Westminster Politics 2024-2029
- Thread starter Pexbo
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Jamie (@Vault Dweller) review both the Everton and Bodø/Glimt victories at Old Trafford. Listen to the guys discuss 2 wins and 7 goals in the last week, analyse of the Amorim formation, focus on Amad and how he is playing, and also take a look at Hojlund, Rashford & Zirkzee – who starts v Arsenal?
That or like @Jippy said, move somewhere low tax for a while.
It's not pleasant that's for sure. Especially when I feel I'm getting almost 0 value from the UK state for the taxes paid. I pay for everything privately (transport, housing, childcare, healthcare, pension)
If you put everything into pensions, you can’t access them until you retire? The problem is that most people like me need the cash now for families and as others have mentioned, the taxes aren’t paying for the services they are supposed to so you have to look at more private stuff.
You do then really have to think about any pay rises you get because you could be worse off and get out of thresholds for other things.
yeah i feel the same way. the only thing i have taken back was the 30 hours free childcare from the age of 3 for both of my kids. that only got them mon-wed free each week, and we had just over two years of paying full whack beforehand. we still spent nearly £100,000 on nursery fees just for the privilege of my wife taking home about £150,000 in the same time frame. we only did that because of how hard she’d find coming back to the same level job after having to take 7 years out to get the kids to school age. the real fecking to have kids only takes place after you’ve had them in the uk.
you can’t access them until 55, and totally agree at lower salaries, you need the money now and not in 20/30 years time. but if you’re already taking home £5.7k a month, is £6k a month instead going to revolutionise your life? or is it better to put the full £800 a month into your pension? you do that over 20 years and get an 8% return, that loss of £300 a month (that you didn’t have to play with the month before) equates to £322,000 in your pension.
if you took the £300 a month and saved it yourself, it would only be worth £122,000 at 8%. in any case, it’s far more likely you’ll just spunk the £300 on deliveroo or ivory back scratchers and have nothing extra after 20 years. if you’ve got nursery fees or high interest loans etc, it probably makes sense to take the extra £300 to help tackle those, but in the majority of cases, a pension always wins. it’s also exempt from inheritance tax, which is a bonus.
it sucks that in the uk it’s been pensions and latterly property that have been the only way for the common man to save anything meaningful for retirement.
I agree with what you are saying, but the US has higher taxes than everytone thinks.
If you live in new york, you pay federal, state AND local income tax, plus payroll deductions too. But the kicker is the wealth tax.
Property taxes are circa 1% of the property value, every year. That can become a big number, very easily.
Its still less than we pay here, but the gap isn't as big as it seems.
I can second that, taxes in the US are not always as low as you think, a lot can depend on which area of the country you live in, but a basic rule of thumb is that the lower the taxes the lesser the services provided by the state/city, another consideration is the cost of health insurance, technically you can do without it, but in reality everyone needs it at some point, otherwise you'd be the healthiest person that every lived, and given the crap they put in food here I don't think that would be possible!
The government says they provide 15 hours of free childcare. 30hrs in some cases, if both parents are working and their individual income is not above 100k. We're not eligible for 30 because of the latter clause.
However, the "free hours" are not free because their contribution is capped at £6 per hour. In London, the average hourly rate is £10-12. We pay £11. So the government covers 55% of the cost for 15 hours. While we use 50hrs per week. Long story short, the government only covers only 16.5% of our total cost. The total cost is £1,892 pcm and the government pays £312 of that, leaving us with £1580 to pay every month.
At two kids, you're basically better off paying for a full-time nanny. Because to pay £3.1k every month, is basically to sacrifice a £47k gross salary. And if you want more kids, you better space them out better or the missus becomes a SAHM.
you’re eligible if you salary sacrifice into your pension to bring you under the £100k threshold.
Last edited:
He's usually good at being reliable so surprised if he has got this wrong.
He's used the wrong table but corrected it and pointed out that for married couples the exemption will work out higher.
Dan Neidle is great!
