neilj
Member
Posts: 6,390
|
Post by neilj on Nov 13, 2024 15:21:38 GMT
Really not sure what you are saying What I do know is that public services need a massive injection of spending, taxing people more and extra borrowing is the only realistic way of doing it. It's the relatively poor that rely most on state support and services and will benefit most from increased spending on public services I am more than happy for tax loopholes on private education and land to be closed to help the less well off, are you? There was criticism of Biden and the Democrats for not doing more in the way of tax redistribution to help those struggling, I am very happy Labour is doing this Could they do more, probably, but with the money markets it's important not to spook them Let's not the perfect be the enemy of the good and I'll leave with Dyson and Clarkson whinging because their heirs may have to pay a bit more tax to answer your questions, I don’t have a problem with closing tax loopholes, with tax on private education, or with redistribution. My point in part is that this is nowhere near enough. We have had redistribution for effing years, but the ladder keeps being pulled up. The point is, the fans of the third Way, social democracy, whatever you want to call it, only tend to offer policies that maintain middle-class hegemony. They say they care, but never enough to seriously challenge middle-class advantage. They might care a bit more than the neoliberals, but then it peters out a bit. Tax private schools, but let’s not worry about middle-class advantage in state schools. And now, people who make stuff, and need assets to do so, are now more in the firing line. It’s a handy budget for middle-class proceduralists, especially in the public sector. Labour is as they say, the party of the public sector elite. But worrying for others… Disagree, yes they could do more, but the budget was a good start. Yes middle class parents can and do have sharp elbows to get into the best schools, but can't see a realistic way of overcoming this. But the extra spending thanks to the tax increases will help all state schools. Indeed I understand spending is to be targeted at the most deprived Not sue how people 'who make stuff, and need assets to do so, are now more in the firing line' from the budget. Small companies were protected by Reeves, indeed many will be paying less NIC. Yes medium and big businesses will pay more, but as I said someone needs to if we are to help the poorest, including pensioners Not sure |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,721
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Nov 13, 2024 15:37:11 GMT
to answer your questions, I don’t have a problem with closing tax loopholes, with tax on private education, or with redistribution. My point in part is that this is nowhere near enough. We have had redistribution for effing years, but the ladder keeps being pulled up. The point is, the fans of the third Way, social democracy, whatever you want to call it, only tend to offer policies that maintain middle-class hegemony. They say they care, but never enough to seriously challenge middle-class advantage. They might care a bit more than the neoliberals, but then it peters out a bit. Tax private schools, but let’s not worry about middle-class advantage in state schools. And now, people who make stuff, and need assets to do so, are now more in the firing line. It’s a handy budget for middle-class proceduralists, especially in the public sector. Labour is as they say, the party of the public sector elite. But worrying for others… Disagree, yes they could do more, but the budget was a good start. Yes middle class parents can and do have sharp elbows to get into the best schools, but can't see a realistic way of overcoming this. But the extra spending thanks to the tax increases will help all state schools. Indeed I understand spending is to be targeted at the most deprived Not sue how people 'who make stuff, and need assets to do so, are now more in the firing line' from the budget. Small companies were protected by Reeves, indeed many will be paying less NIC. Yes medium and big businesses will pay more, but as I said someone needs to if we are to help the poorest, including pensioners Not sure I’m not sure it’s a good start if it leaves some less well-off people worse off. You could at least partially address the catchment area problem, by assigning places differently, but the bigger point is that increasing property prices has been a problem for decades, causes massive damage, and doesn’t get much attention. Parties from Labour to Tories barely got criticised for it. It should always have been a massive priority. But some in the middle class don’t care because they benefit from it. They would rather moan about Musk going to Mars. The assets thing related more to inheritance tax. The impact on people building up businesses, and you do wonder if this is the thin end of another wedge, as with tuition fees. Another step towards that thing that is supposed to be just a conspiracy theory: “they shall own nothing” |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,390
|
Post by neilj on Nov 13, 2024 15:45:29 GMT
Disagree, yes they could do more, but the budget was a good start. Yes middle class parents can and do have sharp elbows to get into the best schools, but can't see a realistic way of overcoming this. But the extra spending thanks to the tax increases will help all state schools. Indeed I understand spending is to be targeted at the most deprived Not sue how people 'who make stuff, and need assets to do so, are now more in the firing line' from the budget. Small companies were protected by Reeves, indeed many will be paying less NIC. Yes medium and big businesses will pay more, but as I said someone needs to if we are to help the poorest, including pensioners Not sure I’m not sure it’s a good start if it leaves some less well-off people worse off. You could at least partially address the catchment area problem, by assigning places differently, but the bigger point is that increasing property prices has been a problem for decades, causes massive damage, and doesn’t get much attention. It should always have been a massive priority. But many in the middle class don’t care because they benefit from it. The assets thing related more to inheritance tax. The impact on people building up businesses, and you do wonder if this is the thin end of another wedge, as with tuition fees. Another step towards that thing that is supposed to be just a conspiracy theory: “they shall own nothing” . Not sure how in practice you assign pupils to different catchment areas without bussing them in from different areas with the attendant costs and time involved. It would certainly mean more tax rises and longer days for the kids As to inheritance tax, there has been no increase, just closing a loophole that allowed some landowners to avoid it. Even then they are still substantially better of than those in other businesses Far from being the thin end of the wedge it's just shutting down a lucrative tax break the tories gave to their wealthy friends in 1992 |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,721
