Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sledgehead

Bbc : This Week With Andrew Neil

Recommended Posts

If any of you caught Andrew Neil's weekly roundup of all things political, you're probably still in shock. The change in cgt and the consequent boost to middle class finances inspired the show's makers to invite Big Issue's founder John Bird to make a package about social mobility. After the piece, which roundly condemned the growing gulf between the haves and have-nots and the fall in social mobility, BIrd was invited into the studio to share his views with Dianne Abbott, Michael Portillo and Andrew Neil. What ensued was perhaps the most graphic representation of how 10 years of so-called Labour has changed the perceived political colours of opinion formers and politicians. I wish I could point you to some footage, but I'll have to make do with imparting the gist :

1 ) Homeless-champion for 20 years, John Bird cited Thatcher as an enabler of social mobility. He criticied labour for effectively pandering to the rich middle classes and shutting the poor out;

2 ) Michael Portillo cited Inheritance Tax as a progressive, good tax, which he would not have cut.

3 ) Dianne Abbot, when asked what the government, after 10 years had to be proud of, was unable to think of a single thing. After a couple of abbortive attempts to form words in defence of her party, she let out an embarassed laugh (yep, one of a handful of Labour back-benchers who actually has the decency to be embarassed).

You could have knocked me down with a feather.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tapered CGT was good because it encouraged longish term business investment. Lower business taxes for small businesses was enough. But that is about it.

And both of those have now gone. Oops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't see it.

But I did enjoy watching Harriet Harman get ripped to shreds from all sides on Question Time last night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not sure I agree.

Taxes of course change behaviours. People hold onto assets often for no other reason than to gain from the tax reliefs. For instance buy-to-let investors are put off selling their properties by the thought of paying 40% CGT - house prices would have to crash a long way before BTL investors would be tempted into selling their properties and releasing them into the market.

There is no reason why slower wealth creation should be encouraged over quicker wealth creation (regardless of the hard working versus speculator epithets).

A flat rate of CGT has become a simple tax on inflation no less. The hurdle rate for holding that asset is now to ensure that it works to provide at least the rate of inflation plus the rate of CGT - or you'll become steadily poorer.

Don't let the tax tail wag the investment dog.

Tell that to my dad who is due to sell his 22-year business and retire in 2009. He is by no means rich, his company makes a very small profit, but he has invested any little money he has made into the fixed assets of the business, with a view to a decent retirement nestegg. This change is going to cost him about £56k in additional CGT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tapered CGT was good because it encouraged longish term business investment. Lower business taxes for small businesses was enough. But that is about it.

And both of those have now gone. Oops.

I am not sure I would call 2 years (to obtain maximum Business Asset Taper Relief) particularily long term.

IMHO, 10% was too low for CGT and likewise the 2 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FFS did I mention CGT anywhere in this thread?

Have we not discussed that issue ad nauseum over th epast couple of days?

Please stay ON TOPIC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tell that to my dad who is due to sell his 22-year business and retire in 2009. He is by no means rich, his company makes a very small profit, but he has invested any little money he has made into the fixed assets of the business, with a view to a decent retirement nestegg. This change is going to cost him about £56k in additional CGT.

Can't he sell now and avoid the tax?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FFS did I mention CGT anywhere in this thread?

Have we not discussed that issue ad nauseum over th epast couple of days?

Please stay ON TOPIC.

"The change in cgt and the consequent boost to middle class finances..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tell that to my dad who is due to sell his 22-year business and retire in 2009. He is by no means rich, his company makes a very small profit, but he has invested any little money he has made into the fixed assets of the business, with a view to a decent retirement nestegg. This change is going to cost him about £56k in additional CGT.

Small businesses get stuffed but property speculators hit the jackpot with the new CGT change. Government's aim is to keep its miracle alive by encouraging more property speculation, make it easy & cheap for BTL'ers never mind consequences of their action on other businesses or general property market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tell that to my dad who is due to sell his 22-year business and retire in 2009. He is by no means rich, his company makes a very small profit, but he has invested any little money he has made into the fixed assets of the business, with a view to a decent retirement nestegg. This change is going to cost him about £56k in additional CGT.

