Guido is talking about Council tax switching to a proportional system of x %(0.5%) of the current value. I suspect it's going to happen because changing the bands is impossible as even he points out...
I'd say there may be some weasel words in that from Paul Staines. He's quoting a report from the CSJ, which was founded by Iain Duncan Smith, Tim Montgomerie, Mark Florman and Philippa Stroud.
Havnig said that, a switch to 0.5% of market value would be a huge improvement imo, which if it includes an abolition of Stamp Duty as proposed by its main proponents will be in the financial interests of a large majority.
The main thing I'd say for RR and KS is not to be panicked by a bit of rhetoric from the Right.
Council Tax raises £46.7 billion according to the OBR or about 1.7% of national income so not huge in the cosmic scheme of things. Not sure how which Business Rates raises - way back in 2014-15, it was twice as much as Council Tax but that's probably changed with the pamdemic.
The plan, AIUI, is 0.5% on occupied residential property and 2.5% on empty homes based on a revaluation. There are roughly 24 million homes in the UK.
Doing a crude calculation on Stodge Towers it would mean £250 extra per year.
The % of Council Revenue coming from Council Tax has increased, at the same time as funding levels have been restricted.
That is because Councils have been kept on a starvation diet since ~2010, in both England and Scotland. But more so in England. In Scotland (one of our North Britons such as @Eabhal will tell us) I believe they had a freeze in cash terms for 6-7 consecutive years.
If we want effective and capable Councils they need a fairly big funding boost, and it will take time to build capacity.
I'd say that conservatively Local Authorities need a funding boost from current levels of something like a quarter to a third in the short term, just for recovery to 2010 levels.
The 0.5% suggestion is interesting but it seems to me there are a few challenges:
1) Switching to this system would lead to increased tax in London and SE and reduced tax in the North. How do you make sure that each council has enough money to spend? It sounds like more lateral transfers would be required but then it becomes a less local tax. 2) How do you decide how much each property is worth? In the 1990s, the valuations were done by driving by. The fact there were bands meant into didn't matter if the valuations were slightly out. However, if you are charging 0.5% then you need more precise valuations e.g. a 5k value difference is worth £25 a year 3) How often would valuations be updated? Again there could be issues for council budgets as house prices change e.g. 10% rise=extra money to spend, 10% fall=austerity
I think that’s right. Personally I think the banding system is probably the right approach, though the higher bands could perhaps pay a bit more.
The issue with it is that it has never been updated and there’s never been a good time for a government to force a revaluation.
If Labour are smart they’ll get a revaluation through now and then they’ll set up an independent body to conduct the revaluations at ten year intervals, a bit like boundary commissions. It might not stop politicians campaigning to freeze the valuations but it will make it politically harder to do so.
And create an automatic revaluation once a house is extended. That can’t be too difficult to do, just tie it into the building control process.
What do you do about things such as - reworking a property to improve energy efficiency can increase the value substantially
?
Whatever you do, don't have the California system where your tax band is forever set by the price you bought the property for, which leads to my friend Joe (aged 63, lives on the same property he was born in) paying about 3% of what I pay for a slightly less nice house.
Climbed to the highest point in the Zuid Holland province today. 36m above sea level - essentially a large sand dune. It has a small tower on the top to elevate it a bit more.
Dizzying it is not.
Still, a nice day, concluding with a family swim in the sea in the sunset. Amsterdam tomorrow.
Guido is talking about Council tax switching to a proportional system of x %(0.5%) of the current value. I suspect it's going to happen because changing the bands is impossible as even he points out...
I'd say there may be some weasel words in that from Paul Staines. He's quoting a report from the CSJ, which was founded by Iain Duncan Smith, Tim Montgomerie, Mark Florman and Philippa Stroud.
Havnig said that, a switch to 0.5% of market value would be a huge improvement imo, which if it includes an abolition of Stamp Duty as proposed by its main proponents will be in the financial interests of a large majority.
The main thing I'd say for RR and KS is not to be panicked by a bit of rhetoric from the Right.
Council Tax raises £46.7 billion according to the OBR or about 1.7% of national income so not huge in the cosmic scheme of things. Not sure how which Business Rates raises - way back in 2014-15, it was twice as much as Council Tax but that's probably changed with the pamdemic.
The plan, AIUI, is 0.5% on occupied residential property and 2.5% on empty homes based on a revaluation. There are roughly 24 million homes in the UK.
Doing a crude calculation on Stodge Towers it would mean £250 extra per year.
The % of Council Revenue coming from Council Tax has increased, at the same time as funding levels have been restricted.
That is because Councils have been kept on a starvation diet since ~2010, in both England and Scotland. But more so in England. In Scotland (one of our North Britons such as @Eabhal will tell us) I believe they had a freeze in cash terms for 6-7 consecutive years.
If we want effective and capable Councils they need a fairly big funding boost, and it will take time to build capacity.
I'd say that conservatively Local Authorities need a funding boost from current levels of something like a quarter to a third in the short term, just for recovery to 2010 levels.
The 0.5% suggestion is interesting but it seems to me there are a few challenges:
1) Switching to this system would lead to increased tax in London and SE and reduced tax in the North. How do you make sure that each council has enough money to spend? It sounds like more lateral transfers would be required but then it becomes a less local tax. 2) How do you decide how much each property is worth? In the 1990s, the valuations were done by driving by. The fact there were bands meant into didn't matter if the valuations were slightly out. However, if you are charging 0.5% then you need more precise valuations e.g. a 5k value difference is worth £25 a year 3) How often would valuations be updated? Again there could be issues for council budgets as house prices change e.g. 10% rise=extra money to spend, 10% fall=austerity
I think that’s right. Personally I think the banding system is probably the right approach, though the higher bands could perhaps pay a bit more.
The issue with it is that it has never been updated and there’s never been a good time for a government to force a revaluation.
If Labour are smart they’ll get a revaluation through now and then they’ll set up an independent body to conduct the revaluations at ten year intervals, a bit like boundary commissions. It might not stop politicians campaigning to freeze the valuations but it will make it politically harder to do so.
And create an automatic revaluation once a house is extended. That can’t be too difficult to do, just tie it into the building control process.
What do you do about things such as - reworking a property to improve energy efficiency can increase the value substantially
?
This flat 0.5% idea is going to go nowhere. Labour or Labour sock puppets in think tanks can write as many position papers as they like, a tax on property values will lose them the next election. Not a single politician has benefited from tinkering around with property based taxation or ownership rights.
Council tax bands might not be perfect but it's a system that everyone understands, smaller properties pay less and bigger ones pay more. A tax of 0.5% on value means everyone pays the "same" and everyone is going to hate it.
Guido is talking about Council tax switching to a proportional system of x %(0.5%) of the current value. I suspect it's going to happen because changing the bands is impossible as even he points out...
I'd say there may be some weasel words in that from Paul Staines. He's quoting a report from the CSJ, which was founded by Iain Duncan Smith, Tim Montgomerie, Mark Florman and Philippa Stroud.
Havnig said that, a switch to 0.5% of market value would be a huge improvement imo, which if it includes an abolition of Stamp Duty as proposed by its main proponents will be in the financial interests of a large majority.
The main thing I'd say for RR and KS is not to be panicked by a bit of rhetoric from the Right.
Council Tax raises £46.7 billion according to the OBR or about 1.7% of national income so not huge in the cosmic scheme of things. Not sure how which Business Rates raises - way back in 2014-15, it was twice as much as Council Tax but that's probably changed with the pamdemic.
The plan, AIUI, is 0.5% on occupied residential property and 2.5% on empty homes based on a revaluation. There are roughly 24 million homes in the UK.
Doing a crude calculation on Stodge Towers it would mean £250 extra per year.
The % of Council Revenue coming from Council Tax has increased, at the same time as funding levels have been restricted.
That is because Councils have been kept on a starvation diet since ~2010, in both England and Scotland. But more so in England. In Scotland (one of our North Britons such as @Eabhal will tell us) I believe they had a freeze in cash terms for 6-7 consecutive years.
If we want effective and capable Councils they need a fairly big funding boost, and it will take time to build capacity.
I'd say that conservatively Local Authorities need a funding boost from current levels of something like a quarter to a third in the short term, just for recovery to 2010 levels.
The 0.5% suggestion is interesting but it seems to me there are a few challenges:
1) Switching to this system would lead to increased tax in London and SE and reduced tax in the North. How do you make sure that each council has enough money to spend? It sounds like more lateral transfers would be required but then it becomes a less local tax. 2) How do you decide how much each property is worth? In the 1990s, the valuations were done by driving by. The fact there were bands meant into didn't matter if the valuations were slightly out. However, if you are charging 0.5% then you need more precise valuations e.g. a 5k value difference is worth £25 a year 3) How often would valuations be updated? Again there could be issues for council budgets as house prices change e.g. 10% rise=extra money to spend, 10% fall=austerity
I think that’s right. Personally I think the banding system is probably the right approach, though the higher bands could perhaps pay a bit more.
The issue with it is that it has never been updated and there’s never been a good time for a government to force a revaluation.
If Labour are smart they’ll get a revaluation through now and then they’ll set up an independent body to conduct the revaluations at ten year intervals, a bit like boundary commissions. It might not stop politicians campaigning to freeze the valuations but it will make it politically harder to do so.
And create an automatic revaluation once a house is extended. That can’t be too difficult to do, just tie it into the building control process.
What do you do about things such as - reworking a property to improve energy efficiency can increase the value substantially
?
I think this is why you can’t be too intricate with the valuation/banding process and why I think it needs to be tied to more “headline” items like bedrooms, size, location. You don’t want to discourage improving the housing stock.
Yes but the next general election is four or five years away. Things that ought to matter, often don't.
Indeed
However isn’t it a political truism that perceptions are crucially formed in the first 100 days of office? And after that they become hard to shift
Starmer has been given a seriously tough test on his second month of office. I don’t envy him. However he came in with baggage that is entirely his own fault - taking the knee AFTER the BLM riots
The British public believe he is making a hash of this major crisis. Pompous but ineffective, hypocritical and bloviating?
He may find this perception hangs around
That said there are exceptions to the rule. Thatcher was massively unpopular at first but became more popular over time
Yes, for me the problem isn't so much the pomposity - hard to disapprove of rioters without sounding pompous - or the ineffectuality - a common failing in the face of rioting - but that he seemed so equivocal about rioting until it was poor white people doing it.
These aren't poor white people. They're violent racists.
Who probably also happen to be poor, white people.
That's disingenuous to us poor white people. Most of us don't riot.
Most men don't rape women either, yet I am assured rape is the fault of all men.
What a silly post. You're better than that 'Tubbs.
I'm not. Its been a long day.
In general I think the danger is that too many are ignoring the left behind of the country, AGAIN. Nothing makes racism right, nor rioting, but its essential to ask why things happen. Too many of my colleagues at Uni could not understand the Brexit vote because 'everyone I know voted remain'. Well yes, you know upper middle class academics.
There are many UK populations. Most are decent, kind folk. Some are not. Some are bitter, twisted, racist thugs. But a lot of people do feel left behind and feel that the country has let in too many immigrants. Thats not my opinion, but if you don't understand that viewpoint (while disagreeing) you will never understand the reasons.
My admonishment was for your "rape" comment.
I am well aware of the "left behind". They have been left behind for generations by the Labour party in Northern, Midlands, Scottish and Welsh s***holes. Hence they voted, SNP, Leave and "lent"their vote to Johnson in 2019, who also left them behind. They lent their vote to Farage in 2024 and probably 2029. He will let them down too.
When the politicians let them down the politicians look for scapegoats. The EU, foreigners, scroungers, illegal immigrants. Scoundrel like Farage buy the easy win, so we are where we are.
You say they are let down - but what exactly do they want and is it achievable?
The problem is that a lot of people want the impossible and don't understand that that is not achievable...
I go back to public funds being corruptly milked by late Labour Councillors like T. Dan Smith instead of funding civic society. Teesport smells similar, and in national government we had the PPE affair.
Teesport is a private company. Teesworks is the issue.
However both Teesworks and PPE are Tory corruption scandals - and neither have anything to do with the things the "left behind" want..
So good attempt to change your narrative but I'll repeat my previous questions
You say they (the "left behind") are let down - but what exactly do they want and is it achievable?
Of course Labour corruption is important over decades. Public funds are hijacked by Labour Councillors. T Dan Smith in Newcastle, Graham Jenkins (Richard Burton's brother) in Port Talbot in the 1970s for example. and not spent benefitted the good burghers of these local authorities.
What do the left behind want? Free stuff that they think is being given to immigrants and scroungers. People like Farage promote the lie that immigrants are given free stuff like houses and cars, not available to them.
Why not ask them instead of projecting your anti working class prejudice onto them.
Guido is talking about Council tax switching to a proportional system of x %(0.5%) of the current value. I suspect it's going to happen because changing the bands is impossible as even he points out...
I'd say there may be some weasel words in that from Paul Staines. He's quoting a report from the CSJ, which was founded by Iain Duncan Smith, Tim Montgomerie, Mark Florman and Philippa Stroud.
Havnig said that, a switch to 0.5% of market value would be a huge improvement imo, which if it includes an abolition of Stamp Duty as proposed by its main proponents will be in the financial interests of a large majority.
The main thing I'd say for RR and KS is not to be panicked by a bit of rhetoric from the Right.
Council Tax raises £46.7 billion according to the OBR or about 1.7% of national income so not huge in the cosmic scheme of things. Not sure how which Business Rates raises - way back in 2014-15, it was twice as much as Council Tax but that's probably changed with the pamdemic.
The plan, AIUI, is 0.5% on occupied residential property and 2.5% on empty homes based on a revaluation. There are roughly 24 million homes in the UK.
Doing a crude calculation on Stodge Towers it would mean £250 extra per year.
The % of Council Revenue coming from Council Tax has increased, at the same time as funding levels have been restricted.
That is because Councils have been kept on a starvation diet since ~2010, in both England and Scotland. But more so in England. In Scotland (one of our North Britons such as @Eabhal will tell us) I believe they had a freeze in cash terms for 6-7 consecutive years.
If we want effective and capable Councils they need a fairly big funding boost, and it will take time to build capacity.
I'd say that conservatively Local Authorities need a funding boost from current levels of something like a quarter to a third in the short term, just for recovery to 2010 levels.
The 0.5% suggestion is interesting but it seems to me there are a few challenges:
1) Switching to this system would lead to increased tax in London and SE and reduced tax in the North. How do you make sure that each council has enough money to spend? It sounds like more lateral transfers would be required but then it becomes a less local tax. 2) How do you decide how much each property is worth? In the 1990s, the valuations were done by driving by. The fact there were bands meant into didn't matter if the valuations were slightly out. However, if you are charging 0.5% then you need more precise valuations e.g. a 5k value difference is worth £25 a year 3) How often would valuations be updated? Again there could be issues for council budgets as house prices change e.g. 10% rise=extra money to spend, 10% fall=austerity
I think that’s right. Personally I think the banding system is probably the right approach, though the higher bands could perhaps pay a bit more.
The issue with it is that it has never been updated and there’s never been a good time for a government to force a revaluation.
If Labour are smart they’ll get a revaluation through now and then they’ll set up an independent body to conduct the revaluations at ten year intervals, a bit like boundary commissions. It might not stop politicians campaigning to freeze the valuations but it will make it politically harder to do so.
And create an automatic revaluation once a house is extended. That can’t be too difficult to do, just tie it into the building control process.
What do you do about things such as - reworking a property to improve energy efficiency can increase the value substantially
?
I think this is why you can’t be too intricate with the valuation/banding process and why I think it needs to be tied to more “headline” items like bedrooms, size, location. You don’t want to discourage improving the housing stock.
Walz has two great advantages as a politician: He is not a lawyer -- and he is a winning football coach. (Most Americans dislike lawyers -- and love winning coaches, especially football coaches.) "After returning, Walz took a job teaching and coaching in Alliance, Nebraska, where he met his wife, Gwen Whipple, a fellow teacher.[11] He and Gwen married in 1994, and moved two years later to Mankato in Minnesota, his wife's home state,[11] where he worked as a geography teacher and coach at Mankato West High School.[10] He coached the football team to its first state championship in 1999." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Walz
And, then there is this: "Walz was ranked the 7th-most bipartisan House member during the 114th Congress (and the most bipartisan member from Minnesota) in the Bipartisan Index created by The Lugar Center and the McCourt School of Public Policy, which ranks members of Congress by measuring how often their bills attract co-sponsors from the opposite party and how often they co-sponsor bills by members of the opposite party."
Good comment. Neither part of the "liberal elitist" tag is going to stick.
Early signs are that the Trump campaign is already flailing around, trying to find an effective attack.
I quite like the "first non-lawyer on a Democratic ticket since Jimmy Carter" line.
Average blood pressure in the posh bit of Sheffield increases a little.
It isn't a good idea for Dems to mention Jimmy Carter.
It’s almost universally agreed that he’s America’s best former President, doing much better work after he left office than he did in office. His reputation has definitely solid, even amongst Republicans -
John Profumo did excellent work after leaving politics as well.
That's a credit to both men - one that some more recent politicians should try to copy.
But that doesn't stop them having had a disastrous effect while in political office.
Which is why the Dems shouldn't be pointing out similarities between Walz and Carter.
I disagree. The polling I have linked to suggests that Americans today have a very favourable opinion of Carter. The fact he was unpopular 44 years ago doesn’t matter. He’s popular now. They’ve changed their mind.
The polling is about post-presidency not presidency ie about non-political work not political.
Walz is running to be Vice-President, a political position, not to do humanitarian work in future decades.
Do you really not see the difference ???
I could equally point out to you that opinions change and 18 year olds in 1980 are nearly pensioners now. Most of that electorate is dead. Most voters only remember his post presidency. As I mentioned, according to YouGov, he is the most popular politician in America now. That takes into account his record in and out of office. Carter’s reputation now is very different to the one when he left office.
The basic problem you have is that you’re relying on polling from 1980 while I’ve cited polls from the last 9 years. You’re going on expired intelligence. The dial has moved and he’s been positively reassessed.
Okay, if you want to live in a fantasy world where the Carter presidency is now viewed as a golden age then do so.
You do know that the 'polling from 1980' was an election in which over 80m took part for the most important job in the world as opposed to a meaningless opinion poll of a thousand people about something else entirely ?
Do you really think that when Jimmy Carter is mentioned that people don't remember him first as being President ?
Do you really think that Carter's humanitarian work, admirable as it might be, is anywhere near as important as what he did as President ?
Perhaps you also remember Jim Callaghan for what he did after politics and not for him being prime minister in the late 1970s.
I gave up on this piece of shit post when you said “ Okay, if you want to live in a fantasy world where the Carter presidency is now viewed as a golden age then do so”. I didn’t say that, you know I didn’t say that, and you’re just having a tantrum. I’ve made my point, provided evidence for my assertions in the form of near contemporary polling, and you come back with a pile of steaming invective. Go to bed.
(PS I’d just turned 5 when Callahan stopped being PM so almost all of my memories of him are post politics)
I was a teenager living in Georgia in 1976 when Carter was elected as a "Mr Smith Goes to Washington" type figure, a fresh face from the real America after the political class had failed so spectacularly over Vietnam and Watergate. He started well, and emphasised human rights in foreign policy, and led Israel and Egypt to peace in the Camp David process.
It started to fall apart a bit over the economy, then the Iranian revolution, but the USA wasn't the only country struggling with the economic fallout of the 1970s oil crisis and worldwide inflation.
Looking back, like most politicians he ended in failure, but history will evaluate his Presidency better with time.
Walz has two great advantages as a politician: He is not a lawyer -- and he is a winning football coach. (Most Americans dislike lawyers -- and love winning coaches, especially football coaches.) "After returning, Walz took a job teaching and coaching in Alliance, Nebraska, where he met his wife, Gwen Whipple, a fellow teacher.[11] He and Gwen married in 1994, and moved two years later to Mankato in Minnesota, his wife's home state,[11] where he worked as a geography teacher and coach at Mankato West High School.[10] He coached the football team to its first state championship in 1999." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Walz
And, then there is this: "Walz was ranked the 7th-most bipartisan House member during the 114th Congress (and the most bipartisan member from Minnesota) in the Bipartisan Index created by The Lugar Center and the McCourt School of Public Policy, which ranks members of Congress by measuring how often their bills attract co-sponsors from the opposite party and how often they co-sponsor bills by members of the opposite party."
Good comment. Neither part of the "liberal elitist" tag is going to stick.
Early signs are that the Trump campaign is already flailing around, trying to find an effective attack.
I quite like the "first non-lawyer on a Democratic ticket since Jimmy Carter" line.
Average blood pressure in the posh bit of Sheffield increases a little.
It isn't a good idea for Dems to mention Jimmy Carter.
It’s almost universally agreed that he’s America’s best former President, doing much better work after he left office than he did in office. His reputation has definitely solid, even amongst Republicans -
John Profumo did excellent work after leaving politics as well.
That's a credit to both men - one that some more recent politicians should try to copy.
But that doesn't stop them having had a disastrous effect while in political office.
Which is why the Dems shouldn't be pointing out similarities between Walz and Carter.
I disagree. The polling I have linked to suggests that Americans today have a very favourable opinion of Carter. The fact he was unpopular 44 years ago doesn’t matter. He’s popular now. They’ve changed their mind.
The polling is about post-presidency not presidency ie about non-political work not political.
Walz is running to be Vice-President, a political position, not to do humanitarian work in future decades.
Do you really not see the difference ???
