LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!
Comments
-
It's a big room and Sunak is actually really far away?kingstongraham said:How is at least one of them not photoshopped in there?
0 -
I don't know how it works, but can confirm the structure isn't that wild. Lenders and shareholders taking a haircut means that the public sector has done well.rjsterry said:
🤨TheBigBean said:
Think I am.rjsterry said:
All fair comment. Certainly don't think he's a disinterested observer, but who is?TheBigBean said:
I know he is on Twitter, but he is an accounting specialist and I don't think he really understands the structure. It can be added to the long list of things that annoy me - people with expertise in one area commenting on other areas and claiming expertise. For example, a doctor declaring that a bike helmet has saved someone's life.rjsterry said:Interesting thread on the water companies.
The figures are 👀
0 -
Structure looks relatively tame.
Twitter is quite divided on whether the UK water industry is a big rip-off or whether there's been a vast amount of investment, with much more needed.
One interesting factoid - unverified - relates to sewage releases. These arise from mixed purpose drains, as all were prior to 1960. When there's a lot of surface water to be drained away e.g. after heavy rainfall, there are two options for the direction of travel for those connected to mixed purpose drains: the current direction, or the other end of the pipe. (Which is the toilet itself!)0 -
It certainly doesn't look right.kingstongraham said:How is at least one of them not photoshopped in there?
0 -
There are similar issues with the electricity grid. Requires massive investment and nimby beating.wallace_and_gromit said:Structure looks relatively tame.
Twitter is quite divided on whether the UK water industry is a big rip-off or whether there's been a vast amount of investment, with much more needed.
One interesting factoid - unverified - relates to sewage releases. These arise from mixed purpose drains, as all were prior to 1960. When there's a lot of surface water to be drained away e.g. after heavy rainfall, there are two options for the direction of travel for those connected to mixed purpose drains: the current direction, or the other end of the pipe. (Which is the toilet itself!)1 -
Was raising an eyebrow at the claim to be a disinterested given your apparent enjoyment of an argument 😀TheBigBean said:
I don't know how it works, but can confirm the structure isn't that wild. Lenders and shareholders taking a haircut means that the public sector has done well.rjsterry said:
🤨TheBigBean said:
Think I am.rjsterry said:
All fair comment. Certainly don't think he's a disinterested observer, but who is?TheBigBean said:
I know he is on Twitter, but he is an accounting specialist and I don't think he really understands the structure. It can be added to the long list of things that annoy me - people with expertise in one area commenting on other areas and claiming expertise. For example, a doctor declaring that a bike helmet has saved someone's life.rjsterry said:Interesting thread on the water companies.
The figures are 👀1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Makes good sense to abolish a policy that is bad for businesses. It will be an issue in other countries that don't have similar reliefs or exemptions.kingstongraham said:
For Sweden.Stevo_666 said:
That supports my point quite well, thanks.kingstongraham said:
It says this: "Unlike in Britain, Sweden offered no inheritance tax relief for family-owned businesses. This was disastrous for Swedish enterprise, where around nine in 10 companies were owned by people related to each other in 2004. "Stevo_666 said:
I've shown you my evidence. I think the onus is now on you to show some evidence that the article is wrong.kingstongraham said:
Could be something to do with most of them having inheritance tax or property tax.Stevo_666 said:
So why are you pushing the point?kingstongraham said:
You were the one who brought Sweden into this irrelevant discussion.Stevo_666 said:
Why not do both? Would attract more of the wealthy back (as the IHT abolition did) where they can pay taxes on everything else. Worked once.kingstongraham said:
You don't think it's possible the presence of CGT on the main residence (which is more difficult to avoid) makes it more straightforward to abolish inheritance tax?Stevo_666 said:
Taxation of main residences is pretty uncommon even in the normally tax hungry EU. Which should tell you how poor an idea it is. The Swedes don't get everything right.kingstongraham said:
Tell me about Sweden's capital gains tax on sales of property.Stevo_666 said:
See above. It is likely to be counter productive, like your misplaced wealth tax ideas.rick_chasey said:
Why would it be tax on moving, if when you die it's set at the same rate? It would just be a tax on capital gains, regardless.First.Aspect said:
If you whack 40% gct on primary residence, this will be more or less 40% tax on moving house for a lot of people, and make downsizing quite hard to do, unless downsizing a lot.TheBigBean said:
The tax wouldn't be avoided by death, so wouldn't be part of the estate. Therefore not moving only delays the payment.Stevo_666 said:
I reckon you're right about the last bitTheBigBean said:
All circumstances, good question and sounds reasonable. I'd probably go with the retroactive option and bring it in with immediate effect to avoid chaos.Stevo_666 said:
Setting aside the probability of this ever happening for a moment:-TheBigBean said:
I like the idea of removing CGT relief on main residences.Jezyboy said:
Banks will lend more money to higher earners. Not that shocking is it?rick_chasey said:
I like the idea of CGT for assistance swap though.
