General British politics discussion thread

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117862342#Comment_117862342

Well, mortgage interest is tax free (or used to be). No capital gains tax. Houses have continued to increase in value since forever.

Of course they should be taxed - more than currently anyway.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117862487#Comment_117862487

Stamp duty goes from zero to 12% depending on the price of the property, so people in more expensive houses will pay a higher rate of stamp duty.

https://www.gov.uk/stamp-duty-land-tax/residential-property-rates

Rates from 1 October 2021

These rates also apply if you bought a property before 8 July 2020.

You can also use this table to work out the SDLT for the purchase price of a lease (the ‘lease premium’).

Property or lease premium or transfer valueSDLT rateUp to £125,000ZeroThe next £125,000 (the portion from £125,001 to £250,000)2%The next £675,000 (the portion from £250,001 to £925,000)5%The next £575,000 (the portion from £925,001 to £1.5 million)10%The remaining amount (the portion above £1.5 million)12%

Then you have inheritance tax, which is 40% of everything over £350k

Going back to my example of Toxteth and Tottenham, there are no properties on the market in Toxteth for more than £300k, so none of those would attract inheritance tax.

In Tottenham, a three bed terrace will cost you ~£450k, so this would attract an inheritance tax of £40k

More expensive properties are already taxed.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117862062#Comment_117862062

Well, yes, because they have a larger inheritance to leave to their kids, and more to lose if that inheritance is swallowed up by care costs.

Remember, national insurance is so called because it's fundamentally an insurance scheme; you insure against the risk of losing your income if you become sick, unemployed, etc, or the risk of your retirement savings being exhausted because you live too long.

Obviously, the higher your income, the bigger the risk; you have more to lose. Which is why the scheme provides pay-related benefits, and is funded by pay-related contributions levied on earnings.

So far, so rational and coherent. But this model starts to break down if the risk the scheme is protecting you from is not loss of earnings or income, but loss of the capacity to leave your 55-year old children a fat inheritance. The fear of not being able to leave an inheritance to your kids is a rational one, and it makes sense to have a scheme to insure against that risk, but it makes less sense to fund that scheme with a levy on earning, particularly on low earnings, since that's not a risk to which low earners are greatly exposed. Logically, insurance against the loss of capital should be funded by a levy on capital.

So, you could fund it with a levy on the assets which are intended to form that inheritance, which makes sense and is fair - the cost of the scheme is then borne by the people that will benefit from the scheme. Of, if that's too radical, you could fund it with a levy on earnings, but one that exempts below-average earnings completely or almost completely and rises the higher that your earnings go, on the basis that below-average earners leave little or nothing by way of inheritance, and it is the highest earners who accumulate the largest inheritances for their kids.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117862530#Comment_117862530

you already pay 40% tax on inheritance over £350k

You pay 12% stamp duty on the bit of a property purchase over £1.5m. Zero if you are buying below £125k

These are taxes on things you have bought with money you have already paid tax on.

Continuing to put tax on the price of people's property is a tax on geography

listermint

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117861919#Comment_117861919

This is abjectly false . The city uses all manner of facilities to funnel money through the UK into its Crown dependencies this is all well known. The crown dependencies pay the UK for military cover and international relations. Figures ? No idea tbh. It's an often fanciful notion pushed out by conservatives that there's nothing to see here . They are all independent and do their own thing their affairs are none of our business. It's waffle because it facilitates Tory donors and any chums of same to have these available options to then.

As a matter of constitutional law the UK Parliament has unlimited power to legislate for the territories should they wish to.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117863090#Comment_117863090

I think you are a bit confused between Crown dependencies and British Overseas Territories.

But regardless, it is not "Abjectly False" nor is it "Waffle".

The UK is responsible for international affairs and defence, anything else would be overstepping the mark.

Tell me how

This is a quite the tweet.

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1435559102718091264

This should never have been acceptable outside of someone vaguely remembering running in to sports people at an event or something. But certainly not having participated in a Zoom meeting with them where I'm sure details of the Who and Why of every one who was attending would have been detailed to the Minister at some point.