I could equally point out to you that opinions change and 18 year olds in 1980 are nearly pensioners now. Most of that electorate is dead. Most voters only remember his post presidency. As I mentioned, according to YouGov, he is the most popular politician in America now. That takes into account his record in and out of office. Carter’s reputation now is very different to the one when he left office.
The basic problem you have is that you’re relying on polling from 1980 while I’ve cited polls from the last 9 years. You’re going on expired intelligence. The dial has moved and he’s been positively reassessed.
Okay, if you want to live in a fantasy world where the Carter presidency is now viewed as a golden age then do so.
You do know that the 'polling from 1980' was an election in which over 80m took part for the most important job in the world as opposed to a meaningless opinion poll of a thousand people about something else entirely ?
Do you really think that when Jimmy Carter is mentioned that people don't remember him first as being President ?
Do you really think that Carter's humanitarian work, admirable as it might be, is anywhere near as important as what he did as President ?
Perhaps you also remember Jim Callaghan for what he did after politics and not for him being prime minister in the late 1970s.
I gave up on this piece of shit post when you said “ Okay, if you want to live in a fantasy world where the Carter presidency is now viewed as a golden age then do so”. I didn’t say that, you know I didn’t say that, and you’re just having a tantrum. I’ve made my point, provided evidence for my assertions in the form of near contemporary polling, and you come back with a pile of steaming invective. Go to bed.
(PS I’d just turned 5 when Callahan stopped being PM so almost all of my memories of him are post politics)
I was a teenager living in Georgia in 1976 and Carter was elected as a "Mr Smith Goes to Washington" type figure, a fresh face from the real America after the political class had failed so spectacularly over Vietnam and Watergate. He started well, and emphasised human rights in foreign policy, and led Israel and Egypt to peace in the Camp David process.
It started to fall apart a bit over the economy, then the Iranian revolution, but the USA wasn't the only country struggling with the economic fallout of the 1970s oil crisis and worldwide inflation.
Looking back, like most politicians he ended in failure, but history will evaluate his Presidency better with time.
As I’ve shown, it already has, despite @another_richard ‘s denialism
Guido is talking about Council tax switching to a proportional system of x %(0.5%) of the current value. I suspect it's going to happen because changing the bands is impossible as even he points out...
I'd say there may be some weasel words in that from Paul Staines. He's quoting a report from the CSJ, which was founded by Iain Duncan Smith, Tim Montgomerie, Mark Florman and Philippa Stroud.
Havnig said that, a switch to 0.5% of market value would be a huge improvement imo, which if it includes an abolition of Stamp Duty as proposed by its main proponents will be in the financial interests of a large majority.
The main thing I'd say for RR and KS is not to be panicked by a bit of rhetoric from the Right.
Council Tax raises £46.7 billion according to the OBR or about 1.7% of national income so not huge in the cosmic scheme of things. Not sure how which Business Rates raises - way back in 2014-15, it was twice as much as Council Tax but that's probably changed with the pamdemic.
The plan, AIUI, is 0.5% on occupied residential property and 2.5% on empty homes based on a revaluation. There are roughly 24 million homes in the UK.
Doing a crude calculation on Stodge Towers it would mean £250 extra per year.
The % of Council Revenue coming from Council Tax has increased, at the same time as funding levels have been restricted.
That is because Councils have been kept on a starvation diet since ~2010, in both England and Scotland. But more so in England. In Scotland (one of our North Britons such as @Eabhal will tell us) I believe they had a freeze in cash terms for 6-7 consecutive years.
If we want effective and capable Councils they need a fairly big funding boost, and it will take time to build capacity.
I'd say that conservatively Local Authorities need a funding boost from current levels of something like a quarter to a third in the short term, just for recovery to 2010 levels.
The 0.5% suggestion is interesting but it seems to me there are a few challenges:
1) Switching to this system would lead to increased tax in London and SE and reduced tax in the North. How do you make sure that each council has enough money to spend? It sounds like more lateral transfers would be required but then it becomes a less local tax. 2) How do you decide how much each property is worth? In the 1990s, the valuations were done by driving by. The fact there were bands meant into didn't matter if the valuations were slightly out. However, if you are charging 0.5% then you need more precise valuations e.g. a 5k value difference is worth £25 a year 3) How often would valuations be updated? Again there could be issues for council budgets as house prices change e.g. 10% rise=extra money to spend, 10% fall=austerity
I think that’s right. Personally I think the banding system is probably the right approach, though the higher bands could perhaps pay a bit more.
The issue with it is that it has never been updated and there’s never been a good time for a government to force a revaluation.
If Labour are smart they’ll get a revaluation through now and then they’ll set up an independent body to conduct the revaluations at ten year intervals, a bit like boundary commissions. It might not stop politicians campaigning to freeze the valuations but it will make it politically harder to do so.
And create an automatic revaluation once a house is extended. That can’t be too difficult to do, just tie it into the building control process.
What do you do about things such as - reworking a property to improve energy efficiency can increase the value substantially
?
This flat 0.5% idea is going to go nowhere. Labour or Labour sock puppets in think tanks can write as many position papers as they like, a tax on property values will lose them the next election. Not a single politician has benefited from tinkering around with property based taxation or ownership rights.
Council tax bands might not be perfect but it's a system that everyone understands, smaller properties pay less and bigger ones pay more. A tax of 0.5% on value means everyone pays the "same" and everyone is going to hate it.
Not true at the high end of the banding where a house worth £1 million pays the same as a house value £400k. We need more, perhaps wider bands and there has to be a recognition somewhere how much house prices have risen since 1991.
Walz has two great advantages as a politician: He is not a lawyer -- and he is a winning football coach. (Most Americans dislike lawyers -- and love winning coaches, especially football coaches.) "After returning, Walz took a job teaching and coaching in Alliance, Nebraska, where he met his wife, Gwen Whipple, a fellow teacher.[11] He and Gwen married in 1994, and moved two years later to Mankato in Minnesota, his wife's home state,[11] where he worked as a geography teacher and coach at Mankato West High School.[10] He coached the football team to its first state championship in 1999." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Walz
And, then there is this: "Walz was ranked the 7th-most bipartisan House member during the 114th Congress (and the most bipartisan member from Minnesota) in the Bipartisan Index created by The Lugar Center and the McCourt School of Public Policy, which ranks members of Congress by measuring how often their bills attract co-sponsors from the opposite party and how often they co-sponsor bills by members of the opposite party."
Good comment. Neither part of the "liberal elitist" tag is going to stick.
Early signs are that the Trump campaign is already flailing around, trying to find an effective attack.
I quite like the "first non-lawyer on a Democratic ticket since Jimmy Carter" line.
Average blood pressure in the posh bit of Sheffield increases a little.
It isn't a good idea for Dems to mention Jimmy Carter.
It’s almost universally agreed that he’s America’s best former President, doing much better work after he left office than he did in office. His reputation has definitely solid, even amongst Republicans -
Guido is talking about Council tax switching to a proportional system of x %(0.5%) of the current value. I suspect it's going to happen because changing the bands is impossible as even he points out...
I'd say there may be some weasel words in that from Paul Staines. He's quoting a report from the CSJ, which was founded by Iain Duncan Smith, Tim Montgomerie, Mark Florman and Philippa Stroud.
Havnig said that, a switch to 0.5% of market value would be a huge improvement imo, which if it includes an abolition of Stamp Duty as proposed by its main proponents will be in the financial interests of a large majority.
The main thing I'd say for RR and KS is not to be panicked by a bit of rhetoric from the Right.
Council Tax raises £46.7 billion according to the OBR or about 1.7% of national income so not huge in the cosmic scheme of things. Not sure how which Business Rates raises - way back in 2014-15, it was twice as much as Council Tax but that's probably changed with the pamdemic.
The plan, AIUI, is 0.5% on occupied residential property and 2.5% on empty homes based on a revaluation. There are roughly 24 million homes in the UK.
Doing a crude calculation on Stodge Towers it would mean £250 extra per year.
The % of Council Revenue coming from Council Tax has increased, at the same time as funding levels have been restricted.
That is because Councils have been kept on a starvation diet since ~2010, in both England and Scotland. But more so in England. In Scotland (one of our North Britons such as @Eabhal will tell us) I believe they had a freeze in cash terms for 6-7 consecutive years.
If we want effective and capable Councils they need a fairly big funding boost, and it will take time to build capacity.
I'd say that conservatively Local Authorities need a funding boost from current levels of something like a quarter to a third in the short term, just for recovery to 2010 levels.
The 0.5% suggestion is interesting but it seems to me there are a few challenges:
1) Switching to this system would lead to increased tax in London and SE and reduced tax in the North. How do you make sure that each council has enough money to spend? It sounds like more lateral transfers would be required but then it becomes a less local tax. 2) How do you decide how much each property is worth? In the 1990s, the valuations were done by driving by. The fact there were bands meant into didn't matter if the valuations were slightly out. However, if you are charging 0.5% then you need more precise valuations e.g. a 5k value difference is worth £25 a year 3) How often would valuations be updated? Again there could be issues for council budgets as house prices change e.g. 10% rise=extra money to spend, 10% fall=austerity
I think that’s right. Personally I think the banding system is probably the right approach, though the higher bands could perhaps pay a bit more.
The issue with it is that it has never been updated and there’s never been a good time for a government to force a revaluation.
If Labour are smart they’ll get a revaluation through now and then they’ll set up an independent body to conduct the revaluations at ten year intervals, a bit like boundary commissions. It might not stop politicians campaigning to freeze the valuations but it will make it politically harder to do so.
And create an automatic revaluation once a house is extended. That can’t be too difficult to do, just tie it into the building control process.
What do you do about things such as - reworking a property to improve energy efficiency can increase the value substantially
?
I think this is why you can’t be too intricate with the valuation/banding process and why I think it needs to be tied to more “headline” items like bedrooms, size, location. You don’t want to discourage improving the housing stock.
How about hearths?
It’s why a land value tax is by far the best system. You can improve your property as much as you like but pay the same tax.
"Sympathies with the views of those taking part in the protests are somewhat broader – six in ten Britons (58%) say they have a great deal or fair amount of sympathy for the views of those peacefully taking part in demonstrations that were ostensibly triggered by the Southport murders. This includes majorities of Labour and Lib Dem voters (53-56%), as well as two-thirds of Conservatives (64%), with Reform voters are most sympathetic at 83%."
That's nothing like what the poll is saying.
"There is little support for the unrest, and only a third support the wider peaceful protests
Regardless of what the rioters believe they are representing, their actions are not supported by the British public, with 85% of Britons opposing the unrest at recent protests and just 7% saying they support the violence. Even the broader protests only hold the support of one in three Britons (34%), with more than half (54%) opposed."
Climbed to the highest point in the Zuid Holland province today. 36m above sea level - essentially a large sand dune. It has a small tower on the top to elevate it a bit more.
Dizzying it is not.
Still, a nice day, concluding with a family swim in the sea in the sunset. Amsterdam tomorrow.
Guido is talking about Council tax switching to a proportional system of x %(0.5%) of the current value. I suspect it's going to happen because changing the bands is impossible as even he points out...
I'd say there may be some weasel words in that from Paul Staines. He's quoting a report from the CSJ, which was founded by Iain Duncan Smith, Tim Montgomerie, Mark Florman and Philippa Stroud.
Havnig said that, a switch to 0.5% of market value would be a huge improvement imo, which if it includes an abolition of Stamp Duty as proposed by its main proponents will be in the financial interests of a large majority.
The main thing I'd say for RR and KS is not to be panicked by a bit of rhetoric from the Right.
Council Tax raises £46.7 billion according to the OBR or about 1.7% of national income so not huge in the cosmic scheme of things. Not sure how which Business Rates raises - way back in 2014-15, it was twice as much as Council Tax but that's probably changed with the pamdemic.
The plan, AIUI, is 0.5% on occupied residential property and 2.5% on empty homes based on a revaluation. There are roughly 24 million homes in the UK.
Doing a crude calculation on Stodge Towers it would mean £250 extra per year.
The % of Council Revenue coming from Council Tax has increased, at the same time as funding levels have been restricted.
That is because Councils have been kept on a starvation diet since ~2010, in both England and Scotland. But more so in England. In Scotland (one of our North Britons such as @Eabhal will tell us) I believe they had a freeze in cash terms for 6-7 consecutive years.
If we want effective and capable Councils they need a fairly big funding boost, and it will take time to build capacity.
I'd say that conservatively Local Authorities need a funding boost from current levels of something like a quarter to a third in the short term, just for recovery to 2010 levels.
The 0.5% suggestion is interesting but it seems to me there are a few challenges:
1) Switching to this system would lead to increased tax in London and SE and reduced tax in the North. How do you make sure that each council has enough money to spend? It sounds like more lateral transfers would be required but then it becomes a less local tax. 2) How do you decide how much each property is worth? In the 1990s, the valuations were done by driving by. The fact there were bands meant into didn't matter if the valuations were slightly out. However, if you are charging 0.5% then you need more precise valuations e.g. a 5k value difference is worth £25 a year 3) How often would valuations be updated? Again there could be issues for council budgets as house prices change e.g. 10% rise=extra money to spend, 10% fall=austerity
I think that’s right. Personally I think the banding system is probably the right approach, though the higher bands could perhaps pay a bit more.
The issue with it is that it has never been updated and there’s never been a good time for a government to force a revaluation.
If Labour are smart they’ll get a revaluation through now and then they’ll set up an independent body to conduct the revaluations at ten year intervals, a bit like boundary commissions. It might not stop politicians campaigning to freeze the valuations but it will make it politically harder to do so.
And create an automatic revaluation once a house is extended. That can’t be too difficult to do, just tie it into the building control process.
What do you do about things such as - reworking a property to improve energy efficiency can increase the value substantially
?
This flat 0.5% idea is going to go nowhere. Labour or Labour sock puppets in think tanks can write as many position papers as they like, a tax on property values will lose them the next election. Not a single politician has benefited from tinkering around with property based taxation or ownership rights.
Council tax bands might not be perfect but it's a system that everyone understands, smaller properties pay less and bigger ones pay more. A tax of 0.5% on value means everyone pays the "same" and everyone is going to hate it.
It means someone with a house worth £200,000 pays £1000 and someone with a house worth £1million pays £5000.
Given what your typical south east house is paying in council tax I don’t think the change is going to be that drastic
Guido is talking about Council tax switching to a proportional system of x %(0.5%) of the current value. I suspect it's going to happen because changing the bands is impossible as even he points out...
I'd say there may be some weasel words in that from Paul Staines. He's quoting a report from the CSJ, which was founded by Iain Duncan Smith, Tim Montgomerie, Mark Florman and Philippa Stroud.
Havnig said that, a switch to 0.5% of market value would be a huge improvement imo, which if it includes an abolition of Stamp Duty as proposed by its main proponents will be in the financial interests of a large majority.
The main thing I'd say for RR and KS is not to be panicked by a bit of rhetoric from the Right.
Council Tax raises £46.7 billion according to the OBR or about 1.7% of national income so not huge in the cosmic scheme of things. Not sure how which Business Rates raises - way back in 2014-15, it was twice as much as Council Tax but that's probably changed with the pamdemic.
The plan, AIUI, is 0.5% on occupied residential property and 2.5% on empty homes based on a revaluation. There are roughly 24 million homes in the UK.
Doing a crude calculation on Stodge Towers it would mean £250 extra per year.
The % of Council Revenue coming from Council Tax has increased, at the same time as funding levels have been restricted.
That is because Councils have been kept on a starvation diet since ~2010, in both England and Scotland. But more so in England. In Scotland (one of our North Britons such as @Eabhal will tell us) I believe they had a freeze in cash terms for 6-7 consecutive years.
If we want effective and capable Councils they need a fairly big funding boost, and it will take time to build capacity.
I'd say that conservatively Local Authorities need a funding boost from current levels of something like a quarter to a third in the short term, just for recovery to 2010 levels.
The 0.5% suggestion is interesting but it seems to me there are a few challenges:
1) Switching to this system would lead to increased tax in London and SE and reduced tax in the North. How do you make sure that each council has enough money to spend? It sounds like more lateral transfers would be required but then it becomes a less local tax. 2) How do you decide how much each property is worth? In the 1990s, the valuations were done by driving by. The fact there were bands meant into didn't matter if the valuations were slightly out. However, if you are charging 0.5% then you need more precise valuations e.g. a 5k value difference is worth £25 a year 3) How often would valuations be updated? Again there could be issues for council budgets as house prices change e.g. 10% rise=extra money to spend, 10% fall=austerity
I think that’s right. Personally I think the banding system is probably the right approach, though the higher bands could perhaps pay a bit more.
The issue with it is that it has never been updated and there’s never been a good time for a government to force a revaluation.
If Labour are smart they’ll get a revaluation through now and then they’ll set up an independent body to conduct the revaluations at ten year intervals, a bit like boundary commissions. It might not stop politicians campaigning to freeze the valuations but it will make it politically harder to do so.
And create an automatic revaluation once a house is extended. That can’t be too difficult to do, just tie it into the building control process.
What do you do about things such as - reworking a property to improve energy efficiency can increase the value substantially
?
I think this is why you can’t be too intricate with the valuation/banding process and why I think it needs to be tied to more “headline” items like bedrooms, size, location. You don’t want to discourage improving the housing stock.
How about hearths?
It’s why a land value tax is by far the best system. You can improve your property as much as you like but pay the same tax.
And it incentivises efficient use of that land (flats).
Another ridiculous decision in the boxing . Time to ditch it from the Olympics .
If he had been behind going into that final round you would have thought fair enough but he clearly edged the last round and was already ahead. Just ridiculous.
You might almost believe some judges stand to make a bit of money. All very odd this year.
As things stand, Boxing is not on the schedule for Los Angeles. This is because the IOC has had enough of its crooked ways. It would be a sad loss, but you can understand why it is likely to happen.
It would be a sad loss with its heritage as far back as the funeral games of Patroclus.
But the judges have been at levels of competence and honesty similar to politicians.
Guido is talking about Council tax switching to a proportional system of x %(0.5%) of the current value. I suspect it's going to happen because changing the bands is impossible as even he points out...
I'd say there may be some weasel words in that from Paul Staines. He's quoting a report from the CSJ, which was founded by Iain Duncan Smith, Tim Montgomerie, Mark Florman and Philippa Stroud.
Havnig said that, a switch to 0.5% of market value would be a huge improvement imo, which if it includes an abolition of Stamp Duty as proposed by its main proponents will be in the financial interests of a large majority.
The main thing I'd say for RR and KS is not to be panicked by a bit of rhetoric from the Right.
Council Tax raises £46.7 billion according to the OBR or about 1.7% of national income so not huge in the cosmic scheme of things. Not sure how which Business Rates raises - way back in 2014-15, it was twice as much as Council Tax but that's probably changed with the pamdemic.
The plan, AIUI, is 0.5% on occupied residential property and 2.5% on empty homes based on a revaluation. There are roughly 24 million homes in the UK.
Doing a crude calculation on Stodge Towers it would mean £250 extra per year.
The % of Council Revenue coming from Council Tax has increased, at the same time as funding levels have been restricted.
That is because Councils have been kept on a starvation diet since ~2010, in both England and Scotland. But more so in England. In Scotland (one of our North Britons such as @Eabhal will tell us) I believe they had a freeze in cash terms for 6-7 consecutive years.
If we want effective and capable Councils they need a fairly big funding boost, and it will take time to build capacity.
I'd say that conservatively Local Authorities need a funding boost from current levels of something like a quarter to a third in the short term, just for recovery to 2010 levels.
The 0.5% suggestion is interesting but it seems to me there are a few challenges:
1) Switching to this system would lead to increased tax in London and SE and reduced tax in the North. How do you make sure that each council has enough money to spend? It sounds like more lateral transfers would be required but then it becomes a less local tax. 2) How do you decide how much each property is worth? In the 1990s, the valuations were done by driving by. The fact there were bands meant into didn't matter if the valuations were slightly out. However, if you are charging 0.5% then you need more precise valuations e.g. a 5k value difference is worth £25 a year 3) How often would valuations be updated? Again there could be issues for council budgets as house prices change e.g. 10% rise=extra money to spend, 10% fall=austerity
I think that’s right. Personally I think the banding system is probably the right approach, though the higher bands could perhaps pay a bit more.
The issue with it is that it has never been updated and there’s never been a good time for a government to force a revaluation.
If Labour are smart they’ll get a revaluation through now and then they’ll set up an independent body to conduct the revaluations at ten year intervals, a bit like boundary commissions. It might not stop politicians campaigning to freeze the valuations but it will make it politically harder to do so.
And create an automatic revaluation once a house is extended. That can’t be too difficult to do, just tie it into the building control process.
What do you do about things such as - reworking a property to improve energy efficiency can increase the value substantially
?
This flat 0.5% idea is going to go nowhere. Labour or Labour sock puppets in think tanks can write as many position papers as they like, a tax on property values will lose them the next election. Not a single politician has benefited from tinkering around with property based taxation or ownership rights.
Council tax bands might not be perfect but it's a system that everyone understands, smaller properties pay less and bigger ones pay more. A tax of 0.5% on value means everyone pays the "same" and everyone is going to hate it.
Well, introducing Council tax to replace the hated Poll Tax was a big factor in Majors 1992 win.
And of course there are many more winners than losers by a 0.5% tax on property value, as the distribution of house price values is highly skewed. Band H is hight than band A but nowhere near the difference in house values. Many of those winners would be in "left behind towns" like Southport and Hartlepool too.
