Post Office to re-open on High Street, months after previous branch's closure
The Post Office says the former Furniture Express shop will be refurbished to house the post office branch, along with a new convenience store. The previous branch on Wellington Square closed with the town's WHSmith store in May.
The new shop at 148 High Street is due to open at 1pm on Monday, September 29, with opening hours 9am to 5.30pm, Monday to Saturday, and 9am to 4pm Sundays. The Post Office says it will provide '58 hours of Post Office service a week for the convenience of customers".
'This is an extra 11 hours and 30 minutes of Post Office service a week, including all-day Sunday and Saturday afternoon. There will be two full-screened counters and one combi counter available,' says the Post Office.
It adds on its website: 'Whilst the decision has already been made to reopen this branch, we would still like your views on access at the new location. We welcome feedback that can help inform our plans.'
Customers have been invited to share their views on access at the new premises and other feedback in an online consultation with a questionnaire. This chance to give comments closes on August 20. Submissions can also be made via email to comments@postoffice.co.uk, by post to Freepost YOUR COMMENTS, or by telephone 03452 660115 or Textphone 03457 223355.
Stockton West MP Matt Vickers welcomed the news, saying: 'It is vital that everyone has access to services, and it is good news that the future of the post office in Stockton town centre is secured.'
Stockton North MP Chris McDonald posted on social media: 'This will be a modern, open-plan main-style branch, providing essential services for our community from a central, accessible location."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Bridgehaven Europe to acquire Irish insurer SureStone
UK-based Bridgehaven Europe Holdings has agreed to acquire SureStone Insurance DAC, a Dublin-based insurer, marking its entry into the EU market. This acquisition represents Bridgehaven's initial move towards establishing a regulated underwriting operation within the EU. Following the transaction, SureStone will become Bridgehaven's first subsidiary in the region, allowing the company to underwrite risks in Europe via the managing general agent (MGA) sector. SureStone, which entered run-off at the end of 2019, previously specialised in property and casualty (P&C) lines. Bridgehaven has assured that it will uphold all existing financial and regulatory commitments to policyholders, claimants and business partners. The company aims to leverage this acquisition to cater to the demand for EU-based commercial and specialty insurance products across all 27 EU member states. Currently, Bridgehaven generates more than £350m ($469.1m) in binder premium through its partnerships and arrangements with UK MGAs. The MGA market within the EU is set to grow to £50bn (€57.67bn) in premium volume over the next three to five years. Bridgehaven CEO Paul Jewell said: 'Going forwards, we will support MGAs who require EU commercial and specialty products across the 27 EU states. 'Our aspiration is to be the leading hybrid insurer supporting MGAs, linking quality reinsurance capital to a diversified and profitable portfolio.' The deal requires regulatory approval and the fulfillment of standard closing conditions. "Bridgehaven Europe to acquire Irish insurer SureStone" was originally created and published by Life Insurance International, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site.
