PB - I have a dilemma. I am meant to go on a punishing 15km hike across cliffs and dunes to my next hotel. I know I will arrive - sore and tired - with a sense of achievement. And this hike is my assignment
Alternatively I could sit in this pleasant town square and sip medronho and pingado and read my biography of Pessoa and then just get a cab in about 3 hours. In other words, cheat
No one at the Gazette will know
What would YOU do?
Well, no-one should be surprised at my answer: walk.
For several reasons. Firstly, I believe you've said you want to lose weight, and walking is a good way of doing that - especially if the alternative is sitting around and drinking. Secondly, walking is good for your mental health. Thirdly, and most importantly, if you are hiking then you cannot be spamming PB about aliens or AI.
But seriously, hike it.
Based on taking a rest after each league of walking we could still hear plenty from a hiker, if they were so inclined.
Wouldn't think it was technically that difficult, given accessibility options and the like, to have his phone set up to read PB comments to him as he walked, and enable him to dictate responses. You could probably assign different voices to different posters too.
Property is too big a tax base to make the preserve of councils.
We should abolish council tax, abolish stamp duty and add an annual tax on the property value (rolled forward in a transparent way using a house price index maintained by the ONS). This should all be paid for by the owner and not the occupier.
For cash poor people there can be a provision to put a charge on the property to be paid on sale/death with an interest rate applied like with student loans.
How do you establish the base property value? There would be reams of appeals. What about when home improvements such as extensions are done?
Easy - last sold price is available for most things sold since 1988 and there are numerous calculators that provide valid estimates for current prices except where improvements were made - it's surprising how good they are most of the time...
Where improvements are made there is an issue as to when you start taxing them but again that's a simple decision.
And for houses not sold since 1988 you use local comparisons to provide estimates that can then be appealed if necessary...
Basically, a primary residence is essential so taxes on that should be kept to a minimum.
But ownership of second and subsequent properties isn't so we should go LARGE on taxes on them.
Many councils have tried to do that but they have been barred by central government.
Also it's fairly easy for a married couple to each claim 1 house is their main abode and if greedy claim the single person discount.
So block the loopholes and enforce it. Central Government should change their attitude. I want taxes to be as low as possible, as decentralised as possible, but as fair as possible.
How do you block the loopholes?
As well as my house in Essex, suppose I own a property in Hungary as my second home, my flat in Islington as my third home, and my house in N. Ireland as my fourth home. (Shades of an ex-pber).
How does Essex Council find out about all these?
I am fully in favour of increasing property taxes, which are absurdly low in the UK even compared to the US.
But, a second-home tax is really very difficult to police, especially if some of the property is abroad.
I think it is simpler & fairer to reform Council Tax with more bands, and make sure the top end are paying a bigger whack.
Trouble is that doesn't help the issue of ghost towns and poor use of housing stock. The idea is to make second home ownership as onerous as possible.
If you own a property in Hungary that is the Hungarian's problem not ours.
No. If you spend most of your time in your Hungarian mansion, then the ghost properties are in the UK.
And, in fact, this occurs. A house near me in North Wales is owned by an American who lives most of the time in France.
He was last seen at the property one and a half years ago.
Another house near me was owned by a Singaporean. He was never there, and it burned down.
Starmer is leaning heavily on comments on investment by people in ?BP? and elsewhere. ISTR something a few months ago, but does anyone have linkies to their comments?
Property is too big a tax base to make the preserve of councils.
We should abolish council tax, abolish stamp duty and add an annual tax on the property value (rolled forward in a transparent way using a house price index maintained by the ONS). This should all be paid for by the owner and not the occupier.
For cash poor people there can be a provision to put a charge on the property to be paid on sale/death with an interest rate applied like with student loans.
How do you establish the base property value? There would be reams of appeals. What about when home improvements such as extensions are done?
The fun free-market way is that you get to choose your own property value, but the government can choose to buy the house from you at double the price you reported and you have to sell it to them.
