The death of your dog is hard to bear
However, in his recent column (Digested week: The house feels less than a house without Herbert Hound, 18 April), Crace's writing shows a contrasting tenderness in his gentle tribute to his canine pal – a sentiment with which many readers can readily identify, based on their own experience of pet death. Good on him for spelling out the impact of his loss. I hope in his case that time does indeed heal.Phil MurrayLinlithgow, West Lothian
I feel for John Crace. I too am in deep, painful and alarming mourning for my faithful and beautiful dog, who died in my arms last month. I didn't come from a 'doggie' family and George was my first (and only) dog. I am reminded of lines from the Rudyard Kipling poem, The Power of the Dog: 'There is sorrow enough in the natural way / From men and women to fill our day; / And when we are certain of sorrow in store, / Why do we always arrange for more? / Brothers and Sisters, I bid you beware / Of giving your heart to a dog to tear'.Margaret DixonLongridge, Lancashire
How I feel for John Crace. Mollie, our 14-year‑old working cocker, died last month. The grief I felt was unimaginable. I missed her physical presence, her unconditional love, her gentleness with children. But her death also brought up feelings of sadness hidden away over the years. I was engulfed by grief, remembering my parents, my son, my friends who had died. I wished I'd let her on the sofa and cuddled her more.Jo BurdenMarlow, Buckinghamshire
Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
4 hours ago
- The Sun
How Man Utd plan to fund £2billion new stadium with ‘sinister' tactic from the US
MANCHESTER UNITED are reportedly planning to fund their new £2billion stadium with a 'sinister' tactic from the US. The Red Devils announced plans for a mega 100,000-seater arena in March after deciding to replace Old Trafford. 3 3 The new stadium will be the biggest in the country. And a local regeneration project is expected to create thousands of jobs and new homes. United believe once the £2bn stadium and surrounding areas are complete, it will generate £7bn annually into the economy. United's plans are expected to cost upwards of £4.2bn in total. But according to the Guardian, United are planning on taking a leaf from the US in terms of funding. In order to build their stadium, United must move a rail freight hub which currently sits on land needed for the project. And it's claimed they want the UK government to pay the estimated costs, which could reach £300million – but has previously been estimated at as much as £1bn. In the past, West Ham's London Stadium and Manchester City's Etihad Stadium were built with public money. However, their homes were initially created for one-off sporting events, with the London Stadium serving the London Olympics in 2012, and the Etihad built for the Commonwealth Games in 2002. Politicians including Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham had previously declared that no public funds would be used to build United's new stadium. 3 TRANSFER NEWS LIVE - KEEP UP WITH ALL THE LATEST FROM A BUSY SUMMER WINDOW But as this cost would only be for clearing land needed for the arena, it would not fall under the technical billing of the 100,000-seater ground itself. This follows a 'sinister' trend across the pond in the US, where public funds are often handed to sport teams for new stadiums. In 2016, the Las Vegas Raiders were handed £555m when they were still a California-based franchise. Three years ago, the Buffalo Bills received £629m of public funding, while the Washington Commanders are currently in the process of landing £740m - which works out at $1bn. The money is handed out with the promise of returning major numbers to the economy. But Pat Garofalo, of the American Economic Liberties Project, told The Guardian: 'That's the story they tell to get the public money, but it's the big lie. 'We (in the US) export a lot of problematic things, and I really hope that we don't export that big lie.'
The Guardian
19 hours ago
- The Guardian
How would potential new property tax differ from stamp duty and council tax system?
