|
|
Post by OldStokie on Nov 1, 2024 13:25:36 GMT
Good debate guys. Well done. Nobody has mentioned (I don't think) this government taking hold of the payments to those who fell victims of the blood scandal. The Tories kept sweeping it under the carpet but Reeves has owned it and intends implementing it. Same with the PO scandal. For years everybody has been angry at the scandal of the NHS but now Reeves has grasped the bull by the horns a lot of people are moaning that they've got to bloody pay for it. What Reeves is trying to do is undo 14 years of Tory mismanagement where societal responsibility has been abandoned in favour of lining the pockets of the wealthy.
OS.
|
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Nov 1, 2024 13:36:07 GMT
It's not austerity - it's largely taking money from employers (and employees indirectly) to fund public services, whilst loosening debt rules to fund infrastructure. This government will live and die based on the results of the extra money which I'd hope is going to go hand in hand with reform/modernisation in the case of the NHS. I'm surprised more hasn't been made of social care - it's critical that this is joined up with primary care much more effectively if we want a sustainable service. If they don't do this they may as well let it die in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Nov 1, 2024 13:42:15 GMT
Fair enough. I disagree with you though. To be fair I grew up in the dairy heartlands of N Shropshire so have lived in this community so maybe understand their plight a bit better. Farmers should have special status. They grow our food. And from an environmental perspective it makes sense to be growing our own food instead of importing more and more of it adding to emissions. I don’t accept that you understand their “plight” any better when farmers are happy throwing everyone else under the taxation bus just so they can claim exemption from it. The police and nurses provide essential public services too. They get no tax exemptions. Farmers need to pay their way and stop the ridiculous sense of entitlement they think they have which they think means they should not be paying for essential public services through inheritance tax. Farmers already get subsidised. They need to contribute to the society they say they belong to and provide for through tax equality - as everyone else does. Do farmers really want the rest of society looking down on them (ironically, given the sense of entitle they think they have) because they openly don’t want to pay their fair share? Interesting perspective. Still disagree with you though so best we leave it 👍 |
|
|
|
Post by Clayton Wood on Nov 1, 2024 13:52:26 GMT
Surprised this hasn't received more publicity 'Where will it stop?': DWP to get 'direct access to bank accounts' in benefit fraud crackdown“We will expand DWP’s counter-fraud teams using innovative new methods to prevent illegal activity and provide new legal powers to crackdown on fraudsters, including direct access to bank accounts to recover debt. This package saves £4.3bn a year by the end of the forecast.”
The Big Issue understands that the debt power applies to those where an overpayment has been identified, and steps such as mandatory reconsideration and appeals will be taken before debt is recovered from the bank accounts.Stopping thieving bastards or invasion of privacy? |
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Nov 1, 2024 14:08:37 GMT
Good debate guys. Well done. Nobody has mentioned (I don't think) this government taking hold of the payments to those who fell victims of the blood scandal. The Tories kept sweeping it under the carpet but Reeves has owned it and intends implementing it. Same with the PO scandal. For years everybody has been angry at the scandal of the NHS but now Reeves has grasped the bull by the horns a lot of people are moaning that they've got to bloody pay for it. What Reeves is trying to do is undo 14 years of Tory mismanagement where societal responsibility has been abandoned in favour of lining the pockets of the wealthy. OS. Not to steal your thunder OS but I did mention both Infected Blood £11.8Bn and Post Office £1.8Bn Scandals which the Conservatives failed to make any provision for in Hunts March 2024 Budget. I debated with Salop who felt that because Conservatives had paid out minimal amounts that showed intent. I completely disagreed and by implication felt they would continue to drag their feet and try and weasel out. |
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Nov 1, 2024 14:31:35 GMT
Can you point to any country where a wealth tax was introduced successfully or alternatively how you would introduce one? I can’t think of a country that’s had wealth taxes full stop Let’s innovate Therein lies the problem Weath Taxes don't work which is why most European Countries that had them have abandoned them. France and Italy have Asset Taxes which are immovable and it works after a fashion Switzerland has had a Wealth Tax since 1840 and its just part of the Tax system administered at Canton level Norway has had a wealth tax since 1892 but when a new Government raised the rates recently there was a flight, mostly to Switzerland, of over 100 Very High Net Worth Indiduals VHNWI. They are now trying to entice them and the lost Revenue back Spain has been mentioned a couple of times as having a successful wealth tax without any substantiation, it doesn't but I let it slide. Spain has a wealth tax but individual Regions can disregard it and Madrid the wealthiest region does as does Andalusia so the result is very little raised Spain also introduced a temporary "Solidarity Tax" for year 2023 and 2024. The Budget Target of €1.5Bn actually raised €623M in 2023 from 12,010 Tax payers, mostly in Madrid representing 0.1% of Taxpayers. When introduced it led to hyperbolic news articles from news outlets that should know better that if it were introduced within OECD it could raise $1.5Trn .... and if my Aunt etc |
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Nov 1, 2024 14:58:19 GMT
Surprised this hasn't received more publicity 'Where will it stop?': DWP to get 'direct access to bank accounts' in benefit fraud crackdown“We will expand DWP’s counter-fraud teams using innovative new methods to prevent illegal activity and provide new legal powers to crackdown on fraudsters, including direct access to bank accounts to recover debt. This package saves £4.3bn a year by the end of the forecast.”
