Lol! I'm not especially extreme either - I know a leading Google scientist (not very poliical so doesn't fit with Orwell) who can't be bothered to drink coffee to keep him going for long hours - he just pops some caffeine tablets. If he could skip food altogether, he would.
Is there any possibility of Theresa May having another fit of boldness after March 29th and at the first subsequent sign of trouble taking the back me or sack me option? (Yes, I know she cannot call a leadership contest herself, but she can surely t rigger the necessary letter writing). The reason being the one year she gets it she wins, even narrowly, will take her through Brexit, and she will only have to worry about the parliamentary mathematics rather than the Tory mathematics, unless, unless, the Brexiteers go for the nuclear option.
The other upside is that the Tory process is rapid, so only a minimal amount of campaigning to do.
No need - TM is taking the Country through Brexit and right now has a pretty united party.
Furthermore, the process is not rapid as candidates would have to go through hustings before narrowing down to the two who then have to go through the membership vote
Inheritance tax is not a tax on the “young”, it is a tax on those who inherit. These days they tend to be middle aged, and the (unearned) money simply perpetuates the gap between haves and have nots.
In an ideal world, I would tax it at the same rate as income tax. But as that’s not politically possible, I would look at ways of clamping down on avoidance.
As for rates, we have them in NZ and they work fine. I’m not sure what the problem was/is. No sane person can defend the hugely regressive council tax system.
Taxation should be a means of raising revenue for the state to carry out its functions. Nothing more. And those functions should be reduced as well.
And in case you missed it, the whole point of the debate at the moment is that a particular generation are being ignored for the benefit of the elderly. That generation will soon be middle aged and will be losing their parents just like we all do. So all you are suggesting is that as well as screwing them whilst they are young, you are going to screw them when they are middle aged as well. Nice one.
He effectively says we either tax baby boomers (his preference) or younger generations pay more. Except he then suggests increasing inheritance tax. That won't be paid by baby boomers, as they'll be dead. It'll be paid by their children. The people Willetts says shouldn't pay more. Oaf.
Technically it is the estate of the baby boomers who pay the tax.
I think he's drawing the distinction between a one off tax which is what an inheritance tax is versus a regular recurring tax which is what income tax/NI is.
Good old two brains. One of the major attractions of voting Tory is that you get to keep/pass down your family assets in case anyone forgot to tell him.
Except we need revenue, and the only place left to go is wealth. If the Tory’s don’t think the unthinkable, Labour will.
Rich oldies need to start coughing up.
End the triple lock. Raise the retirement age. Make them pay NI. Increase inheritance tax. And implement a very modest property tax to replace council tax.
Or beggar the grandkids.
End the triple lock. - Agreed
Raise the retirement age. - Very much agreed
Make them pay NI. - Very much agreed
Increase inheritance tax. - Absolutely not. That is a tax on the young not the old.
And implement a very modest property tax to replace council tax. - You mean like Rates? There was a reason we got rid of those last time.
They need to do something about council tax rates - the current valuations are 20 years out of date. A modest property tax (especially if based against the average house in the authority) would solve a lot of the current council tax problems,
“After Mr. Trump’s victory, Mr. Cohen complained to friends that he had yet to be reimbursed for the payment to Ms. Clifford, [people familiar with the matter] said.”
Lol! I'm not especially extreme either - I know a leading Google scientist (not very poliical so doesn't fit with Orwell) who can't be bothered to drink coffee to keep him going for long hours - he just pops some caffeine tablets. If he could skip food altogether, he would.
Me, I like a good curry. I'm a moderate, innit.
You certainly seemed so when we met in Manchester. But I am with @Cyclefree on this one. Food is one of the great pleasures of life.
Brilliant!!! He's a bit like a Z list celebrity who did something sometime ago and now you aren't sure what he's up to these days or whether he's now working for uber (sorry self employed) ... he going on I'm a Celebrity this year perhaps?
He effectively says we either tax baby boomers (his preference) or younger generations pay more. Except he then suggests increasing inheritance tax. That won't be paid by baby boomers, as they'll be dead. It'll be paid by their children. The people Willetts says shouldn't pay more. Oaf.
Technically it is the estate of the baby boomers who pay the tax.
I think he's drawing the distinction between a one off tax which is what an inheritance tax is versus a regular recurring tax which is what income tax/NI is.
Good old two brains. One of the major attractions of voting Tory is that you get to keep/pass down your family assets in case anyone forgot to tell him.
Except we need revenue, and the only place left to go is wealth. If the Tory’s don’t think the unthinkable, Labour will.
Rich oldies need to start coughing up.
End the triple lock. Raise the retirement age. Make them pay NI. Increase inheritance tax. And implement a very modest property tax to replace council tax.
Or beggar the grandkids.
End the triple lock. - Agreed
Raise the retirement age. - Very much agreed
Make them pay NI. - Very much agreed
Increase inheritance tax. - Absolutely not. That is a tax on the young not the old.
And implement a very modest property tax to replace council tax. - You mean like Rates? There was a reason we got rid of those last time.
They need to do something about council tax rates - the current valuations are 20 years out of date. A modest property tax (especially if based against the average house in the authority) would solve a lot of the current council tax problems,
I have never understood that claim, because it's only relative values within a limited area that matter, surely? It's irrelevant that London has gone up more than Liverpool, because they are paying into different pots, and it's not the case as far as I know that different types of housing have drastically changed their relative values - so for instance suburban semi s weren't cheaper than penthouses then but twice the price now.
Inheritance tax is not a tax on the “young”, it is a tax on those who inherit. These days they tend to be middle aged, and the (unearned) money simply perpetuates the gap between haves and have nots.
In an ideal world, I would tax it at the same rate as income tax. But as that’s not politically possible, I would look at ways of clamping down on avoidance.
As for rates, we have them in NZ and they work fine. I’m not sure what the problem was/is. No sane person can defend the hugely regressive council tax system.
Taxation should be a means of raising revenue for the state to carry out its functions. Nothing more. And those functions should be reduced as well.
And in case you missed it, the whole point of the debate at the moment is that a particular generation are being ignored for the benefit of the elderly. That generation will soon be middle aged and will be losing their parents just like we all do. So all you are suggesting is that as well as screwing them whilst they are young, you are going to screw them when they are middle aged as well. Nice one.
Ok, but you’re just arguing for a night watchman state and a low, flat tax.
Inheritance is simply income, and should be taxed accordingly.
Ouch....
No Nil rate band?
Just straight up to 47% over 150k or 62% over 100k to 123k?
Would it count towards tapered annual allowance?
The tapered annual allowance is an abomination. On my first day in power I would eliminate it.
Perhaps, everyone should have a lifetime "tax free" allowance of £500,000 (inflation adjusted, of course) which can be used for income, capital gains or inheritance.
He effectively says we either tax baby boomers (his preference) or younger generations pay more. Except he then suggests increasing inheritance tax. That won't be paid by baby boomers, as they'll be dead. It'll be paid by their children. The people Willetts says shouldn't pay more. Oaf.
Technically it is the estate of the baby boomers who pay the tax.
I think he's drawing the distinction between a one off tax which is what an inheritance tax is versus a regular recurring tax which is what income tax/NI is.
Good old two brains. One of the major attractions of voting Tory is that you get to keep/pass down your family assets in case anyone forgot to tell him.
Except we need revenue, and the only place left to go is wealth. If the Tory’s don’t think the unthinkable, Labour will.
Rich oldies need to start coughing up.
End the triple lock. Raise the retirement age. Make them pay NI. Increase inheritance tax. And implement a very modest property tax to replace council tax.
Or beggar the grandkids.
End the triple lock. - Agreed
Raise the retirement age. - Very much agreed
Make them pay NI. - Very much agreed
Increase inheritance tax. - Absolutely not. That is a tax on the young not the old.
And implement a very modest property tax to replace council tax. - You mean like Rates? There was a reason we got rid of those last time.
They need to do something about council tax rates - the current valuations are 20 years out of date. A modest property tax (especially if based against the average house in the authority) would solve a lot of the current council tax problems,
I have never understood that claim, because it's only relative values within a limited area that matter, surely? It's irrelevant that London has gone up more than Liverpool, because they are paying into different pots, and it's not the case as far as I know that different types of housing have drastically changed their relative values - so for instance suburban semi s weren't cheaper than penthouses then but twice the price now.
I have never understood that claim, because it's only relative values within a limited area that matter, surely? It's irrelevant that London has gone up more than Liverpool, because they are paying into different pots, and it's not the case as far as I know that different types of housing have drastically changed their relative values - so for instance suburban semi s weren't cheaper than penthouses then but twice the price now.
There are multiple problems - 1 is that some areas improve while others become less desirable - It's not common to see a band C and a band F property on the market for the same amount of money.
Equally up north there are a lot more Band A properties than in the home counties. That didn't use to be much of a problem until Osbourne changed the rules and removed various grants. That's why many councils up North now do absolutely nothing because after Social Care costs there is nothing left in the pot to spend.