The dull way is that a bureaucrat looks at it on Google Maps and assigns a value based on the location and how big it is. If you're getting too many appeals, add 20% to the assessed value if your appeal fails.
PB Tories think Truss is amazing despite their latest "waver", they must assume we're all thick.
I've been telling you all along that she was good and being underestimated. 😎
I’ve only just realised how much Boris had begun to irritate me. Without me realising. Now that he is replaced
He’s a funny guy and can be very charming but a global crisis and war and the rest is not the time for endless jokes and needy, please-like-me charisma
Truss looks like she doesn’t give a fuck what people think. She’s got her plans. She’s speaks them plainly but clearly. This is it, this is what we’re doing
Property is too big a tax base to make the preserve of councils.
We should abolish council tax, abolish stamp duty and add an annual tax on the property value (rolled forward in a transparent way using a house price index maintained by the ONS). This should all be paid for by the owner and not the occupier.
For cash poor people there can be a provision to put a charge on the property to be paid on sale/death with an interest rate applied like with student loans.
How do you establish the base property value? There would be reams of appeals. What about when home improvements such as extensions are done?
Easy - last sold price is available for most things sold since 1988 and there are numerous calculators that provide valid estimates for current prices except where improvements were made - it's surprising how good they are most of the time...
Where improvements are made there is an issue as to when you start taxing them but again that's a simple decision.
And for houses not sold since 1988 you use local comparisons to provide estimates that can then be appealed if necessary...
just have a rule of self declaration but means the government can compulsory purchase the property at 120% of what s declared if it is deemed taking the mick.That way you dont need an army of valuation officers
Basically, a primary residence is essential so taxes on that should be kept to a minimum.
But ownership of second and subsequent properties isn't so we should go LARGE on taxes on them.
Many councils have tried to do that but they have been barred by central government.
Also it's fairly easy for a married couple to each claim 1 house is their main abode and if greedy claim the single person discount.
So block the loopholes and enforce it. Central Government should change their attitude. I want taxes to be as low as possible, as decentralised as possible, but as fair as possible.
How do you block the loopholes?
As well as my house in Essex, suppose I own a property in Hungary as my second home, my flat in Islington as my third home, and my house in N. Ireland as my fourth home. (Shades of an ex-pber).
How does Essex Council find out about all these?
I am fully in favour of increasing property taxes, which are absurdly low in the UK even compared to the US.
But, a second-home tax is really very difficult to police, especially if some of the property is abroad.
I think it is simpler & fairer to reform Council Tax with more bands, and make sure the top end are paying a bigger whack.
Trouble is that doesn't help the issue of ghost towns and poor use of housing stock. The idea is to make second home ownership as onerous as possible.
If you own a property in Hungary that is the Hungarian's problem not ours.
No. If you spend most of your time in your Hungarian mansion, then the ghost properties are in the UK.
And, in fact, this occurs. A house near me in North Wales is owned by an American who lives most of the time in France.
He was last seen at the property one and a half years ago.
Another house near me was owned by a Singaporean. He was never there, and it burned down.
Underused house in North Wales burns down! Ho-hum; double ho-hum!
At last! The fact that the £170bn is non-UK and non-taxable is addressed to Starmer and again he fails to answer the question as to how high above 65% he'd want it to be.
PB Tories think Truss is amazing despite their latest "waver", they must assume we're all thick.
I think she has done a surprisingly good job in getting to grips with things since Tuesday.
Oddly I'm beginning to think she might turn out to be better at governing than any of the Cameron>May>Boris threesome but will still end up being booted out by the electorate at the end of the Parliament...
Basically, a primary residence is essential so taxes on that should be kept to a minimum.
But ownership of second and subsequent properties isn't so we should go LARGE on taxes on them.
Many councils have tried to do that but they have been barred by central government.
Also it's fairly easy for a married couple to each claim 1 house is their main abode and if greedy claim the single person discount.
So block the loopholes and enforce it. Central Government should change their attitude. I want taxes to be as low as possible, as decentralised as possible, but as fair as possible.
