Sir Bradley Wiggins: Former team doctor 'surprised' at drug prescription
"The stolen data revealed Wiggins, an asthma and allergy sufferer, was given permission to inject the banned drug triamcinolone, a powerful corticosteroid, just days before three major races, including the 2012 Tour de France, which he won, becoming the first Briton to do so. He also received similar permission to use 40mg of the drug before the 2011 Tour and the 2013 Tour of Italy. But questions have been raised over why Wiggins apparently did not need the drug before 2011, or after 2013."
I did not know we had so many asthmatic athletes and cyclists. It seems it is almost mandatory that you have to asthmatic before you are eligible for training.
"We know from the work we do in the UK that more athletes have asthma than the general population,” he says. “It’s probably not fair to label them full-blown asthmatics. It basically means they have an asthma response to doing high-intensity exercise. It’s not necessarily the exercise that’s the problem, but rather the volume of air that they breathe and the amount of time that they stay at this level for.”
“We see asthma in every type of athlete,” says Dickinson, “but we see it more in the sports that have higher modes (breathing more heavily) for a sustained amount of time.” Evidence to support Dickinson’s claims can be found in the University of Kent’s latest study, which revealed that Team GB swimmers are nearly ten times more likely to develop asthma than their boxing counterparts. “The results were very telling,” he adds. “Whereas only eight percent of the boxing team suffered from asthma, 70 percent of swimmers have the condition. This is down to the environment and the conditions the two types of athlete train in.”
Sir Bradley Wiggins: Former team doctor 'surprised' at drug prescription
"The stolen data revealed Wiggins, an asthma and allergy sufferer, was given permission to inject the banned drug triamcinolone, a powerful corticosteroid, just days before three major races, including the 2012 Tour de France, which he won, becoming the first Briton to do so. He also received similar permission to use 40mg of the drug before the 2011 Tour and the 2013 Tour of Italy. But questions have been raised over why Wiggins apparently did not need the drug before 2011, or after 2013."
I did not know we had so many asthmatic athletes and cyclists. It seems it is almost mandatory that you have to asthmatic before you are eligible for training.
From asthma.org.uk: "There are 5.4 million people with asthma in the UK, which means asthma affects one in every 11 people and one in five households."
So there really are a lot of asthmatics amongst the population as a whole. Should we be entirely surprised if some of those who are younger and have a better handle on their symptoms end up getting into sport?
Did Schultz really say no single mrket access without free movement? Surely almost everyone has 'access' to the single market? Membership without free movement would obviously be a non-starter but what are they up to?
At most I suspect they are deliberately trying to confuse. You see it on this site everyday where people say access when what they are talking about is membership. Sometimes it is just sloppy thinking, sometimes, perhaps, it is just a subtle extension of project fear.
Looking around my study very little of the goodies have been made in the EU, save probably most of the books. The keyboard on which I type, the computers, the monitors, the Kindle, the phone, the printer have all been made in countries that are not members of the single market and which do not have a free trade agreement with the EU. Yet they were all bought here in the UK.
If you have any Apple products, then there is a fair chance they were "made" in the Hollyhill factory in Ireland*.
* "Made" is a relative term.
But, more seriously, there is a surprising amount of "stuff" that's made in Europe.
I don't touch Apple products, Mr. Robert. I can get good enough functionality from elsewhere a lot cheaper. I am of course aware that a lot of stuff is made in the EU and indeed in the UK. That wasn't the point of my post though as I am sure you are aware.
Membership of the single market is not needed to sell into it. Lots of countries manage to do that quite successfully and don't have to belong to the EEA or pay subscriptions or accept any sort of free movement of people arrangement to do so.
"Membership of the single market is not needed to sell into it. "
Why do you use the word "single" ? You really mean to say " Membership of the EU is not needed to sell into it. "
The single market is not just about zero tariffs. It is also about virtually zero paperwork apart from monthly Intrastat returns. Countries exporting to the EU or EU countries exporting abroad cannot avoid the paperwork zero tariff or not.
Lol.
Less paperwork on intra EU sales in return for a steamingly expensive pile of bureacracy and paperwork to get a CE mark so you can put it on the market at all, even if you only sell it in the UK.
I will take the less paperwork any day. The only good thing Thatcher did was help create the Single Market.
Sir Bradley Wiggins: Former team doctor 'surprised' at drug prescription
"The stolen data revealed Wiggins, an asthma and allergy sufferer, was given permission to inject the banned drug triamcinolone, a powerful corticosteroid, just days before three major races, including the 2012 Tour de France, which he won, becoming the first Briton to do so. He also received similar permission to use 40mg of the drug before the 2011 Tour and the 2013 Tour of Italy. But questions have been raised over why Wiggins apparently did not need the drug before 2011, or after 2013."
I did not know we had so many asthmatic athletes and cyclists. It seems it is almost mandatory that you have to asthmatic before you are eligible for training.
High performance training induces a form of asthma in a large percentage of people, exact cause is unknown but pushing your body and lung capacity to the edge as high performance athletes are doing is tisky business. Mostly to just need subutimol and nothing more to manage it.
Did Schultz really say no single mrket access without free movement? Surely almost everyone has 'access' to the single market? Membership without free movement would obviously be a non-starter but what are they up to?
At most I suspect they are deliberately trying to confuse. You see it on this site everyday where people say access when what they are talking about is membership. Sometimes it is just sloppy thinking, sometimes, perhaps, it is just a subtle extension of project fear.
Looking around my study very little of the goodies have been made in the EU, save probably most of the books. The keyboard on which I type, the computers, the monitors, the Kindle, the phone, the printer have all been made in countries that are not members of the single market and which do not have a free trade agreement with the EU. Yet they were all bought here in the UK.
