skiing holiday in the Dolomites. My kids encourage me.
This site seems to be fairly well-off, male, centre-left socially liberal Boomers these days.
I'm a boomer, so one out of six. Politically, I don't know where I fit any longer.
Based on this polling I wouldn’t be surprised the Tories ahead of Reform at some point in quarter one of 2026, if present trends hold, not consistently but on an outlier basis.
Word missing there?
On the substantive point, am I right in thinking as well that Farage is at the same time the oldest and the least experienced of the four major party leaders? He's not likely to be improving now as he ages and he's never been in cabinet.
He has considerable political experience, but very little parliamentary experience. The latter is not that much of a barrier anymore, he will have had 4-5 years of it by the time of the next election which is not that far off several modern PMs, though the odds woudl also be that he has extremely few MPs in his ranks with much parliamentary let alone governmental experience, which may be a more significant factor.
He has lots of Parliamentary experience. The European Parliament that is. Plus he was leader of the EFDD political group in the Parliament https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe_of_Freedom_and_Direct_Democracy . I don't like him (obvs) but he is familiar with parliamentary procedure.
I doubt he'll be touting his European Parliament experience. For several reasons, two of which are Nathan Gill and David Coburn.
Based on this polling I wouldn’t be surprised the Tories ahead of Reform at some point in quarter one of 2026, if present trends hold, not consistently but on an outlier basis.
Word missing there?
On the substantive point, am I right in thinking as well that Farage is at the same time the oldest and the least experienced of the four major party leaders? He's not likely to be improving now as he ages and he's never been in cabinet.
He has considerable political experience, but very little parliamentary experience. The latter is not that much of a barrier anymore, he will have had 4-5 years of it by the time of the next election which is not that far off several modern PMs, though the odds woudl also be that he has extremely few MPs in his ranks with much parliamentary let alone governmental experience, which may be a more significant factor.
He has lots of Parliamentary experience. The European Parliament that is. Plus he was leader of the EFDD political group in the Parliament https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe_of_Freedom_and_Direct_Democracy . I don't like him (obvs) but he is familiar with parliamentary procedure.
I doubt he'll be touting his European Parliament experience. For several reasons, two of which are Nathan Gill and David Coburn.
He famously was idle apart from making expense claims, attending only one fisheries committee for example.
Beeing a bigotted idle trougher may not be the best preparation for government.
I sometimes wonder if the fact I have zero chance of inheriting any assets affects my ability to get very worked up about the principle of inheritance taxation.
I think it is more a "feels" thing. I'll probably inherit a significant amount (to a normal person (and myself...), perhaps crumbs to some of the pb elite)), and think it weird that it would be taxed less strictly than me working hard.
Maybe if it was from a family business rather than well paid professional jobs I might think differently as that would create more attachment between the money, bequestors and the future so I can see where the farmers are coming from, but ultimately we are skint, and someone has to be taxed more and very few of the candidates for that will like it either.
I think that many of our freehold family farms only came into existence due to death duties on large aristocratic estates, with land sold to tenant farmers to pay the tax. At the end of enclosures there were a lot of tenant farmers, a lot of very large landholdings and a relatively small number of small freeholders.
The history of landholding in this country is not one of freehold family farms, it is mostly of turning peasants with traditional rights into a landless working class, and consolidating land ownership amongst the aristocracy. It was only Death Duties (and more recently IHT) that had reversed things..
Conversely, I would say that life as a peasant was (for the majority), always pretty rough, and when people got the opportunity to obtain better-paid work in cities, and the new industrial towns, they availed themselves of it.
A typical village had a Big Man, and several better off peasants, but the large majority were always dependent on the former, whether or not they owned their small holdings.
I am not particularly agitating for reparations from the landholders in compensation for the loss of traditional lands in the Highland Clearances and the equivalent English Enclosures, but it would be nice if they acknowledged how they came by their lands. It was theft, albeit historic theft.
YouGov had a Reform 25% in late November. There's a clear sign of a small Tory recovery mirrored by Reform declining in the opinion poll average graph on Wikipedia.
The unknown is whether this trend will be reinforced by campaigning for the May elections, or if that will interrupt it.
Also, given the personal ambitions of many of those involved, what are the chances Kemi gets ditched after losing lots of councillors in May anyway?