How do you block the loopholes?
As well as my house in Essex, suppose I own a property in Hungary as my second home, my flat in Islington as my third home, and my house in N. Ireland as my fourth home. (Shades of an ex-pber).
How does Essex Council find out about all these?
I am fully in favour of increasing property taxes, which are absurdly low in the UK even compared to the US.
But, a second-home tax is really very difficult to police, especially if some of the property is abroad.
I think it is simpler & fairer to reform Council Tax with more bands, and make sure the top end are paying a bigger whack.
Trouble is that doesn't help the issue of ghost towns and poor use of housing stock. The idea is to make second home ownership as onerous as possible.
If you own a property in Hungary that is the Hungarian's problem not ours.
No. If you spend most of your time in your Hungarian mansion, then the ghost properties are in the UK.
And, in fact, this occurs. A house near me in North Wales is owned by an American who lives most of the time in France.
He was last seen at the property one and a half years ago.
Another house near me was owned by a Singaporean. He was never there, and it burned down.
Underused house in North Wales burns down! Ho-hum; double ho-hum!
I have not actually read a convincing account of how it came to burn down.
It was a big house. It had been on the market for a while, with no takers.
Would I be naive to assume that the same people who were prolapsing over the idea of a male czar of menstruation will also be having a moment over Truss abolishing the role of minister of women and handing the duties over to notable understander of women, Nadhim Zahawi?
At last! The fact that the £170bn is non-UK and non-taxable is addressed to Starmer and again he fails to answer the question as to how high above 65% he'd want it to be.
Starmer seemed somewhat non plussed and even asked the chancellor to look into it and to discuss it with him
Property is too big a tax base to make the preserve of councils.
We should abolish council tax, abolish stamp duty and add an annual tax on the property value (rolled forward in a transparent way using a house price index maintained by the ONS). This should all be paid for by the owner and not the occupier.
For cash poor people there can be a provision to put a charge on the property to be paid on sale/death with an interest rate applied like with student loans.
How do you establish the base property value? There would be reams of appeals. What about when home improvements such as extensions are done?
Easy - last sold price is available for most things sold since 1988 and there are numerous calculators that provide valid estimates for current prices except where improvements were made - it's surprising how good they are most of the time...
Where improvements are made there is an issue as to when you start taxing them but again that's a simple decision.
And for houses not sold since 1988 you use local comparisons to provide estimates that can then be appealed if necessary...
just have a rule of self declaration but means the government can compulsory purchase the property at 120% of what s declared if it is deemed taking the mick.That way you dont need an army of valuation officers
There is no need for an army of valuers - the data is already there to provide a sane estimate of prices....
Please don't be offended, but I drew up a mental list of those PBers who would immediately rally to Liz the moment she was anointed. I have to say you headed that list.
Property is too big a tax base to make the preserve of councils.
We should abolish council tax, abolish stamp duty and add an annual tax on the property value (rolled forward in a transparent way using a house price index maintained by the ONS). This should all be paid for by the owner and not the occupier.
For cash poor people there can be a provision to put a charge on the property to be paid on sale/death with an interest rate applied like with student loans.
Otherwise known as the Proportional Property Tax proposals, which I keep pointing out occasionally.
At last! The fact that the £170bn is non-UK and non-taxable is addressed to Starmer and again he fails to answer the question as to how high above 65% he'd want it to be.
He seemed really nonplussed when asked the question about the 65%.
The Tories need to combat the "on the side of the fatcats" narrative. It looks like they are starting to.
Starmer had a bit of a free run when Boris was PM, it looks like he will be challenged a bit more now. Good. So he should be.
Afternoon. I think a bounce is unlikely, i suspect some bouncing around but no bounce beyond the levels we saw during the leadership battle (got to low single figures labour lead) Starmer keeps hitting the 'not a penny more on their bills' button which the Tories should be hammering as grossly irresponsible in an energy crisis, it suggests consumers can use as much as they like without finanicial hit. And i guess 'mummy, make the bad man pay' is going down a storm in focus groups.
