11 new "corrections" to the Peggie judgment seeking to correct "clerical mistakes, errors or omissions". Snuck out just before Christmas. After a previous "correction". It is actually shocking. None of these "corrections", which include adding the word "trans" before "female" or replacing "male" with "female" make any difference to the judgment or the reasoning of course. No sirree.
I presume it still ignores those parts of FWS which say the exact opposite of what Kemp has sought to draw from it. Dear oh dear oh dear.
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.
Think there must be more to it than that. M&S have good reviews generally unlike park home dealers, yes there are more charges than in a non retirement leasehold scenario but that should be obvious to all.
11 new "corrections" to the Peggie judgment seeking to correct "clerical mistakes, errors or omissions". Snuck out just before Christmas. After a previous "correction". It is actually shocking. None of these "corrections", which include adding the word "trans" before "female" or replacing "male" with "female" make any difference to the judgment or the reasoning of course. No sirree.
I presume it still ignores those parts of FWS which say the exact opposite of what Kemp has sought to draw from it. Dear oh dear oh dear.
I look forward to seeing a 15000 word piece from Wings Over Scotland about the changes.
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.
You could say the same about Matt Ridley. Economist who presided over the first bank run in over a century went on to popular science which morphed into climate change denialism.
A very odd bird indeed.
Greta is still a work in progress; Ridley is a fossil who has yet to admit it.
11 new "corrections" to the Peggie judgment seeking to correct "clerical mistakes, errors or omissions". Snuck out just before Christmas. After a previous "correction". It is actually shocking. None of these "corrections", which include adding the word "trans" before "female" or replacing "male" with "female" make any difference to the judgment or the reasoning of course. No sirree.
I presume it still ignores those parts of FWS which say the exact opposite of what Kemp has sought to draw from it. Dear oh dear oh dear.
But apparently making judges accountable is a step too far. When did we become a country that is unable to tell rogue judges to get fucked with their shit judgements and then remove them from the bench?
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.
Don't most speedos on cars overstate the speed by a few mph? Mine certainly does.
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?
Let's say the person doesn't die, but buys lots of stuff. Do you think the government should have the right to double dip on that income through VAT? Money goes around the economy and, each time round, it may get taxed.
When the individual dies, the money goes to their inheritors. They've not paid any tax on it before, yet suddenly they are receiving this income. So, is that double dipping, or an appropriate first dip?
And I say all this as someone who paid inheritance tax on one parent's estate (which puts them in the 4.6% of estates which do pay any inheritance tax; the vast majority don't), and is having to pay a fair whack of income tax on my inheritance from the other parent (because they were in the US and had set up a trust in a particular way).
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.
But we don't live and work just for ourselves. We live and work for our families. People with children sacrifice much (if necessary) for their wellbeing. Others do the same for other close relations or even friends.
Why should the State take what they have earned and which they wish to pass on to those they care about?
But that applies to income tax too.
And the answer is the same: because the State provides so much that allows us to earn and pass on to those we care about. And we have to pay for the State somehow.
What are we to make of Gail's opening ten of its London bakeries on Christmas Day?
Clearly, all the LD voters (the only ones who use Gail's according to some on here) need somewhere to avoid the family and the Christmas nonsense.
On an unrelated, the Alexandra in Wimbledon opens on Christmas Day providing a free Christmas lunch for those who are alone. It's a wonderful touch and I wish it happened more as it's all too easy to forget the many people for whom Christmas is a lonely purgatory.
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 ?
Because of the relationship between the state and the individual. If the state takes a percentage of existing assets then ultimately they own everything and individuals are reduced to being serfs.
If, however, they take a slice of value creation (“sharing the proceeds of growth”) then they can fund the necessary activities of the central body while individuals remain better off even after the tax is taken.
Our government works for us, and all its rights and powers derive from us. That principle must remain sacrosanct.
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.
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?
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”.
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.
Bona vacantia (ownerless property).
The Crown gets it if there are no inheritors, or claimants within 30 years. Hence Heir Hunters.
Or the .. er .. Duchy of Cornwall or Lancaster in relevant areas.
For the Duchy of Lancaster that is "The County Palatinate of Lancaster", which is Lancashire, a lot of Merseyside and Greater Manc, and chunks of Cheshire and Derbyshire. For Cornwall it is the whole of Cornwall and the Scilly Isles.
It's in my view quite a scam. The Duchy of Cornwall made £60m between 2013 and 2023 and are a bit backward on coming forward with how they spent it, which is supposed to be community/charitable but there are major questions. The two together made about £50m in 23/24, which says that number may be low.
Mark Felton made a video on Remembrance Day 2024 where he got quit cross about this happening to the estates of war dead. He's mainly right on this one. 8 minutes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmwsb9j4tWU
Firm reform is required imo. Presumably there's a 30 year backlog.
What are we to make of Gail's opening ten of its London bakeries on Christmas Day?
Clearly, all the LD voters (the only ones who use Gail's according to some on here) need somewhere to avoid the family and the Christmas nonsense.
On an unrelated, the Alexandra in Wimbledon opens on Christmas Day providing a free Christmas lunch for those who are alone. It's a wonderful touch and I wish it happened more as it's all too easy to forget the many people for whom Christmas is a lonely purgatory.
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.
A massive amount of that value is in tech firms that don’t employ a large number of people
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
Yes, of course it is performative. That is the point. It's a protest. Protests are performative. That's how protesting works.
11 new "corrections" to the Peggie judgment seeking to correct "clerical mistakes, errors or omissions". Snuck out just before Christmas. After a previous "correction". It is actually shocking. None of these "corrections", which include adding the word "trans" before "female" or replacing "male" with "female" make any difference to the judgment or the reasoning of course. No sirree.
I presume it still ignores those parts of FWS which say the exact opposite of what Kemp has sought to draw from it. Dear oh dear oh dear.
But apparently making judges accountable is a step too far. When did we become a country that is unable to tell rogue judges to get fucked with their shit judgements and then remove them from the bench?
You want Reform to be able to dismiss judges? No thanks.
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 truth is 2025 is setting more records for warmth in the UK and worldwide. The UK's warmth record set in 2022 is going to be broken and most people remember the summer of 2022 for those exceptional few days of heat when we broke 40c in London.
We know Ridley is a denier and to be fair some of the proponents of claimate change have done themselves no favours with some of their hyperbolic prognostications but a rapidly warming world (whether caused by human intervention or not) is going to cause a lot of problems.
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.
Recalled collective humiliation also plays its part. Analogous with the German national ignominy of 1918-19 is Israeli Jews’ shame over their grandparents walking meekly into cattle cars to Treblinka and Sobibor. Never again will it happen to us, but other people? Genocide schmemocide.
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 truth is 2025 is setting more records for warmth in the UK and worldwide. The UK's warmth record set in 2022 is going to be broken and most people remember the summer of 2022 for those exceptional few days of heat when we broke 40c in London.
We know Ridley is a denier and to be fair some of the proponents of claimate change have done themselves no favours with some of their hyperbolic prognostications but a rapidly warming world (whether caused by human intervention or not) is going to cause a lot of problems.
I'm more worried that scientists are deliberately downplaying the outputs of their models so as to appear more credible. Some of the tipping point stuff looks seriously nasty. Massive uncertainty, of course.
I'm going to suggest wrapping up inheritance tax in my list of 'taxes to scrap' along with stamp duty and council tax, and replace with an annual percentage tax based on property values. With bandings designed to broadly replace the current tax burden by different wealth brackets.
Inheritance tax is simply too easily avoided by the genuinely wealthy, doesn't apply to most people, so falls on people modestly over the threshold who don't bother employing tax planners.
This way people would pay their fair share on wealth through their lives, not a cliff edge that can be avoided.
And it would apply regardless of whether the business is held by a resident, limited company or an overseas company.
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.
You can decide what you want to campaign on, but why should you get to decide what Greta Thunberg campaigns on? That's her choice. I think Thunberg is in a better position to decide what she wants to do than any of us here.
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.
Don't most speedos on cars overstate the speed by a few mph? Mine certainly does.
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.