Barring immense change during the next few months, the story of election night is almost written already, as significant Reform and Green gains are surely nailed on. The competition is for who gets seen as the biggest loser, and there Labour already has a very good head start.
Part of the question will be timing. The first results often create the story.
I think Wales is still in doubt though. If Reform do come further off the boil then the big story might be a Plaid victory in Wales, rather than Reform doing very well there.
Sunderland voting in a Reform council will be the first news story. Then will come some London boroughs.
Picking up on Wales, and the conversation yesterday, I see that on 20mh default speed limits in towns we have:
- Con current policy is to reverse, despite their noisy demands back in 2020/21 that timid Labour were not implementing it quicky enough. - Ref UK committed to reverse. - Evidence of the benefits is firming up in reduced casualties, safety and reduced insurance premiums, with annother year of data due before the Senedd elections next May.
One to watch.
(Checking, the position in England is that 20mph limits now cover areas where just under 20 million people live. TBH that is a lot higher than I thought it was.) -
I had the opportunity recently to spend at least half an hour in total driving through 20mph speed limits in Wales and so, in true PB.com fashion, I am now an expert.
What surprised me most, given the vitriol in online discussions about them, is how well-observed they were. My experience in the past of driving through 20mph speed limits in England and Scotland is that a lot of drivers will speed past anyone obeying the speed limit.
That was exactly my experience of driving in Wales soon after the limit was introduced. I have the impression that the vitriol has died down now, and some may even be acknowledging that lives have been saved and things are generally pleasanter but I don't follow Welsh politics much so I wouldn't really know if the hostility to Labour on this issue has abated at all.
I am a convert to the 20, after being opposed to it in the start. The roads in towns are so much safer. You can also pull out easily from side roads.
Most newer cars also have a limiter which means you don't have to keep monitoring your speed.
I was chatting to a chap from South Wales the other week. He says he loves driving at exactly 20 mph and watching the queue build up behind him. And if they get too close, he'll slow to 18...
There are a few who do this, but it in itself is dangerous causing anger and tailgating, even unsafe overtaking
The speed in these 20mph zones is not enforced until you reach 27mph
As far as the present position is, most councils are or have reviewed and reinstated some of the 30mph which have generally been accepted
Public Service announcement!
That is patently untrue. The 27mph prosecution trigger is a myth.
I hate the 20mph default, it is not easy to adhere to without the limiter deployed, but if it has saved the life of just one child (and the stats are compelling) it is worth its weight in Go Safe fines.
Team Nigel and the Tories are indulging in a Labour style hostage to fortune culture for demanding the return to a default 30mph limit. If there was any non-right wing media left they would be all over the change of speed limit on news of the first avoidable fatality.
You own article confirms the 10% plus 4 remains the trigger ie 26mph with no plans to change
I am content with the reviews and changes and it shouldn't be an issue going forward
You said it was enforced at 27 though !
It is commonly expected 20 - 26 is the margin
For clarification I drive to town on former 30mph roads and certainly a speed between 24 and 26 seems quite the norm
I do believe many roads at 20mph are correct, especially round schools and hospitals where 26mph is too high
Hang on, you've just said that it's correct to drive at 25/6mph in 20 mph limits. But the next moment you say that it's Ok to have 20mph limits around schools etc, where of course people will drive at 25/6 ... that's an argument for having 15mph limits instead [edit] around the schools..
No - The problem relates to previous 30mph zones which are the ones Go Safe monitor and the 26mph rule applies
The limits around schools and hospitals already existed
The 26mph trigger no longer applies. Prosecution is for 10% plus 2mph.
Before anyone takes this advice seriously, the police can and do prosecute for less in some parts of the country. It's just a guidance not some hard rule - I don't think it's used in Scotland where it might be just 10%. IIRC Wales is actually stricter, or used to be.
In Wales it is definitely 10% plus 2 for prosecution. I know this because I won a place on one of the Go Safe Partnership's very prestigious courses.
YouGov had a Reform 25% in late November. There's a clear sign of a small Tory recovery mirrored by Reform declining in the opinion poll average graph on Wikipedia.
The unknown is whether this trend will be reinforced by campaigning for the May elections, or if that will interrupt it.
