China have a big surplus of EVs thet are trying to offload thanks to their economic slowdown
they could end up forcing prices down (to the displeasure of our car makers)
don't think this policy uturn will effect marginals that much more for shoring up support in the shires.
knowing there will be a far more forward-looking regime in power next year
Your use of the word far is interesting. You have see the Starmer and Reeves show haven't you?
Have a look at Channel 4 news from last night and come back and tell me they are far more forward looking.
I came away from it not having a clue what they would actually do about anything at all other than be more stable and have more growth without actually explaining how.
dont think public chargers have even considered dynamic pricing.
Tesla do, I think.
Re Hydrogen, it might help certain applications like industry or maybe HGV but it's not happening for cars. Too many issues, that you appear not to know about.
Tesla do, I think.
Not much use to the 90% of the population who can’t afford to spend 40k+ on a car.
Second EVs, not sure they will be that practical. Batteries require replacing after a number of years, and that right there is the bulk of the cost of an EV.
I suspect car ownership will become more and more based on leasing cars, something I haven't done and don't really want to, but until batteries last longer and are serviceable I can't see another way for EVs to really work like the current second hand market does..
Who knows, it may just lead to less use of cars which is a bonus. People are far too reliant on them (me included) which is a big part of the problem.
Batteries require replacing after a number of years, and that right there is the bulk of the cost of an EV.
There will be a whole new business of refurbishing batteries in the future. Or you just except that the car you buy won’t be quite as efficient as when it was new. A battery that will get you 250 miles now , might in 10 years only get you 150 miles on a full charge. Still more than enough for most people on a day to day basis.
Oh of course, that is if the car hasn’t spontaneously combusted by then 🙄
<p style="text-align: center;">Who knows, it may just lead to less use of cars which is a bonus.</p>
its a good job the guy that never flies everywhere by helicopter is in charge or he'd be scrapping train lines all over the place (especially the north)
or indeed the guy that wouldn't have his local electricity grid upgraded to heat his new pool or he'd be scrapping insulation schemes for the poorest
https://twitter.com/BBCNews/status/1705535871326330921?t=wlQbNTulPckLQuq0Z0ZAvQ&s=19
Rishi is now rumoured to be dropping HS2 to Manchester entirely. A few days before the Tory conference in...Manchester...he's really not a master tactician, is he, unless someone who doesn't like him is briefing early to cause him problems?
As for killing off the Home Efficiency Taskforce, that's just lunacy given the state of our housing stock. Getting homes better insulated is such an easy win, but I suppose it mainly benefits poor people, which is verboten.
Second EVs, not sure they will be that practical. Batteries require replacing after a number of years, and that right there is the bulk of the cost of an EV
An EV will tell you the state of the battery. What does an ice car tell you about the state of the engine? Or gearbox?
I was going to add 'it's just a ****ing car!' but actually it's just a much simpler and easier to maintain car! I can fully understand why people aren't on board with the idea though. 🙄
And a quick look at autotrader shows leafs starting at 4k.
he’s really not a master tactician, is he, unless someone who doesn’t like him is briefing early to cause him problems?
perhaps that’s the overall plan.
Screw the country up and get as much as they can out of it until the GE , then F off abroad and watch the next lot try to sort the mess out
This is just doubling down on the ULEZ stuff.
I mean I can see there is some debate around EV's, regarding cost infrastructure etc.
But who TAF could think insulating houses is a bad thing?????
Not much use to the 90% of the population who can’t afford to spend 40k+ on a [Tesla]
You don’t need to drive a Tesla to use a Tesla charger
Batteries require replacing after a number of years
I realise we have a whole separate thread for this but no, not true. On modern cars with good battery management (which is all of them) they will last the lifetime of the car. On the first generation cars, particularly Nissan Leafs, they did degrade quite a bit but mostly still work. They can occasionally fail like anything else though of course.