11 new "corrections" to the Peggie judgment seeking to correct "clerical mistakes, errors or omissions". Snuck out just before Christmas. After a previous "correction". It is actually shocking. None of these "corrections", which include adding the word "trans" before "female" or replacing "male" with "female" make any difference to the judgment or the reasoning of course. No sirree.
I presume it still ignores those parts of FWS which say the exact opposite of what Kemp has sought to draw from it. Dear oh dear oh dear.
But apparently making judges accountable is a step too far. When did we become a country that is unable to tell rogue judges to get fucked with their shit judgements and then remove them from the bench?
You want Reform to be able to dismiss judges? No thanks.
Kemp was pretty popular among gender-critical folks up until the final rulings. I wonder if he asked AI about his preliminary rulings too.
11 new "corrections" to the Peggie judgment seeking to correct "clerical mistakes, errors or omissions". Snuck out just before Christmas. After a previous "correction". It is actually shocking. None of these "corrections", which include adding the word "trans" before "female" or replacing "male" with "female" make any difference to the judgment or the reasoning of course. No sirree.
I presume it still ignores those parts of FWS which say the exact opposite of what Kemp has sought to draw from it. Dear oh dear oh dear.
But apparently making judges accountable is a step too far. When did we become a country that is unable to tell rogue judges to get fucked with their shit judgements and then remove them from the bench?
Several hundred years ago and for very good reasons. It is really important that Judges can, with impunity, criticise and hold to account what would in any normal relationship be their employers. Judicial independence is critical to a working democracy and the rule of law and arrant stupidity, bias and wrong headedness in an individual case cannot be allowed to undermine that principle. It is frustrating though. I am struggling to see any way forward with this mess other than to start again under a different Tribunal.
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 ?
Because of the relationship between the state and the individual. If the state takes a percentage of existing assets then ultimately they own everything and individuals are reduced to being serfs.
If, however, they take a slice of value creation (“sharing the proceeds of growth”) then they can fund the necessary activities of the central body while individuals remain better off even after the tax is taken.
Our government works for us, and all its rights and powers derive from us. That principle must remain sacrosanct.
Our government does work for us, and we have not voted in parties wanting to abolish inheritance tax... and so inheritance tax remains.
11 new "corrections" to the Peggie judgment seeking to correct "clerical mistakes, errors or omissions". Snuck out just before Christmas. After a previous "correction". It is actually shocking. None of these "corrections", which include adding the word "trans" before "female" or replacing "male" with "female" make any difference to the judgment or the reasoning of course. No sirree.
I presume it still ignores those parts of FWS which say the exact opposite of what Kemp has sought to draw from it. Dear oh dear oh dear.
Sounds like moving the goalposts to confound any appeal.
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?
Let's say the person doesn't die, but buys lots of stuff. Do you think the government should have the right to double dip on that income through VAT? Money goes around the economy and, each time round, it may get taxed.
When the individual dies, the money goes to their inheritors. They've not paid any tax on it before, yet suddenly they are receiving this income. So, is that double dipping, or an appropriate first dip?
And I say all this as someone who paid inheritance tax on one parent's estate (which puts them in the 4.6% of estates which do pay any inheritance tax; the vast majority don't), and is having to pay a fair whack of income tax on my inheritance from the other parent (because they were in the US and had set up a trust in a particular way).
Because the VAT is payable on a transaction that creates value. The government is receiving a portion of that value.
Inheritance is a transfer of existing assets not an exchange of goods or services. When the inheritance is spent then the government can tax it.
Evening all. It's easy to be concerned by all the fascist shit Trump is trying to pull in the US, but the good news is they are so laughably, horribly bad at it.
Not content with uploading the entire unedited 60 minutes they wanted to censor, it turns out all the 'redacted' Epstein files can be read by copying and pasting the 'redacted' text into any other document...
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?
Let's say the person doesn't die, but buys lots of stuff. Do you think the government should have the right to double dip on that income through VAT? Money goes around the economy and, each time round, it may get taxed.
When the individual dies, the money goes to their inheritors. They've not paid any tax on it before, yet suddenly they are receiving this income. So, is that double dipping, or an appropriate first dip?
And I say all this as someone who paid inheritance tax on one parent's estate (which puts them in the 4.6% of estates which do pay any inheritance tax; the vast majority don't), and is having to pay a fair whack of income tax on my inheritance from the other parent (because they were in the US and had set up a trust in a particular way).
Because the VAT is payable on a transaction that creates value. The government is receiving a portion of that value.
Inheritance is a transfer of existing assets not an exchange of goods or services. When the inheritance is spent then the government can tax it.
I pay council tax. That's not on a transaction that creates value.
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”.
This is sophistry of the highest order.
Not at all. The sale of goods or services (including labour) or returns on capital invested are income. Moving assets from one pocket to another is not - it’s similar to why we don’t tax unrealised capital gains.
Evening all. It's easy to be concerned by all the fascist shit Trump is trying to pull in the US, but the good news is they are so laughably, horribly bad at it.
Not content with uploading the entire unedited 60 minutes they wanted to censor, it turns out all the 'redacted' Epstein files can be read by copying and pasting the 'redacted' text into any other document...
That is the oldest trick in the book (of tricks around redacted documents). That is such a beginner mistake.
11 new "corrections" to the Peggie judgment seeking to correct "clerical mistakes, errors or omissions". Snuck out just before Christmas. After a previous "correction". It is actually shocking. None of these "corrections", which include adding the word "trans" before "female" or replacing "male" with "female" make any difference to the judgment or the reasoning of course. No sirree.
I presume it still ignores those parts of FWS which say the exact opposite of what Kemp has sought to draw from it. Dear oh dear oh dear.
I look forward to seeing a 15000 word piece from Wings Over Scotland about the changes.
Absolutely biting in parts. It's why I don't think correcting the multiplicity of legal errors in this judgment will actually fix things. The way that the evidence has been dealt with, which is usually strictly for the Tribunal or court who has actually seen the witnesses, is so partisan and ridiculous as to be absurd. Very difficult to fix that on appeal.
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 ?
Because of the relationship between the state and the individual. If the state takes a percentage of existing assets then ultimately they own everything and individuals are reduced to being serfs.
If, however, they take a slice of value creation (“sharing the proceeds of growth”) then they can fund the necessary activities of the central body while individuals remain better off even after the tax is taken.
Our government works for us, and all its rights and powers derive from us. That principle must remain sacrosanct.
Our government does work for us, and we have not voted in parties wanting to abolish inheritance tax... and so inheritance tax remains.
Reform lead polls though and if they win a majority they had a manifesto commitment to abolish inheritance tax at the last general election. Even Osborne and the Tories didn’t go that far, instead only taking family homes of married couples up to £1 million out of inheritance 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?
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 ?
Because of the relationship between the state and the individual. If the state takes a percentage of existing assets then ultimately they own everything and individuals are reduced to being serfs.
If, however, they take a slice of value creation (“sharing the proceeds of growth”) then they can fund the necessary activities of the central body while individuals remain better off even after the tax is taken.
Our government works for us, and all its rights and powers derive from us. That principle must remain sacrosanct.
Our government does work for us, and we have not voted in parties wanting to abolish inheritance tax... and so inheritance tax remains.
Indeed, but that’s the nature of a philosophical debate
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?
Let's say the person doesn't die, but buys lots of stuff. Do you think the government should have the right to double dip on that income through VAT? Money goes around the economy and, each time round, it may get taxed.
When the individual dies, the money goes to their inheritors. They've not paid any tax on it before, yet suddenly they are receiving this income. So, is that double dipping, or an appropriate first dip?
And I say all this as someone who paid inheritance tax on one parent's estate (which puts them in the 4.6% of estates which do pay any inheritance tax; the vast majority don't), and is having to pay a fair whack of income tax on my inheritance from the other parent (because they were in the US and had set up a trust in a particular way).
Because the VAT is payable on a transaction that creates value. The government is receiving a portion of that value.
Inheritance is a transfer of existing assets not an exchange of goods or services. When the inheritance is spent then the government can tax it.
I pay council tax. That's not on a transaction that creates value.