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Nov 13, 2024 15:54:22 GMT
I’m not sure it’s a good start if it leaves some less well-off people worse off. You could at least partially address the catchment area problem, by assigning places differently, but the bigger point is that increasing property prices has been a problem for decades, causes massive damage, and doesn’t get much attention. It should always have been a massive priority. But many in the middle class don’t care because they benefit from it. The assets thing related more to inheritance tax. The impact on people building up businesses, and you do wonder if this is the thin end of another wedge, as with tuition fees. Another step towards that thing that is supposed to be just a conspiracy theory: “they shall own nothing” . Not sure how in practice you assign pupils to different catchment areas without bussing them in from different areas with the attendant costs and time involved. It would certainly mean more tax rises and longer days for the kids As to inheritance tax, there has been no increase, just closing a loophole that allowed some landowners to avoid it. Even then they are still substantially better of than those in other businesses Far from being the thin end of the wedge it's just shutting down a lucrative tax break the tories gave to their wealthy friends in 1992 Yes, it might involve some extra travel, but it isn’t necessarily impossible. When I worked in a music department in FE, people travelled to it from further-flung parts of the county. Regarding the inheritance tax changes, I’m still trying to figure out the full impacts, people argue it doesn’t necessarily affect just the really wealthy - maybe others on the board can advise - but like I said, as a general principle, in order to address inequality, would it be so bad if we made it easier for more people to be able to develop and pass on productive assets? Levelling up or levelling down? |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,390
|
Post by neilj on Nov 13, 2024 16:08:25 GMT
Not sure how in practice you assign pupils to different catchment areas without bussing them in from different areas with the attendant costs and time involved. It would certainly mean more tax rises and longer days for the kids As to inheritance tax, there has been no increase, just closing a loophole that allowed some landowners to avoid it. Even then they are still substantially better of than those in other businesses Far from being the thin end of the wedge it's just shutting down a lucrative tax break the tories gave to their wealthy friends in 1992 Yes, it might involve some extra travel, but it isn’t necessarily impossible. When I worked in a music department in FE, people travelled to it from further-flung parts of the county. Regarding the inheritance tax changes, I’m still trying to figure out the full impacts, people argue it doesn’t necessarily affect just the really wealthy - maybe others onthe board can advise - but like I said, as a general principle, in order to address inequality, would it be so bad if we made it easier for more people to be able to develop and pass on productive assets? Levelling up or levelling down? If you are arguing there should be no inheritance tax, fine but you then need to either cut public spending by £7.5b and or increase other taxes to pay for it Either way all the the budget did was partially close a tory loophole that allowed landowners to avoid inheritance tax. But even now they are still substantially better off than people who build up a manufacturing business for example Assuming the latter are a couple who pass on their business to their children, their estate will have to pay 40% tax after a tax free £1m Landowners estates, such as Dyson's, will only pay 20% after a tax free amount of £3m I really have little sympathy for them |
|
|
|
Post by richardstamper on Nov 13, 2024 16:08:47 GMT
Regarding Climate change, does the world have time to wait 50 years until somebody comes along and says "er, we've cocked up our modelling here?" Yes, again, you don’t appear to have read what I wrote on the matter. As I made clear to PJ, I thought we should continue to act on climate change. Not just to be on the safe side, but also because it could be useful to learn more about how to manipulate climate anyway, and because it’s a good idea to stop using fossil fuels for additional reasons e.g. To stop wasting a resource (though it’s also an idea to stop putting all these plastics into the environment) All I was saying, is that it’s a good idea to be prepared both ways. To also consider the possibility where a different thing happens to the climate than we were expecting. Don’t forget, that this has happened before. In the early 60s, people worried that we were going to have more cold weather. This is supposedly because the pollution in the air was reflecting the sunlight and having a cooling effect. But the reduction in pollution reduced the cooling effect, and then the increase in carbon dioxide gradually meant warming took over. But it was a while before we noticed the impact of the build up of carbon dioxide. There could be other things we are not noticing… (My emphasis above) I refer you to The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Consensus, published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. Quoting the abstract (full paper available at the link) "An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming." |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,721
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Nov 13, 2024 16:15:32 GMT
