I have calculated an average for the polls over the past few months.
My methodology is to calculate the average poll for each polling company for each month, and then to average these.
A simple average of the polls in each month would give additional weight to those companies which poll weekly, compared with those with only one poll per month.
This gives the following
Nice work.
Wot? No smiley face for Moon Rabbit.
Sunak seems to be taking his party down.
Starmer seems to be holding firm.
MoonRabbit is in denial.
From three points of data?
To me, all that you can say is that the situation appears to be quite stable over the period.
Hang on, those three points of data are for three months, so decent datum points. So yes you can question Horse's first assertion, but two and three are bang on the money.
I have calculated an average for the polls over the past few months.
My methodology is to calculate the average poll for each polling company for each month, and then to average these.
A simple average of the polls in each month would give additional weight to those companies which poll weekly, compared with those with only one poll per month.
This gives the following
Nice work.
Wot? No smiley face for Moon Rabbit.
Sunak seems to be taking his party down.
Starmer seems to be holding firm.
MoonRabbit is in denial.
Be careful what you wish for. I would caution your enthusiasm for Sunak's pain-ridden travails. What comes next is an emboldened, cleansed of his sins Johnson.
If Johnson comes back I think I will leave the country. This man must never be allowed near power again.
The Tory party needs to lose big as Labour did - and go back to the centre-ground, component mainstream politics.
I have calculated an average for the polls over the past few months.
My methodology is to calculate the average poll for each polling company for each month, and then to average these.
A simple average of the polls in each month would give additional weight to those companies which poll weekly, compared with those with only one poll per month.
This gives the following
Nice work.
Wot? No smiley face for Moon Rabbit.
The first thing that leaps out from this methodology is how little movement there has been month to month. At times during week or fortnight periods it looks like there’s bigger movement going on - so anyone who gets excited by weekly or fortnight movements needs to think about that in my opinion.
The second thing that leaps out is the Tory share going backwards across these three months.
Interesting.
As I have played it so straight YET AGAIN This one’s for you Mex. 😁
Are you going to accept you've got it wrong now?
Though I’d love to reply, I have to accept I have to go out to a bar and meet some people and drink cocktails, though it pains me to drag myself away 🥂
I have calculated an average for the polls over the past few months.
My methodology is to calculate the average poll for each polling company for each month, and then to average these.
A simple average of the polls in each month would give additional weight to those companies which poll weekly, compared with those with only one poll per month.
This gives the following
Nice work.
Wot? No smiley face for Moon Rabbit.
The first thing that leaps out from this methodology is how little movement there has been month to month. At times during week or fortnight periods it looks like there’s bigger movement going on - so anyone who gets excited by weekly or fortnight movements needs to think about that in my opinion.
The second thing that leaps out is the Tory share going backwards across these three months.
Interesting.
As I have played it so straight YET AGAIN This one’s for you Mex. 😁
Are you going to accept you've got it wrong now?
Though I’d love to reply, I have to accept I have to go out to a bar and meet some people and drink cocktails, though it pains me to drag myself away 🥂
So that's a no then. Makes you look a bit silly tbh. Have a good afternoon
They blame the higher energy prices and higher import prices the UK has faced. They do not ask themselves why China, Japan and Switzerland facing those same rising world prices kept their inflation down to 2% for China and to under 4% for the other two. They do not explain why they kept rates so low and why they kept creating money and buying bonds as they watched energy prices soar. They do not explain why UK inflation hit 5.5% before Putin invaded Ukraine. They do confess they let demand outrun supply. They do not comment on the £150bn of Quantitative easing bond buying at crazy high prices they did in 2021 when some of us were urging them to stop...
Chris Giles has a piece in the FT arguing against taxing Boomer wealth to fix intergenerational inequality... Might be an interesting read given the debates on the issue on here (not linking because of pay wall).
Available via google. Headline "OK Boomer"
So basically saying younger generations should be split into
those grateful for inheritance and bank of mum and dad those who have to suck it up
I wonder which category the Cambridge educated economics editor of the FT is in.....
It is a good point. Personally the intra generational inequality issue has always seemed the more worrying one rather than the inter generational one. Millenials and Gen Zeds are going to be defined by their inherited wealth as much as by their earned income, which is a tricky situation for anyone who wants to sell the idea that society is in any way fair or meritocratic.
This is one the (many) things I find strange about the modern Tory party. Most claim alignment with Thatcherism. To me one of the central pillars of Thatcherism was aspiration and meritocracy. Almost importing the "American dream". Another pillar was challenging the status quo and being willing to take on vested interests.
Yet those now claiming to be Thatcherite want to protect a system that thwarts aspiration and meritocracy and protects the status quo.
Inheritance is a tricky one because it involves a tradeoff between two deep engrained and equally worthwhile human impulses - fairness, and providing for your offspring. It feels like the Tories are only interested in the latter but Labour can't go too far the other way.
I don't think its just the Tories. As the article points out most people in the UK think inheritance is indeed fair as it has already been taxed once.
They are wrong, it is unfair (at least at present levels of inequality) and all money is taxed not just once, but endlessly and in multiple ways as it gets recycled through the economy. If it was just the Tories it could be fixed by a Labour govt but it is the near settled position of the electorate, especially the older part of the electorate.
I think inheritance is a classic example of where the interests of the individual and the interests of society diverge. As a parent I want to help my kids succeed and so of course I'm putting aside money for them. And paradoxically the more unequal the society they're going to be operating in, the more money I will need to give them - it becomes an arms race. But ultimately I want them to be living in a less unequal society since I think that will benefit them whether they are rich or poor.
Taxing capital more, and income less, is the way forward IMHO.
I would scrap the IHT exemptions for business property, farmland, woodland, country houses, and works of art. I'd also abolish main residence relief (currently up to £1m).
I'd keep the £325,000 relief, and then set the rate at 25% on everything above that (rather than 40%).
One excellent consequence would be a sharp drop in the price of farmland, which is used a tax shelter. It is virtually impossible now to buy farmland, and get a decent return based upon farming income.
But have you the cojones to suggest the real big one?
The capital gains exemption on main residences is devoid of social and financial logic, yet to withdraw it would be electoral suicide.
Do you dare? Thought not.
The capital gains exemption on main residences makes perfect social and financial sense. If you're moving from one home to another then the so-called capital gain isn't real, what you've gained in your sale you lose in your purchase. Whereas someone who stays in their property and potentially remortgages etc to release money from what they've gained but doesn't officially realise the equity will evade the tax completely.
So all you get with your proposal is a tax on mobility. Mobility isn't the problem and shouldn't be discouraged via the taxation.
If you want to tax the value of main homes then that can and should be done via a land tax that is paid annually by everyone who owns a property whether they're moving or not. If the value of your property goes up, your tax goes up, and vice-versa even if you're not moving which would discourage people from acting as NIMBYs etc to inflate their property prices.
A land tax is long overdue. I agree it makes more sense than CGT on primary residences. But for other CGs I don't understand why they are taxed at a lower rate than income.
An interesting idea I saw recently was that multiple property owners would have all of their property subject to CGT and the CGT exemption would be reserved for people who own their home and no others.
I think that "interesting" means "stupid" in this context. It would penalise someone with a family home and eg a small holiday let much more than someone with a portfolio of ten buy to lets for whom their family home would be a tiny share of their total wealth. It would also hinder mobility as the people affected wouldn't move house (eg downsize in retirement) until they'd sold their other properties.
The point was to disincentivise multiple property ownership. Using the tax system to change market behaviour is one of the few levers the government has got and yes, there will be losers from any changes but there always are. I don't think the general public will be crying rivers because a few holiday home owners have to sell them to move house or if landlords have to pay CGT when they move house.
This is just populist gesture politics. There will always be demand for regular rental properties and for holiday lets, the ownership will simply be wrapped up in a corporate structure and the rents paid as dividends.
But you just extend that to majority shareholders in companies that are property holding companies, it's not difficult and it's not gesture politics. The aim is to reverse the trend of multiple property ownership by older people using young people as a pension fund. It will turn landlords into forced sellers.
So you end up with all rental properties being owned by rental companies. Which make a fortune because of the housing shortage.
If that happens you tax them out of existence too, or force them into becoming housing associations with rent offered at lower than market rate. The government has significant regulatory power, it chooses not to use it because its donors and voters are all multiple property owners.
Which is effectively theft, taking private property and converting into social/housing association properties, certainly without compensation rather than building new social homes.
Plenty of renters like renting in the private sector anyway, especially if younger in the cities when they like the flexibility. They don't want to or need to be in social or housing association properties either
No, it's the cost of doing business. These are the regulations, if you don't like them then your option is to put your money elsewhere. No doubt lots of people will, but it isn't theft.
Also, do you actually know or speak to anyone under the age of 30? "Plenty of renters like renting in the private sector anyway" suggests you haven't got a grip on reality.
In London and Manchester the vast majority under 30 happily rent in the private sector, they certainly wouldn't want to be in social housing and most won't have a family yet and want to buy either.
Taking a property and confiscating it using retrospective law with no compensation is certainly theft
What are you basing that on?
And who's saying it would be retrospective? From this day this is how the sector operates, any new leases will be subject to this legislation. If people want out then nothing is forcing them to stay in the sector, they are free to sell.
The waiting lists for social housing in London are effectively closed off to young singletons under thirty. If they were an option, I'm sure they'd get snapped up like hotcakes.
Just to back up the numbers about second homes. This is where it came from. Obviously this is from before the pandemic so no idea how it will have changed since then. Will more people have bought second homes or sold them?
Anyway. A total of 2.4 million households reported to have at least one additional house. The majority of those private rented property but 772,000 of them just second homes. 495,000 of them in the UK and the rest mostly in Europe. Note that 61,000 of those with second homes have more than one so the actual number of second homes is at least 8% higher than the base number.
I'll at least give Farage some credit in that he accepts that if you believe 'Britain shouldn't be part of the EU because you should never give up your sovereignty' then it logically follows that 'no country should ever give its up sovereignty and therefore the EU should not exist.' If you believe that the EU had no right making legislation for the UK, you should not believe the same for any other EU member state.
That makes no logical sense whatsoever.
So if I say I do not want to be in a gym, as I have no intention of using its facilities and I'd rather exercise either at home or outside instead . . . does that mean that I think that nobody else should be using the gym, including those who are interested in weightlifting or other things and use the facilities regularly?
In my view the EU should be reformed to be more democratic, but its perfectly legitimate to either be in a federation or not, so long as its democratic, there's no reason why you either should or should not.
But that's not the same argument. Saying you shouldn't have the gym membership because it's a waste of time and doesn't suit you is not an argument analogous to an argument about sovereignty. I've seen arguments from leavers (including Lord Frost, for instance) which state that we should not be part of the EU even if we were demonstrably poorer as a result because being an independent nation is priceless. But then that raises the exact same question about France, Germany, Spain, and indeed Ukraine as a prospective member. None of these countries think they aren't independent or sovereign.
Undo no legal definition was the UK ever not sovereign when a member of the EU.
We were sovereign enough to leave
The logic of that argument could be used to claim that Southern slaves weren't really slaves because they could buy themselves out of slavery. And no, I am not equating membership of the EU with slavery, just pointing out the logic flaw in your argument.
No country is properly sovereign in the way defined by some Brexit supporters, because all accept some limits on their independent action with membership of international bodies like the WTO, or the ICAO, etc.
So in all cases, whether a member of the EU or not, we are dealing with degrees of sovereignty, rather than absolutes of being sovereign or not, though of course we would seek to find a dividing line between the category of a sovereign independent country and a non-sovereign member of a Federation.
In the case of EU membership, Britain was able to go to war in Iraq in 2003, despite substantial opposition across most of the EU. I think that the ability to go to war is one of the main ones I would use to define whether a country is sovereign and independent.
If you were to define the dividing line on complete freedom to determine taxation, say, which we certainly didn't have as a member of the EU, then the UK is still not a sovereign country, because of our obligation not to tax aviation fuel. So that definition wouldn't be very useful.
Not a valid comparison.
Which of the EU, ICAO, WTO etc have a Parliament of their own that can organically create vast swathes of its own laws without agreement of the UK Parliament? Similarly which of those levy and create their own taxes?
Those are interesting bases for a discussion over what constitutes the dividing line between sovereign and non-sovereign, but I don't think they're a clincher, since there's no particular reason why the existence of a Parliament defines sovereignty, but being able to wage war does not.
In the case of the EU Parliament I would argue that Westminster had selectively delegated authority to the European Parliament, in a similar way that it had delegated authority to the Holyrood Parliament, and so Westminster remained sovereign in both cases.
Ultimately the EU budget was agreed by the EU Council, on which the British representative was required to have the confidence of the House of Commons.
Arguments on sovereignty would be stronger if they accepted that it exists on a sliding scale, rather than tried to pretend that EU member states are not sovereign as a categorical statement.
Of course it exists on a scale, but too much had been scaled away in my view.
To take your Budget example, yes the UK gets a small say but it is not enough, simply having the British Chancellor having sole say on Budgetary matters is utterly unacceptable. The Chancellor regularly in this country for matters determined at a UK-level tries to pass measures which get rejected by Parliament, the Chancellor is not god or an economic dictator. So simply having the UK Chancellor approving the EU budget when the UK Parliament does not is no substitute for proper democratic scrutiny.
Now if you want European sovereignty and European scrutiny done by the European Parliament, I could respect that. But saying the UK Chancellor has a say so Parliament has no reason to do so? That I can not.