Interesting definition of not rich £56k extra means £70k at 10% or £700k gain in total :P

BUT this is shafting genuine small business owners. And what really annoyed me was some tit on Radio 4 this morning from the treasury saying that its ok because weve done other things to help business - lowered CT to 28% - yes but this only affects businesses making £1.5 million profit youve actually increased CT for small businesses and then the absolutely unbelievable statement that weve lowered basic rate of income tax that will benefit everyone - my @rse it will ask all thepensioners who pay more tax now because the 10% bands gone.

oh back on topic - yes I think that defending labours actions even for a labour MP is becoming embarrasing. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If any of you caught Andrew Neil's weekly roundup of all things political, you're probably still in shock. The change in cgt and the consequent boost to middle class finances inspired the show's makers to invite Big Issue's founder John Bird to make a package about social mobility. After the piece, which roundly condemned the growing gulf between the haves and have-nots and the fall in social mobility, BIrd was invited into the studio to share his views with Dianne Abbott, Michael Portillo and Andrew Neil. What ensued was perhaps the most graphic representation of how 10 years of so-called Labour has changed the perceived political colours of opinion formers and politicians. I wish I could point you to some footage, but I'll have to make do with imparting the gist :

1 ) Homeless-champion for 20 years, John Bird cited Thatcher as an enabler of social mobility. He criticied labour for effectively pandering to the rich middle classes and shutting the poor out;

2 ) Michael Portillo cited Inheritance Tax as a progressive, good tax, which he would not have cut.

3 ) Dianne Abbot, when asked what the government, after 10 years had to be proud of, was unable to think of a single thing. After a couple of abbortive attempts to form words in defence of her party, she let out an embarassed laugh (yep, one of a handful of Labour back-benchers who actually has the decency to be embarassed).

You could have knocked me down with a feather.

Pardon my naivety and excuse me if I misinterpret you, but do you mean to say that the Thatchers of the world are better for us than the Blair/Browns? While this lot have created this huge bubble, the last lot were equally as bad - didn't we have a crash on their watch - or wasn't it their fault? None of these parties have any ideology or real values - they are just administrators with minor differences. I find it really quite galling when some people seek to make political capital out of the housing situation in order to support different party-political persuasions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw it.

1. Thatcher DID improve social mobility by selling people their homes at a DISCOUNT. NULAB force people who need housing to pay a hefty premium and enslave themselves to banks for life.

2. Portillo doesn't have kids. So he doesn't give a **** about inheritance tax.

3. Abbot is old labout through and through so she hates Brown and Bliar alike.

Interesting how the tide has turned 180 degress against Brown though. Andrew Neil knows exactly what he is doing laying into him. Same with the audience on question time. Brown is now perceived as less trustworthy than Bliar. The QT audience this week and last week guffaw every time anyone mentions Brown or labour's policies.

Brown is going to get it in the back from someone like Harriet Harman/Jack Straw long before the next election imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If any of you caught Andrew Neil's weekly roundup of all things political, you're probably still in shock. The change in cgt and the consequent boost to middle class finances inspired the show's makers to invite Big Issue's founder John Bird to make a package about social mobility. After the piece, which roundly condemned the growing gulf between the haves and have-nots and the fall in social mobility, BIrd was invited into the studio to share his views with Dianne Abbott, Michael Portillo and Andrew Neil. What ensued was perhaps the most graphic representation of how 10 years of so-called Labour has changed the perceived political colours of opinion formers and politicians. I wish I could point you to some footage, but I'll have to make do with imparting the gist :

1 ) Homeless-champion for 20 years, John Bird cited Thatcher as an enabler of social mobility. He criticied labour for effectively pandering to the rich middle classes and shutting the poor out;

2 ) Michael Portillo cited Inheritance Tax as a progressive, good tax, which he would not have cut.

