91热爆

Vince Cable did an interview with Jon Snow on Ch4 News earlier and it would appear that he has now woke up to the fact that the 2008 Climate Change Act is already causing energy intensive industry to close. It came out yesterday in the HoC debate that RTZ is closing its UK aluminium smelting operations, Tata steel staff taking a 50% pay cut to keep their jobs. Not heard any more about LandRoverJaguar building their new engine plant at Wolverhampton either, but perhaps like Nissan today. they must know that the climate scam is coming to a close. I suspect that to save face that they will propose tax relief for the corporates, but if doesn't include all energy dependent business then it may be unlawful under EU rules. I believe that Vince Cable as already come out against the proposed Carbon Floor Price, but they shut him up pretty quick, perhaps when he realised it was against his own party's policy.

WHEN YOU HAVE DELIVERED YOUR COUNTRY UP TO A DESPOT'S WAR - YOU CAN GET NO LOWER (#1 link 2)

I am still genuinely puzzled that IDS is not known as the (brief) 'leader' of the Conservative Party, who granted Tiny Tony his war, in the face of massive Labour revolt, and LibDem abstention. After that piece of demon-driven 'mummy - look at me', nothing will ever register on my crapometer where IDS is concerned.

NN 鈥樷��.we look at whether it is wealth or income which should be taxed.鈥�

After the blunders of knee-jerk tax changes, like Brown鈥檚 10p rate removal and now child benefit payments (where total household income is more critical than the number of children) it would seem more realistic to tax on the basis of 鈥榚vidence of ability to pay鈥� rather than on earnings. The same cliff-edge syndrome and potential avoidance schemes could make a mansion tax unworkable or at least unfair.

Sticking to a Wealth Evidence of Ability to Pay (WEAP in place of PAYE) instead of a Mansion Tax the present council tax banding system should be amended as it provides too few bands and too small a tax differential between the minimum and maximum payment bands. A revised system based on current resale prices should result in those able to afford high-value properties (several, in the case of ex-PMs, Ministers and MPs) being clearly able to contribute a higher rate of tax.

This could be extended to other conspicuous indicators of wealth, such as the increase in sales of luxury cars, private jets and yachts. Whilst this may be regarded as an envy tax, with more and more punishment for the lowly, humble and disabled, isn鈥檛 it time we pointed the finger at ostentatious greed?

So - the Lib-Dems are preparing to surrender to the Tories on the 50p tax rate, in exchange for "concessions" which will be so watered down as to be irrelevant.

I remember the days of supertax, full employment and a nation much more at peace with itself.

Back to Mr Cable. The Lib-Dems are obviously using the bonobo method of conflict resolution with the Tories, albeit as the submissives!

Jacob Rees-Mogg is right on the debate about the proposed tax on homes. A lot of pensioners would struggle with paying tax on their houses :(
Rees-Mogg & Allsopp 1 - Montgomerie 0

isnt the fairest tax an increase in VAT?
Surely easier and fairer than trying to implement a new mansion tax?

Top notch interview by Jeremy with Olson :)

I am disgusted at the failure of the 91热爆 to show up the utter immorality of the very concept of taxing any asset.

The home tax is only a spite tax it has no other basis.

Assets, none of them can ever ever be taxed. It is utterly wrong and immoral. This is not difficult it is basic decency.

The principle is the issue not expediency to 'get at' those you dislike.

You think taxing wealth, assets, is in any way acceptable justify taxing everyone's cash savings as well as the interest it earns. Tax the mere possession of shares, a classic car.

Let alone the practical issue of valuing everything. When is the value to count? When the tax point? BP shares value before the oil spill or after? Or bank shares before the crash or now? Week of purchase value. monthly? Annually by calendar or from purchase.


Under no circumstances is taxing any asset ever acceptable or logical. That you have a pet economist who has no morals and will support it has no more relevance than the backing of an astrologer, they are equivalents.

It is clearly the general nastiness of the political class in that they are probably 'just' game playing. Sleazy nasty horse trading for their personal advantage and the harm of decency and the nation. When any of them can suggest such a disgusting immoral concept without even any attempt to justify the foul principle other than spite, and not many votes will be lost by it. We see how they deliberately degrade the honesty and decency of the nation. Me first, my job, my expenses, my power and position, and to hell with principles and decency if they get in the way.