If you have any Apple products, then there is a fair chance they were "made" in the Hollyhill factory in Ireland*.
* "Made" is a relative term.
But, more seriously, there is a surprising amount of "stuff" that's made in Europe.
Membership of the single market is not needed to sell into it. Lots of countries manage to do that quite successfully and don't have to belong to the EEA or pay subscriptions or accept any sort of free movement of people arrangement to do so.
"Membership of the single market is not needed to sell into it. "
Why do you use the word "single" ? You really mean to say " Membership of the EU is not needed to sell into it. "
The single market is not just about zero tariffs. It is also about virtually zero paperwork apart from monthly Intrastat returns. Countries exporting to the EU or EU countries exporting abroad cannot avoid the paperwork zero tariff or not.
Lol.
Less paperwork on intra EU sales in return for a steamingly expensive pile of bureacracy and paperwork to get a CE mark so you can put it on the market at all, even if you only sell it in the UK.
CE markings are extensively used as a safety screening indicator. You can guarantee that even once we have left the EU, the UK government will have regulations for manufactured products that require plenty of paperwork to be filled out.
And of course the real advantage of single market membership for the UK is that it results in plenty of companies basing themselves in the UK so that they can easily sell into the rest of Europe. Take away our membership and they may well move elsewhere in Europe.
New from the LSE: internet pollsters' performance during the EU ref substantially superior to that of phone pollsters, and - adjusting for mode and house effects - the Leave campaign was probably ahead of Remain for the whole of 2016.
I'm sure that's right. Ultimately, pollsters downweighted groups that didn't normally vote, and that was a catastrophic error .
Another interesting implication of the finding is that the short campaign may have had little or no effect on the outcome. If correct, this would have two implications: firstly, that those still attempting to argue that the referendum result is somehow questionable - because the public were conned into voting out by falsehoods promulgated by Vote Leave - are wrong. And secondly, it lends weight to the claims of those who believe that most of the public had made their minds up about the EU anywhere from a few months to many years before the referendum was actually held.
The outcome of a national vote can potentially, it would seem, be predetermined long in advance.
The Single Market is the world's biggest and best Free Trade deal. It takes 45% of our exports. There are plenty of cogent reasons to leave the EU. But the belief Single Market membership is worthless in it's self or that compensatory alternative deals with Mozambique and Rwanda will be quick and easy is frankly delusional.
First, it's good to see you back here posting, YS. It seems an eternity ago we were in the same party but we've since taken rather different political journeys.
I'm not a huge fan of the Single Market not because I don't think it's a wonderful idea in theory but the fact of the free movement of capital and labour has been to concentrate wealth in some areas (London and the SE of England, western Germany) at the expense of other areas.
Freedom of movement has triggered massive depopulation of the Baltic States and parts of Eastern Europe (just as the reunification of Germany did to the former GDR) as people have gone to where the jobs are which is where the money is. People have always gone to the money and what we see now is no different from the Industrial Revolution in England.
I may be naive but for me the EU was never about the systematic enrichment of the north and west of Europe at the expense of the south and the east. Indeed, the concept of the EU in the beginning was to extend wealth and prosperity across Europe as a whole and to develop the weaker economies.
Except that those places with the biggest "depopulations": i.e. East Germany and the Baltics have done the best in terms of (1) GDP per capita, and (2) unemployment. The difference between the East German Lander and the West German is now less than between the richest and poorest US states. That's an unbelievable achievement in 25 years.
And the same with the Baltics. They are the most successful economies in Eastern Europe, and when you compare their economies with mother Russia (or indeed any of the other ex-Soviet Republics), you'd be living in cloud cuckoo land not to say they've done really well.
That's not to say that there aren't significant problems with the EU and the single market. But if you'd gone to the Baltic states in 1996 and said, "Hey, in 20 years time, you can look like this", you'd have got 96% in any referendum.
Surely if all the unemployed up sticks and leave, low unemployment is not that surprising?
@bbclaurak: Corbyn to launch anti-grammars campaign tmrw within hours of his likely victory
He's getting smarter. Putting them on election footing, a campaign against the government most of the party will get behind, a good excuse for people to not throw out their toys right away but stay close to Labour and the fight.
He's getting smarter. Putting them on election footing, a campaign against the government most of the party will get behind, a good excuse for people to not throw out their toys right away but stay close to Labour and the fight.
It's true most of the PLP hate grammar school boys. Like Corbyn...
@bbclaurak: Corbyn to launch anti-grammars campaign tmrw within hours of his likely victory
He's getting smarter. Putting them on election footing, a campaign against the government most of the party will get behind, a good excuse for people to not throw out their toys right away but stay close to Labour and the fight.
More like grammar schools (or, more precisely, vehement opposition thereto) are a long-standing Corbyn hobby horse.
@bbclaurak: Corbyn to launch anti-grammars campaign tmrw within hours of his likely victory
He's getting smarter. Putting them on election footing, a campaign against the government most of the party will get behind, a good excuse for people to not throw out their toys right away but stay close to Labour and the fight.
Grammars are a lousy product but a fantastic brand. We'll know Corbyn has improved when he campaigns against the product and tries to steal the Brand. My guess as an identity politics junkie he'll fall into May's trap and campaign against the Brand. We overanalyse his philosophy and underanalyse the fact he's not very bright.
Did Schultz really say no single mrket access without free movement? Surely almost everyone has 'access' to the single market? Membership without free movement would obviously be a non-starter but what are they up to?
At most I suspect they are deliberately trying to confuse. You see it on this site everyday where people say access when what they are talking about is membership. Sometimes it is just sloppy thinking, sometimes, perhaps, it is just a subtle extension of project fear.