The guy is dangerous. How could anyone still support him?
He asks a question on whether the crux of that meme is true. Namely, “repeatedly raped a 12 year old girl, 180 community hours, no prison time”.
From the bbc:
"Hamoud Al Soaimi, 21, for three counts of sexual assault and one assault by penetration, jailed for two years suspended for two years with 180 hours unpaid work".
But hey, let’s ban Twitter because he says mean things about Keir Starmer.
But, come, Moonshine, you're a reasonable person, and you surely must know that he's not only doing that.
He's not only accusing Starmer of favouritism to minorities in policing, which no one's succeeded in posting any real evidence of, but seems to be actively willing on social collapse, breakdown and war, in our country, as also the leader of a vast overseas website. You would have to say that Governments all over the world would act in that situation.
Musk is a frequently misunderstood fellow, I have misunderstood him many times. He’s not always right. But I have come to realise his positions are generally (not always) well considered and come with good intentions.
His two tier Keir accusation is not his invention, he is aping an already wide viewpoint. And as others have discussed tonight, it is not true that the evidence slate is clean on that. We are far too soft on serious criminality, both in terms of arrests and sentencing. By the way, any arrests yet for the Southend machete fight or hotel inferno?
I’m looking at this sectarian violence between different components of the British underclass (no offence intended) and wonder indeed if we are now in a similar state to 20th N.Ireland, which by most reasonable definitions was a form of civil war.
I was appalled at some of his statements on Ukraine. But really I do increasingly wonder if he’s right. I don’t think there’s a cigarette paper between the Biden White House and Trump on Ukraine policy. Not really. Neither wants Ukraine to “win”, meaning a return to 2014 borders. And the half hearted support in 2023 makes me wonder whether the White House even wants a return to 2022. Musk is looking at this seeing tens of thousands of death per month on all sides and is saying what’s the f point, if the borders are going to be roughly frozen anyway? My personal view is we’re more not less likely to see nuclear exchange if Putin “wins” in Ukraine, he sees the opposite and seemingly so does the weight of the US security establishment. Perhaps I’m wrong?
Occasionally he likes or retweets inappropriate things out of curiosity or mischief, most likely at time from the karzy. But his vision for Twitter is essentially a global Speakers Corner and that the crowd will sort the sense from the nonsense.
He is very misunderstood by people, often by those that take life too seriously. These calls to ban or expropriate Twitter would be funny if they weren’t so sinister.
Walz has two great advantages as a politician: He is not a lawyer -- and he is a winning football coach. (Most Americans dislike lawyers -- and love winning coaches, especially football coaches.) "After returning, Walz took a job teaching and coaching in Alliance, Nebraska, where he met his wife, Gwen Whipple, a fellow teacher.[11] He and Gwen married in 1994, and moved two years later to Mankato in Minnesota, his wife's home state,[11] where he worked as a geography teacher and coach at Mankato West High School.[10] He coached the football team to its first state championship in 1999." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Walz
And, then there is this: "Walz was ranked the 7th-most bipartisan House member during the 114th Congress (and the most bipartisan member from Minnesota) in the Bipartisan Index created by The Lugar Center and the McCourt School of Public Policy, which ranks members of Congress by measuring how often their bills attract co-sponsors from the opposite party and how often they co-sponsor bills by members of the opposite party."
Good comment. Neither part of the "liberal elitist" tag is going to stick.
Early signs are that the Trump campaign is already flailing around, trying to find an effective attack.
I quite like the "first non-lawyer on a Democratic ticket since Jimmy Carter" line.
Average blood pressure in the posh bit of Sheffield increases a little.
It isn't a good idea for Dems to mention Jimmy Carter.
It’s almost universally agreed that he’s America’s best former President, doing much better work after he left office than he did in office. His reputation has definitely solid, even amongst Republicans -
Guido is talking about Council tax switching to a proportional system of x %(0.5%) of the current value. I suspect it's going to happen because changing the bands is impossible as even he points out...
I'd say there may be some weasel words in that from Paul Staines. He's quoting a report from the CSJ, which was founded by Iain Duncan Smith, Tim Montgomerie, Mark Florman and Philippa Stroud.
Havnig said that, a switch to 0.5% of market value would be a huge improvement imo, which if it includes an abolition of Stamp Duty as proposed by its main proponents will be in the financial interests of a large majority.
The main thing I'd say for RR and KS is not to be panicked by a bit of rhetoric from the Right.
Council Tax raises £46.7 billion according to the OBR or about 1.7% of national income so not huge in the cosmic scheme of things. Not sure how which Business Rates raises - way back in 2014-15, it was twice as much as Council Tax but that's probably changed with the pamdemic.
The plan, AIUI, is 0.5% on occupied residential property and 2.5% on empty homes based on a revaluation. There are roughly 24 million homes in the UK.
Doing a crude calculation on Stodge Towers it would mean £250 extra per year.
The % of Council Revenue coming from Council Tax has increased, at the same time as funding levels have been restricted.
That is because Councils have been kept on a starvation diet since ~2010, in both England and Scotland. But more so in England. In Scotland (one of our North Britons such as @Eabhal will tell us) I believe they had a freeze in cash terms for 6-7 consecutive years.
If we want effective and capable Councils they need a fairly big funding boost, and it will take time to build capacity.
I'd say that conservatively Local Authorities need a funding boost from current levels of something like a quarter to a third in the short term, just for recovery to 2010 levels.
The 0.5% suggestion is interesting but it seems to me there are a few challenges:
1) Switching to this system would lead to increased tax in London and SE and reduced tax in the North. How do you make sure that each council has enough money to spend? It sounds like more lateral transfers would be required but then it becomes a less local tax. 2) How do you decide how much each property is worth? In the 1990s, the valuations were done by driving by. The fact there were bands meant into didn't matter if the valuations were slightly out. However, if you are charging 0.5% then you need more precise valuations e.g. a 5k value difference is worth £25 a year 3) How often would valuations be updated? Again there could be issues for council budgets as house prices change e.g. 10% rise=extra money to spend, 10% fall=austerity
I think that’s right. Personally I think the banding system is probably the right approach, though the higher bands could perhaps pay a bit more.
The issue with it is that it has never been updated and there’s never been a good time for a government to force a revaluation.
If Labour are smart they’ll get a revaluation through now and then they’ll set up an independent body to conduct the revaluations at ten year intervals, a bit like boundary commissions. It might not stop politicians campaigning to freeze the valuations but it will make it politically harder to do so.
And create an automatic revaluation once a house is extended. That can’t be too difficult to do, just tie it into the building control process.
What do you do about things such as - reworking a property to improve energy efficiency can increase the value substantially
?
I think this is why you can’t be too intricate with the valuation/banding process and why I think it needs to be tied to more “headline” items like bedrooms, size, location. You don’t want to discourage improving the housing stock.
How about hearths?
It’s why a land value tax is by far the best system. You can improve your property as much as you like but pay the same tax.
The trouble with all of these proposals is that anything based on a proportion of value that isn't locally set becomes a giant tax on London and the South East. If Barnet council think they're able to set the tax at a lower rate to deliver services then they should be able to do so. Setting a national rate of 0.5% leaves no flexibility and will either result in redistribution (which shouldn't be done with local government taxes) or waste in local governments as they try to spend money they don't need.
"Sympathies with the views of those taking part in the protests are somewhat broader – six in ten Britons (58%) say they have a great deal or fair amount of sympathy for the views of those peacefully taking part in demonstrations that were ostensibly triggered by the Southport murders. This includes majorities of Labour and Lib Dem voters (53-56%), as well as two-thirds of Conservatives (64%), with Reform voters are most sympathetic at 83%."
That's nothing like what the poll is saying.
"There is little support for the unrest, and only a third support the wider peaceful protests
Regardless of what the rioters believe they are representing, their actions are not supported by the British public, with 85% of Britons opposing the unrest at recent protests and just 7% saying they support the violence. Even the broader protests only hold the support of one in three Britons (34%), with more than half (54%) opposed."
34% agreeing with the protests though? That’s a sizeable minority (particularly when you think telling a pollster you agree with a rioter is a bit of a mental leap for a lot of people). That proportion is more, dare I hesitate to mention, than the share of the vote our government received at the last GE.
Actually I think it’s quite a depressing figure, but I am afraid I am not particularly surprised.
"Sympathies with the views of those taking part in the protests are somewhat broader – six in ten Britons (58%) say they have a great deal or fair amount of sympathy for the views of those peacefully taking part in demonstrations that were ostensibly triggered by the Southport murders. This includes majorities of Labour and Lib Dem voters (53-56%), as well as two-thirds of Conservatives (64%), with Reform voters are most sympathetic at 83%."
That's nothing like what the poll is saying.
"There is little support for the unrest, and only a third support the wider peaceful protests
Regardless of what the rioters believe they are representing, their actions are not supported by the British public, with 85% of Britons opposing the unrest at recent protests and just 7% saying they support the violence. Even the broader protests only hold the support of one in three Britons (34%), with more than half (54%) opposed."
I don't think you are contradicting Andy. You're both saying "people dislike immigration but also dislike riots".
Farage can go fxck himself . He’s thrown petrol onto the flames .
These riots have been enabled by the toxic discourse of those in government these last 5 years.
These riots have been enabled by 25 years of stratospheric immigration levels.
Sure: but there is very rarely a single cause for anything. There are countries with higher levels of immigration than the UK that are much happier (places like Norway, Switzerland, Hong Kong or Canada). What is different is that these countries managed to combine rising real incomes with immigration.
And if people are feeling richer, they don't tend to be unhappy about immigration levels.
Where the UK has failed is that it combined high levels of immigration with - for example - far too little provision of housing, so that disposable income has been squeezed for tens of millions of people.
Guido is talking about Council tax switching to a proportional system of x %(0.5%) of the current value. I suspect it's going to happen because changing the bands is impossible as even he points out...
I'd say there may be some weasel words in that from Paul Staines. He's quoting a report from the CSJ, which was founded by Iain Duncan Smith, Tim Montgomerie, Mark Florman and Philippa Stroud.
Havnig said that, a switch to 0.5% of market value would be a huge improvement imo, which if it includes an abolition of Stamp Duty as proposed by its main proponents will be in the financial interests of a large majority.
The main thing I'd say for RR and KS is not to be panicked by a bit of rhetoric from the Right.
Council Tax raises £46.7 billion according to the OBR or about 1.7% of national income so not huge in the cosmic scheme of things. Not sure how which Business Rates raises - way back in 2014-15, it was twice as much as Council Tax but that's probably changed with the pamdemic.
The plan, AIUI, is 0.5% on occupied residential property and 2.5% on empty homes based on a revaluation. There are roughly 24 million homes in the UK.
Doing a crude calculation on Stodge Towers it would mean £250 extra per year.
The % of Council Revenue coming from Council Tax has increased, at the same time as funding levels have been restricted.
That is because Councils have been kept on a starvation diet since ~2010, in both England and Scotland. But more so in England. In Scotland (one of our North Britons such as @Eabhal will tell us) I believe they had a freeze in cash terms for 6-7 consecutive years.
If we want effective and capable Councils they need a fairly big funding boost, and it will take time to build capacity.
I'd say that conservatively Local Authorities need a funding boost from current levels of something like a quarter to a third in the short term, just for recovery to 2010 levels.
The 0.5% suggestion is interesting but it seems to me there are a few challenges:
1) Switching to this system would lead to increased tax in London and SE and reduced tax in the North. How do you make sure that each council has enough money to spend? It sounds like more lateral transfers would be required but then it becomes a less local tax. 2) How do you decide how much each property is worth? In the 1990s, the valuations were done by driving by. The fact there were bands meant into didn't matter if the valuations were slightly out. However, if you are charging 0.5% then you need more precise valuations e.g. a 5k value difference is worth £25 a year 3) How often would valuations be updated? Again there could be issues for council budgets as house prices change e.g. 10% rise=extra money to spend, 10% fall=austerity
I think that’s right. Personally I think the banding system is probably the right approach, though the higher bands could perhaps pay a bit more.
The issue with it is that it has never been updated and there’s never been a good time for a government to force a revaluation.
If Labour are smart they’ll get a revaluation through now and then they’ll set up an independent body to conduct the revaluations at ten year intervals, a bit like boundary commissions. It might not stop politicians campaigning to freeze the valuations but it will make it politically harder to do so.
And create an automatic revaluation once a house is extended. That can’t be too difficult to do, just tie it into the building control process.
What do you do about things such as - reworking a property to improve energy efficiency can increase the value substantially
?
That’s easy the original owner pays the original price adjusted for house price inflation.
When you sell it for far beyond the price you paid + house price inflation the owner pays based on the price he agreed to pay…
The only issue would be if e had house price deflation but I think the inflation adjustment fixes that issue
Are today's triple jumpers anywhere near Jonathan Edwards? That WR has to be what 30 years now.
Not as old as the women's 100m record which was set in 1988 according to wikipedia (though it does say there is a case to exclude that one)
Yes, but I don't think people think Edwards was juiced to the gills or had a gale force wind aiding him. And he made so many jumps that were miles ahead of both the competition then and for many years after he retired.
"Sympathies with the views of those taking part in the protests are somewhat broader – six in ten Britons (58%) say they have a great deal or fair amount of sympathy for the views of those peacefully taking part in demonstrations that were ostensibly triggered by the Southport murders. This includes majorities of Labour and Lib Dem voters (53-56%), as well as two-thirds of Conservatives (64%), with Reform voters are most sympathetic at 83%."
That's nothing like what the poll is saying.
"There is little support for the unrest, and only a third support the wider peaceful protests
Regardless of what the rioters believe they are representing, their actions are not supported by the British public, with 85% of Britons opposing the unrest at recent protests and just 7% saying they support the violence. Even the broader protests only hold the support of one in three Britons (34%), with more than half (54%) opposed."
34% agreeing with the protests though? That’s a sizeable minority (particularly when you think telling a pollster you agree with a rioter is a bit of a mental leap for a lot of people). That proportion is more, dare I hesitate to mention, than the share of the vote our government received at the last GE.
Actually I think it’s quite a depressing figure, but I am afraid I am not particularly surprised.
As I pointed out the way the question is phrased, a lot of the approval may well be for the anti fascist counter demonstrators rather than the EDL. Certainly so amongst Lab and LD voters.
Guido is talking about Council tax switching to a proportional system of x %(0.5%) of the current value. I suspect it's going to happen because changing the bands is impossible as even he points out...
I'd say there may be some weasel words in that from Paul Staines. He's quoting a report from the CSJ, which was founded by Iain Duncan Smith, Tim Montgomerie, Mark Florman and Philippa Stroud.
Havnig said that, a switch to 0.5% of market value would be a huge improvement imo, which if it includes an abolition of Stamp Duty as proposed by its main proponents will be in the financial interests of a large majority.
The main thing I'd say for RR and KS is not to be panicked by a bit of rhetoric from the Right.
Council Tax raises £46.7 billion according to the OBR or about 1.7% of national income so not huge in the cosmic scheme of things. Not sure how which Business Rates raises - way back in 2014-15, it was twice as much as Council Tax but that's probably changed with the pamdemic.
The plan, AIUI, is 0.5% on occupied residential property and 2.5% on empty homes based on a revaluation. There are roughly 24 million homes in the UK.
Doing a crude calculation on Stodge Towers it would mean £250 extra per year.
The % of Council Revenue coming from Council Tax has increased, at the same time as funding levels have been restricted.
That is because Councils have been kept on a starvation diet since ~2010, in both England and Scotland. But more so in England. In Scotland (one of our North Britons such as @Eabhal will tell us) I believe they had a freeze in cash terms for 6-7 consecutive years.
If we want effective and capable Councils they need a fairly big funding boost, and it will take time to build capacity.
I'd say that conservatively Local Authorities need a funding boost from current levels of something like a quarter to a third in the short term, just for recovery to 2010 levels.
The 0.5% suggestion is interesting but it seems to me there are a few challenges:
1) Switching to this system would lead to increased tax in London and SE and reduced tax in the North. How do you make sure that each council has enough money to spend? It sounds like more lateral transfers would be required but then it becomes a less local tax. 2) How do you decide how much each property is worth? In the 1990s, the valuations were done by driving by. The fact there were bands meant into didn't matter if the valuations were slightly out. However, if you are charging 0.5% then you need more precise valuations e.g. a 5k value difference is worth £25 a year 3) How often would valuations be updated? Again there could be issues for council budgets as house prices change e.g. 10% rise=extra money to spend, 10% fall=austerity
I think that’s right. Personally I think the banding system is probably the right approach, though the higher bands could perhaps pay a bit more.
The issue with it is that it has never been updated and there’s never been a good time for a government to force a revaluation.
If Labour are smart they’ll get a revaluation through now and then they’ll set up an independent body to conduct the revaluations at ten year intervals, a bit like boundary commissions. It might not stop politicians campaigning to freeze the valuations but it will make it politically harder to do so.
And create an automatic revaluation once a house is extended. That can’t be too difficult to do, just tie it into the building control process.
What do you do about things such as - reworking a property to improve energy efficiency can increase the value substantially
?
This flat 0.5% idea is going to go nowhere. Labour or Labour sock puppets in think tanks can write as many position papers as they like, a tax on property values will lose them the next election. Not a single politician has benefited from tinkering around with property based taxation or ownership rights.
Council tax bands might not be perfect but it's a system that everyone understands, smaller properties pay less and bigger ones pay more. A tax of 0.5% on value means everyone pays the "same" and everyone is going to hate it.
Well, introducing Council tax to replace the hated Poll Tax was a big factor in Majors 1992 win.
And of course there are many more winners than losers by a 0.5% tax on property value, as the distribution of house price values is highly skewed. Band H is hight than band A but nowhere near the difference in house values. Many of those winners would be in "left behind towns" like Southport and Hartlepool too.
Which is a reason for introducing more bands.
I think band H is 3x the charge of band A.
Now if we had bands through to Z then band Z would be approximately 10x the charge for band A.
The guy is dangerous. How could anyone still support him?
He asks a question on whether the crux of that meme is true. Namely, “repeatedly raped a 12 year old girl, 180 community hours, no prison time”.
From the bbc:
"Hamoud Al Soaimi, 21, for three counts of sexual assault and one assault by penetration, jailed for two years suspended for two years with 180 hours unpaid work".
But hey, let’s ban Twitter because he says mean things about Keir Starmer.
But, come, Moonshine, you're a reasonable person, and you surely must know that he's not only doing that.
He's not only accusing Starmer of favouritism to minorities in policing, which no one's succeeded in posting any real evidence of, but seems to be actively willing on social collapse, breakdown and war, in our country, as also the leader of a vast overseas website. You would have to say that Governments all over the world would act in that situation.
Musk is a frequently misunderstood fellow, I have misunderstood him many times. He’s not always right. But I have come to realise his positions are generally (not always) well considered and come with good intentions.
His two tier Keir accusation is not his invention, he is aping an already wide viewpoint. And as others have discussed tonight, it is not true that the evidence slate is clean on that. We are far too soft on serious criminality, both in terms of arrests and sentencing. By the way, any arrests yet for the Southend machete fight or hotel inferno?
I’m looking at this sectarian violence between different components of the British underclass (no offence intended) and wonder indeed if we are now in a similar state to 20th N.Ireland, which by most reasonable definitions was a form of civil war.
I was appalled at some of his statements on Ukraine. But really I do increasingly wonder if he’s right. I don’t think there’s a cigarette paper between the Biden White House and Trump on Ukraine policy. Not really. Neither wants Ukraine to “win”, meaning a return to 2014 borders. And the half hearted support in 2023 makes me wonder whether the White House even wants a return to 2022. Musk is looking at this seeing tens of thousands of death per month on all sides and is saying what’s the f point, if the borders are going to be roughly frozen anyway? My personal view is we’re more not less likely to see nuclear exchange if Putin “wins” in Ukraine, he sees the opposite and seemingly so does the weight of the US security establishment. Perhaps I’m wrong?
Occasionally he likes or retweets inappropriate things out of curiosity or mischief, most likely at time from the karzy. But his vision for Twitter is essentially a global Speakers Corner and that the crowd will sort the sense from the nonsense.
He is very misunderstood by people, often by those that take life too seriously. These calls to ban or expropriate Twitter would be funny if they weren’t so sinister.
What evidence is there for believing the US does not want Ukraine to win? Surely the evidence is that the US administration is held back by the willingness of the Houses of Congress to send money and aid to Ukraine.
Guido is talking about Council tax switching to a proportional system of x %(0.5%) of the current value. I suspect it's going to happen because changing the bands is impossible as even he points out...
I'd say there may be some weasel words in that from Paul Staines. He's quoting a report from the CSJ, which was founded by Iain Duncan Smith, Tim Montgomerie, Mark Florman and Philippa Stroud.
Havnig said that, a switch to 0.5% of market value would be a huge improvement imo, which if it includes an abolition of Stamp Duty as proposed by its main proponents will be in the financial interests of a large majority.
The main thing I'd say for RR and KS is not to be panicked by a bit of rhetoric from the Right.
Council Tax raises £46.7 billion according to the OBR or about 1.7% of national income so not huge in the cosmic scheme of things. Not sure how which Business Rates raises - way back in 2014-15, it was twice as much as Council Tax but that's probably changed with the pamdemic.
The plan, AIUI, is 0.5% on occupied residential property and 2.5% on empty homes based on a revaluation. There are roughly 24 million homes in the UK.
Doing a crude calculation on Stodge Towers it would mean £250 extra per year.