He effectively says we either tax baby boomers (his preference) or younger generations pay more. Except he then suggests increasing inheritance tax. That won't be paid by baby boomers, as they'll be dead. It'll be paid by their children. The people Willetts says shouldn't pay more. Oaf.
Technically it is the estate of the baby boomers who pay the tax.
I think he's drawing the distinction between a one off tax which is what an inheritance tax is versus a regular recurring tax which is what income tax/NI is.
Good old two brains. One of the major attractions of voting Tory is that you get to keep/pass down your family assets in case anyone forgot to tell him.
Except we need revenue, and the only place left to go is wealth. If the Tory’s don’t think the unthinkable, Labour will.
Rich oldies need to start coughing up.
End the triple lock. Raise the retirement age. Make them pay NI. Increase inheritance tax. And implement a very modest property tax to replace council tax.
Or beggar the grandkids.
End the triple lock. - Agreed
Raise the retirement age. - Very much agreed
Make them pay NI. - Very much agreed
Increase inheritance tax. - Absolutely not. That is a tax on the young not the old.
And implement a very modest property tax to replace council tax. - You mean like Rates? There was a reason we got rid of those last time.
They need to do something about council tax rates - the current valuations are 20 years out of date. A modest property tax (especially if based against the average house in the authority) would solve a lot of the current council tax problems,
I have never understood that claim, because it's only relative values within a limited area that matter, surely? It's irrelevant that London has gone up more than Liverpool, because they are paying into different pots, and it's not the case as far as I know that different types of housing have drastically changed their relative values - so for instance suburban semi s weren't cheaper than penthouses then but twice the price now.
Inheritance is simply income, and should be taxed accordingly.
Ouch....
No Nil rate band?
Just straight up to 47% over 150k or 62% over 100k to 123k?
Would it count towards tapered annual allowance?
The tapered annual allowance is an abomination. On my first day in power I would eliminate it.
Perhaps, everyone should have a lifetime "tax free" allowance of £500,000 (inflation adjusted, of course) which can be used for income, capital gains or inheritance.
The tapered allowance is an abomination. It is also a nice problem to have.
Works on similar principles to a cafetiere, but is entirely non-metal, as the inventor claims metal spoils the taste. They even include a plastic scoop, and stirrer.
Of course, on ebay you can buy a metal plate to replace the paper filter, which rather misses the point...
Interesting, but I have used a cafetiere for years and it is fine, no problems with taste. Also, no filters are required. My £6 cafetiere will last a while yet whereas plastic that gets repeatedly heated becomes brittle over time.
Boring but true fact: coffee contains terpenes which massively elevate LDL cholesterol, but which are eliminated by paper filters. I like coffee out of Bialettis, but feel constrained to use a filter for this reason.
Whilst it is true about the terpenes in coffee and LDL, the effects are minor compared to the effects on cholesterol of obesity, smoking, poor diet, etc. Lots of people load filtered coffee with cream and sugar.
Works on similar principles to a cafetiere, but is entirely non-metal, as the inventor claims metal spoils the taste. They even include a plastic scoop, and stirrer.
Of course, on ebay you can buy a metal plate to replace the paper filter, which rather misses the point...
Interesting, but I have used a cafetiere for years and it is fine, no problems with taste. Also, no filters are required. My £6 cafetiere will last a while yet whereas plastic that gets repeatedly heated becomes brittle over time.
Boring but true fact: coffee contains terpenes which massively elevate LDL cholesterol, but which are eliminated by paper filters. I like coffee out of Bialettis, but feel constrained to use a filter for this reason.
Whilst it is true about the terpenes in coffee and LDL, the effects are minor compared to the effects on cholesterol of obesity, smoking, poor diet, etc. Lots of people load filtered coffee with cream and sugar.
And in case you missed it, the whole point of the debate at the moment is that a particular generation are being ignored for the benefit of the elderly. That generation will soon be middle aged and will be losing their parents just like we all do. So all you are suggesting is that as well as screwing them whilst they are young, you are going to screw them when they are middle aged as well. Nice one.
As a member of that generation, I don't think that's a very persuasive argument. People generally empathize with others in similar situations to them. That's why, once they leave university, graduates don't immediately go from being anti uni fees to pro, even though if fees were abolished they'd end up being doubly fucked over. It's rare for people to say "Well if I'm going to be screwed, I hope my kids are screwed in exactly the same way!" Similarly I don't think young people who currently see huge inheritances as unfair are going to suddenly change the mind when it's their kids who are the ones disadvantaged.
And although this conversation is about raising tax revenue, it would also be possible for the government to raise inheritance tax (and add some lower bounds) and offset that by lowering income tax so that overall the two changes were revenue-neutral. Because the distribution of wealth is much more unequal than income, this would likely be beneficial for most people (unless there were lots of avoidance issues).
Works on similar principles to a cafetiere, but is entirely non-metal, as the inventor claims metal spoils the taste. They even include a plastic scoop, and stirrer.
Of course, on ebay you can buy a metal plate to replace the paper filter, which rather misses the point...
Interesting, but I have used a cafetiere for years and it is fine, no problems with taste. Also, no filters are required. My £6 cafetiere will last a while yet whereas plastic that gets repeatedly heated becomes brittle over time.
Boring but true fact: coffee contains terpenes which massively elevate LDL cholesterol, but which are eliminated by paper filters. I like coffee out of Bialettis, but feel constrained to use a filter for this reason.
Whilst it is true about the terpenes in coffee and LDL, the effects are minor compared to the effects on cholesterol of obesity, smoking, poor diet, etc. Lots of people load filtered coffee with cream and sugar.
Inheritance tax is not a tax on the “young”, it is a tax on those who inherit. These days they tend to be middle aged, and the (unearned) money simply perpetuates the gap between haves and have nots.
In an ideal world, I would tax it at the same rate as income tax. But as that’s not politically possible, I would look at ways of clamping down on avoidance.
As for rates, we have them in NZ and they work fine. I’m not sure what the problem was/is. No sane person can defend the hugely regressive council tax system.
Taxation should be a means of raising revenue for the state to carry out its functions. Nothing more. And those functions should be reduced as well.
And in case you missed it, the whole point of the debate at the moment is that a particular generation are being ignored for the benefit of the elderly. That generation will soon be middle aged and will be losing their parents just like we all do. So all you are suggesting is that as well as screwing them whilst they are young, you are going to screw them when they are middle aged as well. Nice one.
Ok, but you’re just arguing for a night watchman state and a low, flat tax.
That’s a pretty extremist position these days.
It is not extreme at all. It is just recognising the obvious. The welfare state as it is currently organised - as opposed to how it was originally envisaged - is not sustainable in the medium to long term. Improving peoples' lives should be the responsibility of the individual not the State. The State should only be there to provide the safety net for those that fall.
If you are earning more than the average wage you should not be getting handouts from the state. If you are earning substantially more than that you should be expected to provide for your own old age as well.
And in case you missed it, the whole point of the debate at the moment is that a particular generation are being ignored for the benefit of the elderly. That generation will soon be middle aged and will be losing their parents just like we all do. So all you are suggesting is that as well as screwing them whilst they are young, you are going to screw them when they are middle aged as well. Nice one.
As a member of that generation, I don't think that's a very persuasive argument. People generally empathize with others in similar situations to them. That's why, once they leave university, graduates don't immediately go from being anti uni fees to pro, even though if fees were abolished they'd end up being doubly fucked over. It's rare for people to say "Well if I'm going to be screwed, I hope my kids are screwed in exactly the same way!" Similarly I don't think young people who currently see huge inheritances as unfair are going to suddenly change the mind when it's their kids who are the ones disadvantaged.
And although this conversation is about raising tax revenue, it would also be possible for the government to raise inheritance tax (and add some lower bounds) and offset that by lowering income tax so that overall the two changes were revenue-neutral. Because the distribution of wealth is much more unequal than income, this would likely be beneficial for most people (unless there were lots of avoidance issues).
You miss my point. You are going to be screwed over twice or three times under the suggestions made by those advocating inheritance taxes. Meanwhile you children will still be no better off as the balance of benefits/housing etc will still be with the elderly.
Far better to tax the wealthier elderly whilst they are still alive and use that money to reduce the tax levied on the young in the form of tuition fees.
Inheritance tax is not a tax on the “young”, it is a tax on those who inherit. These days they tend to be middle aged, and the (unearned) money simply perpetuates the gap between haves and have nots.
In an ideal world, I would tax it at the same rate as income tax. But as that’s not politically possible, I would look at ways of clamping down on avoidance.
As for rates, we have them in NZ and they work fine. I’m not sure what the problem was/is. No sane person can defend the hugely regressive council tax system.
Taxation should be a means of raising revenue for the state to carry out its functions. Nothing more. And those functions should be reduced as well.