The Big Issue understands that the debt power applies to those where an overpayment has been identified, and steps such as mandatory reconsideration and appeals will be taken before debt is recovered from the bank accounts.Stopping thieving bastards or invasion of privacy? I think the answer is in your quote " to prevent illegal activity and provide new legal powers to crackdown on fraudsters" These powers are not meant to be used where errors have occurred but I agree we should be cautious The number mentioned in the Article £7.4Bn is eye-watering and its a similar number mentioned in Covid Fraud Both DWP and HMRC are being given enhanced budgets to crackdown on fraudsters. I'd rather the £7.4Bn were given to genuine Benefit Claimants rather than to fraudsters who have no entitlement |
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Nov 1, 2024 15:08:03 GMT
Therein lies the problem Weath Taxes don't work which is why most European Countries that had them have abandoned them. France and Italy have Asset Taxes which are immovable and it works after a fashion Switzerland has had a Wealth Tax since 1840 and its just part of the Tax system administered at Canton level Norway has had a wealth tax since 1892 but when a new Government raised the rates recently there was a flight, mostly to Switzerland, of over 100 Very High Net Worth Indiduals VHNWI. They are now trying to entice them and the lost Revenue back Spain has been mentioned a couple of times as having a successful wealth tax without any substantiation, it doesn't but I let it slide. Spain has a wealth tax but individual Regions can disregard it and Madrid the wealthiest region does as does Andalusia so the result is very little raised Spain also introduced a temporary "Solidarity Tax" for year 2023 and 2024. The Budget Target of €1.5Bn actually raised €623M in 2023 from 12,010 Tax payers, mostly in Madrid representing 0.1% of Taxpayers. When introduced it led to hyperbolic news articles from news outlets that should know better that if it were introduced within OECD it could raise $1.5Trn .... and if my Aunt etc A one off wealth tax has very little to do with any of that though..... |
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Nov 1, 2024 15:10:10 GMT
Can you point to any country where a wealth tax was introduced successfully or alternatively how you would introduce one? I can’t think of a country that’s had wealth taxes full stop Let’s innovate Many countries did, France had one and 12000 people left, the taxes raised were 'paltry' apparently www.investorschronicle.co.uk/content/c2a0a5ab-11a8-50a3-a098-240f320fc795The rate was charged on individuals with a net worth over €1.3m (£1.14m), with the rate ranging from 0.5 per cent to 1.5 per cent (on assets over €10m). While it might have helped social solidarity in France, the revenue it raised was paltry. In 2015, a total of 343,000 households paid €5.22bn, an average of about €15,200 per household, according to the Financial Times. It accounted for less than 2 per cent of France’s tax receipts. What’s more, it led to an exodus of France’s richest. More than 12,000 millionaires left France in 2016, according to research group New World Wealth. In total, they say the country experienced a net outflow of more than 60,000 millionaires between 2000 and 2016. When these people left, France lost not only the revenue generated from the wealth tax, but all the others too, including income tax and VAT. French economist Eric Pichet estimated that the ISF ended up costing France almost twice as much revenue as it generated. In a paper published in 2008, he concluded that the ISF caused an annual fiscal shortfall of €7bn and had probably reduced gross domestic product (GDP) growth by 0.2 per cent a year. What's more ISF fraud mainly involving an underassessment of property assets was estimated at around 28 per cent of total revenues. |
|
|
|
Post by devondumpling on Nov 1, 2024 15:11:55 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by questionable on Nov 1, 2024 15:21:05 GMT
Good debate guys. Well done. Nobody has mentioned (I don't think) this government taking hold of the payments to those who fell victims of the blood scandal. The Tories kept sweeping it under the carpet but Reeves has owned it and intends implementing it. Same with the PO scandal. For years everybody has been angry at the scandal of the NHS but now Reeves has grasped the bull by the horns a lot of people are moaning that they've got to bloody pay for it. What Reeves is trying to do is undo 14 years of Tory mismanagement where societal responsibility has been abandoned in favour of lining the pockets of the wealthy. OS. But didn’t Stalin play some part in the PO scandal |
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Nov 1, 2024 15:21:13 GMT
