FlyTheNest

Morning

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radi ... ve-special" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

BBC to reboot Tomorrow's World for one-off live special

https://edition-m.cnn.com/2018/11/02/po ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;?


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/us- ... tions-2018" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Re mid-term elections

Disorientated as to morning/evening as to preparing to avoid work on my day off,darkness now being common to both.Doesn't help morning/lunch etc applied despite twelve hours difference.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/live/ ... -more-live" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"very inexperienced All Black side"

HindleA wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/sport/live/ ... -more-live

I managed to get up for the second half.

HindleA wrote:"very inexperienced All Black side"

8 new caps in the side. Still scary good.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/next ... d-for-2019" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Next round of stopping people voting pilots announced

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/jame ... more-homes" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

James Brokenshire: building better and beautiful will deliver more homes
This announcement comes as a month long series of events coordinated by think tank Policy Exchange

Sir Roger Scrotum has been appointed to Chair the commission,

(He changed his name appropriately a la PE)

Constance has done the Times Crossword in record time,though some entries not fully compliant with the English language and all four letters are swear words but pretty good for a cat.

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultat ... ay#history" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Consultation outcome

Parental bereavement leave and pay

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... ns#history" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

School capital funding allocations
(Updated to take account of Budget)

-

Morning all.

I see by @PaulfromYorkshire's last response to my tax ramblings yesterday I probably wasn't communicating my point very well.

I just wanted to make absolutely clear that I do support John McDonnell's proposals to tax wealth. I would probably favour a land value tax of some type, as the UK has a particular problem with land distribution. And I totally agree with the need to reverse the recent corporation tax cuts.

The ultimate aim for me, however, would be to reduce inequality, for the very wealthy to be much less wealthy, which would be a natural consequence of tackling the imbalance in our economy that has led to the over-inflation of paper assets. What I'm basically saying is that in my ideal world no one would have vast wealth to tax, I would use wealth taxes to discourage wealth hoarding and if I achieved my aim I wouldn't therefore be able to rely on that tax to fund stuff. If you base your tax system on taxing wealth and the very wealthy you are banking on having continued very wealthy people in your society and I find that a pessimistic prospect.

The only reason I'm still talking about this, though, is because I find it an interesting conversation. I disagree with McDonnell on this point but a lot of people don't and it's not a big issue for me. I can see how saying you won't reverse the cuts may appeal to some people. It's just that I can also see how it might appeal less to those on lower incomes who will be paying for this cut through continued benefit cuts and freezes for some years to come. Trying to appeal to all voters is certainly a tricky balancing act.

https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/c ... mes-plans/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Concerns over industry’s repeated objections to councils’ accessible homes plans


"No "crips" here".Various pincer movements to segregate of course,as ever.

Willow904 wrote: those on lower incomes who will be paying for this cut through continued benefit cuts and freezes for some years to come.

I struggle with this bit. The link between benefit cuts and tax cuts for the better-off is that the tories are bastards, that's all.

It makes just as much sense to say, benefits are being cut so that there's extra money for the NHS, or local govt/police cuts/freezes are funding tax cuts for the rich.

Tories gonna tory.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... greed-soon" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

UK and Ireland signal Irish border Brexit deal could be agreed soon
Senior politicians say recent progress in talks could resolve the backstop imbroglio

If it was anyone but May this might look hopeful but the chances of her getting anything agreeable to the EU past the ERG remains pretty slim.

Oh and "imbroglio" ?!

When was the last time that term was applied to a political situation? Edward VIII's abdication?

Natalie Imbroglio? (Sorry.)

PorFavor wrote:Natalie Imbroglio? (Sorry.)

Famous (well, slightly) at one time for not going out with Liam Fox, you may recall.

gilsey wrote:

Willow904 wrote: those on lower incomes who will be paying for this cut through continued benefit cuts and freezes for some years to come.

I struggle with this bit. The link between benefit cuts and tax cuts for the better-off is that the tories are bastards, that's all.

It makes just as much sense to say, benefits are being cut so that there's extra money for the NHS, or local govt/police cuts/freezes are funding tax cuts for the rich.

Tories gonna tory.