And in case you missed it, the whole point of the debate at the moment is that a particular generation are being ignored for the benefit of the elderly. That generation will soon be middle aged and will be losing their parents just like we all do. So all you are suggesting is that as well as screwing them whilst they are young, you are going to screw them when they are middle aged as well. Nice one.
Ok, but you’re just arguing for a night watchman state and a low, flat tax.
That’s a pretty extremist position these days.
It is not extreme at all. It is just recognising the obvious. The welfare state as it is currently organised - as opposed to how it was originally envisaged - is not sustainable in the medium to long term. Improving peoples' lives should be the responsibility of the individual not the State. The State should only be there to provide the safety net for those that fall.
If you are earning more than the average wage you should not be getting handouts from the state. If you are earning substantially more than that you should be expected to provide for your own old age as well.
Everyone contributes , everyone benefits. One nation.
Inheritance tax is not a tax on the “young”, it is a tax on those who inherit. These days they tend to be middle aged, and the (unearned) money simply perpetuates the gap between haves and have nots.
In an ideal world, I would tax it at the same rate as income tax. But as that’s not politically possible, I would look at ways of clamping down on avoidance.
As for rates, we have them in NZ and they work fine. I’m not sure what the problem was/is. No sane person can defend the hugely regressive council tax system.
Taxation should be a means of raising revenue for the state to carry out its functions. Nothing more. And those functions should be reduced as well.
And in case you missed it, the whole point of the debate at the moment is that a particular generation are being ignored for the benefit of the elderly. That generation will soon be middle aged and will be losing their parents just like we all do. So all you are suggesting is that as well as screwing them whilst they are young, you are going to screw them when they are middle aged as well. Nice one.
Ok, but you’re just arguing for a night watchman state and a low, flat tax.
That’s a pretty extremist position these days.
It is not extreme at all. It is just recognising the obvious. The welfare state as it is currently organised - as opposed to how it was originally envisaged - is not sustainable in the medium to long term. Improving peoples' lives should be the responsibility of the individual not the State. The State should only be there to provide the safety net for those that fall.
If you are earning more than the average wage you should not be getting handouts from the state. If you are earning substantially more than that you should be expected to provide for your own old age as well.
Everyone contributes , everyone benefits. One nation.
One nation going down the drain in that case. It is unsustainable and also regressive - a word I know you lefties like to use a lot.
Inheritance tax is not a tax on the “young”, it is a tax on those who inherit. These days they tend to be middle aged, and the (unearned) money simply perpetuates the gap between haves and have nots.
In an ideal world, I would tax it at the same rate as income tax. But as that’s not politically possible, I would look at ways of clamping down on avoidance.
As for rates, we have them in NZ and they work fine. I’m not sure what the problem was/is. No sane person can defend the hugely regressive council tax system.
Taxation should be a means of raising revenue for the state to carry out its functions. Nothing more. And those functions should be reduced as well.
And in case you missed it, the whole point of the debate at the moment is that a particular generation are being ignored for the benefit of the elderly. That generation will soon be middle aged and will be losing their parents just like we all do. So all you are suggesting is that as well as screwing them whilst they are young, you are going to screw them when they are middle aged as well. Nice one.
Ok, but you’re just arguing for a night watchman state and a low, flat tax.
That’s a pretty extremist position these days.
It is not extreme at all. It is just recognising the obvious. The welfare state as it is currently organised - as opposed to how it was originally envisaged - is not sustainable in the medium to long term. Improving peoples' lives should be the responsibility of the individual not the State. The State should only be there to provide the safety net for those that fall.
If you are earning more than the average wage you should not be getting handouts from the state. If you are earning substantially more than that you should be expected to provide for your own old age as well.
Everyone contributes , everyone benefits. One nation.
One nation going down the drain in that case. It is unsustainable and also regressive - a word I know you lefties like to use a lot.
Your route is the road to ruin. Poor services for the poor.
And in case you missed it, the whole point of the debate at the moment is that a particular generation are being ignored for the benefit of the elderly. That generation will soon be middle aged and will be losing their parents just like we all do. So all you are suggesting is that as well as screwing them whilst they are young, you are going to screw them when they are middle aged as well. Nice one.
As a member of that generation, I don't think that's a very persuasive argument. People generally empathize with others in similar situations to them. That's why, once they leave university, graduates don't immediately go from being anti uni fees to pro, even though if fees were abolished they'd end up being doubly fucked over. It's rare for people to say "Well if I'm going to be screwed, I hope my kids are screwed in exactly the same way!" Similarly I don't think young people who currently see huge inheritances as unfair are going to suddenly change the mind when it's their kids who are the ones disadvantaged.
And although this conversation is about raising tax revenue, it would also be possible for the government to raise inheritance tax (and add some lower bounds) and offset that by lowering income tax so that overall the two changes were revenue-neutral. Because the distribution of wealth is much more unequal than income, this would likely be beneficial for most people (unless there were lots of avoidance issues).
You miss my point. You are going to be screwed over twice or three times under the suggestions made by those advocating inheritance taxes. Meanwhile you children will still be no better off as the balance of benefits/housing etc will still be with the elderly.
Far better to tax the wealthier elderly whilst they are still alive and use that money to reduce the tax levied on the young in the form of tuition fees.
Wouldn't higher taxes on inheritance mean that people have to sell the houses they receive in order to pay the tax bill? That could increase supply and decrease prices, although maybe it's negligible compared to new builds.
Inheritance tax is not a tax on the “young”, it is a tax on those who inherit. These days they tend to be middle aged, and the (unearned) money simply perpetuates the gap between haves and have nots.
In an ideal world, I would tax it at the same rate as income tax. But as that’s not politically possible, I would look at ways of clamping down on avoidance.
As for rates, we have them in NZ and they work fine. I’m not sure what the problem was/is. No sane person can defend the hugely regressive council tax system.
Taxation should be a means of raising revenue for the state to carry out its functions. Nothing more. And those functions should be reduced as well.
And in case you missed it, the whole point of the debate at the moment is that a particular generation are being ignored for the benefit of the elderly. That generation will soon be middle aged and will be losing their parents just like we all do. So all you are suggesting is that as well as screwing them whilst they are young, you are going to screw them when they are middle aged as well. Nice one.
Ok, but you’re just arguing for a night watchman state and a low, flat tax.
That’s a pretty extremist position these days.
It is not extreme at all. It is just recognising the obvious. The welfare state as it is currently organised - as opposed to how it was originally envisaged - is not sustainable in the medium to long term. Improving peoples' lives should be the responsibility of the individual not the State. The State should only be there to provide the safety net for those that fall.
If you are earning more than the average wage you should not be getting handouts from the state. If you are earning substantially more than that you should be expected to provide for your own old age as well.
Tax credits. The most pernicious policy of the past two decades.
It’s responsible for massive immigration, subsidy of companies paying low wages and the costs of its own bureaucracy. The way it was done also means that those who have no contact with it also have no knowledge of it, and how far it permeates into society.
Inheritance tax is not a tax on the “young”, it is a tax on those who inherit. These days they tend to be middle aged, and the (unearned) money simply perpetuates the gap between haves and have nots.
In an ideal world, I would tax it at the same rate as income tax. But as that’s not politically possible, I would look at ways of clamping down on avoidance.
As for rates, we have them in NZ and they work fine. I’m not sure what the problem was/is. No sane person can defend the hugely regressive council tax system.
Taxation should be a means of raising revenue for the state to carry out its functions. Nothing more. And those functions should be reduced as well.
And in case you missed it, the whole point of the debate at the moment is that a particular generation are being ignored for the benefit of the elderly. That generation will soon be middle aged and will be losing their parents just like we all do. So all you are suggesting is that as well as screwing them whilst they are young, you are going to screw them when they are middle aged as well. Nice one.
Ok, but you’re just arguing for a night watchman state and a low, flat tax.
That’s a pretty extremist position these days.
It is not extreme at all. It is just recognising the obvious. The welfare state as it is currently organised - as opposed to how it was originally envisaged - is not sustainable in the medium to long term. Improving peoples' lives should be the responsibility of the individual not the State. The State should only be there to provide the safety net for those that fall.
If you are earning more than the average wage you should not be getting handouts from the state. If you are earning substantially more than that you should be expected to provide for your own old age as well.
Everyone contributes , everyone benefits. One nation.
The problem in the UK is that not everyone contributes before benefiting and that's not just unemployment benefits, it's all welfare that needs to be contributory.
And in case you missed it, the whole point of the debate at the moment is that a particular generation are being ignored for the benefit of the elderly. That generation will soon be middle aged and will be losing their parents just like we all do. So all you are suggesting is that as well as screwing them whilst they are young, you are going to screw them when they are middle aged as well. Nice one.
As a member of that generation, I don't think that's a very persuasive argument. People generally empathize with others in similar situations to them. That's why, once they leave university, graduates don't immediately go from being anti uni fees to pro, even though if fees were abolished they'd end up being doubly fucked over. It's rare for people to say "Well if I'm going to be screwed, I hope my kids are screwed in exactly the same way!" Similarly I don't think young people who currently see huge inheritances as unfair are going to suddenly change the mind when it's their kids who are the ones disadvantaged.