Outstanding interview by Jeremy with Fortia.
Amnesty International stated that 10/11 places had torture.... Fortia's argument that the families of prisoners would complain if it was true is ridiculous.
"Pictures of people tortured on the internet are all fake are they?"
So much for "liberated" Libya.

I find it particularly Corporate/Fascist for someone to even suggest that people who survive on relatively low incomes ( now that low interest rates make cash savings almost worthless ) should be forced to buy into the stock market for equity release on their home. There is no doubt that the council tax banding system needs reform but any new banding valuation should only occur when the house is actually sold to a new owner, then new high bands or revaluation could be at least fairer, no need for an expensive national survey ?

There are at least two ways in which 'asset rich, cash poor' people can fund an annual tax on a given property :

a) an annual charge is put on the property, which is only realised when the property is sold

b) an equity release mortgage is taken against the property, and drawn down each year by the amount of the charge

Without wishing to seem uncharitable to extremely wealthy people, this blogger detected huge amounts of self-interest in the responses of Kirsty Allsop and Jacob Rees-Mogg to the question of the so-called mansion tax.

Which 'nice' Tory Tim Mongomery tried to ameliorate by stating that the concern of the party had to be towards less well orf people.

Not remotely convinced when the front bench has twenty-two multi-millionaires, who will instinctively look after their own cohort first.

Choosing to visit Sirte in Libya practically guaranteed the sort of piece that was duly delivered. It says more about the Newsnight producers than anything else.

I feel sure that if an Australian news reporter had been sent to Libya, the report would have been full of all the achievements that the Libyans have made in such a short time since they overthrew the dictator.

The media here seem fixated on negative stories, which is not at all healthy.

Why did NN have someone who clearly has a vested interest in ramping property prices on tonight?

Why not have someone from housepricecrash on everytime you feel obliged to have her on? Wouldn't that be fair? Balanced?

Everytime there is a property item on 91热爆 News the 91热爆 wheel on an estate agent or someone else with a vested interest in ramping property prices for goodness sake? At least make an effort to have a counter argument!

TAX: MONEY TAKEN FROM THE PEOPLE BY A TYRANNY AND USED (INEPTLY) TO BRIBE THEM INTO ENDORSING A FURTHER TERM OF POWER (#10)

As previously asserted: Dave's credo is: "Don't bother me with what I can do for your country, just be pleased to fund what your country can do for ME!"
"Then - like Tony before me - I shall be off to delusional greatness."

13.At 23:52 6th Mar 2012, JohnConstable

I have no property let alone the 2 million value, yet even I can understand it it fundamentally wrong to tax any asset. I am the so called poor. As for your unpleasant methods of getting round one of the practical impossibilities of the concept, they are unacceptable. Sharks capital release schemes or taxing death where the delay makes it pointless anyway.

In effect it is yet another way to penalise good saving solvent behaviours and encouraging wasteful spendthrift ones. As mere possession of saved up assets is enough of a crime to the wasters to have them taken from you, slice by slice.

The rationale behind taxing assets is that they generate income over time. If this mansion happens to be someone's home for many years and it is solely for residential purpose, I think it is rather unfair to tax the person an extra 5K a year for the simple reason that it is a bigger house.

Politicians often tell us the older generations have become wealthier due to rise in house prices. This is very misleading, as the majority of home owners don鈥檛 own second homes and therefore can never materialize that profit.

Whats the difference between a lone parent, low income family, being kicked out of their home cause they are deemed undeserving poor and someone who owns a 2,000,000 pound house?

Answer;
The poor will always be seen as undeserving.

Anyone living in a 2 million quid house and is worried about money are living beyond their means. Sell it, downsize, just like the undeserving poor are being forced to. You might have to live next door to some bugger who ain't got a BMW but I'm sure you'll get used to it.

Sorry, I forgot, there ain't any undeserving rich people is there.

INDUSTRIAL POLICY?

I admit I don't like Evan Davis much, but he did provide an extraordinarily good interview of Steve Brittan - managing director of BSA machine tools and vice-president of the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce this morning on how the UK can possibly find its way out of the economic mess and rebalancing of the economy away from financial services. Both Davis and Brittan nailed it.