It’s effectively a poll tax though - a fee to cover the costs of services provided to the local community
11 new "corrections" to the Peggie judgment seeking to correct "clerical mistakes, errors or omissions". Snuck out just before Christmas. After a previous "correction". It is actually shocking. None of these "corrections", which include adding the word "trans" before "female" or replacing "male" with "female" make any difference to the judgment or the reasoning of course. No sirree.
I presume it still ignores those parts of FWS which say the exact opposite of what Kemp has sought to draw from it. Dear oh dear oh dear.
But apparently making judges accountable is a step too far. When did we become a country that is unable to tell rogue judges to get fucked with their shit judgements and then remove them from the bench?
Several hundred years ago and for very good reasons. It is really important that Judges can, with impunity, criticise and hold to account what would in any normal relationship be their employers. Judicial independence is critical to a working democracy and the rule of law and arrant stupidity, bias and wrong headedness in an individual case cannot be allowed to undermine that principle. It is frustrating though. I am struggling to see any way forward with this mess other than to start again under a different Tribunal.
What are we to make of Gail's opening ten of its London bakeries on Christmas Day?
Clearly, all the LD voters (the only ones who use Gail's according to some on here) need somewhere to avoid the family and the Christmas nonsense.
On an unrelated, the Alexandra in Wimbledon opens on Christmas Day providing a free Christmas lunch for those who are alone. It's a wonderful touch and I wish it happened more as it's all too easy to forget the many people for whom Christmas is a lonely purgatory.
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 ?
Because of the relationship between the state and the individual. If the state takes a percentage of existing assets then ultimately they own everything and individuals are reduced to being serfs.
If, however, they take a slice of value creation (“sharing the proceeds of growth”) then they can fund the necessary activities of the central body while individuals remain better off even after the tax is taken.
Our government works for us, and all its rights and powers derive from us. That principle must remain sacrosanct.
Our government does work for us, and we have not voted in parties wanting to abolish inheritance tax... and so inheritance tax remains.
Indeed, but that’s the nature of a philosophical debate
So why did you start going on about rights and powers deriving from us? That was not in contention. It's a pointless rhetorical flourish.
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 ?
Because of the relationship between the state and the individual. If the state takes a percentage of existing assets then ultimately they own everything and individuals are reduced to being serfs.
If, however, they take a slice of value creation (“sharing the proceeds of growth”) then they can fund the necessary activities of the central body while individuals remain better off even after the tax is taken.
Our government works for us, and all its rights and powers derive from us. That principle must remain sacrosanct.
Our government does work for us, and we have not voted in parties wanting to abolish inheritance tax... and so inheritance tax remains.
Indeed, but that’s the nature of a philosophical debate
So why did you start going on about rights and powers deriving from us? That was not in contention. It's a pointless rhetorical flourish.
No, because if the government takes a slice of existing assets it eventually ends up owning everything
What are we to make of Gail's opening ten of its London bakeries on Christmas Day?
Clearly, all the LD voters (the only ones who use Gail's according to some on here) need somewhere to avoid the family and the Christmas nonsense.
On an unrelated, the Alexandra in Wimbledon opens on Christmas Day providing a free Christmas lunch for those who are alone. It's a wonderful touch and I wish it happened more as it's all too easy to forget the many people for whom Christmas is a lonely purgatory.
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?
Let's say the person doesn't die, but buys lots of stuff. Do you think the government should have the right to double dip on that income through VAT? Money goes around the economy and, each time round, it may get taxed.
When the individual dies, the money goes to their inheritors. They've not paid any tax on it before, yet suddenly they are receiving this income. So, is that double dipping, or an appropriate first dip?
And I say all this as someone who paid inheritance tax on one parent's estate (which puts them in the 4.6% of estates which do pay any inheritance tax; the vast majority don't), and is having to pay a fair whack of income tax on my inheritance from the other parent (because they were in the US and had set up a trust in a particular way).
Because the VAT is payable on a transaction that creates value. The government is receiving a portion of that value.
Inheritance is a transfer of existing assets not an exchange of goods or services. When the inheritance is spent then the government can tax it.
Value is created by making a good or delivering a service. A financial transaction in the good or service measures the value it doesn't create it.
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.
Don't most speedos on cars overstate the speed by a few mph? Mine certainly does.
Cars wearing swimming trunks?
They're all too often penis extensions/substitutes, so yes, it's logical.
NEW: By a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court blocks Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to Chicago to assist immigration agents. A majority holds that he likely lacks authority to do so. Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissent.
Just spent three (unexpected) days in hospital. On one hand I could not fault the dedication, empathy, desire to help and sheer hardwork of literally everyone I came into contact. On the other hand it was hard to conclude that, in this aging, overcrowded hospital at least (and accepting that the flu always hits hard this time of year), the system isn't just not working, it is on the brink of complete collapse. It was hard not to be aghast at some of the situations one was expected to tolerate in order to receive appropriate healthcare.
11 new "corrections" to the Peggie judgment seeking to correct "clerical mistakes, errors or omissions". Snuck out just before Christmas. After a previous "correction". It is actually shocking. None of these "corrections", which include adding the word "trans" before "female" or replacing "male" with "female" make any difference to the judgment or the reasoning of course. No sirree.
I presume it still ignores those parts of FWS which say the exact opposite of what Kemp has sought to draw from it. Dear oh dear oh dear.
I look forward to seeing a 15000 word piece from Wings Over Scotland about the changes.
Absolutely biting in parts. It's why I don't think correcting the multiplicity of legal errors in this judgment will actually fix things. The way that the evidence has been dealt with, which is usually strictly for the Tribunal or court who has actually seen the witnesses, is so partisan and ridiculous as to be absurd. Very difficult to fix that on appeal.
Knowing practically nothing about the case the article seems about as biased as it's possible to be against the doctor. The newspaper clearly wasn't happy about the court's treatment of the nurse but the criticism in what purported to be a news story made me feel I was not reading a dispassionate report
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?
Let's say the person doesn't die, but buys lots of stuff. Do you think the government should have the right to double dip on that income through VAT? Money goes around the economy and, each time round, it may get taxed.
When the individual dies, the money goes to their inheritors. They've not paid any tax on it before, yet suddenly they are receiving this income. So, is that double dipping, or an appropriate first dip?
And I say all this as someone who paid inheritance tax on one parent's estate (which puts them in the 4.6% of estates which do pay any inheritance tax; the vast majority don't), and is having to pay a fair whack of income tax on my inheritance from the other parent (because they were in the US and had set up a trust in a particular way).
Because the VAT is payable on a transaction that creates value. The government is receiving a portion of that value.
Inheritance is a transfer of existing assets not an exchange of goods or services. When the inheritance is spent then the government can tax it.
Value is created by making a good or delivering a service. A financial transaction in the good or service measures the value it doesn't create it.
I was using “value” in the broader sense. If someone buys something it is worth more to them than they paid for it
Evening all. It's easy to be concerned by all the fascist shit Trump is trying to pull in the US, but the good news is they are so laughably, horribly bad at it.
Not content with uploading the entire unedited 60 minutes they wanted to censor, it turns out all the 'redacted' Epstein files can be read by copying and pasting the 'redacted' text into any other document...
I recall the Ministry of Defence did the same thing once (probably more than once). That's pretty incompetent given the ease of proper redaction now.
NEW: By a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court blocks Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to Chicago to assist immigration agents. A majority holds that he likely lacks authority to do so. Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissent.
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.
There is something massively appealing to the very idea of running a farm, supporting a family from your own produce, and turning a profit from it.
But, I don’t think that was ever available to more than 20-25% of the village population (the hoplite class in classical Greece, the yeomen of late medieval England). The rest depended on the wages they got as labourers and servants, to the better off peasants and the Big Man, in addition to produce from their small plots.
Frontier societies came closest to this ideal, but usually at the expense of defeated peoples, being pushed off the land.
The powerful were always trying to grab more land. It was fortunate that in late 18th century England, this coincided with the demand for labour in new industries. For the rural poor, leaving the land was a blessing.