Therein lies the problem Weath Taxes don't work which is why most European Countries that had them have abandoned them. France and Italy have Asset Taxes which are immovable and it works after a fashion Switzerland has had a Wealth Tax since 1840 and its just part of the Tax system administered at Canton level Norway has had a wealth tax since 1892 but when a new Government raised the rates recently there was a flight, mostly to Switzerland, of over 100 Very High Net Worth Indiduals VHNWI. They are now trying to entice them and the lost Revenue back Spain has been mentioned a couple of times as having a successful wealth tax without any substantiation, it doesn't but I let it slide. Spain has a wealth tax but individual Regions can disregard it and Madrid the wealthiest region does as does Andalusia so the result is very little raised Spain also introduced a temporary "Solidarity Tax" for year 2023 and 2024. The Budget Target of €1.5Bn actually raised €623M in 2023 from 12,010 Tax payers, mostly in Madrid representing 0.1% of Taxpayers. When introduced it led to hyperbolic news articles from news outlets that should know better that if it were introduced within OECD it could raise $1.5Trn .... and if my Aunt etc A one off wealth tax has very little to do with any of that though..... A one off or at least two off Spanish "Solidarity Tax" has everything to do with it. Raising Rates above a level at which people make choices has everything to do with it. How would you structure a Wealth Tax in UK? |
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Nov 1, 2024 15:23:20 GMT
Surprised this hasn't received more publicity 'Where will it stop?': DWP to get 'direct access to bank accounts' in benefit fraud crackdown“We will expand DWP’s counter-fraud teams using innovative new methods to prevent illegal activity and provide new legal powers to crackdown on fraudsters, including direct access to bank accounts to recover debt. This package saves £4.3bn a year by the end of the forecast.”
The Big Issue understands that the debt power applies to those where an overpayment has been identified, and steps such as mandatory reconsideration and appeals will be taken before debt is recovered from the bank accounts.Stopping thieving bastards or invasion of privacy? I would suggest both |
|
|
|
Post by devondumpling on Nov 1, 2024 15:24:19 GMT
Oh dear trotting this nonsense catch phrase again. Well she's in good company of 1, the OBR doesn't like and has said The OBR has published its review of the March 2024 forecast for departmental expenditure limits. This is what Reeves was relying on at the start of her budget statement… “The conclusion reached by the OBR is that, had the information that has since been shared by the Treasury been made available to them at the time of the March Budget, ‘… a materially different judgement about RDEL spending in 2024-25 would have been reached. The underspend assumption of £2.9 billion would very likely have been dropped, and so there would have been a materially higher DEL forecast for 2024-25 in the March 2024 EFO. However, it is not possible to judge now exactly how much higher.’ This is because, without rewriting history on the basis of greater pre-forecast information and challenge, it is not possible to judge how much of the £9.5 billion additional pressures identified from the information provided by the Treasury for this review, as existing at the time of the challenge panel in February, would have been absorbed and offset by other savings. However, the OBR would unquestionably have given more pointed warnings in the EFO about the policy choices that would have to be made.” So the Treasury itself under Labour identified a £9.5 billion ‘Tory black hole.” Chief Treasury Secretary Darren Jones was on Politics Live right now peddling the “materially different” line “to use the language of the OBR” in justification for the budget’s policies. It is obviously in Labour’s interests to discredit the OBR’s previous forecast in light of its current one… The OBR report from March was flawd due to the Conservatives deliberately withholding information from it which ultimately meant its forecasts were wrong. Quote direct from OBR “The conclusion reached by the OBR is that, had the information that has since been shared by the Treasury been made available to them at the time of the March Budget, ‘… a materially different judgement about RDEL spending in 2024-25 would have been reached. The underspend assumption of £2.9 billion would very likely have been dropped, and so there would have been a materially higher DEL forecast for 2024-25 in the March 2024 EFO. However, it is not possible to judge now exactly how much higher.’ This is because, without rewriting history on the basis of greater pre-forecast information and challenge, it is not possible to judge how much of the £9.5 billion additional pressures identified from the information provided by the Treasury for this review, as existing at the time of the challenge panel in February, would have been absorbed and offset by other savings. However, the OBR would unquestionably have given more pointed warnings in the EFO about the policy choices that would have to be made.” Where is the 22 billion black hole then? |
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Nov 1, 2024 15:24:38 GMT
A one off wealth tax has very little to do with any of that though..... A one off or at least two off Spanish "Solidarity Tax" has everything to do with it. Raising Rates above a level at which people make choices has everything to do with it. How would you structure a Wealth Tax in UK? I'd structure it pretty much as the Wealth Commission proposed it....... |
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Nov 1, 2024 15:57:05 GMT