For those old enough to remember, how does the reaction to this Budget compare to reactions to previous Labour budgets? Particularly the first few under Blair.
He (and everyone I have read on twitter) is still actually slightly wrong on this.
I think he's correct that it's the usual nil rate bands*, plus £1m agricultural relief per spouse. However, this would only be if the first spouse to die leaves their share to their children, claiming their own nil rate bands, and their £1m agricultural relief. The surviving spouse would then use their nil rate bands and their £1m agricultural relief on their passing. It wouldn't quite work if the first spouse to die gives their share to the surviving spouse. If they were to leave their share to the surviving spouse, then that would be covered by spouse exemption, and then the surviving spouse would pass the full value to the children when they die, but although they could transfer the first spouse's NRB and TNRB, they would only have their £1m agricultural relief, not theirs and their spouses (source). But if they do it correct, then between them a couple could potentially leave £3m free of IHT. However, this method might not be possible - if assets are owned as joint tenants, rather than tenants in common - the former would mean the assets pass by survivorship to the surviving spouse regardless of what the will says. And HMRC would likely pursue that. Some wills will need to be re-written, and joint tenancies severed. It's fair to say many farmers likely won't get their affairs in order, and wouldn't be able to claim the £1m agricultural relief for each spouse. I think they might be able to adjust the will after death, but I don't know if they could change ownership from joint tenants to tenants in common after death (I guess not?). It does seem a bit unfair that unused agricultural relief can't be transferred to the surviving spouse like NRB and RNRB are - as ultimately it will just punish people who don't prepare their finances in advance, which are generally those with less income to spend on a financial advisor.
*The other thing is taper on RNRB, and I haven't seen anyone get this right. Currently, everyone is entitled to £325k NRB, plus upto £175k RNRB. However, the RNRB is impacted by the taper threshold. This has been £2m for years. So, if an estate is over £2m before exemptions, then they lose RNRB to the tune of £1 for every £2 over £2m. Therefore, if a single farmer has a farm worth £2.1m, then he wouldn't have 325k NRB + 175k RNRB + 1m agricultural relief, they would only have 325k NRB + 125k RNRB + 1m agricultural relief. Interestingly though, the taper threshold is due to increase from 27/28 onwards.
If a couple own a £5m farm, as joint tenants, and the surviving spouse inherits from the passing spouse first, then they will only have 325k NRB + 325k TNRB + 1m agricultural relief, completely losing the RNRB and the 2nd 1m agricultural relief, resulting in a £670k tax bill (assuming no change in thresholds between first and second death). If instead, the farm is owned as tenants in common and the first spouse leaves their £2.5m share to their children, then they will have 325k NRB + 1m agricultural relief, but no TNRB, resulting in a 235k tax bill on the passing of the first spouse, and the surviving spouse would then have the same reliefs and same tax bill (unless NRB increased between deaths or change in farm value). If the estate is £4m, then the first method would result in 650k NRB/TNRB + 1m agricultural relief (470k tax) whereas the second method, they would have 650k NRB, plus 350k RNRB + 2m agricultural relief (200k tax).
I think I should set up an estate planning business for farmers. They are the big winners here. The feckers even charge a % of the estate value in some cases. Also, the kids should just sell up, bank several million and make a much higher return than they would retaining the farm (especially if they have to pay interest on the tax bill either by paying by installments or taking out a loan to pay it off). I don't see why people are so up in arms about this, other than seemingly a conspiracy theory that this is in order for the government and/or Bill Gates to buy up all the farms and make us eat bugs.
Last edited:
Tbe focus on this is going to increase after the Budget. This is leading the Times today.
If the figure is right, that's a real millstone on economic growth.
Not 100% clear whete the figure idls from. It says 'spending watchdog' and references the OBR, but I'd have the watchdog as the NAO.
If the figure is right, that's a real millstone on economic growth.
Not 100% clear whete the figure idls from. It says 'spending watchdog' and references the OBR, but I'd have the watchdog as the NAO.