11 new "corrections" to the Peggie judgment seeking to correct "clerical mistakes, errors or omissions". Snuck out just before Christmas. After a previous "correction". It is actually shocking. None of these "corrections", which include adding the word "trans" before "female" or replacing "male" with "female" make any difference to the judgment or the reasoning of course. No sirree.
I presume it still ignores those parts of FWS which say the exact opposite of what Kemp has sought to draw from it. Dear oh dear oh dear.
But apparently making judges accountable is a step too far. When did we become a country that is unable to tell rogue judges to get fucked with their shit judgements and then remove them from the bench?
Several hundred years ago and for very good reasons. It is really important that Judges can, with impunity, criticise and hold to account what would in any normal relationship be their employers. Judicial independence is critical to a working democracy and the rule of law and arrant stupidity, bias and wrong headedness in an individual case cannot be allowed to undermine that principle. It is frustrating though. I am struggling to see any way forward with this mess other than to start again under a different Tribunal.
Re-litigating everything by appeal is why our legal system is so expensive and so slow.
11 new "corrections" to the Peggie judgment seeking to correct "clerical mistakes, errors or omissions". Snuck out just before Christmas. After a previous "correction". It is actually shocking. None of these "corrections", which include adding the word "trans" before "female" or replacing "male" with "female" make any difference to the judgment or the reasoning of course. No sirree.
I presume it still ignores those parts of FWS which say the exact opposite of what Kemp has sought to draw from it. Dear oh dear oh dear.
But apparently making judges accountable is a step too far. When did we become a country that is unable to tell rogue judges to get fucked with their shit judgements and then remove them from the bench?
Several hundred years ago and for very good reasons. It is really important that Judges can, with impunity, criticise and hold to account what would in any normal relationship be their employers. Judicial independence is critical to a working democracy and the rule of law and arrant stupidity, bias and wrong headedness in an individual case cannot be allowed to undermine that principle. It is frustrating though. I am struggling to see any way forward with this mess other than to start again under a different Tribunal.
The existence of various levels of appeal might be the right course? This sounds like a case that cries out for a bit of high level judicial consideration.
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.
You can decide what you want to campaign on, but why should you get to decide what Greta Thunberg campaigns on? That's her choice. I think Thunberg is in a better position to decide what she wants to do than any of us here.
And people can have an opinion about whether her approach is particularly effective, so what's the problem? It's no different to having an opinion about how a politician, on one's side or not, chooses to focus their messages - public figures will be commented on by the public.
That's why I was curious if she is still making waves among her intended audience, which is now narrower than it was previously.
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.
AIUI it’s like buying a timeshare
I assume that when the service charges reach market rent levels there is no value in owning the property. Indeed as there is a negative value because, unlike a tenancy you cannot give notice but have to sell the flat on.
Just spent three (unexpected) days in hospital. On one hand I could not fault the dedication, empathy, desire to help and sheer hardwork of literally everyone I came into contact. On the other hand it was hard to conclude that, in this aging, overcrowded hospital at least (and accepting that the flu always hits hard this time of year), the system isn't just not working, it is on the brink of complete collapse. It was hard not to be aghast at some of the situations one was expected to tolerate in order to receive appropriate healthcare.
The National Healthcare Prevention System at work.
I recently went to A&E because no GP appointments were available. I was seen by someone who trained as a GP, but when there were no jobs available, retrained. So, he now works A&E, 90% of his work is GP work, not accidents or emergencies.
11 new "corrections" to the Peggie judgment seeking to correct "clerical mistakes, errors or omissions". Snuck out just before Christmas. After a previous "correction". It is actually shocking. None of these "corrections", which include adding the word "trans" before "female" or replacing "male" with "female" make any difference to the judgment or the reasoning of course. No sirree.
I presume it still ignores those parts of FWS which say the exact opposite of what Kemp has sought to draw from it. Dear oh dear oh dear.
I look forward to seeing a 15000 word piece from Wings Over Scotland about the changes.
Absolutely biting in parts. It's why I don't think correcting the multiplicity of legal errors in this judgment will actually fix things. The way that the evidence has been dealt with, which is usually strictly for the Tribunal or court who has actually seen the witnesses, is so partisan and ridiculous as to be absurd. Very difficult to fix that on appeal.
Knowing practically nothing about the case the article seems about as biased as it's possible to be against the doctor. The newspaper clearly wasn't happy about the court's treatment of the nurse but the criticism in what purported to be a news story made me feel I was not reading a dispassionate report
WoS is obviously very very biased on this subject matter, and in fairness does not pretend to be dispassionate, which let us be honest is not uncommon in news reporting anyway. Though that sort of style is not to my taste, a passionate report is not inherently more reliable than an ostensibly dispassionate report - indeed, many of us may have professionally made use of dispassionate language to obfuscate an issue, or camoflage a point.
He is at least very thorough, perhaps a little too much at times, so has some merit even if there has to be a risk of letting his views colour interpretation.
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.
AIUI it’s like buying a timeshare
I assume that when the service charges reach market rent levels there is no value in owning the property. Indeed as there is a negative value because, unlike a tenancy you cannot give notice but have to sell the flat on.
Evening all. It's easy to be concerned by all the fascist shit Trump is trying to pull in the US, but the good news is they are so laughably, horribly bad at it.
Not content with uploading the entire unedited 60 minutes they wanted to censor, it turns out all the 'redacted' Epstein files can be read by copying and pasting the 'redacted' text into any other document...
I recall the Ministry of Defence did the same thing once (probably more than once). That's pretty incompetent given the ease of proper redaction now.
NEW: By a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court blocks Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to Chicago to assist immigration agents. A majority holds that he likely lacks authority to do so. Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissent.
Just spent three (unexpected) days in hospital. On one hand I could not fault the dedication, empathy, desire to help and sheer hardwork of literally everyone I came into contact. On the other hand it was hard to conclude that, in this aging, overcrowded hospital at least (and accepting that the flu always hits hard this time of year), the system isn't just not working, it is on the brink of complete collapse. It was hard not to be aghast at some of the situations one was expected to tolerate in order to receive appropriate healthcare.
I hear so many stories like that that I am surprised there is not greater anger about. Is my own negative view of things colouring my expectations, or are things really as bad as they seem?
Just spent three (unexpected) days in hospital. On one hand I could not fault the dedication, empathy, desire to help and sheer hardwork of literally everyone I came into contact. On the other hand it was hard to conclude that, in this aging, overcrowded hospital at least (and accepting that the flu always hits hard this time of year), the system isn't just not working, it is on the brink of complete collapse. It was hard not to be aghast at some of the situations one was expected to tolerate in order to receive appropriate healthcare.
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.
Don't most speedos on cars overstate the speed by a few mph? Mine certainly does.
Cars wearing swimming trunks?
There is a very niche alternate cut of "Herbie Rides Again". VHS transfer and very sought after by connoisseurs of the Herbie genre.
Evening all. It's easy to be concerned by all the fascist shit Trump is trying to pull in the US, but the good news is they are so laughably, horribly bad at it.
Not content with uploading the entire unedited 60 minutes they wanted to censor, it turns out all the 'redacted' Epstein files can be read by copying and pasting the 'redacted' text into any other document...
I recall the Ministry of Defence did the same thing once (probably more than once). That's pretty incompetent given the ease of proper redaction now.
NEW: By a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court blocks Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to Chicago to assist immigration agents. A majority holds that he likely lacks authority to do so. Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissent.
Evening all. It's easy to be concerned by all the fascist shit Trump is trying to pull in the US, but the good news is they are so laughably, horribly bad at it.
Not content with uploading the entire unedited 60 minutes they wanted to censor, it turns out all the 'redacted' Epstein files can be read by copying and pasting the 'redacted' text into any other document...
I recall the Ministry of Defence did the same thing once (probably more than once). That's pretty incompetent given the ease of proper redaction now.
NEW: By a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court blocks Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to Chicago to assist immigration agents. A majority holds that he likely lacks authority to do so. Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissent.
11 new "corrections" to the Peggie judgment seeking to correct "clerical mistakes, errors or omissions". Snuck out just before Christmas. After a previous "correction". It is actually shocking. None of these "corrections", which include adding the word "trans" before "female" or replacing "male" with "female" make any difference to the judgment or the reasoning of course. No sirree.