A battery that will get you 250 miles now , might in 10 years only get you 150 miles on a full charge
All evidence points to degradation being nowhere near that bad. There is mostly only data for Tesla because they've been around long enough, but they are looking at an average of 12% degradation after 200k miles. And that's old tech - everyone's been improving things since those cars came out.
And a quick look at autotrader shows leafs starting at 4k.
These are pretty crap though. They had 80 miles range new at best, some are probably down to 50 now on a good day so you're heavily compromised.
My old i3s lost no capacity in the battery over the three years I had it. When are you expecting them to need replacing and how old is the average ICE car before it's scrapped?
There's a huge amount of nonsense written about electric cars by people who don't want to like them and don't know very much about them either.
Saying that, the same could be said about immigrants, ULEZ, people on benefits, etc, thanks to Rishi and his chums.
And a quick look at autotrader shows leafs starting at 4k.
A highly probably indicator that confidence in buying a used EV is very low among the general public. I really don't know what all the defensiveness is about. All some of us are doing are pointing out the fact there's an awful lot of work to be done to persuade people that the transition to EVs won't cost them more and won't make their lives more difficult. I want the the transition to work but there's so much that needs to happen to make it successful and currently there's no plan besides a load of lazy assumptions that the market will deliver and everything will be ok.
he’s really not a master tactician, is he, unless someone who doesn’t like him is briefing early to cause him problems?
He's just being paid by the oil, gas and automobile lobbies.
Simple as that.
None of this is "tactics", not a lot of it is "economics" because it's going to cost far more to cancel HS2 than simply build it, far more to scrap insulation than just push ahead with it. He just doesn't give a shit. He'll be some sort of high ranking representative to BP/Shell etc within 5 minutes of being out of 10 Downing Street.
Problem is this is all feeding into an anti climate change, anti active travel narrative now. I'd break the swear filter and get a ban of I said what I wanted to about him. 🤬
I’d break the swear filter and get a ban of I said what I wanted to about him. 🤬
Get a water balloon filled with oil and lob it at him
'the most hated tax in Britain'*
https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1705633051907133542?t=wgkwcDxAYgapD33wI97xAg&s=19
* if you're in the <5% that pay it
All some of us are doing are pointing out the fact there’s an awful lot of work to be done to persuade people that the transition to EVs won’t cost them more and won’t make their lives more difficult.
There's only a lot of work if you want every made up and easily disproven reason discussed and disseminated in a way that isn't going to potentially offend someone with a chip on their shoulder.
* if you’re in the <5% that pay it
That's be "all the wealthy Tories".
Planet is on fire, our homes are leaky as ****, there's no money to feed the kids or repair the schools but suddenly he's found the Magic Money Tree just in time for another electoral clarion call.
🤬🤬🤬
A highly probably indicator that confidence in buying a used EV is very low among the general public.
or confirmation that your position that EVs are only for rich people is total bollocks? make your mind up.
government's job is direction, set objectives. it's how the USA landed a man on the moon. set a target. it's not rocket science. 😉
Sunak is drawing up plans to slash inheritance tax, dubbed “the most hated tax in Britain”
Of course he is. Because the most pressing issue presently facing the UK is that the rich should be able to pass on their unearned wealth to their lazy, entitled, spoiled brattish offspring without paying any tax
Looks like it. He will be going down as one of the biggest losers for the tory party so may as well go big and get all his pet hates and financial stuff sorted out, i.e I expect inheritance tax to be costing his family rather a lot at some point in the future.
Won't last long though because Starmer the socialist will be along soon and bring in 100% inheritance tax just as it should be.
Feels like the country has taken several leaps backwards this week as the Tories adopt a scorched earth policy ahead of the election.
Question for accountant types - if I have a million shares in Infosys and then die, are those shares sold and capital gains tax paid before the proceeds being inherited by my 2 daughters? Or are the shares themselves passed on, with no cgt being paid, leaving my daughters to sell sufficient to pay the IHT?
Asking for a PM.