A one off or at least two off Spanish "Solidarity Tax" has everything to do with it. Raising Rates above a level at which people make choices has everything to do with it. How would you structure a Wealth Tax in UK? I'd structure it pretty much as the Wealth Commission proposed it....... I wasn't aware of the work, I'll read it in more detail From a quick skim as far as I can see they don't reach any conclusions on thresholds or rates but appear to have a nominal target number of £250Bn They raise the obvious pitfalls e.g. mobility of people and assets For the record when this was discussed before on here I suggested an OECD wide "Solidarity Payment" I.e. a once off could work other than for those who want to entrust their assets to a Banana Republic Financial Centre I'm not adverse to a Wealth Tax, I've just never seen them work. |
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Nov 1, 2024 16:44:46 GMT
The OBR report from March was flawd due to the Conservatives deliberately withholding information from it which ultimately meant its forecasts were wrong. You've massively misquoted me there. I only said the above. |
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Nov 1, 2024 17:18:20 GMT
Farmers and those defending their "plight" may want to consider the following. If I'm a landlord with a portfolio of properties, or an investor with a portfolio of listed shares, when I die my estate pays 40% inheritance tax (IHT). Until now, APR meant that agricultural estates were completely exempt from IHT. The Budget caps the exemption at £1m. Beyond that, IHT applies to agricultural property at half the usual rate - so 20%. But the £1m figure is misleading, because IHT won't usually apply to farms worth £1m. Small farms usually include the farmhouse. So, for a married couple, the estate as a whole will benefit from £650k total nil rate band plus £350 residence nil rate band plus £1m agricultural property relief. In many cases the cap won't be £1m in practice, it will be £2m, because a married couple who run a farm business together can each use their own £1m cap. That's £2m exemption in total, covering most small farms. That's why, if you look at the stats, 87% of inherited agricultural property used less than £1m of APR and so will remain completely exempt. Almost half the £1bn cost of APR went to 63 estates with a median value £8m. Doesn't seem great value for money for the taxpayer.  For farms just over the threshold, the IHT is easily managed. Farmers who are youngish (say <70) can buy life insurance to cover the IHT. Won't cost much given the small level of cover required (i.e. for a £2m farm it's £200k IHT max). As they get older, and life insurance starts getting expensive, they can give the farm to their kids. Live seven more years; no IHT. No need for the insurance anymore (the truth about IHT planning is that anyone youngish, in good health, who's worried about IHT should just buy lift insurance. By far the easiest/cheapest/most ethical way to avoid the impact of IHT, without avoiding IHT). Once we get into much larger agricultural businesses, worth many £m, then insurance becomes expensive, but at that point we're looking at sophisticated businesses and it's reasonable to expect people to finance the tax (which can be paid over 10 years). We've seen some hysterical takes on this: "£20k could make the difference between a £2m farm being profitable or loss making". [£20k over ten years = IHT on £2m]. Nope. If it's making less than £20k profit/year, it ain't worth £2m. Plus, we've been here before. The old capital transfer tax (predecessor to IHT) had no agricultural exemption at all. In 1975 a 30% relief was introduced. The complete exemption we have now was only created in 1992. The sky did not fall in prior to 1992. So the various dire predictions we are all reading about are not very realistic. |
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Nov 1, 2024 17:43:59 GMT
Amazing how invested in this Labour budget some folk are! Often the same ones who said not a peep in response to the 2022 one that blew a huge hole in the public finances, crashed the pound and fucked the markets 😄
|
|
|
|
Post by questionable on Nov 1, 2024 18:13:42 GMT
Farmers and those defending their "plight" may want to consider the following. If I'm a landlord with a portfolio of properties, or an investor with a portfolio of listed shares, when I die my estate pays 40% inheritance tax (IHT). Until now, APR meant that agricultural estates were completely exempt from IHT. The Budget caps the exemption at £1m. Beyond that, IHT applies to agricultural property at half the usual rate - so 20%. But the £1m figure is misleading, because IHT won't usually apply to farms worth £1m. Small farms usually include the farmhouse. So, for a married couple, the estate as a whole will benefit from £650k total nil rate band plus £350 residence nil rate band plus £1m agricultural property relief. In many cases the cap won't be £1m in practice, it will be £2m, because a married couple who run a farm business together can each use their own £1m cap. That's £2m exemption in total, covering most small farms. That's why, if you look at the stats, 87% of inherited agricultural property used less than £1m of APR and so will remain completely exempt. Almost half the £1bn cost of APR went to 63 estates with a median value £8m. Doesn't seem great value for money for the