Yes, again, you don’t appear to have read what I wrote on the matter. As I made clear to PJ, I thought we should continue to act on climate change. Not just to be on the safe side, but also because it could be useful to learn more about how to manipulate climate anyway, and because it’s a good idea to stop using fossil fuels for additional reasons e.g. To stop wasting a resource (though it’s also an idea to stop putting all these plastics into the environment) All I was saying, is that it’s a good idea to be prepared both ways. To also consider the possibility where a different thing happens to the climate than we were expecting. Don’t forget, that this has happened before. In the early 60s, people worried that we were going to have more cold weather. This is supposedly because the pollution in the air was reflecting the sunlight and having a cooling effect. But the reduction in pollution reduced the cooling effect, and then the increase in carbon dioxide gradually meant warming took over. But it was a while before we noticed the impact of the build up of carbon dioxide. There could be other things we are not noticing… (My emphasis above) I refer you to The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Consensus, published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. Quoting the abstract (full paper available at the link) "An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming." Interesting, but a bit of a red herring. I’m not surprised if they weren’t talking about it much in the Seventies! By that point clean air acts of the Fifties had kicked in for a while, and we were getting those heatwaves! Also, there was more awareness of CO2, as the measurements - also started in the fifties IIRC - were better known by then. I talked of the early Sixties with the difficult winters etc. But in any event, regardless of eventual awareness, it shows that you can get new effects to confound. If instead we choose a time prior to starting CO2 measurements in the fifties, harder to show a link with warming. In other words, there was a point at which we didn’t have the CO2 data. It’s just that it wasn’t in the Seventies. There may be other data we don’t have yet. And I’m not using it to undermine global warming. There could be an effect we don’t know about that could very quickly tip things towards more global warming. There are some effects some have been worried about which might suddenly accelerate things alarmingly, e.g. hydrides. (Unless you have a paper that says actually no hydrides are a myth and no one was ever worried about them) |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,721
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Nov 13, 2024 16:35:00 GMT
Yes, it might involve some extra travel, but it isn’t necessarily impossible. When I worked in a music department in FE, people travelled to it from further-flung parts of the county. Regarding the inheritance tax changes, I’m still trying to figure out the full impacts, people argue it doesn’t necessarily affect just the really wealthy - maybe others onthe board can advise - but like I said, as a general principle, in order to address inequality, would it be so bad if we made it easier for more people to be able to develop and pass on productive assets? Levelling up or levelling down? If you are arguing there should be no inheritance tax, fine but you then need to either cut public spending by £7.5b and or increase other taxes to pay for it Either way all the the budget did was partially close a tory loophole that allowed landowners to avoid inheritance tax. But even now they are still substantially better off than people who build up a manufacturing business for example Assuming the latter are a couple who pass on their business to their children, their estate will have to pay 40% tax after a tax free £1m Landowners estates, such as Dyson's, will only pay 20% after a tax free amount of £3m I really have little sympathy for them No, I am not arguing there should be no inheritance tax! And I am not saying that any changes should be made now anyway. I’m just starting to think about what might be more ideal, if we wanted as many as possible to have assets, and preferably the more productive assets. (As opposed to the current situation where even property ownership is getting concentrated in fewer hands IIRC). Is a million a lot after a lifetime’s work? Even more than one generation. With a business that might need a lot of assets. A million on a recording studio wouldn’t necessarily be that grand these days. Some people made more than that on a terrace in London without doing anything or investing much. And what if that business employed quite a few people, and suddenly they’ve got to find a chunk of money and have to close the business? Offspring who spent years learning the trade have to do something else? wouldn’t it be better to not do a one-off charge, but do it gradually so the business doesn’t take a big hit? |
|
|
|
Post by turk on Nov 13, 2024 16:48:39 GMT
NeilJ
You seem to miss the point about inheritance tax for those individuals that own companies and those who own farms.
A farmer will have a business that on average for a farm say of 600 acres that gives him/her a profit of about 60- 80 thousand pounds a year out of which the will have to pay back yearly borrowing and I never met a farmer who wasn’t in hock to the bank and also to tide them through the 3-4 months a year that farms traditionally make no money at all. The land on the other hand may well be worth several million depending on its location. On the death of the Farmer it’s very unlikely there going to have the odd million or two hanging around to pay death duties so the farmers children will have no option to sale the land which no doubt be brought up by some cooperation or other looking to either build on it or hold on to it so it increases in value.
In any case the land will pass out of food production.
A business on the other hand that is making millions of pounds may well have the necessary money to pay inheritance tax and that business will continue either to stay in the hands of the family or transfer into another’s persons hand but the business will carry on.
Farmers are not seeking to avoid paying tax like everybody else they pay tax all the time, they just want an exception from paying inheritance tax for as long as the farm stays in the family and produces food ,they fully expect to pay inheritance tax if the family doesn’t want to carry on farming and sell the land.