Ah but the share holder isn’t him and isn’t always necessary paying uk taxes other than when she feels like 🙂
They’ll also be living somewhere unaffected by global warming and won’t be affected by London becoming the new Venice 🙂
Ms Murty will retain her Indian citizenship and her non-dom status which, as the BBC revealed, allows her family to avoid paying inheritance tax in the UK - which at current valuation could amount to £280m.
Whilst Rishis playing PM she’s paying as it’s ‘fair’(and they got caught),can’t see that happening for long when he’s booted out of office.
The broader issue is - is it actually true that IHT is a double taxation if most of what is passed on is shares on which CGT has not been paid ?
IANATA
Did you pay tax on the income that you used to buy the shares? Or are they acquired by eg: options or some tax efficient vehicle.
I'd say the same for my house, that I plan to leave to my kids in time. Every single penny I've paid in repayments and interest has been with income that I've been taxed on. So in that respect it is like double tax. Not saying IHT should be abolished though, it's a fair example (above a threshold more so) of those that can afford to pay more in tax to support the less well off in society doing so.
Because the most pressing issue presently facing the UK is that the rich should be able to pass on their unearned wealth to their lazy, entitled, spoiled brattish offspring without paying any tax
'The rich' don't pay it anyway as it's laughably easy to avoid by taking advice from any half decent financial advisor.
It's an amazing example of something that gets a lot of people in a froth, but that affects hardly anyone, and those that it does affect could probably have avoided paying it anyway.
Interesting read (I've you're a saddo like me)...
Although value of IHT being paid is now, peak number of estates affected was 2006/7. Total value around £6bn which is not a huge amount in Govt terms and less than 4% of estates affected
Sunak is clearly doing this as it plays to the gallery at Tory conference and a perception in society that it's an unfair tax perpetuated by right wing papers. Also another unimportant wedge issue with Labour - it Labour say they will reverse then narrative of Labour tax burden etc etc
The rich’ don’t pay it anyway
Yep, it is the PAYE people that pay everything as we have no real choice for 'creative' accounting.
The rich will always find way around stuff which is why Starmer/Reeves banking money on non Dom changes is laughable. The recipients will just find a way around it so the extra income from it would be negligible.
Rich people like to stay rich and goes all out to ensure it stays that way.
So in that respect it is like double tax.
Same as VAT. In fact, money is taxed at various points in its journey. I don't think this is unusual.
You pay tax on your income then more tax depending on what you do with it. If you give it to someone, then this is simply another taxable activity. There are other non-taxable things you can do with it. If you don't do a taxable thing with it then you don't pay a second tax.
So in that respect it is like double tax.
THe problem with tax is that most people don't really understand what it's for. It's not there to raise money to pay for things, but to be used as a tool to redress imbalances in the economy, encourage specific behaviours in the spending public to direct money towards things we want to have more funds, and to discourage and mitigate destructive activities. Given that fact it's perfectly ok for tax to be levied multiple times whether that's VAT, IHT or something else.
I see Rishi is assuring himself of an even better reception than the Tory party usually get in Manchester by confirming that HS2 (surprise surprise!) won’t be going north of Birmingham
Just in case anyone was left who ever believed levelling up was ever anything more than an empty slogan.
Although value of IHT being paid is now, peak number of estates affected was 2006/7. Total value around £6bn which is not a huge amount in Govt terms and less than 4% of estates affected
It's still an unfunded tax cut of several billion - between about 6 and 8bn depending on which figures you believe.
Basically exactly what Liz Truss tried to do, create a load of unfunded cuts to tax.
With everything he’s coming out with at the moment, it seems he’s just as much in thrall to the Tufton Street loons as Truss.
Basically exactly what Liz Truss tried to do, create a load of unfunded cuts to tax.
True. Be interesting to see how the markets react. It's a smaller sum and part of the problem with Truss had was not publishing HMT/OBR impact assessments and that the markets thought her ideological approach was lunacy in general
BTW I very much think cutting IHT is wrongheaded and £6/8bn is a lot of extra borrowing simply to create a wedge with Labour. Assuming Labour say they will reverse which is not a given with the run into the next election.