Also, given the personal ambitions of many of those involved, what are the chances Kemi gets ditched after losing lots of councillors in May anyway?
Barring immense change during the next few months, the story of election night is almost written already, as significant Reform and Green gains are surely nailed on. The competition is for who gets seen as the biggest loser, and there Labour already has a very good head start.
Part of the question will be timing. The first results often create the story.
I think Wales is still in doubt though. If Reform do come further off the boil then the big story might be a Plaid victory in Wales, rather than Reform doing very well there.
Sunderland voting in a Reform council will be the first news story. Then will come some London boroughs.
Picking up on Wales, and the conversation yesterday, I see that on 20mh default speed limits in towns we have:
- Con current policy is to reverse, despite their noisy demands back in 2020/21 that timid Labour were not implementing it quicky enough. - Ref UK committed to reverse. - Evidence of the benefits is firming up in reduced casualties, safety and reduced insurance premiums, with annother year of data due before the Senedd elections next May.
One to watch.
(Checking, the position in England is that 20mph limits now cover areas where just under 20 million people live. TBH that is a lot higher than I thought it was.) -
I had the opportunity recently to spend at least half an hour in total driving through 20mph speed limits in Wales and so, in true PB.com fashion, I am now an expert.
What surprised me most, given the vitriol in online discussions about them, is how well-observed they were. My experience in the past of driving through 20mph speed limits in England and Scotland is that a lot of drivers will speed past anyone obeying the speed limit.
That was exactly my experience of driving in Wales soon after the limit was introduced. I have the impression that the vitriol has died down now, and some may even be acknowledging that lives have been saved and things are generally pleasanter but I don't follow Welsh politics much so I wouldn't really know if the hostility to Labour on this issue has abated at all.
I am a convert to the 20, after being opposed to it in the start. The roads in towns are so much safer. You can also pull out easily from side roads.
Most newer cars also have a limiter which means you don't have to keep monitoring your speed.
I was chatting to a chap from South Wales the other week. He says he loves driving at exactly 20 mph and watching the queue build up behind him. And if they get too close, he'll slow to 18...
There are a few who do this, but it in itself is dangerous causing anger and tailgating, even unsafe overtaking
The speed in these 20mph zones is not enforced until you reach 27mph
As far as the present position is, most councils are or have reviewed and reinstated some of the 30mph which have generally been accepted
Public Service announcement!
That is patently untrue. The 27mph prosecution trigger is a myth.
I hate the 20mph default, it is not easy to adhere to without the limiter deployed, but if it has saved the life of just one child (and the stats are compelling) it is worth its weight in Go Safe fines.
Team Nigel and the Tories are indulging in a Labour style hostage to fortune culture for demanding the return to a default 30mph limit. If there was any non-right wing media left they would be all over the change of speed limit on news of the first avoidable fatality.
You own article confirms the 10% plus 4 remains the trigger ie 26mph with no plans to change
I am content with the reviews and changes and it shouldn't be an issue going forward
You said it was enforced at 27 though !
It is commonly expected 20 - 26 is the margin
For clarification I drive to town on former 30mph roads and certainly a speed between 24 and 26 seems quite the norm
I do believe many roads at 20mph are correct, especially round schools and hospitals where 26mph is too high
Hang on, you've just said that it's correct to drive at 25/6mph in 20 mph limits. But the next moment you say that it's Ok to have 20mph limits around schools etc, where of course people will drive at 25/6 ... that's an argument for having 15mph limits instead [edit] around the schools..
No - The problem relates to previous 30mph zones which are the ones Go Safe monitor and the 26mph rule applies
The limits around schools and hospitals already existed
The 26mph trigger no longer applies. Prosecution is for 10% plus 2mph.
Before anyone takes this advice seriously, the police can and do prosecute for less in some parts of the country. It's just a guidance not some hard rule - I don't think it's used in Scotland where it might be just 10%. IIRC Wales is actually stricter, or used to be.
In Wales it is definitely 10% plus 2 for prosecution. I know this because I won a place on one of the Go Safe Partnership's very prestigious courses.
A risky tactic as speedometers can be innaccurate, hence these margins.