3 ) Dianne Abbot, when asked what the government, after 10 years had to be proud of, was unable to think of a single thing. After a couple of abbortive attempts to form words in defence of her party, she let out an embarassed laugh (yep, one of a handful of Labour back-benchers who actually has the decency to be embarassed).

You could have knocked me down with a feather.

Portillo made a good point about it being a rational tax but he lost me when he said one of the reasons it was rational is that one was 'taxing a dead person'.

Well, yes, our government picks the bones of our dead before they let the family have the financial body.

Diane Abbot is a chancer. She smells Brown's blood so she's already distancing herself. She didn't do that before the last election when she sung Brown's praises (seeing that Blair's days were numbered). She draws expenses at an almost embarrassing rate and she sends her son to a public (private) school for she is a career politician whereas Portillo has some deep convictions.

Brown is a dead man walking. It is all over for him. If he had gone to the polls he would almost certainly have won. I thought he would be remembered as one of the main culprits who caused the credit crunch but this will be his legacy: The man who wouldn't go to the polls because he thought he would win.

Cameron sliced and diced him. He turned him back into the the small Kirkaldy boy he has always been. It's just that he kept his yap shut for so long the electorate was starting to think his serious face meant he had substance. He is a pathetic joke and the Labour party would do well to get rid of him ASAP, otherwise they're finished. They know this and it will be interesting to see how they deal with the vacuum where the leader should be.

Blair must be laughing it up.

Edited by dstars

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pardon my naivety and excuse me if I misinterpret you, but do you mean to say that the Thatchers of the world are better for us than the Blair/Browns? While this lot have created this huge bubble, the last lot were equally as bad - didn't we have a crash on their watch - or wasn't it their fault? None of these parties have any ideology or real values - they are just administrators with minor differences. I find it really quite galling when some people seek to make political capital out of the housing situation in order to support different party-political persuasions.

Um, well yes. Obviously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brown is a dead man walking.

Amusingly enough, one of the things that could have saved him would have been turning his dogs on the FSA rather than the BOE; all heil the new broom, for tis one of Dyson's finest. But he's too much of a pillock to even see that.

Isn't he looking tired?

Edited by ParticleMan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Amusingly enough, one of the things that could have saved him would have been turning his dogs on the FSA rather than the BOE; all heil the new broom, for tis one of Dyson's finest. But he's too much of a pillock to even see that.

Isn't he looking tired?

Aye, PMs might be the cream of parlimentary shystering, but by golly the job takes it pound of flesh. Blair aged 20 years during his PM tenure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The exact same thing came up on Question Time where everyone seemed univerally agreed, even the Lib Dems, that raising the IT threshold was a good thing: except the director of Compass, who made the point I'd always thought:

That allowing inheritance - and raising the threshold - does nothing to promote a meritocracy, in fact the opposite.

Assuming that me and my partner inherit our parents' homes when they die: at currently values, we'd be looking at around 400k.

However those with richer parents inherit more, those with poorer parents inherit less thus perpetuating a system based on class and/or prior wealth which is directly counter to a meritocracy.

I would rather my parents used their equity to go and live in Australia - something they've always wanted but feel unable to do - and spent every last penny they have enjoying themselves to the max.

I should say that since I'm gay and have no desire to ever have children my position might be biased, but I generally feel that I'd want to spend all my own money as far as I can and leave my kids to stand on their own two feet and make of themselves what they will.

The argument that "property prices are so high that inheritance is the only way for the children to get on the ladder" is a fairly shocking indictment really especially from a so-called Labour Government (Harman's argument, same as the Tories) as it effectively helps to shut out a whole class of people from ever owning property by perpetuating higher prices again completely counter to meritocracy.

Portillo's point about "it's a progressive tax, and anyway you're dead" puts the above argument above the "it's so unfair" one. I think that's sometimes overlooked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The exact same thing came up on Question Time where everyone seemed univerally agreed, even the Lib Dems, that raising the IT threshold was a good thing: except the director of Compass, who made the point I'd always thought:

That allowing inheritance - and raising the threshold - does nothing to promote a meritocracy, in fact the opposite.