If I had any influence I'd run a "unfunded tac cuts - it's Liz Truss all over again - they just can't be trusted with the economy" line if I was Labour
Isn’t that exactly what Labour are saying? That they won’t allow any minister to announce absolutely mental economic policies, a la Truss, without the full OBR cost assessment being published first?
I can’t see Rishi being keen to publish the OBRs opinions on his latest economic nonsense
Good to see Labour increasingly on the offensive on stuff. I was becoming frustrated with the party's timidity
Just need a few more positive policy ideas coming out of conference so we have more to sell on the doorstep.
TBH it feels more like Rishi is on personal and party damage limitation at this stage
He is still a little c**t. They are clearly having a fire sale ironically I can see people buying into it and voting them back in
Very very sweary
The inheritance tax thing is something else that Rishi, or any other cabinet member, is refusing to comment on.
I'm sure that means he's going to make that his big announcement next week to keep Tufton Street and the Telegraph happy
Will Hutton has just been on Radio 4 pointing out that the present rate of people who inheritance tax would apply to is 3.7% and they invariably haven't 'earned' that. They just happen to own property which has gone up in value so much that it takes them over the threshold
They don't give a **** any more, do they. They're just going to sort their mates out before they're booted out
They have never given an Eff. the tory party exist for one reason only - to concentrate wealth and power in the hands of the already wealthy and powerful
the tory party exist for one reason only – to concentrate wealth and power in the hands of the already wealthy and powerful
Yep, and their greatest trick is to get the majority of people (in a current voting system way) to vote for them more times than not.
Yep, I've known Tory-voting blokes in their 40s who have not much more in the world than a car, a phone and a packet of fags. Quite a remarkable achievement really and not always easy to convert them to champagne socialism.
Yep, and their greatest trick is to get the majority of people (in a current voting system way) to vote for them more times than not.
The similar line out of the Usual Suspects* fits quite well here.
*(Or Baudelaire, if you're more classically minded).
Regarding inheritence tax, its a bit of a weird one... was listening to a call in or R2 today, only something like 4% of estates get caught, but the income from that is almost 1% of all tax recipts, while 1% doesn't sound much, it's a LOT of money, over 7billion estimated in the current period.
And its not exaclty punative... if you leave an estate to family, you get £325k allowance, and if a widower, the ex-partners allowance can asl be called upon, so teh tax free allowance is £650k in many cases.
That means an estate worth 1 million after legal expences etc, you'll pay £40% on the £350k above the threshold, or £140k... on a million pound inheritence. Not exactly the end of the world.
I don't think there's much argument for making it stricter in terms of thresholds, but there's certainly no argument that I can see for abolition of the tax.
People with serious cash tend to have financial planning and advice, and a number of mechanisms to avoid it. Trusts, gifts, signing the house over to a reletive (as long as you survive 7 more years etc). In that sense, I think there is an argument to close up some of these loopholes, as thats where the real money is.
Sunak’s family would save a potential £300m by scrapping the tax, there’s your argument
Tory ****s being ****s,
And its not exaclty punative… if you leave an estate to family, you get £325k allowance, and if a widower, the ex-partners allowance can asl be called upon, so teh tax free allowance is £650k in many cases.
That means an estate worth 1 million after legal expences etc, you’ll pay £40% on the £350k above the threshold, or £140k… on a million pound inheritence. Not exactly the end of the world.
Actually you won't in all likelihood. There's up to £175K in family home allowance too, which is a major factor in most estates worth that sort of value (I suspect very few estates reach over £650K without the family house being part of it). Again, that passes to a spouse first so can be 2x £175K
So a £1M estate will in all likelihood be tax free.
Won't someone think of the 4%?
The big con about IHT is that lots of people think they are going to pay it. Or more likely, they are worried that their parents' estates will pay it, meaning less of a wholly unearned windfall for them.