Looking around my study ree trade agreement with the EU. Yet they were all bought here in the UK.
If you have any Apple products, then there is a fair chance they were "made" in the Hollyhill factory in Ireland*.
* "Made" is a relative term.
But, more seriously, there is a surprising amount of "stuff" that's made in Europe.
Membership of the single market is not needed to sell into it. Lots of countries manage to do that quite successfully and don't have to belong to the EEA or pay subscriptions or accept any sort of free movement of people arrangement to do so.
"Membership of the single market is not needed to sell into it. "
Why do you use the word "single" ? You really mean to say " Membership of the EU is not needed to sell into it. "
The single market is not just about zero tariffs. It is also about virtually zero paperwork apart from monthly Intrastat returns. Countries exporting to the EU or EU countries exporting abroad cannot avoid the paperwork zero tariff or not.
Lol.
Less paperwork on intra EU sales in return for a steamingly expensive pile of bureacracy and paperwork to get a CE mark so you can put it on the market at all, even if you only sell it in the UK.
CE markings are extensively used as a safety screening indicator. You can guarantee that even once we have left the EU, the UK government will have regulations for manufactured products that require plenty of paperwork to be filled out.
And of course the real advantage of single market membership for the UK is that it results in plenty of companies basing themselves in the UK so that they can easily sell into the rest of Europe. Take away our membership and they may well move elsewhere in Europe.
Curiously though, our balance of payments is in surplus with countries we don't share a single market with, but massively in deficit with those we do, which suggests the benefits of the single market aren't so great for the UK.
Did Schultz really say no single mrket access without free movement? Surely almost everyone has 'access' to the single market? Membership without free movement would obviously be a non-starter but what are they up to?
At most I suspect they are deliberately trying to confuse. You see it on this site everyday where people say access when what they are talking about is membership. Sometimes it is just sloppy thinking, sometimes, perhaps, it is just a subtle extension of project fear.
Looking around my study very little of the goodies have been made in the EU, save probably most of the books. The keyboard on which I type, the computers, the monitors, the Kindle, the phone, the printer have all been made in countries that are not members of the single market and which do not have a free trade agreement with the EU. Yet they were all bought here in the UK.
If you have any Apple products, then there is a fair chance they were "made" in the Hollyhill factory in Ireland*.
* "Made" is a relative term.
But, more seriously, there is a surprising amount of "stuff" that's made in Europe.
I don't touch Apple products, Mr. Robert. I can get good enough functionality from elsewhere a lot cheaper. I am of course aware that a lot of stuff is made in the EU and indeed in the UK. That wasn't the point of my post though as I am sure you are aware.
Membership of the single market is not needed to sell into it. Lots of countries manage to do that quite successfully and don't have to belong to the EEA or pay subscriptions or accept any sort of free movement of people arrangement to do so.
Why do you use the word "single" ? You really mean to say " Membership of the EU is not needed to sell into it. "
The single market is not just about zero tariffs. It is also about virtually zero paperwork apart from monthly Intrastat returns. Countries exporting to the EU or EU countries exporting abroad cannot avoid the paperwork zero tariff or not.
Lol.
Less paperwork on intra EU sales in return for a steamingly expensive pile of bureacracy and paperwork to get a CE mark so you can put it on the market at all, even if you only sell it in the UK.
as someone who's founded (and sold) a uk manufacturing business can i just say that everything (electronic) made in the uk post brexit will be both fcc and ce compliant. there is no market for, for example, electronics only for the swiss (ôr even the japanese) market without fcc and ce compliance.
and ce is largely self certified. it is massively less trouble to get than the US fire copliance certification (who's name i have thankfully forgotten).
@bbclaurak: Corbyn to launch anti-grammars campaign tmrw within hours of his likely victory
He's getting smarter. Putting them on election footing, a campaign against the government most of the party will get behind, a good excuse for people to not throw out their toys right away but stay close to Labour and the fight.
Grammars are a lousy product but a fantastic brand. We'll know Corbyn has improved when he campaigns against the product and tries to steal the Brand. My guess as an identity politics junkie he'll fall into May's trap and campaign against the Brand. We overanalyse his philosophy and underanalyse the fact he's not very bright.
Oh I know that, and I don't think he's getting smarter in the sense he's picking a fight he will win - I have no idea if he will achieve something in this opposition to grammars, and I don't have any stake on whether he does or not so it doesn't matter what happens - but in terms of distracting from current issues, of giving people opposed to him something to rally behind together as a party, he seems to have planned for it better than when he became leader and there was little direction from the start.
Did Schultz really say no single mrket access without free movement? Surely almost everyone has 'access' to the single market? Membership without free movement would obviously be a non-starter but what are they up to?
At most I suspect they are deliberately trying to confuse. You see it on this site everyday where people say access when what they are talking about is membership. Sometimes it is just sloppy thinking, sometimes, perhaps, it is just a subtle extension of project fear.
Looking around my study ree trade agreement with the EU. Yet they were all bought here in the UK.
Membership of the single market is not needed to sell into it. Lots of countries manage to do that quite successfully and don't have to belong to the EEA or pay subscriptions or accept any sort of free movement of people arrangement to do so.
Lol.
Less paperwork on intra EU sales in return for a steamingly expensive pile of bureacracy and paperwork to get a CE mark so you can put it on the market at all, even if you only sell it in the UK.
CE markings are extensively used as a safety screening indicator. You can guarantee that even once we have left the EU, the UK government will have regulations for manufactured products that require plenty of paperwork to be filled out.
And of course the real advantage of single market membership for the UK is that it results in plenty of companies basing themselves in the UK so that they can easily sell into the rest of Europe. Take away our membership and they may well move elsewhere in Europe.