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
William Watson: Government-managed trade is sure to fail again
Those are some trade deals Donald Trump is shaking hands on — but so far not releasing details about. The U.S. gets tariff-free access to other countries while other countries pay stiff across-the-board tariffs going into the U.S. The U.K. pays 10 per cent, the EU and Japan 15 per cent, Indonesia and the Philippines 19 per cent and Vietnam 20 per cent. What China will pay remains to be determined. It typically pushes back more in response to Trump's jibes and jabs. Perhaps President Xi Jinping read the sections of the Art of the Deal about the need to stand up to bullies. Silly question: If a virtue of tariffs is that they're clean and simple, as the U.S. president always says, wouldn't it be a lot easier to have the same across-the-board rate for all countries? And whatever happened to 'reciprocity,' which the White House was big on a couple of months ago? Tariffs of 10-20 per cent for other countries' goods going into the U.S. but zero for American goods entering other countries are hardly 'reciprocal.' Yes, the rates chosen supposedly reflect the amount of procedural protectionism or non-tariff barriers (NTBs) that countries impose on U.S. goods. Except that no systematic study of that in fact much-studied problem has produced numbers that look like the pattern the deals reveal. And of course the U.S. itself is no stranger to NTBs and procedural protectionism. Just ask our softwood lumber industry. What the emerging regime looks like most is affirmative action for American businesses. They evidently can't compete with wily foreigners deploying unfair practices against them. And they're unwilling to abide by the (presumably rigged) decisions of international trade tribunals set up, under U.S. leadership actually, to make sure governments discriminate as little as possible against one another's firms. Even as the Trump administration abolishes affirmative action from U.S. society in general, it imposes it in international trade. Also strange are the commitments by other countries to invest given dollar amounts in the U.S. and to buy given amounts of U.S. goods, especially Boeing aircraft. Japan's going to buy 100 Boeing planes (not clear yet whether doors will be extra) and invest $550 billion in the U.S., with the U.S. somehow getting 90 per cent of the profit on this investment. Details to follow. When we economists teach international trade theory we customarily talk about (to cite the classic example) Portugal selling wine to the U.K. in return for wool. But in the real world, the non-communist parts of it at least, countries generally don't buy and sell goods and services to each other. Rather, people and companies in their millions and billions decide what goods and services to buy and their accumulated choices generate the trade flows we see. That type of trade system accords very well with the traditionally very American view that governments should not run economies, people and businesses should, with the government restricting itself to policing property rights and providing good public services at a reasonable tax price. But now governments, America's included, apparently want to manage the intricate details of the supply chain. In support of the Trump tariffs, some American politicians say it's simply not efficient for car parts to cross the Canada-U.S. or U.S.-Mexico border several times before cars are complete, as sometimes happens. But who are they to say? Since 1965's Canada-U.S. Auto Pact car companies have decided, free of tariffs, how best to put cars together. If it made economic sense to make and assemble all the parts in one location — if that's what maxed out their profits — you can bet that's what they'd do. If they don't do that, it's because that isn't the most efficient way to do things, given costs, technologies and transportation costs. Politicians should stick to matters such as Jeffrey Epstein and let car companies figure out how best to make cars. Why have Americans traditionally resisted government micro-management of the economy? Have a listen to the soundtrack of Hamilton. Because they abhor the concentration of power in a politico-industrial complex. Because not even a stable genius in the White House — not to suggest that's what we have now — would be smart enough to outsmart the combined intelligence and creativity of the entire American population when channelled through price- and efficiency-revealing markets. And, finally, because the invisible hand of competition is the best way to restrain the grasping hand of corruption. Corruption is not unknown in the private sector, of course. Humans are humans everywhere and always prey to temptation. But if you have competition — which in a small country like Canada is often provided by imports and foreign investors — companies or individuals that go astray get punished in the marketplace. And decisions don't get made for political reasons. Donald Trump always says he wants Canadian auto jobs to move to Michigan and Ohio, which, no coincidence, are two battleground states. Every president, not just the transparently venal, will favour places he wants his party to win in the next election, whenever that is. The only way to avoid such corruption is to remove power from politicians and vest it in markets. William Watson: All checks, no balances here in Nastyland William Watson: Our better-funded military will need to be more lethal I do understand such arguments are in disfavour at the moment. I bet the future vindicates them, as it always does. But the process won't be fun. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
It's time Canada took another look at how it taxes death