This is the best Christmas present me, my family and my friends could have had. I can now safely sleep at night, that is how bad it has been. Especially for those older than me with serious health issues. Bad news for agricultural valuers of course who would have made a fortune over the arguing the toss over the values of farms. It takes my estate out of the danger zone and so we can now look forwards to building the shed which we have needed for many years.
I had expected this to become a jockeying point when the new Labour leader was selected or else it to be put off for a year, and a year and a year.
They pointed the shotgun at the whole farming industry. We stood up to them and they have blinked. But we won't forget, no we won't forget ...
That is the whole point
The farmers will not forgive or vote labour because of this
They also voted en masse for Brexit and then realised they had screwed themselves. They are the ultimate selfish opportunists who believe the world owes them a living. Of course they won't vote labour.
British farmers do appear to be cretinous, as a class. Brexit is exhibit 1.
However, if you care about land use and food quality, then you need to care about farmers.
Reeves’s problem is she actively hates much of the country, including farmers.
The amount of political capital burnt in this thing is incredible. Ultimately, the correct decision, tax should be targeted at investors and companies buying land. The vast majority of farm estates will now be exempt, providing they make use of the £5m spouse allowance
The people benefiting from this change are those sitting on a highly tax efficient asset worth many millions who quite sincerely and genuinely want to keep it that way and don't see why they should pay the same tax as say someone running a productive business.
We have to concede an extremely effective lobbying exercise by wealthy landowners but we don't really need to agree with the principle of it. It's far more egregious than WFA for example.
Those who are genuinely worried about family farming would be far better off looking at *incomes* - for instance, supermarket buying practices - and food security.
But this lobbying has been all about protecting capital investment.
It's like houses - those who have houses are treated far better than those without when it comes to IHT. No wonder the values are distorted.
IHT is theft!
Property is theft comrade.
Your family member dies, you're bereaved, and you're left with a massive bill to Haitch-MRC - how does that work?
A family member dies and you're left a massive unearned pot of gold. How is that fair?
Because your family member worked hard all their life and should be allowed to dispose of their savings as they see fit?
Just be grateful and pay the tax.
Let’s say someone has a big success and gets paid a £1m bonus on April 1. They pay income tax on it under PAYE.
They then die on April 8.
And you think the government should have the right to double dip on that income simply because the individual concerned has died?
Yes. The person who has died obviously doesn't care. And the person who inherits is a lucky sod.
The fundamental difference is that I believe people own their assets. You clearly believe that they have them on suffrance from the government
Where have you been living? The latter is the *entire* basis of the UK under His Maj. Bloody Scots Law still talks of taking land by seisin.
Comments
Though Mrs C and I don't like the word 'kids'. We raised three children, not baby goats.
Franchising yourself into multiple issues is a mistake too. The examplar of a clearly defined, focused environmental campaigner who has stuck neatly to an easily digestible script is Feargal Sharkey. That’s how to do it.
Similarly he has experience of leading a party, but leading MPs is not directly comparable either, as several political leaders have discovered - and when people like Corbyn and Boris attempted to play up their support beyond parliament and ignore/belittle the role of their MPs, it did not go well for them (Corbyn in fairness faced hostile MPs from the start), so that will be a new challenge for PM Nigel as well.
For balance (see Greta) it’s also true that the lefty perma-campaign mind has a hard time understanding that the laws of thermodynamics don’t have a moral compass.
This is why the world needs centrist dads.
Meanwhile the earth continues to warm in a monotonic way, pretty much precisely as modelled.
The other thing is the US confusingly quotes GDP growth stats on an annualised basis. So “growing at 4.3% in q4” means it grew by about 1% in the quarter, in ONS language.
Palestine is often an example, as with the new Unison head saying she will defend the interests of the working class, and that that 'requires' support the 'freedom struggle' of the Palestinian people. Now, I don't see any issue with people supporting the working class and the people of Palestine, many do just that, but I really don't see how one 'requires' the other.
* people can broaden their areas of focus of course, but I think the risk there is becoming just another politician, elected or otherwise. Many might have presumed various political opinions to Greta when she was primarily an environmental campaigner, but remove any ambiguity at all and wlill she even be listened to on that subject anymore?
Maybe if it was from a family business rather than well paid professional jobs I might think differently as that would create more attachment between the money, bequestors and the future so I can see where the farmers are coming from, but ultimately we are skint, and someone has to be taxed more and very few of the candidates for that will like it either.