Yes, it's the Tories being Tories. It was a shit budget. So why pick bits out and say you won't oppose them, why give the Tories the benefit of a cheap win by making it appear they may have got something right? Reducing tax on higher earners negates the "austerity" argument of needing to cut benefits to reduce the deficit. It exposes the ugly truth that reducing benefits is ideological not financial. This is what Corbyn took from the budget, this is what he tried to bring out in PMQs and I just find myself more in tune with his response to this than McDonnell. I guess I still really want people to open their eyes to the falsity of austerity, that there was no real austerity to bring to an end, there never was, just an ideological shrinking of the state and reversal of the redistribution of wealth that happened under Labour. That if reducing the deficit was as important as the Tories (and Libdems!) said it was, tax cuts for anyone would be completely out of the question until the structural deficit had been eliminated.

AnatolyKasparov wrote:

PorFavor wrote:Natalie Imbroglio? (Sorry.)

Famous (well, slightly) at one time for not going out with Liam Fox, you may recall.

?!!!

There was a silly rumour going round to that effect about a decade ago. Google will no doubt tell you more if you are genuinely interested

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... ortage-nhs" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

BBC criticised over Arron Banks slot on Andrew Marr show

Lawyers and MPs condemn plan to interview Brexiter under criminal investigation

The BBC’s decision provoked widespread condemnation from politicians, lawyers and activists.

Andrew Adonis, a leading remain campaigner, said in a letter to the BBC that Banks’s expected appearance was the result of “a very serious editorial misjudgment, influenced by a culture of accommodation to extreme Brexiteers now deeply embedded within the BBC”.

Caroline Lucas MP and Molly Scott Cato MEP, both Green party politicians, wrote an open letter criticising the decision to allow the “showman” to “spread misinformation at our expense”. (Guardian)

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... -marr-show

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4 ... 58E7PHqobF" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Young and new voters surge in early voting

As usual, the BBC appear to be doubling down and refusing to accept any criticism.

The way they have gone about alienating erstwhile supporters in the past decade is astonishing.

@Willow

Thanks for the further contributions on tax. It's not a subject I have ever had great clarity on (among others before someone else points that out ) but having read your pieces I wonder if one of the hardest places to go is inheritance. In other words it may be OK for very talented folk to work hard and earn quite a bit, but they can't just assume their kids will get it all. I suppose inheritance is the principle source of wealth.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... tudy-shows" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Key welfare reform disproportionately affects ill or disabled people

" designed to motivate people into work"

As 80% are not expected to work this was always nonsense.This was exactly the same bullshit as well as propagandising as unfair McVey (more likely staff) deployed in written communication regarding transfer to interest bearing loan plus charges.You can be in work as I was.

Out of work benefits does not mean you are out of work or economically inactive.Classic case of participation used against you.

Far better to play the sufficiently pathetic for others aggrandisement.

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:@Willow

Thanks for the further contributions on tax. It's not a subject I have ever had great clarity on (among others before someone else points that out ) but having read your pieces I wonder if one of the hardest places to go is inheritance. In other words it may be OK for very talented folk to work hard and earn quite a bit, but they can't just assume their kids will get it all. I suppose inheritance is the principle source of wealth.

Inheritance tax is always a bit of a hot potato. If you tax people too much when they pass their money on it will discourage people from saving for old age. On the other hand for the very wealthy when they pass their house and estates on to the next generation is sometimes the only opportunity to levy a tax they can't dodge. That's why I think there may be potential in some kind of land value tax as it's hard to avoid. What you don't want is situations like a parent leaving a disabled child they live with their house only for the child to have to sell the house to pay inheritance tax and end up losing their home. What you do want is a child being left a second house they don't need to live in paying some kind of tax that fairly reflects that windfall, but achieving that distinction is tricky.

Willow904 wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:@Willow

Thanks for the further contributions on tax. It's not a subject I have ever had great clarity on (among others before someone else points that out ) but having read your pieces I wonder if one of the hardest places to go is inheritance. In other words it may be OK for very talented folk to work hard and earn quite a bit, but they can't just assume their kids will get it all. I suppose inheritance is the principle source of wealth.

Inheritance tax is always a bit of a hot potato. If you tax people too much when they pass their money on it will discourage people from saving for old age. On the other hand for the very wealthy when they pass their house and estates on to the next generation is sometimes the only opportunity to levy a tax they can't dodge. That's why I think there may be potential in some kind of land value tax as it's hard to avoid. What you don't want is situations like a parent leaving a disabled child they live with their house only for the child to have to sell the house to pay inheritance tax and end up losing their home. What you do want is a child being left a second house they don't need to live in paying some kind of tax that fairly reflects that windfall, but achieving that distinction is tricky.