UK benefits bill: Half of claims will be for sickness by 2029
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politic...claims-will-be-for-sickness-by-2029-2g9lm32wz
Meanwhile...
David Goldstone to advise chancellor and chief secretary to the Treasury on ways to cut public spending
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...w-value-for-money-office-to-be-paid-950-a-day
Head of government’s new value for money office ‘to be paid £950 a day’
David Goldstone to advise chancellor and chief secretary to the Treasury on ways to cut public spending
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...w-value-for-money-office-to-be-paid-950-a-day
There is no story here though. He's working one day a week. If you want people with expertise to do consulting like that, they want a high day rate. You'd expect what he gets paid to be dwarfed compared with what he delivers.
So assuming it’s much more lucrative for farmers to sell up, who are they going to sell the farms to and what will that do to food production in the country?
That’s what my time gets charged at for software development. I obviously only receive a percentage of that personally but it doesn’t seem excessive for a high level government consultant. I’d assume it’s being charged to his firm which then have their own overheads including covering those working underneath him?
Most likely farming conglomerates who will create US style mega farms with associated animal welfare. Or hobby farmers who produce very little. Either way not great for our food supply.
Badly, but we didn't have all pervasive and instant media at that time. It only started to go wrong for Labour towards the end and the recession was the final straw.
More borrowing, low growth forecasts and unconvincing tax rises don't make for a compelling investment proposition.
I don't know.
Some billionaires have been investing in farmland - James Dyson, Bill Gates. I don't know if I should care about that or not. On one hand, the image of family farms is very appealing, but I don't know if it should be different from any other business. If big corporations can run farms more efficiently/profitably, is that bad in general? For the consumer, does it result in more affordable produce? Should people be concerned about big corporates monopolising the farming industry? If so, why?
Maybe some farms would be purchased by developers who want to convert it for other purposes. This would presumably mean food consumption in the UK would be more reliant on foreign production. Again - I am unsure if I should care or not. If it's cheaper to produce overseas and import, what is the negative? I suppose supply chains could be hit by natural disasters or war, but then that's the same for everything. We import many resources and goods. Why is food different?
These are all genuine questions, I don't know I just don't see it being discussed at all - the narrative seems to be that it's unquestionably good and proper to preserve traditional family farms, but I don't know why. It seems nice, but isn't this just modernisation? I do struggle to see it as "poor farmers" though. They're sitting on millions of pounds of assets. That's generational wealth. Stick it in secure investments and they are set for generations.
This sounds like a budget which is taxing the rich. Won't affect me.
Also I'm glad buy to lets are being squeezed. We need less landlords and more affordable housing. This scam is whats put rents and property prices through the roof.
Also I'm glad buy to lets are being squeezed. We need less landlords and more affordable housing. This scam is whats put rents and property prices through the roof.
You pretty much answer thst part yourself. You want some security over the supply of staples like food.
A couple of years ago you had drought in Spain that caused veg shortages and huge price hikes and you saw the impact Covid had on supply chains. You want to be able to provide a decent percentage of your own needs.
As others have said, a lot of farms operate on small margins and are exposed to risks like adverse weather and disease. It's an occupation with a high suicide rate - financial stress, long hours, loneliness and access to guns.
Farmland is generally worth way less than urban land with planning permission.
It's almost like the UK workforce is significantly older than it was a decade ago with more and more working into their 60s.
The problem with those type of articles is they don't attempt to do any analysis or set any context, it's just sensationalism shouting a big number. We compare favourably to most EU and G7 nations, although that probably will change by the end of the decade.
The rise in those claiming sickness benefits is across all age categories, not just older workers.
We don't compare well to the EU, certainly measured by economic inactivity due to sickness.
https://www.bcg.com/united-kingdom/...of-long-term-sickness-and-economic-inactivity
We are the only country in the G7 whose inactivity level hasn't yet recovered to pre pandemic levels. Inactivity being mostly sickness and students.
