The Chronicles of Rishi

Please define "ordinary" for the basis of this discussion

Waits for default answers

everyone knows what it means

You and most others full well know the answer

However, trying to keep the discussion fact-based, the latest figures for U.K. Median disposable* income is £32,300 - not sure many of those "ordinary" people will have a million pound Estate that wil be hit by IHT…



https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...g2022#glossary


* Disposable income is the amount of money that households have available for spending and saving after direct taxes, such as Income Tax, National Insurance and Council Tax, have been accounted for. It includes earnings from employment, private pensions and investments as well as cash benefits provided by the state.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Please define "ordinary" for the basis of this discussion

̶H̶a̶r̶d̶-̶w̶o̶r̶k̶i̶n̶g̶ Hard-inheriting families?

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Waits for default answers





However, trying to keep the discussion fact-based, the latest figures for U.K. Median disposable* income is £32,300 - not sure many of those "ordinary" people will have a million pound Estate that wil be hit by IHT…



https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...g2022#glossary


* Disposable income is the amount of money that households have available for spending and saving after direct taxes, such as Income Tax, National Insurance and Council Tax, have been accounted for. It includes earnings from employment, private pensions and investments as well as cash benefits provided by the state.

If we're defining anyone with a household income over £60,000 as "RICH"............

I've got a bridge to sell you.

Originally Posted by Pierre

If we're defining anyone with a household income over £60,000 as "RICH"............

I've got a bridge to sell you.

a) it's not income, it's disposable income
b) the context of "richest" is the fifth quintile, which stretchs from £66k disposable income to whatever Gopi Hinduja has...

For instance, I’m one of the tallest in our family, but I’m not tall (imho); I’m 5’11", and my son is 6’4" - he’s tall.

Context is all…

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Hugh

a) it's not income, it's disposable income
b) the context of "richest" is the fifth quintile, which stretchs from £66k disposable income to whatever Gopi Hinduja has...

For instance, I’m one of the tallest in our family, but I’m not tall (imho); I’m 5’11", and my son is 6’4" - he’s tall.

Context is all…

You also need to extend/clarify the definition of income to include increases in wealth. You can have people who have modest incomes, as most people define the term but have significant increases in personal wealth from their various asset classes e.g. property, etc. An extreme example of this is a person who owns, outright, a number of rented properties worth millions each appreciating (on average) over time yet has a low tax obligation via tax avoidance vehicles like property investment companies.

The bottom line is that our tax regime has been designed specifically for the benefit of those who have the means to contribute at the levels needed yet are of the strong opinion that they should not do. It is a conversation that needs to be had yet so many are scared to have it.

[Sephiroth]

Ian really does espouse the politics of envy, which are falsely grounded.

What free ride have people enjoyed from sending their kids to private school? They’ve shelled out for that education and relieved the state of the burden for educating them. A fair qui pro quo to any reasonable person.

The state gets the free ride.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Ian really does espouse the politics of envy, which are falsely grounded.

What free ride have people enjoyed from sending their kids to private school? They’ve shelled out for that education and relieved the state of the burden for educating them. A fair qui pro quo to any reasonable person.

The state gets the free ride.

Which says a fair bit more about your extreme libertarian dog-eat-dog mentality than you probably intended.

The logic of your position is that all of us only pay for what we use, or perhaps if we at least accept the necessity of taxes we should go looking for discounts where we can show there are services we don’t use. My neighbours where I grew up never had children at all and thus gave the state a free ride. Should they have had VAT back on something else by way of compensation?

VAT exemption (which is what Labour is now proposing to remove, it seemingly being legally more straightforward than removal of charitable status) is typically granted on products and services that are essentials and most definitely not luxuries. As a universal eduction is available in this country a private education is a luxury service and there is no justification not to tax it.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Ian really does espouse the politics of envy, which are falsely grounded.

What free ride have people enjoyed from sending their kids to private school? They’ve shelled out for that education and relieved the state of the burden for educating them. A fair qui pro quo to any reasonable person.

The state gets the free ride.

Again, more rubbish. We sent both of our children to private schools for most of their primary & secondary education.

If I had that time again, I am unsure if I would do the same again but that is more about how that sector is now more about selling the golden path through our society to those who will pay the most. Their investment and obligation to society as a whole is much diminished today.

[Ms NTL]

what's the different between joint tenants and common tenants in a property. The financial implications of it.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Ms NTL

what's the different between joint tenants and common tenants in a property. The financial implications of it.

https://www.gov.uk/joint-property-ownership

Explains it very well, imo.

[1andrew1]

Certainly an interesting time for Sunak. Underpinning it all is that taxes are at all an all-time record of 37% of income and are likely to stay high. Hunt has been making job cut pledges hemust know are unrealistic in order to get an easy ride at Conference. The UK civil service had to expand significantly as a result of Brexit, one reason why many civil servants told me they were voting for it!

It will be interesting to see how Starmer reacts to policy u-turns like HS2. Will he create some space between the two parties by reversing the decision or will he follow Sunak's lead. It will be trickier for him with key lord mayors like Andy Burnham, tipped as a future Labour leader, looking over his shoulder.

h/t @M_H_Taylor

BREAKING. Draft exam questions for Sunak’s new maths qualification have leaked:

“If a person has seven bins, and pays no tax on meat, how long will he spend on a bus replacement service between Manchester and Birmingham?”

[Ms NTL]

Akshata Murthy for deputy PM? She makes more than Rishi --daddy's money.

I said it before Carrie Numnuts was a good deputy PM and Dylan should have replaced Larry the cat long time ago.

This is the level of the British government at the moment.

[Mr K]

Tbh I'm not against the smoking plan but it does seem very difficult to enforce, unless we're all going to have id cards. Retailers will love it...
They all smoke something different these days anyway.

[ianch99]

The funny part about the Smoking plan is that it will not win them any votes and may lose them some. The young, the people he is impacting, will not be voting Tory. A recent YouGov poll put 1% of 18-24 year olds intending to vote Tory at next GE. The older generations who are more likely to smoke anyway would be neutral at best.

The funny part is that the Tories have always claimed to be the party of the "small state" and against the "Nanny State", etc. and here we are