I presume it still ignores those parts of FWS which say the exact opposite of what Kemp has sought to draw from it. Dear oh dear oh dear.
I look forward to seeing a 15000 word piece from Wings Over Scotland about the changes.
Absolutely biting in parts. It's why I don't think correcting the multiplicity of legal errors in this judgment will actually fix things. The way that the evidence has been dealt with, which is usually strictly for the Tribunal or court who has actually seen the witnesses, is so partisan and ridiculous as to be absurd. Very difficult to fix that on appeal.
Knowing practically nothing about the case the article seems about as biased as it's possible to be against the doctor. The newspaper clearly wasn't happy about the court's treatment of the nurse but the criticism in what purported to be a news story made me feel I was not reading a dispassionate report
I am not suggesting that it is impartial for a moment. It is as highly partisan in one direction as the Tribunal was in the other. But to find a witness "broadly credible" when an expert witness says that they lied about the "contemporaneous" notes taken and the Tribunal has in fact found that to be true, is, well, remarkable.
The point I was seeking to make is a broader one. Even if you correct the legal errors how do you correct the way that that mindset has apparently influenced the Tribunal in their assessment of the evidence? It is really difficult. An appellate court has, correctly, very limited powers in that respect and the Tribunal or court of first instance who heard the witnesses are usually given a lot of respect. The test for intervention is close to absurdity. Sadly, I think that is where we are.
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.
AIUI it’s like buying a timeshare
I assume that when the service charges reach market rent levels there is no value in owning the property. Indeed as there is a negative value because, unlike a tenancy you cannot give notice but have to sell the flat on.
Just spent three (unexpected) days in hospital. On one hand I could not fault the dedication, empathy, desire to help and sheer hardwork of literally everyone I came into contact. On the other hand it was hard to conclude that, in this aging, overcrowded hospital at least (and accepting that the flu always hits hard this time of year), the system isn't just not working, it is on the brink of complete collapse. It was hard not to be aghast at some of the situations one was expected to tolerate in order to receive appropriate healthcare.
Hope all ok.
Thanks. Feeling ok if a bit exhausted from the experience, have a few more days of medication to take at home to hopefully ensure no reoccurrence of the problem and no need to return.
Evening all. It's easy to be concerned by all the fascist shit Trump is trying to pull in the US, but the good news is they are so laughably, horribly bad at it.
Not content with uploading the entire unedited 60 minutes they wanted to censor, it turns out all the 'redacted' Epstein files can be read by copying and pasting the 'redacted' text into any other document...
I recall the Ministry of Defence did the same thing once (probably more than once). That's pretty incompetent given the ease of proper redaction now.
NEW: By a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court blocks Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to Chicago to assist immigration agents. A majority holds that he likely lacks authority to do so. Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissent.
11 new "corrections" to the Peggie judgment seeking to correct "clerical mistakes, errors or omissions". Snuck out just before Christmas. After a previous "correction". It is actually shocking. None of these "corrections", which include adding the word "trans" before "female" or replacing "male" with "female" make any difference to the judgment or the reasoning of course. No sirree.
I presume it still ignores those parts of FWS which say the exact opposite of what Kemp has sought to draw from it. Dear oh dear oh dear.
But apparently making judges accountable is a step too far. When did we become a country that is unable to tell rogue judges to get fucked with their shit judgements and then remove them from the bench?
Several hundred years ago and for very good reasons. It is really important that Judges can, with impunity, criticise and hold to account what would in any normal relationship be their employers. Judicial independence is critical to a working democracy and the rule of law and arrant stupidity, bias and wrong headedness in an individual case cannot be allowed to undermine that principle. It is frustrating though. I am struggling to see any way forward with this mess other than to start again under a different Tribunal.
The existence of various levels of appeal might be the right course? This sounds like a case that cries out for a bit of high level judicial consideration.
No, that is just endless legal red tape, the same way so much gets delayed in this country. The legal system should get it right first time. We wouldn't tolerate that error rate without consequences in other professions.
That suggests that our problem is too much selflessness. Labour need to instil a bit more of the "I'm all right, Jack" mentality to get reelected.
The two questions are completely different. People may have had a good year because they were blessed with children or grandchildren, got married, lost weight, or made any number of positive life changes. The question on the country's progress is clearly a political question and the public has it spot on.
Just spent three (unexpected) days in hospital. On one hand I could not fault the dedication, empathy, desire to help and sheer hardwork of literally everyone I came into contact. On the other hand it was hard to conclude that, in this aging, overcrowded hospital at least (and accepting that the flu always hits hard this time of year), the system isn't just not working, it is on the brink of complete collapse. It was hard not to be aghast at some of the situations one was expected to tolerate in order to receive appropriate healthcare.
I hear so many stories like that that I am surprised there is not greater anger about. Is my own negative view of things colouring my expectations, or are things really as bad as they seem?
It's hard to be angry at most of the individuals you encounter, because you watch them in action over a period of time and see how they are trying their very best to do the right things and to help people. It feels unfair to vent at them about some of the shit because it's not individually their fault - but who do you vent to about the collective shambles?
Evening all. It's easy to be concerned by all the fascist shit Trump is trying to pull in the US, but the good news is they are so laughably, horribly bad at it.
Not content with uploading the entire unedited 60 minutes they wanted to censor, it turns out all the 'redacted' Epstein files can be read by copying and pasting the 'redacted' text into any other document...
I recall the Ministry of Defence did the same thing once (probably more than once). That's pretty incompetent given the ease of proper redaction now.
NEW: By a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court blocks Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to Chicago to assist immigration agents. A majority holds that he likely lacks authority to do so. Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissent.
Evening all. It's easy to be concerned by all the fascist shit Trump is trying to pull in the US, but the good news is they are so laughably, horribly bad at it.
Not content with uploading the entire unedited 60 minutes they wanted to censor, it turns out all the 'redacted' Epstein files can be read by copying and pasting the 'redacted' text into any other document...
I recall the Ministry of Defence did the same thing once (probably more than once). That's pretty incompetent given the ease of proper redaction now.
NEW: By a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court blocks Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to Chicago to assist immigration agents. A majority holds that he likely lacks authority to do so. Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissent.
Evening all. It's easy to be concerned by all the fascist shit Trump is trying to pull in the US, but the good news is they are so laughably, horribly bad at it.
Not content with uploading the entire unedited 60 minutes they wanted to censor, it turns out all the 'redacted' Epstein files can be read by copying and pasting the 'redacted' text into any other document...
I recall the Ministry of Defence did the same thing once (probably more than once). That's pretty incompetent given the ease of proper redaction now.
NEW: By a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court blocks Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to Chicago to assist immigration agents. A majority holds that he likely lacks authority to do so. Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissent.
Evening all. It's easy to be concerned by all the fascist shit Trump is trying to pull in the US, but the good news is they are so laughably, horribly bad at it.
Not content with uploading the entire unedited 60 minutes they wanted to censor, it turns out all the 'redacted' Epstein files can be read by copying and pasting the 'redacted' text into any other document...
I recall the Ministry of Defence did the same thing once (probably more than once). That's pretty incompetent given the ease of proper redaction now.
NEW: By a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court blocks Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to Chicago to assist immigration agents. A majority holds that he likely lacks authority to do so. Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissent.
Evening all. It's easy to be concerned by all the fascist shit Trump is trying to pull in the US, but the good news is they are so laughably, horribly bad at it.
Not content with uploading the entire unedited 60 minutes they wanted to censor, it turns out all the 'redacted' Epstein files can be read by copying and pasting the 'redacted' text into any other document...
I recall the Ministry of Defence did the same thing once (probably more than once). That's pretty incompetent given the ease of proper redaction now.
NEW: By a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court blocks Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to Chicago to assist immigration agents. A majority holds that he likely lacks authority to do so. Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissent.
For far too long, ideologues in Europe have led organized efforts to coerce American platforms to punish American viewpoints they oppose. The Trump Administration will no longer tolerate these egregious acts of extraterritorial censorship.