taxpayer. View AttachmentFor farms just over the threshold, the IHT is easily managed. Farmers who are youngish (say <70) can buy life insurance to cover the IHT. Won't cost much given the small level of cover required (i.e. for a £2m farm it's £200k IHT max). As they get older, and life insurance starts getting expensive, they can give the farm to their kids. Live seven more years; no IHT. No need for the insurance anymore (the truth about IHT planning is that anyone youngish, in good health, who's worried about IHT should just buy lift insurance. By far the easiest/cheapest/most ethical way to avoid the impact of IHT, without avoiding IHT). Once we get into much larger agricultural businesses, worth many £m, then insurance becomes expensive, but at that point we're looking at sophisticated businesses and it's reasonable to expect people to finance the tax (which can be paid over 10 years). We've seen some hysterical takes on this: "£20k could make the difference between a £2m farm being profitable or loss making". [£20k over ten years = IHT on £2m]. Nope. If it's making less than £20k profit/year, it ain't worth £2m. Plus, we've been here before. The old capital transfer tax (predecessor to IHT) had no agricultural exemption at all. In 1975 a 30% relief was introduced. The complete exemption we have now was only created in 1992. The sky did not fall in prior to 1992. So the various dire predictions we are all reading about are not very realistic. Seen that the Royal Families estates are exempt?? |
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Nov 1, 2024 18:27:52 GMT
Farmers and those defending their "plight" may want to consider the following. If I'm a landlord with a portfolio of properties, or an investor with a portfolio of listed shares, when I die my estate pays 40% inheritance tax (IHT). Until now, APR meant that agricultural estates were completely exempt from IHT. The Budget caps the exemption at £1m. Beyond that, IHT applies to agricultural property at half the usual rate - so 20%. But the £1m figure is misleading, because IHT won't usually apply to farms worth £1m. Small farms usually include the farmhouse. So, for a married couple, the estate as a whole will benefit from £650k total nil rate band plus £350 residence nil rate band plus £1m agricultural property relief. In many cases the cap won't be £1m in practice, it will be £2m, because a married couple who run a farm business together can each use their own £1m cap. That's £2m exemption in total, covering most small farms. That's why, if you look at the stats, 87% of inherited agricultural property used less than £1m of APR and so will remain completely exempt. Almost half the £1bn cost of APR went to 63 estates with a median value £8m. Doesn't seem great value for money for the taxpayer. View AttachmentFor farms just over the threshold, the IHT is easily managed. Farmers who are youngish (say <70) can buy life insurance to cover the IHT. Won't cost much given the small level of cover required (i.e. for a £2m farm it's £200k IHT max). As they get older, and life insurance starts getting expensive, they can give the farm to their kids. Live seven more years; no IHT. No need for the insurance anymore (the truth about IHT planning is that anyone youngish, in good health, who's worried about IHT should just buy lift insurance. By far the easiest/cheapest/most ethical way to avoid the impact of IHT, without avoiding IHT). Once we get into much larger agricultural businesses, worth many £m, then insurance becomes expensive, but at that point we're looking at sophisticated businesses and it's reasonable to expect people to finance the tax (which can be paid over 10 years). We've seen some hysterical takes on this: "£20k could make the difference between a £2m farm being profitable or loss making". [£20k over ten years = IHT on £2m]. Nope. If it's making less than £20k profit/year, it ain't worth £2m. Plus, we've been here before. The old capital transfer tax (predecessor to IHT) had no agricultural exemption at all. In 1975 a 30% relief was introduced. The complete exemption we have now was only created in 1992. The sky did not fall in prior to 1992. So the various dire predictions we are all reading about are not very realistic. Seen that the Royal Families estates are exempt?? As much as I disagree with it, only land/assets belonging to the sovereign is exempt under the Sovereign Estates Act which originally came in in 1993 (revised in 2011). The Monarch is not legally liable to pay income tax, capital gains tax, or inheritance tax because the relevant enactments do not apply to the Crown. It's intended to prevent the dilution of the Crown's wealth and ensure the continuity of the monarchy's function, so that when assets are passed from one Sovereign to another, they are exempt from inheritance tax. However, the exemption does not necessarily apply to other royal family members such as Prince William or Prince Harry, unless they inherit assets directly from the Sovereign. |
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Nov 1, 2024 18:41:47 GMT
On top of what I said earlier about inheritance tax (IHT), farmland being subject to IHT will reduce the value it has as a token to pass wealth down tax free between generations, so that farmland is cheaper and farming more profitable.
