Work so hard you cripple yourself

[Amplidyne]

We lose the winter fuel payment. Not too bothered myself but not a good move by a party supposed to be defending the 99%

Tory party based on resistance to change - almost an ideology in itself, as spelled out repeatedly by Salisbury and many other tory institutions.

All modern states have something equivalent, even the USA, for better or worse.


Blair was Thatcherite too, a.k.a. "Blatcherite"

A bit of a dud. Some things good.

Well at least we agree about Blair.

I'm not so sure that being "progressive" as these left wing parties like to call themselves is in fact progressive at all.

I'd call it inflationary at best. Time will tell.

We will see what damage has already been done, and what will be done in future.

As I've said, I have little faith in any of them. Neither Labour, nor Labour Lite as the last Tory lot were.

Or any faith in the system that puts them in charge.

 

[Diver Fred]

>> Snip <<. Brexit being their biggest mistake.

Brexit was caused by Bliar completed under Cameron (Sadly).

Before you ask - why was it caused by Bliar?
Bliar was desperate to be the President of the EU so his government did not put the restrictions on migration from the 'New Eight' unlike the rest of the 'old' EU countries.

If DC hadn't followed the push to do something about the perceived unfairness of the EU with migration. He should have pushed the benefits of EU membership more and also explained the concerns of other member countries; I know from working with EU that even the original 7 members have concerns on the direction of the EU.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

No, but the will to do so seems to be lacking the way things are. And we do pay the water companies to handle rainwater. We have some influence over government through the ballot box but it seems very little over private companies.

It is difficult to know whether the water companies have done a good job or not - their income and investment plans are regulated. That the quality of the service is below that reasonably expected is beyond reasonable doubt.

The policy of fining water companies for poor performance is particularly bizarre. If poor performance arises through underfunding, a fine merely exacerbates the problem! Far better to restrict dividends.

The regulator has done an appalling job. They have failed to ensure the water companies delivered to an acceptable quality, and failed to ensure they have sufficient resources to deliver the quality of service required.

As the regulator is appointed by and operates within a remit set by government, the government need to accept responsibility. Separating regulation from delivery at least exposes inadequacies and underperformance.

As a nationalised enterprise, delivery failings and funding are far less transparent. If proven incapable of regulation (it is not just water) then I doubt their capacity to do any better with all the resources directly under state control.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Brexit was caused by Bliar completed under Cameron (Sadly).

Before you ask - why was it caused by Bliar?
Bliar was desperate to be the President of the EU so his government did not put the restrictions on migration from the 'New Eight' unlike the rest of the 'old' EU countries.

If DC hadn't followed the push to do something about the perceived unfairness of the EU with migration. He should have pushed the benefits of EU membership more and also explained the concerns of other member countries; I know from working with EU that even the original 7 members have concerns on the direction of the EU.

DC basically caved in. He promised a referendum without condition, and was utterly complacent in selling the benefits of EU membership to voters.

His tour of Europe to try and wrest concessions from the other members was a half-hearted affair lacking real commitment.

Although a personal view -he should have been far more assertive. As a major financial contributor to the "club" he could have refused or kicked into the long grass any number of directives. The rest of the "club" would be unlikely to "blackball" the UK for other than for truly gross non-compliance.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

Inheritance tax destroying generational farming, VAT on private schools, NI rises on business, minimum wage levels making it mroe expensive for small businesses to run.

All hardly progressive.

Like you say, we have a possible five years of this yet. I wonder what's to come.

And that's before the wage rises for their union mates.

I'm (not) looking forward to seeing this wonderful new Britain they're going to deliver.

You're first phrase - you're just doing it again
Is inheritance tax "destroying generational farming"? Or do we have to wait a while and see?

You're next phrase. What if I told you that *since the original announcement* that Private Schools would fall under the scope of VAT, the number of Private Schools in UK has increased.
Do you even know what proportion of education (number of students) takes place in Private versus State schools.

And when you say "minimum wage" is "hardly progressive", I wonder if you understand what progressive actually means?

 

[Amplidyne]

In other words, "It won't effect me, so that's OK"

So much for "No more tax for the working person.

I know what progressive means, I also know when a word has been hijacked to sound good.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

In other words, "It won't effect me, so that's OK"

So much for "No more tax for the working person.

I know what progressive means, I also know when a word has been hijacked to sound good.

If that's directed at me, I think you've drawn entirely the wrong conclusion about me.