You can hear the interview here...


Please listen to it.

"In a leaked letter, Business Secretary Vince Cable has said that the government lacks "a compelling vision" for the UK's economic policy.

Steve Brittan, managing director of BSA machine tools and vice-president of the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce, told the Today programme's Evan Davis that he agreed with Mr Cable and that "things are not moving fast enough" despite the "right things being said".

Mr Brittan also supported the idea, floated by Cable in the letter, of breaking up the Royal bank of Scotland in order to create a British business bank, saying the concept was "spot on"."

Gosbank anyone!


Of course, this idea would be anathema to our libertarian, free-market anarchist system of "democracy" in this country. The ConDemLab Westminster cabal would rather watch the working people of this country be annihilated before countenancing such an idea.

Just watch this suggestion be drop-kicked into the the long grass and into oblivion.

POLITICS AS AN END IN ITSELF - THE WESTMINSTER ETHOS. WILL IT EVER END? (#21)

WE are a rogue state - adjunct to America - run as a tyranny, and headed by a sequence of self-absorbed, delusional, demon-driven, despots.

In that one terrible respect, WE ARE ALL IN IT TOGETHER. While the Westminster ethos endures, PRE-SELECTING AND EMBRACING ITS OWN SPAWN, adjustments to banking, manufacturing or SUBORDINATE ENTERPRISES, of any description, WILL NOT IMPROVE THE LOT OF THE "99%". WE HAVE A CULTURAL PROBLEM.

But decades of Westminster Chicanery (by accident or design?) have reduced the masses to effete, sleepwalking conformity; conformity to D MOCK CRASS Y in the dumb belief it is DEMOCRACY UNDER THE RULE OF LAW!!!!!!!

Will Leveson stir their liquidised, mush brains? Will Chilcot? (If it ever sees the light of day.) Will the inevitable realisation of the 9/11 Show, find one functioning synapse?

This country has become a fascinating study in human behaviour. It will certainly compliment the work of Milgram and Zimbardo. Sadly: they carried out controlled experiments THAT COULD BE BROUGHT TO A HALT. Westminster is OUT OF CONTROL. The English now suffer from Stockholm Syndrome; THEY ARE UNCONSCIOUSLY COLLUDING WITH THEIR CAPTORS AND TORMENTORS.

Oh - it's all going terribly well . . .

19.At 08:07 7th Mar 2012, funnyJoedunn

The whole world of difference is the undeserving poor it will not be their asset they own. There is no possible way taxing any asset is ever acceptable whether that be a small asset of the undeserving poor, or a billionaire
20.At 08:12 7th Mar 2012, funnyJoedunn

OK we get it, your basis and principles of life is spite, take from those who have saved, and waste their life's work on others who waste.

##Allegra Stratton has a report on on-going negotiations over proposed changes to planning regulations##

I despair of our corrupt political class. In hock to the greedy. Weasels more interested in Aurthur Daly sleazy deals with each other for self interests than the public good.

It is quite obvious and simple. There should be an outright ban on all green field housing development. As part of that probably a 95% tax on the gain in value from the granting public permissions to build. All that value belongs to the public purse not the land owner or developer. So at the first point of sale of any land with newly granted planning permission the tax should apply. This hopefully would stop anyone having a motive to sell green land for building purposes at all.

The future is of expensive fuels, commuting is not a way of the future, so all new housing has to be in towns on top of work, shops, and facilities.
Food is the real issue for us and the world, no sane person would permit building on land that can feed us.
Stop all immigration, and throw out all we can, after all even the 91热爆 found loads that wanted to go! It would be a start to solving our problems not pandering to developers and artificially created 'demand'.

AND WAR IS A FEUDAL STATE-SPORT AT OUR EXPENSE (#22)



BE VERY AWARE: WE HAVE GOT OURSELVES ANOTHER ONE

Plus ca change

#22 barrie

Good post barrie, BUT...

You mentioned...

"Will Leveson stir their liquidised, mush brains? Will Chilcot? (If it ever sees the light of day.) Will the inevitable realisation of the 9/11 Show, find one functioning synapse?"


WHOSE SYNAPSES?

Leveson is Jewish


Two of the five committee members of the Chilcot enquiry are Jewish and a third has significant interests in Iraq.


