Discussion:
OnT: Budget
(too old to reply)
BrritSki
2024-11-01 10:07:16 UTC
Permalink
Amazing that there's been no TI regarding the changes to IHT that affect
farms.

No Tony or David whinging about how parts of their farms will have to be
sold off the pay the bill when they peg it, or discussing if there is
anything to do to mitigate the impact.

No Justin twirling his moustaches and devising cunning plans to buy up
all the new parcels of land that are going to come on to the market.

No doubt the urban feckwits who write TA (and who came up with the
wheeze to reform Agricultural Property Relief) have no idea of the impact.
Kosmo
2024-11-01 10:43:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by BrritSki
Amazing that there's been no TI regarding the changes to IHT that affect
farms.
No Tony or David whinging about how parts of their farms will have to be
sold off the pay the bill when they peg it, or discussing if there is
anything to do to mitigate the impact.
No Justin twirling his moustaches and devising cunning plans to buy up
all the new parcels of land that are going to come on to the market.
No doubt the urban feckwits who write TA (and who came up with the
wheeze to reform Agricultural Property Relief) have no idea of the impact.
It is pretty obvious that the urban fuckwits who came up with the budget
have not realised just how much of the farming community will be
impacted. Margins are so low in farming that paying the tax burden over
10 years will be impossible - they obviously want solar panels on every
inch of the land.
--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics
Kate B
2024-11-01 10:53:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kosmo
Post by BrritSki
Amazing that there's been no TI regarding the changes to IHT that
affect farms.
No Tony or David whinging about how parts of their farms will have to
be sold off the pay the bill when they peg it, or discussing if there
is anything to do to mitigate the impact.
No Justin twirling his moustaches and devising cunning plans to buy up
all the new parcels of land that are going to come on to the market.
No doubt the urban feckwits who write TA (and who came up with the
wheeze to reform Agricultural Property Relief) have no idea of the impact.
It is pretty obvious that the urban fuckwits who came up with the budget
have not realised just how much of the farming community will be
impacted.  Margins are so low in farming that paying the tax burden over
10 years will be impossible - they obviously want solar panels on every
inch of the land.
Quite a bit of emollient procrastinatory comment from Labour media round
politicians this morning. The policy is out for consultation and
apparently Baroness Batters will have something trenchant to say about
it. As with a couple of other sensitive matters such as VAT on private
school fees, I suspect there'll be some serious qualifications in the
actual Finance Bill when it arrives.
--
Kate B
Kosmo
2024-11-01 14:47:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kate B
Post by Kosmo
Post by BrritSki
Amazing that there's been no TI regarding the changes to IHT that
affect farms.
No Tony or David whinging about how parts of their farms will have to
be sold off the pay the bill when they peg it, or discussing if there
is anything to do to mitigate the impact.
No Justin twirling his moustaches and devising cunning plans to buy
up all the new parcels of land that are going to come on to the market.
No doubt the urban feckwits who write TA (and who came up with the
wheeze to reform Agricultural Property Relief) have no idea of the impact.
It is pretty obvious that the urban fuckwits who came up with the
budget have not realised just how much of the farming community will
be impacted.  Margins are so low in farming that paying the tax burden
over 10 years will be impossible - they obviously want solar panels on
every inch of the land.
Quite a bit of emollient procrastinatory comment from Labour media round
politicians this morning. The policy is out for consultation and
apparently Baroness Batters will have something trenchant to say about
it. As with a couple of other sensitive matters such as VAT on private
school fees, I suspect there'll be some serious qualifications in the
actual Finance Bill when it arrives.
I would be surprised if it changes much at all. I see little in the
budget which actually sounded that much different to her predecessor:
- No change to the attacks on the sickness costs
- No reform of the two child benefit cap
- Continuing expectation that technology can bring savings
- Withdrawal of the plan to reform the impact of the taxing of child benefit
- Not re-introducing the "temporary" 5p cut in fuel duty whilst forcing
rail fares up nearly 5% and bus fare cap by 50%
and so on.