You're mostly correct when you say the recent budget won't affect me very much. However, that's not OK with me. I am well paid (despite the many years public sector pay freezes and pay restraint ~15%-20% real terms cut). But I'm comfortable. I also have eyes, though. Anyone with eyes can see that public services are broken, underfunded and stretched beyond capacity. They need fixing and funding. The upshot of which is that I strongly believe that workers at my pay level ought to be paying a bit more tax.

So, yeah, it isn't OK with me.

One more thing. I'm happy that min wage is increasung and that, alongside the improvement in workers rights, makes me happy. So it isn't all bad.

As for private school fees being brought back in scope of VAT by having the "exemption" removed, that's another good thing in my mind.

However, as I'm sure I've described quite clearly above, farms being brought back into scope of IHT, as far as I'm concerned, that is not ideal. But there is a specific reason and that reason is sound. The unintended consequences might be negative, but that's the fault of the super wealthy, deliberately using farms to reduce their IHT. Tax avoidance needs to be tackled. This one might prove to be clumsy. But that is for future judgement. Right now, too early to tell.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

. The upshot of which is that I strongly believe that workers at my pay level ought to be paying a bit more tax.

What's stopping you? Send them a cheque.

 

[RobinBHM]

What's stopping you? Send them a cheque.

a commonly used false argument

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Why? If you believe you should pay more tax, pay it yourself before you proselytise.

 

[RobinBHM]

There's been enormous amounts of investment, it's just hard to keep up. In recent years there's been some big spend on much overdue interconnects, but for decades there's been spend on e.g. leakage reduction, which is at it's lowest level ever, despite flows being well up. There's certainly been a fail in regulation e.g. allowing the financial structures adopted by Thames Water in the 2000s but overall things are genuinely better than they were - but that makes for poor headlines and even worse political messaging.

when water was privatised it was debt free

now it is £60b in debt

it has paid out £72b in dividends

before water was privatised it had suffered under investment for quite a few years, but it didnt rack up debts


So I disagree with your assessment that "things are genuinely better than they were"

 

[RobinBHM]

OK you carry on with your belief that somehow this lot will be better than the last lot

they are

But then you couldn't get a 5 thou feeler between the main parties in reality.

the recent budget shows that not really true

Labour have done the necessary increase in taxation, including taxes on the rich in order to put money into public services -like the NHS
completely different from the previous administration

I agree Labour are probably too neo liberal and not progressive enough, but they are demonstrably different from the previous administation which were right wing popuists ( and will continue to be right wing populists with Badenough as leader )

 

[RobinBHM]

Why? If you believe you should pay more tax, pay it yourself before you proselytise.

no its a false argument

governments have to set tax

individuals cannot make a difference on their own

 

[Amplidyne]

they are

Just because "they are" in your opinion, does not make it a fact.

 

[Amplidyne]

If that's directed at me, I think you've drawn entirely the wrong conclusion about me.

You're mostly correct when you say the recent budget won't affect me very much. However, that's not OK with me. I am well paid (despite the many years public sector pay freezes and pay restraint ~15%-20% real terms cut). But I'm comfortable. I also have eyes, though. Anyone with eyes can see that public services are broken, underfunded and stretched beyond capacity. They need fixing and funding. The upshot of which is that I strongly believe that workers at my pay level ought to be paying a bit more tax.

So, yeah, it isn't OK with me.

One more thing. I'm happy that min wage is increasung and that, alongside the improvement in workers rights, makes me happy. So it isn't all bad.

As for private school fees being brought back in scope of VAT by having the "exemption" removed, that's another good thing in my mind.

However, as I'm sure I've described quite clearly above, farms being brought back into scope of IHT, as far as I'm concerned, that is not ideal. But there is a specific reason and that reason is sound. The unintended consequences might be negative, but that's the fault of the super wealthy, deliberately using farms to reduce their IHT. Tax avoidance needs to be tackled. This one might prove to be clumsy. But that is for future judgement. Right now, too early to tell.

To be quite clear, you think all these things are good.

I don't.

They're inflationary, and as usual with all of them the extra money raised will be frittered away on non improvement of public services.

We'll all end up worse off with nothing to show for it.

 

[RobinBHM]

Just because "they are" in your opinion, does not make it a fact.

The last govt were right wing populists whose policies amounted to propaganda, culture wars, ramping up of inflammatory language against foreigners.

This govt aren’t doing that.

They're inflationary, and as usual with all of them the extra money raised will be frittered away on non improvement of public services

Your opinion, not evidence.

Personally I think £22b on the NHS working to clear waiting lists including people being prevented from working, is not inflationary but the opposite.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

Why? If you believe you should pay more tax, pay it yourself before you proselytise.