The threshold is already absurdly high, such that the vast majority of estates are nowhere near paying any tax. Abolishing it is just a huge bung to the richest few. Including me, whoopeee, but having already had a good start in life and some decent luck throughout it, my wife and I have absolutely no use for the huge sums that are going to be thrust upon us in a few years. We're already early retired home-owners....
The much-quoted million pound threshold doesn't even include pension investments which are wholly exempt and can now be unlimited (attracting tax relief on contributions). It will be a lot more than a million when people cotton on to this loophole (I'm sure many already have). Laughable that this change in the recent budget was presented as some sort of support for the NHS, and tragic that so many suckers fell for it.
Note, those dying don't pay Inheritance Tax.
If folk want to ensure that their family etc pay less tax, plan it or better still, spend it while you're alive.
Best example IMO was my Granny, quote:
"I'll spend my money on what I want, that gives me the pleasure - I've earned it, I'll spend it".
She gave her 3 kids the deposits for their houses, then the 8 grandkids got the same. Every child, grandchild, great grandchild and even great great grandchild got a cheque for birthday & Christmas - and so did any spouse. She even paid for her funeral, so she could go the way SHE wanted to go.
Most folk inheriting are getting it when they're in their 50's & 60's - people like my OH and I, inheriting when we're almost retired ourselves and as others have said, it needs to be a shed-full of cash before any tax is due.
I've no problem with it, and we too already have it 'planned'.
Im 62. My parents are still alive. I stand to inherit half a house when they do pop off. I needed that money 30 years ago not now. I would be quite happy with a much higher inheritance tax. Use it to pay for old age care perhaps?
Meanwhile Rishi's two fingers to everyone this morning is the go-ahead for more oil and gas drilling in the north sea under the ludicrous pretence that it will 'ensure energy security' and reduce UK energy prices
Yeah, right... it won't just be your mates and paymasters selling it all on the international markets and profiting massively from it
Its literally scorched earth from now until the election, isn't it?
IIRC the UK government awards the licenses for gas an oil extraction but the scots government hold the power to prevent them being used - via planning or something?
If folk want to ensure that their family etc pay less tax, plan it or better still, spend it while you’re alive.
Best example IMO was my Granny, quote:
“I’ll spend my money on what I want, that gives me the pleasure – I’ve earned it, I’ll spend it”.
I agree completely and it would be easy if we all knew when we would die, we could then work backwards and check out with an empty bank balance. Unfortunately we don't so we need to make sure we have enough until. I don't suppose the grandkids would be happy giving the cheque back if granny lives longer than planned and needs to pay her heating bill.
Granny doesn't need a million quid in assets to make sure she can pay her heating bill though... [ well, perhaps she might this winter ].
Sitting on large wealth might be a reassuring and perhaps even pleasurable feeling... but there's a big generational imbalance at the moment... persuading the boomers to use their money, for themselves or others, can be an economic and social good... if not a vote winner with the richest blue rinse oldies.
Granny doesn’t need a million quid in assets to make sure she can pay her heating bill though
Fair point, I was thinking more thousands or tens of thousands than millions. I must have been born into the wrong family 😉
So attacking net-zero has given sunak a2-3 pt poll bounce, i suppose that means theyll double down on this over the next year
how depressing
Indeed.
They're 'dividing lines' policy is now to let any reactionary know, in no uncertain terms, that they're on their side against the 'tofu-eating, Guardian-reading wokerati'
They'll be proposing bringing back the death penalty within weeks
"<span style="background-color: #eeeeee; color: #000000; font-family: Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, 'Noto Sans', sans-serif, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', 'Apple Color Emoji', 'Segoe UI Emoji', 'Segoe UI Symbol', 'Noto Color Emoji';">Fair point, I was thinking more thousands or tens of thousands than millions. I must have been born into the wrong family"</span>
And the ones who'll never pay Inheritance Tax - focus back on just how few beneficiary's (of estates) pay it, don't be sucked in.
I must have been born into the wrong family 😉
96%+ of us were, you're far from alone.