One year into Syria’s political transition, this second round of ETANA’s public opinion survey reveals a transition that remains fragile and unevenly legitimised. Perceptions of safety, freedoms, women’s rights, services and economic management continue to divide sharply along regional, sectarian and educational lines...
At the political level, the survey shows that input legitimacy is anchored more in the person of President Al-Sharaa than in the institutions meant to carry the transition forward. Trust in transparency, in the government’s decision-making processes, and representation, including by the new parliament, is limited and highly uneven. Approval of Al-Sharaa’s performance is significantly higher.
https://etanasyria.org/survey-results-public-opinion-in-transitional-syria-one-year-into-the-transition/
A obvious political transaction to me is to replace IHT with a ongoing asset tax - particularly on housing. Or perhaps some sort of link to social care insurance.
One thing successive US administrations have got right is CT policy.
So are you suggesting that Starmer and Reeves should rsmp up borrowing?
I guess a 90% unavoidable rate would be like the Philosopher's Stone, and stop people dying. You'd have people on life support for decades, and mad court cases about cryogenics.
* What have we traditionally taxed?
* Does this tax seem to be mostly landing on people who the public thinks can afford to pay it?
* Are we having any excessive negative economic or other side effects?
* Is it something that's practically simple to tax (i.e. where the state can easily figure out the liability and extract the money)?
* Can we get general public consent for the idea of the tax?
"Fairness" and progressiveness matter for building consent and getting better outcomes, but sometimes practicality wins.
The quip about plucking the goose is getting at a fundamental reality, I think.
#hadenoughofexperts
The more I read, the more horrifying it is, especially now I have a toddler. The accounts of the deaths of children is particularly harrowing. And so many of the killers believed they were doing a tough but necessary job. That’s brainwashing and hatred for you.
Can we talk about reform in the same bracket?
How good a year do Britons say 2025 was for...
Themselves personally
Good: 36%
Average: 35%
Bad: 27%
The UK
Good: 6%
Average: 24%
Bad: 66%
https://bsky.app/profile/yougov.co.uk/post/3maobzgh3dk2g
Corporate tax rates are banded Zero for normal businesses (shops, marketing companies) and Law Firms. Regulated Finance companies pay 10% whilst larger retail (profits over £2m pa), Property income/development and utility companies 20%.
No charge over Bob Vylan IDF chants at Glastonbury
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y2vy9lv6go
The history of landholding in this country is not one of freehold family farms, it is mostly of turning peasants with traditional rights into a landless working class, and consolidating land ownership amongst the aristocracy. It was only Death Duties (and more recently IHT) that had reversed things..
On the one hand I've normally been a bit dismissive of single issue campaigners. There is more than one thing wrong with the world, and many issues affect each other. You also see different single issues often pitted against each other, as though they're in opposition, so it helped if advocates for change have a broader outlook.
That said, concentrating on a single issue has the benefit of focus and simplicity, and makes it easier to build a broad base of support. An advocate for action on climate change shouldn't particularly care if a potential ally is pro-Palestinian or pro-Zionist. Both sides of that argument can be on either side of the debate on ending usage of fossil fuels.
"The law locks up the man or woman
Who steals the goose from off the common,
But lets the greater felon loose
Who steals the common from the goose."
A typical village had a Big Man, and several better off peasants, but the large majority were always dependent on the former, whether or not they owned their small holdings.
I wonder what would happen if instead of paying tax people were allowed to donate to a cause of their choice.
Would anyone give their money for an aircraft carrier? A missile for Ukraine? The PM's expenses? Mr Smith's pension?
One of the other residents left their flat to the Salvation Army, and it sounds like they're going to struggle not to lose money on the bequest.
People really like to pass money onto their kids once they don't need it anymore. It is a strong emotional thing.
Balmoral was a bit late on the broadband
Edit: her poster was in support of the people who had been arrested, not PA specifically. Hmmm.
(May be wrong about the generations)
McCarthy and Stone have come in for significant criticism. It will partly be about *them* because they have a large market share.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/dec/20/epstein-files-appear-to-show-ex-prince-andrew-lying-on-laps-watched-by-ghislaine-maxwell?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
Beeing a bigotted idle trougher may not be the best preparation for government.