The % of Council Revenue coming from Council Tax has increased, at the same time as funding levels have been restricted.
That is because Councils have been kept on a starvation diet since ~2010, in both England and Scotland. But more so in England. In Scotland (one of our North Britons such as @Eabhal will tell us) I believe they had a freeze in cash terms for 6-7 consecutive years.
If we want effective and capable Councils they need a fairly big funding boost, and it will take time to build capacity.
I'd say that conservatively Local Authorities need a funding boost from current levels of something like a quarter to a third in the short term, just for recovery to 2010 levels.
The 0.5% suggestion is interesting but it seems to me there are a few challenges:
1) Switching to this system would lead to increased tax in London and SE and reduced tax in the North. How do you make sure that each council has enough money to spend? It sounds like more lateral transfers would be required but then it becomes a less local tax. 2) How do you decide how much each property is worth? In the 1990s, the valuations were done by driving by. The fact there were bands meant into didn't matter if the valuations were slightly out. However, if you are charging 0.5% then you need more precise valuations e.g. a 5k value difference is worth £25 a year 3) How often would valuations be updated? Again there could be issues for council budgets as house prices change e.g. 10% rise=extra money to spend, 10% fall=austerity
I think that’s right. Personally I think the banding system is probably the right approach, though the higher bands could perhaps pay a bit more.
The issue with it is that it has never been updated and there’s never been a good time for a government to force a revaluation.
If Labour are smart they’ll get a revaluation through now and then they’ll set up an independent body to conduct the revaluations at ten year intervals, a bit like boundary commissions. It might not stop politicians campaigning to freeze the valuations but it will make it politically harder to do so.
And create an automatic revaluation once a house is extended. That can’t be too difficult to do, just tie it into the building control process.
What do you do about things such as - reworking a property to improve energy efficiency can increase the value substantially
?
This flat 0.5% idea is going to go nowhere. Labour or Labour sock puppets in think tanks can write as many position papers as they like, a tax on property values will lose them the next election. Not a single politician has benefited from tinkering around with property based taxation or ownership rights.
Council tax bands might not be perfect but it's a system that everyone understands, smaller properties pay less and bigger ones pay more. A tax of 0.5% on value means everyone pays the "same" and everyone is going to hate it.
Well, introducing Council tax to replace the hated Poll Tax was a big factor in Majors 1992 win.
And of course there are many more winners than losers by a 0.5% tax on property value, as the distribution of house price values is highly skewed. Band H is hight than band A but nowhere near the difference in house values. Many of those winners would be in "left behind towns" like Southport and Hartlepool too.
Which is a reason for introducing more bands.
I think band H is 3x the charge of band A.
Now if we had bands through to Z then band Z would be approximately 10x the charge for band A.
There are clearly far too few council tax bands. And I say this as someone who would lose out terribly from the introduction of bands I through Z.
Are today's triple jumpers anywhere near Jonathan Edwards? That WR has to be what 30 years now.
Not as old as the women's 100m record which was set in 1988 according to wikipedia (though it does say there is a case to exclude that one)
Yes, but I don't think people think Edwards was juiced to the gills or had a gale force wind aiding him. And he made so many jumps that were miles ahead of both the competition then and for many years after he retired.
Are today's triple jumpers anywhere near Jonathan Edwards? That WR has to be what 30 years now.
Not as old as the women's 100m record which was set in 1988 according to wikipedia (though it does say there is a case to exclude that one)
Oldest mens track and field record is the hammer, oldest women's the 800. The clear all time talent of this games track and field is obviously Mondo Duplantis.
Are today's triple jumpers anywhere near Jonathan Edwards? That WR has to be what 30 years now.
Not as old as the women's 100m record which was set in 1988 according to wikipedia (though it does say there is a case to exclude that one)
Yes, but I don't think people think Edwards was juiced to the gills or had a gale force wind aiding him. And he made so many jumps that were miles ahead of both the competition then and for many years after he retired.
He had God supporting him, of course.
That would be an issue today, I think those with 50% more God in their blood than the average person gets caught out by the testing regimes.
Guido is talking about Council tax switching to a proportional system of x %(0.5%) of the current value. I suspect it's going to happen because changing the bands is impossible as even he points out...
I'd say there may be some weasel words in that from Paul Staines. He's quoting a report from the CSJ, which was founded by Iain Duncan Smith, Tim Montgomerie, Mark Florman and Philippa Stroud.
Havnig said that, a switch to 0.5% of market value would be a huge improvement imo, which if it includes an abolition of Stamp Duty as proposed by its main proponents will be in the financial interests of a large majority.
The main thing I'd say for RR and KS is not to be panicked by a bit of rhetoric from the Right.
Council Tax raises £46.7 billion according to the OBR or about 1.7% of national income so not huge in the cosmic scheme of things. Not sure how which Business Rates raises - way back in 2014-15, it was twice as much as Council Tax but that's probably changed with the pamdemic.
The plan, AIUI, is 0.5% on occupied residential property and 2.5% on empty homes based on a revaluation. There are roughly 24 million homes in the UK.
Doing a crude calculation on Stodge Towers it would mean £250 extra per year.
The % of Council Revenue coming from Council Tax has increased, at the same time as funding levels have been restricted.
That is because Councils have been kept on a starvation diet since ~2010, in both England and Scotland. But more so in England. In Scotland (one of our North Britons such as @Eabhal will tell us) I believe they had a freeze in cash terms for 6-7 consecutive years.
If we want effective and capable Councils they need a fairly big funding boost, and it will take time to build capacity.
I'd say that conservatively Local Authorities need a funding boost from current levels of something like a quarter to a third in the short term, just for recovery to 2010 levels.
The 0.5% suggestion is interesting but it seems to me there are a few challenges:
1) Switching to this system would lead to increased tax in London and SE and reduced tax in the North. How do you make sure that each council has enough money to spend? It sounds like more lateral transfers would be required but then it becomes a less local tax. 2) How do you decide how much each property is worth? In the 1990s, the valuations were done by driving by. The fact there were bands meant into didn't matter if the valuations were slightly out. However, if you are charging 0.5% then you need more precise valuations e.g. a 5k value difference is worth £25 a year 3) How often would valuations be updated? Again there could be issues for council budgets as house prices change e.g. 10% rise=extra money to spend, 10% fall=austerity
I think that’s right. Personally I think the banding system is probably the right approach, though the higher bands could perhaps pay a bit more.
The issue with it is that it has never been updated and there’s never been a good time for a government to force a revaluation.
If Labour are smart they’ll get a revaluation through now and then they’ll set up an independent body to conduct the revaluations at ten year intervals, a bit like boundary commissions. It might not stop politicians campaigning to freeze the valuations but it will make it politically harder to do so.
And create an automatic revaluation once a house is extended. That can’t be too difficult to do, just tie it into the building control process.
What do you do about things such as - reworking a property to improve energy efficiency can increase the value substantially
?
I think this is why you can’t be too intricate with the valuation/banding process and why I think it needs to be tied to more “headline” items like bedrooms, size, location. You don’t want to discourage improving the housing stock.
How about hearths?
It’s why a land value tax is by far the best system. You can improve your property as much as you like but pay the same tax.
The trouble with all of these proposals is that anything based on a proportion of value that isn't locally set becomes a giant tax on London and the South East. If Barnet council think they're able to set the tax at a lower rate to deliver services then they should be able to do so. Setting a national rate of 0.5% leaves no flexibility and will either result in redistribution (which shouldn't be done with local government taxes) or waste in local governments as they try to spend money they don't need.
Perhaps having such a tax in place would have calmed the housing market in places like London/Edinburgh? The exception from CGT for primary residence has a lot to answer for.
Better late than never is the logic. But I agree that it doesn't pass the political feasibility test, at least in this form. It remains the only way to introduce a proxy wealth tax in the UK, and even then it must be done with a great deal of care.
Guido is talking about Council tax switching to a proportional system of x %(0.5%) of the current value. I suspect it's going to happen because changing the bands is impossible as even he points out...
I'd say there may be some weasel words in that from Paul Staines. He's quoting a report from the CSJ, which was founded by Iain Duncan Smith, Tim Montgomerie, Mark Florman and Philippa Stroud.
Havnig said that, a switch to 0.5% of market value would be a huge improvement imo, which if it includes an abolition of Stamp Duty as proposed by its main proponents will be in the financial interests of a large majority.
The main thing I'd say for RR and KS is not to be panicked by a bit of rhetoric from the Right.
Council Tax raises £46.7 billion according to the OBR or about 1.7% of national income so not huge in the cosmic scheme of things. Not sure how which Business Rates raises - way back in 2014-15, it was twice as much as Council Tax but that's probably changed with the pamdemic.
The plan, AIUI, is 0.5% on occupied residential property and 2.5% on empty homes based on a revaluation. There are roughly 24 million homes in the UK.
Doing a crude calculation on Stodge Towers it would mean £250 extra per year.
The % of Council Revenue coming from Council Tax has increased, at the same time as funding levels have been restricted.
That is because Councils have been kept on a starvation diet since ~2010, in both England and Scotland. But more so in England. In Scotland (one of our North Britons such as @Eabhal will tell us) I believe they had a freeze in cash terms for 6-7 consecutive years.
If we want effective and capable Councils they need a fairly big funding boost, and it will take time to build capacity.
I'd say that conservatively Local Authorities need a funding boost from current levels of something like a quarter to a third in the short term, just for recovery to 2010 levels.
The 0.5% suggestion is interesting but it seems to me there are a few challenges:
1) Switching to this system would lead to increased tax in London and SE and reduced tax in the North. How do you make sure that each council has enough money to spend? It sounds like more lateral transfers would be required but then it becomes a less local tax. 2) How do you decide how much each property is worth? In the 1990s, the valuations were done by driving by. The fact there were bands meant into didn't matter if the valuations were slightly out. However, if you are charging 0.5% then you need more precise valuations e.g. a 5k value difference is worth £25 a year 3) How often would valuations be updated? Again there could be issues for council budgets as house prices change e.g. 10% rise=extra money to spend, 10% fall=austerity
I think that’s right. Personally I think the banding system is probably the right approach, though the higher bands could perhaps pay a bit more.
The issue with it is that it has never been updated and there’s never been a good time for a government to force a revaluation.
If Labour are smart they’ll get a revaluation through now and then they’ll set up an independent body to conduct the revaluations at ten year intervals, a bit like boundary commissions. It might not stop politicians campaigning to freeze the valuations but it will make it politically harder to do so.
And create an automatic revaluation once a house is extended. That can’t be too difficult to do, just tie it into the building control process.
What do you do about things such as - reworking a property to improve energy efficiency can increase the value substantially
?
I think this is why you can’t be too intricate with the valuation/banding process and why I think it needs to be tied to more “headline” items like bedrooms, size, location. You don’t want to discourage improving the housing stock.
How about hearths?
It’s why a land value tax is by far the best system. You can improve your property as much as you like but pay the same tax.
The trouble with all of these proposals is that anything based on a proportion of value that isn't locally set becomes a giant tax on London and the South East. If Barnet council think they're able to set the tax at a lower rate to deliver services then they should be able to do so. Setting a national rate of 0.5% leaves no flexibility and will either result in redistribution (which shouldn't be done with local government taxes) or waste in local governments as they try to spend money they don't need.
Being blunt - council tax is very poor way of raising local taxes - it probably should be a national tax with a percentage of income tax given to councils
Guido is talking about Council tax switching to a proportional system of x %(0.5%) of the current value. I suspect it's going to happen because changing the bands is impossible as even he points out...
I'd say there may be some weasel words in that from Paul Staines. He's quoting a report from the CSJ, which was founded by Iain Duncan Smith, Tim Montgomerie, Mark Florman and Philippa Stroud.
Havnig said that, a switch to 0.5% of market value would be a huge improvement imo, which if it includes an abolition of Stamp Duty as proposed by its main proponents will be in the financial interests of a large majority.
The main thing I'd say for RR and KS is not to be panicked by a bit of rhetoric from the Right.
Council Tax raises £46.7 billion according to the OBR or about 1.7% of national income so not huge in the cosmic scheme of things. Not sure how which Business Rates raises - way back in 2014-15, it was twice as much as Council Tax but that's probably changed with the pamdemic.
The plan, AIUI, is 0.5% on occupied residential property and 2.5% on empty homes based on a revaluation. There are roughly 24 million homes in the UK.
Doing a crude calculation on Stodge Towers it would mean £250 extra per year.
The % of Council Revenue coming from Council Tax has increased, at the same time as funding levels have been restricted.
That is because Councils have been kept on a starvation diet since ~2010, in both England and Scotland. But more so in England. In Scotland (one of our North Britons such as @Eabhal will tell us) I believe they had a freeze in cash terms for 6-7 consecutive years.
If we want effective and capable Councils they need a fairly big funding boost, and it will take time to build capacity.
I'd say that conservatively Local Authorities need a funding boost from current levels of something like a quarter to a third in the short term, just for recovery to 2010 levels.
The 0.5% suggestion is interesting but it seems to me there are a few challenges:
1) Switching to this system would lead to increased tax in London and SE and reduced tax in the North. How do you make sure that each council has enough money to spend? It sounds like more lateral transfers would be required but then it becomes a less local tax. 2) How do you decide how much each property is worth? In the 1990s, the valuations were done by driving by. The fact there were bands meant into didn't matter if the valuations were slightly out. However, if you are charging 0.5% then you need more precise valuations e.g. a 5k value difference is worth £25 a year 3) How often would valuations be updated? Again there could be issues for council budgets as house prices change e.g. 10% rise=extra money to spend, 10% fall=austerity
I think that’s right. Personally I think the banding system is probably the right approach, though the higher bands could perhaps pay a bit more.
The issue with it is that it has never been updated and there’s never been a good time for a government to force a revaluation.
If Labour are smart they’ll get a revaluation through now and then they’ll set up an independent body to conduct the revaluations at ten year intervals, a bit like boundary commissions. It might not stop politicians campaigning to freeze the valuations but it will make it politically harder to do so.
And create an automatic revaluation once a house is extended. That can’t be too difficult to do, just tie it into the building control process.
What do you do about things such as - reworking a property to improve energy efficiency can increase the value substantially
?
This flat 0.5% idea is going to go nowhere. Labour or Labour sock puppets in think tanks can write as many position papers as they like, a tax on property values will lose them the next election. Not a single politician has benefited from tinkering around with property based taxation or ownership rights.
Council tax bands might not be perfect but it's a system that everyone understands, smaller properties pay less and bigger ones pay more. A tax of 0.5% on value means everyone pays the "same" and everyone is going to hate it.
Well, introducing Council tax to replace the hated Poll Tax was a big factor in Majors 1992 win.
And of course there are many more winners than losers by a 0.5% tax on property value, as the distribution of house price values is highly skewed. Band H is hight than band A but nowhere near the difference in house values. Many of those winners would be in "left behind towns" like Southport and Hartlepool too.
Which is a reason for introducing more bands.
I think band H is 3x the charge of band A.
Now if we had bands through to Z then band Z would be approximately 10x the charge for band A.
There are clearly far too few council tax bands. And I say this as someone who would lose out terribly from the introduction of bands I through Z.
Yup, agree with that and I also say that as someone who wouldn't benefit from more upper bands.
My issue with any proposal right based on proportion of value is that it will raise way too much in some places and way too little in other places and then suddenly Londoners are paying for pot holes to be filled in Newcastle while our roads are still shit.
Farage can go fxck himself . He’s thrown petrol onto the flames .
These riots have been enabled by the toxic discourse of those in government these last 5 years.
These riots have been enabled by 25 years of stratospheric immigration levels.
Sure: but there is very rarely a single cause for anything. There are countries with higher levels of immigration than the UK that are much happier (places like Norway, Switzerland, Hong Kong or Canada). What is different is that these countries managed to combine rising real incomes with immigration.
And if people are feeling richer, they don't tend to be unhappy about immigration levels.
Where the UK has failed is that it combined high levels of immigration with - for example - far too little provision of housing, so that disposable income has been squeezed for tens of millions of people.
Very true. The UK has also failed at distributing opportunity and diversity of well-paid jobs and careers on a geographical level, which creates pockets of left behind populations/areas that feel disconnected. And of course the wealth disparities we see. There are myriad reasons for this, it’s not all to do with the market and it’s not all the fault of the government, but it has helped produce significant numbers of people who feel like they don’t have a stake in society.
The guy is dangerous. How could anyone still support him?
He asks a question on whether the crux of that meme is true. Namely, “repeatedly raped a 12 year old girl, 180 community hours, no prison time”.
From the bbc:
"Hamoud Al Soaimi, 21, for three counts of sexual assault and one assault by penetration, jailed for two years suspended for two years with 180 hours unpaid work".
But hey, let’s ban Twitter because he says mean things about Keir Starmer.
But, come, Moonshine, you're a reasonable person, and you surely must know that he's not only doing that.
He's not only accusing Starmer of favouritism to minorities in policing, which no one's succeeded in posting any real evidence of, but seems to be actively willing on social collapse, breakdown and war, in our country, as also the leader of a vast overseas website. You would have to say that Governments all over the world would act in that situation.
Musk is a frequently misunderstood fellow, I have misunderstood him many times. He’s not always right. But I have come to realise his positions are generally (not always) well considered and come with good intentions.
His two tier Keir accusation is not his invention, he is aping an already wide viewpoint. And as others have discussed tonight, it is not true that the evidence slate is clean on that. We are far too soft on serious criminality, both in terms of arrests and sentencing. By the way, any arrests yet for the Southend machete fight or hotel inferno?
I’m looking at this sectarian violence between different components of the British underclass (no offence intended) and wonder indeed if we are now in a similar state to 20th N.Ireland, which by most reasonable definitions was a form of civil war.
I was appalled at some of his statements on Ukraine. But really I do increasingly wonder if he’s right. I don’t think there’s a cigarette paper between the Biden White House and Trump on Ukraine policy. Not really. Neither wants Ukraine to “win”, meaning a return to 2014 borders. And the half hearted support in 2023 makes me wonder whether the White House even wants a return to 2022. Musk is looking at this seeing tens of thousands of death per month on all sides and is saying what’s the f point, if the borders are going to be roughly frozen anyway? My personal view is we’re more not less likely to see nuclear exchange if Putin “wins” in Ukraine, he sees the opposite and seemingly so does the weight of the US security establishment. Perhaps I’m wrong?
Occasionally he likes or retweets inappropriate things out of curiosity or mischief, most likely at time from the karzy. But his vision for Twitter is essentially a global Speakers Corner and that the crowd will sort the sense from the nonsense.
He is very misunderstood by people, often by those that take life too seriously. These calls to ban or expropriate Twitter would be funny if they weren’t so sinister.
I suggest you read the account he linked to and then maybe you might change that view. Probably some of the worst anti semitism possible. See @viewcode comments. Pure Nazism. Not even oblique, but straight out there hatred. Look at the Jewish cartoons, the glorification of Hitler, the video abusing a bastard Jew. This is what Musk is linking to.
Guido is talking about Council tax switching to a proportional system of x %(0.5%) of the current value. I suspect it's going to happen because changing the bands is impossible as even he points out...
I'd say there may be some weasel words in that from Paul Staines. He's quoting a report from the CSJ, which was founded by Iain Duncan Smith, Tim Montgomerie, Mark Florman and Philippa Stroud.
Havnig said that, a switch to 0.5% of market value would be a huge improvement imo, which if it includes an abolition of Stamp Duty as proposed by its main proponents will be in the financial interests of a large majority.
The main thing I'd say for RR and KS is not to be panicked by a bit of rhetoric from the Right.
Council Tax raises £46.7 billion according to the OBR or about 1.7% of national income so not huge in the cosmic scheme of things. Not sure how which Business Rates raises - way back in 2014-15, it was twice as much as Council Tax but that's probably changed with the pamdemic.
The plan, AIUI, is 0.5% on occupied residential property and 2.5% on empty homes based on a revaluation. There are roughly 24 million homes in the UK.
Doing a crude calculation on Stodge Towers it would mean £250 extra per year.
The % of Council Revenue coming from Council Tax has increased, at the same time as funding levels have been restricted.
That is because Councils have been kept on a starvation diet since ~2010, in both England and Scotland. But more so in England. In Scotland (one of our North Britons such as @Eabhal will tell us) I believe they had a freeze in cash terms for 6-7 consecutive years.
If we want effective and capable Councils they need a fairly big funding boost, and it will take time to build capacity.
I'd say that conservatively Local Authorities need a funding boost from current levels of something like a quarter to a third in the short term, just for recovery to 2010 levels.
The 0.5% suggestion is interesting but it seems to me there are a few challenges:
1) Switching to this system would lead to increased tax in London and SE and reduced tax in the North. How do you make sure that each council has enough money to spend? It sounds like more lateral transfers would be required but then it becomes a less local tax. 2) How do you decide how much each property is worth? In the 1990s, the valuations were done by driving by. The fact there were bands meant into didn't matter if the valuations were slightly out. However, if you are charging 0.5% then you need more precise valuations e.g. a 5k value difference is worth £25 a year 3) How often would valuations be updated? Again there could be issues for council budgets as house prices change e.g. 10% rise=extra money to spend, 10% fall=austerity
I think that’s right. Personally I think the banding system is probably the right approach, though the higher bands could perhaps pay a bit more.
The issue with it is that it has never been updated and there’s never been a good time for a government to force a revaluation.
If Labour are smart they’ll get a revaluation through now and then they’ll set up an independent body to conduct the revaluations at ten year intervals, a bit like boundary commissions. It might not stop politicians campaigning to freeze the valuations but it will make it politically harder to do so.