Please don't be offended, but I drew up a mental list of those PBers who would immediately rally to Liz the moment she was anointed. I have to say you headed that list.
She will still lose in 2024, despite the support of THE MIGHTY LEON
I’m now suspicious that you’ve all got together in the Secret PB Chocolate House and decided to call me THE MIGHTY LEON to morally pressure me into doing this utterly insane hike
NEW: As Liz Truss sets out plans on the energy bill crisis today, we’ve carried out a snap poll for @38degrees with the public strongly supporting a windfall tax on energy producers as one of the options for paying for the price cap.
Please don't be offended, but I drew up a mental list of those PBers who would immediately rally to Liz the moment she was anointed. I have to say you headed that list.
Big G swinging in behind Philomena Clunk, PM was inevitable.
Something big is happening in the Commons - Keir Starmer is on his feet but has just been passed a note via his deputy Angela Rayner. SNP bench also made aware. A lot of very glum faces
Something big is happening in the Commons - Keir Starmer is on his feet but has just been passed a note via his deputy Angela Rayner. SNP bench also made aware. A lot of very glum faces
NEW: As Liz Truss sets out plans on the energy bill crisis today, we’ve carried out a snap poll for @38degrees with the public strongly supporting a windfall tax on energy producers as one of the options for paying for the price cap.
Please don't be offended, but I drew up a mental list of those PBers who would immediately rally to Liz the moment she was anointed. I have to say you headed that list.
She will still lose in 2024, despite the support of THE MIGHTY LEON
This 'average' is as much use as Donald Trump's brain cell, on the grounds there is no such thing as an average household. Does anyone have a link to the approximate unit price and standing charge?
I’m now suspicious that you’ve all got together in the Secret PB Chocolate House and decided to call me THE MIGHTY LEON to morally pressure me into doing this utterly insane hike
I’m going to have another medronho
Look, if I can hike 26km from Hay to Pandy in 37C for fun, you can do a much flatter 15km hike for work.
Something big is happening in the Commons - Keir Starmer is on his feet but has just been passed a note via his deputy Angela Rayner. SNP bench also made aware. A lot of very glum faces
London Bridge??
Shit. I did warn you
Look on the bright side, hike now binned out of respect.
PB Tories think Truss is amazing despite their latest "waver", they must assume we're all thick.
I think she has done a surprisingly good job in getting to grips with things since Tuesday. .
She's had six weeks to prepare since she knew from the start she'd win.
Unlike Boris and Cameron she has extended experience at the top of government before she got the job, and unlike May shes not hamstrung by a tiny majority and a fundamental policy to figure out from scratch.
I think it shows the modern (brainwashed to me) mindset on here and elsewhere in the media that to solve the gas price subsidy borrowing all the comments/arguments have been abut finding additional taxes and which ones and how much - The government has never been bigger in terms of its tax take - what the debate shoudl be about is what government /local government spending to cut .Its not as is it is super efficient and wholly valued by the population - For instance do we really need period officers -male or female (I notice the only allowable debate on that in the media was if a male could do it not that the post should not be there ). .
Well, let me answer that question. There is no need for such a role. It is something the school nurse can do. GPS, nurses and chemists can also provide advice. And councils can make sanitary products available in public loos, free if they wish.
Judging by what I have read about the circumstances surrounding the appointment, this seemed to be more about creating a role for someone than genuinely answering a need.
This 'average' is as much use as Donald Trump's brain cell, on the grounds there is no such thing as an average household. Does anyone have a link to the approximate unit price and standing charge?
It is a completely shit way of presenting it. i am sure there will be people out there who think they can spend their way up to 2,500 and then run the tumble dryer 24/7 because it's FREEEE.
This £170bn figure is incredibly misleading as 1) ~55% of it relates to the profits of foreign companies selling gas to the UK (I.e. Norway), which the UK obviously cannot tax and 2) the profits of UK oil and gas operators are already taxed at 65%.