The government is considering a new national property tax as the first step towards a radical shake-up of stamp duty and council tax. The discussions taking place at the Treasury – revealed by the Guardian on Monday – have already prompted much debate and, perhaps inevitably, led to an outcry in some quarters. Here we consider how the current system works and how it could change. Two things, essentially. First, sources said Treasury officials were initially examining a potential new tax that would replace stamp duty on owner-occupied homes. It would be paid by homeowners on properties worth more than £500,000 when they sold them. The amount paid would be determined by a property's value. Such a change would be a big deal because under the current system, stamp duty is paid by buyers, not sellers. It could be a bigger concern for some people living in London, the south-east and other areas where property prices are particularly high. Second, officials are also said to be studying whether, after a national tax was brought in, a local property tax could then replace council tax in the medium term. While a new national property tax could in theory be implemented during this parliament, overhauling council tax would take longer and would almost certainly require Labour to win a second term in 2029. You must pay stamp duty land tax (SDLT) – to give it its full name – if you buy a property over a certain price in England and Northern Ireland. There are different approaches to some land taxes in Wales and Scotland. Stamp duty rates vary depending on whether someone is a first-time buyer, and are banded in steps upward depending on the value of the property. They can also vary as a result of stamp duty 'holidays' benefiting some buyers that are brought in from time to time. The rates changed in April this year, and (first-time buyers excepted) where this is the only residential property someone will own, the tax is now zero up to £125,000, then 2% on the portion from £125,001 to £250,000, and 5% on the portion from £250,001 to £925,000. There are then two more bands so that it tops out at 12% on the portion above £1.5m. However, economists and others have long criticised stamp duty as outdated – SDLT is based on a tax first introduced in England in 1694 – and arguably the biggest barrier to moving house. Paul Johnson, until recently the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, has said that of all the taxes levied at present, stamp duty on homes 'has a pretty good claim to be the most damaging and pernicious of the lot'. He added: 'The more often you move, the more tax you pay. It gums up the housing market and, by extension, the labour market.' The average stamp duty bill has risen to £9,935, according to research issued earlier this year by Coventry building society. It was £6,235 in 2014, according to its data. But of course, individual amounts vary hugely. It is estimated that the majority of property transactions – about 60%-plus – are affected by stamp duty. It has been suggested it would be paid by owner-occupiers on houses worth more than £500,000 when they sell up. The rate would be set by central government. This tax would not replace stamp duty on second homes. On the face of it, and based on current property prices, a £500,000 threshold would mean that the majority of people selling their home would escape the new tax. The average price of a home in the UK is £272,664 or £298,237, depending on whether you believe Nationwide's or Halifax's latest data. Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning after newsletter promotion But tough luck if you are in London: according to the Halifax's latest data, the average house price in the capital is £539,000. The Guardian reported that the new tax (if it happens) would only affect about a fifth of property sales. Stephen Perkins, the managing director at the home loans broker Yellow Brick Mortgages, said: 'Financially, unless the property tax is ridiculously high, this will raise less money than stamp duty, as fewer homes will be affected.' He claimed: 'Initially, sellers will just build this into asking prices, sending [property] prices up.' Sources said Treasury officials were, in part, drawing on the findings of a 48-page report from the centre-right thinktank Onward, which was published in August last year. This put forward the idea of a 0.54% tax, with a 0.278% supplement on the portion of any value that exceeded £1m, which it said 'would raise the same amount as stamp duty'. The tax would be levied only on properties valued at £500,000-plus, and only on the portion of value above £500,000. The thinktank proposed that someone who had only recently bought their house and paid a substantial sum in stamp duty would not be asked to pay this tax in addition. Council tax has been described as 'a deeply broken system', and in its report, Onward said the way it worked meant 'an average home in Blackpool contributes more to the public purse than a mansion in Kensington'. Council tax bands in England are still set using property values from 1 April 1991, ranging from band A, for homes worth up to £40,000, to band H, for those worth £320,001 and above. The system of funding local government is different across the UK. The average band D council tax set by local authorities in England for 2025-26 was £2,280 – an increase of £109, or 5%, on the 2024-25 figure of £2,171. The idea of a new local annual property levy to replace council tax was also proposed by Onward. That plan – for a 'local proportional property tax' – would result in the owners, rather than the residents, of a property worth up to £500,000 paying varying rates of tax dependent on the value of the home. They would pay a minimum of £800 a year. A rate of 0.44% 'would raise the same amount of revenue as council tax', said the report. The TaxPayers' Alliance was quoted as saying: 'If these reports are true, then taxpayers are facing a wealth tax in all but name.' Craig Fish, the director at the mortgage broker Lodestone, said he was concerned that such a shake-up would stop people selling or moving home, especially in high-value areas. 'The result is less income overall,' he said.