However the extra borrowing has pushed sterling down and interest rates
remain around Trussonomics level.
--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics
Mike McMillan
2024-11-01 17:20:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kosmo
- Continuing expectation that technology can bring savings
Like the superstupid idea of CCS f’rintance, let the fossil fuel magnates
continue to sell us pollutants that allow them to continue making a fortune
because… It is all ok, we will capture the carbon! OK, so that’s alright
then innit?! HARRUMPH!!!!!!!!!!
--
Toodle Pip, Mike McMillan
Clive Arthur
2024-11-01 23:43:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike McMillan
Post by Kosmo
- Continuing expectation that technology can bring savings
Like the superstupid idea of CCS f’rintance, let the fossil fuel magnates
continue to sell us pollutants that allow them to continue making a fortune
because… It is all ok, we will capture the carbon! OK, so that’s alright
then innit?! HARRUMPH!!!!!!!!!!
Absolutely. Thing is, it's not 'Carbon capture and storage', it's
Carbon /Dioxide/ capture and storage.

So, dig up Carbon, burn it in atmospheric Oxygen and bury the resulting
CO2. IOW, you bury the Carbon which you dug up, plus some Oxygen. Net
effect, you bury Oxygen. That will increase the atmospheric
concentration of CO2.

Plus, CO2 is bigger than C. It won't all fit.

Also, extracting and burying CO2 costs energy, which means you have to
burn more carbon for the same amount of 'useful' energy produced.

No free lunches, except for lobbyists and innumerate politicians.
--
Cheers
Clive
Nick Odell
2024-11-02 11:10:46 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 23:43:11 +0000, Clive Arthur
Post by Clive Arthur
Post by Kosmo
- Continuing expectation that technology can bring savings
Like the superstupid idea of CCS f’rintance, let the fossil fuel magnates
continue to sell us pollutants that allow them to continue making a fortune
because… It is all ok, we will capture the carbon! OK, so that’s alright
then innit?! HARRUMPH!!!!!!!!!!
Absolutely. Thing is, it's not 'Carbon capture and storage', it's
Carbon /Dioxide/ capture and storage.
So, dig up Carbon, burn it in atmospheric Oxygen and bury the resulting
CO2. IOW, you bury the Carbon which you dug up, plus some Oxygen. Net
effect, you bury Oxygen. That will increase the atmospheric
concentration of CO2.
Plus, CO2 is bigger than C. It won't all fit.
Also, extracting and burying CO2 costs energy, which means you have to
burn more carbon for the same amount of 'useful' energy produced.
No free lunches, except for lobbyists and innumerate politicians.
I agree. We keep plunging deeper and deeper into the enshitification
of everything in the name of more complex, more unachievable goals
when, in my opinion, the only way forward is to take several steps
backward, expect less and use older, less aggressive technologies. But
that's a non-starter because it won't make gazillions of dollars for
the tec billionaires - at least one of whom seems to be making a pitch
to become World King - and most of the politicians everywhere seem too
timid to stand up to them.

Nick
john ashby
2024-11-02 17:38:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nick Odell
On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 23:43:11 +0000, Clive Arthur
Post by Clive Arthur
Post by Mike McMillan
Post by Kosmo
- Continuing expectation that technology can bring savings
Like the superstupid idea of CCS f’rintance, let the fossil fuel magnates
continue to sell us pollutants that allow them to continue making a fortune
because… It is all ok, we will capture the carbon! OK, so that’s alright
then innit?! HARRUMPH!!!!!!!!!!
Absolutely. Thing is, it's not 'Carbon capture and storage', it's
Carbon /Dioxide/ capture and storage.
So, dig up Carbon, burn it in atmospheric Oxygen and bury the resulting
CO2. IOW, you bury the Carbon which you dug up, plus some Oxygen. Net
effect, you bury Oxygen. That will increase the atmospheric
concentration of CO2.
Plus, CO2 is bigger than C. It won't all fit.
Also, extracting and burying CO2 costs energy, which means you have to
burn more carbon for the same amount of 'useful' energy produced.
No free lunches, except for lobbyists and innumerate politicians.
I agree. We keep plunging deeper and deeper into the enshitification
of everything in the name of more complex, more unachievable goals
when, in my opinion, the only way forward is to take several steps
backward, expect less and use older, less aggressive technologies. But
that's a non-starter because it won't make gazillions of dollars for
the tec billionaires - at least one of whom seems to be making a pitch
to become World King - and most of the politicians everywhere seem too
timid to stand up to them.
Nick
<LW>