In addition, farmland being subject to IHT will reduce the number of people who hold it as a token to pass wealth down tax free between generations so it is instead held by people who hold it to farm it so it is more efficiently used.
Moreover, as I've intimated earlier, farmland being subject to IHT will mean the great estates held by the stupendously wealthy are taxed just like the more modest estates held by the rest of us.
If the farmland is transferred to a holding company, inheritance tax is payable on company ownership.
It is unfair that the richest can dodge inheritance tax.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vadiation_Ribe on Nov 1, 2024 19:10:53 GMT
As you’ve explained, most farmers have over £1m in assets under their feet and as of now pay the same amount of inheritance tax as everyone else. People like Jeremy Clarkson, who only bought their farms in order to avoid inheritance tax, really aren’t helping the case of the farmers as they personify the fact that farm owners are both business people and landowners who before now were exempt from inheritance tax. Farmers get the APR subsidy as it is. Farmers just need to pay their dues as everyone else does and get over themselves. There is no conspiracy - just tax equality. Fair enough. I disagree with you though. To be fair I grew up in the dairy heartlands of N Shropshire so have lived in this community so maybe understand their plight a bit better. Farmers should have special status. They grow our food. And from an environmental perspective it makes sense to be growing our own food instead of importing more and more of it adding to emissions. Dyson owns amongst the biggest amount of farmland in the UK - as a tax loophole I think, plus he gets subsidies for it. So isn't the farm stuff to target billion and millionaires like him? Dyson even has this page on their site, making out they're doing us all a favour: www.dyson.co.uk/discover/sustainability/farming/technology-and-farming"The farming business has grown since then, and we are now the largest farming business in the UK, with 36,000 acres of high yielding farmland across Lincolnshire, Oxfordshire, West Berkshire, Somerset and Gloucestershire." Yes, some of that's a good thing, but I doubt it's done out of the goodness of their hearts. |
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Nov 1, 2024 19:26:43 GMT
Fair enough. I disagree with you though. To be fair I grew up in the dairy heartlands of N Shropshire so have lived in this community so maybe understand their plight a bit better. Farmers should have special status. They grow our food. And from an environmental perspective it makes sense to be growing our own food instead of importing more and more of it adding to emissions. Dyson owns amongst the biggest amount of farmland in the UK - as a tax loophole I think, plus he gets subsidies for it. So isn't the farm stuff to target billion and millionaires like him? Dyson even has this page on their site, making out they're doing us all a favour: www.dyson.co.uk/discover/sustainability/farming/technology-and-farming"The farming business has grown since then, and we are now the largest farming business in the UK, with 36,000 acres of high yielding farmland across Lincolnshire, Oxfordshire, West Berkshire, Somerset and Gloucestershire." Yes, some of that's a good thing, but I doubt it's done out of the goodness of their hearts. So let's get Dyson and screw the normal family farmer as collateral damage. Cracking idea by the govt👍 But never mind we can import the food we need on electric boats and planes and pray we don't at some point get held to ransom about our food supply.. |
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Nov 1, 2024 20:13:10 GMT
A one off or at least two off Spanish "Solidarity Tax" has everything to do with it. Raising Rates above a level at which people make choices has everything to do with it. How would you structure a Wealth Tax in UK? I'd structure it pretty much as the Wealth Commission proposed it....... I've read through the report in a bit more detail. I'm not going to diss my alma mater LSE because it's theoretically possible that a one off Wealth Tax is possible but accordingly an annual one not, but I'm not convinced it can be actually successful in practice They touch upon most of the reasons why annual wealth taxes have failed and acknowledge that ultimate secrecy and retrospective legislation would be needed which would certainly be tested in Court. I'm not convinced the information for assessment is readily available so it would