Kemi Badenoch Powell

If it's a true generational succession question then IHT can be avoided by the use of timely made potentially-exempt transfers. Of course failure of the donor to survive seven years will upset this, but it can work in most situations. Harder for the speculators to use this valid exemption.

 

Easily solved. Tax planning. You'll be surprised that the very rich already take advantage of this. You'll also see they take part in tax avoidance, off shoring, gifting, r&d credits, offsetting losses from other countries, trusts, classifying income as loans, maximising capital gains opportunities and much more.

Perhaps if they just paid what they owe, there would be opportunity to simplify the tax system and not to have so many additional taxes to claw in what they dodge.

 

I agree, but this is something totally different compared to farming - I dont think your average 80 year old farmer from North Yorkshire will start dabbling in offshore funds and crap film opportunities. The IHT one is the one they could do - however when you look at a gift inter vivos policy which would offset the 'gift' liability over the 7 years, for someone to do a 7 year policy age 60+ for £300/400000 sum assured (as an example) the premium would be astronomical - assuming they have no pre existing conditions.

We have arguably the most complex tax system in the world, with layers and layers of rules being added over the years - when in reality it could do with a ripping up of the rule book and starting again. This is all supposition , but do all MPs keep certain rules to suit their own interests? Is this why they are not removed? Is the delay from going into office and having the first budget because they have the benefit of knowing the new rules in advance and can move about their own assets ? Are all of the MPs' assets still in the same place now as they were in July? The new Mega fund system funnily enough doesnt encompass the MPs pension funds

The harsh reality is we live in a world full of contradictions , and people on this board will have done something that suits them and not the greater good. People will turn their nose up at the private school system on the basis that the state school system is perfectly fine - yet they will hunt down the best Ofsted rated school in the area, possibly move house to get their children into it or have a decent commute - but wont send their child(ren) to the very nearest state school irrespective of Ofsted rating. Had the private school tuition fee increase had the caveat that every child must go to their nearest state school included, you would have had a totally different response from the state school parents regarding it

 

I think there's a difference between playing within the lines of a system that is the same for everyone and paying for an advantage. I don't see how it is hypocritical to select a school other than the one closest to you and oppose private schools.

 

You're assuming there's a large chunk of farmers at 80. I'd suggest that's very unlikely a significant piece of the farming populace.

The farming fabric has had a disruptive effect on our planet. Yes they produce food. But look at their use of chemicals, impact on wild habitat and wildlife, including the illegal killing of birds of prey. The pollution of rivers. And for doing all that, they historically got a huge tax perk. The IHT introduction is still extremely favourable to them and they have mechanisms to avoid paying it or to mitigate the full impact. My feeling is the tax is likely to bring in nominal amounts but it has gone someway to a fairer overall system.

As for personal gain, cronyism, waste and rigging systems... I don't think any of us can keep a straight face unless its labelled at the last 14 years of Conservative governments.

 

Interesting. Does it not fall under the category of you wanting what's best for your child(ren)? And by sending them to a school not in the catchment , but your child(ren) being of a higher intelligence than a child who lives for arguments sake - next door to the school you're sending them to who then cant get in - is that not giving them an advantage? If someone moving house to accomodate it might be paying more on mortgage payments and purchase price which would overshadow the cost of private school. If you truly believed in the state system you would send them anywhere?

 

It all comes back to money being the route of all evil unfortunately with regards to chemicals etc, but lets be honest - do we all do our part to our full capacity?

Your last line I think (Again all allegedly/supposition) could be aimed at most irrespective of party - it is us - the taxpayer- that suffers

 

I don't think that's how it works is it? They can't pick kids from out of catchment area over kids within the catchment area based on intelligence can they?

There's always going to be some schools that perform better than others at any given time and you can't restrict people moving house. I don't see that as an argument in favour of private schools - being able to pay for an education which is an entirely different tier to that available to the rest. I think if private schools were abolished it would lead to an increase in the quality of state education and would be a massive net benefit to the country.