鈥渁nd was a foreign policy adviser to Tony Blair.鈥�

[
The Iraq Inquiry held an evidence session with Jonathan Powell on Monday 18th January 2010. In advance of this session, Professor Sir Lawrence Freedman sent the following letter to Sir John Chilcot (download letter here ) setting out clearly his contact (download contact memo here ) with Jonathan Powell and his involvement in the speech Tony Blair made in Chicago on 24th April 1999.]


鈥淕ilbert had once compared George W. Bush and Tony Blair, to Roosevelt and Churchill.[7]鈥�


鈥淗e is an advisor to JPMorgan Chase,[1] who have been chosen to operate the Trade Bank of Iraq, which will give banks access to the financial system of Iraq [6]. He was a special adviser to BP, which currently has major interests in Iraq.鈥�

And one of the two advisors to the committee is Jewish.


鈥淏orn to a Jewish family in 1937 as Rosalyn Cohen, she married the politician Terence Higgins in 1961 (Sir Terence from 1993, Lord Higgins since 1997).[1]鈥�


Imagine if these people were all say, Anglo Chinese (same percentage of the UK population), wouldn't it all look a bit odd and provoke questions to be asked and suspicions to be raised?

Is there another game at play here?

Those that live by THE LIE collude with a group that are internationalist / cosmopolitan. It is not just WESTMINSTER CHICANERY.

APPRECIATED and APPRECIATED MUSE V. ALWAYS ANOTHER ARRAS BEHIND THE ARRAS (#26)

But is was "Brown of Westminster" who set up Chilcot, and "Dave of Westminster" who commissioned Leveson.

Assets

If assets can attract subsidy [ie 4 billion a year for millionaire landowners for owning land] then they can be taxed as well?

Planning?
In a free market? Maybe our planning should be a bit more chinese? They have an economic model that works?

The uk cannot get energy storage [we only have 11 days, europe has 120 days] because of planning which leaves us at the mercy of the spot price for gas and oil.

Empire
Never have so many been told so little. I couldn't watch episode 2. worst sort of bbc.

#23 JamesStGeorge wrote
鈥楾here is no possible way taxing any asset is ever acceptable whether that be a small asset of the undeserving poor, or a billionaire鈥� Your repeated mantra lacks any attempt to support other than:- 鈥榠t is yet another way to penalise good saving solvent behaviours and encouraging wasteful spendthrift ones鈥� and 鈥極K we get it, your basis and principles of life is spite, take from those who have saved, and waste their life's work on others who waste.鈥�
You seem to suggest a dichotomy between:-
(A) 鈥榯hose who have worked and saved鈥� and (B) 鈥榯hose who waste and penalise having done neither.鈥� I suggest there is another growing category:
(C) those who through position and power have grown greedy and super-rich at the expense of both above groups.

The simple fact is that the economic situation will be felt by most and the target for reducing the huge deficit should be Group C. Group A are being punished by seeing their savings eroded by high inflation and Group B (which includes the undeserving and deserving poor and disabled) are being threatened with punishment by unemployment and removal of benefits, creating serious problems for our society.

Western societies have all been living beyond their means, and now developing nations aspire to these same unsustainable levels of indulgence. The government cry for 鈥榤ore growth鈥� risks returning to the same consumerism that caused the problem. Conspicuous expenditure should be the first target: luxury goods should bear a higher VAT rate and luxury housing should have higher council tax bands or stamp duty. The argument (advanced last night) that some may be property rich but cash poor, could also argue against them paying the present higher tax band!. Remortgaging and other solutions are available and in cases of real hardship individual appeals can be allowed: so also with withdrawal of child benefit .

We should all get used to consuming less 鈥� not essentials like food, but luxuries like holidays abroad (20 pages of cruises in the Daily Mail); stop having children that we cannot afford (child abuse); and stop overburdening our public services, health, roads and rail services, housing and unemployment level s by immigration of thousands who have made no contributions but claim all and sundry.

This is going off topic some but after reading this artical in the Daily Mail (a quality paper unlike the Guardian) I suddenly realised what caused the recession.