In 1789, one of the founding fathers of the United States, Benjamin Franklin, famously wrote in a letter that 'In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.' So true. But what happens when a death occurs? Does the taxman take an interest? Around the world, the answer is an emphatic 'yes.' However, the form of such taxes can vary widely. For example, some countries have an estate tax based upon the fair market value of the decedent's property at death. There is often a basic exemption for such amounts so that it is only the amount of the estate in excess of that exemption that is subject to tax. The U.S. and a handful of other countries, such as the United Kingdom, South Korea and Denmark, have a traditional estate tax. In the U.S., it's fair to say the estate tax is more of a symbolic tax. It was originally established in 1916 with the stated policy objective of preventing dynastic wealth accumulation. The exemption amount is now US$15 million (but it will be indexed to inflation starting in 2026) as implemented by the One Big Beautiful Bill. Such a large exemption exempts the vast majority of deaths from the tax. For example, in 2022, the U.S. estate tax applied to only about 3,900 taxable estates — roughly 0.11 per cent of deaths — and raised approximately US$22.5 billion out of total federal revenues of approximately US$4.9 trillion. In other words, it's a pittance. Most tax practitioners know it's pretty easy to walk around the U.S. estate tax. It's fair to say the estate tax has failed to achieve its original policy objective. In other countries, an inheritance tax is common, and the recipients of a deceased's estate pay it. Countries such as Germany, France, Belgium and others deploy this type of regime. There are a variety of other death tax regimes, like a capital acquisitions tax in Ireland that is triggered when an individual acquires wealth, either through inheritance or gifts. Chile has a similar regime. Other countries, such as Greece, Italy and parts of Latin America, have stamp or notarial duties that apply when people register their inheritances. What about Canada? It introduced an estate tax in 1947 and it operated similarly to the U.S. model. In 1966, the Royal Commission on Taxation recommended the country abolish it and instead introduce an inheritance tax. 'The estate tax fails to account for the economic position of those who receive the assets and cannot be properly integrated with a personal tax system based on income and individual ability to pay,' its report said about the estate tax. 'We believe that an integrated income tax system should treat all accretions to wealth, whether earned or unearned, as part of the taxpayer's income, and that gifts and inheritances should be included in income for this reason.' In the end, after much debate and consideration, the government chose to abolish the estate tax and not introduce an inheritance tax as recommended by the commission. It appears that, like today, any form of death tax in the late 1960s and early 1970s was very unpopular with voters. Accordingly, Canada decided to introduce a deemed disposition upon death rule as part of the introduction of capital gains tax effective Jan. 1, 1972 (previously, capital gains were not taxable). The new regime treated death as a disposition event of one's worldwide property, with any resulting gains included in their final income tax return. Such a regime combines with the acceleration of deferred income inclusions — such as registered retirement savings plans and registered retirement income funds — which are included in income upon death. This overall regime has had some tweaking over the years, but the basic architecture has remained since 1972. There are a number of exceptions to the deemed disposition and deemed income inclusion tax. For example, if the deceased's assets all vest with a surviving spouse or common-law partner, the tax is deferred until the survivor's death. Canada's regime is very unique. Has it served Canada well? It's fair to say it was and continues to be a clever compromise to avoid the administrative complexities of an estate tax and/or inheritance tax. It's also less politically charged than a traditional estate or inheritance tax, which is often thought to be unfair given that it may result in double tax (since assets are usually accumulated with after-tax amounts and taxed again at death) and liquidity issues (the liquidity issue is diminished for an inheritance tax, however). Notwithstanding, it's time Canada took another look at how it taxes death. From a tax policy design perspective, using death as a trigger for taxation makes sense given its administrative efficiency. But does our current regime help prevent dynastic wealth? Should it? Do we care? Are there reasons to not tax upon death so as to assist with generational wealth accumulation, especially for lower- and middle-income families who have modest assets? Benjamin Franklin wasn't wrong. Death and taxes are certain. But that doesn't explain why most Canadians have no idea how the two collide. That lack of financial literacy comes at a cost. As trillions in wealth prepare to shift between generations, Canada cannot keep pretending that our current approach to taxing death is sacrosanct. It may be efficient, but is it fair? Does it need updating? Prime Minister Mark Carney's commitment to an 'expert review' of our corporate tax system is the same tired half-step we've seen for decades. What the country needs is a full-scale, unapologetic review of the entire tax system, including how we tax death. Canada's personal tax rates need to come down. Here's how to do it CRA keeps messing up despite an increased headcount and bigger budget It's time for grown-up conversations before the taxman has the last word. Kim Moody, FCPA, FCA, TEP, is the founder of Moodys Tax/Moodys Private Client, a former chair of the Canadian Tax Foundation, former chair of the Society of Estate Practitioners (Canada) and has held many other leadership positions in the Canadian tax community. He can be reached at kgcm@ and his LinkedIn profile is __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