I have calculated an average for the polls over the past few months.
My methodology is to calculate the average poll for each polling company for each month, and then to average these.
A simple average of the polls in each month would give additional weight to those companies which poll weekly, compared with those with only one poll per month.
This gives the following
Three months of effectively stable, then - given the margin of error a 0.6% shift C>R and 0.5% L>G is negligible.
The margin of error for an average of several polls is much smaller than the margin of error for an individual poll.
It would be interesting to do the calculation to work out the difference. Complicated in this instance by the different number of polls from each company reach month. Or you could create a python script to model a few examples.
They blame the higher energy prices and higher import prices the UK has faced. They do not ask themselves why China, Japan and Switzerland facing those same rising world prices kept their inflation down to 2% for China and to under 4% for the other two. They do not explain why they kept rates so low and why they kept creating money and buying bonds as they watched energy prices soar. They do not explain why UK inflation hit 5.5% before Putin invaded Ukraine. They do confess they let demand outrun supply. They do not comment on the £150bn of Quantitative easing bond buying at crazy high prices they did in 2021 when some of us were urging them to stop...
Fortunately, we do actually know the answer to that question:
In the case of Switzerland, it is because it's electrical production is largely hydro, which has been unaffected by rising hydrocarbon prices.
While with Japan, it is because they took advantage of the Ukraine war to buy discounted LNG cargos from Russia. We could, of course, have done that, and it would have had a very significant impact on energy prices. But it would also have rather undercut our support of Ukraine.
And China has had next to no inflation because they have pursued a zero Covid strategy that has decimated domestic demand.
I have calculated an average for the polls over the past few months.
My methodology is to calculate the average poll for each polling company for each month, and then to average these.
A simple average of the polls in each month would give additional weight to those companies which poll weekly, compared with those with only one poll per month.
This gives the following
Nice work.
Wot? No smiley face for Moon Rabbit.
Sunak seems to be taking his party down.
Starmer seems to be holding firm.
MoonRabbit is in denial.
Be careful what you wish for. I would caution your enthusiasm for Sunak's pain-ridden travails. What comes next is an emboldened, cleansed of his sins Johnson.
If Johnson comes back I think I will leave the country. This man must never be allowed near power again.
The Tory party needs to lose big as Labour did - and go back to the centre-ground, component mainstream politics.
They will only do that if they lose.
Point one. You can't, unless your father is Stanley Johnson and you can inherit French citizenship when the ship goes down.
Point two. Tories own the nation, and they are in-turn owned by the swivel-eyed. Tbf, they will go down with the sinking ship.
Chris Giles has a piece in the FT arguing against taxing Boomer wealth to fix intergenerational inequality... Might be an interesting read given the debates on the issue on here (not linking because of pay wall).
Available via google. Headline "OK Boomer"
So basically saying younger generations should be split into
those grateful for inheritance and bank of mum and dad those who have to suck it up
I wonder which category the Cambridge educated economics editor of the FT is in.....
It is a good point. Personally the intra generational inequality issue has always seemed the more worrying one rather than the inter generational one. Millenials and Gen Zeds are going to be defined by their inherited wealth as much as by their earned income, which is a tricky situation for anyone who wants to sell the idea that society is in any way fair or meritocratic.
This is one the (many) things I find strange about the modern Tory party. Most claim alignment with Thatcherism. To me one of the central pillars of Thatcherism was aspiration and meritocracy. Almost importing the "American dream". Another pillar was challenging the status quo and being willing to take on vested interests.
Yet those now claiming to be Thatcherite want to protect a system that thwarts aspiration and meritocracy and protects the status quo.
Inheritance is a tricky one because it involves a tradeoff between two deep engrained and equally worthwhile human impulses - fairness, and providing for your offspring. It feels like the Tories are only interested in the latter but Labour can't go too far the other way.
I don't think its just the Tories. As the article points out most people in the UK think inheritance is indeed fair as it has already been taxed once.
They are wrong, it is unfair (at least at present levels of inequality) and all money is taxed not just once, but endlessly and in multiple ways as it gets recycled through the economy. If it was just the Tories it could be fixed by a Labour govt but it is the near settled position of the electorate, especially the older part of the electorate.
I think inheritance is a classic example of where the interests of the individual and the interests of society diverge. As a parent I want to help my kids succeed and so of course I'm putting aside money for them. And paradoxically the more unequal the society they're going to be operating in, the more money I will need to give them - it becomes an arms race. But ultimately I want them to be living in a less unequal society since I think that will benefit them whether they are rich or poor.
Taxing capital more, and income less, is the way forward IMHO.
I would scrap the IHT exemptions for business property, farmland, woodland, country houses, and works of art. I'd also abolish main residence relief (currently up to £1m).
I'd keep the £325,000 relief, and then set the rate at 25% on everything above that (rather than 40%).
One excellent consequence would be a sharp drop in the price of farmland, which is used a tax shelter. It is virtually impossible now to buy farmland, and get a decent return based upon farming income.
But have you the cojones to suggest the real big one?
The capital gains exemption on main residences is devoid of social and financial logic, yet to withdraw it would be electoral suicide.
Do you dare? Thought not.
The capital gains exemption on main residences makes perfect social and financial sense. If you're moving from one home to another then the so-called capital gain isn't real, what you've gained in your sale you lose in your purchase. Whereas someone who stays in their property and potentially remortgages etc to release money from what they've gained but doesn't officially realise the equity will evade the tax completely.
So all you get with your proposal is a tax on mobility. Mobility isn't the problem and shouldn't be discouraged via the taxation.
If you want to tax the value of main homes then that can and should be done via a land tax that is paid annually by everyone who owns a property whether they're moving or not. If the value of your property goes up, your tax goes up, and vice-versa even if you're not moving which would discourage people from acting as NIMBYs etc to inflate their property prices.
A land tax is long overdue. I agree it makes more sense than CGT on primary residences. But for other CGs I don't understand why they are taxed at a lower rate than income.
An interesting idea I saw recently was that multiple property owners would have all of their property subject to CGT and the CGT exemption would be reserved for people who own their home and no others.
I think that "interesting" means "stupid" in this context. It would penalise someone with a family home and eg a small holiday let much more than someone with a portfolio of ten buy to lets for whom their family home would be a tiny share of their total wealth. It would also hinder mobility as the people affected wouldn't move house (eg downsize in retirement) until they'd sold their other properties.
The point was to disincentivise multiple property ownership. Using the tax system to change market behaviour is one of the few levers the government has got and yes, there will be losers from any changes but there always are. I don't think the general public will be crying rivers because a few holiday home owners have to sell them to move house or if landlords have to pay CGT when they move house.
This is just populist gesture politics. There will always be demand for regular rental properties and for holiday lets, the ownership will simply be wrapped up in a corporate structure and the rents paid as dividends.
But you just extend that to majority shareholders in companies that are property holding companies, it's not difficult and it's not gesture politics. The aim is to reverse the trend of multiple property ownership by older people using young people as a pension fund. It will turn landlords into forced sellers.
So you end up with all rental properties being owned by rental companies. Which make a fortune because of the housing shortage.
If that happens you tax them out of existence too, or force them into becoming housing associations with rent offered at lower than market rate. The government has significant regulatory power, it chooses not to use it because its donors and voters are all multiple property owners.
Which is effectively theft, taking private property and converting into social/housing association properties, certainly without compensation rather than building new social homes.
Plenty of renters like renting in the private sector anyway, especially if younger in the cities when they like the flexibility. They don't want to or need to be in social or housing association properties either
No, it's the cost of doing business. These are the regulations, if you don't like them then your option is to put your money elsewhere. No doubt lots of people will, but it isn't theft.
Also, do you actually know or speak to anyone under the age of 30? "Plenty of renters like renting in the private sector anyway" suggests you haven't got a grip on reality.
In London and Manchester the vast majority under 30 happily rent in the private sector, they certainly wouldn't want to be in social housing and most won't have a family yet and want to buy either.
Taking a property and confiscating it using retrospective law with no compensation is certainly theft
“happily”?
You need to get out more.
I think the picture is mixed. There are many who feel trapped in often substandard rented accommodation who would love to buy but can't afford it and resent paying rent. Then there are those who find private rents too expensive and would love to have the option of more affordable social housing. And there are those who are very happy to rent privately, perhaps because they aren't yet settled in their careers or location and want the flexibility of renting. Too often on here people assume that every private renter is in the first group (typically the wealthiest group, of course). If you try to drive every private landlord out of business you will hurt the other two groups, especially if you don't create more social housing to make up for it. The failure to build social housing has been the key housing market failure since the 1980s. It stemmed originally from Thatcher's view that council houses created Labour voters. But the governments that followed have also failed on this front - the biggest failure of the 1997-2010 Labour government IMHO.
I have calculated an average for the polls over the past few months.
My methodology is to calculate the average poll for each polling company for each month, and then to average these.
A simple average of the polls in each month would give additional weight to those companies which poll weekly, compared with those with only one poll per month.
This gives the following
Nice work.
Wot? No smiley face for Moon Rabbit.
Sunak seems to be taking his party down.
Starmer seems to be holding firm.
MoonRabbit is in denial.
Be careful what you wish for. I would caution your enthusiasm for Sunak's pain-ridden travails. What comes next is an emboldened, cleansed of his sins Johnson.
If Johnson comes back I think I will leave the country. This man must never be allowed near power again.
The Tory party needs to lose big as Labour did - and go back to the centre-ground, component mainstream politics.
They will only do that if they lose.
Yes but Sunak is a centrist leader in Tory terms, so if he loses big it would suggest to Tories they need to move further right.
It is different to when Corbyn lost big as he was far left, so that suggested Labour needed to move to the centre
I have calculated an average for the polls over the past few months.
My methodology is to calculate the average poll for each polling company for each month, and then to average these.
A simple average of the polls in each month would give additional weight to those companies which poll weekly, compared with those with only one poll per month.
This gives the following
Nice work.
Wot? No smiley face for Moon Rabbit.
Sunak seems to be taking his party down.
Starmer seems to be holding firm.
MoonRabbit is in denial.
Be careful what you wish for. I would caution your enthusiasm for Sunak's pain-ridden travails. What comes next is an emboldened, cleansed of his sins Johnson.
If Johnson comes back I think I will leave the country. This man must never be allowed near power again.
The Tory party needs to lose big as Labour did - and go back to the centre-ground, component mainstream politics.
They will only do that if they lose.
Yes but Sunak is a centrist leader in Tory terms, so if he loses big it would suggest to Tories they need to move further right.
It is different to when Corbyn lost big as he was far left, so that suggested Labour needed to move to the centre
Chris Giles has a piece in the FT arguing against taxing Boomer wealth to fix intergenerational inequality... Might be an interesting read given the debates on the issue on here (not linking because of pay wall).
Available via google. Headline "OK Boomer"
So basically saying younger generations should be split into
those grateful for inheritance and bank of mum and dad those who have to suck it up
I wonder which category the Cambridge educated economics editor of the FT is in.....
It is a good point. Personally the intra generational inequality issue has always seemed the more worrying one rather than the inter generational one. Millenials and Gen Zeds are going to be defined by their inherited wealth as much as by their earned income, which is a tricky situation for anyone who wants to sell the idea that society is in any way fair or meritocratic.
This is one the (many) things I find strange about the modern Tory party. Most claim alignment with Thatcherism. To me one of the central pillars of Thatcherism was aspiration and meritocracy. Almost importing the "American dream". Another pillar was challenging the status quo and being willing to take on vested interests.
Yet those now claiming to be Thatcherite want to protect a system that thwarts aspiration and meritocracy and protects the status quo.
Inheritance is a tricky one because it involves a tradeoff between two deep engrained and equally worthwhile human impulses - fairness, and providing for your offspring. It feels like the Tories are only interested in the latter but Labour can't go too far the other way.
I don't think its just the Tories. As the article points out most people in the UK think inheritance is indeed fair as it has already been taxed once.
They are wrong, it is unfair (at least at present levels of inequality) and all money is taxed not just once, but endlessly and in multiple ways as it gets recycled through the economy. If it was just the Tories it could be fixed by a Labour govt but it is the near settled position of the electorate, especially the older part of the electorate.
I think inheritance is a classic example of where the interests of the individual and the interests of society diverge. As a parent I want to help my kids succeed and so of course I'm putting aside money for them. And paradoxically the more unequal the society they're going to be operating in, the more money I will need to give them - it becomes an arms race. But ultimately I want them to be living in a less unequal society since I think that will benefit them whether they are rich or poor.
Taxing capital more, and income less, is the way forward IMHO.
I would scrap the IHT exemptions for business property, farmland, woodland, country houses, and works of art. I'd also abolish main residence relief (currently up to £1m).
I'd keep the £325,000 relief, and then set the rate at 25% on everything above that (rather than 40%).
One excellent consequence would be a sharp drop in the price of farmland, which is used a tax shelter. It is virtually impossible now to buy farmland, and get a decent return based upon farming income.
But have you the cojones to suggest the real big one?
The capital gains exemption on main residences is devoid of social and financial logic, yet to withdraw it would be electoral suicide.
Do you dare? Thought not.
The capital gains exemption on main residences makes perfect social and financial sense. If you're moving from one home to another then the so-called capital gain isn't real, what you've gained in your sale you lose in your purchase. Whereas someone who stays in their property and potentially remortgages etc to release money from what they've gained but doesn't officially realise the equity will evade the tax completely.
So all you get with your proposal is a tax on mobility. Mobility isn't the problem and shouldn't be discouraged via the taxation.
If you want to tax the value of main homes then that can and should be done via a land tax that is paid annually by everyone who owns a property whether they're moving or not. If the value of your property goes up, your tax goes up, and vice-versa even if you're not moving which would discourage people from acting as NIMBYs etc to inflate their property prices.
A land tax is long overdue. I agree it makes more sense than CGT on primary residences. But for other CGs I don't understand why they are taxed at a lower rate than income.
An interesting idea I saw recently was that multiple property owners would have all of their property subject to CGT and the CGT exemption would be reserved for people who own their home and no others.
I think that "interesting" means "stupid" in this context. It would penalise someone with a family home and eg a small holiday let much more than someone with a portfolio of ten buy to lets for whom their family home would be a tiny share of their total wealth. It would also hinder mobility as the people affected wouldn't move house (eg downsize in retirement) until they'd sold their other properties.
The point was to disincentivise multiple property ownership. Using the tax system to change market behaviour is one of the few levers the government has got and yes, there will be losers from any changes but there always are. I don't think the general public will be crying rivers because a few holiday home owners have to sell them to move house or if landlords have to pay CGT when they move house.
This is just populist gesture politics. There will always be demand for regular rental properties and for holiday lets, the ownership will simply be wrapped up in a corporate structure and the rents paid as dividends.
But you just extend that to majority shareholders in companies that are property holding companies, it's not difficult and it's not gesture politics. The aim is to reverse the trend of multiple property ownership by older people using young people as a pension fund. It will turn landlords into forced sellers.
So you end up with all rental properties being owned by rental companies. Which make a fortune because of the housing shortage.
Some leap of fantasy there as well from Max, only old people are landlords or as I would suspect he would be happy if it was all young people owning them and had pensioners as cleaners on £5 an hour for daring to have a state pension.
I have calculated an average for the polls over the past few months.
My methodology is to calculate the average poll for each polling company for each month, and then to average these.
A simple average of the polls in each month would give additional weight to those companies which poll weekly, compared with those with only one poll per month.
This gives the following
Nice work.
Wot? No smiley face for Moon Rabbit.
Sunak seems to be taking his party down.
Starmer seems to be holding firm.
MoonRabbit is in denial.
Be careful what you wish for. I would caution your enthusiasm for Sunak's pain-ridden travails. What comes next is an emboldened, cleansed of his sins Johnson.
If Johnson comes back I think I will leave the country. This man must never be allowed near power again.
The Tory party needs to lose big as Labour did - and go back to the centre-ground, component mainstream politics.
They will only do that if they lose.
Yes but Sunak is a centrist leader in Tory terms, so if he loses big it would suggest to Tories they need to move further right.
It is different to when Corbyn lost big as he was far left, so that suggested Labour needed to move to the centre
Chris Giles has a piece in the FT arguing against taxing Boomer wealth to fix intergenerational inequality... Might be an interesting read given the debates on the issue on here (not linking because of pay wall).
Available via google. Headline "OK Boomer"
So basically saying younger generations should be split into
those grateful for inheritance and bank of mum and dad those who have to suck it up
I wonder which category the Cambridge educated economics editor of the FT is in.....
It is a good point. Personally the intra generational inequality issue has always seemed the more worrying one rather than the inter generational one. Millenials and Gen Zeds are going to be defined by their inherited wealth as much as by their earned income, which is a tricky situation for anyone who wants to sell the idea that society is in any way fair or meritocratic.
This is one the (many) things I find strange about the modern Tory party. Most claim alignment with Thatcherism. To me one of the central pillars of Thatcherism was aspiration and meritocracy. Almost importing the "American dream". Another pillar was challenging the status quo and being willing to take on vested interests.
Yet those now claiming to be Thatcherite want to protect a system that thwarts aspiration and meritocracy and protects the status quo.
Inheritance is a tricky one because it involves a tradeoff between two deep engrained and equally worthwhile human impulses - fairness, and providing for your offspring. It feels like the Tories are only interested in the latter but Labour can't go too far the other way.
I don't think its just the Tories. As the article points out most people in the UK think inheritance is indeed fair as it has already been taxed once.
They are wrong, it is unfair (at least at present levels of inequality) and all money is taxed not just once, but endlessly and in multiple ways as it gets recycled through the economy. If it was just the Tories it could be fixed by a Labour govt but it is the near settled position of the electorate, especially the older part of the electorate.
I think inheritance is a classic example of where the interests of the individual and the interests of society diverge. As a parent I want to help my kids succeed and so of course I'm putting aside money for them. And paradoxically the more unequal the society they're going to be operating in, the more money I will need to give them - it becomes an arms race. But ultimately I want them to be living in a less unequal society since I think that will benefit them whether they are rich or poor.
Taxing capital more, and income less, is the way forward IMHO.
I would scrap the IHT exemptions for business property, farmland, woodland, country houses, and works of art. I'd also abolish main residence relief (currently up to £1m).
I'd keep the £325,000 relief, and then set the rate at 25% on everything above that (rather than 40%).
One excellent consequence would be a sharp drop in the price of farmland, which is used a tax shelter. It is virtually impossible now to buy farmland, and get a decent return based upon farming income.
But have you the cojones to suggest the real big one?
The capital gains exemption on main residences is devoid of social and financial logic, yet to withdraw it would be electoral suicide.
Do you dare? Thought not.
The capital gains exemption on main residences makes perfect social and financial sense. If you're moving from one home to another then the so-called capital gain isn't real, what you've gained in your sale you lose in your purchase. Whereas someone who stays in their property and potentially remortgages etc to release money from what they've gained but doesn't officially realise the equity will evade the tax completely.
So all you get with your proposal is a tax on mobility. Mobility isn't the problem and shouldn't be discouraged via the taxation.
If you want to tax the value of main homes then that can and should be done via a land tax that is paid annually by everyone who owns a property whether they're moving or not. If the value of your property goes up, your tax goes up, and vice-versa even if you're not moving which would discourage people from acting as NIMBYs etc to inflate their property prices.
A land tax is long overdue. I agree it makes more sense than CGT on primary residences. But for other CGs I don't understand why they are taxed at a lower rate than income.
An interesting idea I saw recently was that multiple property owners would have all of their property subject to CGT and the CGT exemption would be reserved for people who own their home and no others.
I think that "interesting" means "stupid" in this context. It would penalise someone with a family home and eg a small holiday let much more than someone with a portfolio of ten buy to lets for whom their family home would be a tiny share of their total wealth. It would also hinder mobility as the people affected wouldn't move house (eg downsize in retirement) until they'd sold their other properties.
The point was to disincentivise multiple property ownership. Using the tax system to change market behaviour is one of the few levers the government has got and yes, there will be losers from any changes but there always are. I don't think the general public will be crying rivers because a few holiday home owners have to sell them to move house or if landlords have to pay CGT when they move house.
This is just populist gesture politics. There will always be demand for regular rental properties and for holiday lets, the ownership will simply be wrapped up in a corporate structure and the rents paid as dividends.
But you just extend that to majority shareholders in companies that are property holding companies, it's not difficult and it's not gesture politics. The aim is to reverse the trend of multiple property ownership by older people using young people as a pension fund. It will turn landlords into forced sellers.
So you end up with all rental properties being owned by rental companies. Which make a fortune because of the housing shortage.
If that happens you tax them out of existence too, or force them into becoming housing associations with rent offered at lower than market rate. The government has significant regulatory power, it chooses not to use it because its donors and voters are all multiple property owners.
Which is effectively theft, taking private property and converting into social/housing association properties, certainly without compensation rather than building new social homes.
Plenty of renters like renting in the private sector anyway, especially if younger in the cities when they like the flexibility. They don't want to or need to be in social or housing association properties either
No, it's the cost of doing business. These are the regulations, if you don't like them then your option is to put your money elsewhere. No doubt lots of people will, but it isn't theft.
Also, do you actually know or speak to anyone under the age of 30? "Plenty of renters like renting in the private sector anyway" suggests you haven't got a grip on reality.
Plenty of renters have no choice but to rent in the private sector as their chance of ever getting social housing is close to zero as long as social housing is allocated on a needs basis which it currently is. Where would you suggest these people live? They can't afford to buy, so all the houses landlords sell under your scheme is not available and they are never going to get to the top of the social housing list.
I'll at least give Farage some credit in that he accepts that if you believe 'Britain shouldn't be part of the EU because you should never give up your sovereignty' then it logically follows that 'no country should ever give its up sovereignty and therefore the EU should not exist.' If you believe that the EU had no right making legislation for the UK, you should not believe the same for any other EU member state.
That makes no logical sense whatsoever.
So if I say I do not want to be in a gym, as I have no intention of using its facilities and I'd rather exercise either at home or outside instead . . . does that mean that I think that nobody else should be using the gym, including those who are interested in weightlifting or other things and use the facilities regularly?
In my view the EU should be reformed to be more democratic, but its perfectly legitimate to either be in a federation or not, so long as its democratic, there's no reason why you either should or should not.
But that's not the same argument. Saying you shouldn't have the gym membership because it's a waste of time and doesn't suit you is not an argument analogous to an argument about sovereignty. I've seen arguments from leavers (including Lord Frost, for instance) which state that we should not be part of the EU even if we were demonstrably poorer as a result because being an independent nation is priceless. But then that raises the exact same question about France, Germany, Spain, and indeed Ukraine as a prospective member. None of these countries think they aren't independent or sovereign.
Undo no legal definition was the UK ever not sovereign when a member of the EU.
We were sovereign enough to leave
The logic of that argument could be used to claim that Southern slaves weren't really slaves because they could buy themselves out of slavery. And no, I am not equating membership of the EU with slavery, just pointing out the logic flaw in your argument.
No country is properly sovereign in the way defined by some Brexit supporters, because all accept some limits on their independent action with membership of international bodies like the WTO, or the ICAO, etc.
So in all cases, whether a member of the EU or not, we are dealing with degrees of sovereignty, rather than absolutes of being sovereign or not, though of course we would seek to find a dividing line between the category of a sovereign independent country and a non-sovereign member of a Federation.
In the case of EU membership, Britain was able to go to war in Iraq in 2003, despite substantial opposition across most of the EU. I think that the ability to go to war is one of the main ones I would use to define whether a country is sovereign and independent.
If you were to define the dividing line on complete freedom to determine taxation, say, which we certainly didn't have as a member of the EU, then the UK is still not a sovereign country, because of our obligation not to tax aviation fuel. So that definition wouldn't be very useful.
Not a valid comparison.
Which of the EU, ICAO, WTO etc have a Parliament of their own that can organically create vast swathes of its own laws without agreement of the UK Parliament? Similarly which of those levy and create their own taxes?
Those are interesting bases for a discussion over what constitutes the dividing line between sovereign and non-sovereign, but I don't think they're a clincher, since there's no particular reason why the existence of a Parliament defines sovereignty, but being able to wage war does not.
In the case of the EU Parliament I would argue that Westminster had selectively delegated authority to the European Parliament, in a similar way that it had delegated authority to the Holyrood Parliament, and so Westminster remained sovereign in both cases.
Ultimately the EU budget was agreed by the EU Council, on which the British representative was required to have the confidence of the House of Commons.
Arguments on sovereignty would be stronger if they accepted that it exists on a sliding scale, rather than tried to pretend that EU member states are not sovereign as a categorical statement.
The problem is that involves actually redefining the basic dictionary definition of sovereignty (supreme power especially over a body politic, freedom from external control). To my mind such redefining is nonsensical. You can say that what EU member states have is something other than sovereignty and can, if you want, argue that that is better. But simply choosing your own definition of a word or principle to suit what you want it to be is not sustainable. It negates the purpose and facility of language.
I have calculated an average for the polls over the past few months.
My methodology is to calculate the average poll for each polling company for each month, and then to average these.
A simple average of the polls in each month would give additional weight to those companies which poll weekly, compared with those with only one poll per month.
This gives the following
Nice work.
Wot? No smiley face for Moon Rabbit.
Sunak seems to be taking his party down.
Starmer seems to be holding firm.
MoonRabbit is in denial.
Be careful what you wish for. I would caution your enthusiasm for Sunak's pain-ridden travails. What comes next is an emboldened, cleansed of his sins Johnson.
If Johnson comes back I think I will leave the country. This man must never be allowed near power again.
The Tory party needs to lose big as Labour did - and go back to the centre-ground, component mainstream politics.
They will only do that if they lose.
Yes but Sunak is a centrist leader in Tory terms, so if he loses big it would suggest to Tories they need to move further right.
It is different to when Corbyn lost big as he was far left, so that suggested Labour needed to move to the centre
Suank is not centrist by any definition
I agree with you but I think you missed HYUFD's crucial caveat 'in Tory terms'. By that definition centrism can be anything you want it to be as long as you can define its parameters and boundaries. It is a clever trick but, again, not sustainable.
I'll at least give Farage some credit in that he accepts that if you believe 'Britain shouldn't be part of the EU because you should never give up your sovereignty' then it logically follows that 'no country should ever give its up sovereignty and therefore the EU should not exist.' If you believe that the EU had no right making legislation for the UK, you should not believe the same for any other EU member state.
That makes no logical sense whatsoever.
So if I say I do not want to be in a gym, as I have no intention of using its facilities and I'd rather exercise either at home or outside instead . . . does that mean that I think that nobody else should be using the gym, including those who are interested in weightlifting or other things and use the facilities regularly?
In my view the EU should be reformed to be more democratic, but its perfectly legitimate to either be in a federation or not, so long as its democratic, there's no reason why you either should or should not.
But that's not the same argument. Saying you shouldn't have the gym membership because it's a waste of time and doesn't suit you is not an argument analogous to an argument about sovereignty. I've seen arguments from leavers (including Lord Frost, for instance) which state that we should not be part of the EU even if we were demonstrably poorer as a result because being an independent nation is priceless. But then that raises the exact same question about France, Germany, Spain, and indeed Ukraine as a prospective member. None of these countries think they aren't independent or sovereign.
Undo no legal definition was the UK ever not sovereign when a member of the EU.
We were sovereign enough to leave
The logic of that argument could be used to claim that Southern slaves weren't really slaves because they could buy themselves out of slavery. And no, I am not equating membership of the EU with slavery, just pointing out the logic flaw in your argument.
No country is properly sovereign in the way defined by some Brexit supporters, because all accept some limits on their independent action with membership of international bodies like the WTO, or the ICAO, etc.
So in all cases, whether a member of the EU or not, we are dealing with degrees of sovereignty, rather than absolutes of being sovereign or not, though of course we would seek to find a dividing line between the category of a sovereign independent country and a non-sovereign member of a Federation.
In the case of EU membership, Britain was able to go to war in Iraq in 2003, despite substantial opposition across most of the EU. I think that the ability to go to war is one of the main ones I would use to define whether a country is sovereign and independent.
If you were to define the dividing line on complete freedom to determine taxation, say, which we certainly didn't have as a member of the EU, then the UK is still not a sovereign country, because of our obligation not to tax aviation fuel. So that definition wouldn't be very useful.
Not a valid comparison.
Which of the EU, ICAO, WTO etc have a Parliament of their own that can organically create vast swathes of its own laws without agreement of the UK Parliament? Similarly which of those levy and create their own taxes?
Those are interesting bases for a discussion over what constitutes the dividing line between sovereign and non-sovereign, but I don't think they're a clincher, since there's no particular reason why the existence of a Parliament defines sovereignty, but being able to wage war does not.
In the case of the EU Parliament I would argue that Westminster had selectively delegated authority to the European Parliament, in a similar way that it had delegated authority to the Holyrood Parliament, and so Westminster remained sovereign in both cases.
Ultimately the EU budget was agreed by the EU Council, on which the British representative was required to have the confidence of the House of Commons.
Arguments on sovereignty would be stronger if they accepted that it exists on a sliding scale, rather than tried to pretend that EU member states are not sovereign as a categorical statement.
The problem is that involves actually redefining the basic dictionary definition of sovereignty (supreme power especially over a body politic, freedom from external control). To my mind such redefining is nonsensical. You can say that what EU member states have is something other than sovereignty and can, if you want, argue that that is better. But simply choosing your own definition of a word or principle to suit what you want it to be is not sustainable. It negates the purpose and facility of language.
Sure, you can use that definition, but it doesn't help us very much, because under that definition no country is sovereign, because all have surrendered some power to external control through a large number of international agreements on civil aviation, postal regulations, weights and measures, etc.
That's fine, but it didn't really help with drawing a distinction between the UK's situation in or out of the EU.
I have calculated an average for the polls over the past few months.
My methodology is to calculate the average poll for each polling company for each month, and then to average these.
A simple average of the polls in each month would give additional weight to those companies which poll weekly, compared with those with only one poll per month.
This gives the following
Nice work.
Wot? No smiley face for Moon Rabbit.
Sunak seems to be taking his party down.
Starmer seems to be holding firm.
MoonRabbit is in denial.
Be careful what you wish for. I would caution your enthusiasm for Sunak's pain-ridden travails. What comes next is an emboldened, cleansed of his sins Johnson.
If Johnson comes back I think I will leave the country. This man must never be allowed near power again.
The Tory party needs to lose big as Labour did - and go back to the centre-ground, component mainstream politics.
They will only do that if they lose.
Yes but Sunak is a centrist leader in Tory terms, so if he loses big it would suggest to Tories they need to move further right.
It is different to when Corbyn lost big as he was far left, so that suggested Labour needed to move to the centre
There is actually rather more to being centrist than simply not being a narcissistic dishonest clown or a certifiable lunatic.
LOL https://mobile.twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1621483046489784322 Trump says WWIII is about to break out and the entire world is going to be destroyed, he has the solution to prevent it which can solve the problem in 24 hours and save everyone from death and destruction, but he won’t tell anyone what it is unless you make him president again.
I have calculated an average for the polls over the past few months.
My methodology is to calculate the average poll for each polling company for each month, and then to average these.
A simple average of the polls in each month would give additional weight to those companies which poll weekly, compared with those with only one poll per month.
This gives the following
Nice work.
Wot? No smiley face for Moon Rabbit.
Sunak seems to be taking his party down.
Starmer seems to be holding firm.
MoonRabbit is in denial.
Be careful what you wish for. I would caution your enthusiasm for Sunak's pain-ridden travails. What comes next is an emboldened, cleansed of his sins Johnson.
If Johnson comes back I think I will leave the country. This man must never be allowed near power again.
The Tory party needs to lose big as Labour did - and go back to the centre-ground, component mainstream politics.
They will only do that if they lose.
Yes but Sunak is a centrist leader in Tory terms, so if he loses big it would suggest to Tories they need to move further right.
It is different to when Corbyn lost big as he was far left, so that suggested Labour needed to move to the centre
Suank is not centrist by any definition
I agree with you but I think you missed HYUFD's crucial caveat 'in Tory terms'. By that definition centrism can be anything you want it to be as long as you can define its parameters and boundaries. It is a clever trick but, again, not sustainable.
In terms of the current Conservative party, Sunak probably is centrist, but that says more about the current Conservative party than it does about Sunak. Parachute him into Cameron's government, let alone Major's or Thatcher's, and he would be pretty right wing. Fiscally so dry that he must have packets of silica gel in his pockets, and hardly a social radical.
But, for the relevant electorates here, Sunak is a soggy centrist. And whilst I would love the one nation / Christian Democrat strand of Conservatism to revive after a defeat, I don't see it happening yet. Partly, finding sufficient bodies would be a challenge, but mostly because the criticism that Sunak lost by not being right-wing enough is going to be deafening.
I'll at least give Farage some credit in that he accepts that if you believe 'Britain shouldn't be part of the EU because you should never give up your sovereignty' then it logically follows that 'no country should ever give its up sovereignty and therefore the EU should not exist.' If you believe that the EU had no right making legislation for the UK, you should not believe the same for any other EU member state.
That makes no logical sense whatsoever.
So if I say I do not want to be in a gym, as I have no intention of using its facilities and I'd rather exercise either at home or outside instead . . . does that mean that I think that nobody else should be using the gym, including those who are interested in weightlifting or other things and use the facilities regularly?
In my view the EU should be reformed to be more democratic, but its perfectly legitimate to either be in a federation or not, so long as its democratic, there's no reason why you either should or should not.
But that's not the same argument. Saying you shouldn't have the gym membership because it's a waste of time and doesn't suit you is not an argument analogous to an argument about sovereignty. I've seen arguments from leavers (including Lord Frost, for instance) which state that we should not be part of the EU even if we were demonstrably poorer as a result because being an independent nation is priceless. But then that raises the exact same question about France, Germany, Spain, and indeed Ukraine as a prospective member. None of these countries think they aren't independent or sovereign.
Undo no legal definition was the UK ever not sovereign when a member of the EU.
We were sovereign enough to leave
The logic of that argument could be used to claim that Southern slaves weren't really slaves because they could buy themselves out of slavery. And no, I am not equating membership of the EU with slavery, just pointing out the logic flaw in your argument.
No country is properly sovereign in the way defined by some Brexit supporters, because all accept some limits on their independent action with membership of international bodies like the WTO, or the ICAO, etc.
So in all cases, whether a member of the EU or not, we are dealing with degrees of sovereignty, rather than absolutes of being sovereign or not, though of course we would seek to find a dividing line between the category of a sovereign independent country and a non-sovereign member of a Federation.
In the case of EU membership, Britain was able to go to war in Iraq in 2003, despite substantial opposition across most of the EU. I think that the ability to go to war is one of the main ones I would use to define whether a country is sovereign and independent.
If you were to define the dividing line on complete freedom to determine taxation, say, which we certainly didn't have as a member of the EU, then the UK is still not a sovereign country, because of our obligation not to tax aviation fuel. So that definition wouldn't be very useful.
Not a valid comparison.
Which of the EU, ICAO, WTO etc have a Parliament of their own that can organically create vast swathes of its own laws without agreement of the UK Parliament? Similarly which of those levy and create their own taxes?
Those are interesting bases for a discussion over what constitutes the dividing line between sovereign and non-sovereign, but I don't think they're a clincher, since there's no particular reason why the existence of a Parliament defines sovereignty, but being able to wage war does not.
In the case of the EU Parliament I would argue that Westminster had selectively delegated authority to the European Parliament, in a similar way that it had delegated authority to the Holyrood Parliament, and so Westminster remained sovereign in both cases.
Ultimately the EU budget was agreed by the EU Council, on which the British representative was required to have the confidence of the House of Commons.
Arguments on sovereignty would be stronger if they accepted that it exists on a sliding scale, rather than tried to pretend that EU member states are not sovereign as a categorical statement.
The problem is that involves actually redefining the basic dictionary definition of sovereignty (supreme power especially over a body politic, freedom from external control). To my mind such redefining is nonsensical. You can say that what EU member states have is something other than sovereignty and can, if you want, argue that that is better. But simply choosing your own definition of a word or principle to suit what you want it to be is not sustainable. It negates the purpose and facility of language.
Sure, you can use that definition, but it doesn't help us very much, because under that definition no country is sovereign, because all have surrendered some power to external control through a large number of international agreements on civil aviation, postal regulations, weights and measures, etc.
That's fine, but it didn't really help with drawing a distinction between the UK's situation in or out of the EU.
The bodies to which we delegate sovreignty have limited remits, known when we delegate. The ECJ, on the other hand, can expand its remit all by itself. That's an important distinction.
They blame the higher energy prices and higher import prices the UK has faced. They do not ask themselves why China, Japan and Switzerland facing those same rising world prices kept their inflation down to 2% for China and to under 4% for the other two. They do not explain why they kept rates so low and why they kept creating money and buying bonds as they watched energy prices soar. They do not explain why UK inflation hit 5.5% before Putin invaded Ukraine. They do confess they let demand outrun supply. They do not comment on the £150bn of Quantitative easing bond buying at crazy high prices they did in 2021 when some of us were urging them to stop...
Fortunately, we do actually know the answer to that question:
In the case of Switzerland, it is because it's electrical production is largely hydro, which has been unaffected by rising hydrocarbon prices.
While with Japan, it is because they took advantage of the Ukraine war to buy discounted LNG cargos from Russia. We could, of course, have done that, and it would have had a very significant impact on energy prices. But it would also have rather undercut our support of Ukraine.
And China has had next to no inflation because they have pursued a zero Covid strategy that has decimated domestic demand.
Those are contributing factors, not 'the answer' - it is oversimplistic to declare that they are. Our inflation, as stated above, was already at 5.5% before Ukraine.
I have calculated an average for the polls over the past few months.
My methodology is to calculate the average poll for each polling company for each month, and then to average these.
A simple average of the polls in each month would give additional weight to those companies which poll weekly, compared with those with only one poll per month.
This gives the following
Three months of effectively stable, then - given the margin of error a 0.6% shift C>R and 0.5% L>G is negligible.
Labour has a steady 20% lead plus has a much larger pool to fish in for tactical votes (13%+ for Lib Dems and Greens) than the Tories (5% Reform) . The Tories have a hill to climb right now. Although the election is at most 2 years as each month passes the Tory's position becomes more acute.
I have calculated an average for the polls over the past few months.
My methodology is to calculate the average poll for each polling company for each month, and then to average these.
A simple average of the polls in each month would give additional weight to those companies which poll weekly, compared with those with only one poll per month.
This gives the following
Nice work.
Wot? No smiley face for Moon Rabbit.
Sunak seems to be taking his party down.
Starmer seems to be holding firm.
MoonRabbit is in denial.
Be careful what you wish for. I would caution your enthusiasm for Sunak's pain-ridden travails. What comes next is an emboldened, cleansed of his sins Johnson.
If Johnson comes back I think I will leave the country. This man must never be allowed near power again.
The Tory party needs to lose big as Labour did - and go back to the centre-ground, component mainstream politics.
They will only do that if they lose.
Yes but Sunak is a centrist leader in Tory terms, so if he loses big it would suggest to Tories they need to move further right.
It is different to when Corbyn lost big as he was far left, so that suggested Labour needed to move to the centre
Suank is not centrist by any definition
I agree with you but I think you missed HYUFD's crucial caveat 'in Tory terms'. By that definition centrism can be anything you want it to be as long as you can define its parameters and boundaries. It is a clever trick but, again, not sustainable.
In terms of the current Conservative party, Sunak probably is centrist, but that says more about the current Conservative party than it does about Sunak. Parachute him into Cameron's government, let alone Major's or Thatcher's, and he would be pretty right wing. Fiscally so dry that he must have packets of silica gel in his pockets, and hardly a social radical.
But, for the relevant electorates here, Sunak is a soggy centrist. And whilst I would love the one nation / Christian Democrat strand of Conservatism to revive after a defeat, I don't see it happening yet. Partly, finding sufficient bodies would be a challenge, but mostly because the criticism that Sunak lost by not being right-wing enough is going to be deafening.
I am bewildered by Truss' s rebirth as a right-wing ideological genius scythed down before her time.
Chris Giles has a piece in the FT arguing against taxing Boomer wealth to fix intergenerational inequality... Might be an interesting read given the debates on the issue on here (not linking because of pay wall).
Available via google. Headline "OK Boomer"
So basically saying younger generations should be split into
those grateful for inheritance and bank of mum and dad those who have to suck it up
I wonder which category the Cambridge educated economics editor of the FT is in.....
It is a good point. Personally the intra generational inequality issue has always seemed the more worrying one rather than the inter generational one. Millenials and Gen Zeds are going to be defined by their inherited wealth as much as by their earned income, which is a tricky situation for anyone who wants to sell the idea that society is in any way fair or meritocratic.
This is one the (many) things I find strange about the modern Tory party. Most claim alignment with Thatcherism. To me one of the central pillars of Thatcherism was aspiration and meritocracy. Almost importing the "American dream". Another pillar was challenging the status quo and being willing to take on vested interests.
Yet those now claiming to be Thatcherite want to protect a system that thwarts aspiration and meritocracy and protects the status quo.
Inheritance is a tricky one because it involves a tradeoff between two deep engrained and equally worthwhile human impulses - fairness, and providing for your offspring. It feels like the Tories are only interested in the latter but Labour can't go too far the other way.
I don't think its just the Tories. As the article points out most people in the UK think inheritance is indeed fair as it has already been taxed once.
They are wrong, it is unfair (at least at present levels of inequality) and all money is taxed not just once, but endlessly and in multiple ways as it gets recycled through the economy. If it was just the Tories it could be fixed by a Labour govt but it is the near settled position of the electorate, especially the older part of the electorate.
I think inheritance is a classic example of where the interests of the individual and the interests of society diverge. As a parent I want to help my kids succeed and so of course I'm putting aside money for them. And paradoxically the more unequal the society they're going to be operating in, the more money I will need to give them - it becomes an arms race. But ultimately I want them to be living in a less unequal society since I think that will benefit them whether they are rich or poor.
Taxing capital more, and income less, is the way forward IMHO.
I would scrap the IHT exemptions for business property, farmland, woodland, country houses, and works of art. I'd also abolish main residence relief (currently up to £1m).
I'd keep the £325,000 relief, and then set the rate at 25% on everything above that (rather than 40%).
One excellent consequence would be a sharp drop in the price of farmland, which is used a tax shelter. It is virtually impossible now to buy farmland, and get a decent return based upon farming income.
But have you the cojones to suggest the real big one?
The capital gains exemption on main residences is devoid of social and financial logic, yet to withdraw it would be electoral suicide.
Do you dare? Thought not.
The capital gains exemption on main residences makes perfect social and financial sense. If you're moving from one home to another then the so-called capital gain isn't real, what you've gained in your sale you lose in your purchase. Whereas someone who stays in their property and potentially remortgages etc to release money from what they've gained but doesn't officially realise the equity will evade the tax completely.
So all you get with your proposal is a tax on mobility. Mobility isn't the problem and shouldn't be discouraged via the taxation.
If you want to tax the value of main homes then that can and should be done via a land tax that is paid annually by everyone who owns a property whether they're moving or not. If the value of your property goes up, your tax goes up, and vice-versa even if you're not moving which would discourage people from acting as NIMBYs etc to inflate their property prices.
A land tax is long overdue. I agree it makes more sense than CGT on primary residences. But for other CGs I don't understand why they are taxed at a lower rate than income.
An interesting idea I saw recently was that multiple property owners would have all of their property subject to CGT and the CGT exemption would be reserved for people who own their home and no others.
I think that "interesting" means "stupid" in this context. It would penalise someone with a family home and eg a small holiday let much more than someone with a portfolio of ten buy to lets for whom their family home would be a tiny share of their total wealth. It would also hinder mobility as the people affected wouldn't move house (eg downsize in retirement) until they'd sold their other properties.
The point was to disincentivise multiple property ownership. Using the tax system to change market behaviour is one of the few levers the government has got and yes, there will be losers from any changes but there always are. I don't think the general public will be crying rivers because a few holiday home owners have to sell them to move house or if landlords have to pay CGT when they move house.
This is just populist gesture politics. There will always be demand for regular rental properties and for holiday lets, the ownership will simply be wrapped up in a corporate structure and the rents paid as dividends.
But you just extend that to majority shareholders in companies that are property holding companies, it's not difficult and it's not gesture politics. The aim is to reverse the trend of multiple property ownership by older people using young people as a pension fund. It will turn landlords into forced sellers.
So you end up with all rental properties being owned by rental companies. Which make a fortune because of the housing shortage.
If that happens you tax them out of existence too, or force them into becoming housing associations with rent offered at lower than market rate. The government has significant regulatory power, it chooses not to use it because its donors and voters are all multiple property owners.
Which is effectively theft, taking private property and converting into social/housing association properties, certainly without compensation rather than building new social homes.
Plenty of renters like renting in the private sector anyway, especially if younger in the cities when they like the flexibility. They don't want to or need to be in social or housing association properties either
No, it's the cost of doing business. These are the regulations, if you don't like them then your option is to put your money elsewhere. No doubt lots of people will, but it isn't theft.
Also, do you actually know or speak to anyone under the age of 30? "Plenty of renters like renting in the private sector anyway" suggests you haven't got a grip on reality.
Plenty of renters have no choice but to rent in the private sector as their chance of ever getting social housing is close to zero as long as social housing is allocated on a needs basis which it currently is. Where would you suggest these people live? They can't afford to buy, so all the houses landlords sell under your scheme is not available and they are never going to get to the top of the social housing list.
Also part of the reason it is so much cheaper to own your own house than rent is that the landlord is paying tax on the rental income (and they can't net off interest payments either). The rent is usually paying three different entities - the landlord, the bank, and the taxman; and the landlord might well be getting the smallest share of the three if they have borrowed to buy the property.
I have calculated an average for the polls over the past few months.
My methodology is to calculate the average poll for each polling company for each month, and then to average these.
A simple average of the polls in each month would give additional weight to those companies which poll weekly, compared with those with only one poll per month.
This gives the following
Nice work.
Wot? No smiley face for Moon Rabbit.
Sunak seems to be taking his party down.
Starmer seems to be holding firm.
MoonRabbit is in denial.
Be careful what you wish for. I would caution your enthusiasm for Sunak's pain-ridden travails. What comes next is an emboldened, cleansed of his sins Johnson.
If Johnson comes back I think I will leave the country. This man must never be allowed near power again.
The Tory party needs to lose big as Labour did - and go back to the centre-ground, component mainstream politics.
They will only do that if they lose.
Yes but Sunak is a centrist leader in Tory terms, so if he loses big it would suggest to Tories they need to move further right.
It is different to when Corbyn lost big as he was far left, so that suggested Labour needed to move to the centre
No Tory that avidly supports Brexit is a centrist as far as many people are concerned.
LOL https://mobile.twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1621483046489784322 Trump says WWIII is about to break out and the entire world is going to be destroyed, he has the solution to prevent it which can solve the problem in 24 hours and save everyone from death and destruction, but he won’t tell anyone what it is unless you make him president again.
Can I hazard a guess? Hand the entire continent of Europe over to the Russians, except for Trump Turnberry and Trump Aberdeenshire.
Several polls this week with notable outside moe Labour collapse. Interesting.
You are either a WUM or the most idiotic poster on PB. It's not even worth engaging with you sadly
Nah MoonRabbit is in general great and very kind, I enjoy having her here. But on polling etc she posts a lot of rubbish.
It doesn't matter how great and kind she is if she lacks a rudimentary understanding of psephology. On a political betting site she is positively dangerous
I'll at least give Farage some credit in that he accepts that if you believe 'Britain shouldn't be part of the EU because you should never give up your sovereignty' then it logically follows that 'no country should ever give its up sovereignty and therefore the EU should not exist.' If you believe that the EU had no right making legislation for the UK, you should not believe the same for any other EU member state.
That makes no logical sense whatsoever.
So if I say I do not want to be in a gym, as I have no intention of using its facilities and I'd rather exercise either at home or outside instead . . . does that mean that I think that nobody else should be using the gym, including those who are interested in weightlifting or other things and use the facilities regularly?
In my view the EU should be reformed to be more democratic, but its perfectly legitimate to either be in a federation or not, so long as its democratic, there's no reason why you either should or should not.
But that's not the same argument. Saying you shouldn't have the gym membership because it's a waste of time and doesn't suit you is not an argument analogous to an argument about sovereignty. I've seen arguments from leavers (including Lord Frost, for instance) which state that we should not be part of the EU even if we were demonstrably poorer as a result because being an independent nation is priceless. But then that raises the exact same question about France, Germany, Spain, and indeed Ukraine as a prospective member. None of these countries think they aren't independent or sovereign.
Undo no legal definition was the UK ever not sovereign when a member of the EU.
We were sovereign enough to leave
The logic of that argument could be used to claim that Southern slaves weren't really slaves because they could buy themselves out of slavery. And no, I am not equating membership of the EU with slavery, just pointing out the logic flaw in your argument.
No country is properly sovereign in the way defined by some Brexit supporters, because all accept some limits on their independent action with membership of international bodies like the WTO, or the ICAO, etc.
So in all cases, whether a member of the EU or not, we are dealing with degrees of sovereignty, rather than absolutes of being sovereign or not, though of course we would seek to find a dividing line between the category of a sovereign independent country and a non-sovereign member of a Federation.
In the case of EU membership, Britain was able to go to war in Iraq in 2003, despite substantial opposition across most of the EU. I think that the ability to go to war is one of the main ones I would use to define whether a country is sovereign and independent.
If you were to define the dividing line on complete freedom to determine taxation, say, which we certainly didn't have as a member of the EU, then the UK is still not a sovereign country, because of our obligation not to tax aviation fuel. So that definition wouldn't be very useful.
Not a valid comparison.
Which of the EU, ICAO, WTO etc have a Parliament of their own that can organically create vast swathes of its own laws without agreement of the UK Parliament? Similarly which of those levy and create their own taxes?
Those are interesting bases for a discussion over what constitutes the dividing line between sovereign and non-sovereign, but I don't think they're a clincher, since there's no particular reason why the existence of a Parliament defines sovereignty, but being able to wage war does not.
In the case of the EU Parliament I would argue that Westminster had selectively delegated authority to the European Parliament, in a similar way that it had delegated authority to the Holyrood Parliament, and so Westminster remained sovereign in both cases.
Ultimately the EU budget was agreed by the EU Council, on which the British representative was required to have the confidence of the House of Commons.
Arguments on sovereignty would be stronger if they accepted that it exists on a sliding scale, rather than tried to pretend that EU member states are not sovereign as a categorical statement.
The problem is that involves actually redefining the basic dictionary definition of sovereignty (supreme power especially over a body politic, freedom from external control). To my mind such redefining is nonsensical. You can say that what EU member states have is something other than sovereignty and can, if you want, argue that that is better. But simply choosing your own definition of a word or principle to suit what you want it to be is not sustainable. It negates the purpose and facility of language.
Sure, you can use that definition, but it doesn't help us very much, because under that definition no country is sovereign, because all have surrendered some power to external control through a large number of international agreements on civil aviation, postal regulations, weights and measures, etc.
That's fine, but it didn't really help with drawing a distinction between the UK's situation in or out of the EU.
Not so. The difference in all those organisations is that any changes that are made are subject to national veto. We have subjected ourselves to a set of rules which we ourselves had the right to reject at the time they were enacted and any new rules are also subject to our veto. The UN (at least for the 5 permanent members of the Security council), NATO and the various regulatory bodies that exist at a level above the EU are all subject to our veto or at least our choice not to adhere to their rulings. This is not the case with the EU. There we were subject to new rules and regulations over which we had no veto.
If the EU were to return to a system of unanimity for rules and decision making then it would be a very different matter. But they will not. Hence the objection stands.
Just to let everyone know that OGH's operation is done, and appears to have gone well.
Hopefully he should be back posting tomorrow.
Excellent news. My wife is waiting for the same op so would appreciate any feedback.
Was it a decompression or a discomectomy?
Decompression needed for my wife, which I believe is the same as OGH from the conversation I had here. Please bear in mind I am out of my depth on this stuff and have no idea what I'm talking about other than my wife needs relief from the discomfort.
I have calculated an average for the polls over the past few months.
My methodology is to calculate the average poll for each polling company for each month, and then to average these.
A simple average of the polls in each month would give additional weight to those companies which poll weekly, compared with those with only one poll per month.
This gives the following
Nice work.
Wot? No smiley face for Moon Rabbit.
Sunak seems to be taking his party down.
Starmer seems to be holding firm.
MoonRabbit is in denial.
Be careful what you wish for. I would caution your enthusiasm for Sunak's pain-ridden travails. What comes next is an emboldened, cleansed of his sins Johnson.
If Johnson comes back I think I will leave the country. This man must never be allowed near power again.
The Tory party needs to lose big as Labour did - and go back to the centre-ground, component mainstream politics.
They will only do that if they lose.
Yes but Sunak is a centrist leader in Tory terms, so if he loses big it would suggest to Tories they need to move further right.
It is different to when Corbyn lost big as he was far left, so that suggested Labour needed to move to the centre
There is actually rather more to being centrist than simply not being a narcissistic dishonest clown or a certifiable lunatic.
Well yes. If we're to get old-fashioned about it, it's to do with how big the state should be, how much the state should be spending, with less=right, more=left and centrist somewhere in the middle. By which definition Sunak is, I think, further left than any Tory leader of my lifetime, and probably further left of Blair. Centrist by that definition doesn't seem unreasonable.
Chris Giles has a piece in the FT arguing against taxing Boomer wealth to fix intergenerational inequality... Might be an interesting read given the debates on the issue on here (not linking because of pay wall).
Available via google. Headline "OK Boomer"
So basically saying younger generations should be split into
those grateful for inheritance and bank of mum and dad those who have to suck it up
I wonder which category the Cambridge educated economics editor of the FT is in.....
It is a good point. Personally the intra generational inequality issue has always seemed the more worrying one rather than the inter generational one. Millenials and Gen Zeds are going to be defined by their inherited wealth as much as by their earned income, which is a tricky situation for anyone who wants to sell the idea that society is in any way fair or meritocratic.
This is one the (many) things I find strange about the modern Tory party. Most claim alignment with Thatcherism. To me one of the central pillars of Thatcherism was aspiration and meritocracy. Almost importing the "American dream". Another pillar was challenging the status quo and being willing to take on vested interests.
Yet those now claiming to be Thatcherite want to protect a system that thwarts aspiration and meritocracy and protects the status quo.
Inheritance is a tricky one because it involves a tradeoff between two deep engrained and equally worthwhile human impulses - fairness, and providing for your offspring. It feels like the Tories are only interested in the latter but Labour can't go too far the other way.
I don't think its just the Tories. As the article points out most people in the UK think inheritance is indeed fair as it has already been taxed once.
They are wrong, it is unfair (at least at present levels of inequality) and all money is taxed not just once, but endlessly and in multiple ways as it gets recycled through the economy. If it was just the Tories it could be fixed by a Labour govt but it is the near settled position of the electorate, especially the older part of the electorate.
I think inheritance is a classic example of where the interests of the individual and the interests of society diverge. As a parent I want to help my kids succeed and so of course I'm putting aside money for them. And paradoxically the more unequal the society they're going to be operating in, the more money I will need to give them - it becomes an arms race. But ultimately I want them to be living in a less unequal society since I think that will benefit them whether they are rich or poor.
Taxing capital more, and income less, is the way forward IMHO.
I would scrap the IHT exemptions for business property, farmland, woodland, country houses, and works of art. I'd also abolish main residence relief (currently up to £1m).
I'd keep the £325,000 relief, and then set the rate at 25% on everything above that (rather than 40%).
One excellent consequence would be a sharp drop in the price of farmland, which is used a tax shelter. It is virtually impossible now to buy farmland, and get a decent return based upon farming income.
But have you the cojones to suggest the real big one?
The capital gains exemption on main residences is devoid of social and financial logic, yet to withdraw it would be electoral suicide.
Do you dare? Thought not.
The capital gains exemption on main residences makes perfect social and financial sense. If you're moving from one home to another then the so-called capital gain isn't real, what you've gained in your sale you lose in your purchase. Whereas someone who stays in their property and potentially remortgages etc to release money from what they've gained but doesn't officially realise the equity will evade the tax completely.
So all you get with your proposal is a tax on mobility. Mobility isn't the problem and shouldn't be discouraged via the taxation.
If you want to tax the value of main homes then that can and should be done via a land tax that is paid annually by everyone who owns a property whether they're moving or not. If the value of your property goes up, your tax goes up, and vice-versa even if you're not moving which would discourage people from acting as NIMBYs etc to inflate their property prices.
A land tax is long overdue. I agree it makes more sense than CGT on primary residences. But for other CGs I don't understand why they are taxed at a lower rate than income.
An interesting idea I saw recently was that multiple property owners would have all of their property subject to CGT and the CGT exemption would be reserved for people who own their home and no others.
I think that "interesting" means "stupid" in this context. It would penalise someone with a family home and eg a small holiday let much more than someone with a portfolio of ten buy to lets for whom their family home would be a tiny share of their total wealth. It would also hinder mobility as the people affected wouldn't move house (eg downsize in retirement) until they'd sold their other properties.
The point was to disincentivise multiple property ownership. Using the tax system to change market behaviour is one of the few levers the government has got and yes, there will be losers from any changes but there always are. I don't think the general public will be crying rivers because a few holiday home owners have to sell them to move house or if landlords have to pay CGT when they move house.
This is just populist gesture politics. There will always be demand for regular rental properties and for holiday lets, the ownership will simply be wrapped up in a corporate structure and the rents paid as dividends.
But you just extend that to majority shareholders in companies that are property holding companies, it's not difficult and it's not gesture politics. The aim is to reverse the trend of multiple property ownership by older people using young people as a pension fund. It will turn landlords into forced sellers.
So you end up with all rental properties being owned by rental companies. Which make a fortune because of the housing shortage.
If that happens you tax them out of existence too, or force them into becoming housing associations with rent offered at lower than market rate. The government has significant regulatory power, it chooses not to use it because its donors and voters are all multiple property owners.
Which is effectively theft, taking private property and converting into social/housing association properties, certainly without compensation rather than building new social homes.
Plenty of renters like renting in the private sector anyway, especially if younger in the cities when they like the flexibility. They don't want to or need to be in social or housing association properties either
No, it's the cost of doing business. These are the regulations, if you don't like them then your option is to put your money elsewhere. No doubt lots of people will, but it isn't theft.
Also, do you actually know or speak to anyone under the age of 30? "Plenty of renters like renting in the private sector anyway" suggests you haven't got a grip on reality.
In London and Manchester the vast majority under 30 happily rent in the private sector, they certainly wouldn't want to be in social housing and most won't have a family yet and want to buy either.
Taking a property and confiscating it using retrospective law with no compensation is certainly theft
“happily”?
You need to get out more.
I think the picture is mixed. There are many who feel trapped in often substandard rented accommodation who would love to buy but can't afford it and resent paying rent. Then there are those who find private rents too expensive and would love to have the option of more affordable social housing. And there are those who are very happy to rent privately, perhaps because they aren't yet settled in their careers or location and want the flexibility of renting. Too often on here people assume that every private renter is in the first group (typically the wealthiest group, of course). If you try to drive every private landlord out of business you will hurt the other two groups, especially if you don't create more social housing to make up for it. The failure to build social housing has been the key housing market failure since the 1980s. It stemmed originally from Thatcher's view that council houses created Labour voters. But the governments that followed have also failed on this front - the biggest failure of the 1997-2010 Labour government IMHO.
Groups 1 and 2 are huge though and I'm sure if you gave group 3 the opportunity for social rent or forced private landlords to compete with social rent prices they'd be happy with that.
Chris Giles has a piece in the FT arguing against taxing Boomer wealth to fix intergenerational inequality... Might be an interesting read given the debates on the issue on here (not linking because of pay wall).
Available via google. Headline "OK Boomer"
So basically saying younger generations should be split into
those grateful for inheritance and bank of mum and dad those who have to suck it up
I wonder which category the Cambridge educated economics editor of the FT is in.....
It is a good point. Personally the intra generational inequality issue has always seemed the more worrying one rather than the inter generational one. Millenials and Gen Zeds are going to be defined by their inherited wealth as much as by their earned income, which is a tricky situation for anyone who wants to sell the idea that society is in any way fair or meritocratic.
This is one the (many) things I find strange about the modern Tory party. Most claim alignment with Thatcherism. To me one of the central pillars of Thatcherism was aspiration and meritocracy. Almost importing the "American dream". Another pillar was challenging the status quo and being willing to take on vested interests.
Yet those now claiming to be Thatcherite want to protect a system that thwarts aspiration and meritocracy and protects the status quo.
Inheritance is a tricky one because it involves a tradeoff between two deep engrained and equally worthwhile human impulses - fairness, and providing for your offspring. It feels like the Tories are only interested in the latter but Labour can't go too far the other way.
I don't think its just the Tories. As the article points out most people in the UK think inheritance is indeed fair as it has already been taxed once.
They are wrong, it is unfair (at least at present levels of inequality) and all money is taxed not just once, but endlessly and in multiple ways as it gets recycled through the economy. If it was just the Tories it could be fixed by a Labour govt but it is the near settled position of the electorate, especially the older part of the electorate.
I think inheritance is a classic example of where the interests of the individual and the interests of society diverge. As a parent I want to help my kids succeed and so of course I'm putting aside money for them. And paradoxically the more unequal the society they're going to be operating in, the more money I will need to give them - it becomes an arms race. But ultimately I want them to be living in a less unequal society since I think that will benefit them whether they are rich or poor.
Taxing capital more, and income less, is the way forward IMHO.
I would scrap the IHT exemptions for business property, farmland, woodland, country houses, and works of art. I'd also abolish main residence relief (currently up to £1m).
I'd keep the £325,000 relief, and then set the rate at 25% on everything above that (rather than 40%).
One excellent consequence would be a sharp drop in the price of farmland, which is used a tax shelter. It is virtually impossible now to buy farmland, and get a decent return based upon farming income.
Main residence relief from IHT was the single most popular Tory policy this century.
It would be electoral suicide for any party to scrap it now, especially the Tories. As would scrapping the farmland exemption which would hit farmers whose farms have been in their families for generations and who are a key part of the Tory core vote
That's the problem. Farmland should be used for farming, or development, not as a tax shelter.
WRT housing, my parents' house is worth about £1.1m. If it were taxed at 40% over £650,000 that would be £180,000. Main residence relief cuts it to £40,000. That extra £140,000 will be nice for me and my siblings to have, but in no way essential. It would be far preferable for younger workers to be paying less in income tax and NI.
Society becomes ossified, when inheritance pays far more than hard work does.
Virtually all farmers who have inherited their farms do use them for farming.
Scrapping that and reversing main residence relief would see the remaining Tory voters move en masse to RefUK. Heck, even I would consider going RefUK if they tried that.
Do you want to turn a mere heavy Tory defeat into a complete wipe out?
Irrelevant, as the exemption pertains to ownership not owner occupation.
Most Tory farmers own their own farms, certainly round here and their families have for generations
And, how many people could actually get into farming now, if they did not inherit a farm?
Tax exemptions have so inflated the price of farmland that it generates a return of 1-1.5%.
Part of that is is speculation in land that might one day be given planning permission.
There is a whole raft of quite dodgy companies selling shares in parcels of land - on the basis that one day, if it gets planning permission, it will be worth squillions.
While I haven't dug into it, the whole thing smells (to me) like those companies offering shares in piles of gold.
Hence part of the attraction of my preference of abolishing planning permission, and replacing it with zoning instead with very limited areas of zoning for areas unsuitable for development (eg green patches, parks, AONB etc).
If everywhere has automatic planning permission, then the overwhelming majority of that land won't ever be built upon still but the mere act of getting or holding planning permission is no longer financially worthwhile. The only reason to hold land would be because you have something you want to do with it, which for most land would be farming rather than speculation or construction.
And yet again we return to your fundamental misunderstanding of planning permission and what it is for.
It is not there to stop houses being built. It is there to make sure that when developments occur they meet the necessary standards to comply with a whole raft of laws that make life something other than just squalid. It is there to ensure that the right sorts of houses are built and that they have the right infrastructure associated with them. To ensure that sites of natural or historical value are not destroyed in the process - as was the case to a large extent prior to the Thatcher reforms of planning in the late 80s. It is there to ensure that flood plains are not built on. It is also there to ensure that you are not piling on the costs to the authorities and tax payers a few years down the line - having built new developments in areas with poor road links and which then require vast expenditure to upgrade existing roads or build new ones.
Councils do not set out to turn down planning permission. They want lots of new council tax payers to swell their coffers. But they are also responsible for providing the services and infrastructure to go along with those new developments and so have to have control over where and how they occur and in what quantities.
I think quite frankly you're at best naïve to suggest that Councils do not set out to turn down planning permission. Councillors very frequently flaunt how much they're opposing new developments in order to appeal to NIMBY voters.
Zoning can ensure that sites of natural or historic value are not destroyed, without giving NIMBY voters a say in what other people do with their own land in areas that don't meet that criteria.
Standards similarly can be set by building standards outside of the planning system.
They may flaunt their NIMBY credentials but they don't follow it through with the votes. Why? Because they know that even if they do object, unless it is very strict, legally defined grounds it will be overturned by any planning enquiry and they are then left liable for costs and damages. I have been asked to provide expert submission on dozens of planning applications in terms of archaeological or historical resource over the years and in almost every case I make clear to protest groups that whilst I am happy to do so - mostly because usually the archaeology will be taken into account and properly dealt with - there is almost no chance of getting a planning decision rejected or overturned unless you can show that the local authority has not followed proper procedure. And 99 times out of 100 they have.
Chris Giles has a piece in the FT arguing against taxing Boomer wealth to fix intergenerational inequality... Might be an interesting read given the debates on the issue on here (not linking because of pay wall).
Available via google. Headline "OK Boomer"
So basically saying younger generations should be split into
those grateful for inheritance and bank of mum and dad those who have to suck it up
I wonder which category the Cambridge educated economics editor of the FT is in.....
It is a good point. Personally the intra generational inequality issue has always seemed the more worrying one rather than the inter generational one. Millenials and Gen Zeds are going to be defined by their inherited wealth as much as by their earned income, which is a tricky situation for anyone who wants to sell the idea that society is in any way fair or meritocratic.
This is one the (many) things I find strange about the modern Tory party. Most claim alignment with Thatcherism. To me one of the central pillars of Thatcherism was aspiration and meritocracy. Almost importing the "American dream". Another pillar was challenging the status quo and being willing to take on vested interests.
Yet those now claiming to be Thatcherite want to protect a system that thwarts aspiration and meritocracy and protects the status quo.
Inheritance is a tricky one because it involves a tradeoff between two deep engrained and equally worthwhile human impulses - fairness, and providing for your offspring. It feels like the Tories are only interested in the latter but Labour can't go too far the other way.
I don't think its just the Tories. As the article points out most people in the UK think inheritance is indeed fair as it has already been taxed once.
They are wrong, it is unfair (at least at present levels of inequality) and all money is taxed not just once, but endlessly and in multiple ways as it gets recycled through the economy. If it was just the Tories it could be fixed by a Labour govt but it is the near settled position of the electorate, especially the older part of the electorate.
I think inheritance is a classic example of where the interests of the individual and the interests of society diverge. As a parent I want to help my kids succeed and so of course I'm putting aside money for them. And paradoxically the more unequal the society they're going to be operating in, the more money I will need to give them - it becomes an arms race. But ultimately I want them to be living in a less unequal society since I think that will benefit them whether they are rich or poor.
Taxing capital more, and income less, is the way forward IMHO.
I would scrap the IHT exemptions for business property, farmland, woodland, country houses, and works of art. I'd also abolish main residence relief (currently up to £1m).
I'd keep the £325,000 relief, and then set the rate at 25% on everything above that (rather than 40%).
One excellent consequence would be a sharp drop in the price of farmland, which is used a tax shelter. It is virtually impossible now to buy farmland, and get a decent return based upon farming income.
But have you the cojones to suggest the real big one?
The capital gains exemption on main residences is devoid of social and financial logic, yet to withdraw it would be electoral suicide.
Do you dare? Thought not.
The capital gains exemption on main residences makes perfect social and financial sense. If you're moving from one home to another then the so-called capital gain isn't real, what you've gained in your sale you lose in your purchase. Whereas someone who stays in their property and potentially remortgages etc to release money from what they've gained but doesn't officially realise the equity will evade the tax completely.
So all you get with your proposal is a tax on mobility. Mobility isn't the problem and shouldn't be discouraged via the taxation.
If you want to tax the value of main homes then that can and should be done via a land tax that is paid annually by everyone who owns a property whether they're moving or not. If the value of your property goes up, your tax goes up, and vice-versa even if you're not moving which would discourage people from acting as NIMBYs etc to inflate their property prices.
A land tax is long overdue. I agree it makes more sense than CGT on primary residences. But for other CGs I don't understand why they are taxed at a lower rate than income.
An interesting idea I saw recently was that multiple property owners would have all of their property subject to CGT and the CGT exemption would be reserved for people who own their home and no others.
I think that "interesting" means "stupid" in this context. It would penalise someone with a family home and eg a small holiday let much more than someone with a portfolio of ten buy to lets for whom their family home would be a tiny share of their total wealth. It would also hinder mobility as the people affected wouldn't move house (eg downsize in retirement) until they'd sold their other properties.
The point was to disincentivise multiple property ownership. Using the tax system to change market behaviour is one of the few levers the government has got and yes, there will be losers from any changes but there always are. I don't think the general public will be crying rivers because a few holiday home owners have to sell them to move house or if landlords have to pay CGT when they move house.
This is just populist gesture politics. There will always be demand for regular rental properties and for holiday lets, the ownership will simply be wrapped up in a corporate structure and the rents paid as dividends.
But you just extend that to majority shareholders in companies that are property holding companies, it's not difficult and it's not gesture politics. The aim is to reverse the trend of multiple property ownership by older people using young people as a pension fund. It will turn landlords into forced sellers.
So you end up with all rental properties being owned by rental companies. Which make a fortune because of the housing shortage.
If that happens you tax them out of existence too, or force them into becoming housing associations with rent offered at lower than market rate. The government has significant regulatory power, it chooses not to use it because its donors and voters are all multiple property owners.
Which is effectively theft, taking private property and converting into social/housing association properties, certainly without compensation rather than building new social homes.
Plenty of renters like renting in the private sector anyway, especially if younger in the cities when they like the flexibility. They don't want to or need to be in social or housing association properties either
No, it's the cost of doing business. These are the regulations, if you don't like them then your option is to put your money elsewhere. No doubt lots of people will, but it isn't theft.
Also, do you actually know or speak to anyone under the age of 30? "Plenty of renters like renting in the private sector anyway" suggests you haven't got a grip on reality.
Plenty of renters have no choice but to rent in the private sector as their chance of ever getting social housing is close to zero as long as social housing is allocated on a needs basis which it currently is. Where would you suggest these people live? They can't afford to buy, so all the houses landlords sell under your scheme is not available and they are never going to get to the top of the social housing list.
Also part of the reason it is so much cheaper to own your own house than rent is that the landlord is paying tax on the rental income (and they can't net off interest payments either). The rent is usually paying three different entities - the landlord, the bank, and the taxman; and the landlord might well be getting the smallest share of the three if they have borrowed to buy the property.
While I agree that owning a house is cheaper than renting usually, indeed while I was in the south east rent would often be more than the mortgage repayment but that is only help if the bank will give you a mortgages, my experience was the banks were telling me I couldn't afford the mortgage repayments using their affordability criteria whilst already paying over that much in rent. It is frustrating
I have calculated an average for the polls over the past few months.
My methodology is to calculate the average poll for each polling company for each month, and then to average these.
A simple average of the polls in each month would give additional weight to those companies which poll weekly, compared with those with only one poll per month.
This gives the following
Nice work.
Wot? No smiley face for Moon Rabbit.
Sunak seems to be taking his party down.
Starmer seems to be holding firm.
MoonRabbit is in denial.
Be careful what you wish for. I would caution your enthusiasm for Sunak's pain-ridden travails. What comes next is an emboldened, cleansed of his sins Johnson.
If Johnson comes back I think I will leave the country. This man must never be allowed near power again.
The Tory party needs to lose big as Labour did - and go back to the centre-ground, component mainstream politics.
They will only do that if they lose.
Yes but Sunak is a centrist leader in Tory terms, so if he loses big it would suggest to Tories they need to move further right.
It is different to when Corbyn lost big as he was far left, so that suggested Labour needed to move to the centre
No Tory that avidly supports Brexit is a centrist as far as many people are concerned.
Given 52% of British voters backed Brexit I would suggest they are!
I have calculated an average for the polls over the past few months.
My methodology is to calculate the average poll for each polling company for each month, and then to average these.
A simple average of the polls in each month would give additional weight to those companies which poll weekly, compared with those with only one poll per month.
This gives the following
Nice work.
Wot? No smiley face for Moon Rabbit.
Sunak seems to be taking his party down.
Starmer seems to be holding firm.
MoonRabbit is in denial.
Be careful what you wish for. I would caution your enthusiasm for Sunak's pain-ridden travails. What comes next is an emboldened, cleansed of his sins Johnson.
If Johnson comes back I think I will leave the country. This man must never be allowed near power again.
The Tory party needs to lose big as Labour did - and go back to the centre-ground, component mainstream politics.
They will only do that if they lose.
Yes but Sunak is a centrist leader in Tory terms, so if he loses big it would suggest to Tories they need to move further right.
It is different to when Corbyn lost big as he was far left, so that suggested Labour needed to move to the centre
No Tory that avidly supports Brexit is a centrist as far as many people are concerned.
Given 52% of British voters backed Brexit I would suggest they are!
I am sure the various regulations making up the planning system make sense in isolation.
However, added up they make a clearly dysfunctional system.
We don’t build enough houses. What we do build largely comes from an oligopoly of developers. What we do build is often substandard.
The planning system, and I mean that in the widest sense, is clearly not fit for purpose.
Unlike Barty I don’t believe in a free-for-all.
But I think we need to turn development into a “You cannot build unless…”, into a “You can build so long as…” equation.
Every distinct and borough needs a Haussman (or a Mumford). A plan for how and where to build, with a clear bias towards beauty, sustainability and density.
Chris Giles has a piece in the FT arguing against taxing Boomer wealth to fix intergenerational inequality... Might be an interesting read given the debates on the issue on here (not linking because of pay wall).
Available via google. Headline "OK Boomer"
So basically saying younger generations should be split into
those grateful for inheritance and bank of mum and dad those who have to suck it up
I wonder which category the Cambridge educated economics editor of the FT is in.....
It is a good point. Personally the intra generational inequality issue has always seemed the more worrying one rather than the inter generational one. Millenials and Gen Zeds are going to be defined by their inherited wealth as much as by their earned income, which is a tricky situation for anyone who wants to sell the idea that society is in any way fair or meritocratic.
This is one the (many) things I find strange about the modern Tory party. Most claim alignment with Thatcherism. To me one of the central pillars of Thatcherism was aspiration and meritocracy. Almost importing the "American dream". Another pillar was challenging the status quo and being willing to take on vested interests.
Yet those now claiming to be Thatcherite want to protect a system that thwarts aspiration and meritocracy and protects the status quo.
Inheritance is a tricky one because it involves a tradeoff between two deep engrained and equally worthwhile human impulses - fairness, and providing for your offspring. It feels like the Tories are only interested in the latter but Labour can't go too far the other way.
I don't think its just the Tories. As the article points out most people in the UK think inheritance is indeed fair as it has already been taxed once.
They are wrong, it is unfair (at least at present levels of inequality) and all money is taxed not just once, but endlessly and in multiple ways as it gets recycled through the economy. If it was just the Tories it could be fixed by a Labour govt but it is the near settled position of the electorate, especially the older part of the electorate.
I think inheritance is a classic example of where the interests of the individual and the interests of society diverge. As a parent I want to help my kids succeed and so of course I'm putting aside money for them. And paradoxically the more unequal the society they're going to be operating in, the more money I will need to give them - it becomes an arms race. But ultimately I want them to be living in a less unequal society since I think that will benefit them whether they are rich or poor.
Taxing capital more, and income less, is the way forward IMHO.
I would scrap the IHT exemptions for business property, farmland, woodland, country houses, and works of art. I'd also abolish main residence relief (currently up to £1m).
I'd keep the £325,000 relief, and then set the rate at 25% on everything above that (rather than 40%).
One excellent consequence would be a sharp drop in the price of farmland, which is used a tax shelter. It is virtually impossible now to buy farmland, and get a decent return based upon farming income.
But have you the cojones to suggest the real big one?
The capital gains exemption on main residences is devoid of social and financial logic, yet to withdraw it would be electoral suicide.
Do you dare? Thought not.
The capital gains exemption on main residences makes perfect social and financial sense. If you're moving from one home to another then the so-called capital gain isn't real, what you've gained in your sale you lose in your purchase. Whereas someone who stays in their property and potentially remortgages etc to release money from what they've gained but doesn't officially realise the equity will evade the tax completely.
So all you get with your proposal is a tax on mobility. Mobility isn't the problem and shouldn't be discouraged via the taxation.
If you want to tax the value of main homes then that can and should be done via a land tax that is paid annually by everyone who owns a property whether they're moving or not. If the value of your property goes up, your tax goes up, and vice-versa even if you're not moving which would discourage people from acting as NIMBYs etc to inflate their property prices.
A land tax is long overdue. I agree it makes more sense than CGT on primary residences. But for other CGs I don't understand why they are taxed at a lower rate than income.
An interesting idea I saw recently was that multiple property owners would have all of their property subject to CGT and the CGT exemption would be reserved for people who own their home and no others.
I think that "interesting" means "stupid" in this context. It would penalise someone with a family home and eg a small holiday let much more than someone with a portfolio of ten buy to lets for whom their family home would be a tiny share of their total wealth. It would also hinder mobility as the people affected wouldn't move house (eg downsize in retirement) until they'd sold their other properties.
The point was to disincentivise multiple property ownership. Using the tax system to change market behaviour is one of the few levers the government has got and yes, there will be losers from any changes but there always are. I don't think the general public will be crying rivers because a few holiday home owners have to sell them to move house or if landlords have to pay CGT when they move house.
This is just populist gesture politics. There will always be demand for regular rental properties and for holiday lets, the ownership will simply be wrapped up in a corporate structure and the rents paid as dividends.
But you just extend that to majority shareholders in companies that are property holding companies, it's not difficult and it's not gesture politics. The aim is to reverse the trend of multiple property ownership by older people using young people as a pension fund. It will turn landlords into forced sellers.
So you end up with all rental properties being owned by rental companies. Which make a fortune because of the housing shortage.
If that happens you tax them out of existence too, or force them into becoming housing associations with rent offered at lower than market rate. The government has significant regulatory power, it chooses not to use it because its donors and voters are all multiple property owners.
Which is effectively theft, taking private property and converting into social/housing association properties, certainly without compensation rather than building new social homes.
Plenty of renters like renting in the private sector anyway, especially if younger in the cities when they like the flexibility. They don't want to or need to be in social or housing association properties either
No, it's the cost of doing business. These are the regulations, if you don't like them then your option is to put your money elsewhere. No doubt lots of people will, but it isn't theft.
Also, do you actually know or speak to anyone under the age of 30? "Plenty of renters like renting in the private sector anyway" suggests you haven't got a grip on reality.
In London and Manchester the vast majority under 30 happily rent in the private sector, they certainly wouldn't want to be in social housing and most won't have a family yet and want to buy either.
Taking a property and confiscating it using retrospective law with no compensation is certainly theft
“happily”?
You need to get out more.
I think the picture is mixed. There are many who feel trapped in often substandard rented accommodation who would love to buy but can't afford it and resent paying rent. Then there are those who find private rents too expensive and would love to have the option of more affordable social housing. And there are those who are very happy to rent privately, perhaps because they aren't yet settled in their careers or location and want the flexibility of renting. Too often on here people assume that every private renter is in the first group (typically the wealthiest group, of course). If you try to drive every private landlord out of business you will hurt the other two groups, especially if you don't create more social housing to make up for it. The failure to build social housing has been the key housing market failure since the 1980s. It stemmed originally from Thatcher's view that council houses created Labour voters. But the governments that followed have also failed on this front - the biggest failure of the 1997-2010 Labour government IMHO.
Groups 1 and 2 are huge though and I'm sure if you gave group 3 the opportunity for social rent or forced private landlords to compete with social rent prices they'd be happy with that.
Trying to buck the market with price controls is just going to lead to lower supply long term. The long term answer to moving prices in a sustainable fashion is always by shaping supply and demand.
I have calculated an average for the polls over the past few months.
My methodology is to calculate the average poll for each polling company for each month, and then to average these.
A simple average of the polls in each month would give additional weight to those companies which poll weekly, compared with those with only one poll per month.
This gives the following
Nice work.
Wot? No smiley face for Moon Rabbit.
The first thing that leaps out from this methodology is how little movement there has been month to month. At times during week or fortnight periods it looks like there’s bigger movement going on - so anyone who gets excited by weekly or fortnight movements needs to think about that in my opinion.
The second thing that leaps out is the Tory share going backwards across these three months.
Interesting.
As I have played it so straight YET AGAIN This one’s for you Mex. 😁
Are you going to accept you've got it wrong now?
Though I’d love to reply, I have to accept I have to go out to a bar and meet some people and drink cocktails, though it pains me to drag myself away 🥂
So that's a no then. Makes you look a bit silly tbh. Have a good afternoon
Chris Giles has a piece in the FT arguing against taxing Boomer wealth to fix intergenerational inequality... Might be an interesting read given the debates on the issue on here (not linking because of pay wall).
Available via google. Headline "OK Boomer"
So basically saying younger generations should be split into
those grateful for inheritance and bank of mum and dad those who have to suck it up
I wonder which category the Cambridge educated economics editor of the FT is in.....
It is a good point. Personally the intra generational inequality issue has always seemed the more worrying one rather than the inter generational one. Millenials and Gen Zeds are going to be defined by their inherited wealth as much as by their earned income, which is a tricky situation for anyone who wants to sell the idea that society is in any way fair or meritocratic.
This is one the (many) things I find strange about the modern Tory party. Most claim alignment with Thatcherism. To me one of the central pillars of Thatcherism was aspiration and meritocracy. Almost importing the "American dream". Another pillar was challenging the status quo and being willing to take on vested interests.
Yet those now claiming to be Thatcherite want to protect a system that thwarts aspiration and meritocracy and protects the status quo.
Inheritance is a tricky one because it involves a tradeoff between two deep engrained and equally worthwhile human impulses - fairness, and providing for your offspring. It feels like the Tories are only interested in the latter but Labour can't go too far the other way.
I don't think its just the Tories. As the article points out most people in the UK think inheritance is indeed fair as it has already been taxed once.
They are wrong, it is unfair (at least at present levels of inequality) and all money is taxed not just once, but endlessly and in multiple ways as it gets recycled through the economy. If it was just the Tories it could be fixed by a Labour govt but it is the near settled position of the electorate, especially the older part of the electorate.
I think inheritance is a classic example of where the interests of the individual and the interests of society diverge. As a parent I want to help my kids succeed and so of course I'm putting aside money for them. And paradoxically the more unequal the society they're going to be operating in, the more money I will need to give them - it becomes an arms race. But ultimately I want them to be living in a less unequal society since I think that will benefit them whether they are rich or poor.
Taxing capital more, and income less, is the way forward IMHO.
I would scrap the IHT exemptions for business property, farmland, woodland, country houses, and works of art. I'd also abolish main residence relief (currently up to £1m).
I'd keep the £325,000 relief, and then set the rate at 25% on everything above that (rather than 40%).
One excellent consequence would be a sharp drop in the price of farmland, which is used a tax shelter. It is virtually impossible now to buy farmland, and get a decent return based upon farming income.
But have you the cojones to suggest the real big one?
The capital gains exemption on main residences is devoid of social and financial logic, yet to withdraw it would be electoral suicide.
Do you dare? Thought not.
The capital gains exemption on main residences makes perfect social and financial sense. If you're moving from one home to another then the so-called capital gain isn't real, what you've gained in your sale you lose in your purchase. Whereas someone who stays in their property and potentially remortgages etc to release money from what they've gained but doesn't officially realise the equity will evade the tax completely.
So all you get with your proposal is a tax on mobility. Mobility isn't the problem and shouldn't be discouraged via the taxation.
If you want to tax the value of main homes then that can and should be done via a land tax that is paid annually by everyone who owns a property whether they're moving or not. If the value of your property goes up, your tax goes up, and vice-versa even if you're not moving which would discourage people from acting as NIMBYs etc to inflate their property prices.
A land tax is long overdue. I agree it makes more sense than CGT on primary residences. But for other CGs I don't understand why they are taxed at a lower rate than income.
An interesting idea I saw recently was that multiple property owners would have all of their property subject to CGT and the CGT exemption would be reserved for people who own their home and no others.
I think that "interesting" means "stupid" in this context. It would penalise someone with a family home and eg a small holiday let much more than someone with a portfolio of ten buy to lets for whom their family home would be a tiny share of their total wealth. It would also hinder mobility as the people affected wouldn't move house (eg downsize in retirement) until they'd sold their other properties.
The point was to disincentivise multiple property ownership. Using the tax system to change market behaviour is one of the few levers the government has got and yes, there will be losers from any changes but there always are. I don't think the general public will be crying rivers because a few holiday home owners have to sell them to move house or if landlords have to pay CGT when they move house.
This is just populist gesture politics. There will always be demand for regular rental properties and for holiday lets, the ownership will simply be wrapped up in a corporate structure and the rents paid as dividends.
But you just extend that to majority shareholders in companies that are property holding companies, it's not difficult and it's not gesture politics. The aim is to reverse the trend of multiple property ownership by older people using young people as a pension fund. It will turn landlords into forced sellers.
So you end up with all rental properties being owned by rental companies. Which make a fortune because of the housing shortage.
If that happens you tax them out of existence too, or force them into becoming housing associations with rent offered at lower than market rate. The government has significant regulatory power, it chooses not to use it because its donors and voters are all multiple property owners.
Which is effectively theft, taking private property and converting into social/housing association properties, certainly without compensation rather than building new social homes.
Plenty of renters like renting in the private sector anyway, especially if younger in the cities when they like the flexibility. They don't want to or need to be in social or housing association properties either
No, it's the cost of doing business. These are the regulations, if you don't like them then your option is to put your money elsewhere. No doubt lots of people will, but it isn't theft.
Also, do you actually know or speak to anyone under the age of 30? "Plenty of renters like renting in the private sector anyway" suggests you haven't got a grip on reality.
Plenty of renters have no choice but to rent in the private sector as their chance of ever getting social housing is close to zero as long as social housing is allocated on a needs basis which it currently is. Where would you suggest these people live? They can't afford to buy, so all the houses landlords sell under your scheme is not available and they are never going to get to the top of the social housing list.
Also part of the reason it is so much cheaper to own your own house than rent is that the landlord is paying tax on the rental income (and they can't net off interest payments either). The rent is usually paying three different entities - the landlord, the bank, and the taxman; and the landlord might well be getting the smallest share of the three if they have borrowed to buy the property.
While I agree that owning a house is cheaper than renting usually, indeed while I was in the south east rent would often be more than the mortgage repayment but that is only help if the bank will give you a mortgages, my experience was the banks were telling me I couldn't afford the mortgage repayments using their affordability criteria whilst already paying over that much in rent. It is frustrating
When you look at upkeep etc and all the other mobility factors in most of the country it is probably debatable that it is much better. TRue if you are in London.
Comments
The Tory party needs to lose big as Labour did - and go back to the centre-ground, component mainstream politics.
They will only do that if they lose.
They blame the higher energy prices and higher import prices the UK has faced. They do not ask themselves why China, Japan and Switzerland facing those same rising world prices kept their inflation down to 2% for China and to under 4% for the other two. They do not explain why they kept rates so low and why they kept creating money and buying bonds as they watched energy prices soar. They do not explain why UK inflation hit 5.5% before Putin invaded Ukraine. They do confess they let demand outrun supply. They do not comment on the £150bn of Quantitative easing bond buying at crazy high prices they did in 2021 when some of us were urging them to stop...
https://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2023/02/03/the-bank-of-england-offers-no-compelling-understanding-of-inflation/
Hopefully he should be back posting tomorrow.
Anyway. A total of 2.4 million households reported to have at least one additional house. The majority of those private rented property but 772,000 of them just second homes. 495,000 of them in the UK and the rest mostly in Europe. Note that 61,000 of those with second homes have more than one so the actual number of second homes is at least 8% higher than the base number.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/898190/2020_EHS_second_homes_factsheet.pdf
To take your Budget example, yes the UK gets a small say but it is not enough, simply having the British Chancellor having sole say on Budgetary matters is utterly unacceptable. The Chancellor regularly in this country for matters determined at a UK-level tries to pass measures which get rejected by Parliament, the Chancellor is not god or an economic dictator. So simply having the UK Chancellor approving the EU budget when the UK Parliament does not is no substitute for proper democratic scrutiny.
Now if you want European sovereignty and European scrutiny done by the European Parliament, I could respect that. But saying the UK Chancellor has a say so Parliament has no reason to do so? That I can not.
It would be interesting to do the calculation to work out the difference. Complicated in this instance by the different number of polls from each company reach month. Or you could create a python script to model a few examples.
In the case of Switzerland, it is because it's electrical production is largely hydro, which has been unaffected by rising hydrocarbon prices.
While with Japan, it is because they took advantage of the Ukraine war to buy discounted LNG cargos from Russia. We could, of course, have done that, and it would have had a very significant impact on energy prices. But it would also have rather undercut our support of Ukraine.
And China has had next to no inflation because they have pursued a zero Covid strategy that has decimated domestic demand.
Point two. Tories own the nation, and they are in-turn owned by the swivel-eyed. Tbf, they will go down with the sinking ship.
Point three. See point two.
Too often on here people assume that every private renter is in the first group (typically the wealthiest group, of course). If you try to drive every private landlord out of business you will hurt the other two groups, especially if you don't create more social housing to make up for it. The failure to build social housing has been the key housing market failure since the 1980s. It stemmed originally from Thatcher's view that council houses created Labour voters. But the governments that followed have also failed on this front - the biggest failure of the 1997-2010 Labour government IMHO.
It is different to when Corbyn lost big as he was far left, so that suggested Labour needed to move to the centre
https://www.flightglobal.com/aerospace/after-decade-long-trip-hav-finally-readies-for-airlander-10-production/151883.article
A project originally for the US military, then cancelled. They have 13 orders so far.
That's fine, but it didn't really help with drawing a distinction between the UK's situation in or out of the EU.
https://mobile.twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1621483046489784322
Trump says WWIII is about to break out and the entire world is going to be destroyed, he has the solution to prevent it which can solve the problem in 24 hours and save everyone from death and destruction, but he won’t tell anyone what it is unless you make him president again.
But, for the relevant electorates here, Sunak is a soggy centrist. And whilst I would love the one nation / Christian Democrat strand of Conservatism to revive after a defeat, I don't see it happening yet. Partly, finding sufficient bodies would be a challenge, but mostly because the criticism that Sunak lost by not being right-wing enough is going to be deafening.
https://twitter.com/MhariAurora/status/1621222650960830464?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1621222650960830464|twgr^a9edf9d956c9948f61214b7017bdd3de6eb51920|twcon^s1_c10&ref_url=https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/liz-truss-comeback_uk_63dc1f7ce4b01a436393461b
If the EU were to return to a system of unanimity for rules and decision making then it would be a very different matter. But they will not. Hence the objection stands.
NEW THREAD
By which definition Sunak is, I think, further left than any Tory leader of my lifetime, and probably further left of Blair. Centrist by that definition doesn't seem unreasonable.
However, added up they make a clearly dysfunctional system.
We don’t build enough houses.
What we do build largely comes from an oligopoly of developers.
What we do build is often substandard.
The planning system, and I mean that in the widest sense, is clearly not fit for purpose.
Unlike Barty I don’t believe in a free-for-all.
But I think we need to turn development into a
“You cannot build unless…”, into a “You can build so long as…” equation.
Every distinct and borough needs a Haussman (or a Mumford). A plan for how and where to build, with a clear bias towards beauty, sustainability and density.
The question is now whether you support remaining outside or joining the EU. The former is the middle ground position.