Marmora Man

Admin - please put all of us out of our misery, put this thread to sleep and lock it off. Hugenot and a few others have argued valiantly but reason in the face of, almost, insane rantings. Time to let New Nexus and his team of acolytes return to planate Zog.

SC - I'm like you. I started with nothing and through my own efforts now own a large and comfortable house (along with the building society), have some decent savings / investments and a reasonable (private) pension plan that I invest in as I'm self employed. Unlike you I want not only to hang on to my assets (and certainly not to be taxed on them), I want to use them to support my children and my wider family. I see no shame or disgrace in that - I've paid my taxes, worked hard all my life and wish to do as I wish with what I have. Lib Dems and more left wing politicians seem to feel this is wrong - to me it is part of human nature. You posit a 100% inheritance tax - this is truly daft socialist wishful thinking. You have also suggested certain alternatives - but all of them go against the grain of human nature. Since the first caveman - family has been at the core of society. Looking after family is instinctive. For reasons I have never fathomed socialist thinkers / tinkerers always wish to impose perfection on individuals rather than live with messy real life. Church tithes are one of the earliest forms of taxation - historic, understandable and they have a resonance which is why I why I would always vote for a flat rate tax - on everything anyone earns. Salary, interest and dividends. No exemptions, no special breaks - a simple tax system is a fair tax system. A complicated tax system will always be finagled by scheming accountants and lawyers. Tax everyone at 25% - on any income above ?15,000pa. I would wager it would bring in more tax and that, most, except utopian seeking socialists, the lazy / envious and accountants would see it as fair You brought your family into the discussion. Let's compare. My mother is 86, she has one asset - her house - not worth ?750,000 but something probably nearer ?400,000. She has four grandchildren and one great grandchild. I have recently helped her revise her will - her assets will "leap" a generation (or two) and benefit 5 young people. Is this wrong? Not to my mind - it's self help. Not only has my mother sough nothing from the state throughout her life (her daily care is provided by her family - we support her in her own house), never been in hospital but for childbirth, never claimed any benefits except child allowance; she served as a WREN intercepting German signals for Bletchley Park during WWII, experienced rationing until the early 50s and brought up a family during those 50s & 60s when luxuries were few and far between. Once my sister and I left home she looked after others - neighbours and friends, she was secretary to a couple of charities, even now she still shops for an even more elderly neighbour. She has never travelled abroad or flown in an aeroplane - she has lived a simple life, not frittered away her money or her time. Why should the one asset she has to show for that tough life be, potentially, taxed out of existence to support a theoretical "better / fairer" society and her family deprived on those things she has worked so hard to achieve?

SC - it's not that often that Hugenot and I argue for the same case but in this case I am in absolute agreement with his points. I stated very early on in this thread that a Mansion tax is illogical and two pages later I see no case being made that changes my view. You have attempted to move the argument and make the case for a general wealth tax - but it appears to be just a vanguard for a socialist utopia that will never be achieved. You do not have any rational argument as to why those that have worked hard, paid taxes and taken little from the ?state? should now be taxed on the assets they purchased with their post tax earnings. Given, that as Hugenot has pointed out, the maths means that such a tax will raise very little, it must be just an envy tax. To present a real argument you need to define some terms. What do you consider wealthy, what do you consider poor? Are your parents wealthy - it appears they have a house worth a significant sum. To make the sort of difference you wish to see the wealth tax would have to target people with houses of similar values. Can they afford to pay ?7,500 (1%) of the house's value every year? Would it improve your life, Zeban's or Lady Deliah's if they did pay this?

Fortunately there only appear to be two people supporting this measure and their views are both muddled and illogical. It makes headlines for the Lib Dems and Vince Cable but is unlikely to ever become law.

alwaysFN - do you have any details of the subsidies that "your own councils" have paid to ethnic minorities to support their festivities as I assume you'd like to offer reciprocal arrangements for the subsidies you seek from "our lot"? Who do I apply to for such support - I'd quite like to hold an "English Festival" on the Rye with cricket, warm beer, knotted handkerchief hats and morris dancing. I think about ?50,000 should do it.

Fuzzy logic LD. The payment from central government to local government of a portion of rental income is, in theory at least, meant to "subsidise" the maintenance of the properties not the cost of general local government services. Who decides "what should be taxed"? I could equally argue that parents sending their children to private schools are subsidising the state education system by paying their taxes but not taking up their "entitlement". A perpetual search for absolute utopian fairness and the hounding of the few genuinely wealthy is bound to fail. Let reality intrude for a moment. Wealth is what the Duke of Westminster enjoys - parents using private schools or owners of what the Lib Dems call "mansions" are, on the whole, not truly wealthy. They may be well paid professionals - lawyers, doctors even bankers but they must keep working working to maintain the cash flow. If they stop their "wealth", declines rapidly.