And create an automatic revaluation once a house is extended. That can’t be too difficult to do, just tie it into the building control process.
What do you do about things such as - reworking a property to improve energy efficiency can increase the value substantially
?
This flat 0.5% idea is going to go nowhere. Labour or Labour sock puppets in think tanks can write as many position papers as they like, a tax on property values will lose them the next election. Not a single politician has benefited from tinkering around with property based taxation or ownership rights.
Council tax bands might not be perfect but it's a system that everyone understands, smaller properties pay less and bigger ones pay more. A tax of 0.5% on value means everyone pays the "same" and everyone is going to hate it.
Well, introducing Council tax to replace the hated Poll Tax was a big factor in Majors 1992 win.
And of course there are many more winners than losers by a 0.5% tax on property value, as the distribution of house price values is highly skewed. Band H is hight than band A but nowhere near the difference in house values. Many of those winners would be in "left behind towns" like Southport and Hartlepool too.
Which is a reason for introducing more bands.
I think band H is 3x the charge of band A.
Now if we had bands through to Z then band Z would be approximately 10x the charge for band A.
There are clearly far too few council tax bands. And I say this as someone who would lose out terribly from the introduction of bands I through Z.
We sold our London house in 1994 for £140k and bought our semi-rural cottage for £150k. Current valuations would be about £1.5m and £650k respectively. Whatever the govt proposes, the underlying valuations are way out of date.
Guido is talking about Council tax switching to a proportional system of x %(0.5%) of the current value. I suspect it's going to happen because changing the bands is impossible as even he points out...
I'd say there may be some weasel words in that from Paul Staines. He's quoting a report from the CSJ, which was founded by Iain Duncan Smith, Tim Montgomerie, Mark Florman and Philippa Stroud.
Havnig said that, a switch to 0.5% of market value would be a huge improvement imo, which if it includes an abolition of Stamp Duty as proposed by its main proponents will be in the financial interests of a large majority.
The main thing I'd say for RR and KS is not to be panicked by a bit of rhetoric from the Right.
Council Tax raises £46.7 billion according to the OBR or about 1.7% of national income so not huge in the cosmic scheme of things. Not sure how which Business Rates raises - way back in 2014-15, it was twice as much as Council Tax but that's probably changed with the pamdemic.
The plan, AIUI, is 0.5% on occupied residential property and 2.5% on empty homes based on a revaluation. There are roughly 24 million homes in the UK.
Doing a crude calculation on Stodge Towers it would mean £250 extra per year.
The % of Council Revenue coming from Council Tax has increased, at the same time as funding levels have been restricted.
That is because Councils have been kept on a starvation diet since ~2010, in both England and Scotland. But more so in England. In Scotland (one of our North Britons such as @Eabhal will tell us) I believe they had a freeze in cash terms for 6-7 consecutive years.
If we want effective and capable Councils they need a fairly big funding boost, and it will take time to build capacity.
I'd say that conservatively Local Authorities need a funding boost from current levels of something like a quarter to a third in the short term, just for recovery to 2010 levels.
The 0.5% suggestion is interesting but it seems to me there are a few challenges:
1) Switching to this system would lead to increased tax in London and SE and reduced tax in the North. How do you make sure that each council has enough money to spend? It sounds like more lateral transfers would be required but then it becomes a less local tax. 2) How do you decide how much each property is worth? In the 1990s, the valuations were done by driving by. The fact there were bands meant into didn't matter if the valuations were slightly out. However, if you are charging 0.5% then you need more precise valuations e.g. a 5k value difference is worth £25 a year 3) How often would valuations be updated? Again there could be issues for council budgets as house prices change e.g. 10% rise=extra money to spend, 10% fall=austerity
I think that’s right. Personally I think the banding system is probably the right approach, though the higher bands could perhaps pay a bit more.
The issue with it is that it has never been updated and there’s never been a good time for a government to force a revaluation.
If Labour are smart they’ll get a revaluation through now and then they’ll set up an independent body to conduct the revaluations at ten year intervals, a bit like boundary commissions. It might not stop politicians campaigning to freeze the valuations but it will make it politically harder to do so.
And create an automatic revaluation once a house is extended. That can’t be too difficult to do, just tie it into the building control process.
What do you do about things such as - reworking a property to improve energy efficiency can increase the value substantially
?
I think this is why you can’t be too intricate with the valuation/banding process and why I think it needs to be tied to more “headline” items like bedrooms, size, location. You don’t want to discourage improving the housing stock.
How about hearths?
It’s why a land value tax is by far the best system. You can improve your property as much as you like but pay the same tax.
The trouble with all of these proposals is that anything based on a proportion of value that isn't locally set becomes a giant tax on London and the South East. If Barnet council think they're able to set the tax at a lower rate to deliver services then they should be able to do so. Setting a national rate of 0.5% leaves no flexibility and will either result in redistribution (which shouldn't be done with local government taxes) or waste in local governments as they try to spend money they don't need.
Being blunt - council tax is very poor way of raising local taxes - it probably should be a national tax with a percentage of income tax given to councils
No thanks. At least the councils have some say in this and therefore the residents have some say in it. A nationally set tax and settlement process takes local tax policy out of the hands of local people.
The guy is dangerous. How could anyone still support him?
He asks a question on whether the crux of that meme is true. Namely, “repeatedly raped a 12 year old girl, 180 community hours, no prison time”.
From the bbc:
"Hamoud Al Soaimi, 21, for three counts of sexual assault and one assault by penetration, jailed for two years suspended for two years with 180 hours unpaid work".
But hey, let’s ban Twitter because he says mean things about Keir Starmer.
But, come, Moonshine, you're a reasonable person, and you surely must know that he's not only doing that.
He's not only accusing Starmer of favouritism to minorities in policing, which no one's succeeded in posting any real evidence of, but seems to be actively willing on social collapse, breakdown and war, in our country, as also the leader of a vast overseas website. You would have to say that Governments all over the world would act in that situation.
Musk is a frequently misunderstood fellow, I have misunderstood him many times. He’s not always right. But I have come to realise his positions are generally (not always) well considered and come with good intentions.
His two tier Keir accusation is not his invention, he is aping an already wide viewpoint. And as others have discussed tonight, it is not true that the evidence slate is clean on that. We are far too soft on serious criminality, both in terms of arrests and sentencing. By the way, any arrests yet for the Southend machete fight or hotel inferno?
I’m looking at this sectarian violence between different components of the British underclass (no offence intended) and wonder indeed if we are now in a similar state to 20th N.Ireland, which by most reasonable definitions was a form of civil war.
I was appalled at some of his statements on Ukraine. But really I do increasingly wonder if he’s right. I don’t think there’s a cigarette paper between the Biden White House and Trump on Ukraine policy. Not really. Neither wants Ukraine to “win”, meaning a return to 2014 borders. And the half hearted support in 2023 makes me wonder whether the White House even wants a return to 2022. Musk is looking at this seeing tens of thousands of death per month on all sides and is saying what’s the f point, if the borders are going to be roughly frozen anyway? My personal view is we’re more not less likely to see nuclear exchange if Putin “wins” in Ukraine, he sees the opposite and seemingly so does the weight of the US security establishment. Perhaps I’m wrong?
Occasionally he likes or retweets inappropriate things out of curiosity or mischief, most likely at time from the karzy. But his vision for Twitter is essentially a global Speakers Corner and that the crowd will sort the sense from the nonsense.
He is very misunderstood by people, often by those that take life too seriously. These calls to ban or expropriate Twitter would be funny if they weren’t so sinister.
What evidence is there for believing the US does not want Ukraine to win? Surely the evidence is that the US administration is held back by the willingness of the Houses of Congress to send money and aid to Ukraine.
I don't think that this administration is wanting Russia to win, the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming. There are, however, a lot of people who are twitchy about the consequences of Russia actually losing. If the Russian army and then the criminal gang in the Kremlin lost control of the situation things could get very hairy indeed.
What I think they want is what they are getting: a Russia that is bled dry but not to the point of total collapse; that has ceased to be a conventional threat to Europe and who will play a much smaller role in the world going forward. And all without an American body bag. That is a real politik result like we haven't seen since the collapse of the Iron curtain.
On tv, you never get real understanding of the speed that 800 / 1500m runners go at. We know that 100m is blindly fast, we can kinda of comprehend that. Most normal humans wouldn't keep up with 800 / 1500m pace even sprinting for a 10-20s.
The BBC did a brilliant piece where they had enthusiastic amateur athletes seeing how long they could keep up with Keeley's average pace (over 26kph as I recall). I think the best did 45 seconds. Some couldn't even get to that pace at all. It is incredible.
Elite Athletics is one of those things where they really are super human. You could train and train and train, every day, you will never get anywhere close. There are other sports where enough application you can kinda of get in very low end ballpark e.g. with reasonable coordination and a lot of practice a large number of people can become a scratch golfer, the pros are still several shots a round better, but it isn't you wheezing at the side of the track after 20s (despite all your training) vs they blast out a 1500m in 3mins 30s.
I confess to being a tad disappointed by the “fastest men in the world” last night, at the Games, watching the 200m finals
I watched them and thought, here’s some guys who can run fast. There was no Wow factor. I contrast that with the time I first encountered live pro international rugby and thought Fuck me, these guys are huge and they are smashing each other to pieces
Track and field is a bit boring in reality, this is why it’s not popular outwith the Games
Modern rugby players are absolute units (plenty of suspicion there might be some widespread usage of the baking sodas at least before they hit the pro game).
I was at a game this season and I hadn't seen some of the players in the flesh before e.g. Joe Cokanasiga. He was warming up with a few other players and I thought well he isn't that big really, then the water bloke came up to him and I was like no, he is absolutely massive unit, its that all the rest of them are as well.
Got a seat on the front row by the tunnel at the RL World Cup Oz V England 2017. By heck the Burgess brothers are big lads. And they are generally smaller than many of the Union guys.
Edit. Which makes Rob Burrow all the braver and more tragic.
It used to be the opposite. Union used to attract all shapes and sizes but now…
League has become the aerobic form. Union is incre
Guido is talking about Council tax switching to a proportional system of x %(0.5%) of the current value. I suspect it's going to happen because changing the bands is impossible as even he points out...
I'd say there may be some weasel words in that from Paul Staines. He's quoting a report from the CSJ, which was founded by Iain Duncan Smith, Tim Montgomerie, Mark Florman and Philippa Stroud.
Havnig said that, a switch to 0.5% of market value would be a huge improvement imo, which if it includes an abolition of Stamp Duty as proposed by its main proponents will be in the financial interests of a large majority.
The main thing I'd say for RR and KS is not to be panicked by a bit of rhetoric from the Right.
Council Tax raises £46.7 billion according to the OBR or about 1.7% of national income so not huge in the cosmic scheme of things. Not sure how which Business Rates raises - way back in 2014-15, it was twice as much as Council Tax but that's probably changed with the pamdemic.
The plan, AIUI, is 0.5% on occupied residential property and 2.5% on empty homes based on a revaluation. There are roughly 24 million homes in the UK.
Doing a crude calculation on Stodge Towers it would mean £250 extra per year.
The % of Council Revenue coming from Council Tax has increased, at the same time as funding levels have been restricted.
That is because Councils have been kept on a starvation diet since ~2010, in both England and Scotland. But more so in England. In Scotland (one of our North Britons such as @Eabhal will tell us) I believe they had a freeze in cash terms for 6-7 consecutive years.
If we want effective and capable Councils they need a fairly big funding boost, and it will take time to build capacity.
I'd say that conservatively Local Authorities need a funding boost from current levels of something like a quarter to a third in the short term, just for recovery to 2010 levels.
The 0.5% suggestion is interesting but it seems to me there are a few challenges:
1) Switching to this system would lead to increased tax in London and SE and reduced tax in the North. How do you make sure that each council has enough money to spend? It sounds like more lateral transfers would be required but then it becomes a less local tax. 2) How do you decide how much each property is worth? In the 1990s, the valuations were done by driving by. The fact there were bands meant into didn't matter if the valuations were slightly out. However, if you are charging 0.5% then you need more precise valuations e.g. a 5k value difference is worth £25 a year 3) How often would valuations be updated? Again there could be issues for council budgets as house prices change e.g. 10% rise=extra money to spend, 10% fall=austerity
I think that’s right. Personally I think the banding system is probably the right approach, though the higher bands could perhaps pay a bit more.
The issue with it is that it has never been updated and there’s never been a good time for a government to force a revaluation.
If Labour are smart they’ll get a revaluation through now and then they’ll set up an independent body to conduct the revaluations at ten year intervals, a bit like boundary commissions. It might not stop politicians campaigning to freeze the valuations but it will make it politically harder to do so.
And create an automatic revaluation once a house is extended. That can’t be too difficult to do, just tie it into the building control process.
What do you do about things such as - reworking a property to improve energy efficiency can increase the value substantially
?
This flat 0.5% idea is going to go nowhere. Labour or Labour sock puppets in think tanks can write as many position papers as they like, a tax on property values will lose them the next election. Not a single politician has benefited from tinkering around with property based taxation or ownership rights.
Council tax bands might not be perfect but it's a system that everyone understands, smaller properties pay less and bigger ones pay more. A tax of 0.5% on value means everyone pays the "same" and everyone is going to hate it.
Well, introducing Council tax to replace the hated Poll Tax was a big factor in Majors 1992 win.
And of course there are many more winners than losers by a 0.5% tax on property value, as the distribution of house price values is highly skewed. Band H is hight than band A but nowhere near the difference in house values. Many of those winners would be in "left behind towns" like Southport and Hartlepool too.
Yeah. My flat is worth £30k. There are 3 bedroom properties going for £50k here. Saw one with an auction price of 27 today. My Council Tax as a single person is £1200+. That's 4%.
Guido is talking about Council tax switching to a proportional system of x %(0.5%) of the current value. I suspect it's going to happen because changing the bands is impossible as even he points out...
I'd say there may be some weasel words in that from Paul Staines. He's quoting a report from the CSJ, which was founded by Iain Duncan Smith, Tim Montgomerie, Mark Florman and Philippa Stroud.
Havnig said that, a switch to 0.5% of market value would be a huge improvement imo, which if it includes an abolition of Stamp Duty as proposed by its main proponents will be in the financial interests of a large majority.
The main thing I'd say for RR and KS is not to be panicked by a bit of rhetoric from the Right.
Council Tax raises £46.7 billion according to the OBR or about 1.7% of national income so not huge in the cosmic scheme of things. Not sure how which Business Rates raises - way back in 2014-15, it was twice as much as Council Tax but that's probably changed with the pamdemic.
The plan, AIUI, is 0.5% on occupied residential property and 2.5% on empty homes based on a revaluation. There are roughly 24 million homes in the UK.
Doing a crude calculation on Stodge Towers it would mean £250 extra per year.
The % of Council Revenue coming from Council Tax has increased, at the same time as funding levels have been restricted.
That is because Councils have been kept on a starvation diet since ~2010, in both England and Scotland. But more so in England. In Scotland (one of our North Britons such as @Eabhal will tell us) I believe they had a freeze in cash terms for 6-7 consecutive years.
If we want effective and capable Councils they need a fairly big funding boost, and it will take time to build capacity.
I'd say that conservatively Local Authorities need a funding boost from current levels of something like a quarter to a third in the short term, just for recovery to 2010 levels.
The 0.5% suggestion is interesting but it seems to me there are a few challenges:
1) Switching to this system would lead to increased tax in London and SE and reduced tax in the North. How do you make sure that each council has enough money to spend? It sounds like more lateral transfers would be required but then it becomes a less local tax. 2) How do you decide how much each property is worth? In the 1990s, the valuations were done by driving by. The fact there were bands meant into didn't matter if the valuations were slightly out. However, if you are charging 0.5% then you need more precise valuations e.g. a 5k value difference is worth £25 a year 3) How often would valuations be updated? Again there could be issues for council budgets as house prices change e.g. 10% rise=extra money to spend, 10% fall=austerity
I think that’s right. Personally I think the banding system is probably the right approach, though the higher bands could perhaps pay a bit more.
The issue with it is that it has never been updated and there’s never been a good time for a government to force a revaluation.
If Labour are smart they’ll get a revaluation through now and then they’ll set up an independent body to conduct the revaluations at ten year intervals, a bit like boundary commissions. It might not stop politicians campaigning to freeze the valuations but it will make it politically harder to do so.
And create an automatic revaluation once a house is extended. That can’t be too difficult to do, just tie it into the building control process.
What do you do about things such as - reworking a property to improve energy efficiency can increase the value substantially
?
I think this is why you can’t be too intricate with the valuation/banding process and why I think it needs to be tied to more “headline” items like bedrooms, size, location. You don’t want to discourage improving the housing stock.
How about hearths?
It’s why a land value tax is by far the best system. You can improve your property as much as you like but pay the same tax.
The trouble with all of these proposals is that anything based on a proportion of value that isn't locally set becomes a giant tax on London and the South East. If Barnet council think they're able to set the tax at a lower rate to deliver services then they should be able to do so. Setting a national rate of 0.5% leaves no flexibility and will either result in redistribution (which shouldn't be done with local government taxes) or waste in local governments as they try to spend money they don't need.
Being blunt - council tax is very poor way of raising local taxes - it probably should be a national tax with a percentage of income tax given to councils
Doesn't about 80% of council income come from nationally set taxes already ?
I think its important that councils have some discretion as to what level of tax they set.
If everything originates nationally then we might have the situation where parish councils have more tax raising powers than metropolitan and district councils.
Lovely day on the great little trains of Wales and far from the serious crisis engulfing the country
I have no words for the extreme thugs and justice needs to be swift but I am very concerned where this is going and my fear is a terrible clash between the present protagonists and opposing groups resorting to tit for tat violence with serious injuries or worse
The next few days and weeks may well be frightening to witness with nobody able to predict the outcome
It is certain that Starmer, his ministers and the police do need to act with no fear or favour and indeed name and shame those involved no matter who they are
Guido is talking about Council tax switching to a proportional system of x %(0.5%) of the current value. I suspect it's going to happen because changing the bands is impossible as even he points out...
I'd say there may be some weasel words in that from Paul Staines. He's quoting a report from the CSJ, which was founded by Iain Duncan Smith, Tim Montgomerie, Mark Florman and Philippa Stroud.
Havnig said that, a switch to 0.5% of market value would be a huge improvement imo, which if it includes an abolition of Stamp Duty as proposed by its main proponents will be in the financial interests of a large majority.
The main thing I'd say for RR and KS is not to be panicked by a bit of rhetoric from the Right.
Council Tax raises £46.7 billion according to the OBR or about 1.7% of national income so not huge in the cosmic scheme of things. Not sure how which Business Rates raises - way back in 2014-15, it was twice as much as Council Tax but that's probably changed with the pamdemic.
The plan, AIUI, is 0.5% on occupied residential property and 2.5% on empty homes based on a revaluation. There are roughly 24 million homes in the UK.
Doing a crude calculation on Stodge Towers it would mean £250 extra per year.
The % of Council Revenue coming from Council Tax has increased, at the same time as funding levels have been restricted.
That is because Councils have been kept on a starvation diet since ~2010, in both England and Scotland. But more so in England. In Scotland (one of our North Britons such as @Eabhal will tell us) I believe they had a freeze in cash terms for 6-7 consecutive years.
If we want effective and capable Councils they need a fairly big funding boost, and it will take time to build capacity.
I'd say that conservatively Local Authorities need a funding boost from current levels of something like a quarter to a third in the short term, just for recovery to 2010 levels.
The 0.5% suggestion is interesting but it seems to me there are a few challenges:
1) Switching to this system would lead to increased tax in London and SE and reduced tax in the North. How do you make sure that each council has enough money to spend? It sounds like more lateral transfers would be required but then it becomes a less local tax. 2) How do you decide how much each property is worth? In the 1990s, the valuations were done by driving by. The fact there were bands meant into didn't matter if the valuations were slightly out. However, if you are charging 0.5% then you need more precise valuations e.g. a 5k value difference is worth £25 a year 3) How often would valuations be updated? Again there could be issues for council budgets as house prices change e.g. 10% rise=extra money to spend, 10% fall=austerity
I think that’s right. Personally I think the banding system is probably the right approach, though the higher bands could perhaps pay a bit more.
The issue with it is that it has never been updated and there’s never been a good time for a government to force a revaluation.
If Labour are smart they’ll get a revaluation through now and then they’ll set up an independent body to conduct the revaluations at ten year intervals, a bit like boundary commissions. It might not stop politicians campaigning to freeze the valuations but it will make it politically harder to do so.
And create an automatic revaluation once a house is extended. That can’t be too difficult to do, just tie it into the building control process.
What do you do about things such as - reworking a property to improve energy efficiency can increase the value substantially
?
I think this is why you can’t be too intricate with the valuation/banding process and why I think it needs to be tied to more “headline” items like bedrooms, size, location. You don’t want to discourage improving the housing stock.
How about hearths?
It’s why a land value tax is by far the best system. You can improve your property as much as you like but pay the same tax.
The trouble with all of these proposals is that anything based on a proportion of value that isn't locally set becomes a giant tax on London and the South East. If Barnet council think they're able to set the tax at a lower rate to deliver services then they should be able to do so. Setting a national rate of 0.5% leaves no flexibility and will either result in redistribution (which shouldn't be done with local government taxes) or waste in local governments as they try to spend money they don't need.