Ah yes, another trope.

One man alone can achieve only one man's work. In other words (at my pay scale and with zero "wealth"), very, very little - so little in fact that any help achieved would be disproportionately negative to the one man. A country acting together can accomplish a country's work.

Are you with me?

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

To be quite clear, you think all these things are good.

I don't.

They're inflationary, and as usual with all of them the extra money raised will be frittered away on non improvement of public services.

We'll all end up worse off with nothing to show for it.

You are a layman, right?
Not an economist?
What you've typed is nothing but your own prediction, which is in deviation from other, more expert sources. And you haven't offered any serious justification for what I can only tell is a "personal opinion".

What kind of person could possibly be upset that the worst paid are getting a bit of a bump up?

In contrast to you, I'm not offering a prediction one way or the other. I maintain that we will have to wait and see.

I think there is only one thing for certain that we can already see, conclusively, and that one thing is that the markets have not been spooked by any of this. FTSE is up by around 0.5% today. I would view that as potential evidence that your prediction may well be unfounded.

Another thing I would say to your prediction of inheritance tax destroying generational farming - on what grounds does that even make sense? Let's look at some facts.

The facts are that the vast majority of farms - you know - those kinds of farms that are typically "generational", and not super-land owner's investment portfolio or conglomerate business properties... that vast majority will not be affected by any IHT. None. For a generational farmer to not have "entrusted the family owned farm to offspring" already - that is probably not a generational farm.
Then we get to the nub of the detail. Farmers still enjoy a 50% reduction in IHT. What's more, they generally won't pay any tax until over a £3million threshold. Any tax due is 20% of the amount over that threshold. I reckon that generational farming typically will be OK.

I wonder if you've seen that Dyson was in the media providing "comment". But I wonder whether you believe any "comment" on this from Dyson is a trustworthy piece of media?
I understand that he owns 360,000 acres of farmland and he has been VERY upfront that he did this SOLELY to remove his estate from scope of IHT. Largest private land owner in UK, I think. The land value is given at OVER £550million. In what world is a "comment" from Dyson anything other than completely invalid?
So while the vast majority of generational farms will be completely unaffected, your opinion is that IHT will destroy generational farming.

The devil is in the detail, my friend, not some vox-pop outspoken mouthpiece that is not representative of the vast majority.

So we've established that a farmer has a far higher threshold of IHT and still at a preferential rate half that of any other "generational business". How does that compare to any other UK generational business? These have been paying IHT at non preferential rates and lower thresholds since forever, and they seem to manage OK, with little in the way, at least that I've detected, of campaigning (honestly) for lower IHT.

I do get you - I get the shift to increased taxation of farmers "in the feelies" too. Particularly in a conversation about UK food security. But we have to go with the facts and not our feelies.
I'm not saying this is all great. But I reject your prediction on account that we will just have to wait and see. Any prediction right now is not valid. You may turn out to be right. That wouldn't have made your prediction any more valid, though, because I tend to give more credibility to sources that do that prediction (honestly and impartially) as experts in that field (pun intended )

 

[TRITON]

So while the vast majority of generational farms will be completely unaffected, your opinion is that IHT will destroy generational farming.

I think i saw something about the cut off figure as to what farms were worth was 3 million.

Farage was out in his brand spanking new wellies, doing a piece about this. And as usual purporting to be the peoples voice when it was the likes of Dyson he was concerned about.

It will affect those using farming as a tax dodge, so maybe the small farmers who will be effected should be a bit more vocal and lay the blame towards the millionaires and billionaires who are using farming as a tax avoidance scheme.

Lay the blame where the blame is due.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

I think i saw something about the cut off figure as to what farms were worth was 3 million.

Farage was out in his brand spanking new wellies, doing a piece about this. And as usual purporting to be the peoples voice when it was the likes of Dyson he was concerned about.

It will affect those using farming as a tax dodge, so maybe the small farmers who will be effected should be a bit more vocal and lay the blame towards the millionaires and billionaires who are using farming as a tax avoidance scheme.

Lay the blame where the blame is due.

Yep, agree wholeheartedly and implied similar in a previous post ^

Yes, you're quite right, the threshold is £3m for a married couple to pass on. Or £1.5m for a farmer who is "single". I would put it out there that a "single" farmer would be in a very small minority. (Before anyone suggests that both parents would be unlikely to die at the same time, a will from the first to die could easily pass "their half" of the farm to the beneficiary/ies - after all, we are specifically discussing "generational" farming.)