I assume by the fact of what you have written you don’t care about U.K. food production but for those that do ,driving out skilled people from the land who have farmed all there lives in the short term latest tax raising scheme seems such a short sighted view by politicians who have little understanding how farms work and what it takes in effort time and money to produce food for the U.K. market.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,390
|
Post by neilj on Nov 13, 2024 16:49:59 GMT
No, I am not arguing there should be no inheritance tax! And I am not saying that any changes should be made now anyway. I’m just starting to think about what might be more ideal, if we wanted as many as possible to have assets, and preferably the more productive assets. (As opposed to the current situation where even property ownership is getting concentrated in fewer hands IIRC). Is a million a lot after a lifetime’s work? Even more than one generation. With a business that might need a lot of assets. A million on a recording studio wouldn’t be that grand these days. Some people made more than that on a terrace in London without doing anything or investing anything. And what if that business employed quite a few people, and suddenly they’ve got to find a chunk of money and have to close the business? Offspring who spent years learning the trade have to do something else? Again if you are arguing for a change in inheritance tax fine, but Reeves budget didn't change the £1m figure, it's the same as under the tories The wider point is tax needs to come from somewhere if we are to help the less well off As to offspring, yes if they go into the business (many won't and just live off their inheritance)they may need to work hard and perhaps even get a loan But they will be in a substantially better position than someone starting from scratch who didn't have the benefits of wealthy parents to give them a head start in life I may have misremembered but thought you were concerned about wealth being increasingly concentrated in fewer and fewer hands? |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,390
|
Post by neilj on Nov 13, 2024 16:56:31 GMT
turkThe reason why farm land has increased so dramatically in price is the tory bung to their wealthy friends to free it of inheritance tax Wealthy people have bought it to shelter their money from inheritance tax so increasing land prices Also when a farm is inherited, it remains free of inheritance tax even if the beneficiaries sell it As to having a tax bill of millions, even a £5m farm would only have a bill of £400,000 thanks to the still very generous tax allowances they get
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,362
|
Post by Danny on Nov 13, 2024 16:56:38 GMT
moby is the same, which is why he gives your post a like. He’s bothered about the inequity of private education, people potentially getting a better education than others in the middle class… …but when it comes to the middle class privilege over the working class in education, because of being able to afford property in better catchment areas, this is considered “not a priority” Make all schools great, again. I had a couple of reports back this week comparing state and private schools.
The first was from a cook working for a catering company who had been stationed at both private and state schools. I cant remember the exact phrase he used, but it was something like the state school was a shit hole compared to the private one.
And the other was a report from the mandatory courses run by the government for all staff who are 'pastoral leads' in either state or private schools. The state nowadays generally handles this a bit different to what I experienced in grammar school, where there was a system of houses taking a vertical slice of kids from all age groups, with a housemaster responsible for any welfare and discipline issues. The state tends now to have 'head of year', one person responsible for all the kids in one year. Anyway whichever, it seems they all have to go on a government course every three years.
So.. a question was asked by the course leader how they should deal with keeping a register for alternative educational provision. ie, when the kids arent in normal classes. So the private teacher explained how they get the yacht club to keep the register, or the golf club, or the equestrian centre. Stunned silence. Leader explained he had in mind more when they were being excluded from school. It transpired too that one local state school has a special unit on site for excluded kids, which is separated from the main school by a barbed wire fence.
The question of how classes operate came up, where it was explained that in an academy chain every lesson to be taught is strictly dictated by the school - you give the lesson handed to you on the date stated without deviating from the script. Whereas the private sector still seems to follow what I think must have applied when I was at school, that each teacher is reponsible for their own lessons, making sure they cover all the syllabus and adjusting the lessons as necessary depending how the classes respond to them. Of course to do that, you do have to employ teachers who know their syllabus and are capable of pacing lessons, stressing whats most important and adjusting their teaching if they have smarter or less cooperative kids.
On arriving at the course tea and coffee were served to the assembled staff. One of the private school delegates insisted that this was wholly unacceptable, and there must be biscuits with a cup of tea. The course providers duly obliged, though mentioning they had no budget for biscuits. Similary there was an issue with lunch, which the caterers had to amend. The generally assembled staff agreed they were very grateful because they got the biscuits and sorted issue with lunch, but also agreed they would never have dared complain. This strikes me however as a distinction between private and state schools which is likely to carry across to the kids they teach. Its rather the lesson of how the British empire managed to function using a tiny number of administrators compared to the native populations. If you are suitably assertive, you will be obeyed. An important life lesson likely to boost the future chances of those private school kids. Although its also a useful skill for teachers in general, which seemed a bit lacking.
It was noted again that state schools do indeed send their problem cases to be educated in private schools, paid for by the state. And that logically, as per the debate here about whether NI rises will affect the cost of care to councils, LA will be paying the extra VAT and other taxes on their school fees.