Yeah, I get the potential supply chain issues. But to really understand the risk of that, I would need a detailed analysis of production levels and how these changes impact that. If farms sub £2-3m are unimpacted by these tax changes, and can carrying on producing in the same way, but family farms in the value of £4-10m are impacted, and a certain % of those are sold, and a certain % of those are sold to big farming businesses, and the rest to non farming developments, what is the overall reduction to food production. This could in turn by mitigated by regulations requiring a % of farmland to be retained for farming purposes only. I'm sure these analyses do exist, however what irks me is that the public discourse isn't even remotely touching on it. It's just broad statements and emotional rhetoric which appear to me more motivated by political agenda and class identity.
I also think the fact the farming is a stressful, difficult and not very profitable profession is even more reason for the offspring to be selling up. If someone inherited any other business that was asset rich but not very profitable, difficult and time consuming to maintain and resulting in high levels of depression and suicide, they would be ecstatic to sell. I just don't get it from the farmer's perspective. They have a choice, and it's a choice that would be an enviable one for the vast majority of people - because one of the options is generational wealth and none of the stresses of farming. I just can't find myself to sympathise with stories of "I'm forced to sell my estate worth several million".
I'm sure there's all sorts of emotion involved, wanting to retain a family legacy, fear of change, lack of direction or comfort outside of the world they have known their whole lives. But rationally - what am I missing?
Farmers aren't just sat on assets worth 'several million', they typically have stacks of financing to fund that's paying for the massive capital investments in machinery, crops, livestock etc...
Plenty of them actually enjoy the work and it's all they know how to do, even if it would be more lucrative to retrain as a software engineer.
Maybe you'd prefer our farms all being run by BlackRock or a small cabal of megacorps who can jack up prices at will. Do you only shop at Tesco cos it's cheaper than the local baker and eat out at McDonald's?
Trend data might be of some interest and discussion but it's still cherry picked data that the likes of the Times use to make the situation seem worse. Our overall inactivity isn't an outlier and that's far more relevant even if it's trending the wrong way post pandemic. Focusing on the specific reason of long term sick is even a bit misleading as the ONS called out:
"More than two thirds of those who became economically inactive because of long-term sickness were already inactive for another reason"
As for age groups it's gone up in every cohort but it's gone up volume wise most significantly in the 55-65 group (no surprise). That group accounts for more than all others combined and given the UK median age increases year on year it's going to trend one way.
The retirement age is going to be a big factor in sickness claimants. If you're of retirement age you can't claim sickness so naturally when the age has gone from 60 for women to the planned 68 it's going to be a considerable number of additional long term sickness claimants.
The NHS backlog has already been discussed as a leading cause but I reckon without any evidence to back it up that the employee tribunal backlog is also causing an increase.
None of the above context would ever get discussed in a Times standard attack on the workshy welfare state though.
Well IHT is based on the net value so if they have unpaid capital loans it will reduce the chargeable estate value and mitigate the tax, so it's not really relevant to these tax changes.
Yes - they enjoy the work and it's what they know - that's an important point. However, whenever tax breaks are mentioned, suddenly it's a portrayed as a bleak job that they do because they have no other option, or they do it for the good of the nation rather than their own interest. It's an occupation like any other, and I don't think it should be afforded tax breaks because it's an enjoyable job, or because it's a lifestyle they are accustomed to.
I don't know in detail what the realistic pros and cons would be of farms being bought out by big corporations, that's why I have asked. I haven't stated a preference one way or the other. I think monopolization and the dangers of big corporations is a topic in and of itself. What I don't quite get is why this industry is different to any other in that regard?
Yes, I do tend to shop at big supermarkets 90% of the time because it's affordable and convenient. I like local shops, butchers, bakeries, farm stores etc, but it is a luxury I can't justify 90% of the time. But if the local bakery premises was worth several million, and was afforded industry specific tax breaks, I would question the purpose and merit of those tax breaks.
Again, I'm not decided on this matter. I just feel there's more to it but everyone seems to have their minds up based upon emotional rhetoric.
.
This is bad news for private landlords. Do you understand that?