Massive majority for the Tories, Goodbye housing crash for now

Herzlos

We really need to get on with getting Brexit done. What does that look like?



Lib Dems were screwed because the right view their brexit stance as betrayal, and the left sight trust them to not help the Tories back into power.

Phil4432 wrote: »

True. And one of the reasons why they failed.

Fact of the matter is that for those of us against both Corbyn and Brexit, there was inadequate political representation.

Many simply may have chose to chance Brexit to get rid of Corbyn.

Wouldn't it have been better to chance Corbyn to get rid of Brexit, then get rid of Corbyn?
I mean, the damage from Brexit will be irreversible, whilst I don't think you could say the same for Corbyn.

Herzlos

SmashedAvacado wrote: »

Couple of points
1. What have his sexual preferences / morals got to do with his ability to run the country

Normally, a Prime Minister with his morals would be a prime candidate for blackmail. Luckily he got no shame so I suspect he's pretty much immune..

3. there are no functioning socialist countries where the people do not suffer

I thought the Scandinavian countries were essentially Socialist, and always topping the happiness charts?

Herzlos

Phil4432 wrote: »

Corbyn had a lifetime tax plan of £125K.

That meant once you spent over 125K on say your kids, you'd get taxed. Many people including WORKING CLASS people didn't want the extra tax.

That's a good point. It was obviously intended to close the 7 year loophole on inheritance tax gifting, but where do you draw the line on gifting? Does a car for a newly passed driver count? A playstation? Socks?

RelievedSheff

Herzlos wrote: »

We really need to get on with getting Brexit done. What does that look like?



Lib Dems were screwed because the right view their brexit stance as betrayal, and the left sight trust them to not help the Tories back into power.



Wouldn't it have been better to chance Corbyn to get rid of Brexit, then get rid of Corbyn?
I mean, the damage from Brexit will be irreversible, whilst I don't think you could say the same for Corbyn.

I'm intrigued. What is this irreversible damage that Brexit is going to cause?

princeofpounds

I thought the Scandinavian countries were essentially Socialist, and always topping the happiness charts?

This is one of those semi-myths that floats around all the time.


They have relatively high levels taxation and redistribution (within the developed European context), that part is true.


The part that people often leave out is that their economies are rather capitalist. For example, you pay for a doctor's appointment. Schools are funded via a voucher system, and so many are private. The fire and ambulance services are provided by private companies. About a third of healthcare services are provided privately. Corporate taxation is relatively low (but not universally). All these things are anathema to the Labour Left (and even some of the centrists find it difficult to accept)


The other key difference is that a majority of taxation (at least household taxation anyway) is raised and spent locally. So e.g. London would actually subsidise Liverpool much less under a similar system. The system is actually rather against the central control beloved of Marxist types.


So really, whatever the Scandinavian model is, it's not what Corbyn etc. offer.


Personally I think this point is often under-emphasized. The idea of redistribution should be separated more from the idea of government control and ownership of the economy. Because to be frank, if we want the poor to do well, we want the country to be creating as much wealth as possible before we think about sharing it out.

Malthusian

Herzlos wrote: »

That's a good point. It was obviously intended to close the 7 year loophole on inheritance tax gifting, but where do you draw the line on gifting? Does a car for a newly passed driver count? A playstation? Socks?

The 7 year rule for Potentially Exempt Transfers isn't a "loophole". If you don't have any tax on gifts then people would give away their entire estates on their deathbed, and the other extreme, where if you give your nephew a £100 birthday present they have to pay £20 to HMRC, is not a goer. The seven year rule strikes a balance between the two.

The fundamental problem with the idea of replacing the current tax on estates with a tax on recipients is that it makes an already regressive tax on being British even more regressive. The rich will still easily be able to avoid it by ensuring large transfers of wealth are made outside the UK.

Inheritance Tax is the most unpopular tax for a reason, and it's not "dear chap, why don't these moaning middle-class minnies move to a picturesque villa in the Bahamas and forget about Inheritance Tax, or failing that, just stop working so hard and avoid accumulating more than £1 million, because let's face it old chap, you may as well be poor and live in a council estate in Stoke".

Herzlos

Fair point, loophole isn't the correct word. You're also correct in that the rich aren't paying it anyway so its only screwing the middle/lower classes.

RelievedSheff wrote: »

I'm intrigued. What is this irreversible damage that Brexit is going to cause?

It's unlikely any companies that leave the UK to get back into the EU would return even if we rejoined. It's also unlikely we'd get any of our opt outs back.

lisyloo

Its not that easy just to give away your estate 7 years ahead of your death.
Firstly theres the obvious problem of not knowing how long you need to budget for, but increasing these days people need to spend on elderly care and you are not allowed to deprive yourself of asset to gain state care (not that state care is desireable either),
So not that easy a tax to avoid.
Of course the richer you are the more you can get involved in sophisticated trusts or offshore scheme but that doesn't really help normal people.

Phil4432

Herzlos wrote: »

Wouldn't it have been better to chance Corbyn to get rid of Brexit, then get rid of Corbyn?
I mean, the damage from Brexit will be irreversible, whilst I don't think you could say the same for Corbyn.

No. Corbyn would have trashed the property market, to satisfy those with no aspiration to better their lives.

There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that increasing IHT to a £125K threshold and applying it to life as well as death, would create happiness and prosperity. In fact, looking at Scandinavian and European countries the scrapping of IHT had increased happiness. Canada, NZ and Australia do not have IHT and believe or not they are perfectly content without it.

The increase in tax by introduction of the 'garden,' tax would have forced many to downsize. Retirees who have spent their lives paying off their mortgage, forced to sell their homes when their partner passes. Can't even leave the home to their kids. I was looking at a massive annual tax increase, which I can't afford.

This was barbaric, disgusting and people were not having it.

Tell you what, if you believe in Corbyn so much, give him a portion of your house. Do it as a volunteer. Surely, if you believe in him so much you don't need it to be a law, for you to give him a large portion of your possessions?

And then there was Hamas. Giving access to one of the best military's in the world to a Hamas supporter was plain dangerous, to say the least.

I detest Brexit, but I'll chance it over Corbyn. Many people felt that way, and its what Labour supporters need to get their heads around. He was that vile, people would rather chance Brexit. And that's saying a lot, because Brexit may well still be a disaster.

In effect Corbyn drove people to Brexit.

I'm not a Tory supporter. But I've never detested a politician so much as Corbyn.

Phil4432

Herzlos wrote: »

That's a good point. It was obviously intended to close the 7 year loophole on inheritance tax gifting, but where do you draw the line on gifting? Does a car for a newly passed driver count? A playstation? Socks?

It was unclear, but more than likely a gift of substance such as a car or playstation would count. So every gift to a child from his/her birth would be taxable under Corbyn.

Clothes etc probably not, but you never know.

In effect, working class people would face an increase in tax.