|
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,721
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Nov 13, 2024 16:57:41 GMT
Is a million a lot after a lifetime’s work? Even more than one generation. With a business that might need a lot of assets. A million on a recording studio wouldn’t be that grand these days. Some people made more than that on a terrace in London without doing anything or investing anything. And what if that business employed quite a few people, and suddenly they’ve got to find a chunk of money and have to close the business? Offspring who spent years learning the trade have to do something else? Again if you are arguing for a change in inheritance tax fine, but Reeves budget didn't change the £1m figure, it's the same as under the tories The wider point is tax needs to come from somewhere if we are to help the less well off As to offspring, yes if they go into the business (many won't and just live off their inheritance)they may need to work hard and perhaps even get a loan But they will be in a substantially better position than someone starting from scratch who didn't have the benefits of wealthy parents to give them a head start in life I may have misremembered but thought you were concerned about wealth being increasingly concentrated in fewer and fewer hands? Look, you may feel the only thing that matters is defending Reeves and attacking Trump, and defending middle class school hegemony but there are broader concerns. I made clear in my post I am not thinking about the tax right now. This needn’t affect Reeves. We don’t necessarily need to tax as much in the future if we have enough growth. Yes it’s different if they are just selling the business and living off the inheritance, I am talking about the case where they keep the business going as a productive concern, possibly employing others. I am concerned about wealth being concentrated in fewer hands. My point is to consider how to have more people with more assets. And it does in part depend on the wealth. If it’s invested in productive assets, that is different from just cash they can deploy on anything. you could have somebody running a £1 million recording studio, but doesn’t make a lot of profit. They aren’t able to buy much advantage for themselves, they can’t afford to send their kids to private school et cetera… but it does something productive and keeps some people employed. Unless they sell the business, and then yes maybe more taxes are deployed (I’m not even saying not to use inheritance tax if they keep the business, just make it gradual?) |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,390
|
Post by neilj on Nov 13, 2024 17:04:02 GMT
c-a-r-f-r-e-w'Look, you may feel the only thing that matters is defending... middle class school hegemony' I read that and took a double take, that's precisely what you are doing All stare schools need more money, those in deprived areas more than others, the only realistic long way way to do this is taxes from better off and you seem opposed to that
|
|
|
|
Post by colin on Nov 13, 2024 17:07:57 GMT
There is also a broader point: should we focus on diminishing assets, or helping people build them up. Obviously big disparities might not be desirable, but do you want to keep reducing the number who have assets or aiming for as many as possible to have them? Well thats a really good and relevant question. I cant turn the tv news on or listen to a R4 phone in on the Budget without yet another owner of a family business trying to explain that in families the business asset isn't like shares in a listed company which are bought and sold all the time. Where the business asset is commoditised and traded on a for the purpose market. A family business asset gets passed down the generations in order to keep the business going. One owner of a small group of hotels was today explaining that he has shelved plans to expand the business . He now has to cut back on staff and prepare to fund new taxes after he dies in order not to have to sell parts of the business to pay tax. I dont think we have bottomed the extent to which Reeves' Budget will have damaging effects on companies like this yet( though it seems clear that it will NOT be pro-growth ). Just been reading financial adviser websites touting for business to help these people plan. One interesting comment was concern about whether banks will review their lending criteria for family businesses. She has opened a Pandora's Box. And if the suggestion from PMQs analysis today is correct-that they will have to concede a u-turn on NICs for GPs ( kudos to Davey & Badenoch) , then there will be a queue of Private Sector providers of State Health & Social care asking for assistance too-Pharmacies/Care Homes/Hospices etc. After which the badly affected Private Sector ( eg hospitality )will ask why they are less deserving . |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,721
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Nov 13, 2024 17:09:18 GMT
c-a-r-f-r-e-w 'Look, you may feel the only thing that matters is defending... middle class school hegemony' I read that and took a double take, that's precisely what you are doing All stare schools need more money, those in deprived areas more than others, the only realistic long way way to do this is taxes from better off and you seem opposed to that I am not opposed to taxes from the better off. Reeves for example could have raised more income tax on higher earners instead of the NI thing that will indirectly affect lower earners. You are ok with the impact on lower earners. I didn’t even say not to pay the inheritance tax, just said that it could be paid when they sell it or it might be paid more gradually. So they can pay it without having to shut the business. and if they have to close it, it could cost the govt. money anyway because of the loss of revenue and the jobs |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,362
|
Post by Danny on Nov 13, 2024 17:15:54 GMT
I am more than happy for tax loopholes on private education and land to be closed to help the less well off, are you? I dont see the justification for not taxing inherited land in modern society. It made sense when the country was ruled by hereditary lords who succeeded to their position and lands as a replacement of the former ruler, but really its just anacronistic now for major land or wealth holdings to escape inheritance tax...as it mostly does. Nothing has been done to alter this situation however, you can still pass on your entire wealth, tax free so long as you go about it the right way. However, with regards schools, every child educated privately saves the state the cost of educating that child. Its seriously unfair that this is not acknowledged in some sort of subsidy. |