And although this conversation is about raising tax revenue, it would also be possible for the government to raise inheritance tax (and add some lower bounds) and offset that by lowering income tax so that overall the two changes were revenue-neutral. Because the distribution of wealth is much more unequal than income, this would likely be beneficial for most people (unless there were lots of avoidance issues).
You miss my point. You are going to be screwed over twice or three times under the suggestions made by those advocating inheritance taxes. Meanwhile you children will still be no better off as the balance of benefits/housing etc will still be with the elderly.
Far better to tax the wealthier elderly whilst they are still alive and use that money to reduce the tax levied on the young in the form of tuition fees.
Wouldn't higher taxes on inheritance mean that people have to sell the houses they receive in order to pay the tax bill? That could increase supply and decrease prices, although maybe it's negligible compared to new builds.
I'm not in favour of IHT, but most people put their parents house on the market I believe. I certainly will be doing so - in some decades time hopefully..
And in case you missed it, the whole point of the debate at the moment is that a particular generation are being ignored for the benefit of the elderly. That generation will soon be middle aged and will be losing their parents just like we all do. So all you are suggesting is that as well as screwing them whilst they are young, you are going to screw them when they are middle aged as well. Nice one.
As a member of that generation, I don't think that's a very persuasive argument. People generally empathize with others in similar situations to them. That's why, once they leave university, graduates don't immediately go from being anti uni fees to pro, even though if fees were abolished they'd end up being doubly fucked over. It's rare for people to say "Well if I'm going to be screwed, I hope my kids are screwed in exactly the same way!" Similarly I don't think young people who currently see huge inheritances as unfair are going to suddenly change the mind when it's their kids who are the ones disadvantaged.
And although this conversation is about raising tax revenue, it would also be possible for the government to raise inheritance tax (and add some lower bounds) and offset that by lowering income tax so that overall the two changes were revenue-neutral. Because the distribution of wealth is much more unequal than income, this would likely be beneficial for most people (unless there were lots of avoidance issues).
You miss my point. You are going to be screwed over twice or three times under the suggestions made by those advocating inheritance taxes. Meanwhile you children will still be no better off as the balance of benefits/housing etc will still be with the elderly.
Far better to tax the wealthier elderly whilst they are still alive and use that money to reduce the tax levied on the young in the form of tuition fees.
Wouldn't higher taxes on inheritance mean that people have to sell the houses they receive in order to pay the tax bill? That could increase supply and decrease prices, although maybe it's negligible compared to new builds.
Well they would either sell them or move into them anyway so it makes no difference to the housing market
Donald Trump has complained about the trade imbalance (in physical goods) with Canada.
More than 100% of the trade imbalance with Canada ($30bn vs a $17bn deficit) is due to oil from Alberta going down the Keystone pipeline network to refineries in the US.
These are pipelines the US shouted for, because - rather than importing Mayan Heavy from Venezuela - they could take Canadian oil and make a bigger profit. These pipelines reduce the overall US trade deficit, because they pay less for their oil than they would have done buying it from the Gulf and Venezuela.
This is a classic example about why focusing on bilateral deficits is dumb. If the US shut Keystone, they would solve their imbalance with Canada, but at the expense of increasing their overall trade deficit.
(Also: Canada runs an overall trade deficit with the US, once services are included.)
Inheritance tax is not a tax on the “young”, it is a tax on those who inherit. These days they tend to be middle aged, and the (unearned) money simply perpetuates the gap between haves and have nots.
In an ideal world, I would tax it at the same rate as income tax. But as that’s not politically possible, I would look at ways of clamping down on avoidance.
As for rates, we have them in NZ and they work fine. I’m not sure what the problem was/is. No sane person can defend the hugely regressive council tax system.
Taxation should be a means of raising revenue for the state to carry out its functions. Nothing more. And those functions should be reduced as well.
And in case you missed it, the whole point of the debate at the moment is that a particular generation are being ignored for the benefit of the elderly. That generation will soon be middle aged and will be losing their parents just like we all do. So all you are suggesting is that as well as screwing them whilst they are young, you are going to screw them when they are middle aged as well. Nice one.
Ok, but you’re just arguing for a night watchman state and a low, flat tax.
That’s a pretty extremist position these days.
It is not extreme at all. It is just recognising the obvious. The welfare state as it is currently organised - as opposed to how it was originally envisaged - is not sustainable in the medium to long term. Improving peoples' lives should be the responsibility of the individual not the State. The State should only be there to provide the safety net for those that fall.
If you are earning more than the average wage you should not be getting handouts from the state. If you are earning substantially more than that you should be expected to provide for your own old age as well.
Everyone contributes , everyone benefits. One nation.
One nation going down the drain in that case. It is unsustainable and also regressive - a word I know you lefties like to use a lot.
Your route is the road to ruin. Poor services for the poor.
Nope. The poor are the ones who should be protected by the safety net. It is the rest of us who should not get Government handouts.
Donald Trump has complained about the trade imbalance (in physical goods) with Canada.
More than 100% of the trade imbalance with Canada ($30bn vs a $17bn deficit) is due to oil from Alberta going down the Keystone pipeline network to refineries in the US.
These are pipelines the US shouted for, because - rather than importing Mayan Heavy from Venezuela - they could take Canadian oil and make a bigger profit. These pipelines reduce the overall US trade deficit, because they pay less for their oil than they would have done buying it from the Gulf and Venezuela.
This is a classic example about why focusing on bilateral deficits is dumb. If the US shut Keystone, they would solve their imbalance with Canada, but at the expense of increasing their overall trade deficit.
(Also: Canada runs an overall trade deficit with the US, once services are included.)
Their relationship is much like the UK and Ireland, just without Ireland exporting shit loads of oil to the UK. Overall we export more to them than they do to us, however their reliance on UK trade is absolute. Without being able to trade freely with the UK the Irish economic model will fall apart. Similar to Canada should Trump's threat to pull out of NAFTA come to pass.
Inheritance tax is not a tax on the “young”, it is a tax on those who inherit. These days they tend to be middle aged, and the (unearned) money simply perpetuates the gap between haves and have nots.
In an ideal world, I would tax it at the same rate as income tax. But as that’s not politically possible, I would look at ways of clamping down on avoidance.
As for rates, we have them in NZ and they work fine. I’m not sure what the problem was/is. No sane person can defend the hugely regressive council tax system.
Taxation should be a means of raising revenue for the state to carry out its functions. Nothing more. And those functions should be reduced as well.
And in case you missed it, the whole point of the debate at the moment is that a particular generation are being ignored for the benefit of the elderly. That generation will soon be middle aged and will be losing their parents just like we all do. So all you are suggesting is that as well as screwing them whilst they are young, you are going to screw them when they are middle aged as well. Nice one.
Ok, but you’re just arguing for a night watchman state and a low, flat tax.
That’s a pretty extremist position these days.
It is not extreme at all. It is just recognising the obvious. The welfare state as it is currently organised - as opposed to how it was originally envisaged - is not sustainable in the medium to long term. Improving peoples' lives should be the responsibility of the individual not the State. The State should only be there to provide the safety net for those that fall.
If you are earning more than the average wage you should not be getting handouts from the state. If you are earning substantially more than that you should be expected to provide for your own old age as well.
Tax credits. The most pernicious policy of the past two decades.
It’s responsible for massive immigration, subsidy of companies paying low wages and the costs of its own bureaucracy. The way it was done also means that those who have no contact with it also have no knowledge of it, and how far it permeates into society.
Exactly. Once you take into account tax credits not all those supposed net contributors are in fact paying for our pensions - we are actually subsidising their employers to pay low wages.
What sensible country would introduce a welfare benefit that actually gives people more government handouts if they work fewer hours? Thanks Mr Brown!
Donald Trump has complained about the trade imbalance (in physical goods) with Canada.
More than 100% of the trade imbalance with Canada ($30bn vs a $17bn deficit) is due to oil from Alberta going down the Keystone pipeline network to refineries in the US.
These are pipelines the US shouted for, because - rather than importing Mayan Heavy from Venezuela - they could take Canadian oil and make a bigger profit. These pipelines reduce the overall US trade deficit, because they pay less for their oil than they would have done buying it from the Gulf and Venezuela.
This is a classic example about why focusing on bilateral deficits is dumb. If the US shut Keystone, they would solve their imbalance with Canada, but at the expense of increasing their overall trade deficit.
(Also: Canada runs an overall trade deficit with the US, once services are included.)
And of course Trump pushed through the latest pipeline construction that Obama kicked into the long grass....and people say he has a short attention span.
Inheritance tax is not a tax on the “young”, it is a tax on those who inherit. These days they tend to be middle aged, and the (unearned) money simply perpetuates the gap between haves and have nots.
In an ideal world, I would tax it at the same rate as income tax. But as that’s not politically possible, I would look at ways of clamping down on avoidance.