So that leaves about £27bn if you want to tax at 100%. What are Labour proposing?
It is really ludicrous that this has not been spelt out clearly by the government. Do we want to make our hydrocarbon industry the most highly taxed on the planet (and its already up there) and how do we think that works in the context of energy self sufficiency?
At last! The fact that the £170bn is non-UK and non-taxable is addressed to Starmer and again he fails to answer the question as to how high above 65% he'd want it to be.
He seemed really nonplussed when asked the question about the 65%.
The Tories need to combat the "on the side of the fatcats" narrative. It looks like they are starting to.
Starmer had a bit of a free run when Boris was PM, it looks like he will be challenged a bit more now. Good. So he should be.
The whole point about excess profits is that they are excess - unplanned for and unbudgeted for. Therefore, the level at which they are taxed is immaterial.
PB Tories think Truss is amazing despite their latest "waver", they must assume we're all thick.
I've been telling you all along that she was good and being underestimated. 😎
I’ve only just realised how much Boris had begun to irritate me. Without me realising. Now that he is replaced
He’s a funny guy and can be very charming but a global crisis and war and the rest is not the time for endless jokes and needy, please-like-me charisma
Truss looks like she doesn’t give a fuck what people think. She’s got her plans. She’s speaks them plainly but clearly. This is it, this is what we’re doing
At last! The fact that the £170bn is non-UK and non-taxable is addressed to Starmer and again he fails to answer the question as to how high above 65% he'd want it to be.
He seemed really nonplussed when asked the question about the 65%.
The Tories need to combat the "on the side of the fatcats" narrative. It looks like they are starting to.
Starmer had a bit of a free run when Boris was PM, it looks like he will be challenged a bit more now. Good. So he should be.
The whole point about excess profits is that they are excess - unplanned for and unbudgeted for. Therefore, the level at which they are taxed is immaterial.
Not true. Firms plan for volatility, they need reserves for when they make losses due to excess losses (like during lockdown) and they make up for it when they get excess profits.
If you tax the profits but privatise the losses that's just as bad as doing the opposite way around.
I'm Just guessing here, but I think I can see a couple of reasons why Sean might like Truss. She is, I believe, a ardent Brexiteer. And, I think, she opposes raising taxes for the better off.
Property is too big a tax base to make the preserve of councils.
We should abolish council tax, abolish stamp duty and add an annual tax on the property value (rolled forward in a transparent way using a house price index maintained by the ONS). This should all be paid for by the owner and not the occupier.
For cash poor people there can be a provision to put a charge on the property to be paid on sale/death with an interest rate applied like with student loans.
How do you establish the base property value? There would be reams of appeals. What about when home improvements such as extensions are done?
Easy - last sold price is available for most things sold since 1988 and there are numerous calculators that provide valid estimates for current prices except where improvements were made - it's surprising how good they are most of the time...
Where improvements are made there is an issue as to when you start taxing them but again that's a simple decision.
And for houses not sold since 1988 you use local comparisons to provide estimates that can then be appealed if necessary...
Taxing home improvements would have a chilling effect on the building industry. Better to tax the land your house is sitting on. It isn't going anywhere (in most cases...).
New: Buckingham Palace spokesman: “Following further evaluation this morning, The Queen’s doctors are concerned for Her Majesty’s health and have recommended she remain under medical supervision. The Queen remains comfortable and at Balmoral.”
Not watching the Commons etc but a thought just occurred to me.
Has Starmer been slightly (and temporarily) set back by having opposed Boris Johnson, a superficial clown?
I'm sure it won't last but maybe Starmer's become used to not having anything remotely normal/serious to address, having had more of a comedy club PM rather than one with her own (seemingly) ideological views.
New: Buckingham Palace spokesman: “Following further evaluation this morning, The Queen’s doctors are concerned for Her Majesty’s health and have recommended she remain under medical supervision. The Queen remains comfortable and at Balmoral.”
Starmer is leaning heavily on comments on investment by people in ?BP? and elsewhere. ISTR something a few months ago, but does anyone have linkies to their comments?