Today, @StateDept will take steps to bar leading figures of the global censorship-industrial complex from entering the United States. We stand ready and willing to expand this list if others do not reverse course.
Evening all. It's easy to be concerned by all the fascist shit Trump is trying to pull in the US, but the good news is they are so laughably, horribly bad at it.
Not content with uploading the entire unedited 60 minutes they wanted to censor, it turns out all the 'redacted' Epstein files can be read by copying and pasting the 'redacted' text into any other document...
I recall the Ministry of Defence did the same thing once (probably more than once). That's pretty incompetent given the ease of proper redaction now.
NEW: By a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court blocks Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to Chicago to assist immigration agents. A majority holds that he likely lacks authority to do so. Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissent.
It is interesting that some of Trump nominees are actually less servile and slavishly 'loyal' than the likes of the laughably corrupt Thomas.
On the redactions - “export to PDF”, kids.
That seems to be the problem. They redacted the documents using Adobe Acrobat apparently
Government by technobros.
We need a squillion dollars for AI and space and shit. Also we don't know how Adobe Acrobat works...
The only real redaction is rasterize, redact, convert back to PDF. Having said that, if your country demands accessible PDF/UA by legislation, you can't do that. You would at the very least have to OCR it. And possibly even that might be inadequate for the legislative standards.
Evening all. It's easy to be concerned by all the fascist shit Trump is trying to pull in the US, but the good news is they are so laughably, horribly bad at it.
Not content with uploading the entire unedited 60 minutes they wanted to censor, it turns out all the 'redacted' Epstein files can be read by copying and pasting the 'redacted' text into any other document...
I recall the Ministry of Defence did the same thing once (probably more than once). That's pretty incompetent given the ease of proper redaction now.
NEW: By a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court blocks Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to Chicago to assist immigration agents. A majority holds that he likely lacks authority to do so. Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissent.
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.
There is something massively appealing to the very idea of running a farm, supporting a family from your own produce, and turning a profit from it.
But, I don’t think that was ever available to more than 20-25% of the village population (the hoplite class in classical Greece, the yeomen of late medieval England). The rest depended on the wages they got as labourers and servants, to the better off peasants and the Big Man, in addition to produce from their small plots.
Frontier societies came closest to this ideal, but usually at the expense of defeated peoples, being pushed off the land.
The powerful were always trying to grab more land. It was fortunate that in late 18th century England, this coincided with the demand for labour in new industries. For the rural poor, leaving the land was a blessing.
So similar to the slaves exported from Guinea to Virginia, it was worth it for the long term benefit?
And should be grateful to those Liverpool ship owners?
Evening all. It's easy to be concerned by all the fascist shit Trump is trying to pull in the US, but the good news is they are so laughably, horribly bad at it.
Not content with uploading the entire unedited 60 minutes they wanted to censor, it turns out all the 'redacted' Epstein files can be read by copying and pasting the 'redacted' text into any other document...
I recall the Ministry of Defence did the same thing once (probably more than once). That's pretty incompetent given the ease of proper redaction now.
NEW: By a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court blocks Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to Chicago to assist immigration agents. A majority holds that he likely lacks authority to do so. Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissent.
Evening all. It's easy to be concerned by all the fascist shit Trump is trying to pull in the US, but the good news is they are so laughably, horribly bad at it.
Not content with uploading the entire unedited 60 minutes they wanted to censor, it turns out all the 'redacted' Epstein files can be read by copying and pasting the 'redacted' text into any other document...
I recall the Ministry of Defence did the same thing once (probably more than once). That's pretty incompetent given the ease of proper redaction now.
NEW: By a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court blocks Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to Chicago to assist immigration agents. A majority holds that he likely lacks authority to do so. Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissent.
Includes the gem that Trump is searchable (and appears 600 times) if you add a space at the end
We are no better. I did a foi sometime ago of a Govt department. I got a hard copy and pdfs. If I put the cursor over the redacted email addresses on the pdfs they get shown.
Evening all. It's easy to be concerned by all the fascist shit Trump is trying to pull in the US, but the good news is they are so laughably, horribly bad at it.
Not content with uploading the entire unedited 60 minutes they wanted to censor, it turns out all the 'redacted' Epstein files can be read by copying and pasting the 'redacted' text into any other document...
I recall the Ministry of Defence did the same thing once (probably more than once). That's pretty incompetent given the ease of proper redaction now.
NEW: By a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court blocks Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to Chicago to assist immigration agents. A majority holds that he likely lacks authority to do so. Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissent.
It is interesting that some of Trump nominees are actually less servile and slavishly 'loyal' than the likes of the laughably corrupt Thomas.
On the redactions - “export to PDF”, kids.
That seems to be the problem. They redacted the documents using Adobe Acrobat apparently
Government by technobros.
We need a squillion dollars for AI and space and shit. Also we don't know how Adobe Acrobat works...
The only real redaction is rasterize, redact, convert back to PDF. Having said that, if your country demands accessible PDF/UA by legislation, you can't do that. You would at the very least have to OCR it. And possibly even that might be inadequate for the legislative standards.
It’s fairly trivial to create a “flat” pdf with no meta data. If you vaguely know what you are doing.
Most outfits that release documents regularly have this setup as a default.
Not long ago, I wrote a pdf generator for certain customer letters. A nice chap in the bank tested the output to prove that it had no “extra” information in it.
For far too long, ideologues in Europe have led organized efforts to coerce American platforms to punish American viewpoints they oppose. The Trump Administration will no longer tolerate these egregious acts of extraterritorial censorship.
Today, @StateDept will take steps to bar leading figures of the global censorship-industrial complex from entering the United States. We stand ready and willing to expand this list if others do not reverse course.
If the EU can't enforce standards for what is published on Twitter they should ban it. Elon Musk does not have any right to broadcast BS all over the EU without limits.
11 new "corrections" to the Peggie judgment seeking to correct "clerical mistakes, errors or omissions". Snuck out just before Christmas. After a previous "correction". It is actually shocking. None of these "corrections", which include adding the word "trans" before "female" or replacing "male" with "female" make any difference to the judgment or the reasoning of course. No sirree.
I presume it still ignores those parts of FWS which say the exact opposite of what Kemp has sought to draw from it. Dear oh dear oh dear.
Speaking of which @DavidL, when may I expect a discussant contribution from you please? I have asked @turbotubbs to write one in case you can't, but he has also not produced anything. I'll rewrite the article on Xmas Day to have @kyf_100 on one side and @Cyclefree on the other, setting aside @Nigelb 's contribution until you or @turbotubbs submit something. If neither of you can I'll ask @fitalass to kick in: I'm pretty sure she'll get something to me.
For the avoidance of doubt this reply is not as sarky as it sounds and I genuinely do value your input in this matter. But the verdicts in GLP Vs EHRC and in Hampstead Ponds is due and I need the article to achieve some kind of shape soon: the next draft is the ninth and it's turning into "Answered Prayers"
Just spent three (unexpected) days in hospital. On one hand I could not fault the dedication, empathy, desire to help and sheer hardwork of literally everyone I came into contact. On the other hand it was hard to conclude that, in this aging, overcrowded hospital at least (and accepting that the flu always hits hard this time of year), the system isn't just not working, it is on the brink of complete collapse. It was hard not to be aghast at some of the situations one was expected to tolerate in order to receive appropriate healthcare.
One reason for low productivity in the NHS is that capital spend has been far too low for years, hence antiquated IT, archaic buildings, delays getting investigations etc etc. For years capital, training and maintenence budgets have been raided to prop up front line services.
No other developed country keeps patients on trolleys as an overflow and very few don't look after patients in single siderooms.
Didn't he invite Epstein to his kid's 18th? You'd like to think he wouldn't nonce his own kids out but it would explain Bug Eye Beatrice's facial expression.
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.
There is something massively appealing to the very idea of running a farm, supporting a family from your own produce, and turning a profit from it.
But, I don’t think that was ever available to more than 20-25% of the village population (the hoplite class in classical Greece, the yeomen of late medieval England). The rest depended on the wages they got as labourers and servants, to the better off peasants and the Big Man, in addition to produce from their small plots.