Assuming that me and my partner inherit our parents' homes when they die: at currently values, we'd be looking at around 400k.

However those with richer parents inherit more, those with poorer parents inherit less thus perpetuating a system based on class and/or prior wealth which is directly counter to a meritocracy.

I would rather my parents used their equity to go and live in Australia - something they've always wanted but feel unable to do - and spent every last penny they have enjoying themselves to the max.

I should say that since I'm gay and have no desire to ever have children my position might be biased, but I generally feel that I'd want to spend all my own money as far as I can and leave my kids to stand on their own two feet and make of themselves what they will.

The argument that "property prices are so high that inheritance is the only way for the children to get on the ladder" is a fairly shocking indictment really especially from a so-called Labour Government (Harman's argument, same as the Tories) as it effectively helps to shut out a whole class of people from ever owning property by perpetuating higher prices again completely counter to meritocracy.

Portillo's point about "it's a progressive tax, and anyway you're dead" puts the above argument above the "it's so unfair" one. I think that's sometimes overlooked.

I disagree.

Inheriting a few quid might make a bit of difference in the short-term but not in the long-term. There are countless examples of very wealthy aristos who have inherited multimillions but due to being totally thick and incapable have lost it all in a single generation. At the other extreme families like the Sainsburys protect all their wealth through trusts, PLCs etc and will always be secure. Very rich just don't pay IHT. It is used solely today to tax midde england so income taxes can be kept lower and state spending can be kept higher.

Would you still share that view if Stalin taxed the estate of a working class person who got paid say 15k a year for 50 years and managed to save enough to buy a terrace in a poor town for him/herself and family? What if he taxed it at 100%? Still a fair tax?

IHT is a tax against savings, against thrift, against hard work and against choice. It has nothing to do with meritocracy and everything to do with state control, communism, waste and profligacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The exact same thing came up on Question Time where everyone seemed univerally agreed, even the Lib Dems, that raising the IT threshold was a good thing: except the director of Compass, who made the point I'd always thought:

That allowing inheritance - and raising the threshold - does nothing to promote a meritocracy, in fact the opposite.

Assuming that me and my partner inherit our parents' homes when they die: at currently values, we'd be looking at around 400k.

However those with richer parents inherit more, those with poorer parents inherit less thus perpetuating a system based on class and/or prior wealth which is directly counter to a meritocracy.

I would rather my parents used their equity to go and live in Australia - something they've always wanted but feel unable to do - and spent every last penny they have enjoying themselves to the max.

I should say that since I'm gay and have no desire to ever have children my position might be biased, but I generally feel that I'd want to spend all my own money as far as I can and leave my kids to stand on their own two feet and make of themselves what they will.

The argument that "property prices are so high that inheritance is the only way for the children to get on the ladder" is a fairly shocking indictment really especially from a so-called Labour Government (Harman's argument, same as the Tories) as it effectively helps to shut out a whole class of people from ever owning property by perpetuating higher prices again completely counter to meritocracy.

Portillo's point about "it's a progressive tax, and anyway you're dead" puts the above argument above the "it's so unfair" one. I think that's sometimes overlooked.

That argument holds generally but I think the reason it's become an issue now is that a lot of people who grew up in poverty after the war and went on to build prosperous lives for themselves always imagined that their kids would be better off than they were. Now they see the reality that their kids don't have a hope of this without taking on massive debt and so they want to be able to pass on as much as possible to give their children a chance or being able to retire without huge debts hanging over them. Ultimately it comes back down to the evils of house price inflation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always instinctively supported inheritance tax, and Portillo explains why quite succinctly.

Thanks for the link to the programme - I hadn't seen the extent of Brown's discomfort on TV up to now. He looks under immense stress.

I wish Andrew Neil would lay off the comic routine, it is toe curlingly awful. He should stick to the heavyweight analysis he thinks he is good at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 349 The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.