It might just about have been understandable if prominent English footballers hadn't been all over the media just a couple months ago when they reached the final of the Euro Championships which was held in England. But for one of the people who was involved to have been all over the media in the last 12 months for their work in holding the Government to account and in securing funding for school children and for the Minister for Education to demonstrate complete ignorance as to who that person is is just incredible.

I was delighted to see English Footballers clap back at politicians who tried to bandwagon their success and belatedly denounce racism but this is just another example of how disconnected the UK government is from such a huge part of UK society. Every single person who was genuinely concerned about the welfare of theirs and other children this past year knows in detail who Marcus Rashford is. That the minister for Education is not one of these people is very telling.

Capt'n Midnight

Tories tinkering with the election rules yet again. Removing 8 constituencies to leave just 32 seats in Wales. Only the island of Anglesey unaffected.

Traditionally Wales would return a majority of anti-Tory MPs so this reduction of 20% of MPs would not benefit Labour / Plaid Cymru.

Danzy

There are 2 big problems with working from home, it will gut the retail, eateries and social side of cities.

The risk of losing Jobs abroad. Home can be anywhere in the world.

There are a lot of benefits to working from home but risks and downward pressure on wages.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117866036#Comment_117866036

Problen one: solved by revitalizing towns & villages all over the country, massive reduction in pollution caused by unnecessary travelling and far better quality of life for those who prefer to WFH

Problem two: Only a real issue when there is direct competition for the particular skill sets (call centres have found that foreign support staff put customers off), management who need to see their staff face to face occasionally will not recruit abroad.

Wages are less of an issue as long as staff do not end up worse off, many could take a 10% cut while wfh and still be financially better off after excluding the season ticket and other commuting costs, plus the extra hours they get back every day.

Joe_ Public

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117866104#Comment_117866104

I agree by and large. If they're any way serious at all about meeting their climate commitments, these are the sort of ideas they need to be addressing and promoting. It's seems a no brainer to me that the best way of revitalising broken down towns and high streets is by encouraging businesses and workers to relocate and ease the choke load on the big urban centres. Problem is:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/sep/02/uk-broadband-speeds-among-slowest-in-europe-study-finds

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117863180#Comment_117863180

Not so. While the Crown dependencies have their own legislatures and Westminster does not legislate for the, except in relation to international affairs and defence, the Royal Assent to legislation from the crown dependencies is granted not on the advice of the crown dependency governments or parliaments, but on the advice of UK ministers. Thus the UK executive as a veto over crown dependency laws and can refuse permission for tax laws (or any other laws) that they do not like.

Plus, the UK is directly responsible for international affairs, and therefore decides whether, and on what terms, the crown dependencies join in international arrangements to control tax havens, money-laundering, etc. The crown dependencies have to bring their domestic laws into line with whatever international obligations the UK commits them to.

So the UK has substantial control over the tax laws and tax arrangements of the crown dependencies, if it cares to exercise it.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117866250#Comment_117866250

The UK does not "Decide" what terms the Crown dependencies join international agreements. That is clearly explained in the framework agreement between the Governments. All the UK can do, is encourage change.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117865921#Comment_117865921

It isn't the Tories at all, it is the Boundary Commission for Wales who are proposing changes, which is their job.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117866607#Comment_117866607

Actually it is the Queen who approves all of this stuff.

And if you believe that, you will believe anything.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117866698#Comment_117866698

well yes, she is the head of state.

The proposals for boundary changes come from the various boundary commissions though. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn05929/

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117866586#Comment_117866586

The UK is responsible for (and in charge of) the crown dependencies' international relations. That means it decides what international agreements the crown dependencies will join.

The "framework agreements" set out how the UK will make these decisions, and what weight it will attach to the views and interests of the crown dependency governments in doing so, but they are just statements of agreed policy. They set out how the UK exercises its control over the CDs' international relations, but they don't change the fact that the UK has that control. The UK is not bound by the framework agreements. And, even if it were, the framework agreements don't say that the UK will not act internationally on behalf of the the CDs without their consent; just that it will not do so without prior consultation with them.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117866807#Comment_117866807

We are getting in to semantics now.