Frontier societies came closest to this ideal, but usually at the expense of defeated peoples, being pushed off the land.
The powerful were always trying to grab more land. It was fortunate that in late 18th century England, this coincided with the demand for labour in new industries. For the rural poor, leaving the land was a blessing.
So similar to the slaves exported from Guinea to Virginia, it was worth it for the long term benefit?
And should be grateful to those Liverpool ship owners?
No. Being a chattel slave rarely represented an improvement in one’s life. Working in new industries often did.
What are we to make of Gail's opening ten of its London bakeries on Christmas Day?
Clearly, all the LD voters (the only ones who use Gail's according to some on here) need somewhere to avoid the family and the Christmas nonsense.
On an unrelated, the Alexandra in Wimbledon opens on Christmas Day providing a free Christmas lunch for those who are alone. It's a wonderful touch and I wish it happened more as it's all too easy to forget the many people for whom Christmas is a lonely purgatory.
Never been in a Gail’s, but noticed one has opened in Salisbury when we went there on Thursday. This part of the world is Reeve the Baker country, so will be interesting to see how they fair.
For far too long, ideologues in Europe have led organized efforts to coerce American platforms to punish American viewpoints they oppose. The Trump Administration will no longer tolerate these egregious acts of extraterritorial censorship.
Today, @StateDept will take steps to bar leading figures of the global censorship-industrial complex from entering the United States. We stand ready and willing to expand this list if others do not reverse course.
Europe (and us) are probably too censorious, but this just seems like yet another example of the Trump administration wanting to antagonise or even make enemies of it's allies, a la Denmark and Canada.
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.
There is something massively appealing to the very idea of running a farm, supporting a family from your own produce, and turning a profit from it.
But, I don’t think that was ever available to more than 20-25% of the village population (the hoplite class in classical Greece, the yeomen of late medieval England). The rest depended on the wages they got as labourers and servants, to the better off peasants and the Big Man, in addition to produce from their small plots.
Frontier societies came closest to this ideal, but usually at the expense of defeated peoples, being pushed off the land.
The powerful were always trying to grab more land. It was fortunate that in late 18th century England, this coincided with the demand for labour in new industries. For the rural poor, leaving the land was a blessing.
So similar to the slaves exported from Guinea to Virginia, it was worth it for the long term benefit?
And should be grateful to those Liverpool ship owners?
No. Being a chattel slave rarely represented an improvement in one’s life. Working in new industries often did.
Interesting that someone is trying to sell the “being a factory worker = slavery” thing.
Only the most extreme Southern Fireaters tried that pitch, back in the day.
11 new "corrections" to the Peggie judgment seeking to correct "clerical mistakes, errors or omissions". Snuck out just before Christmas. After a previous "correction". It is actually shocking. None of these "corrections", which include adding the word "trans" before "female" or replacing "male" with "female" make any difference to the judgment or the reasoning of course. No sirree.
I presume it still ignores those parts of FWS which say the exact opposite of what Kemp has sought to draw from it. Dear oh dear oh dear.
But apparently making judges accountable is a step too far. When did we become a country that is unable to tell rogue judges to get fucked with their shit judgements and then remove them from the bench?
You want Reform to be able to dismiss judges? No thanks.
Kemp was pretty popular among gender-critical folks up until the final rulings. I wonder if he asked AI about his preliminary rulings too.
Was he? I recall lots of chat about the ludicrous NHS Fife testimony (‘I don’t know if I’m a woman, I’ve not had my chromosomes tested’ etc). Nothing about Kemp, tbh.
11 new "corrections" to the Peggie judgment seeking to correct "clerical mistakes, errors or omissions". Snuck out just before Christmas. After a previous "correction". It is actually shocking. None of these "corrections", which include adding the word "trans" before "female" or replacing "male" with "female" make any difference to the judgment or the reasoning of course. No sirree.
I presume it still ignores those parts of FWS which say the exact opposite of what Kemp has sought to draw from it. Dear oh dear oh dear.
Speaking of which @DavidL, when may I expect a discussant contribution from you please? I have asked @turbotubbs to write one in case you can't, but he has also not produced anything. I'll rewrite the article on Xmas Day to have @kyf_100 on one side and @Cyclefree on the other, setting aside @Nigelb 's contribution until you or @turbotubbs submit something. If neither of you can I'll ask @fitalass to kick in: I'm pretty sure she'll get something to me.
For the avoidance of doubt this reply is not as sarky as it sounds and I genuinely do value your input in this matter. But the verdicts in GLP Vs EHRC and in Hampstead Ponds is due and I need the article to achieve some kind of shape soon: the next draft is the ninth and it's turning into "Answered Prayers"
I'm sorry @viewcode but the run up to Christmas has been absolutely full on and the time for a really considered reply to a detailed piece is just not there. Even when I have been on holiday I have been responding to various emails, meeting a complainer, preparing for a court hearing on the 30th and 2 commissions in early January. I simply have not had and will not have time to respond in detail to your piece. Apologies.
Didn't he invite Epstein to his kid's 18th? You'd like to think he wouldn't nonce his own kids out but it would explain Bug Eye Beatrice's facial expression.
A man who would so the sorts of things he is alleged to may well have lines they don't cross, but it's impossible to be sure what those lines would be.
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.
There is something massively appealing to the very idea of running a farm, supporting a family from your own produce, and turning a profit from it.
But, I don’t think that was ever available to more than 20-25% of the village population (the hoplite class in classical Greece, the yeomen of late medieval England). The rest depended on the wages they got as labourers and servants, to the better off peasants and the Big Man, in addition to produce from their small plots.
Frontier societies came closest to this ideal, but usually at the expense of defeated peoples, being pushed off the land.
The powerful were always trying to grab more land. It was fortunate that in late 18th century England, this coincided with the demand for labour in new industries. For the rural poor, leaving the land was a blessing.
So similar to the slaves exported from Guinea to Virginia, it was worth it for the long term benefit?
And should be grateful to those Liverpool ship owners?
No. Being a chattel slave rarely represented an improvement in one’s life. Working in new industries often did.
Interesting that someone is trying to sell the “being a factory worker = slavery” thing.
Only the most extreme Southern Fireaters tried that pitch, back in the day.
No, the plight of the urban British poor was quite often highlighted in debates on slavery and what came after it. Dickens and Carlyle used it frequently.
For far too long, ideologues in Europe have led organized efforts to coerce American platforms to punish American viewpoints they oppose. The Trump Administration will no longer tolerate these egregious acts of extraterritorial censorship.
Today, @StateDept will take steps to bar leading figures of the global censorship-industrial complex from entering the United States. We stand ready and willing to expand this list if others do not reverse course.
For far too long, ideologues in Washington have pursued coordinated efforts to obstruct renewable energy projects they oppose, using federal authority to suppress innovation, distort energy markets, and limit domestic energy supply. The European Union will no longer ignore these egregious acts of policy-driven obstructionism.
Today, EU institutions will take steps to formally challenge the United States’ prohibition of new wind projects, measures that raise prices for American consumers, weaken grid resilience, and increase U.S. dependence on foreign energy sources. These actions undermine climate commitments, economic competitiveness, and the foundations of transatlantic cooperation. We stand ready and willing to escalate our response should these restrictions not be reconsidered.
For far too long, ideologues in Europe have led organized efforts to coerce American platforms to punish American viewpoints they oppose. The Trump Administration will no longer tolerate these egregious acts of extraterritorial censorship.
Today, @StateDept will take steps to bar leading figures of the global censorship-industrial complex from entering the United States. We stand ready and willing to expand this list if others do not reverse course.
Europe (and us) are probably too censorious, but this just seems like yet another example of the Trump administration wanting to antagonise or even make enemies of it's allies, a la Denmark and Canada.
Even if you think they are being too censorious all the EU wants is for US social media platforms to deal with abuse and disinformation the same way that local media would have to. The US seems to have adopted a position that US companies need not comply with local laws, and should be free to act as the US alone sees fit. It's plainly nuts, and not something the US would tolerate as the TikTok debacle and others demonstrates.
