Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

[Crab.C.Nesbitt]

Just wondering what Scara’s thoughts are of this piece of work:

Tory MP Mark Menzies suspended over alleged misuse of campaign funds

Fylde MP Mark Menzies strongly disputes claims he asked a party volunteer for £5,000 to pay "bad people".

www.bbc.co.uk

Urgent police investigation pending?

 

[Mikey10]

Exactly. I saw him interviewed and he refused to state what he thought she had done wrong, what crime she had committed. The police investigated this at the time and found no wrong doing. The latest investigation is clearly politically motivated. Michelle Mone says hello, with her MILLIONS of corruptly gained taxpayer pounds.

As does our tax avoiding/non-dom abusing billionaire PM, and the tax-avoiding/non-dom billionaire owner of the Daily Mail.

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

Exactly. I saw him interviewed and he refused to state what he thought she had done wrong, what crime she had committed. The police investigated this at the time and found no wrong doing. The latest investigation is clearly politically motivated. Michelle Mone says hello, with her MILLIONS of corruptly gained taxpayer pounds.

It's all pre-election run up.

 

[scaramanga]

What I’m saying is that she was more likely ignorant than intentionally breaking the law. I’d also say none of the allegations are proven and even if they are the legal jeopardy period has expired. On top of that her alleged misdoing is on a so much lesser scale than many many tories that the hypocrisy that comes with this witch hunt is off the scale.

It's incredibly unlikely that it was intentional.

She reregistered her children's addresses but kept herself on the electoral roll at her old house. It appears that she claimed single person's council tax rates at her old house, so she was actively pretending to still be there. She also claims to have taken tax advise on the sale - any professional would have told her that she had to be living in the house to avoid the tax.

All of that is by the by. When Johnson was being investigated, she was the one shouting that merely being investigated was enough for him to have to resign.

 

[Baleforce]

Completely by the by.

But how is it acceptable to be taxed on selling your house?

That should be put in the bin.

 

[glasgowspur]

Peter Murrell charged with embezzlement in SNP probe

The husband of Nicola Sturgeon had been re-arrested in connection with the SNP finances investigation.

www.bbc.co.uk

Might have taken long enough, but here you go.
Hopefully the missus will be next.

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

Completely by the by.

But how is it acceptable to be taxed on selling your house?

That should be put in the bin.

You're not on your main residence.

Anything else is considered an asset. Raises in value. Capital gains to pay. It's not a bad one considering the likely profile of holders of said assets.

 

[Diamond Lights]

What I’m saying is that she was more likely ignorant than intentionally breaking the law. I’d also say none of the allegations are proven and even if they are the legal jeopardy period has expired. On top of that her alleged misdoing is on a so much lesser scale than many many tories that the hypocrisy that comes with this witch hunt is off the scale.

If people are furious about Angela Rayner, wait til they hear the stories about nearly half the governing party of the country…

 

[Jurgen the German]

What I’m saying is that she was more likely ignorant than intentionally breaking the law. I’d also say none of the allegations are proven and even if they are the legal jeopardy period has expired. On top of that her alleged misdoing is on a so much lesser scale than many many tories that the hypocrisy that comes with this witch hunt is off the scale.

I think the problem lies with her calling for every Tory to be sacked. Gonna come back at you when you make a mistake, even if it is something quite minor.

 

[Baleforce]

You're not on your main residence.

Anything else is considered an asset. Raises in value. Capital gains to pay. It's not a bad one considering the likely profile of holders of said assets.

It's double dipping, "you" paid stamp duty on that asset when you bought it, paid a huge vig on your mortgage, "you've" put in.

I think I generally disagree with capital gains tax too.

 

[monkeybarry]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1485986345067634699

Interesting stance that people under investigation by the police should quit. Can we assume we'll be seeing the ginger halfwit's resignation some time soon?

If there a police investigation against a cabinet member that is likely to impact upon delivery of portfolio - yes. Although a suspension pending outcome, not quitting.

If/when Rayner is in office - yes.
Until she is - no. That's a decision for her constituency to make via a recall petition.

 

[monkeybarry]

It's double dipping, "you" paid stamp duty on that asset when you bought it, paid a huge vig on your mortgage, "you've" put in.

I think I generally disagree with capital gains tax too.

But would you have made those gains without the country in which you're selling existing? Your profit is a result of both your investment and, to a lesser degree, the investment by all tax payers.
Schools affect the profit you make. So do roads, sports facilities, localised economy, green spaces etc etc. That in part investment by all of us, ergo when you make said profit you need to reflect the part paid for by others.

 

[Baleforce]

But would you have made those gains without the country in which you're selling existing? Your profit is a result of both your investment and, to a lesser degree, the investment by all tax payers.
Schools affect the profit you make. So do roads, sports facilities, localised economy, green spaces etc etc. That in part investment by all of us, ergo when you make said profit you need to reflect the part paid for by others.

That would be fine if you got subsidised when the reverse happens.

Also, you’ve paid the tax that paid for those infrastructure improvements.

And, the house is being sold on, bringing in a higher stamp duty payment than last time.

Beaks are wet on both sides of the transaction.

 

[monkeybarry]

That would be fine if you got subsidised when the reverse happens.

Also, you’ve paid the tax that paid for those infrastructure improvements.

And, the house is being sold on, bringing in a higher stamp duty payment than last time.

Beaks are wet on both sides of the transaction.

That first point is really interesting! Taking that one away to challenge my own views on some things.