Being blunt - council tax is very poor way of raising local taxes - it probably should be a national tax with a percentage of income tax given to councils
No thanks. At least the councils have some say in this and therefore the residents have some say in it. A nationally set tax and settlement process takes local tax policy out of the hands of local people.
I don't know how it works in England, but in Scotland statutory obligations are so onerous and revenue raising powers so restricted that it is in effect a central government fiscal structure.
I'm a big fan of local government in theory but let's not pretend that's what we have at the moment.
Guido is talking about Council tax switching to a proportional system of x %(0.5%) of the current value. I suspect it's going to happen because changing the bands is impossible as even he points out...
I'd say there may be some weasel words in that from Paul Staines. He's quoting a report from the CSJ, which was founded by Iain Duncan Smith, Tim Montgomerie, Mark Florman and Philippa Stroud.
Havnig said that, a switch to 0.5% of market value would be a huge improvement imo, which if it includes an abolition of Stamp Duty as proposed by its main proponents will be in the financial interests of a large majority.
The main thing I'd say for RR and KS is not to be panicked by a bit of rhetoric from the Right.
Council Tax raises £46.7 billion according to the OBR or about 1.7% of national income so not huge in the cosmic scheme of things. Not sure how which Business Rates raises - way back in 2014-15, it was twice as much as Council Tax but that's probably changed with the pamdemic.
The plan, AIUI, is 0.5% on occupied residential property and 2.5% on empty homes based on a revaluation. There are roughly 24 million homes in the UK.
Doing a crude calculation on Stodge Towers it would mean £250 extra per year.
The % of Council Revenue coming from Council Tax has increased, at the same time as funding levels have been restricted.
That is because Councils have been kept on a starvation diet since ~2010, in both England and Scotland. But more so in England. In Scotland (one of our North Britons such as @Eabhal will tell us) I believe they had a freeze in cash terms for 6-7 consecutive years.
If we want effective and capable Councils they need a fairly big funding boost, and it will take time to build capacity.
I'd say that conservatively Local Authorities need a funding boost from current levels of something like a quarter to a third in the short term, just for recovery to 2010 levels.
The 0.5% suggestion is interesting but it seems to me there are a few challenges:
1) Switching to this system would lead to increased tax in London and SE and reduced tax in the North. How do you make sure that each council has enough money to spend? It sounds like more lateral transfers would be required but then it becomes a less local tax. 2) How do you decide how much each property is worth? In the 1990s, the valuations were done by driving by. The fact there were bands meant into didn't matter if the valuations were slightly out. However, if you are charging 0.5% then you need more precise valuations e.g. a 5k value difference is worth £25 a year 3) How often would valuations be updated? Again there could be issues for council budgets as house prices change e.g. 10% rise=extra money to spend, 10% fall=austerity
I think that’s right. Personally I think the banding system is probably the right approach, though the higher bands could perhaps pay a bit more.
The issue with it is that it has never been updated and there’s never been a good time for a government to force a revaluation.
If Labour are smart they’ll get a revaluation through now and then they’ll set up an independent body to conduct the revaluations at ten year intervals, a bit like boundary commissions. It might not stop politicians campaigning to freeze the valuations but it will make it politically harder to do so.
And create an automatic revaluation once a house is extended. That can’t be too difficult to do, just tie it into the building control process.
What do you do about things such as - reworking a property to improve energy efficiency can increase the value substantially
?
I think this is why you can’t be too intricate with the valuation/banding process and why I think it needs to be tied to more “headline” items like bedrooms, size, location. You don’t want to discourage improving the housing stock.
How about hearths?
It’s why a land value tax is by far the best system. You can improve your property as much as you like but pay the same tax.
The trouble with all of these proposals is that anything based on a proportion of value that isn't locally set becomes a giant tax on London and the South East. If Barnet council think they're able to set the tax at a lower rate to deliver services then they should be able to do so. Setting a national rate of 0.5% leaves no flexibility and will either result in redistribution (which shouldn't be done with local government taxes) or waste in local governments as they try to spend money they don't need.
Being blunt - council tax is very poor way of raising local taxes - it probably should be a national tax with a percentage of income tax given to councils
Doesn't about 80% of council income come from nationally set taxes already ?
I think its important that councils have some discretion as to what level of tax they set.
If everything originates nationally then we might have the situation where parish councils have more tax raising powers than metropolitan and district councils.
Yes, that is a real concern. People wouldn't like it, but removing or at least raising the council tax cap would be one option - government already knows it is too low, hence having given exceptions or carving out social care rises from it in recent years.
Guido is talking about Council tax switching to a proportional system of x %(0.5%) of the current value. I suspect it's going to happen because changing the bands is impossible as even he points out...
I'd say there may be some weasel words in that from Paul Staines. He's quoting a report from the CSJ, which was founded by Iain Duncan Smith, Tim Montgomerie, Mark Florman and Philippa Stroud.
Havnig said that, a switch to 0.5% of market value would be a huge improvement imo, which if it includes an abolition of Stamp Duty as proposed by its main proponents will be in the financial interests of a large majority.
The main thing I'd say for RR and KS is not to be panicked by a bit of rhetoric from the Right.
Council Tax raises £46.7 billion according to the OBR or about 1.7% of national income so not huge in the cosmic scheme of things. Not sure how which Business Rates raises - way back in 2014-15, it was twice as much as Council Tax but that's probably changed with the pamdemic.
The plan, AIUI, is 0.5% on occupied residential property and 2.5% on empty homes based on a revaluation. There are roughly 24 million homes in the UK.
Doing a crude calculation on Stodge Towers it would mean £250 extra per year.
The % of Council Revenue coming from Council Tax has increased, at the same time as funding levels have been restricted.
That is because Councils have been kept on a starvation diet since ~2010, in both England and Scotland. But more so in England. In Scotland (one of our North Britons such as @Eabhal will tell us) I believe they had a freeze in cash terms for 6-7 consecutive years.
If we want effective and capable Councils they need a fairly big funding boost, and it will take time to build capacity.
I'd say that conservatively Local Authorities need a funding boost from current levels of something like a quarter to a third in the short term, just for recovery to 2010 levels.
The 0.5% suggestion is interesting but it seems to me there are a few challenges:
1) Switching to this system would lead to increased tax in London and SE and reduced tax in the North. How do you make sure that each council has enough money to spend? It sounds like more lateral transfers would be required but then it becomes a less local tax. 2) How do you decide how much each property is worth? In the 1990s, the valuations were done by driving by. The fact there were bands meant into didn't matter if the valuations were slightly out. However, if you are charging 0.5% then you need more precise valuations e.g. a 5k value difference is worth £25 a year 3) How often would valuations be updated? Again there could be issues for council budgets as house prices change e.g. 10% rise=extra money to spend, 10% fall=austerity
I think that’s right. Personally I think the banding system is probably the right approach, though the higher bands could perhaps pay a bit more.
The issue with it is that it has never been updated and there’s never been a good time for a government to force a revaluation.
If Labour are smart they’ll get a revaluation through now and then they’ll set up an independent body to conduct the revaluations at ten year intervals, a bit like boundary commissions. It might not stop politicians campaigning to freeze the valuations but it will make it politically harder to do so.
And create an automatic revaluation once a house is extended. That can’t be too difficult to do, just tie it into the building control process.
What do you do about things such as - reworking a property to improve energy efficiency can increase the value substantially
?
This flat 0.5% idea is going to go nowhere. Labour or Labour sock puppets in think tanks can write as many position papers as they like, a tax on property values will lose them the next election. Not a single politician has benefited from tinkering around with property based taxation or ownership rights.
Council tax bands might not be perfect but it's a system that everyone understands, smaller properties pay less and bigger ones pay more. A tax of 0.5% on value means everyone pays the "same" and everyone is going to hate it.
Well, introducing Council tax to replace the hated Poll Tax was a big factor in Majors 1992 win.
And of course there are many more winners than losers by a 0.5% tax on property value, as the distribution of house price values is highly skewed. Band H is hight than band A but nowhere near the difference in house values. Many of those winners would be in "left behind towns" like Southport and Hartlepool too.
Which is a reason for introducing more bands.
I think band H is 3x the charge of band A.
Now if we had bands through to Z then band Z would be approximately 10x the charge for band A.
There are clearly far too few council tax bands. And I say this as someone who would lose out terribly from the introduction of bands I through Z.
If we extended the bands through to Z with a continuation of the £160k difference between bands G and H then band Z would, if I've calculated correctly, be £3.2m and above.
Flightradar24 looks to be suppressing the locations of police helicopters. The police helicopters are still transmitting their usual idents as you can see them via other providers so it looks to be a choice on their part.
Farage can go fxck himself . He’s thrown petrol onto the flames .
These riots have been enabled by the toxic discourse of those in government these last 5 years.
These riots have been enabled by 25 years of stratospheric immigration levels.
Sure: but there is very rarely a single cause for anything. There are countries with higher levels of immigration than the UK that are much happier (places like Norway, Switzerland, Hong Kong or Canada). What is different is that these countries managed to combine rising real incomes with immigration.
And if people are feeling richer, they don't tend to be unhappy about immigration levels.
Where the UK has failed is that it combined high levels of immigration with - for example - far too little provision of housing, so that disposable income has been squeezed for tens of millions of people.
Though what is striking in the places with serious disturbances is that they are in places with few immigrants (except Rotherham perhaps) and some of the cheapest housing in the country. If it were about high immigration and house prices the riots would be in London etc.
The areas where the riots are happening are where there are poor educational achievement levels, poor job and income opportunities, and economic stagnation.
Guido is talking about Council tax switching to a proportional system of x %(0.5%) of the current value. I suspect it's going to happen because changing the bands is impossible as even he points out...
I'd say there may be some weasel words in that from Paul Staines. He's quoting a report from the CSJ, which was founded by Iain Duncan Smith, Tim Montgomerie, Mark Florman and Philippa Stroud.
Havnig said that, a switch to 0.5% of market value would be a huge improvement imo, which if it includes an abolition of Stamp Duty as proposed by its main proponents will be in the financial interests of a large majority.
The main thing I'd say for RR and KS is not to be panicked by a bit of rhetoric from the Right.
Council Tax raises £46.7 billion according to the OBR or about 1.7% of national income so not huge in the cosmic scheme of things. Not sure how which Business Rates raises - way back in 2014-15, it was twice as much as Council Tax but that's probably changed with the pamdemic.
The plan, AIUI, is 0.5% on occupied residential property and 2.5% on empty homes based on a revaluation. There are roughly 24 million homes in the UK.
Doing a crude calculation on Stodge Towers it would mean £250 extra per year.
The % of Council Revenue coming from Council Tax has increased, at the same time as funding levels have been restricted.
That is because Councils have been kept on a starvation diet since ~2010, in both England and Scotland. But more so in England. In Scotland (one of our North Britons such as @Eabhal will tell us) I believe they had a freeze in cash terms for 6-7 consecutive years.
If we want effective and capable Councils they need a fairly big funding boost, and it will take time to build capacity.
I'd say that conservatively Local Authorities need a funding boost from current levels of something like a quarter to a third in the short term, just for recovery to 2010 levels.
The 0.5% suggestion is interesting but it seems to me there are a few challenges:
1) Switching to this system would lead to increased tax in London and SE and reduced tax in the North. How do you make sure that each council has enough money to spend? It sounds like more lateral transfers would be required but then it becomes a less local tax. 2) How do you decide how much each property is worth? In the 1990s, the valuations were done by driving by. The fact there were bands meant into didn't matter if the valuations were slightly out. However, if you are charging 0.5% then you need more precise valuations e.g. a 5k value difference is worth £25 a year 3) How often would valuations be updated? Again there could be issues for council budgets as house prices change e.g. 10% rise=extra money to spend, 10% fall=austerity
I think that’s right. Personally I think the banding system is probably the right approach, though the higher bands could perhaps pay a bit more.
The issue with it is that it has never been updated and there’s never been a good time for a government to force a revaluation.
If Labour are smart they’ll get a revaluation through now and then they’ll set up an independent body to conduct the revaluations at ten year intervals, a bit like boundary commissions. It might not stop politicians campaigning to freeze the valuations but it will make it politically harder to do so.
And create an automatic revaluation once a house is extended. That can’t be too difficult to do, just tie it into the building control process.
What do you do about things such as - reworking a property to improve energy efficiency can increase the value substantially
?
I think this is why you can’t be too intricate with the valuation/banding process and why I think it needs to be tied to more “headline” items like bedrooms, size, location. You don’t want to discourage improving the housing stock.
How about hearths?
It’s why a land value tax is by far the best system. You can improve your property as much as you like but pay the same tax.
The trouble with all of these proposals is that anything based on a proportion of value that isn't locally set becomes a giant tax on London and the South East. If Barnet council think they're able to set the tax at a lower rate to deliver services then they should be able to do so. Setting a national rate of 0.5% leaves no flexibility and will either result in redistribution (which shouldn't be done with local government taxes) or waste in local governments as they try to spend money they don't need.
Being blunt - council tax is very poor way of raising local taxes - it probably should be a national tax with a percentage of income tax given to councils
No thanks. At least the councils have some say in this and therefore the residents have some say in it. A nationally set tax and settlement process takes local tax policy out of the hands of local people.
So how about 0.3% set by the council + 0.2% wealth tax collected nationally.
Although it’s likely to be 0.5% on the council tax side of things because for many councils even 0.5% won’t match what they currently charge a band a household as @dixiedean points out.
Guido is talking about Council tax switching to a proportional system of x %(0.5%) of the current value. I suspect it's going to happen because changing the bands is impossible as even he points out...
I'd say there may be some weasel words in that from Paul Staines. He's quoting a report from the CSJ, which was founded by Iain Duncan Smith, Tim Montgomerie, Mark Florman and Philippa Stroud.
Havnig said that, a switch to 0.5% of market value would be a huge improvement imo, which if it includes an abolition of Stamp Duty as proposed by its main proponents will be in the financial interests of a large majority.
The main thing I'd say for RR and KS is not to be panicked by a bit of rhetoric from the Right.
Council Tax raises £46.7 billion according to the OBR or about 1.7% of national income so not huge in the cosmic scheme of things. Not sure how which Business Rates raises - way back in 2014-15, it was twice as much as Council Tax but that's probably changed with the pamdemic.
The plan, AIUI, is 0.5% on occupied residential property and 2.5% on empty homes based on a revaluation. There are roughly 24 million homes in the UK.
Doing a crude calculation on Stodge Towers it would mean £250 extra per year.
The % of Council Revenue coming from Council Tax has increased, at the same time as funding levels have been restricted.
That is because Councils have been kept on a starvation diet since ~2010, in both England and Scotland. But more so in England. In Scotland (one of our North Britons such as @Eabhal will tell us) I believe they had a freeze in cash terms for 6-7 consecutive years.
If we want effective and capable Councils they need a fairly big funding boost, and it will take time to build capacity.
I'd say that conservatively Local Authorities need a funding boost from current levels of something like a quarter to a third in the short term, just for recovery to 2010 levels.
The 0.5% suggestion is interesting but it seems to me there are a few challenges:
1) Switching to this system would lead to increased tax in London and SE and reduced tax in the North. How do you make sure that each council has enough money to spend? It sounds like more lateral transfers would be required but then it becomes a less local tax. 2) How do you decide how much each property is worth? In the 1990s, the valuations were done by driving by. The fact there were bands meant into didn't matter if the valuations were slightly out. However, if you are charging 0.5% then you need more precise valuations e.g. a 5k value difference is worth £25 a year 3) How often would valuations be updated? Again there could be issues for council budgets as house prices change e.g. 10% rise=extra money to spend, 10% fall=austerity
I think that’s right. Personally I think the banding system is probably the right approach, though the higher bands could perhaps pay a bit more.
The issue with it is that it has never been updated and there’s never been a good time for a government to force a revaluation.
If Labour are smart they’ll get a revaluation through now and then they’ll set up an independent body to conduct the revaluations at ten year intervals, a bit like boundary commissions. It might not stop politicians campaigning to freeze the valuations but it will make it politically harder to do so.
And create an automatic revaluation once a house is extended. That can’t be too difficult to do, just tie it into the building control process.
What do you do about things such as - reworking a property to improve energy efficiency can increase the value substantially
?
This flat 0.5% idea is going to go nowhere. Labour or Labour sock puppets in think tanks can write as many position papers as they like, a tax on property values will lose them the next election. Not a single politician has benefited from tinkering around with property based taxation or ownership rights.
Council tax bands might not be perfect but it's a system that everyone understands, smaller properties pay less and bigger ones pay more. A tax of 0.5% on value means everyone pays the "same" and everyone is going to hate it.
Well, introducing Council tax to replace the hated Poll Tax was a big factor in Majors 1992 win.
And of course there are many more winners than losers by a 0.5% tax on property value, as the distribution of house price values is highly skewed. Band H is hight than band A but nowhere near the difference in house values. Many of those winners would be in "left behind towns" like Southport and Hartlepool too.
Which is a reason for introducing more bands.
I think band H is 3x the charge of band A.
Now if we had bands through to Z then band Z would be approximately 10x the charge for band A.
There are clearly far too few council tax bands. And I say this as someone who would lose out terribly from the introduction of bands I through Z.
Agree. Happy for additional bands and pay more. The proposal being talked about however scares the willies out of me. Ball park my bill could go up by nearly a 5 figure sum. Not sure I would get much sympathy though. We probably need to downsize and that would be an incentive. My only consolation is a wholesale valuation is just about impossible in a short timeframe I think.
First time I think I would baulk at a tax increase.
The guy is dangerous. How could anyone still support him?
He asks a question on whether the crux of that meme is true. Namely, “repeatedly raped a 12 year old girl, 180 community hours, no prison time”.
From the bbc:
"Hamoud Al Soaimi, 21, for three counts of sexual assault and one assault by penetration, jailed for two years suspended for two years with 180 hours unpaid work".
But hey, let’s ban Twitter because he says mean things about Keir Starmer.
But, come, Moonshine, you're a reasonable person, and you surely must know that he's not only doing that.
He's not only accusing Starmer of favouritism to minorities in policing, which no one's succeeded in posting any real evidence of, but seems to be actively willing on social collapse, breakdown and war, in our country, as also the leader of a vast overseas website. You would have to say that Governments all over the world would act in that situation.
Musk is a frequently misunderstood fellow, I have misunderstood him many times. He’s not always right. But I have come to realise his positions are generally (not always) well considered and come with good intentions.
His two tier Keir accusation is not his invention, he is aping an already wide viewpoint. And as others have discussed tonight, it is not true that the evidence slate is clean on that. We are far too soft on serious criminality, both in terms of arrests and sentencing. By the way, any arrests yet for the Southend machete fight or hotel inferno?
I’m looking at this sectarian violence between different components of the British underclass (no offence intended) and wonder indeed if we are now in a similar state to 20th N.Ireland, which by most reasonable definitions was a form of civil war.
I was appalled at some of his statements on Ukraine. But really I do increasingly wonder if he’s right. I don’t think there’s a cigarette paper between the Biden White House and Trump on Ukraine policy. Not really. Neither wants Ukraine to “win”, meaning a return to 2014 borders. And the half hearted support in 2023 makes me wonder whether the White House even wants a return to 2022. Musk is looking at this seeing tens of thousands of death per month on all sides and is saying what’s the f point, if the borders are going to be roughly frozen anyway? My personal view is we’re more not less likely to see nuclear exchange if Putin “wins” in Ukraine, he sees the opposite and seemingly so does the weight of the US security establishment. Perhaps I’m wrong?
Occasionally he likes or retweets inappropriate things out of curiosity or mischief, most likely at time from the karzy. But his vision for Twitter is essentially a global Speakers Corner and that the crowd will sort the sense from the nonsense.
He is very misunderstood by people, often by those that take life too seriously. These calls to ban or expropriate Twitter would be funny if they weren’t so sinister.
What evidence is there for believing the US does not want Ukraine to win? Surely the evidence is that the US administration is held back by the willingness of the Houses of Congress to send money and aid to Ukraine.
I don't think that this administration is wanting Russia to win, the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming. There are, however, a lot of people who are twitchy about the consequences of Russia actually losing. If the Russian army and then the criminal gang in the Kremlin lost control of the situation things could get very hairy indeed.
What I think they want is what they are getting: a Russia that is bled dry but not to the point of total collapse; that has ceased to be a conventional threat to Europe and who will play a much smaller role in the world going forward. And all without an American body bag. That is a real politik result like we haven't seen since the collapse of the Iron curtain.
I think it is more a worry what happens if Russia loses to the point that it is existential for Putin & chums.
Putin is only President for life.
What would Putin & Co *not* do to get 10 minutes more life?
Guido is talking about Council tax switching to a proportional system of x %(0.5%) of the current value. I suspect it's going to happen because changing the bands is impossible as even he points out...
I'd say there may be some weasel words in that from Paul Staines. He's quoting a report from the CSJ, which was founded by Iain Duncan Smith, Tim Montgomerie, Mark Florman and Philippa Stroud.
Havnig said that, a switch to 0.5% of market value would be a huge improvement imo, which if it includes an abolition of Stamp Duty as proposed by its main proponents will be in the financial interests of a large majority.
The main thing I'd say for RR and KS is not to be panicked by a bit of rhetoric from the Right.
Council Tax raises £46.7 billion according to the OBR or about 1.7% of national income so not huge in the cosmic scheme of things. Not sure how which Business Rates raises - way back in 2014-15, it was twice as much as Council Tax but that's probably changed with the pamdemic.
The plan, AIUI, is 0.5% on occupied residential property and 2.5% on empty homes based on a revaluation. There are roughly 24 million homes in the UK.