I think the tax exemption was completely indefensible and it was absolutely right to bin it.

 

I agree. Greed has led to so many problems. Hence trying to tax out some of that greed has been a route to try and balance it. Though conservatives prefer taxing the poorer end of the spectrum.

I can't speak for you, but we've spent hours looking at goods to find the least damaging most natural ones. I can recommend ecover and method. It's not easy, but it's worthwhile.

 

I have no idea, but there looks to be an element of self preservation (all allegedly) at the top of schools to ensure grades are high - my take on it is this - my daughters have been/are being privately educated and are fully aware if you want something you graft for it, them being good, decent people and carrying themselves well in all situations goes above good marks all day long - the fees were only slightly more than nursery fees. Not every private school is full of 200 Boris Johnsons, there are kids from all background and also some with learning difficulties (who found the environment less toxic than they had in state school). My point is though that people have an opinion on the quality of education , be that state or private school - there are failings in both. I have no problem with the fee increase as we are comfortable and as it stands can afford it - some cant though, some do work extra hours to cover fees , some kids need that environment to achieve their potential and for me these should be exempt from the increase.

If they got rid of private school education it would be yet another aspiration stifling measure - you should always have the choice of doing what you think is best - as parents do by selecting which state school to send their children to

DWLC -I can't speak for you, but we've spent hours looking at goods to find the least damaging most natural ones. I can recommend ecover and method. It's not easy, but it's worthwhile. - We use these aswell. Another thing we have started doing is rather than buy ourselves crap at christmas for the sake of it , is get food parcels and christmas presents for kids for the food bank at Hemsworth. Yes we go back to what we think is our comfortable life afterwards, but it does give you a sense of doing something half decent

 

I think that we're already well down the slippery slope. I don't think that the concept of 'properness' or, for that matter the "good chaps" theory can be revisited. I personally think that Starmer is a man of integrity, although I'm well aware that many on here disagree. But what will probably do for him is being deemed 'boring', in an age where people value flamboyance and honey promises ahead of stability and competence.

I don't anticipate Badenoch becoming prime minister though. She has insufficient ability or quick-wittedness (in my view) to lay a glove on Starmer. I believe that once the newness has worn off, murmurings of discontent will begin to rise behind her. In any event she is pretty powerless with Keir enjoying a huge majority for the next four and a half years. Instead, in another couple of years I expect Johnson to find a safe seat via a by-election somewhere, and to lead the Tories into the next election. He will be emboldened by Trump's return, and will expect to be forgiven by the public, especially those with short memories. Laughable though it is, I think he still sees himself as in the Churchillian mode. The Tories may by then be desparate enough to swallow it.

 

I also think binning off results would be a good start - which I think Labour have talked about - some kids might not be academic - but in manual, skilled jobs could easily find their niche - It just seems like they write kids off too soon.

 

It is unlikely that Trump will still be around when we have our next election. Its due by May 2029, and Trump's term ends in January 2029. He needs to amend the Constitution to still be in charge then. Although, given he is 78, obese, and eats a terrible diet, his odds of still being alive then are under 70% if he was in the best of health. Its probably 50:50 that he will survive the term, and less than that that he isn't ousted under the 25th amendment before then.

 

Funny you say that about DePfeffel, as soon as Trump got in I thought of Johnson using it to manoeuvre his way back in at some point. I'm not sure Badenoch would clear the path for him though, knowing the intended aims. The question is who would do that in the tory ranks?

Obviously the right wing media will push for such things, unless Badenoch sticks to their right wing agenda... Which I doubt would be difficult at all.

It's a long way to the next GE. It's just nice that we've a more grown up government for a bit. Even if there's plenty I disagree with, its still much much better than the alternative.

 

Are you suggesting that privately educated kids come out as better people. I might have the wrong end of the stick but if that's what you are suggesting I think it's disgusting.

Also don't you think they'll be insecure when they work alongside state kids? Wondering if either a) they only achieved what they did because of the paid advantage or b) they would have achieved the same and you just wasted a load of cash?