|
|
|
Post by moby on Nov 13, 2024 17:17:04 GMT
Will no one think of the multi millionaires and second home owners...you've got me started off again I've had to open another box of Kleenex You left the others out though again Neil, the ones less-well off that I added in. This is the point of the middle class warriors, they are focused on their war with the upper classes doing better than them and don’t care so much for the others. moby is the same, which is why he gives your post a like. He’s bothered about the inequity of private education, people potentially getting a better education than others in the middle class… …but when it comes to the middle class privilege over the working class in education, because of being able to afford property in better catchment areas, this is considered “not a priority” Nonsense, the average salary in the UK is about 35k per annum. The average private school fee for a boarder is 44k per annum. No one in my background could ever have afforded that. Your catchment point is another bit of quibbling flak you always throw up to avoid having to make a stand on anything. |
|
|
|
Post by moby on Nov 13, 2024 17:20:09 GMT
I know some seem to object when progressive v journalists use the christofascist 's own words and action to describe what they think But I think it's powerful and salient. Here's a report of the interaction between Kevin Roberts the " brain" behind project 25 and a journalist. Kevin Roberts is the head of the influential rightwing thinktank the Heritage Foundation, The Guardian was invited last week to Roberts’s book events in New York and Washington DC. They were billed as an opportunity “to celebrate Dawn’s Early Light: Taking Back Washington to Save America” – Roberts’s new book, which features a foreword by the vice-president-elect, JD Vance. Roberts, the chief architect of Project 2025, the infamous rightwing plan for Donald Trump’s presidency which would crack down on immigration, dismantle LGBTQ+ and abortion rights and diminish environmental protections, spoke briefly at the event, held in the lavish Kimberly Hotel in midtown New York City, before mingling with the crowd. Approached by the Guardian, a staff member at the Heritage Foundation said Roberts would be available for a brief interview. “You’ve got two minutes with our best friend Adam from the Guardian,” the Heritage Foundation employee told Roberts. Roberts said to the Guardian: “Make it good, the first one [question], otherwise you’re going to pound sand.”( Nope me neither) It was quite loud in the venue and the Guardian misheard the word “sand”. Asked for clarification, Roberts repeated the phrase. The Guardian said: “I don’t know what that means,” which seemed to upset Roberts. He reacted angrily. “It means you’re a bunch of liars, is what it means. So make it good or we’re done,” Roberts said. The Guardian asked if Roberts could elaborate on his “liars” comment, which seemed to upset the Heritage Foundation president further. “No, we’re done, I’m not talking to you,” Roberts said. The Guardian, overlapping Roberts slightly, had begun to ask a question about Project 2025, which provides a roadmap on how a Republican president could permanently transform the federal government into a conservative institution. Roberts replied: “Go to hell.” It was a surprising outburst from Roberts, seen as one of the masterminds of the conservative blueprint which could change the shape of the US government. Roberts, who said earlier this year that the US was “in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be”, is a highly influential figure on the right. After the initial encounter, the Guardian returned to Roberts and asked if he would like to add to his earlier comments. A staff member objected, and asked the Guardian to “please move back.” The Guardian acquiesced, and used the opportunity to go to the bathroom, but was intercepted on the way by two burly members of security. The security members said the Guardian had to leave – no explanation was offered – and confiscated a name tag that had been handed out earlier in the evening. This reporter was then escorted down to street level by a member of security, who then returned to the event. It was an odd end to what had been a genteel book party. Held in the Kimberly’s Upstairs bar on the 30th floor of the hotel, about 80 people, the men in sharp suits, most of the women in fashionable dresses, had spent time quietly mingling before listening to a conversation between Roberts and Brian Kilmeade, the Fox News host. The pair discussed Roberts’s book, in which he describes how “many of America’s institutions […] need to be burned”. Included among those to be incinerated, Roberts writes, are the FBI and the New York Times, along with “every Ivy League college”, “80% of ‘Catholic’ higher education”, and the Boy Scouts of America. That's what awaits the U.S. and its media and while trump apologists here might wish to diminish the significance it's a fundamental change to the U.S and should be considered as such by our country. That's a bit of journalism I respect, challenging privilege and power. |
|
|
|
Post by laszlo4new on Nov 13, 2024 17:22:21 GMT
As there was so much on taxation... It will be quite extreme... Sorry.
1) All indirect taxes should be abolished.
2) Every pound earned should be subject to taxation (in a continuous progressive function and not in bands). Taxation of household income would be better but it is tricky.
3) Invested corporate profit exempt from tax, and every non-invested for 3-years, after which 100%.
4) NI is removed from the budget, controlled by elected boards with state guarantee.
5) Customs duty and like are not subject to any of the above.
6) All state investment in R&D and like are managed through employer associations and trade unions and research institutes/universities.
7) Any other state investment is monitored by an independent body through predetermined performance criteria.
8) Companies may be subsidised for various activities through the supervision of an independent body.