Thanks and agreed.

Everything I ever read about Land Value Tax makes it sound very sensible. As you say hard to avoid. Pretty fair. And discourages land hoarding so could help with the housing problem too.

How much LVT would the Royal Family pay I wonder?

Willow904 wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:@Willow
Thanks for the further contributions on tax. It's not a subject I have ever had great clarity on (among others before someone else points that out ) but having read your pieces I wonder if one of the hardest places to go is inheritance. In other words it may be OK for very talented folk to work hard and earn quite a bit, but they can't just assume their kids will get it all. I suppose inheritance is the principle source of wealth.

Inheritance tax is always a bit of a hot potato. If you tax people too much when they pass their money on it will discourage people from saving for old age. On the other hand for the very wealthy when they pass their house and estates on to the next generation is sometimes the only opportunity to levy a tax they can't dodge. That's why I think there may be potential in some kind of land value tax as it's hard to avoid. What you don't want is situations like a parent leaving a disabled child they live with their house only for the child to have to sell the house to pay inheritance tax and end up losing their home. What you do want is a child being left a second house they don't need to live in paying some kind of tax that fairly reflects that windfall, but achieving that distinction is tricky.

Framing legislation on that is so difficult, when thousands of sharp lawyers /accountants are sharpening their wits for any loophole! Anyway, for fun --

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I haven't read it or much else on the subject, but did spend some years in 'the money exchange bizness' . MMT/Corbynomics might be a project for winter !

PS Richard Murphy's blog is fun http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Good-afternoon, everyone

Many thanks for the contributions regarding taxes
I like constructive discourse
Grown-up deliberations and negotiation happen all the time
Looking at headlines and other media one could be forgiven for thinking they don't

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:How much LVT would the Royal Family pay I wonder?

I've had difficulty finding that out
I've another question. Can the UK monarch legally and successfully bequeath their wealth to anyone or any number of people?

https://www.derbyshiretimes.co.uk/news/ ... -1-9426982" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


interesting to see whether my put underwear on head and resigning en masse suggestion is taken up

A very polite response given context,duplicituousness and some of the despicable characters involved.

Don't usually bear a grudge but with the attempted breaching of agreement by conveniently forgetting or hoping we had on introduction of inescapeable maintenance charges for essential equipment I make an exception.

Most people think many things are free that are not and the basics,

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[youtube]lexAguA9uFA[/youtube]

Worth it for the spectacle of Sarah Huckabee Saunders gobbledygook explanation that Donald Trump was the real victim of the Pittsburgh shootings (50secs in) .
There follows the allusions to a 'Global Elite' , shouts of "Soros lock him up" , and of course Soros is financing the Refugee Caravan . And more ...

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... ut-of-town" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/ ... -two-years" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... -on-wheels" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

One of the issues about property and inheritance tax, along with the side issue of funding social care in old age, is that for the vast majority of people the vast majority of 'equity' wealth that exists in property is there because of the behaviour of the housing market. Yes, they've invested deposits and paid mortgages (and upkeep) but the people who have rented have paid fees and rents and costs of repairs and improvements (either directly or within raised rents) just the same and they don't gain any equity.

It all means that although anti-campaigners moan about 'double-grabs' by the state, in fact most of the wealth in property has never been subject to taxation, because it only exists because the property market in the UK is insane and never stops long-term rising, even given the occasional slump (which might even be appropriately called - usually a horrible word in these circumstance - a correction).

I'm looking forward to the reports from the Arron Banks Show this morning

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 15971.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Well, Andrew Marr has actually caught Banks out in a significant lie. However much Banks leads him round in circles, we've established that Banks told the DCMS committee that Rock Services is just a shell company and the £8m donated/loaned to a Brexit campaign via Rock Services came from another of his UK businesses but when Marr asks which business he can't say and eventually ends up saying the money came from Rock Services itself, which the FCA will know isn't true, even if Marr viewers don't. So not an entire success for Banks.

I'm off to check what Carole Cadwalladr made of it all in Twitter.