I have yet to listen to the Truss speech, but Starmer sounds like a man giving a eulogy for a dead fox.
It will be a concern if energy companies are happy; I hope that she leaves herself some flexibility, and that there is plenty of follow-up on eg insulation and so on, plus other areas neglected by BoJo.
Having just heard the news about the Queen my second thought, after hoping that she genuinely is comfortable and suffering no distress, is thank God, truly, that Boris Johnson is no longer Prime Minister.
Comments
Wouldn't think it was technically that difficult, given accessibility options and the like, to have his phone set up to read PB comments to him as he walked, and enable him to dictate responses. You could probably assign different voices to different posters too.
Where improvements are made there is an issue as to when you start taxing them but again that's a simple decision.
And for houses not sold since 1988 you use local comparisons to provide estimates that can then be appealed if necessary...
https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2022/08/14/its-the-energy-cap-stupid/
And, in fact, this occurs. A house near me in North Wales is owned by an American who lives most of the time in France.
He was last seen at the property one and a half years ago.
Another house near me was owned by a Singaporean. He was never there, and it burned down.
The dull way is that a bureaucrat looks at it on Google Maps and assigns a value based on the location and how big it is. If you're getting too many appeals, add 20% to the assessed value if your appeal fails.
He’s a funny guy and can be very charming but a global crisis and war and the rest is not the time for endless jokes and needy, please-like-me charisma
Truss looks like she doesn’t give a fuck what people think. She’s got her plans. She’s speaks them plainly but clearly. This is it, this is what we’re doing
Finally, the truth is admitted
Oddly I'm beginning to think she might turn out to be better at governing than any of the Cameron>May>Boris threesome but will still end up being booted out by the electorate at the end of the Parliament...
One more medronho….
It was a big house. It had been on the market for a while, with no takers.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/cricket/58523279
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-62797776
Delighted to see such support on PB. Cheers.
https://fairershare.org.uk/proportional-property-tax/
The Tories need to combat the "on the side of the fatcats" narrative. It looks like they are starting to.
Starmer had a bit of a free run when Boris was PM, it looks like he will be challenged a bit more now. Good. So he should be.
Starmer keeps hitting the 'not a penny more on their bills' button which the Tories should be hammering as grossly irresponsible in an energy crisis, it suggests consumers can use as much as they like without finanicial hit. And i guess 'mummy, make the bad man pay' is going down a storm in focus groups.
"Get on Your Hike".
I’m going to have another medronho
https://www.survation.com/public-and-conservative-voters-believe-windfall-tax-on-energy-producers-should-form-a-part-of-paying-for-energy-bill-cap/
Pessoa was a prolific writer, and not only under his own name, for he created approximately seventy-five others, of which three stand out.
London Bridge??
Unlike Boris and Cameron she has extended experience at the top of government before she got the job, and unlike May shes not hamstrung by a tiny majority and a fundamental policy to figure out from scratch.
Judging by what I have read about the circumstances surrounding the appointment, this seemed to be more about creating a role for someone than genuinely answering a need.
Edit FFS, not the cricketer and rather rubbish umpire!
This is a disgrace.
Yesterday evening my wife cracked and turned up the thermostat.
(ditto Boris Johnson)
If you tax the profits but privatise the losses that's just as bad as doing the opposite way around.
https://twitter.com/kateemccann/status/1567838418956058630?s=46&t=cWS3i6gH4eXUmIgptpKVkg
Has Starmer been slightly (and temporarily) set back by having opposed Boris Johnson, a superficial clown?
I'm sure it won't last but maybe Starmer's become used to not having anything remotely normal/serious to address, having had more of a comedy club PM rather than one with her own (seemingly) ideological views.
https://twitter.com/RoyalFamily/status/1567838908720861184
She's not well.
It will be a concern if energy companies are happy; I hope that she leaves herself some flexibility, and that there is plenty of follow-up on eg insulation and so on, plus other areas neglected by BoJo.