9) Companies are not allowed to lay off people on economic grounds unless their cash flow is negative (so not when there is no profit or low profit).
|
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,721
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Nov 13, 2024 17:22:33 GMT
You left the others out though again Neil, the ones less-well off that I added in. This is the point of the middle class warriors, they are focused on their war with the upper classes doing better than them and don’t care so much for the others. moby is the same, which is why he gives your post a like. He’s bothered about the inequity of private education, people potentially getting a better education than others in the middle class… …but when it comes to the middle class privilege over the working class in education, because of being able to afford property in better catchment areas, this is considered “not a priority” Nonsense, the average salary in the UK is about 35k per annum. The average private school fee for a boarder is 44k per annum. No one in my background could ever have afforded that. Your catchment point is another bit of quibbling flak you always throw up to avoid having to make a stand on anything. That doesn’t alter the point. Yes, it may not have been available to you when you were young, but I’m talking about nowadays, when it’s not even available to many of the middle class. The point is that currently you have people complaining about private education they cannot afford, when they don’t mind the advantage they can afford via catchment. An oft unearned advantage via inflated house prices. And inflated property prices do a lot more damage than just educationally. But barely mentioned by the middle class warriors… And I didn’t avoid having to make a stand on private schools. I’m okay with the VAT thing. I just don’t think it’s enough to improve the situation in state schools… |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,362
|
Post by Danny on Nov 13, 2024 17:22:38 GMT
Yes middle class parents can and do have sharp elbows to get into the best schools, but can't see a realistic way of overcoming this. But the extra spending thanks to the tax increases will help all state schools. Indeed I understand spending is to be targeted at the most deprived The amount of money this will raise is negligible compared to the size of the problem. If we assume a decent education can be bought for around £20,000 a year in a private schools but a state schools gets £10,000, then the shortfall per kid is £10,000. Presumably we need to double our spending on state schools. The amount raised at 20% VAT on fees for 6% of the kids in the country comes out at about £250 each for every state kid. Its a meaningless gesture which is ideological rather than pactical. |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,390
|
Post by neilj on Nov 13, 2024 17:23:36 GMT
@ c-a-r-f-r-e-w 'I am not opposed to taxes from the better off. Reeves for example could have raised more income tax on higher earners instead of the NI thing that will indirectly affect lower earners' Okay, so now we're getting somewhere a ' 1p increase in the higher rate would raise £1.3bn in 2022/23' Reeves budget increased taxes by £40b, you'd need to increase the higher rate of tax by 30% to pay for it Would you be OK with that, I believe in redistributive taxes, but even I would baulk at that We have a huge public debt in this country with public services in dire need of substantial investment. Taxes need to increase, that burden needs to be borne by those most able to afford it |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,721
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Nov 13, 2024 17:29:21 GMT
@ c-a-r-f-r-e-w 'I am not opposed to taxes from the better off. Reeves for example could have raised more income tax on higher earners instead of the NI thing that will indirectly affect lower earners' Okay, so now we're getting somewhere a ' 1p increase in the higher rate would raise £1.3bn in 2022/23' Reeves budget increased taxes by £40b, you'd need to increase the higher rate of tax by 30% to pay for it Would you be OK with that, I believe in redistributive taxes, but even I would baulk at that We have a huge public debt in this country with public services in dire need of substantial investment. Taxes need to increase, that burden needs to be borne by those most able to afford it You could do a mix of things. You could do some income tax, you could do a bit more inheritance tax on non-productive properties, you could make the inheritance tax on business a bit more gradual, you could do a bit more money printing… I am not seeking alternatives to the entire 40 billion! I would just like to take the edge off for the lower paid taking a hit |
|
|
|
Post by colin on Nov 13, 2024 17:30:13 GMT
As there was so much on taxation... It will be quite extreme... Sorry. 1) All indirect taxes should be abolished. 2) Every pound earned should be subject to taxation (in a continuous progressive function and not in bands). Taxation of household income would be better but it is tricky. 3) Invested corporate profit exempt from tax, and every non-invested for 3-years, after which 100%. 4) NI is removed from the budget, controlled by elected boards with state guarantee. 5) Customs duty and like re not subject to any of the above. 6) All state investment in R&D and like are managed through employer associations nd trade unions nd research institutes/universities. 7) Any other state investment is monitored by n independent body through predetermined performance criteria. 8) Companies my be subsidised for various activities through the supervision of an independent body. 9) Companies are not allowed to lay off people unless their cash flow is negative (so not when there is no profit or low profit). Welcome to Cuba  A guarantee of economic success ! |
|
|
|
Post by laszlo4new on Nov 13, 2024 17:32:45 GMT
As there was so much on taxation... It will be quite extreme... Sorry. 1) All indirect taxes should be abolished. 2) Every pound earned should be subject to taxation (in a continuous progressive function and not in bands). Taxation of household income would be better but it is tricky. 3) Invested corporate profit exempt from tax, and every non-invested for 3-years, after which 100%. 4) NI is removed from the budget, controlled by elected boards with state guarantee. 5) Customs duty and like re not subject to any of the above. 6) All state investment in R&D and like are managed through employer associations nd trade unions nd research institutes/universities. 7) Any other state investment is monitored by n independent body through predetermined performance criteria. 8) Companies my be subsidised for various activities through the supervision of an independent body. 9) Companies are not allowed to lay off people unless their cash flow is negative (so not when there is no profit or low profit). Welcome to Cuba A guarantee of economic success ! 😀😀😀 Half of it German, some of it is from Kuznets's Nobel prize speech. |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,390
