Really? In a country with an almost complete apathy about religion, I find that highly unlikely. If such parties do emerge, they'll be tiny, and mainly irrelevant, maybe having an influence in some inner cities.....but that's all.
UKIP win Clacton by-election by a landslide
- Thread starter MikeG
- Start date
Really? In a country with an almost complete apathy about religion, I find that highly unlikely. If such parties do emerge, they'll be tiny, and mainly irrelevant, maybe having an influence in some inner cities.....but that's all.
Yes, I agree that there won't be large scale movements but I do think that there'll be a lot of noise.
Rat
Not bored. Never bored.,
What? 2004?
They also intend
- Abolishing inheritance tax
- Guaranteeing a job in police force, prison service or border force for people who serve in the Armed Forces for a minimum of 12 years
- Medals for every person in the armed services
- Changing the [pub and club] smoking ban to allow smoking indoors.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/ampp3d/ukips-five-weirdest-policies
Guybrush Threepwood
Trainee Pirate
Does that make anyone else think of 'Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others'?
Also they want to stop HIV+ migrants
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/10/nigel-farage-keep-hiv-positive-migrants-out-britain
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/10/nigel-farage-keep-hiv-positive-migrants-out-britain
Well, if it can be afforded I agree wholeheartedly with the first of those, and with the sentiments of the 2nd, although that is such a minor idea as to be all but irrelevant. The 3rd is pointless, and the 4th a dangerous joke.
In the interests of fairness, this is a misrepresentation of their position. They want a points-based immigration system like Australia, which wouldn't prevent HIV positive immigrants, but would require them to have private health insurance to cover their costs. This was a bit of a spoiler released today to rain on the Ukip parade.
The one good thing to emerge from the Clacton result is that their policies are now going to come under far greater scrutiny. People who saw them as just a protest vote.........and as all things to all people, might now actually get to examine some of the crackpot ideas they've voted for.
I don't. Social and economic mobility is decreasing and wealth is increasingly being concentrated in the top n%. Inheritance tax is only an issue for the tiniest fraction of the population and any step to lowering the barriers for social and economic mobility is IMO welcome.
Not only that but the issues of wealth concentration exacerbate the issues of a lack of social and economic mobility so that if someone is trapped in the bottom quintile they are in a worse position than if they were 20 years ago.
angrysoba
Philosophile
Nigel Farage could be the new Hitler. You are Neville Chamberlains, and I am Winston Churchill!
Information Analyst
Penultimate Amazing
ETA: Beaten to it by The Don*.
* Who I always imagine being the protagonist in a 1960s ITC/ITV adventure series...
* Who I always imagine being the protagonist in a 1960s ITC/ITV adventure series...
Last edited:
Information Analyst
Penultimate Amazing
I doubt many of the people who voted her in will defect to UKIP.
Agreed, and that isn't a good thing.
Nonsense. Almost everyone who owns their own home in the south east of England falls within the inheritance tax thresholds.
IT isn't a barrier. At the moment, inheritance tax is nothing more than a disincentive to aspiration, and panders to people's envy.
Agreed, but IT has no relevance to this question.
The only good thing that IT does is provide money to the treasury. Other than that, it is pointless and destructive.
Skepticemea
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2011
- Messages
- 2,771
Neither do I, however her majority is only c1300 in a traditionally Labour area.
angrysoba
Philosophile
I think the smoking ban has pretty much changed the way people think of places like pubs and clubs forever and that is that people want them smoke free.
Discussions of the Inheritance Tax are probably miles off topic - if so I apologise and promise this is my final post on the matter.
Evidence ?
And even if it is true the number of homeowners in the South East who own their homes outright still a small fraction of the overall UK population. In 2011/12 around 3% of estates attracted inheritance tax.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/j...eritance-tax-when-facts-and-politics-collide/
Giving a tax rebate for the top 3% sounds typical for right wing parties but doesn't sound fair to me.
Really ? I'm not sure how many people have failed to maximise their potential and wealth merely to avoid paying Inheritance Tax. I know plenty of people who have taken steps, legal and otherwise, to avoid paying it but not people who have simply stopped accumulating wealth to avoid the tax. After all I won't ever have to pay it and in the event that the beneficiaries from my will do, they will still get 60% (or 100% whatever the prevailing tax rate is at the time) of money over the threshold.
The issue of lack of social and economic mobility is exacerbated by the fact that the single most critical predictor of current social and economic standing is that of your antecedents. Allowing the most wealthy to retain all their wealth magnifies the issue.
It does, by removing the crutch of inherited wealth, it levels the playing field for everyone else. It is a form of progressive taxation on the grounds that the most able to pay do so.
It provides money to the treasury from those most able to pay (the very rich who are dead).
Evidence ?
And even if it is true the number of homeowners in the South East who own their homes outright still a small fraction of the overall UK population. In 2011/12 around 3% of estates attracted inheritance tax.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/j...eritance-tax-when-facts-and-politics-collide/
Giving a tax rebate for the top 3% sounds typical for right wing parties but doesn't sound fair to me.
Really ? I'm not sure how many people have failed to maximise their potential and wealth merely to avoid paying Inheritance Tax. I know plenty of people who have taken steps, legal and otherwise, to avoid paying it but not people who have simply stopped accumulating wealth to avoid the tax. After all I won't ever have to pay it and in the event that the beneficiaries from my will do, they will still get 60% (or 100% whatever the prevailing tax rate is at the time) of money over the threshold.
The issue of lack of social and economic mobility is exacerbated by the fact that the single most critical predictor of current social and economic standing is that of your antecedents. Allowing the most wealthy to retain all their wealth magnifies the issue.
It does, by removing the crutch of inherited wealth, it levels the playing field for everyone else. It is a form of progressive taxation on the grounds that the most able to pay do so.
It provides money to the treasury from those most able to pay (the very rich who are dead).
I hadn't thought of that but now you've put an idea in my head. I already have the Jag - or should I get something more exclusive like a Bristol, an Aston or Jensen Interceptor.
Should the suit be velvet, safari, or immaculately tailored Savile Row ?
I'd have thought that the people who "aspire" to be rich are the ones who most probably envy them. Also by that reasoning you'd never tax the better off at all, if it makes people not want to be better off. Which I really don't think it does, by the way.
As matters stand, the tax burdens on the rich have already been substantially reduced, and that they be reduced further, while the poor suffer greater austerity, seems unjustifiable.