As for rates, we have them in NZ and they work fine. I’m not sure what the problem was/is. No sane person can defend the hugely regressive council tax system.
Taxation should be a means of raising revenue for the state to carry out its functions. Nothing more. And those functions should be reduced as well.
And in case you missed it, the whole point of the debate at the moment is that a particular generation are being ignored for the benefit of the elderly. That generation will soon be middle aged and will be losing their parents just like we all do. So all you are suggesting is that as well as screwing them whilst they are young, you are going to screw them when they are middle aged as well. Nice one.
Ok, but you’re just arguing for a night watchman state and a low, flat tax.
That’s a pretty extremist position these days.
It is not extreme at all. It is just recognising the obvious. The welfare state as it is currently organised - as opposed to how it was originally envisaged - is not sustainable in the medium to long term. Improving peoples' lives should be the responsibility of the individual not the State. The State should only be there to provide the safety net for those that fall.
If you are earning more than the average wage you should not be getting handouts from the state. If you are earning substantially more than that you should be expected to provide for your own old age as well.
Everyone contributes , everyone benefits. One nation.
One nation going down the drain in that case. It is unsustainable and also regressive - a word I know you lefties like to use a lot.
Your route is the road to ruin. Poor services for the poor.
Nope. The poor are the ones who should be protected by the safety net. It is the rest of us who should not get Government handouts.
Nope right back at you. This leads to second rate services. The poor are better off when everyone uses the same services and can benefit from those with sharp elbows
Donald Trump has complained about the trade imbalance (in physical goods) with Canada.
More than 100% of the trade imbalance with Canada ($30bn vs a $17bn deficit) is due to oil from Alberta going down the Keystone pipeline network to refineries in the US.
These are pipelines the US shouted for, because - rather than importing Mayan Heavy from Venezuela - they could take Canadian oil and make a bigger profit. These pipelines reduce the overall US trade deficit, because they pay less for their oil than they would have done buying it from the Gulf and Venezuela.
This is a classic example about why focusing on bilateral deficits is dumb. If the US shut Keystone, they would solve their imbalance with Canada, but at the expense of increasing their overall trade deficit.
(Also: Canada runs an overall trade deficit with the US, once services are included.)
Their relationship is much like the UK and Ireland, just without Ireland exporting shit loads of oil to the UK. Overall we export more to them than they do to us, however their reliance on UK trade is absolute. Without being able to trade freely with the UK the Irish economic model will fall apart. Similar to Canada should Trump's threat to pull out of NAFTA come to pass.
My big fear from Trump is that he will end up pushing countries like Brazil, Thailand and the like out of the pro-Western democracies orbit and into the Chinese one.
'On the bench there was a couple, an older guy and a younger girl. She was sort of leaned in on him. It looked like she had passed out, maybe,' Freya Church told the BBC.
Tax credits. The most pernicious policy of the past two decades.
It’s responsible for massive immigration, subsidy of companies paying low wages and the costs of its own bureaucracy. The way it was done also means that those who have no contact with it also have no knowledge of it, and how far it permeates into society.
Exactly. Once you take into account tax credits not all those supposed net contributors are in fact paying for our pensions - we are actually subsidising their employers to pay low wages.
What sensible country would introduce a welfare benefit that actually gives people more government handouts if they work fewer hours? Thanks Mr Brown!
The question is whether the work would happen at all without tax credits? If not, and I don't know the answer to this, then the would be employee is sitting at home collecting unemployment benefit and allowing his skills and employ-ability to wither further.
On Council Tax, a few facts - the median level for the whole of England in 1991 was set at £80,000. That was 8/8 of the Council Tax. That's Band D - Band H pays double that, Band A 2/3 of that.
That was then - the average house price in England now is £226,000. The valuations were never meant to reflect actual open market valuations but were more akin to insurance valuations.
A number of things need to happen in conjunction with any revaluation - first, the top limit of twice the agreed median is absurd. The range of house values is much greater and indeed high-value properties have been nicely subsidised by the rest of us. Wherever the median is set needs to be valid not for the whole of England but perhaps on a regional basis or at the very least one figure for London and another for the rest of England.
Setting non-London median at say £200k but call it Band C rather than D. Have properties up to £100k pay half the median and properties between £100-£150k pay three quarters of the median. From there as follows:
Band C - £150-£250k - set tax Band D - £250-£350k - 125% of set tax Band E - £350-£500k -150% of set tax Band F - £500-£700k - 175% Band G - £700-£900k - 200% Band H - £900K - £1.2m - 250% Band I - £1.2m - £2m - 300% Band J - £2m+ - 400% of set tax
So if the set figure in your authority is £1,000 and your property is valued at £800k you'd pay £2,000 pa.
The problem is areas with large numbers of high-value properties are likely to recoup more Council Tax so there still needs to be some form of Government funding scale to ensure poorer areas with more lower band properties aren't left short - yes, it's redistributive but there aren't many other options.
Within all this is the in-built (so to speak) assumption that you live in a valuable house you must be wealthy - that's the flaw with any property-related tax. The alternative is to tax income via some form of Local Income Tax or sales via some form of Local Sales Tax. Neither of these options are foolproof and both are open to fraud whereas property-based taxation is harder to avoid or evade.
The only solution I've ever come up with for local finance is to add the precept in to general taxation and have a wholly independent non-political body decide grant allocations. Councils could raise additional funds locally but their main funding would come from this non-political group which would simply be given an amount from general taxation to fund local Government. I'm not convinced but nothing else works.
Inheritance tax is not a tax on the “young”, it is a tax on those who inherit. These days they tend to be middle aged, and the (unearned) money simply perpetuates the gap between haves and have nots.
In an ideal world, I would tax it at the same rate as income tax. But as that’s not politically possible, I would look at ways of clamping down on avoidance.
As for rates, we have them in NZ and they work fine. I’m not sure what the problem was/is. No sane person can defend the hugely regressive council tax system.
Taxation should be a means of raising revenue for the state to carry out its functions. Nothing more. And those functions should be reduced as well.
And in case you missed it, the whole point of the debate at the moment is that a particular generation are being ignored for the benefit of the elderly. That generation will soon be middle aged and will be losing their parents just like we all do. So all you are suggesting is that as well as screwing them whilst they are young, you are going to screw them when they are middle aged as well. Nice one.
Ok, but you’re just arguing for a night watchman state and a low, flat tax.
That’s a pretty extremist position these days.
It is not extreme at all. It is just recognising the obvious. The welfare state as it is currently organised - as opposed to how it was originally envisaged - is not sustainable in the medium to long term. Improving peoples' lives should be the responsibility of the individual not the State. The State should only be there to provide the safety net for those that fall.
If you are earning more than the average wage you should not be getting handouts from the state. If you are earning substantially more than that you should be expected to provide for your own old age as well.
Everyone contributes , everyone benefits. One nation.
The problem in the UK is that not everyone contributes before benefiting and that's not just unemployment benefits, it's all welfare that needs to be contributory.
Wouldn't most people rather be able to afford to buy a home in their 20s or 30s in which to bring up their kids - than rent privately for 40 years and inherit half of one from their parents in their mid 60s?
That was of course the norm pre 2000 - even in London.
Tax credits. The most pernicious policy of the past two decades.
It’s responsible for massive immigration, subsidy of companies paying low wages and the costs of its own bureaucracy. The way it was done also means that those who have no contact with it also have no knowledge of it, and how far it permeates into society.
Exactly. Once you take into account tax credits not all those supposed net contributors are in fact paying for our pensions - we are actually subsidising their employers to pay low wages.
What sensible country would introduce a welfare benefit that actually gives people more government handouts if they work fewer hours? Thanks Mr Brown!
The question is whether the work would happen at all without tax credits? If not, and I don't know the answer to this, then the would be employee is sitting at home collecting unemployment benefit and allowing his skills and employ-ability to wither further.
It probably would, but the UK economy (London specifically) would look a lot more like Switzerland, higher prices and higher basic earnings. Most of the people who earn the minimum wage are doing fairly essential jobs that can't easily be automated. Possibly there would be fewer employees overall in those lower paid positions, but the higher overall wages would lead to more economic activity much like the minimum wage has done, confounding the original predictions of high unemployment.
I think the key is that people who earn £9 per hour are much more likely to spend their money than people who earn £7.50 per hour or whatever the minimum wage is.
Wouldn't most people rather be able to afford to buy a home in their 20s or 30s in which to bring up their kids - than rent privately for 40 years and inherit half of one from their parents in their mid 60s?
That was of course the norm pre 2000 - even in London.
We do have a strange obsession with housing in the UK. In Switzerland, it's perfectly normal to rent privately your entire life, and no-one seems any unhappier.
On Council Tax, a few facts - the median level for the whole of England in 1991 was set at £80,000. That was 8/8 of the Council Tax. That's Band D - Band H pays double that, Band A 2/3 of that.
snip
A number of things need to happen in conjunction with any revaluation - first, the top limit of twice the agreed median is absurd. The range of house values is much greater and indeed high-value properties have been nicely subsidised by the rest of us. Wherever the median is set needs to be valid not for the whole of England but perhaps on a regional basis or at the very least one figure for London and another for the rest of England.