john
Sam Plusnet
2024-11-02 18:25:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nick Odell
On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 23:43:11 +0000, Clive Arthur
Post by Clive Arthur
Post by Mike McMillan
Post by Kosmo
- Continuing expectation that technology can bring savings
Like the superstupid idea of CCS f’rintance, let the fossil fuel magnates
continue to sell us pollutants that allow them to continue making a fortune
because… It is all ok, we will capture the carbon! OK, so that’s alright
then innit?! HARRUMPH!!!!!!!!!!
Absolutely. Thing is, it's not 'Carbon capture and storage', it's
Carbon /Dioxide/ capture and storage.
So, dig up Carbon, burn it in atmospheric Oxygen and bury the resulting
CO2. IOW, you bury the Carbon which you dug up, plus some Oxygen. Net
effect, you bury Oxygen. That will increase the atmospheric
concentration of CO2.
Plus, CO2 is bigger than C. It won't all fit.
Also, extracting and burying CO2 costs energy, which means you have to
burn more carbon for the same amount of 'useful' energy produced.
No free lunches, except for lobbyists and innumerate politicians.
I agree. We keep plunging deeper and deeper into the enshitification
of everything in the name of more complex, more unachievable goals
when, in my opinion, the only way forward is to take several steps
backward, expect less and use older, less aggressive technologies. But
that's a non-starter because it won't make gazillions of dollars for
the tec billionaires - at least one of whom seems to be making a pitch
to become World King - and most of the politicians everywhere seem too
timid to stand up to them.
Well Google did make $44 Billion in the last quarter year - but the
Russian fine will wipe that out (being greater than what the whole
planet would be worth on the open market).
--
Sam Plusnet
Joe Kerr
2024-11-03 21:42:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike McMillan
Post by Kosmo
- Continuing expectation that technology can bring savings
Like the superstupid idea of CCS f’rintance, let the fossil fuel magnates
continue to sell us pollutants that allow them to continue making a fortune
because… It is all ok, we will capture the carbon! OK, so that’s alright
then innit?! HARRUMPH!!!!!!!!!!
Absolutely.  Thing is, it's not 'Carbon capture and storage', it's
Carbon /Dioxide/ capture and storage.
So, dig up Carbon, burn it in atmospheric Oxygen and bury the resulting
CO2.  IOW, you bury the Carbon which you dug up, plus some Oxygen.  Net
effect, you bury Oxygen.  That will increase the atmospheric
concentration of CO2.
Plus, CO2 is bigger than C.  It won't all fit.
I was thinking about that. If they capture all the superfluous CO2 and
pump it underground then it will be removed from the atmosphere and the
earth will inflate. This will reduce climate change, offset the rising
ocean and create more land for food production and habitation. Sounds
like an all round win, right?
Also, extracting and burying CO2 costs energy, which means you have to
burn more carbon for the same amount of 'useful' energy produced.
No free lunches, except for lobbyists and innumerate politicians.
--
Ric
Kosmo
2024-11-02 11:15:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike McMillan
Post by Kosmo
- Continuing expectation that technology can bring savings
Like the superstupid idea of CCS f’rintance, let the fossil fuel magnates
continue to sell us pollutants that allow them to continue making a fortune
because… It is all ok, we will capture the carbon! OK, so that’s alright
then innit?! HARRUMPH!!!!!!!!!!
Has anyone noticed the following:

a) There is a £22bn black hole
b) We are investing £22bn in carbon capture (for which the only known
equivalent are plants)
c) The NHS is going to get £22bn.