This is the problem with inheritance tax (and many other taxes as it happens) aimed at the wealthy, it's so easy to make it sound like a tax on all of us even when carefully targeted at the tiny minority of very well off who want to protect their large wealth.
They’ll be proposing bringing back the death penalty within weeks
Only for the under 50s. 😉
I agree completely and it would be easy if we all knew when we would die, we could then work backwards and check out with an empty bank balance.
Which is why we need to legalise voluntary euthanasia. When the money runs out, off you go. (I'm only half joking)
So attacking net-zero has given sunak a2-3 pt poll bounce,
think it's more nuanced than that as both snp and libdems had improvements, possibly Labours cozy meetings with macron and softer EU rhetoric is at play.
Or maybe people are starting to see what a complete waste of time Starmer is. Ed Davey is more appealing and the Lib Dem policies must be pretty much the same as Labour nowadays.
The election result is not going to reflect the current polls a year out with all the stirring up Sunak can do in the next 12 months with no comeback from Starmer but Sunak should still lose (he better do!).
Or maybe people are starting to see what a complete waste of time Starmer is. Ed Davey is more appealing and the Lib Dem policies must be pretty much the same as Labour nowadays.
I think a lot of people had high hopes for Starmer and now feel disappointed - rightly or wrongly. Was watching a news report on the LibDem conference yesterday and began seriously considering where my "anyone but Tory" would be best placed.(Almost certainly still Labour)
Not just disappointment with Starmer. Disgusted. He has taken labour to a place I and many others cannot accept and vote for. I would love tobe able to vote labour again as I have done most of my life. I cannot vote for Starmers labour. Anti democratic, pro privitisation, brexiteers
Oh christ! Here we go again....
[img] 
[/img]
So attacking net-zero has given sunak a2-3 pt poll bounce,
There has been a slight narrowing of the Labour lead in the last week. Whereas a week ago the polls were putting Labour's lead at 20-22% this week it's 15-20% .
But I don't think there is much evidence that it is connected to Sunak's net zero stance. The polls suggest that Sunak's stance is unpopular with both "blue wall voters" and "red wall voters".
The Conservatives risk losing seats in the “blue wall” of affluent, pro-remain Tory constituencies in southern England because of net zero decisions made this week
'Red wall’ constituents critical of prime minister’s plan to water down climate commitments
Oh christ! Here we go again….
'Hear we go again' someone has expressed dissatisfaction with Starmer's political leadership? On a political thread? Outrageous!
And with Starmer being the main opposition of Sunak it is always going to be relevant in a Sunak thread as Sunak's demise (or size of it) rests with Starmer but post that sign yet again, it really does just get funnier every time.
trash the planet bounce was short lived
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1707337181264592922?t=bgu6KnxrWchupNke_khBBQ&s=19
and he really isn't good at this
https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1707303033518891092?t=e_PWxiNrBA_T9JIE0NmCrw&s=19
Tell me you've decided to scrap HS2 to Manchester without telling me you've decided to scrap HS2 to Manchester...
That interview is worth watching as well as listening to as you can see the look of annoyance and exasperation on Anna Jamesons face as Sunak once again ignores the question he's actually been asked and starts spouting his usual utter bollocks in that horribly patronising and condescending tone of his...
https://twitter.com/BBCRadioManc/status/1707343474951901689?s=20
I don't know why Twitter/X links aren't pasting in properly and just displaying as links
There will be much cheering in town halls up and down the country in anticipation of new funds to fill potholes.
So rish! how much net new money and when will it be available?
Let's start with £500 millions - and see how little you get for that.
Filling potholes isn't really the way to improve the quality of roads - we need wholesale resurfacing and complete renewal of road markings.
Talking of road markings, does anyone else think that their current condition - worn away to near invisibility in too many places - represents a danger to drivers and pedestrians?
Meanwhile, back in the real world - sunak really is utterly inept.
HS2 will be chopped, there will be no (or very little) net new money for potholes or other road improvements, Northern Powerhouse will remain a soundbite only.