Women will try anything to keep their skin looking good...its also an all round antisceptic and it works on acne too. Its nice to know women are realising the need to save on beauty products, considering it was the fairer sex living off the credit cards for years and years and forcing their husbands to get into massive debt so they could have the house of their dreams and that they looked good with 拢500 skirts that were knocked up in malasia for 65pence..which caused the recession...its your fault ladies. Don't take that wrong but you need to be told that.

ANGRY TOFF DAVE SHOUTS (AT RUDDOCK) HOW HE HAD TO FILL OUT A DISABILITY ALLOWANCE FORM

Is it me?

IS IT A PLACEBO KEV (geddit?) #30

Dead man walking . . .

#31 barriesingleton wrote:

"ANGRY TOFF DAVE SHOUTS (AT RUDDOCK) HOW HE HAD TO FILL OUT A DISABILITY ALLOWANCE FORM

Is it me?"



Yeah!...why didn't he get one of his servants to do it?

JamesStGeorge @ 17

I have merely pointed out that there are at least two existing financial methods for extracting taxes from 'asset rich, cash poor' property owners, namely equity release via a mortgage or home reversion and, alternatively, applying an annual charge on a property (which I believe is already in place via some local English councils for property 'rates').

Therefore it is factually incorrect to state, as some have, that it is 'impossible' for this type of property owner to fund the so-called 'mansion tax'.

They can pay but are probably not so inclined, which is why the tax lexicon calls these taxes 'extractive'.

museV @ 33

I never listen/watch the knockabout stuff know as PM's questions but I'm guessing that this is what you are alluding too when you state that "ANGRY TOFF DAVE SHOUTS (AT RUDDOCK) HOW HE HAD TO FILL OUT A DISABILITY ALLOWANCE FORM".

Look, Dave and his chums whole schtick is to pretend to be 'one of us' so filling in a form of the sort that we would have to endure is part and parcel of the act.

Enough English people must be taken in by all of this, he says tiredly, because the Tories, along with Labour and the Lib-Dems still keep getting the votes, when they exist in a parallel universe known as Planet Westminster, where they don't really give a fig (tree).

9.At 13:13 7th Mar 2012, indignantindegene

Yes your (C) exists. The only reasonable way to deal with it is by ending the exploitation that they use, not a bludgeon stealing from any at all with any asset.
A classic example is th exploitation of copyright, privatised monopoly. Creating grossly distortionate 'reward' for inane and momentary effort. File sharing for personal use should be perfectly legal, as a minuscule curtailment of their greed. The same applies to all sports, free to air tv coverage should be a legal requirement, to curtail their 'rights' farming ending in grossly dispoportionate reward. Also the buy to let, or do up and profit spivs, need taxing out of this exploitation too. 50% tax on sale price of any house ever rented out, or if sold in under 10 years. Keep run down housing and the gains of doing it up for people doing it to live in their own home, letting prices drop, not for get rich quick spivs.

Yes group C need dealing with but it has to be specific, curtailing the WAY they get unacceptable disproportionate money. Trying on creating by stealth an immoral principle of taxing assets is not an acceptable or targeted enough way to do it.

Yes growth is a mirage and unrealistic. Also largely unrelated to wellbeing of people. Millions cut their own hair, recession; pay someone to do it, growth. It is daft. People are better of not paying others.
However it is utter lunacy to have higher rate spending taxes on luxury goods. Such good are predominately made by low paid craftsmen frequently here. Encouraging the fashionable need to own quality goods onto the excessively cash rich group (C) is the perfect redistribution system.

29.At 13:13 7th Mar 2012, indignantindegene Cont.
Yes council tax is the most hated of all taxes as it is based on an asset! Not ability to pay, or for some, the reason of services used. It is a total anachronism and wrong. Local tax we all know should be scrapped entirely. It only represents a small portion of local funding, all the rest comes from general national taxation. These systems have all the progressive elements and poor protection measures already in place. Central funding already has to be used to iron out variability in area capacity to fund locally as every area has differing capacity. Local taxes are plain stupid for national required services.


###We should all get used to consuming less 鈥� not essentials like food, but luxuries like holidays abroad (20 pages of cruises in the Daily Mail); stop having children that we cannot afford (child abuse); and stop overburdening our public services, health, roads and rail services, housing and unemployment level s by immigration of thousands ####

Absolutely right. In general public have grossly too high expectations, based solely on spending. That includes food too actually, or at least the silly over expensive way many eat. Eating out, holidays, drink, fashion clothing, shoes, gadgets, music, film. We are going to have to change. I already have, well was never part of it!