Setting non-London median at say £200k but call it Band C rather than D. Have properties up to £100k pay half the median and properties between £100-£150k pay three quarters of the median. From there as follows:
Band C - £150-£250k - set tax Band D - £250-£350k - 125% of set tax Band E - £350-£500k -150% of set tax Band F - £500-£700k - 175% Band G - £700-£900k - 200% Band H - £900K - £1.2m - 250% Band I - £1.2m - £2m - 300% Band J - £2m+ - 400% of set tax
So if the set figure in your authority is £1,000 and your property is valued at £800k you'd pay £2,000 pa.
The problem is areas with large numbers of high-value properties are likely to recoup more Council Tax so there still needs to be some form of Government funding scale to ensure poorer areas with more lower band properties aren't left short - yes, it's redistributive but there aren't many other options.
Within all this is the in-built (so to speak) assumption that you live in a valuable house you must be wealthy - that's the flaw with any property-related tax. The alternative is to tax income via some form of Local Income Tax or sales via some form of Local Sales Tax. Neither of these options are foolproof and both are open to fraud whereas property-based taxation is harder to avoid or evade.
The only solution I've ever come up with for local finance is to add the precept in to general taxation and have a wholly independent non-political body decide grant allocations. Councils could raise additional funds locally but their main funding would come from this non-political group which would simply be given an amount from general taxation to fund local Government. I'm not convinced but nothing else works.
"Within all this is the in-built (so to speak) assumption that you live in a valuable house you must be wealthy" - not always the case, perhaps, but certainly that's the way the clever money is - and certainly will be once no-limit council tax is a thing, so the problem will disappear. Plus the bigger the house the more you should be shelling out on routine maintenance, so all in all it benefits the little old lady, her heirs and the national housing stock if she is forced out into a bungalow.
Wouldn't most people rather be able to afford to buy a home in their 20s or 30s in which to bring up their kids - than rent privately for 40 years and inherit half of one from their parents in their mid 60s?
That was of course the norm pre 2000 - even in London.
We do have a strange obsession with housing in the UK. In Switzerland, it's perfectly normal to rent privately your entire life, and no-one seems any unhappier.
The UK private rental market is an abomination from the depths of hell. I got out after having to take my letting agent to court to get a deposit back. I feel sorry for all the young colleagues who get utterly fleeced by it still.
Yes, we probably could. Something I have pointed out to various lefties over and over again. Our position in the single market isn't sustainable when a person can arrive and claim hundreds of pounds worth of tax credits and housing benefits per week just 90 days later and working 16h per week in a minimum wage job or in spurious self employment.
That recent case of the Slovenian being sold to the Romanian gypsy gang for £100 so he could be brought to the UK as an "income earning asset" for the slavers should be opening many more eyes in the UK than it has.
Inheritance tax is not a tax on the “young”, it is a tax on those who inherit. These days they tend to be middle aged, and the (unearned) money simply perpetuates the gap between haves and have nots.
In an ideal world, I would tax it at the same rate as income tax. But as that’s not politically possible, I would look at ways of clamping down on avoidance.
As for rates, we have them in NZ and they work fine. I’m not sure what the problem was/is. No sane person can defend the hugely regressive council tax system.
Taxation should be a means of raising revenue for the state to carry out its functions. Nothing more. And those functions should be reduced as well.
And in case you missed it, the whole point of the debate at the moment is that a particular generation are being ignored for the benefit of the elderly. That generation will soon be middle aged and will be losing their parents just like we all do. So all you are suggesting is that as well as screwing them whilst they are young, you are going to screw them when they are middle aged as well. Nice one.
Ok, but you’re just arguing for a night watchman state and a low, flat tax.
That’s a pretty extremist position these days.
It is not extreme at all. It is just recognising the obvious. The welfare state as it is currently organised - as opposed to how it was originally envisaged - is not sustainable in the medium to long term. Improving peoples' lives should be the responsibility of the individual not the State. The State should only be there to provide the safety net for those that fall.
If you are earning more than the average wage you should not be getting handouts from the state. If you are earning substantially more than that you should be expected to provide for your own old age as well.
Everyone contributes , everyone benefits. One nation.
The problem in the UK is that not everyone contributes before benefiting and that's not just unemployment benefits, it's all welfare that needs to be contributory.
If we did that, we could re-enter the SM
No. Means-testing is one of the most demeaning activities known, both to the pen-pushers who administer it and the embarrassed peopl who receive the benefits, e.g. Pension Credit is there because the previous state pension isn't enough to live on (and people still talk of abolishing the triple lock ...)
Another name for means-testing is an arbitrary and somewhat random higher marginal tax rate.
The publisher of the Daily Mirror, Trinity Mirror, is to change its name to Reach after completing a deal to buy the Daily Express.
I wonder how much they paid some rebranding consultancy for the wanky and totally ambiguous name?
Probably want to move on from all those legal difficulties that you must remember the Labour Party loudly and repeatedly condemning.
It is very strange how quiet those who led with any tiny tit bit of news about NOTW phone hacking stories, when we now know the NOTW were part-time amateurs compared to the activities of the Mirror.
The biggest angle to me of all of this, and one the Indy spent a lot of time looking into (but got overlooked in all the outrage), claims of widespread corporate hacking.
Wouldn't most people rather be able to afford to buy a home in their 20s or 30s in which to bring up their kids - than rent privately for 40 years and inherit half of one from their parents in their mid 60s?
That was of course the norm pre 2000 - even in London.
We do have a strange obsession with housing in the UK. In Switzerland, it's perfectly normal to rent privately your entire life, and no-one seems any unhappier.
Earnings are significantly higher in Switzerland and incomes are a lot more stable, additionally there is massive pressure on everyone to save for retirement. I mean massive. We get lectured on retirement savings all the bloody time and the state ensures everyone saves enough of their income for retirement. The UK government is nowhere near as proactive in ensuring that people's retirement income isn't substantially lower than their working age income.
Wouldn't most people rather be able to afford to buy a home in their 20s or 30s in which to bring up their kids - than rent privately for 40 years and inherit half of one from their parents in their mid 60s?
That was of course the norm pre 2000 - even in London.
We do have a strange obsession with housing in the UK. In Switzerland, it's perfectly normal to rent privately your entire life, and no-one seems any unhappier.
Tax credits. The most pernicious policy of the past two decades.
It’s responsible for massive immigration, subsidy of companies paying low wages and the costs of its own bureaucracy. The way it was done also means that those who have no contact with it also have no knowledge of it, and how far it permeates into society.
Exactly. Once you take into account tax credits not all those supposed net contributors are in fact paying for our pensions - we are actually subsidising their employers to pay low wages.
What sensible country would introduce a welfare benefit that actually gives people more government handouts if they work fewer hours? Thanks Mr Brown!
The question is whether the work would happen at all without tax credits? If not, and I don't know the answer to this, then the would be employee is sitting at home collecting unemployment benefit and allowing his skills and employ-ability to wither further.
It probably would, but the UK economy (London specifically) would look a lot more like Switzerland, higher prices and higher basic earnings. Most of the people who earn the minimum wage are doing fairly essential jobs that can't easily be automated. Possibly there would be fewer employees overall in those lower paid positions, but the higher overall wages would lead to more economic activity much like the minimum wage has done, confounding the original predictions of high unemployment.
I think the key is that people who earn £9 per hour are much more likely to spend their money than people who earn £7.50 per hour or whatever the minimum wage is.
My view is that work is inherently good. People in work are happier, and healthier. Depression is less common, drug and alcohol problems are fewer, and families more stable.
There is an issue that some people's economic output will be lower than the minimum wage. It is better to subsidise these people (and it is these people who are being subsidised) than to have them sitting at home, especially as work begets skills.
The issue with tax credit, to my mind, is that they acted as an incentive to import labour, which was never their goal. Do you have any data on the number of EU immigrants collecting tax credits?
Wouldn't most people rather be able to afford to buy a home in their 20s or 30s in which to bring up their kids - than rent privately for 40 years and inherit half of one from their parents in their mid 60s?
That was of course the norm pre 2000 - even in London.
We do have a strange obsession with housing in the UK. In Switzerland, it's perfectly normal to rent privately your entire life, and no-one seems any unhappier.
Earnings are significantly higher in Switzerland and incomes are a lot more stable, additionally there is massive pressure on everyone to save for retirement. I mean massive. We get lectured on retirement savings all the bloody time and the state ensures everyone saves enough of their income for retirement. The UK government is nowhere near as proactive in ensuring that people's retirement income isn't substantially lower than their working age income.
And because the Swiss save, they have a massive trade surplus.
The publisher of the Daily Mirror, Trinity Mirror, is to change its name to Reach after completing a deal to buy the Daily Express.