Curiously though, our balance of payments is in surplus with countries we don't share a single market with, but massively in deficit with those we do, which suggests the benefits of the single market aren't so great for the UK.
I suspect that is because the UK is an import junkie and sucks at exporting. EU countries are the closest and easiest to import from so that is where we buy from. Leave the single market and we will still have the same magnitude of balance of payments problem but it will just be spread over more countries. And if we lose some of our exporters it will just be worse.
The Single Market is the world's biggest and best Free Trade deal. It takes 45% of our exports. There are plenty of cogent reasons to leave the EU. But the belief Single Market membership is worthless in it's self or that compensatory alternative deals with Mozambique and Rwanda will be quick and easy is frankly delusional.
First, it's good to see you back here posting, YS. It seems an eternity ago we were in the same party but we've since taken rather different political journeys.
I'm not a huge fan of the Single Market not because I don't think it's a wonderful idea in theory but the fact of the free movement of capital and labour has been to concentrate wealth in some areas (London and the SE of England, western Germany) at the expense of other areas.
Freedom of movement has triggered massive depopulation of the Baltic States and parts of Eastern Europe (just as the reunification of Germany did to the former GDR) as people have gone to where the jobs are which is where the money is. People have always gone to the money and what we see now is no different from the Industrial Revolution in England.
I may be naive but for me the EU was never about the systematic enrichment of the north and west of Europe at the expense of the south and the east. Indeed, the concept of the EU in the beginning was to extend wealth and prosperity across Europe as a whole and to develop the weaker economies.
Except that those places with the biggest "depopulations": i.e. East Germany and the Baltics have done the best in terms of (1) GDP per capita, and (2) unemployment. The difference between the East German Lander and the West German is now less than between the richest and poorest US states. That's an unbelievable achievement in 25 years.
And the same with the Baltics. They are the most successful economies in Eastern Europe, and when you compare their economies with mother Russia (or indeed any of the other ex-Soviet Republics), you'd be living in cloud cuckoo land not to say they've done really well.
That's not to say that there aren't significant problems with the EU and the single market. But if you'd gone to the Baltic states in 1996 and said, "Hey, in 20 years time, you can look like this", you'd have got 96% in any referendum.
Surely if all the unemployed up sticks and leave, low unemployment is not that surprising?
sure, but that doesn't account for the fact that those countries have done better at closing the gap in incomes or gdp per capita.
Curiously though, our balance of payments is in surplus with countries we don't share a single market with, but massively in deficit with those we do, which suggests the benefits of the single market aren't so great for the UK.
On the contrary, it suggests that UK consumers can't get enough of the single market.
Curiously though, our balance of payments is in surplus with countries we don't share a single market with, but massively in deficit with those we do, which suggests the benefits of the single market aren't so great for the UK.
On the contrary, it suggests that UK consumers can't get enough of the single market.
The crashing pound - euro exchange rate will be what kills off Aldi / Lidl in the UK...
Curiously though, our balance of payments is in surplus with countries we don't share a single market with, but massively in deficit with those we do, which suggests the benefits of the single market aren't so great for the UK.
On the contrary, it suggests that UK consumers can't get enough of the single market.
The crashing pound - euro exchange rate will be what kills off Aldi / Lidl in the UK...
Crashing? I thought it had been reasonably stable in the last few weeks.
Curiously though, our balance of payments is in surplus with countries we don't share a single market with, but massively in deficit with those we do, which suggests the benefits of the single market aren't so great for the UK.
Sean, we've had this discussion before, but it bears repeating.
Firms and consumers desire things. Where they buy them from is determined by their cost.
Take the iPad. Currently, if you are using an iPad, it is likely imported from Ireland. If the UK left the EU, and entered into a free trade agreement with China, then Apple Retail (UK) Ltd would cease buying iPads from Apple Computers Ireland, and would instead buy them from Apple Manufacturing (Shenzhen). Our balance of payments would not change, only where the surplus or deficit was.
If you look around the world, there is a very high correlation between savings rate and trade balances. (And when I say very high, I mean 0.8 or so.) So, those countries with high savings rates (China, Switzerland, and Germany) run surpluses, and those countries with low savings rates (the UK, and the US) run deficits.
The only long term way to close the UK trade deficit is to increase our savings rate. The "pleasant" way to do that is to export (i.e. earn) more, while spending the same amount. The unpleasant way to do it is for us all to dramatically reduce our spending.
Now, leaving the EU will likely have a small positive impact on our deficit, because we'll be able to buy food more cheaply from Africa than from the EU. But we have a current account deficit of 7% of GDP. That might move the needle 0.1%, if we're lucky. Ultimately, our current account and trade deficits are a consequence of a deficient savings rate, not of being a member of the EU.
Did Schultz really say no single mrket access without free movement? Surely almost everyone has 'access' to the single market? Membership without free movement would obviously be a non-starter but what are they up to?
Looking around my study very little of the goodies have been made in the EU, save probably most of the books. The keyboard on which I type, the computers, the monitors, the Kindle, the phone, the printer have all been made in countries that are not members of the single market and which do not have a free trade agreement with the EU. Yet they were all bought here in the UK.
If you have any Apple products, then there is a fair chance they were "made" in the Hollyhill factory in Ireland*.
* "Made" is a relative term.
But, more seriously, there is a surprising amount of "stuff" that's made in Europe.
I don't touch Apple products, Mr. Robert. I can get good enough functionality from elsewhere a lot cheaper. I am of course aware that a lot of stuff is made in the EU and indeed in the UK. That wasn't the point of my post though as I am sure you are aware.