28.At 13:06 7th Mar 2012, jauntycyclist
There are no land owner subsidies. There are payments for doing things like wildlife friendly measures. As part of the need to maintain food production here. However whatever the payments are by all means debate what the actually are and for what and from who, the EU. It is utterly meaningless as an issue about the principle of taxing assets, which is utterly wrong.

Planning is corrupt, simple to solve as outlined above in #24.

#35 JohnConstable

It wasn't me that wrote ""ANGRY TOFF DAVE SHOUTS (AT RUDDOCK) HOW HE HAD TO FILL OUT A DISABILITY ALLOWANCE FORM".

It was barriesingleton @ #31

Re-read it again and tell me why you think barrie ended his post with "Is it me?"

/iplayer/episode/b01d94rm/Panorama_The_Money_Farmers/

34.At 13:41 7th Mar 2012, JohnConstable

Yes of course there are ways and means of effecting an immoral tax principle on people. Those ways are unreasonable, on top of there being no decent basis for any asset based tax. At least if it were a tax on painting they could cut off the respective percentages charged every year and send it to the tax man. Guess you would find that 'just' a way to get the asset out of them.

The end is absolutely unjustified, so the methods of achieving it in face of the practical difficulties are too.

You may like to consider house owners having to sell their remaining equity before being eligible for any state benefits too. Seems the same logical line.

38 haha

i remember you saying this years ago. it wasn't true then either

land ownership attracts subsidy of 4 billion a year mainly to millionaire landowners.



time for a land tax to get it back

42.At 14:54 7th Mar 2012, jauntycyclist
Yes you were wrong in the past and still have not learnt.

Big farms get bigger payments than small ones shocker! Hilarious were it not so prejudiced.

The EU pays farming subsidies. If our farmers do not take it the EU will steal more of our contributions and give it to foreigners. They changed from the old system that caused wine lakes, sugar mountains etc. to area payment linked to environmental maintenance hedgerow height, headlands etc. For farmers not all landowners or only millionaire ones, you are as always wrong. That is not to say such systems should not be under constant review. Especially to deal with sharp practice. We needed as I told you years ago to maintain land in food production, now we see why as world shortages become an issue, and export bans by places with grain in bad years. Hopefully rising prices and food shortage will mean we no longer need to subsidise farming here. However nothing must let production be reduced here, if it takes subsidy then it is a price we all pay for food security.

You show yourself up by your old refrain of taxing land. As an asset land may never be morally taxed. You show your pure spite based logic by the 'get it back' line. Never yours. Commons ownership always ends in an exploitative rush to tragedy.

Your interview on the mansion tax was packed solely with vested interests and right wing Tory toffs in favour of the mansion tax.

Why?

Are you now chief cheerleaders for Cameron's far-right Thatcherite programme, which is using austerity to dismantle and privatise the welfare state under your noses? And with no mandate.

Is anything Jacob Rees-Mogg, an investment banker with NM Rothschild who has declared earnings of 拢11,000+ for 30 hours work, of any interest or relevance to the 99% of us, and was he asked to declare his vested interests in the mansion tax policy?

The Welfare Reform Bill's going through today.

Will you be covering the inhumane suffering it's causing vulnerable people who don't earn 拢11,000 in 30 hours but find themselves dependant on the nightmare that is Cameron's 'welfare' programme? Or is this little bit of reality too chavvy for you? And no doubt Rothschilds don't brief on it.

I'm finding your insular, often lazy coverage of important issues increasingly irritating. But some info for you on the real world out there is here:

musev @ 39

I am not very good at mind-reading, however I would hazard a guess that our blogger BarrieSingleton was utterly baffled as to why multi-millionaire David Cameron decided to claim a disability allowance, when he, Cameron, patently did not need the money.

#46 JC

I believe you may be correct.

Yet when DC said what he said in the House today about filling out the forms, not a single word was said in response, on either of the benches, to question the motives of what DC indignantly proclaimed.

In the words of barrie.....is it me (us)?

Ruddock knew exactly what she was doing and successfully riled the toff.