I wonder how much they paid some rebranding consultancy for the wanky and totally ambiguous name?
Probably want to move on from all those legal difficulties that you must remember the Labour Party loudly and repeatedly condemning.
It is very strange how quiet those who led with any tiny tit bit of news about NOTW phone hacking stories, when we now know the NOTW were part-time amateurs compared to the activities of the Mirror.
The biggest angle to me of all of this, and one the Indy spent a lot of time looking into (but got overlooked in all the outrage), claims of widespread corporate hacking.
Meaning proper hacking, or picking up voicemails because the PIN hasn't been changed?
No. Means-testing is one of the most demeaning activities known, both to the pen-pushers who administer it and the embarrassed peopl who receive the benefits, e.g. Pension Credit is there because the previous state pension isn't enough to live on (and people still talk of abolishing the triple lock ...)
Another name for means-testing is an arbitrary and somewhat random higher marginal tax rate.
Not means testing, making all welfare contributory as it is in Switzerland. You need to have e paid in for 12 of the last 24 months in Switzerland before claiming any kind of welfare. It is a huge deterrence to unskilled people just arriving and looking for work like they do in the UK.
"Within all this is the in-built (so to speak) assumption that you live in a valuable house you must be wealthy" - not always the case, perhaps, but certainly that's the way the clever money is - and certainly will be once no-limit council tax is a thing, so the problem will disappear. Plus the bigger the house the more you should be shelling out on routine maintenance, so all in all it benefits the little old lady, her heirs and the national housing stock if she is forced out into a bungalow.
Our tax and benefits system should encourage the efficient allocation of scarce resources.
The publisher of the Daily Mirror, Trinity Mirror, is to change its name to Reach after completing a deal to buy the Daily Express.
I wonder how much they paid some rebranding consultancy for the wanky and totally ambiguous name?
Probably want to move on from all those legal difficulties that you must remember the Labour Party loudly and repeatedly condemning.
It is very strange how quiet those who led with any tiny tit bit of news about NOTW phone hacking stories, when we now know the NOTW were part-time amateurs compared to the activities of the Mirror.
The biggest angle to me of all of this, and one the Indy spent a lot of time looking into (but got overlooked in all the outrage), claims of widespread corporate hacking.
Meaning proper hacking, or picking up voicemails because the PIN hasn't been changed?
Indy carried stories of widespread tales of both, but yes including very serious claims of an industry of people willing to carry out "proper" hacking for the right price.
No. Means-testing is one of the most demeaning activities known, both to the pen-pushers who administer it and the embarrassed peopl who receive the benefits, e.g. Pension Credit is there because the previous state pension isn't enough to live on (and people still talk of abolishing the triple lock ...)
Another name for means-testing is an arbitrary and somewhat random higher marginal tax rate.
Not means testing, making all welfare contributory as it is in Switzerland. You need to have e paid in for 12 of the last 24 months in Switzerland before claiming any kind of welfare. It is a huge deterrence to unskilled people just arriving and looking for work like they do in the UK.
Plus the requirement to get private medical insurance.
Together, they mean Switzerland combines freedom of labour with relatively limited low skilled immigration.
It is very strange how quiet those who led with any tiny tit bit of news about NOTW phone hacking stories, when we now know the NOTW were part-time amateurs compared to the activities of the Mirror.
The biggest angle to me of all of this, and one the Indy spent a lot of time looking into (but got overlooked in all the outrage), claims of widespread corporate hacking.
When the story first came out it took me about 5 minutes of Googling to guess who the worst offender would likely be. I found and skimmed the ICO Motorman report. Amazingly they managed to avoid almost any public condemnation. Why one paper in particular became the focus of the public campaign is a mystery.
The publisher of the Daily Mirror, Trinity Mirror, is to change its name to Reach after completing a deal to buy the Daily Express.
I wonder how much they paid some rebranding consultancy for the wanky and totally ambiguous name?
Probably want to move on from all those legal difficulties that you must remember the Labour Party loudly and repeatedly condemning.
It is very strange how quiet those who led with any tiny tit bit of news about NOTW phone hacking stories, when we now know the NOTW were part-time amateurs compared to the activities of the Mirror.
The biggest angle to me of all of this, and one the Indy spent a lot of time looking into (but got overlooked in all the outrage), claims of widespread corporate hacking.
Meaning proper hacking, or picking up voicemails because the PIN hasn't been changed?
Indy carried stories of widespread tales of both, but yes including very serious claims of an industry of people willing to carry out "proper" hacking for the right price.
I have never for a moment doubted that that was the case - saying it wasn't would be like saying, there's no such thing as burglars. Mind you, I have read the Neuromancer trilogy an embarrassing number of times, which may have clouded my judgment.
Wouldn't most people rather be able to afford to buy a home in their 20s or 30s in which to bring up their kids - than rent privately for 40 years and inherit half of one from their parents in their mid 60s?
That was of course the norm pre 2000 - even in London.
We do have a strange obsession with housing in the UK. In Switzerland, it's perfectly normal to rent privately your entire life, and no-one seems any unhappier.
The UK private rental market is an abomination from the depths of hell. I got out after having to take my letting agent to court to get a deposit back. I feel sorry for all the young colleagues who get utterly fleeced by it still.
I rented for a year when I moved up to North Essex - when we moved out the agent tried to claim everything they could think of and more to reduce the deposit return.
Including an old shower cubicle needed a new "thingy" (the thing that the door hangs off onto the cubicle itself and slides on) - they claimed as they couldn't source one as the cubicle was so old (the house was less than 10 years old) I should pay for a whole new cubicle
It so happens they wanted a top of the range cubicle paid for by me......
They wanted to claim for a deep cleaning as I had a dog in the house - I reminded them that they had agreed to the dog and charged me up front a fee for cleaning after we moved out - essentially they wanted to charge me twice.
Other items claimed for, I could show them on the inventory and in pictures that we had not handed them back in a worse shape than we took possession.
A sharp letter later and a promise of taking them to arbitration if this nonsense continued and they didn't accept my fair offer we reached settlement - at less than 20% of the total first claimed.
No. Means-testing is one of the most demeaning activities known, both to the pen-pushers who administer it and the embarrassed peopl who receive the benefits, e.g. Pension Credit is there because the previous state pension isn't enough to live on (and people still talk of abolishing the triple lock ...)
Another name for means-testing is an arbitrary and somewhat random higher marginal tax rate.
Not means testing, making all welfare contributory as it is in Switzerland. You need to have e paid in for 12 of the last 24 months in Switzerland before claiming any kind of welfare. It is a huge deterrence to unskilled people just arriving and looking for work like they do in the UK.
Plus the requirement to get private medical insurance.
Together, they mean Switzerland combines freedom of labour with relatively limited low skilled immigration.
Tax credits. The most pernicious policy of the past two decades.
It’s responsible for massive immigration, subsidy of companies paying low wages and the costs of its own bureaucracy. The way it was done also means that those who have no contact with it also have no knowledge of it, and how far it permeates into society.
Exactly. Once you take into account tax credits not all those supposed net contributors are in fact paying for our pensions - we are actually subsidising their employers to pay low wages.
What sensible country would introduce a welfare benefit that actually gives people more government handouts if they work fewer hours? Thanks Mr Brown!
The question is whether the work would happen at all without tax credits? If not, and I don't know the answer to this, then the would be employee is sitting at home collecting unemployment benefit and allowing his skills and employ-ability to wither further.
It probably would, but the UK economy (London specifically) would look a lot more like Switzerland, higher prices and higher basic earnings. Most of the people who earn the minimum wage are doing fairly essential jobs that can't easily be automated. Possibly there would be fewer employees overall in those lower paid positions, but the higher overall wages would lead to more economic activity much like the minimum wage has done, confounding the original predictions of high unemployment.
I think the key is that people who earn £9 per hour are much more likely to spend their money than people who earn £7.50 per hour or whatever the minimum wage is.
My view is that work is inherently good. People in work are happier, and healthier. Depression is less common, drug and alcohol problems are fewer, and families more stable.
There is an issue that some people's economic output will be lower than the minimum wage. It is better to subsidise these people (and it is these people who are being subsidised) than to have them sitting at home, especially as work begets skills.
The issue with tax credit, to my mind, is that they acted as an incentive to import labour, which was never their goal. Do you have any data on the number of EU immigrants collecting tax credits?
I don't, but I think it's about 17% of all claimants coming from overseas. I don't know what the breakdown is for EU/non-EU though or if it broken down. I might have a better answer for you tomorrow though.
The problem with this is we have agreed to basically stay in the EU, including all payments and FOM, but without any voting rights whatsoever, during transition.
That’s bearable for 18 months, maybe - but for 5 years?
And in case you missed it, the whole point of the debate at the moment is that a particular generation are being ignored for the benefit of the elderly. That generation will soon be middle aged and will be losing their parents just like we all do. So all you are suggesting is that as well as screwing them whilst they are young, you are going to screw them when they are middle aged as well. Nice one.