John K - your confusion illustrates the basic problem of the Lib Dem concept. A couple of examples: Two children become orphans because their high earning parents die in a car crash. As a result they inherit a ?2m mansion (mortgage paid off due to insurance) and its contents. These are assets - some inheritance tax is due. Once paid these two young children, with no viable income, have an ongoing annual tax liability of ?20,000 on the mansion. Is this logical or fair? Or An elderly widow of a retired civil servant - has lived in the same house all her life - moving into it as a young bride in 1950. The house then was a modest, bomb damaged, country vicarage - now after a lifetime of care and the ravages of inflation it is worth in excess of ?2m. She has just a widow's pension of ?100 a week. Under Lib Dem policy she would be liable for a ?20,000 tax every year on her property. Is this logical or fair?

I'm fed up with this thread - I've not been able to summon enough enthusiasm to point out the very obvious failings in NNs and his / her supporter's arguments. Loz and Hugenot have held the line but it's time to close off this thread. One final quotation from a recognised and reputable source - this thread was created by "a poor player - That struts and frets his hour upon the stage - And then is heard no more: it is a tale - Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, - Signifying nothing."

Will the "new festival framework" be exclusively for all the groups losing out on funding - or can those other taxpayers that will be funding it join in too? I'm not elderly, gay, latin american, irish or a traveller, but like a party. Still seems a waste of money to me - far more important areas to be funded with public funds.

I'd ask a jeweller - if you can get to Hatton Garden I'm sure you'd get a professional opinion. To me it seems unreasonable - particularly if the stone is a valuable one - the setting should be secure, although regular checking is always a good idea. My wife's engagement ring in now 23 years old - and one of the clasps did fail about 5 years ago, but the remaining three held the stone in place.

Another vote for Sonos here. Tho' if your internet connection is dodgy it can be a pain. We had a fortnight of bad Virgin connectivity and had to revert to analogue radios.

nm - I suspected trolling because obsessing about house prices is a classic EDF trigger and is not a sensible part of a political debate. Your subsequent points are somewhat better focussed. Let's see where this one goes.

Strafer - I'll expand the point. Most Lib Dems appear to be obsessed with fairness of outcomes, envious of those that have acquired wealth and desire to redistribute that wealth. More fair minded people would be campaigning for equality of opportunity not equality of outcomes. Punitive taxes on the wealthy raise little in absolute terms, penalise success and stifle ambition. Spending taxes raised in a wise fashion to ensure that everyone, or more practically in this imperfect world, the majority are equipped to make a success (financially and in many other ways) is a more sensible approach.

If I want to party I pay for it myself - or ask my friends to chip in. If the Irish or Travellers wish to have a party I suggest they do the same. If it is true that the festival has its roots back in the mists of time then I'm damn sure it wasn't an event subsidised by the local taxpayer in 1800 or thereabouts. Respect your, assumed, history - do it yourself.

John K - an interesting short read. The draft policy proposes to make yet more complicated the tax gathering process in this country. It has an underlying theme of envy and a strange obsession with "wealth" and "fairness". No tax system can ever hope to be completely fair ? tinkering and adding complexity would, almost certainly, make a tax system more prone to anomalies, gaming and avoidance. It is most unlikely to make the system more fair. Despite Vince Cable's & Nick Clegg's pronouncements "wealth", of itself, is not morally wrong nor does possession of wealth, necessarily, impose a duty to share. I would contend that oppressive tax regimes reduce the likelihood of the wealthy behaving in a philanthropic fashion. In the days when Lib Dems could never hope to become a part of government this sort of utopian daydream was fine - now they have had a taste of the realities of government I would have hoped that some common sense would have, by now, impacted on their fantasies. A few quotes: ?Local authorities to receive directly a hypothecated share of local residents? and workers? income tax and national insurance receipts as a progression towards a locally-determined income tax? ?An appropriately trained set of assessors would be needed, as well as an appropriate framework for them to operate within? ?Those who can afford to pay should make a greater contribution? ?Liberal Democrats believe that we need to balance taxes on earnings, profits and consumption with measures that include wealth? ?there is the need to have a clear and stable equalisation system to shift resources from the wealthiest to the neediest areas? To my mind, all goverments should have as their ambition an aim to reduce complexity in the tax system. Personally, I would favour a flat rate tax - easy to understand, easy to implement, arguably fair and with the added bonus of enabling the average citizen to complete their tax return in under an hour. However, I'm open to persuasion about other systems - providing they are simple and easy to comprehend. Using the tax system / process itself to promote societal fairness is not a good idea - using the taxes raised to promote fairness and equality is another matter entirely.