Membership of the single market is not needed to sell into it. Lots of countries manage to do that quite successfully and don't have to belong to the EEA or pay subscriptions or accept any sort of free movement of people arrangement to do so.
Why do you use the word "single" ? You really mean to say " Membership of the EU is not needed to sell into it. "
The single market is not just about zero tariffs. It is also about virtually zero paperwork apart from monthly Intrastat returns. Countries exporting to the EU or EU countries exporting abroad cannot avoid the paperwork zero tariff or not.
Lol.
Less paperwork on intra EU sales in return for a steamingly expensive pile of bureacracy and paperwork to get a CE mark so you can put it on the market at all, even if you only sell it in the UK.
as someone who's founded (and sold) a uk manufacturing business can i just say that everything (electronic) made in the uk post brexit will be both fcc and ce compliant. there is no market for, for example, electronics only for the swiss (ôr even the japanese) market without fcc and ce compliance.
and ce is largely self certified. it is massively less trouble to get than the US fire copliance certification (who's name i have thankfully forgotten).
Less paperwork on intra EU sales in return for a steamingly expensive pile of bureacracy and paperwork to get a CE mark so you can put it on the market at all, even if you only sell it in the UK.
There is zero chance of that changing, whatever the outcome of our negotiations. And I really do mean zero. We will continue to follow EU product type regulations.
Less paperwork on intra EU sales in return for a steamingly expensive pile of bureacracy and paperwork to get a CE mark so you can put it on the market at all, even if you only sell it in the UK.
There is zero chance of that changing, whatever the outcome of our negotiations. And I really do mean zero. We will continue to follow EU product type regulations.
Edit to add: that's the form for toys. The one for electronics is barely more complicated. It basically says "this is my product ID, name, and address and I certify that it doesn't blow up or emit dangerous levels of radiation. and if it causes problems I admit that it's my fault."
Edit to add: that's the form for toys. The one for electronics is barely more complicated. It basically says "this is my product ID, name, and address and I certify that it doesn't blow up or emit dangerous levels of radiation. and if it causes problems I admit that it's my fault."
Yes, it's actually quite hard to find examples of burdensome EU regulation which we could radically simplify. Even in financial services, we'll probably end up with much the same, or exactly the same, set as the EU regulations.
Edit: Farming is probably the area where there is some real red tape which could be eliminated. But I wonder if we will? DEFRA has been gold-plating the regulations for years.
I have just remembered (well, looked up), the certification required for the US market regarding fire compliance: it's the UL mark, and it's highly likely that any electronics product you have will have its logo (alongside the CE and FCC ones) on it.
Getting UL is a complete nightmare, largely because UL became a for profit organisation a few years ago, and has therefore implemented a series of (paid for) hoops that you need to jump through at each stage of the certification scheme. While CE can be acquired for zero cost, UL costs a minimum of thousands of dollars.
Hillary Clinton wants to raise the estate tax up to an astounding 65%. Donald Trump wants to repeal it. On this issue, their views could not be more opposite. Plainly, Hillary’s savvy move could bring in droves of Bernie supporters. But is it likely to pass or to collect large amounts? Probably not. Current law exempts estates worth $5.45 million or less. Beyond that, you pay 40%.
Hillary Clinton wants to raise the estate tax up to an astounding 65%. Donald Trump wants to repeal it. On this issue, their views could not be more opposite. Plainly, Hillary’s savvy move could bring in droves of Bernie supporters. But is it likely to pass or to collect large amounts? Probably not. Current law exempts estates worth $5.45 million or less. Beyond that, you pay 40%.
Inheritance is income and the recipient should pay tax on it accordingly.
Hillary Clinton wants to raise the estate tax up to an astounding 65%. Donald Trump wants to repeal it. On this issue, their views could not be more opposite. Plainly, Hillary’s savvy move could bring in droves of Bernie supporters. But is it likely to pass or to collect large amounts? Probably not. Current law exempts estates worth $5.45 million or less. Beyond that, you pay 40%.
thats for estates over 500 million. So trump wont have to worry about it
Hillary Clinton wants to raise the estate tax up to an astounding 65%. Donald Trump wants to repeal it. On this issue, their views could not be more opposite. Plainly, Hillary’s savvy move could bring in droves of Bernie supporters. But is it likely to pass or to collect large amounts? Probably not. Current law exempts estates worth $5.45 million or less. Beyond that, you pay 40%.
Inheritance is income and the recipient should pay tax on it accordingly.
Discuss.
It is an asset on which tax has already been paid, so it is double taxation. Discuss.
Hillary Clinton wants to raise the estate tax up to an astounding 65%. Donald Trump wants to repeal it. On this issue, their views could not be more opposite. Plainly, Hillary’s savvy move could bring in droves of Bernie supporters. But is it likely to pass or to collect large amounts? Probably not. Current law exempts estates worth $5.45 million or less. Beyond that, you pay 40%.
Inheritance is income and the recipient should pay tax on it accordingly.
Discuss.
Agree. Inheritance tax is progressive, and better than raising the same amount in a different way: better to,pay tax when you are dead than when alive.
I hope Lisa Nandy comes back to the shadow cabinet.
She said no earlier
On this week last night she hopped about but basically said she would only be interested if there wasn't any collective responsibility. Which AN took as a no.
Hillary Clinton wants to raise the estate tax up to an astounding 65%. Donald Trump wants to repeal it. On this issue, their views could not be more opposite. Plainly, Hillary’s savvy move could bring in droves of Bernie supporters. But is it likely to pass or to collect large amounts? Probably not. Current law exempts estates worth $5.45 million or less. Beyond that, you pay 40%.
Inheritance is income and the recipient should pay tax on it accordingly.
Discuss.
