General Election 2017

[ender4]

45 minutes ago, Risso said:

The Annual Tax on Enveloped Dwellings at least attempts to address that.  A property that is owned by a foreign company or trust cops for an annual charge.  At properties of £2m-£5m it's £23K.  At £5m+ it's £55K.  Probably not enough to deter your average RAV (Russians, Arabs and Villains) in Mayfair, but big enough that's it's a pain in the arse and might make them think twice.

and now the tax is in place, it can slowly be increased every couple of years to squeeze more out of it.

[HanoiVillan]

12 minutes ago, Risso said:

It's a bit semantic.  Upon death, a person's assets become their estate.  As you rightly say, where the assets of the estate end up, largely determines the rate of tax payable.

Agreed. I just don't like the term 'death tax', it's deliberately misleading. 'Estate tax' might be better than 'inheritance tax' as a name, but both are a million times better than 'death tax'. 

[Demitri_C]

1 hour ago, PieFacE said:

This bit doesn't make sense to me, give me sunny Birmingham every day 

Nah, each to their own and all that, I just don't know how people can justify living in London just because it's "London" when the pricing is absolutely absurd. 

 

Pieface I cant speak for anyone else but i was born in London , my family, my friends are here. If that wasn't the case I highly doubt I would be here. Its a stressful place to live. High housing prices, smaller properties, alot of shitty people, crime, is the high salary jobs in comparison to other places in the UK worth coming here? Debatable. 

Not everyone has the choice! But as much as all these negative things, I have grown to love my local area. I am sure those who grew up in brum and other places in the country would say the same about their local area. 

1 hour ago, Awol said:

I'd get loads of votes from VT.

You would get my vote AWOL 

[bickster]

3 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Agreed. I just don't like the term 'death tax', it's deliberately misleading. 'Estate tax' might be better than 'inheritance tax' as a name, but both are a million times better than 'death tax'. 

Death Tax is a lot less misleading than Inheritance Tax. It's the persons death that triggers the tax, the actual inheritance is effectively tax free. If each beneficiary was taxed on their Inheritance then I'd consider it a different prospect, like a windfall tax.

[MakemineVanilla]

3 hours ago, choffer said:

It might just be me but my major consideration when deciding where to cast my vote is to work out who will have the most positive impact on the country as a whole. I am not interested in rich people making more money at the expense of others, I am interested in equity (as opposed to equality) for all.

I live a comfortable life and want for little. Sure, I've worked hard to get where I am today but I've also had a leg-up on a number of occasions. Just because I've worked for it, doesn't make me more deserving of healthcare, for example. The fact that food banks are used to prop up the system, that the NHS is being battered, that corporate greed is not only rampant but encouraged - these are the things that make me decide where to cast my vote. 

See, I ended up virtue signalling after all, bloody snowflake that I am.

I wouldn't worry too much about food banks because they even have food banks in Norway, the richest per capita country in Europe and a socialist paradise.

Food banks will always exist, even under Labour, because people will always fall out of the system.

As for the NHS, the news will not get any better until they all get a pay rise, but it will have to be a good one because there are a lot people working for the NHS who will be hit by Corbyn's tax plans.

Keep up the virtue signalling, it has never been known to do anyone any harm. 

 

[HanoiVillan]

27 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said:

I wouldn't worry too much about food banks because they even have food banks in Norway, the richest per capita country in Europe and a socialist paradise.

Food banks will always exist, even under Labour, because people will always fall out of the system.

This is undeniably true, but the raw number of people attending does also matter too. 

[TrentVilla]

 

Food banks should exist to help the poor and to give an out let to the food otherwise criminally wasted by supermarkets.

They should exist to help those who don't earn/have a lot, spend a little less of what they do on food.

They absolutely shouldn't exist as a means of survival for the poorest and most vulnerable within our society (spin Thatcher).

 

[colhint]

I'm wondering why you think its criminally wasted by the supermarkets? It's not a policy from them. They spend huge amounts of money on software to predict sales and orders. Wastage is a byproduct. I think they achieve about 97% service. If they could get that up to 99% they would love it. Saves them money.

[ml1dch]

4 hours ago, Demitri_C said:

I think the increase in stamp duty has not helped things either. 

 

The main change in SDLT in 2014 was that anybody keeping rather than selling a property pays a 3% surcharge. So buying a second or investment property for £400k pays twelve grand more than they used to. I fail to see how that is anything other than beneficial for someone buying a first home or looking to move to something bigger for their family.

The other change made it a bit cheaper (SDLT wise) to buy a property worth between £250k - £450k and more expensive to buy something with a higher price than that. But not much more expensive, until you move towards the million pound mark. At £600,000 for example it's now £20k rather than £18k. Again, I fail to see how that is a bad thing.

Edited May 16, 2017 by ml1dch

[MakemineVanilla]

26 minutes ago, TrentVilla said:

 

Food banks should exist to help the poor and to give an out let to the food otherwise criminally wasted by supermarkets.

They should exist to help those who don't earn/have a lot, spend a little less of what they do on food.

They absolutely shouldn't exist as a means of survival for the poorest and most vulnerable within our society (spin Thatcher).

 

So who are they for then, exactly?

 

 

[Chindie]

I believe that was covered immediately before the sentence you've highlighted.

The implication being that a decent society shouldn't need to have people absolutely rely on food banks, or die.

[TrentVilla]

19 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said:

So who are they for then, exactly?

 

 

I think you need to read my post again.

[darrenm]

1 hour ago, MakemineVanilla said:

As for the NHS, the news will not get any better until they all get a pay rise, but it will have to be a good one because there are a lot people working for the NHS who will be hit by Corbyn's tax plans.

 

Massive minority

[MakemineVanilla]

34 minutes ago, Chindie said:

I believe that was covered immediately before the sentence you've highlighted.

The implication being that a decent society shouldn't need to have people absolutely rely on food banks, or die.

The problem is that Labour have stigmatised the use of food banks which means the sort of people who are mentioned in the second sentence will avoid them.

As usual Labour claim to care about the poor but then throw them under the bus for political gain.

[mjmooney]

18 minutes ago, darrenm said:

Massive minority

Contradiction in terms? Tiny minority, perhaps? 

[Chindie]

24 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said:

The problem is that Labour have stigmatised the use of food banks which means the sort of people who are mentioned in the second sentence will avoid them.

As usual Labour claim to care about the poor but then throw them under the bus for political gain.

How do you propose criticising the increasingly widespread necessity day to day for many people of food banks then?

Accept it? Sweep it under the the carpet as a dirty little secret?

I'd like to hear suggestions. Because from my point of view, Labour have done very little wrong. They should be raising this point.

[darrenm]

37 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

Contradiction in terms? Tiny minority, perhaps? 

[blandy]

47 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said:

Labour have stigmatised the use of food banks

No, they really haven't. That's a non-credible thing to say.

There may, or may not be some sort of stigma attached to having to use food banks, but I strongly feel that as their use has become much more widespread, any stigma there is is much less than whatever it might have been before, and I also have never heard any adverse comment about anyone forced into using them based on their need to support themselves.

[PompeyVillan]

Food banks are a sign of a healthy (big) society that help one and other out and show that we don't need public services.

[HanoiVillan]

Either Laura Kuenssberg or her online editor has simply given up trying: