@YouGov · 45m How should the government deficit be closed?
All through tax rises: 14% Mostly tax rises: 19% Equally tax rises and spending cuts: 25% Mostly spending cuts: 9% All spending cuts: 8%
As long as it is not my tax rise is the true response
Fleece the buggers just over the economic horizon there
So, how exactly will Sunak and Starmer governments unlock the money in property to line the government coffers? Is there a tax they can use to get away with that?
50% tax on womens accessories would get us out of the hole the money they waste on that old shit Edit - even better, a loitering about browsing then prosecco lunchies tax. Man i think Ive solved it!
“Man i think Ive solved it!‘
As only a Man could.
Being serious for a second, what are property taxes, and why haven’t they been tried in this situation. Yet.
Lord Willetts to me, David Willetts to you, is proposing a proportional property tax.
How do PBers feel about paying the good lords proportional property tax?
Ok if im not allowed to tax lady nonsense then lets look at this thingamy..... It looks OK frankly as a tax raising idea, but my biggest concern is renters make no financial contribution whatsoever to their local services.
Speaking as someone who rents. The idea that any property tax wont be passed on to renters in the form of rent increases is for the birds. I have had landlords inform me rent is going up because the mortgage rate increased on a number of occasions. Not that I have ever had one saying "oh my mortgage got cheaper here is a reduction in rent"
That’s just his/her excuse though.
Basically he is charging the maximum he can get away with and then justifying it to you that he’s not a bad person because a big boy the government made him do it
Don't disagree was merely pointing out the "oh renters wouldnt have to pay it" is bollocks
I’m not sure the rental market sustains that much of an increase
@YouGov · 45m How should the government deficit be closed?
All through tax rises: 14% Mostly tax rises: 19% Equally tax rises and spending cuts: 25% Mostly spending cuts: 9% All spending cuts: 8%
As long as it is not my tax rise is the true response
Fleece the buggers just over the economic horizon there
So, how exactly will Sunak and Starmer governments unlock the money in property to line the government coffers? Is there a tax they can use to get away with that?
50% tax on womens accessories would get us out of the hole the money they waste on that old shit Edit - even better, a loitering about browsing then prosecco lunchies tax. Man i think Ive solved it!
“Man i think Ive solved it!‘
As only a Man could.
Being serious for a second, what are property taxes, and why haven’t they been tried in this situation. Yet.
Lord Willetts to me, David Willetts to you, is proposing a proportional property tax.
How do PBers feel about paying the good lords proportional property tax?
The idea of taxing wealth, rather than increasing taxes on income, has been discussed many times on here and I believe, widely supported.
A property tax is a proxy for a wealth tax. In many ways it's easier and fairer to tax property than other forms of wealth, since property cannot be squirrelled away offshore and UK property owned by non-doms would also be taxable.
Disadvantages are: property is illiquid so it may not be easy for property rich, income poor individuals to find the tax. The other issue is agreeing an accurate valuation.
Both of these issues are easily solvable, e.g.: Allow the owner to 'pay' the tax by placing a charge on the property to be settled when the property is sold or on death. For valuations, default the value to the last sale price uprated by the relevant property or land price index, allowing the owner to request (and pay for) an official valuation.
I'm in favour, even though it will cost me.
Eek! Very much dislike the idea of giving government a direct incentive to increase house prices!
Suggest we just uprate by CPI (capped at 2.5% since the Bank of England is fantabulous at their job)
We have this kind of tax in Japan. It definitely helps keep house prices down. Every year you pay 1.4% of the value of the property (as assessed by a slightly mysterious formula). It's not a lot, but it's enough to make "buy some property and do nothing much with it" an unattractive proposition.
It's already silly that two people with the same house pay the same council tax when one has a 90% mortgage and the other is debt-free. A "last transaction price" tax would in fact tend to increase the burden on person A, who has very little wealth, relative to person B who probably transacted prior to this century.
Hancock will want to cash in on his fame while he still has it, as he has made clear he has zero chance of returning to government now anyway. Sunak effectively blanked him when he greeted supporters.
Included in the tasks will be eating various parts of animal anatomy, one could say he has had plenty of practice on that already in the office of the Health Secretary during the lockdown with Gina but we won't go too much into that given this is a serious political site!
Weall, you were happy to support a Johnson regime which had Ms Dorries as a key element.
Dorries was also suspended for doing I'm a Celeb but Johnson liked her, Sunak clearly does not like Hancock as his blanking him showed. Hence he will not bring him back post suspension
TBF I can't remember either if she was doing it while Parliament was in session? She did go off without clearing it with the Party, though.
Nads did go topless on a nude beach down there preparing for the show. Saggy’s you could throw over both shoulders or tie into a bow. IACGMOOH has so much to answer for. But we all watch it don’t we?
No, we most certainly not!
I haven't got a TV set but wouldn't watch muck like that even if I had one.
The show as well as being ultra thickofeed also features animal abuse including animal sacrifice for entertainment. Goodness, @MoonRabbit, no we DON'T all watch it!
Having watched the Rishi blanks Matt clip a few times, I'm not wholly sure that that's what happened. Rishi may have been emotional and distracted. On the other hand, perhaps he did deliberately blank Matt. It's unclear.
Hancock is out of favour and may have been stitched up. What's going on with that? Was he about to say something? (Top guess would be about pandemic policy.) Has he been forced to the point where in effect he's seen the light and he's saying f*** the lot of you? (Better late than never.)
If the GOP win both Chambers Trump may already be President elect whatever happens in the 2024 Presidential election as he could get Congress to overturn the EC result even if he loses
538 forecasts 50.5 GOP seats, so it's on the edge of 51 seats.
And if that is the case then as I said the 2024 Presidential election may be irrelevant. Trump would be President elect once the new GOP Congress comes in which he can use to overturn even an EC loss in 2024
I wouldn't have thought so.
Only a very small number of Republican Senators voted to reject EC votes last time (from memory about five Senators on most votes)
So it's extremely unlikely 51 Republican Senators will do so next time.
There is surely almost zero chance of Senators like Romney, Collins and Murkowski doing so.
Even McConnell was absolutely scathing about the idea.
Romney is up for re election in 2024, Trumpites will almost certainly challenge him.
If the GOP got to say 54 or 55 Senators and a House majority then Trump overturning an EC loss is very possible
But it is the old Senate, not the new one, that counts the electoral college votes, so that is surely an issue for 2028, not 2024.
@YouGov · 45m How should the government deficit be closed?
All through tax rises: 14% Mostly tax rises: 19% Equally tax rises and spending cuts: 25% Mostly spending cuts: 9% All spending cuts: 8%
As long as it is not my tax rise is the true response
Fleece the buggers just over the economic horizon there
So, how exactly will Sunak and Starmer governments unlock the money in property to line the government coffers? Is there a tax they can use to get away with that?
50% tax on womens accessories would get us out of the hole the money they waste on that old shit Edit - even better, a loitering about browsing then prosecco lunchies tax. Man i think Ive solved it!
“Man i think Ive solved it!‘
As only a Man could.
Being serious for a second, what are property taxes, and why haven’t they been tried in this situation. Yet.
Lord Willetts to me, David Willetts to you, is proposing a proportional property tax.
How do PBers feel about paying the good lords proportional property tax?
Ok if im not allowed to tax lady nonsense then lets look at this thingamy..... It looks OK frankly as a tax raising idea, but my biggest concern is renters make no financial contribution whatsoever to their local services.
Keep council tax - the central obligations (social services, etc) paid for from the new central property tax. Local services (dustbins, etc) paid for by council tax. I’d go with a flat rate per head of population but I’m sure people would complain…
I can't see that theirs any logic in keeping both taxes - ideally tax should be simpler, rather than more complicated. That said, one of the few virtues of council tax is that its set locally, so one can attempt to vote for parties who won't increase it. Possibly one could split a new value based tax as say 0.25% raised and distributed nationally, then up to say a further 0.5% raised and spent locally, maybe with local people required to vote to approve the local rate being increased beyond 0.25%.
All this said, a lot of this could be fixed just by doing the wildly overdue council tax revaluation for England, and adding a load more bands at the top.
Council tax is bastardised rubbish trying to do two things - fund local services and be somewhat proportionate to wealth. At the same time central government keeps dumping unfunded obligations on local government.
I don’t think it’s complicated to have two payments - an annual or semi annual property tax paid to central government and a flat rate fee for service paid monthly to local government.
Different taxes with different objectives paid to different people
Also of course with council tax the most it raises for any council expenditure is about 50% (off top my head) in many metropolitan areas it’s 20% or so less than that - so central government is funding 70%+ plus of many councils expenditure with a hand out from treasury. You mention unfunded obligations but it could, or perhaps should work the other way too, as no council can pay its own way, the councils have to do responsible things to get the full government handout. To be fair to those who do the right thing, why not punish those who don’t - and make the voters their wise up to the type of councillor or Mayor to elect?
@YouGov · 45m How should the government deficit be closed?
All through tax rises: 14% Mostly tax rises: 19% Equally tax rises and spending cuts: 25% Mostly spending cuts: 9% All spending cuts: 8%
As long as it is not my tax rise is the true response
Fleece the buggers just over the economic horizon there
So, how exactly will Sunak and Starmer governments unlock the money in property to line the government coffers? Is there a tax they can use to get away with that?
50% tax on womens accessories would get us out of the hole the money they waste on that old shit Edit - even better, a loitering about browsing then prosecco lunchies tax. Man i think Ive solved it!
“Man i think Ive solved it!‘
As only a Man could.
Being serious for a second, what are property taxes, and why haven’t they been tried in this situation. Yet.
Lord Willetts to me, David Willetts to you, is proposing a proportional property tax.
How do PBers feel about paying the good lords proportional property tax?
Ok if im not allowed to tax lady nonsense then lets look at this thingamy..... It looks OK frankly as a tax raising idea, but my biggest concern is renters make no financial contribution whatsoever to their local services.
Speaking as someone who rents. The idea that any property tax wont be passed on to renters in the form of rent increases is for the birds. I have had landlords inform me rent is going up because the mortgage rate increased on a number of occasions. Not that I have ever had one saying "oh my mortgage got cheaper here is a reduction in rent"
That’s just his/her excuse though.
Basically he is charging the maximum he can get away with and then justifying it to you that he’s not a bad person because a big boy the government made him do it
Incorrect, businesses pass through tax cuts and rises to customers, like VAT. If you think taxes don't affect people's behaviour, you could just put income tax to 100% and solve every problem.
If the GOP win both Chambers Trump may already be President elect whatever happens in the 2024 Presidential election as he could get Congress to overturn the EC result even if he loses
538 forecasts 50.5 GOP seats, so it's on the edge of 51 seats.
And if that is the case then as I said the 2024 Presidential election may be irrelevant. Trump would be President elect once the new GOP Congress comes in which he can use to overturn even an EC loss in 2024
I wouldn't have thought so.
Only a very small number of Republican Senators voted to reject EC votes last time (from memory about five Senators on most votes)
So it's extremely unlikely 51 Republican Senators will do so next time.
There is surely almost zero chance of Senators like Romney, Collins and Murkowski doing so.
Even McConnell was absolutely scathing about the idea.
Romney is up for re election in 2024, Trumpites will almost certainly challenge him.
If the GOP got to say 54 or 55 Senators and a House majority then Trump overturning an EC loss is very possible
But it is the old Senate, not the new one, that counts the electoral college votes, so that is surely an issue for 2028, not 2024.
Knowing what the incoming numbers are might sway a few away from briefly having integrity.
@YouGov · 45m How should the government deficit be closed?
All through tax rises: 14% Mostly tax rises: 19% Equally tax rises and spending cuts: 25% Mostly spending cuts: 9% All spending cuts: 8%
As long as it is not my tax rise is the true response
Fleece the buggers just over the economic horizon there
So, how exactly will Sunak and Starmer governments unlock the money in property to line the government coffers? Is there a tax they can use to get away with that?
1% annual tax on residential property (last transaction value).
Only if you can defer payment to the next actual sale.
I disagree. People should learn to budget for it. If everyone can defer it creates a dreadful cashflow problem for the government as well.
Or.... millions of people who bought houses for buttons decades back now have to sell, in a hurry, because they don't have twenty or thirty grand a year to find.
Crashing the housing market.
Do you have much experience with this "politics" thing?
Last transaction value not current values.
And possibly a 10 year phase in period.
And people paying £20-30k a year are living in £2-3m properties so are doing ok in the scheme of things.
(FWIW this would be extremely painful for me)
And yes - it’s politically very very difficult. But this may be the only chance to make a fundamentally sensible change like this in this generation
Would this replace Council Tax or be in addition? 'Cos as a replacement it would be a 60% reduction for me...
It is the obvious wealth tax to go for. Anything else would be unfair in many ways, or potentially avoidable.
I would replace the central mandate piece of local government expenditure but not the local services part of council tax
@YouGov · 45m How should the government deficit be closed?
All through tax rises: 14% Mostly tax rises: 19% Equally tax rises and spending cuts: 25% Mostly spending cuts: 9% All spending cuts: 8%
As long as it is not my tax rise is the true response
Fleece the buggers just over the economic horizon there
So, how exactly will Sunak and Starmer governments unlock the money in property to line the government coffers? Is there a tax they can use to get away with that?
50% tax on womens accessories would get us out of the hole the money they waste on that old shit Edit - even better, a loitering about browsing then prosecco lunchies tax. Man i think Ive solved it!
“Man i think Ive solved it!‘
As only a Man could.
Being serious for a second, what are property taxes, and why haven’t they been tried in this situation. Yet.
Lord Willetts to me, David Willetts to you, is proposing a proportional property tax.
How do PBers feel about paying the good lords proportional property tax?
The idea of taxing wealth, rather than increasing taxes on income, has been discussed many times on here and I believe, widely supported.
A property tax is a proxy for a wealth tax. In many ways it's easier and fairer to tax property than other forms of wealth, since property cannot be squirrelled away offshore and UK property owned by non-doms would also be taxable.
Disadvantages are: property is illiquid so it may not be easy for property rich, income poor individuals to find the tax. The other issue is agreeing an accurate valuation.
Both of these issues are easily solvable, e.g.: Allow the owner to 'pay' the tax by placing a charge on the property to be settled when the property is sold or on death. For valuations, default the value to the last sale price uprated by the relevant property or land price index, allowing the owner to request (and pay for) an official valuation.
I'm in favour, even though it will cost me.
Eek! Very much dislike the idea of giving government a direct incentive to increase house prices!
Suggest we just uprate by CPI (capped at 2.5% since the Bank of England is fantabulous at their job)
We have this kind of tax in Japan. It definitely helps keep house prices down. Every year you pay 1.4% of the value of the property (as assessed by a slightly mysterious formula). It's not a lot, but it's enough to make "buy some property and do nothing much with it" an unattractive proposition.
Considering rich-world rental yields rarely exceed 8%, that represents a substantial tax rate on the imputed value of living in a house - somewhere in the 17-30% range, which is well above Japan's consumption tax. Perhaps this helps explain why Japan's households are such keen savers and investors in financial assets.
@YouGov · 45m How should the government deficit be closed?
All through tax rises: 14% Mostly tax rises: 19% Equally tax rises and spending cuts: 25% Mostly spending cuts: 9% All spending cuts: 8%
As long as it is not my tax rise is the true response
Fleece the buggers just over the economic horizon there
So, how exactly will Sunak and Starmer governments unlock the money in property to line the government coffers? Is there a tax they can use to get away with that?
50% tax on womens accessories would get us out of the hole the money they waste on that old shit Edit - even better, a loitering about browsing then prosecco lunchies tax. Man i think Ive solved it!
“Man i think Ive solved it!‘
As only a Man could.
Being serious for a second, what are property taxes, and why haven’t they been tried in this situation. Yet.
Lord Willetts to me, David Willetts to you, is proposing a proportional property tax.
How do PBers feel about paying the good lords proportional property tax?
Ok if im not allowed to tax lady nonsense then lets look at this thingamy..... It looks OK frankly as a tax raising idea, but my biggest concern is renters make no financial contribution whatsoever to their local services.
Speaking as someone who rents. The idea that any property tax wont be passed on to renters in the form of rent increases is for the birds. I have had landlords inform me rent is going up because the mortgage rate increased on a number of occasions. Not that I have ever had one saying "oh my mortgage got cheaper here is a reduction in rent"
That’s just his/her excuse though.
Basically he is charging the maximum he can get away with and then justifying it to you that he’s not a bad person because a big boy the government made him do it
Incorrect, businesses pass through tax cuts and rises to customers, like VAT. If you think taxes don't affect people's behaviour, you could just put income tax to 100% and solve every problem.
Businesses pass through tax rises *if they can*.
Yes, sometimes they don’t pass all tax rises or other costs on, or won’t get any customers at all. It’s a tricky balance.
If the GOP win both Chambers Trump may already be President elect whatever happens in the 2024 Presidential election as he could get Congress to overturn the EC result even if he loses
538 forecasts 50.5 GOP seats, so it's on the edge of 51 seats.
And if that is the case then as I said the 2024 Presidential election may be irrelevant. Trump would be President elect once the new GOP Congress comes in which he can use to overturn even an EC loss in 2024
I wouldn't have thought so.
Only a very small number of Republican Senators voted to reject EC votes last time (from memory about five Senators on most votes)
So it's extremely unlikely 51 Republican Senators will do so next time.
There is surely almost zero chance of Senators like Romney, Collins and Murkowski doing so.
Even McConnell was absolutely scathing about the idea.
Romney is up for re election in 2024, Trumpites will almost certainly challenge him.
If the GOP got to say 54 or 55 Senators and a House majority then Trump overturning an EC loss is very possible
But it is the old Senate, not the new one, that counts the electoral college votes, so that is surely an issue for 2028, not 2024.
54+ GOP Senators and even Romney, Murkowski and Collins would not stop Trump overturning the EC vote in 2024 if he lost it.
He would of course threaten to primary any other GOP Senator who did not fall into line when they were next up for re election to ensure they followed his directions
@YouGov · 45m How should the government deficit be closed?
All through tax rises: 14% Mostly tax rises: 19% Equally tax rises and spending cuts: 25% Mostly spending cuts: 9% All spending cuts: 8%
As long as it is not my tax rise is the true response
Fleece the buggers just over the economic horizon there
So, how exactly will Sunak and Starmer governments unlock the money in property to line the government coffers? Is there a tax they can use to get away with that?
50% tax on womens accessories would get us out of the hole the money they waste on that old shit Edit - even better, a loitering about browsing then prosecco lunchies tax. Man i think Ive solved it!
“Man i think Ive solved it!‘
As only a Man could.
Being serious for a second, what are property taxes, and why haven’t they been tried in this situation. Yet.
Lord Willetts to me, David Willetts to you, is proposing a proportional property tax.
How do PBers feel about paying the good lords proportional property tax?
Ok if im not allowed to tax lady nonsense then lets look at this thingamy..... It looks OK frankly as a tax raising idea, but my biggest concern is renters make no financial contribution whatsoever to their local services.
Keep council tax - the central obligations (social services, etc) paid for from the new central property tax. Local services (dustbins, etc) paid for by council tax. I’d go with a flat rate per head of population but I’m sure people would complain…
I can't see that theirs any logic in keeping both taxes - ideally tax should be simpler, rather than more complicated. That said, one of the few virtues of council tax is that its set locally, so one can attempt to vote for parties who won't increase it. Possibly one could split a new value based tax as say 0.25% raised and distributed nationally, then up to say a further 0.5% raised and spent locally, maybe with local people required to vote to approve the local rate being increased beyond 0.25%.
All this said, a lot of this could be fixed just by doing the wildly overdue council tax revaluation for England, and adding a load more bands at the top.
Council tax is bastardised rubbish trying to do two things - fund local services and be somewhat proportionate to wealth. At the same time central government keeps dumping unfunded obligations on local government.
I don’t think it’s complicated to have two payments - an annual or semi annual property tax paid to central government and a flat rate fee for service paid monthly to local government.
Different taxes with different objectives paid to different people
Also of course with council tax the most it raises for any council expenditure is about 50% (off top my head) in many metropolitan areas it’s 20% or so less than that - so central government is funding 70%+ plus of many councils expenditure with a hand out from treasury. You mention unfunded obligations but it could, or perhaps should work the other way too, as no council can pay its own way, the councils have to do responsible things to get the full government handout. To be fair to those who do the right thing, why not punish those who don’t - and make the voters their wise up to the type of councillor or Mayor to elect?
What I mean by unfunded obligations is the point you allude to earlier in the post. Central government says “you must do X but we are not giving you any money”. Essentially trying to make local government pay the political cost of central government actions. I don’t like that lack of accountability.
Central mandates should be paid for out of property tax. Local decisions paid for out of the new (lower) council tax. I am sure that some local councils will try to be cute and not cut local tax that much but that’s up to the voters to judge on their own good time
If the GOP win both Chambers Trump may already be President elect whatever happens in the 2024 Presidential election as he could get Congress to overturn the EC result even if he loses
538 forecasts 50.5 GOP seats, so it's on the edge of 51 seats.
And if that is the case then as I said the 2024 Presidential election may be irrelevant. Trump would be President elect once the new GOP Congress comes in which he can use to overturn even an EC loss in 2024
I wouldn't have thought so.
Only a very small number of Republican Senators voted to reject EC votes last time (from memory about five Senators on most votes)
So it's extremely unlikely 51 Republican Senators will do so next time.
There is surely almost zero chance of Senators like Romney, Collins and Murkowski doing so.
Even McConnell was absolutely scathing about the idea.
Romney is up for re election in 2024, Trumpites will almost certainly challenge him.
If the GOP got to say 54 or 55 Senators and a House majority then Trump overturning an EC loss is very possible
But it is the old Senate, not the new one, that counts the electoral college votes, so that is surely an issue for 2028, not 2024.
54+ GOP Senators and even Romney, Murkowski and Collins would not stop Trump overturning the EC vote in 2024 if he lost it.
He would of course threaten to primary any other GOP Senator who did not fall into line when they were next up for re election to ensure they followed his directions
RCP currently has 48 GOP Senators and 47 Democrats projected with 7 tossups.
If all 7 go GOP or even just 6 then Trump has a real shot of overturning an EC loss in 2024, the House almost certainly going GOP too
The Guardian has seen documents, marked “official sensitive”, which warn that in a “reasonable worst-case scenario” all sectors including transport, food and water supply, communications and energy could be “severely disrupted” for up to a week.
I don't see why we're not all being encouraged to save power.
I have managed to keep my heating off into November, although I have noticed that, although it is still 19 degrees indoors, with the wetter and cooler weather outside it actually feels colder indoors than it did.
I think the idea is intelligent people, when faced with increased bills, will be be prudent without the nanny state laying it on thick. This, at least, is a conservative vs labour issue. I think if labour were in power the save energy campaigns would be prominent.
But the problem is they are not facing increased bills (or at least not increased to the market price). The government is subsidising the bill which removes incentives to save energy
One of the mistakes the United States has been making on taxes for years is the mortgage interest deduction: Briefly, it subsidizes wealthy people who buy expensive homes: "Under 26 U.S.C. § 163(h) of the Internal Revenue Code, the United States allows a home mortgage interest deduction, with several limitations. First, the taxpayer must elect to itemize deductions, and the total itemized deductions must exceed the standard deduction (otherwise, itemization would not reduce tax). Second, the deduction is limited to interest on debts secured by a principal residence or a second home. Third, interest is deductible on only the first $1 million of debt used for acquiring, constructing, or substantially improving the residence, ($500,000 if filing separately) or the first $100,000 of home equity debt regardless of the purpose or use of the loan." source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_mortgage_interest_deduction
So it helps millionaires like Bernie Sanders on two of his three homes, but does nothing for the poor or middle class.
One result, in my opinion, is that we have over-invested in large, expensive homes, often large homes that have just two people living in them.
Once he leaves Westminster at the next election he'll be unemployable otherwise... So I guess he thinks it'll do for him what Strictly did for Widdy and Ed Balls (give him a media career after Westminster) and he is probably right to be fair.
GBP will put him through humiliation after humiliation and if he endures it with good humour and a smile he will probably get a decent career as a "talking head" on the BBC/SKY/C4/TALK TV/GB NEWS etc etc etc in 2023 and well beyond...
@YouGov · 45m How should the government deficit be closed?
All through tax rises: 14% Mostly tax rises: 19% Equally tax rises and spending cuts: 25% Mostly spending cuts: 9% All spending cuts: 8%
As long as it is not my tax rise is the true response
Fleece the buggers just over the economic horizon there
So, how exactly will Sunak and Starmer governments unlock the money in property to line the government coffers? Is there a tax they can use to get away with that?
1% annual tax on residential property (last transaction value).
Only if you can defer payment to the next actual sale.
I disagree. People should learn to budget for it. If everyone can defer it creates a dreadful cashflow problem for the government as well.
Or.... millions of people who bought houses for buttons decades back now have to sell, in a hurry, because they don't have twenty or thirty grand a year to find.
Crashing the housing market.
Do you have much experience with this "politics" thing?
Last transaction value not current values.
And possibly a 10 year phase in period.
And people paying £20-30k a year are living in £2-3m properties so are doing ok in the scheme of things.
(FWIW this would be extremely painful for me)
And yes - it’s politically very very difficult. But this may be the only chance to make a fundamentally sensible change like this in this generation
Would this replace Council Tax or be in addition? 'Cos as a replacement it would be a 60% reduction for me...
It is the obvious wealth tax to go for. Anything else would be unfair in many ways, or potentially avoidable.
I would replace the central mandate piece of local government expenditure but not the local services part of council tax
So about 60-70% of the total? I'm not quite sure of the exact balance.
Might need an extra 0.5% to make up the rest in that case, unless you just keep council tax (though it would make sense to abolish it at the same time - one in, one out, as it were).
Dr. Oz is putting some distance between himself and Trump: ' [Eric Rose, chief of cardiac surgery at Columbia University’s medical program and Oz’s superior in 2003] said that when he told Oz he strongly disagreed with his politics and had issues with former president Donald Trump, the Republican candidate distanced himself from Trump. “He said to me, Trump isn’t the leader of the party,” Rose said, speaking of Oz. “He told me that Mitch McConnell is the leader of the Republican Party.” Oz also said, according to Rose, that Doug Mastriano, the far-right Republican nominee for governor in Pennsylvania, “won’t win."' sourcee$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2022/11/01/oz-senate-doctor-research/
One of the great unknowns in American politics is how many Republican candidates are accepting Trump's support -- and planning to ditch him later, when convenient. Many will be tempted because of this obvious fact: Trump is a loser, who has damaged the Republican party, and, often, those candidates. Few are speaking openly about it, but I doubt very much that Oz is alone in having this plan.
(If you are runing for the Senate that strategy would be especially tempting, since senators have 6 year terms.)
@YouGov · 45m How should the government deficit be closed?
All through tax rises: 14% Mostly tax rises: 19% Equally tax rises and spending cuts: 25% Mostly spending cuts: 9% All spending cuts: 8%
As long as it is not my tax rise is the true response
Fleece the buggers just over the economic horizon there
So, how exactly will Sunak and Starmer governments unlock the money in property to line the government coffers? Is there a tax they can use to get away with that?
1% annual tax on residential property (last transaction value).
Only if you can defer payment to the next actual sale.
I disagree. People should learn to budget for it. If everyone can defer it creates a dreadful cashflow problem for the government as well.
Or.... millions of people who bought houses for buttons decades back now have to sell, in a hurry, because they don't have twenty or thirty grand a year to find.
Crashing the housing market.
Do you have much experience with this "politics" thing?
Last transaction value not current values.
And possibly a 10 year phase in period.
And people paying £20-30k a year are living in £2-3m properties so are doing ok in the scheme of things.
(FWIW this would be extremely painful for me)
And yes - it’s politically very very difficult. But this may be the only chance to make a fundamentally sensible change like this in this generation
Would this replace Council Tax or be in addition? 'Cos as a replacement it would be a 60% reduction for me...
It is the obvious wealth tax to go for. Anything else would be unfair in many ways, or potentially avoidable.
I would replace the central mandate piece of local government expenditure but not the local services part of council tax
So about 60-70% of the total? I'm not quite sure of the exact balance.
Might need an extra 0.5% to make up the rest in that case, unless you just keep council tax (though it would make sense to abolish it at the same time - one in, one out, as it were).
That’s right - I would like to keep direct accountability for local councils and local voters though hence rather keep the local council tax - perhaps as a flat fee although I can imagine that would be branded as the Tory Poll Tax is about half a micro second…
One of the mistakes the United States has been making on taxes for years is the mortgage interest deduction: Briefly, it subsidizes wealthy people who buy expensive homes: "Under 26 U.S.C. § 163(h) of the Internal Revenue Code, the United States allows a home mortgage interest deduction, with several limitations. First, the taxpayer must elect to itemize deductions, and the total itemized deductions must exceed the standard deduction (otherwise, itemization would not reduce tax). Second, the deduction is limited to interest on debts secured by a principal residence or a second home. Third, interest is deductible on only the first $1 million of debt used for acquiring, constructing, or substantially improving the residence, ($500,000 if filing separately) or the first $100,000 of home equity debt regardless of the purpose or use of the loan." source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_mortgage_interest_deduction
So it helps millionaires like Bernie Sanders on two of his three homes, but does nothing for the poor or middle class.
One result, in my opinion, is that we have over-invested in large, expensive homes, often large homes that have just two people living in them.
As an American with a mortgage, isn't there a limit on mortgage interest deductibility?
One that means that it's mostly a middle class tax break, not one for the 1%.
If the GOP win both Chambers Trump may already be President elect whatever happens in the 2024 Presidential election as he could get Congress to overturn the EC result even if he loses
538 forecasts 50.5 GOP seats, so it's on the edge of 51 seats.
And if that is the case then as I said the 2024 Presidential election may be irrelevant. Trump would be President elect once the new GOP Congress comes in which he can use to overturn even an EC loss in 2024
I wouldn't have thought so.
Only a very small number of Republican Senators voted to reject EC votes last time (from memory about five Senators on most votes)
So it's extremely unlikely 51 Republican Senators will do so next time.
There is surely almost zero chance of Senators like Romney, Collins and Murkowski doing so.
Even McConnell was absolutely scathing about the idea.
Romney is up for re election in 2024, Trumpites will almost certainly challenge him.
If the GOP got to say 54 or 55 Senators and a House majority then Trump overturning an EC loss is very possible
But it is the old Senate, not the new one, that counts the electoral college votes, so that is surely an issue for 2028, not 2024.
54+ GOP Senators and even Romney, Murkowski and Collins would not stop Trump overturning the EC vote in 2024 if he lost it.
He would of course threaten to primary any other GOP Senator who did not fall into line when they were next up for re election to ensure they followed his directions
RCP currently has 48 GOP Senators and 47 Democrats projected with 7 tossups.
If all 7 go GOP or even just 6 then Trump has a real shot of overturning an EC loss in 2024, the House almost certainly going GOP too
Ben Sasse (Nebraska) and Bill Cassidy (Louisiana) both voted to impeach Trump and will still be Senators in two years time, so I highly doubt either would vote to overturn the election.
rcs1000 asked: "As an American with a mortgage, isn't there a limit on mortgage interest deductibility?
One that means that it's mostly a middle class tax break, not one for the 1%."
Yes, but the key thing is that fewer and fewer itemize now: "We estimate about 13.7 percent of taxpayers will itemize in 2019. This is more than 17 percentage points lower than it would have been in 2019 under pre-TCJA law. The difference in the proportion of itemizing taxpayers is largest for the third income group quintile (40 percent to 60 percent). The proportion of taxpayers in this quintile that would have itemized in 2019 under pre-TCJA law would have been nearly four times higher than the proportion of taxpayers that we estimate will itemize under current law." source: https://taxfoundation.org/standard-deduction-itemized-deductions-current-law-2019/
Presumably, not every taxpayer in that 13.7 percent itemizes, and not all who do have signficant mortgages, so I would guess that somewhere around 1 in 10 taxpayers gets a significant benefit from the deduction -- and most of those would be wealthy by UK standards.
rcs1000 said: "Ben Sasse (Nebraska) and Bill Cassidy (Louisiana) both voted to impeach Trump and will still be Senators in two years time, so I highly doubt either would vote to overturn the election."
Sasse has just accepted a job as president of the University of Florida. I don''t know who his replacement in the Senate will be -- possibly current Nebraska Governor Pete Ricketss -- so I don't know whether they will follow Sasse's example. He may see that as a stepping stone to another elected office, later.
(Off hand I can think of two university presidents who became presidents of the US, Wilson (Princeton) and Eisenhower (Columbia).)
@YouGov · 45m How should the government deficit be closed?
All through tax rises: 14% Mostly tax rises: 19% Equally tax rises and spending cuts: 25% Mostly spending cuts: 9% All spending cuts: 8%
As long as it is not my tax rise is the true response
Fleece the buggers just over the economic horizon there
So, how exactly will Sunak and Starmer governments unlock the money in property to line the government coffers? Is there a tax they can use to get away with that?
1% annual tax on residential property (last transaction value).
Only if you can defer payment to the next actual sale.
I disagree. People should learn to budget for it. If everyone can defer it creates a dreadful cashflow problem for the government as well.
Or.... millions of people who bought houses for buttons decades back now have to sell, in a hurry, because they don't have twenty or thirty grand a year to find.
Crashing the housing market.
Do you have much experience with this "politics" thing?
Last transaction value not current values.
And possibly a 10 year phase in period.
And people paying £20-30k a year are living in £2-3m properties so are doing ok in the scheme of things.
(FWIW this would be extremely painful for me)
And yes - it’s politically very very difficult. But this may be the only chance to make a fundamentally sensible change like this in this generation
rcs1000 asked: "As an American with a mortgage, isn't there a limit on mortgage interest deductibility?
One that means that it's mostly a middle class tax break, not one for the 1%."
Yes, but the key thing is that fewer and fewer itemize now: "We estimate about 13.7 percent of taxpayers will itemize in 2019. This is more than 17 percentage points lower than it would have been in 2019 under pre-TCJA law. The difference in the proportion of itemizing taxpayers is largest for the third income group quintile (40 percent to 60 percent). The proportion of taxpayers in this quintile that would have itemized in 2019 under pre-TCJA law would have been nearly four times higher than the proportion of taxpayers that we estimate will itemize under current law." source: https://taxfoundation.org/standard-deduction-itemized-deductions-current-law-2019/
Presumably, not every taxpayer in that 13.7 percent itemizes, and not all who do have signficant mortgages, so I would guess that somewhere around 1 in 10 taxpayers gets a significant benefit from the deduction -- and most of those would be wealthy by UK standards.
My point was poorly made.
The group of people who spend the most on their mortgage, as a percentage of pretax income, are those earning $40-100,000 per year. People earning $1m/year don't typically spend anywhere near as much on mortgage interest costs.
Proportionately, therefore, it is people in the middle who benefit most.
Comments
LOL!
Talking directly to the voters!
The show as well as being ultra thickofeed also features animal abuse including animal sacrifice for entertainment. Goodness, @MoonRabbit, no we DON'T all watch it!
Having watched the Rishi blanks Matt clip a few times, I'm not wholly sure that that's what happened. Rishi may have been emotional and distracted. On the other hand, perhaps he did deliberately blank Matt. It's unclear.
Hancock is out of favour and may have been stitched up. What's going on with that? Was he about to say something? (Top guess would be about pandemic policy.) Has he been forced to the point where in effect he's seen the light and he's saying f*** the lot of you? (Better late than never.)
He would of course threaten to primary any other GOP Senator who did not fall into line when they were next up for re election to ensure they followed his directions
Central mandates should be paid for out of property tax. Local decisions paid for out of the new (lower) council tax. I am sure that some local councils will try to be cute and not cut local tax that much but that’s up to the voters to judge on their own good time
If all 7 go GOP or even just 6 then Trump has a real shot of overturning an EC loss in 2024, the House almost certainly going GOP too
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2022/senate/elections-map.html
There was more than one vote but on average I think 5 out of 53 Republicans voted to reject EC votes.
To assert that if there are 54 Republicans then 51 out of 54 will reject EC votes seems highly unlikely to me.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_mortgage_interest_deduction
So it helps millionaires like Bernie Sanders on two of his three homes, but does nothing for the poor or middle class.
One result, in my opinion, is that we have over-invested in large, expensive homes, often large homes that have just two people living in them.
GBP will put him through humiliation after humiliation and if he endures it with good humour and a smile he will probably get a decent career as a "talking head" on the BBC/SKY/C4/TALK TV/GB NEWS etc etc etc in 2023 and well beyond...
Might need an extra 0.5% to make up the rest in that case, unless you just keep council tax (though it would make sense to abolish it at the same time - one in, one out, as it were).
sourcee$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2022/11/01/oz-senate-doctor-research/
One of the great unknowns in American politics is how many Republican candidates are accepting Trump's support -- and planning to ditch him later, when convenient. Many will be tempted because of this obvious fact: Trump is a loser, who has damaged the Republican party, and, often, those candidates. Few are speaking openly about it, but I doubt very much that Oz is alone in having this plan.
(If you are runing for the Senate that strategy would be especially tempting, since senators have 6 year terms.)
One that means that it's mostly a middle class tax break, not one for the 1%.
One that means that it's mostly a middle class tax break, not one for the 1%."
Yes, but the key thing is that fewer and fewer itemize now: "We estimate about 13.7 percent of taxpayers will itemize in 2019. This is more than 17 percentage points lower than it would have been in 2019 under pre-TCJA law. The difference in the proportion of itemizing taxpayers is largest for the third income group quintile (40 percent to 60 percent). The proportion of taxpayers in this quintile that would have itemized in 2019 under pre-TCJA law would have been nearly four times higher than the proportion of taxpayers that we estimate will itemize under current law."
source: https://taxfoundation.org/standard-deduction-itemized-deductions-current-law-2019/
Presumably, not every taxpayer in that 13.7 percent itemizes, and not all who do have signficant mortgages, so I would guess that somewhere around 1 in 10 taxpayers gets a significant benefit from the deduction -- and most of those would be wealthy by UK standards.
Sasse has just accepted a job as president of the University of Florida. I don''t know who his replacement in the Senate will be -- possibly current Nebraska Governor Pete Ricketss -- so I don't know whether they will follow Sasse's example. He may see that as a stepping stone to another elected office, later.
(Off hand I can think of two university presidents who became presidents of the US, Wilson (Princeton) and Eisenhower (Columbia).)
The group of people who spend the most on their mortgage, as a percentage of pretax income, are those earning $40-100,000 per year. People earning $1m/year don't typically spend anywhere near as much on mortgage interest costs.
Proportionately, therefore, it is people in the middle who benefit most.