|
Post by neilj on Nov 13, 2024 17:33:22 GMT
@ c-a-r-f-r-e-w 'I am not opposed to taxes from the better off. Reeves for example could have raised more income tax on higher earners instead of the NI thing that will indirectly affect lower earners' Okay, so now we're getting somewhere a ' 1p increase in the higher rate would raise £1.3bn in 2022/23' Reeves budget increased taxes by £40b, you'd need to increase the higher rate of tax by 30% to pay for it Would you be OK with that, I believe in redistributive taxes, but even I would baulk at that We have a huge public debt in this country with public services in dire need of substantial investment. Taxes need to increase, that burden needs to be borne by those most able to afford it You could do a mix of things. You could do some income tax, you could do a bit more inheritance tax on non-productive properties, you could make the inheritance tax on business a bit more gradual, you could do a bit more money printing… I am not seeking alternatives to the entire 40 billion! I would just like to take the edge off for the lower paid taking a hit I'm just surprised you are defending inherited wealth and privilege, which already has a big tax free allowance of 1-3m pounds How much would you like rich kids to inherit tax free? |
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,123
|
Post by domjg on Nov 13, 2024 17:36:22 GMT
Carfrew is always complaining about the 'middle class' squeezing the 'working class' in a very 19th century way (those labels are pretty meaningless these days anyway). I wonder where he sits himself in 'class' terms? (this is all desperately English) Maybe he's a public school educated, Telegraph reading member of the 'working class' or maybe he's a member of the aristocracy and wants to annihilate the middle class so he can lord it over the peasants (paternally of course)  In simple global terms the larger a nation's 'middle class' is the more likely it is to be economically/politically relatively stable and the less absolute poverty it's likely to suffer. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,362
|
Post by Danny on Nov 13, 2024 17:48:07 GMT
Not sure how in practice you assign pupils to different catchment areas without bussing them in from different areas with the attendant costs and time involved. It would certainly mean more tax rises and longer days for the kids I mentioned 'morale maze' did a program last week on private education. In that an opponent of private schools argued that forcing private school kids to attend state schools would 'drag up' the deprived housing estate kids. Seemed to me more likely they would 'drag down' the private kids due to seriously outnumbering them. It seems likely the same would apply to a pure mix of kids in all schools. Also there is the value added benefit from schools with collected good kids in them, which are simply easier to teach so will do better. For the same resource input it is very likely the overall outcomes would be worse for thoroughly mixed schools than if the parents are able to pre sort themselves. So the choice would be equality, at a cost to the nation of less well educated kids. Yes, it might involve some extra travel, but it isn’t necessarily impossible. When I worked in a music department in FE, people travelled to it from further-flung parts of the county. But thats not at all the same as bussing half the children in the county deliberately miles away from their homes. I dont see how the tax changes affect the really wealthy at all. The basic system is unchanged: a couple can leave up to a million pounds tax free to their kids (assuming a chunk was proceeds from the family home), and can give away as many billion pounds as they like to their kids or anyone else completely tax free, so long as they do it 7 years before they die. So basically give it all away except your last million, have a comfortable living for the rest of your life after retirement. If your goal is to pass on some sort of family business or farm, why on earth would you not pass control to your kids by the time you retire anyway? |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,721
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Nov 13, 2024 17:48:57 GMT
Carfrew is always complaining about the 'middle class' squeezing the 'working class' in a very 19th century way (those labels are pretty meaningless these days anyway). I wonder where he sits himself in 'class' terms? (this is all desperately English) Maybe he's a public school educated, Telegraph reading member of the 'working class' or maybe he's a member of the aristocracy and wants to annihilate the middle class so he can lord it over the peasants (paternally of course) In simple global terms the larger a nation's 'middle class' is the more likely it is to be economically/politically relatively stable and the less absolute poverty it's likely to suffer. I’m a hybrid. Part middle-class, part working-class parental background, part-state/part-private education. Chose to only work in the state education sector, not private, but did other stuff besides. I mention the middle class because they don’t get much attention on here. The middle class on here are mostly focused on the ruling class who get a lot of attention, because they are competing with the people directly above them economically. There is also a concern with the people roaming above the ruling class, the globalists, who also don’t get much attention on here, with the exception of Musk, because the middle-class on here tend to be sympathetic to them as they both aren’t keen on the state. But I quite often mention the globalists. Working-class also don’t get much attention on here. (Except when some people talk about Mordor, or wishing things to be post-industrial etc…) You choose to focus on how I read the Telegraph, but as I have made clear many times, I read many papers. You’ve talked about reading the Daily Mail before now, which I struggle to read, only when people post links, and even then maybe not, but I know you also read other things including foreign publications In other words, I talk about all the classes, but some of the middle class are quite sensitive about scrutiny of themselves. They would rather talk about presidents overseas etc. I don’t have a problem with a larger middle-class per se, but that power can be used to disadvantage others, as we have seen with boomers etc. |
|
A guarantee of economic success !