It is an asset on which tax has already been paid, so it is double taxation. Discuss.
Tax is collected at the point assets transfer between entities, because that is much more efficient to collect than taxing wealth directly.
So, you buy something - it's taxed, even though the income you use to make the purchase is taxed already.
If you think of money as going round in a circle, why is it this particular form of asset transfer is exempt?
The other thing I don't understand is why the estate pays it. It makes much more sense to have the recipient pay.
Hillary Clinton wants to raise the estate tax up to an astounding 65%. Donald Trump wants to repeal it. On this issue, their views could not be more opposite. Plainly, Hillary’s savvy move could bring in droves of Bernie supporters. But is it likely to pass or to collect large amounts? Probably not. Current law exempts estates worth $5.45 million or less. Beyond that, you pay 40%.
Inheritance is income and the recipient should pay tax on it accordingly.
Discuss.
It is an asset on which tax has already been paid, so it is double taxation. Discuss.
Betting losses should be tax deductible. Passed without discussion?
Hillary Clinton wants to raise the estate tax up to an astounding 65%. Donald Trump wants to repeal it. On this issue, their views could not be more opposite. Plainly, Hillary’s savvy move could bring in droves of Bernie supporters. But is it likely to pass or to collect large amounts? Probably not. Current law exempts estates worth $5.45 million or less. Beyond that, you pay 40%.
Inheritance is income and the recipient should pay tax on it accordingly.
Discuss.
It is an asset on which tax has already been paid, so it is double taxation. Discuss.
Tax is collected at the point assets transfer between entities, because that is much more efficient to collect than taxing wealth directly.
So, you buy something - it's taxed, even though the income you use to make the purchase is taxed already.
If you think of money as going round in a circle, why is it this particular form of asset transfer is exempt?
The other thing I don't understand is why the estate pays it. It makes much more sense to have the recipient pay.
Less paperwork on intra EU sales in return for a steamingly expensive pile of bureacracy and paperwork to get a CE mark so you can put it on the market at all, even if you only sell it in the UK.
There is zero chance of that changing, whatever the outcome of our negotiations. And I really do mean zero. We will continue to follow EU product type regulations.
Just as we will continue to abide by the REACH regs, shipping regulations etc etc. Yes we could set a different standard. The consequences would be interesting though.we are not the US and declare, without loss, that all fuel transporters are double hulled without materially adverse consequences. An island but not an island.
And before one gets the remoaner shit (which should be categorised with Bliar for simpleton status) we have to work the consequences. It's just that it won't all be UDI and milk and honey.
Hillary Clinton wants to raise the estate tax up to an astounding 65%. Donald Trump wants to repeal it. On this issue, their views could not be more opposite. Plainly, Hillary’s savvy move could bring in droves of Bernie supporters. But is it likely to pass or to collect large amounts? Probably not. Current law exempts estates worth $5.45 million or less. Beyond that, you pay 40%.
Inheritance is income and the recipient should pay tax on it accordingly.
Discuss.
It is an asset on which tax has already been paid, so it is double taxation. Discuss.
Tax is collected at the point assets transfer between entities, because that is much more efficient to collect than taxing wealth directly.
So, you buy something - it's taxed, even though the income you use to make the purchase is taxed already.
If you think of money as going round in a circle, why is it this particular form of asset transfer is exempt?
The other thing I don't understand is why the estate pays it. It makes much more sense to have the recipient pay.
What if the recipient is an offshore trust?
Tax will be paid by the beneficiary of that trust at the rate for the beneficary's jurisdiction. To do otherwise would be tax evasion. A trust is not an end in itself (see also the rule against perpetuities).
Washington Examiner Employees at Platte River Network, the firm tapped to manage Hillary Clinton's emails in 2013, sent emails describing the 'Hilary [sic] coverup [sic] operation' after Clinton's staff asked them to begin wiping emails in Dec. 2014.
Hillary Clinton wants to raise the estate tax up to an astounding 65%. Donald Trump wants to repeal it. On this issue, their views could not be more opposite. Plainly, Hillary’s savvy move could bring in droves of Bernie supporters. But is it likely to pass or to collect large amounts? Probably not. Current law exempts estates worth $5.45 million or less. Beyond that, you pay 40%.
Inheritance is income and the recipient should pay tax on it accordingly.
Hillary Clinton wants to raise the estate tax up to an astounding 65%. Donald Trump wants to repeal it. On this issue, their views could not be more opposite. Plainly, Hillary’s savvy move could bring in droves of Bernie supporters. But is it likely to pass or to collect large amounts? Probably not. Current law exempts estates worth $5.45 million or less. Beyond that, you pay 40%.
Inheritance is income and the recipient should pay tax on it accordingly.
Discuss.
Agree. Inheritance tax is progressive, and better than raising the same amount in a different way: better to,pay tax when you are dead than when alive.
Or better yet arrange your affairs in such a way that you pay no tax.
Hillary Clinton wants to raise the estate tax up to an astounding 65%. Donald Trump wants to repeal it. On this issue, their views could not be more opposite. Plainly, Hillary’s savvy move could bring in droves of Bernie supporters. But is it likely to pass or to collect large amounts? Probably not. Current law exempts estates worth $5.45 million or less. Beyond that, you pay 40%.
Inheritance is income and the recipient should pay tax on it accordingly.
Discuss.
Agree. Inheritance tax is progressive, and better than raising the same amount in a different way: better to,pay tax when you are dead than when alive.
Or better yet arrange your affairs in such a way that you pay no tax.