What is it with £22bn?
--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics
Mike McMillan
2024-11-03 09:09:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kosmo
Post by Mike McMillan
Post by Kosmo
- Continuing expectation that technology can bring savings
Like the superstupid idea of CCS f’rintance, let the fossil fuel magnates
continue to sell us pollutants that allow them to continue making a fortune
because… It is all ok, we will capture the carbon! OK, so that’s alright
then innit?! HARRUMPH!!!!!!!!!!
a) There is a £22bn black hole
b) We are investing £22bn in carbon capture (for which the only known
equivalent are plants)
c) The NHS is going to get £22bn.
What is it with £22bn?
It tolls off the rung?
--
Toodle Pip, Mike McMillan
Joe Kerr
2024-11-03 21:44:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kosmo
Post by Mike McMillan
Post by Kosmo
- Continuing expectation that technology can bring savings
Like the superstupid idea of CCS f’rintance, let the fossil fuel magnates
continue to sell us pollutants that allow them to continue making a fortune
because… It is all ok, we will capture the carbon! OK, so that’s alright
then innit?! HARRUMPH!!!!!!!!!!
a) There is a £22bn black hole
b) We are investing £22bn in carbon capture (for which the only known
equivalent are plants)
c) The NHS is going to get £22bn.
What is it with £22bn?
And will each of these £22bn cost £40bn?

I hope Tesco doesn't adopt this concept. "That comes to £22 sir so that
will be £40 please."
--
Ric
Kosmo
2024-11-04 10:41:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Kerr
And will each of these £22bn cost £40bn?
Probably. I am not sure why none of them seem to be able to add up.
--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics
BrritSki
2024-11-04 13:03:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Kerr
And will each of these £22bn cost £40bn?
Probably.  I am not sure why none of them seem to be able to add up.
Rachel Reeves states that only a small percentage of farms will be affected.

She's right - if you consider 1 year at a time. A quarter of the over
200K UK farms will be impacted and if you assume that a generation lasts
for 25 years that means that only 1% will be impacted this year. And
then another 1% the year after and so on.

The tax is madness.

Sign the petition here if you agree:
<https://www.campaigns.nfuonline.com/.../160300/petition/1...>
nick
2024-11-04 14:15:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Kerr
Post by Kosmo
Post by Mike McMillan
Post by Kosmo
- Continuing expectation that technology can bring savings
Like the superstupid idea of CCS f’rintance, let the fossil fuel magnates
continue to sell us pollutants that allow them to continue making a fortune
because… It is all ok, we will capture the carbon! OK, so that’s alright
then innit?! HARRUMPH!!!!!!!!!!
a) There is a £22bn black hole
b) We are investing £22bn in carbon capture (for which the only known
equivalent are plants)
c) The NHS is going to get £22bn.
What is it with £22bn?
And will each of these £22bn cost £40bn?
I hope Tesco doesn't adopt this concept. "That comes to £22 sir so that
will be £40 please."
But Tesco have already adopted this concept.

"That comes to £22 sir but without a Tesco Clubcard that will be £40
please."

Nick
Sam Plusnet
2024-11-04 18:15:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by nick
Post by Joe Kerr
Post by Kosmo
Post by Mike McMillan
Post by Kosmo
- Continuing expectation that technology can bring savings
Like the superstupid idea of CCS f’rintance, let the fossil fuel magnates
continue to sell us pollutants that allow them to continue making a fortune
because… It is all ok, we will capture the carbon! OK, so that’s alright
then innit?! HARRUMPH!!!!!!!!!!
a) There is a £22bn black hole
b) We are investing £22bn in carbon capture (for which the only known
equivalent are plants)
c) The NHS is going to get £22bn.
What is it with £22bn?
And will each of these £22bn cost £40bn?
I hope Tesco doesn't adopt this concept. "That comes to £22 sir so that
will be £40 please."
But Tesco have already adopted this concept.
"That comes to £22 sir but without a Tesco Clubcard that will be £40
please."
Anyone who doesn't have a clubcard will say:
"Blow that for a game of soldiers!"
since they are demonstrably being overcharged for those "Special
Clubcard Price!" items.
--
Sam Plusnet
Chris
2024-11-02 08:56:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by BrritSki
Amazing that there's been no TI regarding the changes to IHT that affect
farms.
No Tony or David whinging about how parts of their farms will have to be
sold off the pay the bill when they peg it, or discussing if there is
anything to do to mitigate the impact.
No Justin twirling his moustaches and devising cunning plans to buy up
all the new parcels of land that are going to come on to the market.
No doubt the urban feckwits who write TA (and who came up with the
wheeze to reform Agricultural Property Relief) have no idea of the impact.
Don’t suppose anyone knew it was coming. Anyway, aunty might *think* it’s
still a farming ‘soap’ but we know it isn’t.

Doesn’t look as if there’s anything likely next week either.

Mrs McT
Loading...