The UK is not going to force Jersey, Guernsey, Gibraltar or the Isle of Man to change their tax regimes, any more than the EU is going to force Ireland, Luxembourg or the Netherlands. This competence rests firmly with the parliaments of those countries.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117866607#Comment_117866607

Aegir, your own link points out that the Boundary Commission for Wales has no power to decide the number of Welsh MPs. Thus the reduction in number from 40 to 32 is not a proposal of the Boundary Commission; it's just something they are required to implement by dividing Wales into 32, rather than 40, constituencies.

The decision that Wales should have 32, rather than the present 40, MPs was a decision of the UK government, made in 2020, and implemented in the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 2020, which is Westminster legislation.

(Also, though it's not strictly relevant, the Boundary Commission for Wales is an agency of the UK government, not an agency of the Welsh government, and its members are appointed by the UK government.)

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117866834#Comment_117866834

No, it's quite different. The EU isn't going to enroll Ireland in international agreements regulating tax havens because it lacks the competence to do so. But the UK isn't going to enroll Jersey in international agreements regulating tax havens because, although it has the competence to do so, it chooses not to without the consent of the Jersey government.

PommieBast

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117866607#Comment_117866607

..proposals based on criteria from the government that demanded a reduction in the number of MPs.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117866853#Comment_117866853

Look, read the process. https://www.bcw-reviews.org.uk/review-process-summary

The rules on what MPs there are and where are fairly straight forward and no, of course it isn't controlled by the Welsh government, the boundary commission isn't deciding on matter relating to the Welsh Parliament.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117866875#Comment_117866875

Because that is what has been agreed with the parliament of Jersey. https://www.gov.je/Government/Departments/JerseyWorld/pages/relationshipeuanduk.aspx

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117866894#Comment_117866894

No, proposals based on criteria to which the four boundary commissions are required to work to.

This is effectively the culmination of work that has been taking place since 2011, although the original proposals to educe the number of MPs from 650 to 600 have been scrapped, unfortunately.

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117867358#Comment_117867358

The original process to reduce the total number of MPs to 600 has changed into providing 543 English MPs.

Rather than reducing the number of MPs UK wide by less than 8% the govt has instead ordered 20% a reduction in Welsh MPs. Those 8 seats are going to England along with two MPs taken from Scotland.

Northern Ireland which generally doesn't vote against the Tory party is keeping all 18 seats, but boundaries will change.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117869685#Comment_117869685

If the original plan to reduce MPs to 600 had gone ahead, Wales would only have 31 MPs.

no one orders anyone to do anything. In 2011 a process started to make sure all constituencies were the same size to within 5%, with a few exceptions on certain islands.

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117869890#Comment_117869890

Pro rata 31 MPs out of 600 would be 34 out of 650. So Wales is still loosing proportionately more MP's.

Your opinion is that "no on orders anyone to do anything." which is strange considering that The Bill received royal Assent on 14 December 2020

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117870352#Comment_117870352

The Bill that approved the findings of the work undertaken by the boundary commissions.

This isn’t some evil plan by Boris to rob the Welsh of seats. It started in 2011

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117870480#Comment_117870480

As you yourself said the original proposals to reduce UK MP numbers were scrapped. As I keep pointing out the Govt mandated reductions of Welsh MPs go well beyond that plan, more so given that overall MP numbers remain unchanged.

Yes Anglesey has been left intact as an Island but the bordering constituencies voted for Plaid and Labour before that so extending it might affect the current MP. Take a wild guess at which party she's from.

The way this Govt are changing the democratic process is like the way Maggie's govt redefined unemployment to job-seekers by lots and lots of little changes.

You’re reading the 2020 act in isolation and misinterpreting it.

the reduction in Welsh constituencies is a continuation of the process brought in under the parliamentary constituencies act 2011, which itself was an amendment to the parliamentary constituencies act 1986.

populations change and constituency boundaries need regular review, the 2011 act basically divided the UK up in to 600 equally sized constituencies, subsequently changed to 650.

the result is that there are now more constituencies in England and less in Scotland and Wales.

this isn’t an order from the government, it is a logical finding of the process carried out by the four boundary commissions.