Hillary Clinton wants to raise the estate tax up to an astounding 65%. Donald Trump wants to repeal it. On this issue, their views could not be more opposite. Plainly, Hillary’s savvy move could bring in droves of Bernie supporters. But is it likely to pass or to collect large amounts? Probably not. Current law exempts estates worth $5.45 million or less. Beyond that, you pay 40%.
Inheritance is income and the recipient should pay tax on it accordingly.
Discuss.
Tax shouldn't be paid on income as it's no business of the State what we make for ourselves and it's modern day slavery to extort a percentage.
The other thing I don't understand is why the estate pays it. It makes much more sense to have the recipient pay.
I think for legacy reasons: Taxing inheritance long pre-dates taxing income. Logistically there's a lot of record-keeping and auditing involved in taxing income, whereas inheritance only happens once per lifetime, and the courts are often potentially involved in knowing how much you have already, as people will fight over who is supposed to get it.
On topic, the polling isn't really very tight. It's a clear Clinton lead, and the lead doesn't even vanish when she's at the bottom of a very bad media cycle. This may of course change, but objectively, right now it's not looking like a close race.
I commend Theresa May for resisting the pressure, from some Brexiteers at home and from some European capitals abroad, to trigger Article 50 this autumn. She is right that we need time to decide what Britain’s approach to these negotiations will be before we enter into them.
In any case, it is highly unlikely that the rest of Europe will be in any position to conduct serious negotiations until the autumn of next year.
My experience of six years of European negotiations is that nothing serious happens until the French and, especially, the German governments take a view - and both countries will be preoccupied with their own domestic elections for much of next year.
That’s an opportunity for the British Government and the House of Commons to think hard about how we should approach the decisions we now face.
Hillary Clinton wants to raise the estate tax up to an astounding 65%. Donald Trump wants to repeal it. On this issue, their views could not be more opposite. Plainly, Hillary’s savvy move could bring in droves of Bernie supporters. But is it likely to pass or to collect large amounts? Probably not. Current law exempts estates worth $5.45 million or less. Beyond that, you pay 40%.
Inheritance is income and the recipient should pay tax on it accordingly.
Discuss.
It is an asset on which tax has already been paid, so it is double taxation. Discuss.
Tax is collected at the point assets transfer between entities, because that is much more efficient to collect than taxing wealth directly.
So, you buy something - it's taxed, even though the income you use to make the purchase is taxed already.
If you think of money as going round in a circle, why is it this particular form of asset transfer is exempt?
The other thing I don't understand is why the estate pays it. It makes much more sense to have the recipient pay.
When you sell shares, do you pay a tax on the value of the share, or on the increase in the value of the share?
If selling shares on which you have not made a profit incurs no tax, why should giving something on which there is no profit?
PS In the case of income and retail sales, there is a value-added, and that is what is being taxed.
The practical disadvantage of taxing inheritance is where it breaks up functioning economic units, such as farms. The advantage is that it is easy to collect and it is redistributive.
Hillary Clinton wants to raise the estate tax up to an astounding 65%. Donald Trump wants to repeal it. On this issue, their views could not be more opposite. Plainly, Hillary’s savvy move could bring in droves of Bernie supporters. But is it likely to pass or to collect large amounts? Probably not. Current law exempts estates worth $5.45 million or less. Beyond that, you pay 40%.
Inheritance is income and the recipient should pay tax on it accordingly.
Discuss.
It is an asset on which tax has already been paid, so it is double taxation. Discuss.
Tax is collected at the point assets transfer between entities, because that is much more efficient to collect than taxing wealth directly.
So, you buy something - it's taxed, even though the income you use to make the purchase is taxed already.
If you think of money as going round in a circle, why is it this particular form of asset transfer is exempt?
The other thing I don't understand is why the estate pays it. It makes much more sense to have the recipient pay.
When you sell shares, do you pay a tax on the value of the share, or on the increase in the value of the share?
If selling shares on which you have not made a profit incurs no tax, why should giving something on which there is no profit?
PS In the case of income and retail sales, there is a value-added, and that is what is being taxed.
The practical disadvantage of taxing inheritance is where it breaks up functioning economic units, such as farms. The advantage is that it is easy to collect and it is redistributive.
Why is being redistributive an "advantage"?
In reality that means taking from those with ability and gifting to those without.
Jeremy Corbyn is 'out of touch' and an 'election loser' among working class voters, poll finds Poll for The Independent shows a major disconnect between traditional Labour voters and new Corbyn supporters
"This is, of course, all about the outcomes in the key swing states but the national surveys gives us a good overview of the election that takes place in just 46 days time."
Nate Silver's model seems inconsistent on the relationship between national vote and swing states.
He currently shows Clinton with an average lead of 2.6% nationally. He also shows a much higher likelihood of Clinton winning the national vote but losing the electoral college (7.2%) than of Trump doing the same (1.2%). That implies Trump's votes are more efficiently distributed than Clinton's.
However, those figures also mean that a 1.3% swing to Trump would make the national votes equal, whereas Silver's state-by-state figures would require a 1.75% swing to Trump for him to win the electoral college. That implies Clinton's votes are more efficiently distributed than Trump's!
I don't know how the US system works in detail, but these things are complicated. For example the UK parliament as it now stands works to Labour's disadvantage versus the Tories at the moment, but was quite favourable to them ten years ago. And although Labour have a real job on to win a majority, it is hard to see them losing large numbers of seats with the way their current vote is distributed - so in a way their vote is distributed both efficiently and inefficiently simultaneously. Likewise it wouldn't surprise me if the Tory's current high score in the polls wouldn't be reflected in a huge majority in the Commons. But I doubt they'd complain.