I suspect trolling activity. Forget property prices and other EDF inflamatory triggers. Just consider the basic illogicality. Houses and other assets are purchased by people using their post tax income. Taxing the value of the asset is a second tax and inherently unfair. It is a typical Lib Dem concept - not thought through and easily avoided by the truly rich (who could probably register their homes as part of a larger property portfolio and simply rent them to themselves). Why houses - why not cars, jewelry, paintings, shares and other assets. In essence it's a disguised inheritance tax to be paid by the living. What about the rich person who chose not to invest in assets but keeps all cash under the mattress? Those such as pensioners, those that have seen the value of their houses, purchased maybe 30 years ago, rocket in value and others that may be asset rich but income poor would be hammered. Vince Cable - the Anti Business Minister.

Adrian Lester is more than just "Hustle" - I still remember with great pleasure his Henry V at the National in, I think, 2002. Brilliant staging and excellent acting.

Tommy, Harlyn Bay was where we always took our children until age about 8 when they could cope with bigger waves. Lots of rock pools, car park, ice cream shop and public toilets - all essential support for parent & child.

will dex Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The Bay hotel , Watergate bay. Pricey (?300/night) > for a sea view, but wicked, even for only a night > or 2. > > Sorry for this sad point but 15 watergate bay was > not the original 15. see > "shoreditch/clerkenwell". > > will WD - you're right - I apologise - original 15 in Shoreditch. Agree on Watergate Bay Hotel tho' - a tad overpriced but a great place to stay - even better in winter, in my opinion. When there's a westerly storm brewing and waves crashing on the beach it's just great to get in after a wet and wild walk, shelter behind the secure windows, in the warm with a drink to hand to observe the elements

On the general theme - we lived in Cornwall and still holiday there. Would agree with Nette - don't knock Rick Stein, he made the village successful. Tho' as a family it's always been a destination for us because my wife's mother was stationed there during the war - her ashes are now scattered nearby. Our sons remember with pleasure fishing for crabs in the harbour and a Roskilly ice cream afterwards. A lot of people recommend Molesworth Manor B&B tho' my own experience didn't match expectations. See if you can find my review on Trip Advisor! I recommend Watergate Bay for surfing, adventure activity, Jamie Oliver's original 15 restaurant, good rock pools and caves. A late night barbie on that beach with beer / wine cooling in a rock pool and a fresh mackerel grilling is a sublime experience. Also Port Isaac - a tad touristy following the "Dr something or other" TV programme - but a great evening can be had there in the summer on Thursdays when the St Breward Silver Band plays on the hard by the slipway, the pilot cutters are practicing in the outer harbour and you have a pint of Doom Bar to hand with some fish & chips to eat from the local chippy.

MNH - your logic is poor. You make an assumption, with no evidence, that AC was provided with private healthcare cover in his Conservative Party job. Then you compare that assumption with a fact and use the juxtaposition to draw an unwarranted conclusion.

MNH - sigh! Conspiracy theories everywhere. It's a fact of business life that if you are made redundant or "resign" with an associated compromise agreement you will receive payment from the relevant company. This is not a bribe or under the counter payment to keep you in hock to your previous employer - it is simply part of employment law and practice. I have been through a similar situation twice. Once the relevant payment was made as a lump sum into my bank account within 14 days of the deal being done, in the other I agreed to continue receiving "pay and benefits" on a monthly basis until the total sum agreed was reached. In both cases I was fortunate enough to find new employment before I had "spent" all the money received. In neither case did I think it necessary to inform my new employer about my "payoff". Nor did my future employer see fit to ask about any "payoff". I would suggest Andy Coulson's situation was similar. He fell on his sword and took the public rap for the scandal and his employer gave him a generous payoff. I am not suggesting Andy Coulson was necessarily innocent of knowledge of the hacking scandal on his watch. I do however content that the fact of him continuing to receive elements of his payoff while subsequently employed by the Conservative Party is not a scandal, conspiracy or evidence of further wrong doing. There was a failure within the Conservative Party in that Andy Coulson was not subjected to a "Positive Vetting" procedure - something that senior public servants would undergo prior to any appointment to a sensitive post with access to highly classified material.

Thanks everyone - as some of the furniture involved was IKEA most charities weren't interested - not robust enough to hand on. However, I would recommend Emmaus as this was the organisation I was trying to locate initially. Not only have they always helped b y collecting larger items, I find their work encouraging and like to support them.

T-i-S This just makes me want to vomit. it's almost meaningless specialist jargon, it describes a theory of perfection but ignores the practical problem that the system it proposes doesn't work. DaveR's examples - grounded in practical observations are both simpler to understand and instinctively more attractive. Your words are an example of the political / educational orthodoxy that my earlier post deplored. Take a group of ten year olds - use your descriptive style to describe the best way to educate them from the age of 11 and use DaveR's style. I'll bet my house that they'll understand DaveR's argument immediately but look on in blank wonderment as your phrases are trotted out.

CLearly, like so many left wingers, the Guardian doesn't do irony & humour.