Doing a crude calculation on Stodge Towers it would mean £250 extra per year.
The % of Council Revenue coming from Council Tax has increased, at the same time as funding levels have been restricted.
That is because Councils have been kept on a starvation diet since ~2010, in both England and Scotland. But more so in England. In Scotland (one of our North Britons such as @Eabhal will tell us) I believe they had a freeze in cash terms for 6-7 consecutive years.
If we want effective and capable Councils they need a fairly big funding boost, and it will take time to build capacity.
I'd say that conservatively Local Authorities need a funding boost from current levels of something like a quarter to a third in the short term, just for recovery to 2010 levels.
The 0.5% suggestion is interesting but it seems to me there are a few challenges:
1) Switching to this system would lead to increased tax in London and SE and reduced tax in the North. How do you make sure that each council has enough money to spend? It sounds like more lateral transfers would be required but then it becomes a less local tax. 2) How do you decide how much each property is worth? In the 1990s, the valuations were done by driving by. The fact there were bands meant into didn't matter if the valuations were slightly out. However, if you are charging 0.5% then you need more precise valuations e.g. a 5k value difference is worth £25 a year 3) How often would valuations be updated? Again there could be issues for council budgets as house prices change e.g. 10% rise=extra money to spend, 10% fall=austerity
I think that’s right. Personally I think the banding system is probably the right approach, though the higher bands could perhaps pay a bit more.
The issue with it is that it has never been updated and there’s never been a good time for a government to force a revaluation.
If Labour are smart they’ll get a revaluation through now and then they’ll set up an independent body to conduct the revaluations at ten year intervals, a bit like boundary commissions. It might not stop politicians campaigning to freeze the valuations but it will make it politically harder to do so.
And create an automatic revaluation once a house is extended. That can’t be too difficult to do, just tie it into the building control process.
What do you do about things such as - reworking a property to improve energy efficiency can increase the value substantially
?
This flat 0.5% idea is going to go nowhere. Labour or Labour sock puppets in think tanks can write as many position papers as they like, a tax on property values will lose them the next election. Not a single politician has benefited from tinkering around with property based taxation or ownership rights.
Council tax bands might not be perfect but it's a system that everyone understands, smaller properties pay less and bigger ones pay more. A tax of 0.5% on value means everyone pays the "same" and everyone is going to hate it.
Not true at the high end of the banding where a house worth £1 million pays the same as a house value £400k. We need more, perhaps wider bands and there has to be a recognition somewhere how much house prices have risen since 1991.
Yes but the next general election is four or five years away. Things that ought to matter, often don't.
Indeed
However isn’t it a political truism that perceptions are crucially formed in the first 100 days of office? And after that they become hard to shift
Starmer has been given a seriously tough test on his second month of office. I don’t envy him. However he came in with baggage that is entirely his own fault - taking the knee AFTER the BLM riots
The British public believe he is making a hash of this major crisis. Pompous but ineffective, hypocritical and bloviating?
He may find this perception hangs around
That said there are exceptions to the rule. Thatcher was massively unpopular at first but became more popular over time
Yes, for me the problem isn't so much the pomposity - hard to disapprove of rioters without sounding pompous - or the ineffectuality - a common failing in the face of rioting - but that he seemed so equivocal about rioting until it was poor white people doing it.
These aren't poor white people. They're violent racists.
Who probably also happen to be poor, white people.
That's disingenuous to us poor white people. Most of us don't riot.
Most men don't rape women either, yet I am assured rape is the fault of all men.
What a silly post. You're better than that 'Tubbs.
I'm not. Its been a long day.
In general I think the danger is that too many are ignoring the left behind of the country, AGAIN. Nothing makes racism right, nor rioting, but its essential to ask why things happen. Too many of my colleagues at Uni could not understand the Brexit vote because 'everyone I know voted remain'. Well yes, you know upper middle class academics.
There are many UK populations. Most are decent, kind folk. Some are not. Some are bitter, twisted, racist thugs. But a lot of people do feel left behind and feel that the country has let in too many immigrants. Thats not my opinion, but if you don't understand that viewpoint (while disagreeing) you will never understand the reasons.
My admonishment was for your "rape" comment.
I am well aware of the "left behind". They have been left behind for generations by the Labour party in Northern, Midlands, Scottish and Welsh s***holes. Hence they voted, SNP, Leave and "lent"their vote to Johnson in 2019, who also left them behind. They lent their vote to Farage in 2024 and probably 2029. He will let them down too.
When the politicians let them down the politicians look for scapegoats. The EU, foreigners, scroungers, illegal immigrants. Scoundrel like Farage buy the easy win, so we are where we are.
You say they are let down - but what exactly do they want and is it achievable?
The problem is that a lot of people want the impossible and don't understand that that is not achievable...
I go back to public funds being corruptly milked by late Labour Councillors like T. Dan Smith instead of funding civic society. Teesport smells similar, and in national government we had the PPE affair.
Teesport is a private company. Teesworks is the issue.
However both Teesworks and PPE are Tory corruption scandals - and neither have anything to do with the things the "left behind" want..
So good attempt to change your narrative but I'll repeat my previous questions
You say they (the "left behind") are let down - but what exactly do they want and is it achievable?
Of course Labour corruption is important over decades. Public funds are hijacked by Labour Councillors. T Dan Smith in Newcastle, Graham Jenkins (Richard Burton's brother) in Port Talbot in the 1970s for example. and not spent benefitted the good burghers of these local authorities.
What do the left behind want? Free stuff that they think is being given to immigrants and scroungers. People like Farage promote the lie that immigrants are given free stuff like houses and cars, not available to them.
Why not ask them instead of projecting your anti working class prejudice onto them.
You are making the grave error of justifying rioting thugs by suggesting that they have legitimate grievances.
Poor white people exist. Many of them are holding down multiple jobs to feed their children and heat their homes. If people like Farage and Yaxley-Lennon tell them they can't heat their homes and feed their children because of foreigners, or the EU some might believe them, but few will go out and riot. The trouble is the people pushing their buttons have less working class credentials that you suggest I have.
Guido is talking about Council tax switching to a proportional system of x %(0.5%) of the current value. I suspect it's going to happen because changing the bands is impossible as even he points out...
I'd say there may be some weasel words in that from Paul Staines. He's quoting a report from the CSJ, which was founded by Iain Duncan Smith, Tim Montgomerie, Mark Florman and Philippa Stroud.
Havnig said that, a switch to 0.5% of market value would be a huge improvement imo, which if it includes an abolition of Stamp Duty as proposed by its main proponents will be in the financial interests of a large majority.
The main thing I'd say for RR and KS is not to be panicked by a bit of rhetoric from the Right.
Council Tax raises £46.7 billion according to the OBR or about 1.7% of national income so not huge in the cosmic scheme of things. Not sure how which Business Rates raises - way back in 2014-15, it was twice as much as Council Tax but that's probably changed with the pamdemic.
The plan, AIUI, is 0.5% on occupied residential property and 2.5% on empty homes based on a revaluation. There are roughly 24 million homes in the UK.
Doing a crude calculation on Stodge Towers it would mean £250 extra per year.
The % of Council Revenue coming from Council Tax has increased, at the same time as funding levels have been restricted.
That is because Councils have been kept on a starvation diet since ~2010, in both England and Scotland. But more so in England. In Scotland (one of our North Britons such as @Eabhal will tell us) I believe they had a freeze in cash terms for 6-7 consecutive years.
If we want effective and capable Councils they need a fairly big funding boost, and it will take time to build capacity.
I'd say that conservatively Local Authorities need a funding boost from current levels of something like a quarter to a third in the short term, just for recovery to 2010 levels.
The 0.5% suggestion is interesting but it seems to me there are a few challenges:
1) Switching to this system would lead to increased tax in London and SE and reduced tax in the North. How do you make sure that each council has enough money to spend? It sounds like more lateral transfers would be required but then it becomes a less local tax. 2) How do you decide how much each property is worth? In the 1990s, the valuations were done by driving by. The fact there were bands meant into didn't matter if the valuations were slightly out. However, if you are charging 0.5% then you need more precise valuations e.g. a 5k value difference is worth £25 a year 3) How often would valuations be updated? Again there could be issues for council budgets as house prices change e.g. 10% rise=extra money to spend, 10% fall=austerity
I think that’s right. Personally I think the banding system is probably the right approach, though the higher bands could perhaps pay a bit more.
The issue with it is that it has never been updated and there’s never been a good time for a government to force a revaluation.
If Labour are smart they’ll get a revaluation through now and then they’ll set up an independent body to conduct the revaluations at ten year intervals, a bit like boundary commissions. It might not stop politicians campaigning to freeze the valuations but it will make it politically harder to do so.
And create an automatic revaluation once a house is extended. That can’t be too difficult to do, just tie it into the building control process.
What do you do about things such as - reworking a property to improve energy efficiency can increase the value substantially
?
This flat 0.5% idea is going to go nowhere. Labour or Labour sock puppets in think tanks can write as many position papers as they like, a tax on property values will lose them the next election. Not a single politician has benefited from tinkering around with property based taxation or ownership rights.
Council tax bands might not be perfect but it's a system that everyone understands, smaller properties pay less and bigger ones pay more. A tax of 0.5% on value means everyone pays the "same" and everyone is going to hate it.
Well, introducing Council tax to replace the hated Poll Tax was a big factor in Majors 1992 win.
And of course there are many more winners than losers by a 0.5% tax on property value, as the distribution of house price values is highly skewed. Band H is hight than band A but nowhere near the difference in house values. Many of those winners would be in "left behind towns" like Southport and Hartlepool too.
Which is a reason for introducing more bands.
I think band H is 3x the charge of band A.
Now if we had bands through to Z then band Z would be approximately 10x the charge for band A.
There are clearly far too few council tax bands. And I say this as someone who would lose out terribly from the introduction of bands I through Z.
Yup, agree with that and I also say that as someone who wouldn't benefit from more upper bands.
My issue with any proposal right based on proportion of value is that it will raise way too much in some places and way too little in other places and then suddenly Londoners are paying for pot holes to be filled in Newcastle while our roads are still shit.
Guido is talking about Council tax switching to a proportional system of x %(0.5%) of the current value. I suspect it's going to happen because changing the bands is impossible as even he points out...
I'd say there may be some weasel words in that from Paul Staines. He's quoting a report from the CSJ, which was founded by Iain Duncan Smith, Tim Montgomerie, Mark Florman and Philippa Stroud.
Havnig said that, a switch to 0.5% of market value would be a huge improvement imo, which if it includes an abolition of Stamp Duty as proposed by its main proponents will be in the financial interests of a large majority.
The main thing I'd say for RR and KS is not to be panicked by a bit of rhetoric from the Right.
Council Tax raises £46.7 billion according to the OBR or about 1.7% of national income so not huge in the cosmic scheme of things. Not sure how which Business Rates raises - way back in 2014-15, it was twice as much as Council Tax but that's probably changed with the pamdemic.
The plan, AIUI, is 0.5% on occupied residential property and 2.5% on empty homes based on a revaluation. There are roughly 24 million homes in the UK.
Doing a crude calculation on Stodge Towers it would mean £250 extra per year.
The % of Council Revenue coming from Council Tax has increased, at the same time as funding levels have been restricted.
That is because Councils have been kept on a starvation diet since ~2010, in both England and Scotland. But more so in England. In Scotland (one of our North Britons such as @Eabhal will tell us) I believe they had a freeze in cash terms for 6-7 consecutive years.
If we want effective and capable Councils they need a fairly big funding boost, and it will take time to build capacity.
I'd say that conservatively Local Authorities need a funding boost from current levels of something like a quarter to a third in the short term, just for recovery to 2010 levels.
The 0.5% suggestion is interesting but it seems to me there are a few challenges:
1) Switching to this system would lead to increased tax in London and SE and reduced tax in the North. How do you make sure that each council has enough money to spend? It sounds like more lateral transfers would be required but then it becomes a less local tax. 2) How do you decide how much each property is worth? In the 1990s, the valuations were done by driving by. The fact there were bands meant into didn't matter if the valuations were slightly out. However, if you are charging 0.5% then you need more precise valuations e.g. a 5k value difference is worth £25 a year 3) How often would valuations be updated? Again there could be issues for council budgets as house prices change e.g. 10% rise=extra money to spend, 10% fall=austerity
I think that’s right. Personally I think the banding system is probably the right approach, though the higher bands could perhaps pay a bit more.
The issue with it is that it has never been updated and there’s never been a good time for a government to force a revaluation.
If Labour are smart they’ll get a revaluation through now and then they’ll set up an independent body to conduct the revaluations at ten year intervals, a bit like boundary commissions. It might not stop politicians campaigning to freeze the valuations but it will make it politically harder to do so.
And create an automatic revaluation once a house is extended. That can’t be too difficult to do, just tie it into the building control process.
What do you do about things such as - reworking a property to improve energy efficiency can increase the value substantially
?
This flat 0.5% idea is going to go nowhere. Labour or Labour sock puppets in think tanks can write as many position papers as they like, a tax on property values will lose them the next election. Not a single politician has benefited from tinkering around with property based taxation or ownership rights.
Council tax bands might not be perfect but it's a system that everyone understands, smaller properties pay less and bigger ones pay more. A tax of 0.5% on value means everyone pays the "same" and everyone is going to hate it.
Everyone round here is going to love it if it comes in lol.
Lovely day on the great little trains of Wales and far from the serious crisis engulfing the country
I have no words for the extreme thugs and justice needs to be swift but I am very concerned where this is going and my fear is a terrible clash between the present protagonists and opposing groups resorting to tit for tat violence with serious injuries or worse
The next few days and weeks may well be frightening to witness with nobody able to predict the outcome
It is certain that Starmer, his ministers and the police do need to act with no fear or favour and indeed name and shame those involved no matter who they are
Good evening.
It was very noticeable today, on the streets & buses and in the shops, that ordinary strangers going about their ordinary lives were being abnormally courteous and kind to other strangers. A sort of compensating civility as a rejection of the violence.
Yes but the next general election is four or five years away. Things that ought to matter, often don't.
Indeed
However isn’t it a political truism that perceptions are crucially formed in the first 100 days of office? And after that they become hard to shift
Starmer has been given a seriously tough test on his second month of office. I don’t envy him. However he came in with baggage that is entirely his own fault - taking the knee AFTER the BLM riots
The British public believe he is making a hash of this major crisis. Pompous but ineffective, hypocritical and bloviating?
He may find this perception hangs around
That said there are exceptions to the rule. Thatcher was massively unpopular at first but became more popular over time
Yes, for me the problem isn't so much the pomposity - hard to disapprove of rioters without sounding pompous - or the ineffectuality - a common failing in the face of rioting - but that he seemed so equivocal about rioting until it was poor white people doing it.
These aren't poor white people. They're violent racists.
Who probably also happen to be poor, white people.
That's disingenuous to us poor white people. Most of us don't riot.
Most men don't rape women either, yet I am assured rape is the fault of all men.
What a silly post. You're better than that 'Tubbs.
I'm not. Its been a long day.
In general I think the danger is that too many are ignoring the left behind of the country, AGAIN. Nothing makes racism right, nor rioting, but its essential to ask why things happen. Too many of my colleagues at Uni could not understand the Brexit vote because 'everyone I know voted remain'. Well yes, you know upper middle class academics.
There are many UK populations. Most are decent, kind folk. Some are not. Some are bitter, twisted, racist thugs. But a lot of people do feel left behind and feel that the country has let in too many immigrants. Thats not my opinion, but if you don't understand that viewpoint (while disagreeing) you will never understand the reasons.
My admonishment was for your "rape" comment.
I am well aware of the "left behind". They have been left behind for generations by the Labour party in Northern, Midlands, Scottish and Welsh s***holes. Hence they voted, SNP, Leave and "lent"their vote to Johnson in 2019, who also left them behind. They lent their vote to Farage in 2024 and probably 2029. He will let them down too.
When the politicians let them down the politicians look for scapegoats. The EU, foreigners, scroungers, illegal immigrants. Scoundrel like Farage buy the easy win, so we are where we are.
You say they are let down - but what exactly do they want and is it achievable?
The problem is that a lot of people want the impossible and don't understand that that is not achievable...
I go back to public funds being corruptly milked by late Labour Councillors like T. Dan Smith instead of funding civic society. Teesport smells similar, and in national government we had the PPE affair.
Teesport is a private company. Teesworks is the issue.
However both Teesworks and PPE are Tory corruption scandals - and neither have anything to do with the things the "left behind" want..
So good attempt to change your narrative but I'll repeat my previous questions
You say they (the "left behind") are let down - but what exactly do they want and is it achievable?
Of course Labour corruption is important over decades. Public funds are hijacked by Labour Councillors. T Dan Smith in Newcastle, Graham Jenkins (Richard Burton's brother) in Port Talbot in the 1970s for example. and not spent benefitted the good burghers of these local authorities.
What do the left behind want? Free stuff that they think is being given to immigrants and scroungers. People like Farage promote the lie that immigrants are given free stuff like houses and cars, not available to them.
Why not ask them instead of projecting your anti working class prejudice onto them.
You are making the grave error of justifying rioting thugs by suggesting that they have legitimate grievances.
Poor white people exist. Many of them are holding down multiple jobs to feed their children and heat their homes. If people like Farage and Yaxley-Lennon tell them they can't heat their homes and feed their children because of foreigners, or the EU some might believe them, but few will go out and riot. The trouble is the people pushing their buttons have less working class credentials that you suggest I have.
You can have a legitimate grievance while still having absolutely no grounds to justify rioting.
Guido is talking about Council tax switching to a proportional system of x %(0.5%) of the current value. I suspect it's going to happen because changing the bands is impossible as even he points out...
I'd say there may be some weasel words in that from Paul Staines. He's quoting a report from the CSJ, which was founded by Iain Duncan Smith, Tim Montgomerie, Mark Florman and Philippa Stroud.
Havnig said that, a switch to 0.5% of market value would be a huge improvement imo, which if it includes an abolition of Stamp Duty as proposed by its main proponents will be in the financial interests of a large majority.
The main thing I'd say for RR and KS is not to be panicked by a bit of rhetoric from the Right.
Council Tax raises £46.7 billion according to the OBR or about 1.7% of national income so not huge in the cosmic scheme of things. Not sure how which Business Rates raises - way back in 2014-15, it was twice as much as Council Tax but that's probably changed with the pamdemic.
The plan, AIUI, is 0.5% on occupied residential property and 2.5% on empty homes based on a revaluation. There are roughly 24 million homes in the UK.
Doing a crude calculation on Stodge Towers it would mean £250 extra per year.
The % of Council Revenue coming from Council Tax has increased, at the same time as funding levels have been restricted.
That is because Councils have been kept on a starvation diet since ~2010, in both England and Scotland. But more so in England. In Scotland (one of our North Britons such as @Eabhal will tell us) I believe they had a freeze in cash terms for 6-7 consecutive years.
If we want effective and capable Councils they need a fairly big funding boost, and it will take time to build capacity.
I'd say that conservatively Local Authorities need a funding boost from current levels of something like a quarter to a third in the short term, just for recovery to 2010 levels.
The 0.5% suggestion is interesting but it seems to me there are a few challenges:
1) Switching to this system would lead to increased tax in London and SE and reduced tax in the North. How do you make sure that each council has enough money to spend? It sounds like more lateral transfers would be required but then it becomes a less local tax. 2) How do you decide how much each property is worth? In the 1990s, the valuations were done by driving by. The fact there were bands meant into didn't matter if the valuations were slightly out. However, if you are charging 0.5% then you need more precise valuations e.g. a 5k value difference is worth £25 a year 3) How often would valuations be updated? Again there could be issues for council budgets as house prices change e.g. 10% rise=extra money to spend, 10% fall=austerity
I think that’s right. Personally I think the banding system is probably the right approach, though the higher bands could perhaps pay a bit more.
The issue with it is that it has never been updated and there’s never been a good time for a government to force a revaluation.
If Labour are smart they’ll get a revaluation through now and then they’ll set up an independent body to conduct the revaluations at ten year intervals, a bit like boundary commissions. It might not stop politicians campaigning to freeze the valuations but it will make it politically harder to do so.
And create an automatic revaluation once a house is extended. That can’t be too difficult to do, just tie it into the building control process.
What do you do about things such as - reworking a property to improve energy efficiency can increase the value substantially
?
I think this is why you can’t be too intricate with the valuation/banding process and why I think it needs to be tied to more “headline” items like bedrooms, size, location. You don’t want to discourage improving the housing stock.
How about hearths?
It’s why a land value tax is by far the best system. You can improve your property as much as you like but pay the same tax.
The trouble with all of these proposals is that anything based on a proportion of value that isn't locally set becomes a giant tax on London and the South East. If Barnet council think they're able to set the tax at a lower rate to deliver services then they should be able to do so. Setting a national rate of 0.5% leaves no flexibility and will either result in redistribution (which shouldn't be done with local government taxes) or waste in local governments as they try to spend money they don't need.
Being blunt - council tax is very poor way of raising local taxes - it probably should be a national tax with a percentage of income tax given to councils
No thanks. At least the councils have some say in this and therefore the residents have some say in it. A nationally set tax and settlement process takes local tax policy out of the hands of local people.
So how about 0.3% set by the council + 0.2% wealth
Nope, all set locally. Otherwise it just becomes another redistribution method from the south to the north. I don't have a problem with the concept of the latter but don't hide it under the guise of local taxation. Raise national taxes and do it from those funds if that's the end goal.