Comments
“We see asthma in every type of athlete,” says Dickinson, “but we see it more in the sports that have higher modes (breathing more heavily) for a sustained amount of time.” Evidence to support Dickinson’s claims can be found in the University of Kent’s latest study, which revealed that Team GB swimmers are nearly ten times more likely to develop asthma than their boxing counterparts. “The results were very telling,” he adds. “Whereas only eight percent of the boxing team suffered from asthma, 70 percent of swimmers have the condition. This is down to the environment and the conditions the two types of athlete train in.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/why-do-so-many-professional-athletes-have-asthma--and-does-it-he/
So there really are a lot of asthmatics amongst the population as a whole. Should we be entirely surprised if some of those who are younger and have a better handle on their symptoms end up getting into sport?
Ted Cruz finally endorses Trump. (BBC)
And of course the real advantage of single market membership for the UK is that it results in plenty of companies basing themselves in the UK so that they can easily sell into the rest of Europe. Take away our membership and they may well move elsewhere in Europe.
The outcome of a national vote can potentially, it would seem, be predetermined long in advance.
A true lib dem would presumably be happy to be on the receiving end of either, just for being noticed.
and ce is largely self certified. it is massively less trouble to get than the US fire copliance certification (who's name i have thankfully forgotten).
Firms and consumers desire things. Where they buy them from is determined by their cost.
Take the iPad. Currently, if you are using an iPad, it is likely imported from Ireland. If the UK left the EU, and entered into a free trade agreement with China, then Apple Retail (UK) Ltd would cease buying iPads from Apple Computers Ireland, and would instead buy them from Apple Manufacturing (Shenzhen). Our balance of payments would not change, only where the surplus or deficit was.
If you look around the world, there is a very high correlation between savings rate and trade balances. (And when I say very high, I mean 0.8 or so.) So, those countries with high savings rates (China, Switzerland, and Germany) run surpluses, and those countries with low savings rates (the UK, and the US) run deficits.
The only long term way to close the UK trade deficit is to increase our savings rate. The "pleasant" way to do that is to export (i.e. earn) more, while spending the same amount. The unpleasant way to do it is for us all to dramatically reduce our spending.
Now, leaving the EU will likely have a small positive impact on our deficit, because we'll be able to buy food more cheaply from Africa than from the EU. But we have a current account deficit of 7% of GDP. That might move the needle 0.1%, if we're lucky. Ultimately, our current account and trade deficits are a consequence of a deficient savings rate, not of being a member of the EU.
Edit to add: that's the form for toys. The one for electronics is barely more complicated. It basically says "this is my product ID, name, and address and I certify that it doesn't blow up or emit dangerous levels of radiation. and if it causes problems I admit that it's my fault."
Edit: Farming is probably the area where there is some real red tape which could be eliminated. But I wonder if we will? DEFRA has been gold-plating the regulations for years.
PS I may be a little drunk
Getting UL is a complete nightmare, largely because UL became a for profit organisation a few years ago, and has therefore implemented a series of (paid for) hoops that you need to jump through at each stage of the certification scheme. While CE can be acquired for zero cost, UL costs a minimum of thousands of dollars.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2016/09/23/hillary-clintons-65-estate-tax-or-donald-trumps-repeal/
Hillary Clinton wants to raise the estate tax up to an astounding 65%. Donald Trump wants to repeal it. On this issue, their views could not be more opposite. Plainly, Hillary’s savvy move could bring in droves of Bernie supporters. But is it likely to pass or to collect large amounts? Probably not. Current law exempts estates worth $5.45 million or less. Beyond that, you pay 40%.
Discuss.
So, you buy something - it's taxed, even though the income you use to make the purchase is taxed already.
If you think of money as going round in a circle, why is it this particular form of asset transfer is exempt?
The other thing I don't understand is why the estate pays it. It makes much more sense to have the recipient pay.
(Betting wins tax free of course)
And before one gets the remoaner shit (which should be categorised with Bliar for simpleton status) we have to work the consequences. It's just that it won't all be UDI and milk and honey.
More proof Gary Johnson is... Umm
https://t.co/69vseUoq6K
Employees at Platte River Network, the firm tapped to manage Hillary Clinton's emails in 2013, sent emails describing the 'Hilary [sic] coverup [sic] operation' after Clinton's staff asked them to begin wiping emails in Dec. 2014.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2602744
Zeke Miller
Obama used a pseudonym in emails with Clinton, FBI documents reveal https://t.co/H4RXil0QAx
I commend Theresa May for resisting the pressure, from some Brexiteers at home and from some European capitals abroad, to trigger Article 50 this autumn. She is right that we need time to decide what Britain’s approach to these negotiations will be before we enter into them.
In any case, it is highly unlikely that the rest of Europe will be in any position to conduct serious negotiations until the autumn of next year.
My experience of six years of European negotiations is that nothing serious happens until the French and, especially, the German governments take a view - and both countries will be preoccupied with their own domestic elections for much of next year.
That’s an opportunity for the British Government and the House of Commons to think hard about how we should approach the decisions we now face.
https://www.thechicagocouncil.org/blog/global-insight/louis-b-susman-lecture-transatlantic-relations-george-osborne-mp
If selling shares on which you have not made a profit incurs no tax, why should giving something on which there is no profit?
PS In the case of income and retail sales, there is a value-added, and that is what is being taxed.
The practical disadvantage of taxing inheritance is where it breaks up functioning economic units, such as farms. The advantage is that it is easy to collect and it is redistributive.
In reality that means taking from those with ability and gifting to those without.
Jeremy Corbyn is 'out of touch' and an 'election loser' among working class voters, poll finds
Poll for The Independent shows a major disconnect between traditional Labour voters and new Corbyn supporters
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-leadership-results-live-jeremy-corbyn-owen-smith-poll-incompetent-working-class-voters-a7326486.html