Bold - very fair point. And isn't this the crux of the point; capital gains is a form of income produced. That starts with the structure of the state (like the existence and commercial conditions of any business) and ultimately, for individuals, ends at offering of labour for remuneration. That remuneration is taxed to reflect it's part within the whole of society Vs the individuals part in doing in, at appx 3:1 (std rate). There is an argument that a bottom threshold at 0% for capital gains tax should exist, much like there is for income tax - I'd go with that. (Maybe there is? I've never experienced capital gains!!)

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

That would be fine if you got subsidised when the reverse happens.

Also, you’ve paid the tax that paid for those infrastructure improvements.

And, the house is being sold on, bringing in a higher stamp duty payment than last time.

Beaks are wet on both sides of the transaction.

That first point is really interesting! Taking that one away to challenge my own views on some things.

Bold - very fair point. And isn't this the crux of the point; capital gains is a form of income produced. That starts with the structure of the state (like the existence and commercial conditions of any business) and ultimately, for individuals, ends at offering of labour for remuneration. That remuneration is taxed to reflect it's part within the whole of society Vs the individuals part in doing in, at appx 3:1 (std rate). There is an argument that a bottom threshold at 0% for capital gains tax should exist, much like there is for income tax - I'd go with that. (Maybe there is? I've never experienced capital gains!!)

They have just tapered down the CGT allowance over the last 2/3 years from 12k-6k-3k. So you can't gain much before you start paying tax

@Baleforce . What do you actually mean when you say 'subsidised when the reverse happens' ...if you're saying when you make a loss on an asset, then that loss can be set against any gains and carried forward indefinitely if not used.

I don't have a problem with CGT tax as it's mostly effecting people with assets extra to their main residence and isa's (the common CGT exempt investment vehicle), so indirectly is on the side of balancing up wealth inequality.

Stamp duty is harsh these days given the price of property. (Such a big moving cost). Inheritance tax is just the final insult. The threshold for that should be at least £1m.

 

[Baleforce]

They have just tapered down the CGT allowance over the last 2/3 years from 12k-6k-3k. So you can't gain much before you start paying tax

@Baleforce . What do you actually mean when you say 'subsidised when the reverse happens' ...if you're saying when you make a loss on an asset, then that loss can be set against any gains and carried forward indefinitely if not used.

I don't have a problem with CGT tax as it's mostly effecting people with assets extra to their main residence and isa's (the common CGT exempt investment vehicle), so indirectly is on the side of balancing up wealth inequality.

Stamp duty is harsh these days given the price of property. (Such a big moving cost). Inheritance tax is just the final insult. The threshold for that should be at least £1m.

I’m saying, that if you pay a cash sum for tax on profit, because you’ve benefitted from the wider infrastructure/economy when you sell your house, then you should also be compensated with a cash sum if your house price falls because of changes to the wider infrastructure/economy.

Also, the huge rises in house prices in the UK have largely been due to governments failure to provide enough new housing and local infrastructure.

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

I’m saying, that if you pay a cash sum for tax on profit, because you’ve benefitted from the wider infrastructure/economy when you sell your house, then you should also be compensated with a cash sum if your house price falls because of changes to the wider infrastructure/economy.

Also, the huge rises in house prices in the UK have largely been due to governments failure to provide enough new housing and local infrastructure.

It's a great idea to give asset rich people a cash sum even if they lose on their investment (a great leveller for wealth inequality rolls eyes). I've already said they can offset losses.

As for the second paragraph, there are many factors to house price rises that have greater influence than providing enough new builds (largely controlled by private sector) and local infrastructure improvements. But it's a long conversation.

 

[Baleforce]

It's a great idea to give asset rich people a cash sum even if they lose on their investment (a great leveller for wealth inequality rolls eyes). I've already said they can offset losses.

As for the second paragraph, there are many factors to house price rises that have greater influence than providing enough new builds (largely controlled by private sector) and local infrastructure improvements. But it's a long conversation.

It is a long conversation. But CGT seems to have been drawn up on the back of a fag packet.

It’s not just asset rich people affected like this clearly, and such systems shouldn’t take into account such things.

 

[SpurMeUp]

It's double dipping, "you" paid stamp duty on that asset when you bought it, paid a huge vig on your mortgage, "you've" put in.

I think I generally disagree with capital gains tax too.

If only she'd registered a company in the Cayman Islands, and had it buy the property.

 

[Craig_J]

All I know is in 2010 a party came to power promising that if we buckled our belts, accepted we were in hard times - then the economy would recover and we’d be back on our feet. That they were the ones to provide the stability we’d need.


15 years later the people in this country - having buckled their belts and accepting cuts in every arena that makes our society - are worse off than they were before.

If you cut every single public service at once and don’t invest anything at all for a generation you’ll find on the other end a society in decay. With a more expensive repair bill to fix all the rot then there would have been to simply maintain what was. Britain is in decay. Every public institution is worse off than it was before. I challenge anyone who disagrees to find a single part of society that’s now better than it was in 2010.


Local councils are cut, doctor and hospitals waiting times are through the roof, there’s not enough police to patrol, there’s not enough community centres to facilitate any sense of community. Prices are more expensive than they have ever been. For food, water, electricity, transport, housing.

All that suffering could be (very, very debatably and only through a Scara ethics lens) permissible if the promise the government made was achieved. To create growth.

It did not. It has not. It will never.

Austerity doesn’t work. It’s a failed project. Austerity doesn’t create growth. It is anti-growth in every sense of the word.

You need investment to grow. A business doesn't grow without investment. A plant doesn't grow without water. You can't deduct from everything and expect a return.

But we can at least rejoice that in 9 months from now the government that's stagnated the economy, destroyed our international standing - all the while putting the most disadvantaged through needless harm - will be out the door.

NINE MORE MONTHS.

Then the biggest repair job our country has faced in 3/4 of a century can begin.