ralphmould.bsky.social
38 posts
5 followers
40 following
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
@t0nyyates.bsky.social
comment in response to
post
Much more limited in scope, and my understanding is that typically it's only at final point of sale, so the consumer bears the full tax burden. Probably why it's so unpopular there. If you tried to explain VAT to a US citizen I expect they'd find it difficult to understand.
comment in response to
post
This was my instinct too but I wondered if there was something I was missing.
comment in response to
post
What do you make of the take that UK is in a strong bargaining position w/ US? Joining CU would preclude that. See @edconway.bsky.social news.sky.com/story/trump-...
comment in response to
post
Wealthy buyers might not be so wealthy after a while? I wonder what the rental market is like.
comment in response to
post
That's a really quite rude response. I blocked the other chap for being offensive to you. High is indeed a relative concept, which is exactly what I was signifying by using quotation.
comment in response to
post
I'm guessing stock and flows? Despite net migration being "high" (whatever that may be) it's only ever marginal to existing population / labour force. If you dispute the evidence one only has to Google "UK migrant productivity", one of Jonathan's papers comes up as the top research result (for me)
comment in response to
post
That's to do with productivity. Migrants regularly shown to be more productive and requiring less state resources than incumbent population.
comment in response to
post
The framing of this question will push people to answer 1, when they might otherwise have answered 2.
But I did answer 1, as that is my view anyway 😆
comment in response to
post
I skimmed with great scepticism, and at the point AI was described as "cognitively capable", I dismissed the whole article as straight up evangelism.
comment in response to
post
I look forward to these posts on Britain as well!
comment in response to
post
Yet, at the same time, some people are at a level of hysteria that almost matches the luddites on job destroying.. serious misunderstandings on what can be practically achieved
comment in response to
post
It doesn't seem the source you quoted (guardian) is unequivocal on this "making the problem worse". The bigger problem is assuming such things make measurable positive differences, rather than eg dealing with monocultures.
comment in response to
post
No, I don't see this as an either/or. We've now moved from a discussion on UK demographics to solving world poverty? And then on AI (which will simultaneously be quite transformative in some ways but not nearly as you describe - it's not sentient and requires both human input AND output).
comment in response to
post
"Tax the rich" only goes so far. It helps with distribution, sure, but it's not a sustainable long term solution to deal with an aging population. There also aren't that many mega rich folk to go around. It still boils down to having X people supporting Y others.
comment in response to
post
Who will pay all the taxes, pensions and provide the services needed for retirees? Either the tax burden increases (already at historic levels) or services and benefits suffer. Like it or not, we need more young people in the UK. It's the same across Europe.
comment in response to
post
Thanks. I guess the difficulty here is that the 0.5pc salami slices translate into big chunks for individual dpts, especially if you exclude capital investment. Looking for big wins really hard.
comment in response to
post
What's your view on being able to maintain overall public services on a 40pc target? If spend on healthcare has doubled (from, say, 5 to 10pc) how can other services be maintained from the remaining 30pc (as opposed to 35pc?) it seems your argument this is mainly about efficiency?
comment in response to
post
What's the level of profit assumed for in the cap? I assume it's not a straight%..? I had never really thought about it but I guess it must be a thing to make the system work (theoretically speaking)
comment in response to
post
Do we have it for the other GB nations too?
comment in response to
post
Reminds me of Kahneman work showing people much better at natural frequencies than working with percentages. And, just in general people massively overweight rare events. I think it's fair to say lots of exposure to percentages doesn't translate into being good with them
comment in response to
post
A solipsism starter pack, based just on me.
comment in response to
post
I think it just surprises me that there are people who genuinely think this. It takes all types I guess!
comment in response to
post
If you are drawn to conspiracism I doubt there's much Sky, BBC etc can do to draw those viewers. Sometimes you've just got to ignore a a certain segment of the market on focus on your core viewers?
comment in response to
post
You expect two of the best and most credible publications that are most relevant to the job to not be available on expenses? You might beg to differ but it's a... hardline position to take.
comment in response to
post
Yes, and I do have sympathy where as ever the biggest impacts are at the margins. Which is why we'd benefit from some specific information where it doesn't quite work, or is particularly unfair. Arguments on general principle don't really wash though.. but that is where they are being made.
comment in response to
post
I think it would be really interesting to investigate whether expedited inter generational transfers of wealth led to higher growth, or reduced inequalities
comment in response to
post
This is actually where I think the argument defending IHT reform really unravels. The idea that gifting is a "trick", when it is, and always has been, the most tax efficient form of providing for children. Almost as if the most important aspect is control over resources, not ahead of time..
comment in response to
post
.. but Twitter no longer exists. It's X now 😉
comment in response to
post
How about a blueski, or possibly a bleet?
comment in response to
post
I've usually been accused of being a bot by now. I should probably put a profile photo on to be fair. But never wanted to at the other place.
comment in response to
post
Yes, I've read this before... Was it covered by the Economist
comment in response to
post
I think the actual number of "true" farmers is likely to be vanishingly small.. and will of course be the ones on the margin of threshold.
comment in response to
post
Oh absolutely. The noise comes from wealthy tax avoiders, and small scale farmers who are duped into thinking this affects them. A worrying proportion of people don't eg. understand income tax is paid on a marginal basis, so why should we expect farmers to have a sophisticated view on tax affairs.
comment in response to
post
The rationale for this is presumably passing on the assets allows for a continuation of the farming business to the next generation - and if you have to erode those assets to pay IHT it impacts on future viability of the farm? Just trying to make sense of it all.
comment in response to
post
Maybe. Does it not make sense to try and read /plough through material that the other side are, to try and understand them a bit more? Although it hasn't really worked in my case. I usually end up being confused on how otherwise seemingly reasonable people get taken in by rubbish.
comment in response to
post
Gun culture fish fetish