- Is this in exchange for mortgage relief, or do you just want to remove the exemption regardless?
- Would this be effective from when implemented (i.e only gains after the implementation date are taxable), or would this be retroactive to whenever the property was bought?
- And if a gain is taxable, does a loss on sale of a main residence create a tax loss that can be used against future gains? (i.e. the normal rule for CGT).
I would generously allow roll over relief though.
I won't be elected.
The problem I can see is that all these lone pensioners in big houses will probably never sell up if they are going to get a massive tax bill, which kind of puts a spanner in Rick's plan to let young families get their hands on these properties for the greater good.
All that will do is choke supply in the middle and upper ends of the market and raise prices.
Discuss.
A quick reminder of the real life experience of Sweden when it abolished IHT and increased the tax take:
https://telegraph.co.uk/tax/news/sweden-ditched-inheritance-tax-business-boom/
So if you want to increase the overall, tax take, what would you do?
And after a bit more research, Sweden is the outlier in terms of taxing main residence sales in Europe (Spain and Portugal do but allow relief for reinvestment in another property). If it was such a good idea, why do you think other countries haven't done it?
Although I see you can't answer my question.
You've chosen one tax in one country because the Telegraph highlighted it.
I'm not sure how they have directly related the increase in overall tax revenue to removing this tax. Any detail on that? I'm sure it wasn't the only thing they've done.
On a related point you still haven't explained why taxation of main residence disposals is such an uncommon policy."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Bleeding obvious. The people who make laws tend to be property owners.Stevo_666 said:
Makes good sense to abolish a policy that is bad for businesses. It will be an issue in other countries that don't have similar reliefs or exemptions.kingstongraham said:
For Sweden.Stevo_666 said:
That supports my point quite well, thanks.kingstongraham said:
It says this: "Unlike in Britain, Sweden offered no inheritance tax relief for family-owned businesses. This was disastrous for Swedish enterprise, where around nine in 10 companies were owned by people related to each other in 2004. "Stevo_666 said:
I've shown you my evidence. I think the onus is now on you to show some evidence that the article is wrong.kingstongraham said:
Could be something to do with most of them having inheritance tax or property tax.Stevo_666 said:
So why are you pushing the point?kingstongraham said:
You were the one who brought Sweden into this irrelevant discussion.Stevo_666 said:
Why not do both? Would attract more of the wealthy back (as the IHT abolition did) where they can pay taxes on everything else. Worked once.kingstongraham said:
You don't think it's possible the presence of CGT on the main residence (which is more difficult to avoid) makes it more straightforward to abolish inheritance tax?Stevo_666 said:
Taxation of main residences is pretty uncommon even in the normally tax hungry EU. Which should tell you how poor an idea it is. The Swedes don't get everything right.kingstongraham said:
Tell me about Sweden's capital gains tax on sales of property.Stevo_666 said:
See above. It is likely to be counter productive, like your misplaced wealth tax ideas.rick_chasey said:
Why would it be tax on moving, if when you die it's set at the same rate? It would just be a tax on capital gains, regardless.First.Aspect said:
If you whack 40% gct on primary residence, this will be more or less 40% tax on moving house for a lot of people, and make downsizing quite hard to do, unless downsizing a lot.TheBigBean said:
The tax wouldn't be avoided by death, so wouldn't be part of the estate. Therefore not moving only delays the payment.Stevo_666 said:
I reckon you're right about the last bitTheBigBean said:
All circumstances, good question and sounds reasonable. I'd probably go with the retroactive option and bring it in with immediate effect to avoid chaos.Stevo_666 said:
Setting aside the probability of this ever happening for a moment:-TheBigBean said:
I like the idea of removing CGT relief on main residences.Jezyboy said:
Banks will lend more money to higher earners. Not that shocking is it?rick_chasey said:
I like the idea of CGT for assistance swap though.
- Is this in exchange for mortgage relief, or do you just want to remove the exemption regardless?