What are we to make of Gail's opening ten of its London bakeries on Christmas Day?
Clearly, all the LD voters (the only ones who use Gail's according to some on here) need somewhere to avoid the family and the Christmas nonsense.
On an unrelated, the Alexandra in Wimbledon opens on Christmas Day providing a free Christmas lunch for those who are alone. It's a wonderful touch and I wish it happened more as it's all too easy to forget the many people for whom Christmas is a lonely purgatory.
Never been in a Gail’s, but noticed one has opened in Salisbury when we went there on Thursday. This part of the world is Reeve the Baker country, so will be interesting to see how they fair.
Gail's are expanding and can now be found in non-Lib Dem held constituencies - there's one in Epping which will please @HYUFD.
They are insanely popular - their coffee is okay and the bready comestibles are pricey but decent and that's where they score because what you have with your decaf macchiato is part of the experience.
Comments
I presume it still ignores those parts of FWS which say the exact opposite of what Kemp has sought to draw from it. Dear oh dear oh dear.
4.7/5 from 4k reviews. https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/www.mccarthyandstone.co.uk
1.3/5 from 137 reviews. https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/www.park-resorts.com?page=5
Economist who presided over the first bank run in over a century went on to popular science which morphed into climate change denialism.
A very odd bird indeed.
Greta is still a work in progress; Ridley is a fossil who has yet to admit it.
When the individual dies, the money goes to their inheritors. They've not paid any tax on it before, yet suddenly they are receiving this income. So, is that double dipping, or an appropriate first dip?
And I say all this as someone who paid inheritance tax on one parent's estate (which puts them in the 4.6% of estates which do pay any inheritance tax; the vast majority don't), and is having to pay a fair whack of income tax on my inheritance from the other parent (because they were in the US and had set up a trust in a particular way).
And the answer is the same: because the State provides so much that allows us to earn and pass on to those we care about. And we have to pay for the State somehow.
What are we to make of Gail's opening ten of its London bakeries on Christmas Day?
Clearly, all the LD voters (the only ones who use Gail's according to some on here) need somewhere to avoid the family and the Christmas nonsense.
On an unrelated, the Alexandra in Wimbledon opens on Christmas Day providing a free Christmas lunch for those who are alone. It's a wonderful touch and I wish it happened more as it's all too easy to forget the many people for whom Christmas is a lonely purgatory.
https://www.alexandrawimbledon.com/christmas
If, however, they take a slice of value creation (“sharing the proceeds of growth”) then they can fund the necessary activities of the central body while individuals remain better off even after the tax is taken.
Our government works for us, and all its rights and powers derive from us. That principle must remain sacrosanct.
Thunberg remains very involved in climate change activism. She's allowed to have other concerns too.
The Crown gets it if there are no inheritors, or claimants within 30 years. Hence Heir Hunters.
Or the .. er .. Duchy of Cornwall or Lancaster in relevant areas.
For the Duchy of Lancaster that is "The County Palatinate of Lancaster", which is Lancashire, a lot of Merseyside and Greater Manc, and chunks of Cheshire and Derbyshire. For Cornwall it is the whole of Cornwall and the Scilly Isles.
It's in my view quite a scam. The Duchy of Cornwall made £60m between 2013 and 2023 and are a bit backward on coming forward with how they spent it, which is supposed to be community/charitable but there are major questions. The two together made about £50m in 23/24, which says that number may be low.
Mark Felton made a video on Remembrance Day 2024 where he got quit cross about this happening to the estates of war dead. He's mainly right on this one. 8 minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmwsb9j4tWU
Firm reform is required imo. Presumably there's a 30 year backlog.
So now we know where Mountbatten-Windsor might be going for his Christmas lunch....
We know Ridley is a denier and to be fair some of the proponents of claimate change have done themselves no favours with some of their hyperbolic prognostications but a rapidly warming world (whether caused by human intervention or not) is going to cause a lot of problems.
Inheritance tax is simply too easily avoided by the genuinely wealthy, doesn't apply to most people, so falls on people modestly over the threshold who don't bother employing tax planners.
This way people would pay their fair share on wealth through their lives, not a cliff edge that can be avoided.
And it would apply regardless of whether the business is held by a resident, limited company or an overseas company.
But not globalise the intifada?
But can chant i support Genocide?
But can't sit silently holding a sign supporting a group that oppose genocide cos their "terrorists"?
Great work SKS
Inheritance is a transfer of existing assets not an exchange of goods or services. When the inheritance is spent then the government can tax it.
Not content with uploading the entire unedited 60 minutes they wanted to censor, it turns out all the 'redacted' Epstein files can be read by copying and pasting the 'redacted' text into any other document...
Absolutely biting in parts. It's why I don't think correcting the multiplicity of legal errors in this judgment will actually fix things. The way that the evidence has been dealt with, which is usually strictly for the Tribunal or court who has actually seen the witnesses, is so partisan and ridiculous as to be absurd. Very difficult to fix that on appeal.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14454821/bakery-gails-hypocritically-binning-food.html
NEW: By a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court blocks Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to Chicago to assist immigration agents. A majority holds that he likely lacks authority to do so. Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissent.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25a443_ba7d.pdf
But, I don’t think that was ever available to more than 20-25% of the village population (the hoplite class in classical Greece, the yeomen of late medieval England). The rest depended on the wages they got as labourers and servants, to the better off peasants and the Big Man, in addition to produce from their small plots.
Frontier societies came closest to this ideal, but usually at the expense of defeated peoples, being pushed off the land.
The powerful were always trying to grab more land. It was fortunate that in late 18th century England, this coincided with the demand for labour in new industries. For the rural poor, leaving the land was a blessing.
That's why I was curious if she is still making waves among her intended audience, which is now narrower than it was previously.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-68253902
I recently went to A&E because no GP appointments were available. I was seen by someone who trained as a GP, but when there were no jobs available, retrained. So, he now works A&E, 90% of his work is GP work, not accidents or emergencies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil_(1985_film)
He is at least very thorough, perhaps a little too much at times, so has some merit even if there has to be a risk of letting his views colour interpretation.
The point I was seeking to make is a broader one. Even if you correct the legal errors how do you correct the way that that mindset has apparently influenced the Tribunal in their assessment of the evidence? It is really difficult. An appellate court has, correctly, very limited powers in that respect and the Tribunal or court of first instance who heard the witnesses are usually given a lot of respect. The test for intervention is close to absurdity. Sadly, I think that is where we are.
Includes the gem that Trump is searchable (and appears 600 times) if you add a space at the end
For far too long, ideologues in Europe have led organized efforts to coerce American platforms to punish American viewpoints they oppose. The Trump Administration will no longer tolerate these egregious acts of extraterritorial censorship.
Today, @StateDept will take steps to bar leading figures of the global censorship-industrial complex from entering the United States. We stand ready and willing to expand this list if others do not reverse course.
And should be grateful to those Liverpool ship owners?
ICE will be told to detain Santa if he appears in US airspace.
Most outfits that release documents regularly have this setup as a default.
Not long ago, I wrote a pdf generator for certain customer letters. A nice chap in the bank tested the output to prove that it had no “extra” information in it.
For the avoidance of doubt this reply is not as sarky as it sounds and I genuinely do value your input in this matter. But the verdicts in GLP Vs EHRC and in Hampstead Ponds is due and I need the article to achieve some kind of shape soon: the next draft is the ninth and it's turning into "Answered Prayers"
No other developed country keeps patients on trolleys as an overflow and very few don't look after patients in single siderooms.
I hope you are well enough to enjoy the holidays.
Only the most extreme Southern Fireaters tried that pitch, back in the day.
Today, EU institutions will take steps to formally challenge the United States’ prohibition of new wind projects, measures that raise prices for American consumers, weaken grid resilience, and increase U.S. dependence on foreign energy sources. These actions undermine climate commitments, economic competitiveness, and the foundations of transatlantic cooperation. We stand ready and willing to escalate our response should these restrictions not be reconsidered.
They are insanely popular - their coffee is okay and the bready comestibles are pricey but decent and that's where they score because what you have with your decaf macchiato is part of the experience.