As a member of that generation, I don't think that's a very persuasive argument. People generally empathize with others in similar situations to them. That's why, once they leave university, graduates don't immediately go from being anti uni fees to pro, even though if fees were abolished they'd end up being doubly fucked over. It's rare for people to say "Well if I'm going to be screwed, I hope my kids are screwed in exactly the same way!" Similarly I don't think young people who currently see huge inheritances as unfair are going to suddenly change the mind when it's their kids who are the ones disadvantaged.
And although this conversation is about raising tax revenue, it would also be possible for the government to raise inheritance tax (and add some lower bounds) and offset that by lowering income tax so that overall the two changes were revenue-neutral. Because the distribution of wealth is much more unequal than income, this would likely be beneficial for most people (unless there were lots of avoidance issues).
You miss my point. You are going to be screwed over twice or three times under the suggestions made by those advocating inheritance taxes. Meanwhile you children will still be no better off as the balance of benefits/housing etc will still be with the elderly.
Far better to tax the wealthier elderly whilst they are still alive and use that money to reduce the tax levied on the young in the form of tuition fees.
Wouldn't higher taxes on inheritance mean that people have to sell the houses they receive in order to pay the tax bill? That could increase supply and decrease prices, although maybe it's negligible compared to new builds.
House prices aren’t “real”.
Tax them and prices will fall sharply. There is no easy taxation “milch cow” a fact that even the soft left don’t eel to understand.
Comments
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/970722698438610944
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-england-leicestershire-43287436?__twitter_impression=true
Me, I like a good curry. I'm a moderate, innit.
And in case you missed it, the whole point of the debate at the moment is that a particular generation are being ignored for the benefit of the elderly. That generation will soon be middle aged and will be losing their parents just like we all do. So all you are suggesting is that as well as screwing them whilst they are young, you are going to screw them when they are middle aged as well. Nice one.
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/970693785989599232
No Nil rate band?
Just straight up to 47% over 150k or 62% over 100k to 123k?
Would it count towards tapered annual allowance?
https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/970728152099037184
https://www.ippr.org/research/publications/tapering-over-the-tax
I'm not sure how politically you can get there from here and still get elected, though.
We're trapped in a loop where party A implements a policy, which is then partially undone by party B, thereby creating complexity.
That’s a pretty extremist position these days.
Perhaps, everyone should have a lifetime "tax free" allowance of £500,000 (inflation adjusted, of course) which can be used for income, capital gains or inheritance.
Are you sure ? Mine didn't lol
Equally up north there are a lot more Band A properties than in the home counties. That didn't use to be much of a problem until Osbourne changed the rules and removed various grants. That's why many councils up North now do absolutely nothing because after Social Care costs there is nothing left in the pot to spend.
http://www.bbc.com/news/av/technology-43292047/burger-flipping-robot-begins-first-shift
(Wo)Man does not live by coffee alone....
And although this conversation is about raising tax revenue, it would also be possible for the government to raise inheritance tax (and add some lower bounds) and offset that by lowering income tax so that overall the two changes were revenue-neutral. Because the distribution of wealth is much more unequal than income, this would likely be beneficial for most people (unless there were lots of avoidance issues).
If you are earning more than the average wage you should not be getting handouts from the state. If you are earning substantially more than that you should be expected to provide for your own old age as well.
Far better to tax the wealthier elderly whilst they are still alive and use that money to reduce the tax levied on the young in the form of tuition fees.
It’s responsible for massive immigration, subsidy of companies paying low wages and the costs of its own bureaucracy. The way it was done also means that those who have no contact with it also have no knowledge of it, and how far it permeates into society.
Sandpit is a Kremlin astroturfer!!!! 0_o
Well you know the rest!
Back to the drawing board for anti-democratic doyenne of the Tuskan-Villa-set La Toynbee...
More than 100% of the trade imbalance with Canada ($30bn vs a $17bn deficit) is due to oil from Alberta going down the Keystone pipeline network to refineries in the US.
These are pipelines the US shouted for, because - rather than importing Mayan Heavy from Venezuela - they could take Canadian oil and make a bigger profit. These pipelines reduce the overall US trade deficit, because they pay less for their oil than they would have done buying it from the Gulf and Venezuela.
This is a classic example about why focusing on bilateral deficits is dumb. If the US shut Keystone, they would solve their imbalance with Canada, but at the expense of increasing their overall trade deficit.
(Also: Canada runs an overall trade deficit with the US, once services are included.)
What sensible country would introduce a welfare benefit that actually gives people more government handouts if they work fewer hours? Thanks Mr Brown!
Honey Trap anybody...
On Council Tax, a few facts - the median level for the whole of England in 1991 was set at £80,000. That was 8/8 of the Council Tax. That's Band D - Band H pays double that, Band A 2/3 of that.
That was then - the average house price in England now is £226,000. The valuations were never meant to reflect actual open market valuations but were more akin to insurance valuations.
A number of things need to happen in conjunction with any revaluation - first, the top limit of twice the agreed median is absurd. The range of house values is much greater and indeed high-value properties have been nicely subsidised by the rest of us. Wherever the median is set needs to be valid not for the whole of England but perhaps on a regional basis or at the very least one figure for London and another for the rest of England.
Setting non-London median at say £200k but call it Band C rather than D. Have properties up to £100k pay half the median and properties between £100-£150k pay three quarters of the median. From there as follows:
Band C - £150-£250k - set tax
Band D - £250-£350k - 125% of set tax
Band E - £350-£500k -150% of set tax
Band F - £500-£700k - 175%
Band G - £700-£900k - 200%
Band H - £900K - £1.2m - 250%
Band I - £1.2m - £2m - 300%
Band J - £2m+ - 400% of set tax
So if the set figure in your authority is £1,000 and your property is valued at £800k you'd pay £2,000 pa.
The problem is areas with large numbers of high-value properties are likely to recoup more Council Tax so there still needs to be some form of Government funding scale to ensure poorer areas with more lower band properties aren't left short - yes, it's redistributive but there aren't many other options.
Within all this is the in-built (so to speak) assumption that you live in a valuable house you must be wealthy - that's the flaw with any property-related tax. The alternative is to tax income via some form of Local Income Tax or sales via some form of Local Sales Tax. Neither of these options are foolproof and both are open to fraud whereas property-based taxation is harder to avoid or evade.
The only solution I've ever come up with for local finance is to add the precept in to general taxation and have a wholly independent non-political body decide grant allocations. Councils could raise additional funds locally but their main funding would come from this non-political group which would simply be given an amount from general taxation to fund local Government. I'm not convinced but nothing else works.
Wouldn't most people rather be able to afford to buy a home in their 20s or 30s in which to bring up their kids - than rent privately for 40 years and inherit half of one from their parents in their mid 60s?
That was of course the norm pre 2000 - even in London.
I think the key is that people who earn £9 per hour are much more likely to spend their money than people who earn £7.50 per hour or whatever the minimum wage is.
I wonder how much they paid some rebranding consultancy for the wanky and totally ambiguous name?
That recent case of the Slovenian being sold to the Romanian gypsy gang for £100 so he could be brought to the UK as an "income earning asset" for the slavers should be opening many more eyes in the UK than it has.
Another name for means-testing is an arbitrary and somewhat random higher marginal tax rate.
The biggest angle to me of all of this, and one the Indy spent a lot of time looking into (but got overlooked in all the outrage), claims of widespread corporate hacking.
There is an issue that some people's economic output will be lower than the minimum wage. It is better to subsidise these people (and it is these people who are being subsidised) than to have them sitting at home, especially as work begets skills.
The issue with tax credit, to my mind, is that they acted as an incentive to import labour, which was never their goal. Do you have any data on the number of EU immigrants collecting tax credits?
The recent tensions are unbearable for those caught up in it, probably very much like N Ireland was a few years ago.
no longer the only man to make it through an all woman shortlist...
Together, they mean Switzerland combines freedom of labour with relatively limited low skilled immigration.
Including an old shower cubicle needed a new "thingy" (the thing that the door hangs off onto the cubicle itself and slides on) - they claimed as they couldn't source one as the cubicle was so old (the house was less than 10 years old) I should pay for a whole new cubicle
It so happens they wanted a top of the range cubicle paid for by me......
They wanted to claim for a deep cleaning as I had a dog in the house - I reminded them that they had agreed to the dog and charged me up front a fee for cleaning after we moved out - essentially they wanted to charge me twice.
Other items claimed for, I could show them on the inventory and in pictures that we had not handed them back in a worse shape than we took possession.
A sharp letter later and a promise of taking them to arbitration if this nonsense continued and they didn't accept my fair offer we reached settlement - at less than 20% of the total first claimed.
Bar stewards
That’s bearable for 18 months, maybe - but for 5 years?
https://twitter.com/chrisgreybrexit/status/970756337767534594
Tax them and prices will fall sharply. There is no easy taxation “milch cow” a fact that even the soft left don’t eel to understand.