- Would this be effective from when implemented (i.e only gains after the implementation date are taxable), or would this be retroactive to whenever the property was bought?
- And if a gain is taxable, does a loss on sale of a main residence create a tax loss that can be used against future gains? (i.e. the normal rule for CGT).
I would generously allow roll over relief though.
I won't be elected.
The problem I can see is that all these lone pensioners in big houses will probably never sell up if they are going to get a massive tax bill, which kind of puts a spanner in Rick's plan to let young families get their hands on these properties for the greater good.
All that will do is choke supply in the middle and upper ends of the market and raise prices.
Discuss.
A quick reminder of the real life experience of Sweden when it abolished IHT and increased the tax take:
https://telegraph.co.uk/tax/news/sweden-ditched-inheritance-tax-business-boom/
So if you want to increase the overall, tax take, what would you do?
And after a bit more research, Sweden is the outlier in terms of taxing main residence sales in Europe (Spain and Portugal do but allow relief for reinvestment in another property). If it was such a good idea, why do you think other countries haven't done it?
Although I see you can't answer my question.
You've chosen one tax in one country because the Telegraph highlighted it.
I'm not sure how they have directly related the increase in overall tax revenue to removing this tax. Any detail on that? I'm sure it wasn't the only thing they've done.
On a related point you still haven't explained why taxation of main residence disposals is such an uncommon policy.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
There is tax in the UK on main residence purchases.Stevo_666 said:
On a related point you still haven't explained why taxation of main residence disposals is such an uncommon policy.0 -
One that is big enough to send everyone scurrying when they change it.kingstongraham said:
There is tax in the UK on main residence purchases.Stevo_666 said:
On a related point you still haven't explained why taxation of main residence disposals is such an uncommon policy.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
For those of you handling large amounts of information which needs to be processed efficiently, does this sound like less-than-ideal management within a government department that has record backlogs?
0 -
How the fuck do they get away with it.briantrumpet said:For those of you handling large amounts of information which needs to be processed efficiently, does this sound like less-than-ideal management within a government department that has record backlogs?
0 -
Presume all the junior civil servants must be banging their heads against a wall?0
-
Jezyboy said:
How the censored do they get away with it.briantrumpet said:For those of you handling large amounts of information which needs to be processed efficiently, does this sound like less-than-ideal management within a government department that has record backlogs?
Mostly by lying, and blaming everyone else (which is all part of the lying).
Still, at least the Brtish public are behind Braverman...
0 -
I mean it shouldn't even be junior ones at this stage. Anyone that's done any rudimentary professional IT should know better.shirley_basso said:Presume all the junior civil servants must be banging their heads against a wall?
0 -
Of course it's excel
- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
If that were a school's safeguarding data system, they'd be put in special measures in an instant.0
-
True, although that is a different type of tax and a different point from the one that we have been dealing.kingstongraham said:
There is tax in the UK on main residence purchases.Stevo_666 said:
On a related point you still haven't explained why taxation of main residence disposals is such an uncommon policy."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
They also are taxpayers who probably have a higher than average income, so what's your point?rjsterry said:
Bleeding obvious. The people who make laws tend to be property owners.Stevo_666 said:
Makes good sense to abolish a policy that is bad for businesses. It will be an issue in other countries that don't have similar reliefs or exemptions.kingstongraham said:
For Sweden.Stevo_666 said:
That supports my point quite well, thanks.kingstongraham said:
It says this: "Unlike in Britain, Sweden offered no inheritance tax relief for family-owned businesses. This was disastrous for Swedish enterprise, where around nine in 10 companies were owned by people related to each other in 2004. "Stevo_666 said:
I've shown you my evidence. I think the onus is now on you to show some evidence that the article is wrong.kingstongraham said:
Could be something to do with most of them having inheritance tax or property tax.Stevo_666 said:
So why are you pushing the point?kingstongraham said:
You were the one who brought Sweden into this irrelevant discussion.Stevo_666 said:
Why not do both? Would attract more of the wealthy back (as the IHT abolition did) where they can pay taxes on everything else. Worked once.kingstongraham said:
You don't think it's possible the presence of CGT on the main residence (which is more difficult to avoid) makes it more straightforward to abolish inheritance tax?Stevo_666 said:
Taxation of main residences is pretty uncommon even in the normally tax hungry EU. Which should tell you how poor an idea it is. The Swedes don't get everything right.kingstongraham said:
Tell me about Sweden's capital gains tax on sales of property.Stevo_666 said:
See above. It is likely to be counter productive, like your misplaced wealth tax ideas.rick_chasey said:
Why would it be tax on moving, if when you die it's set at the same rate? It would just be a tax on capital gains, regardless.First.Aspect said:
If you whack 40% gct on primary residence, this will be more or less 40% tax on moving house for a lot of people, and make downsizing quite hard to do, unless downsizing a lot.TheBigBean said:
The tax wouldn't be avoided by death, so wouldn't be part of the estate. Therefore not moving only delays the payment.Stevo_666 said:
I reckon you're right about the last bitTheBigBean said:
All circumstances, good question and sounds reasonable. I'd probably go with the retroactive option and bring it in with immediate effect to avoid chaos.Stevo_666 said:
Setting aside the probability of this ever happening for a moment:-TheBigBean said:
I like the idea of removing CGT relief on main residences.Jezyboy said:
Banks will lend more money to higher earners. Not that shocking is it?rick_chasey said:
I like the idea of CGT for assistance swap though.