likely be self assessment. The threshold at £500K yielding £260Bn is far too low in my opinion and would create a massive geographic divide where practically any homeowner in London and South East would be included but I doubt if the majority would be considered "Wealthy". The £2M threshold would be more manageable in numbers but the estimated receipts of £80Bn while a very large number would cause huge reputational damage if implemented as described. The report also discusses briefly, from what I read, other Wealth Taxes which could be reformed as an alternative to a Wealth Tax e.g. IHT CGT and Property Tax at least the two former have begun to be reformed in Budget so i can't see Labour implementing a Wealth Tax any time soon. Finally HMRC concede that they under collect taxes by about £40Bn annually either deliberate evasion or mistakes. I feel additional HMRC resources to narrow the gap would be more productive and would be permanent I doubt we will agree but it makes an interesting debate albeit probably academic currently www.gov.uk/government/statistics/measuring-tax-gaps/1-tax-gaps-summary#:~:text=the%20UK%20tax%20gap%20in,95.2%25%20of%20all%20tax%20due |
|
|
|
Post by knype on Nov 2, 2024 6:26:59 GMT
Amazing how invested in this Labour budget some folk are! Often the same ones who said not a peep in response to the 2022 one that blew a huge hole in the public finances, crashed the pound and fucked the markets 😄 And it's absolutely amazing to see those most vocal in attacking that budget now defending one that will prove to be equally as bad or even worse. |
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Nov 2, 2024 10:45:15 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 2, 2024 11:11:24 GMT
Dyson owns amongst the biggest amount of farmland in the UK - as a tax loophole I think, plus he gets subsidies for it. So isn't the farm stuff to target billion and millionaires like him? Dyson even has this page on their site, making out they're doing us all a favour: www.dyson.co.uk/discover/sustainability/farming/technology-and-farming"The farming business has grown since then, and we are now the largest farming business in the UK, with 36,000 acres of high yielding farmland across Lincolnshire, Oxfordshire, West Berkshire, Somerset and Gloucestershire." Yes, some of that's a good thing, but I doubt it's done out of the goodness of their hearts. So let's get Dyson and screw the normal family farmer as collateral damage. Cracking idea by the govt👍 But never mind we can import the food we need on electric boats and planes and pray we don't at some point get held to ransom about our food supply.. It depends how rich the average family farmer is. Remember, with a married couple, nil rate bands and relief against your primary residence, £1m is tax free with proper planning. The next £1m of agricultural land is also tax free. Then it is 20% tax (rather than 40%) on farming business assets above that. So only “normal” family farmers worth £2M plus will pay half the IHT the rest of us would, and the rest of us start paying it on assets over £1m (if utilising tax free allowances effectively). And we pay double the rate of the poor “normal” family farmer! Some people struggle to afford to eat or heat their homes. People cannot get GP appointments. Schools are in desperate need of funding. We need to release criminals early because the justice system is ruined. But it is farmers worth £2m plus who we need to worry about now!? |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 2, 2024 11:12:26 GMT
Amazing how invested in this Labour budget some folk are! Often the same ones who said not a peep in response to the 2022 one that blew a huge hole in the public finances, crashed the pound and fucked the markets 😄 And it's absolutely amazing to see those most vocal in attacking that budget now defending one that will prove to be equally as bad or even worse. If you think this budget is as bad as the Truss budget, it explains why you get so much wrong in your posts on here. |
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Nov 2, 2024 11:14:37 GMT
My favourite whine about this budget is the fucking farmers who have whined so much but you didn’t hear a peep from with Brexit which totally took their subsidies away and they were much better in the EU than out of it. Silly fuckers.
When I was younger in the early 2000s I was very anti EU mainly because of the protection it gave farmers and it gave them way too much money. And then when it came to it like other dumb fuckers, the turkeys voted for Christmas.
|
|