The Guardian
a day ago
- The Guardian
Trump's move to sanitize US history gets little support with national park visitors
As part of his administration's war on 'woke', Donald Trump has asked the American public to report anything 'negative' about Americans in US national parks. But the public has largely refused to support a world view without inconvenient historical facts, comments submitted from national parks and seen by the Guardian show. Notices have been erected at every National Park Service (NPS) site, which spans 433 national parks, monuments and battlefields, following an order from May entitled 'Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History', issued by Trump's department of the interior. The president had demanded a crackdown on any material that 'inappropriately disparages Americans'. The signs ask visitors to report any damage to parks as well as, via QR code, to identify 'any signs or other information that are negative about either past or living Americans or that fail to emphasize the beauty, grandeur, and abundance of landscapes and other natural features'. But a trove of nearly 500 comments relating to the signs submitted across the US by the public in June and July, seen by the Guardian, show that visitors have mostly been reluctant to demand the removal of park materials about the darker chapters of America's past, such as slavery or the mistreatment of Native tribes. 'Are we such weak, fragile people that we can't view the full length and breadth of our history?' one visitor to Muir Woods in California wrote in July after a sign called 'history under construction' was taken down. 'Are we so afraid that we have to hide factual history from the telling of our past? Oh, please!!' Another visitor to Cumberland Gap national historical park in Kentucky wrote in June that 'the staff that work at this park are among the kindest, most knowledgeable people you will find anywhere'. They added: 'I hate that this administration feels that history that may depict the United States in a bad light should be covered up.' Many of the comments praise park rangers or call for more information on issues such as the Indigenous American experience or the climate crisis. Some complain about the decision to remove the 'T' from LGBT at New York's Stonewall national monument, to exclude transgender people, while some visitors demanded the unvarnished truth be told at Manzanar, a California facility where Japanese-Americans were interned during the second world war. 'Sanitizing or downplaying this history does a disservice to those who lived through it,' one Manzanar tourist wrote. 'Whoever authorized this sign should be fired,' added another visitor about the new signage. 'History belongs to all people, and any attempt to rewrite or gloss over even our darkest days should not be tolerated.' The QR code comments, a snapshot of public opinions that are filtered before being stored by the NPS, come at a tumultuous time for the park service. Nearly a quarter of NPS staff have departed the agency since Trump became president, leading to overstretched and potentially dangerous conditions at storied sites often referred to as 'America's best idea', such as Yellowstone, the Everglades and the Statue of Liberty. 'Americans have demonstrated they have a deep love affair with national parks and what we've seen from these comments is that the public has said this is an insulting and misguided effort,' said John Garder, a senior director at the National Parks Conservation Association. 'Rangers shouldn't be intimidated to not talk about slavery and other things that have happened in America's past. It's outrageous and the American public have been deeply disturbed by it.' However, not all of the submitted comments from what some park staff call 'snitch signs' will be used to direct the revamp of park signage. Of the comments seen by the Guardian, fewer than 40 were 'flagged for review' by the park service and of those, fewer than 10 were indicated to be definitely used as part of the response to the interior department order. This small selection of comments mostly aligns with the administration's perspective. One complains about 'revisionist history based in woke religion' at Muir Woods, another criticizes 'fashionable leftist jargon' and a third, from a visitor to Washington's Rock Creek park, is upset that materials on Francis Newlands, a US senator around the time of the first world war, 'disparage him as a white supremacist for holding what were common views at the time'. 'They want this virtue-washed version of history and they are trying to drive a wedge between us and the public,' said one senior NPS employee, who did not want to be named for fear for retribution. 'Every time there is a comment asking for more information on Indigenous people, it won't be acknowledged. If there's someone who says they are terribly offended by a sign, it will be flagged and sent for review.' The NPS staffer, part of the 'resistance rangers' movement within the park service comprising more than 1,000 off-duty rangers that has its own podcast in which they contribute anonymously, said that the composition of comments has recently become more pro-Trump since the park service noticed the public were mostly supportive of signs. 'It seems like an orchestrated effort was made, a lot of the comments appear the same or AI-generated,' said the employee. The Guardian has seen no evidence that the public responses have been distorted by the administration in this way. 'Overwhelmingly, we have a positive response from the public every day. People don't want this. Every day I have people whisper to me, 'we love the parks, we want to help.'' The administration is expected to act soon to take down signs it deems inappropriate. On Monday, it began a separate month-long process to review and remove other materials in national park sites, such as books and posters found in gift shops. 'We have to review every single pamphlet, pin and magnet,' said one NPS employee. 'There are going to be hundreds of items that are going to be removed.' A superintendent of a history-based park said there has been very little guidance on how to judge materials as problematic. 'It's on the park staff, who are already underresourced, to figure out what to censor, which is really troubling,' they said. 'I've tried to not delegate any of this because I don't want to make staff do things that go against their values,' the superintendent said of the signs. 'This is a way to stop us talking about difficult topics and tie our hands behind our backs. Overwhelmingly, the public aren't buying it. They don't want this. When the department set this up I don't think they expected so many of the comments to be positive, it backfired a bit on them.' The purge is part of a wider push by the Trump administration to bend American historical, cultural and scientific life to fit its ideological imperatives. Military bases and statues will again bear the name of Confederate generals, climate science reports will be re-edited to potentially include discredited, fringe views while current and planned exhibitions at the Smithsonian Institution, the world's largest museum and research complex, will be reviewed to 'assess tone, historical framing and alignment with American ideals'. An NPS spokesperson said by 18 September signs found to be 'inconsistent' with the Department of Interior order would be removed, covered up or reinstated at a later date. 'The National Park Service has received several substantive comments to date from across the country complimenting park programs or services, noting maintenance issues, or flagging potential inaccuracies or distortions of information out of context,' the spokesperson said. 'In implementing the order, the goal is to foster honest, respectful storytelling that educates visitors while honoring the complexity of our nation's shared journey and park staff are only sent actionable comments related to that goal.'