- Is this in exchange for mortgage relief, or do you just want to remove the exemption regardless?
- Would this be effective from when implemented (i.e only gains after the implementation date are taxable), or would this be retroactive to whenever the property was bought?
- And if a gain is taxable, does a loss on sale of a main residence create a tax loss that can be used against future gains? (i.e. the normal rule for CGT).
I would generously allow roll over relief though.
I won't be elected.
The problem I can see is that all these lone pensioners in big houses will probably never sell up if they are going to get a massive tax bill, which kind of puts a spanner in Rick's plan to let young families get their hands on these properties for the greater good.
All that will do is choke supply in the middle and upper ends of the market and raise prices.
Discuss.
A quick reminder of the real life experience of Sweden when it abolished IHT and increased the tax take:
https://telegraph.co.uk/tax/news/sweden-ditched-inheritance-tax-business-boom/
So if you want to increase the overall, tax take, what would you do?
And after a bit more research, Sweden is the outlier in terms of taxing main residence sales in Europe (Spain and Portugal do but allow relief for reinvestment in another property). If it was such a good idea, why do you think other countries haven't done it?
Although I see you can't answer my question.
You've chosen one tax in one country because the Telegraph highlighted it.
I'm not sure how they have directly related the increase in overall tax revenue to removing this tax. Any detail on that? I'm sure it wasn't the only thing they've done.
On a related point you still haven't explained why taxation of main residence disposals is such an uncommon policy."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
So the current Home Secretary and previous previous Attorney General believes the British legal system is rigged against the people of the country.
I’m really struggling to understand what the Government does as they don’t seem to have responsibility for anything.0 -
Pocket lining.Pross said:So the current Home Secretary and previous previous Attorney General believes the British legal system is rigged against the people of the country.
I’m really struggling to understand what the Government does as they don’t seem to have responsibility for anything.
Anyone else noticed that the country runs just fine while they are off on holiday?The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Good to see JRM had his priorities right when avoiding speaking to reporters asking questions about the Parliamentary standards committee. He was going to church then the cricket - working hard for his constituents again.0
-
You're not daft; I think it's pretty obvious. Left or right, taxes are always for other people to pay. It might well have been beneficial for the Swedish Treasury, but let's not kid ourselves that it was anything other than some guys lobbying to personally pay less taxStevo_666 said:
They also are taxpayers who probably have a higher than average income, so what's your point?rjsterry said:
Bleeding obvious. The people who make laws tend to be property owners.Stevo_666 said:
Makes good sense to abolish a policy that is bad for businesses. It will be an issue in other countries that don't have similar reliefs or exemptions.kingstongraham said:
For Sweden.Stevo_666 said:
That supports my point quite well, thanks.kingstongraham said:
It says this: "Unlike in Britain, Sweden offered no inheritance tax relief for family-owned businesses. This was disastrous for Swedish enterprise, where around nine in 10 companies were owned by people related to each other in 2004. "Stevo_666 said:
I've shown you my evidence. I think the onus is now on you to show some evidence that the article is wrong.kingstongraham said:
Could be something to do with most of them having inheritance tax or property tax.Stevo_666 said:
So why are you pushing the point?kingstongraham said:
You were the one who brought Sweden into this irrelevant discussion.Stevo_666 said:
Why not do both? Would attract more of the wealthy back (as the IHT abolition did) where they can pay taxes on everything else. Worked once.kingstongraham said:
You don't think it's possible the presence of CGT on the main residence (which is more difficult to avoid) makes it more straightforward to abolish inheritance tax?Stevo_666 said:
Taxation of main residences is pretty uncommon even in the normally tax hungry EU. Which should tell you how poor an idea it is. The Swedes don't get everything right.kingstongraham said:
Tell me about Sweden's capital gains tax on sales of property.Stevo_666 said:
See above. It is likely to be counter productive, like your misplaced wealth tax ideas.rick_chasey said:
Why would it be tax on moving, if when you die it's set at the same rate? It would just be a tax on capital gains, regardless.First.Aspect said:
If you whack 40% gct on primary residence, this will be more or less 40% tax on moving house for a lot of people, and make downsizing quite hard to do, unless downsizing a lot.TheBigBean said:
The tax wouldn't be avoided by death, so wouldn't be part of the estate. Therefore not moving only delays the payment.Stevo_666 said:
I reckon you're right about the last bitTheBigBean said:
All circumstances, good question and sounds reasonable. I'd probably go with the retroactive option and bring it in with immediate effect to avoid chaos.Stevo_666 said:
Setting aside the probability of this ever happening for a moment:-TheBigBean said:
I like the idea of removing CGT relief on main residences.Jezyboy said:
Banks will lend more money to higher earners. Not that shocking is it?rick_chasey said:
I like the idea of CGT for assistance swap though.
- Is this in exchange for mortgage relief, or do you just want to remove the exemption regardless?
- Would this be effective from when implemented (i.e only gains after the implementation date are taxable), or would this be retroactive to whenever the property was bought?
- And if a gain is taxable, does a loss on sale of a main residence create a tax loss that can be used against future gains? (i.e. the normal rule for CGT).
I would generously allow roll over relief though.
I won't be elected.
The problem I can see is that all these lone pensioners in big houses will probably never sell up if they are going to get a massive tax bill, which kind of puts a spanner in Rick's plan to let young families get their hands on these properties for the greater good.
All that will do is choke supply in the middle and upper ends of the market and raise prices.
Discuss.
A quick reminder of the real life experience of Sweden when it abolished IHT and increased the tax take:
https://telegraph.co.uk/tax/news/sweden-ditched-inheritance-tax-business-boom/
So if you want to increase the overall, tax take, what would you do?
And after a bit more research, Sweden is the outlier in terms of taxing main residence sales in Europe (Spain and Portugal do but allow relief for reinvestment in another property). If it was such a good idea, why do you think other countries haven't done it?
Although I see you can't answer my question.
You've chosen one tax in one country because the Telegraph highlighted it.
I'm not sure how they have directly related the increase in overall tax revenue to removing this tax. Any detail on that? I'm sure it wasn't the only thing they've done.
On a related point you still haven't explained why taxation of main residence disposals is such an uncommon policy.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Who knew Zac Goldsmith was still in the government?
0 -
Twitter seems to require a log in today. Probably one for the Musk thread.kingstongraham said:Who knew Zac Goldsmith was still in the government?
0 -
I think those named in this BoJo breaking parliament rules report as undermining the process (of which Goldsmith is one) will be required to apologise in a formal statement and if they refuse they'll be up for contempt of commons and risk suspension.kingstongraham said:Who knew Zac Goldsmith was still in the government?
So I suspect that is really what is behind this. He backed the wrong horse.
Did i tell you I worked with a guy who used to be in Goldsmith's class? Apparently Zac's favourite trick was to pour lighter fluid on his school desk, set it alight and throw it out of a classroom window.0 -
How can that be someone's favorite trick? Surely you're only doing it once.
I saw the BBC article this morning which, while including his quote about climate change, made it pretty clear that he resigned because he backed the wrong horse.0 -
That's what I thought and apparently no he did it more than once.
Who knows, maybe he was taking the p!ss out of me and seeing how gullible I was with the story.0 -
A very on brand story for a friend of a friend of Johnson.rick_chasey said:That's what I thought and apparently no he did it more than once.
Who knows, maybe he was taking the p!ss out of me and seeing how gullible I was with the story.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I already had a dim view of Goldsmith, it's dropped even further. If what he says about environmental policy is true, and I have no reason to doubt it, he's taken all the impact out of the statement as he's clearly quit for completely different reasons and anyone but a complete moron can see that.0