Guido is talking about Council tax switching to a proportional system of x %(0.5%) of the current value. I suspect it's going to happen because changing the bands is impossible as even he points out...
I'd say there may be some weasel words in that from Paul Staines. He's quoting a report from the CSJ, which was founded by Iain Duncan Smith, Tim Montgomerie, Mark Florman and Philippa Stroud.
Havnig said that, a switch to 0.5% of market value would be a huge improvement imo, which if it includes an abolition of Stamp Duty as proposed by its main proponents will be in the financial interests of a large majority.
The main thing I'd say for RR and KS is not to be panicked by a bit of rhetoric from the Right.
Council Tax raises £46.7 billion according to the OBR or about 1.7% of national income so not huge in the cosmic scheme of things. Not sure how which Business Rates raises - way back in 2014-15, it was twice as much as Council Tax but that's probably changed with the pamdemic.
The plan, AIUI, is 0.5% on occupied residential property and 2.5% on empty homes based on a revaluation. There are roughly 24 million homes in the UK.
Doing a crude calculation on Stodge Towers it would mean £250 extra per year.
The % of Council Revenue coming from Council Tax has increased, at the same time as funding levels have been restricted.
That is because Councils have been kept on a starvation diet since ~2010, in both England and Scotland. But more so in England. In Scotland (one of our North Britons such as @Eabhal will tell us) I believe they had a freeze in cash terms for 6-7 consecutive years.
If we want effective and capable Councils they need a fairly big funding boost, and it will take time to build capacity.
I'd say that conservatively Local Authorities need a funding boost from current levels of something like a quarter to a third in the short term, just for recovery to 2010 levels.
The 0.5% suggestion is interesting but it seems to me there are a few challenges:
1) Switching to this system would lead to increased tax in London and SE and reduced tax in the North. How do you make sure that each council has enough money to spend? It sounds like more lateral transfers would be required but then it becomes a less local tax. 2) How do you decide how much each property is worth? In the 1990s, the valuations were done by driving by. The fact there were bands meant into didn't matter if the valuations were slightly out. However, if you are charging 0.5% then you need more precise valuations e.g. a 5k value difference is worth £25 a year 3) How often would valuations be updated? Again there could be issues for council budgets as house prices change e.g. 10% rise=extra money to spend, 10% fall=austerity
I think that’s right. Personally I think the banding system is probably the right approach, though the higher bands could perhaps pay a bit more.
The issue with it is that it has never been updated and there’s never been a good time for a government to force a revaluation.
If Labour are smart they’ll get a revaluation through now and then they’ll set up an independent body to conduct the revaluations at ten year intervals, a bit like boundary commissions. It might not stop politicians campaigning to freeze the valuations but it will make it politically harder to do so.
And create an automatic revaluation once a house is extended. That can’t be too difficult to do, just tie it into the building control process.
What do you do about things such as - reworking a property to improve energy efficiency can increase the value substantially
?
This flat 0.5% idea is going to go nowhere. Labour or Labour sock puppets in think tanks can write as many position papers as they like, a tax on property values will lose them the next election. Not a single politician has benefited from tinkering around with property based taxation or ownership rights.
Council tax bands might not be perfect but it's a system that everyone understands, smaller properties pay less and bigger ones pay more. A tax of 0.5% on value means everyone pays the "same" and everyone is going to hate it.
Well, introducing Council tax to replace the hated Poll Tax was a big factor in Majors 1992 win.
And of course there are many more winners than losers by a 0.5% tax on property value, as the distribution of house price values is highly skewed. Band H is hight than band A but nowhere near the difference in house values. Many of those winners would be in "left behind towns" like Southport and Hartlepool too.
Which is a reason for introducing more bands.
I think band H is 3x the charge of band A.
Now if we had bands through to Z then band Z would be approximately 10x the charge for band A.
There are clearly far too few council tax bands. And I say this as someone who would lose out terribly from the introduction of bands I through Z.
Yup, agree with that and I also say that as someone who wouldn't benefit from more upper bands.
My issue with any proposal right based on proportion of value is that it will raise way too much in some places and way too little in other places and then suddenly Londoners are paying for pot holes to be filled in Newcastle while our roads are still shit.
It shouldn't be a problem. They revalued in Wales in early 2000s and I remember a fair number of properties moving bands upwards. The net effect was reducing the band D value slightly thus raising about the same amount overall.
Walz has two great advantages as a politician: He is not a lawyer -- and he is a winning football coach. (Most Americans dislike lawyers -- and love winning coaches, especially football coaches.) "After returning, Walz took a job teaching and coaching in Alliance, Nebraska, where he met his wife, Gwen Whipple, a fellow teacher.[11] He and Gwen married in 1994, and moved two years later to Mankato in Minnesota, his wife's home state,[11] where he worked as a geography teacher and coach at Mankato West High School.[10] He coached the football team to its first state championship in 1999." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Walz
And, then there is this: "Walz was ranked the 7th-most bipartisan House member during the 114th Congress (and the most bipartisan member from Minnesota) in the Bipartisan Index created by The Lugar Center and the McCourt School of Public Policy, which ranks members of Congress by measuring how often their bills attract co-sponsors from the opposite party and how often they co-sponsor bills by members of the opposite party."
Good comment. Neither part of the "liberal elitist" tag is going to stick.
Early signs are that the Trump campaign is already flailing around, trying to find an effective attack.
I quite like the "first non-lawyer on a Democratic ticket since Jimmy Carter" line.
Average blood pressure in the posh bit of Sheffield increases a little.
It isn't a good idea for Dems to mention Jimmy Carter.
It’s almost universally agreed that he’s America’s best former President, doing much better work after he left office than he did in office. His reputation has definitely solid, even amongst Republicans -
John Profumo did excellent work after leaving politics as well.
That's a credit to both men - one that some more recent politicians should try to copy.
But that doesn't stop them having had a disastrous effect while in political office.
Which is why the Dems shouldn't be pointing out similarities between Walz and Carter.
I disagree. The polling I have linked to suggests that Americans today have a very favourable opinion of Carter. The fact he was unpopular 44 years ago doesn’t matter. He’s popular now. They’ve changed their mind.
The polling is about post-presidency not presidency ie about non-political work not political.
Walz is running to be Vice-President, a political position, not to do humanitarian work in future decades.
Do you really not see the difference ???
I could equally point out to you that opinions change and 18 year olds in 1980 are nearly pensioners now. Most of that electorate is dead. Most voters only remember his post presidency. As I mentioned, according to YouGov, he is the most popular politician in America now. That takes into account his record in and out of office. Carter’s reputation now is very different to the one when he left office.
The basic problem you have is that you’re relying on polling from 1980 while I’ve cited polls from the last 9 years. You’re going on expired intelligence. The dial has moved and he’s been positively reassessed.
Okay, if you want to live in a fantasy world where the Carter presidency is now viewed as a golden age then do so.
You do know that the 'polling from 1980' was an election in which over 80m took part for the most important job in the world as opposed to a meaningless opinion poll of a thousand people about something else entirely ?
Do you really think that when Jimmy Carter is mentioned that people don't remember him first as being President ?
Do you really think that Carter's humanitarian work, admirable as it might be, is anywhere near as important as what he did as President ?
Perhaps you also remember Jim Callaghan for what he did after politics and not for him being prime minister in the late 1970s.
I gave up on this piece of shit post when you said “ Okay, if you want to live in a fantasy world where the Carter presidency is now viewed as a golden age then do so”. I didn’t say that, you know I didn’t say that, and you’re just having a tantrum. I’ve made my point, provided evidence for my assertions in the form of near contemporary polling, and you come back with a pile of steaming invective. Go to bed.
(PS I’d just turned 5 when Callahan stopped being PM so almost all of my memories of him are post politics)
I was a teenager living in Georgia in 1976 and Carter was elected as a "Mr Smith Goes to Washington" type figure, a fresh face from the real America after the political class had failed so spectacularly over Vietnam and Watergate. He started well, and emphasised human rights in foreign policy, and led Israel and Egypt to peace in the Camp David process.
It started to fall apart a bit over the economy, then the Iranian revolution, but the USA wasn't the only country struggling with the economic fallout of the 1970s oil crisis and worldwide inflation.
Looking back, like most politicians he ended in failure, but history will evaluate his Presidency better with time.
As I’ve shown, it already has, despite @another_richard ‘s denialism
“West Midlands Police discuss disorder that kicked off after misinformation spread online. The Sky News crew covering the unrest in Birmingham were followed by a man holding a knife and wearing a balaclava after broadcasting live.”
Guido is talking about Council tax switching to a proportional system of x %(0.5%) of the current value. I suspect it's going to happen because changing the bands is impossible as even he points out...
I'd say there may be some weasel words in that from Paul Staines. He's quoting a report from the CSJ, which was founded by Iain Duncan Smith, Tim Montgomerie, Mark Florman and Philippa Stroud.
Havnig said that, a switch to 0.5% of market value would be a huge improvement imo, which if it includes an abolition of Stamp Duty as proposed by its main proponents will be in the financial interests of a large majority.
The main thing I'd say for RR and KS is not to be panicked by a bit of rhetoric from the Right.
Council Tax raises £46.7 billion according to the OBR or about 1.7% of national income so not huge in the cosmic scheme of things. Not sure how which Business Rates raises - way back in 2014-15, it was twice as much as Council Tax but that's probably changed with the pamdemic.
The plan, AIUI, is 0.5% on occupied residential property and 2.5% on empty homes based on a revaluation. There are roughly 24 million homes in the UK.
Doing a crude calculation on Stodge Towers it would mean £250 extra per year.
The % of Council Revenue coming from Council Tax has increased, at the same time as funding levels have been restricted.
That is because Councils have been kept on a starvation diet since ~2010, in both England and Scotland. But more so in England. In Scotland (one of our North Britons such as @Eabhal will tell us) I believe they had a freeze in cash terms for 6-7 consecutive years.
If we want effective and capable Councils they need a fairly big funding boost, and it will take time to build capacity.
I'd say that conservatively Local Authorities need a funding boost from current levels of something like a quarter to a third in the short term, just for recovery to 2010 levels.
The 0.5% suggestion is interesting but it seems to me there are a few challenges:
1) Switching to this system would lead to increased tax in London and SE and reduced tax in the North. How do you make sure that each council has enough money to spend? It sounds like more lateral transfers would be required but then it becomes a less local tax. 2) How do you decide how much each property is worth? In the 1990s, the valuations were done by driving by. The fact there were bands meant into didn't matter if the valuations were slightly out. However, if you are charging 0.5% then you need more precise valuations e.g. a 5k value difference is worth £25 a year 3) How often would valuations be updated? Again there could be issues for council budgets as house prices change e.g. 10% rise=extra money to spend, 10% fall=austerity
I think that’s right. Personally I think the banding system is probably the right approach, though the higher bands could perhaps pay a bit more.
The issue with it is that it has never been updated and there’s never been a good time for a government to force a revaluation.
If Labour are smart they’ll get a revaluation through now and then they’ll set up an independent body to conduct the revaluations at ten year intervals, a bit like boundary commissions. It might not stop politicians campaigning to freeze the valuations but it will make it politically harder to do so.
And create an automatic revaluation once a house is extended. That can’t be too difficult to do, just tie it into the building control process.
What do you do about things such as - reworking a property to improve energy efficiency can increase the value substantially
?
I think this is why you can’t be too intricate with the valuation/banding process and why I think it needs to be tied to more “headline” items like bedrooms, size, location. You don’t want to discourage improving the housing stock.
How about hearths?
It’s why a land value tax is by far the best system. You can improve your property as much as you like but pay the same tax.
The trouble with all of these proposals is that anything based on a proportion of value that isn't locally set becomes a giant tax on London and the South East. If Barnet council think they're able to set the tax at a lower rate to deliver services then they should be able to do so. Setting a national rate of 0.5% leaves no flexibility and will either result in redistribution (which shouldn't be done with local government taxes) or waste in local governments as they try to spend money they don't need.
Being blunt - council tax is very poor way of raising local taxes - it probably should be a national tax with a percentage of income tax given to councils
No thanks. At least the councils have some say in this and therefore the residents have some say in it. A nationally set tax and settlement process takes local tax policy out of the hands of local people.
So how about 0.3% set by the council + 0.2% wealth
Nope, all set locally. Otherwise it just becomes another redistribution method from the south to the north. I don't have a problem with the concept of the latter but don't hide it under the guise of local taxation. Raise national taxes and do it from those funds if that's the end goal.
Why do you think I split it into 2 - the first bit is set by the council (and can be adjusted) the second (wealth part) is national…
Farage can go fxck himself . He’s thrown petrol onto the flames .
These riots have been enabled by the toxic discourse of those in government these last 5 years.
These riots have been enabled by 25 years of stratospheric immigration levels.
Sure: but there is very rarely a single cause for anything. There are countries with higher levels of immigration than the UK that are much happier (places like Norway, Switzerland, Hong Kong or Canada). What is different is that these countries managed to combine rising real incomes with immigration.
And if people are feeling richer, they don't tend to be unhappy about immigration levels.
Where the UK has failed is that it combined high levels of immigration with - for example - far too little provision of housing, so that disposable income has been squeezed for tens of millions of people.
Very true. The UK has also failed at distributing opportunity and diversity of well-paid jobs and careers on a geographical level, which creates pockets of left behind populations/areas that feel disconnected. And of course the wealth disparities we see. There are myriad reasons for this, it’s not all to do with the market and it’s not all the fault of the government, but it has helped produce significant numbers of people who feel like they don’t have a stake in society.
But there is also tremendous amounts of poverty in London, where there are plenty of high paying jobs. It is just concentrated in low skill communities. The lesson there is not to bring in more people with low skills.
If you look at immigration to places like Canada, it has been very high skill there. Though, Canadians are upset with even that well done immigration and the impact it is having on house prices.
Guido is talking about Council tax switching to a proportional system of x %(0.5%) of the current value. I suspect it's going to happen because changing the bands is impossible as even he points out...
I'd say there may be some weasel words in that from Paul Staines. He's quoting a report from the CSJ, which was founded by Iain Duncan Smith, Tim Montgomerie, Mark Florman and Philippa Stroud.
Havnig said that, a switch to 0.5% of market value would be a huge improvement imo, which if it includes an abolition of Stamp Duty as proposed by its main proponents will be in the financial interests of a large majority.
The main thing I'd say for RR and KS is not to be panicked by a bit of rhetoric from the Right.
Council Tax raises £46.7 billion according to the OBR or about 1.7% of national income so not huge in the cosmic scheme of things. Not sure how which Business Rates raises - way back in 2014-15, it was twice as much as Council Tax but that's probably changed with the pamdemic.
The plan, AIUI, is 0.5% on occupied residential property and 2.5% on empty homes based on a revaluation. There are roughly 24 million homes in the UK.
Doing a crude calculation on Stodge Towers it would mean £250 extra per year.
The % of Council Revenue coming from Council Tax has increased, at the same time as funding levels have been restricted.
That is because Councils have been kept on a starvation diet since ~2010, in both England and Scotland. But more so in England. In Scotland (one of our North Britons such as @Eabhal will tell us) I believe they had a freeze in cash terms for 6-7 consecutive years.
If we want effective and capable Councils they need a fairly big funding boost, and it will take time to build capacity.
I'd say that conservatively Local Authorities need a funding boost from current levels of something like a quarter to a third in the short term, just for recovery to 2010 levels.
The 0.5% suggestion is interesting but it seems to me there are a few challenges:
1) Switching to this system would lead to increased tax in London and SE and reduced tax in the North. How do you make sure that each council has enough money to spend? It sounds like more lateral transfers would be required but then it becomes a less local tax. 2) How do you decide how much each property is worth? In the 1990s, the valuations were done by driving by. The fact there were bands meant into didn't matter if the valuations were slightly out. However, if you are charging 0.5% then you need more precise valuations e.g. a 5k value difference is worth £25 a year 3) How often would valuations be updated? Again there could be issues for council budgets as house prices change e.g. 10% rise=extra money to spend, 10% fall=austerity
I think that’s right. Personally I think the banding system is probably the right approach, though the higher bands could perhaps pay a bit more.
The issue with it is that it has never been updated and there’s never been a good time for a government to force a revaluation.
If Labour are smart they’ll get a revaluation through now and then they’ll set up an independent body to conduct the revaluations at ten year intervals, a bit like boundary commissions. It might not stop politicians campaigning to freeze the valuations but it will make it politically harder to do so.
And create an automatic revaluation once a house is extended. That can’t be too difficult to do, just tie it into the building control process.
What do you do about things such as - reworking a property to improve energy efficiency can increase the value substantially
?
I think this is why you can’t be too intricate with the valuation/banding process and why I think it needs to be tied to more “headline” items like bedrooms, size, location. You don’t want to discourage improving the housing stock.
How about hearths?
It’s why a land value tax is by far the best system. You can improve your property as much as you like but pay the same tax.
The trouble with all of these proposals is that anything based on a proportion of value that isn't locally set becomes a giant tax on London and the South East. If Barnet council think they're able to set the tax at a lower rate to deliver services then they should be able to do so. Setting a national rate of 0.5% leaves no flexibility and will either result in redistribution (which shouldn't be done with local government taxes) or waste in local governments as they try to spend money they don't need.
Being blunt - council tax is very poor way of raising local taxes - it probably should be a national tax with a percentage of income tax given to councils
No thanks. At least the councils have some say in this and therefore the residents have some say in it. A nationally set tax and settlement process takes local tax policy out of the hands of local people.
So how about 0.3% set by the council + 0.2% wealth
Nope, all set locally. Otherwise it just becomes another redistribution method from the south to the north. I don't have a problem with the concept of the latter but don't hide it under the guise of local taxation. Raise national taxes and do it from those funds if that's the end goal.
Why do you think I split it into 2 - the first bit is set by the council (and can be adjusted) the second (wealth part) is national…
Yes but the next general election is four or five years away. Things that ought to matter, often don't.
Indeed
However isn’t it a political truism that perceptions are crucially formed in the first 100 days of office? And after that they become hard to shift
Starmer has been given a seriously tough test on his second month of office. I don’t envy him. However he came in with baggage that is entirely his own fault - taking the knee AFTER the BLM riots
The British public believe he is making a hash of this major crisis. Pompous but ineffective, hypocritical and bloviating?
He may find this perception hangs around
That said there are exceptions to the rule. Thatcher was massively unpopular at first but became more popular over time
Yes, for me the problem isn't so much the pomposity - hard to disapprove of rioters without sounding pompous - or the ineffectuality - a common failing in the face of rioting - but that he seemed so equivocal about rioting until it was poor white people doing it.
These aren't poor white people. They're violent racists.
Who probably also happen to be poor, white people.
That's disingenuous to us poor white people. Most of us don't riot.
Most men don't rape women either, yet I am assured rape is the fault of all men.
What a silly post. You're better than that 'Tubbs.
I'm not. Its been a long day.
In general I think the danger is that too many are ignoring the left behind of the country, AGAIN. Nothing makes racism right, nor rioting, but its essential to ask why things happen. Too many of my colleagues at Uni could not understand the Brexit vote because 'everyone I know voted remain'. Well yes, you know upper middle class academics.
There are many UK populations. Most are decent, kind folk. Some are not. Some are bitter, twisted, racist thugs. But a lot of people do feel left behind and feel that the country has let in too many immigrants. Thats not my opinion, but if you don't understand that viewpoint (while disagreeing) you will never understand the reasons.
My admonishment was for your "rape" comment.
I am well aware of the "left behind". They have been left behind for generations by the Labour party in Northern, Midlands, Scottish and Welsh s***holes. Hence they voted, SNP, Leave and "lent"their vote to Johnson in 2019, who also left them behind. They lent their vote to Farage in 2024 and probably 2029. He will let them down too.
When the politicians let them down the politicians look for scapegoats. The EU, foreigners, scroungers, illegal immigrants. Scoundrel like Farage buy the easy win, so we are where we are.
You say they are let down - but what exactly do they want and is it achievable?
The problem is that a lot of people want the impossible and don't understand that that is not achievable...
I go back to public funds being corruptly milked by late Labour Councillors like T. Dan Smith instead of funding civic society. Teesport smells similar, and in national government we had the PPE affair.
Teesport is a private company. Teesworks is the issue.
However both Teesworks and PPE are Tory corruption scandals - and neither have anything to do with the things the "left behind" want..
So good attempt to change your narrative but I'll repeat my previous questions
You say they (the "left behind") are let down - but what exactly do they want and is it achievable?
Of course Labour corruption is important over decades. Public funds are hijacked by Labour Councillors. T Dan Smith in Newcastle, Graham Jenkins (Richard Burton's brother) in Port Talbot in the 1970s for example. and not spent benefitted the good burghers of these local authorities.
What do the left behind want? Free stuff that they think is being given to immigrants and scroungers. People like Farage promote the lie that immigrants are given free stuff like houses and cars, not available to them.
Why not ask them instead of projecting your anti working class prejudice onto them.
You are making the grave error of justifying rioting thugs by suggesting that they have legitimate grievances.
Poor white people exist. Many of them are holding down multiple jobs to feed their children and heat their homes. If people like Farage and Yaxley-Lennon tell them they can't heat their homes and feed their children because of foreigners, or the EU some might believe them, but few will go out and riot. The trouble is the people pushing their buttons have less working class credentials that you suggest I have.
The problem isn't "working class credentials" or the lack of them among the people pushing their buttons.
Throughout history there have been many statesmen and women who helped the Head Count without being of them.
The problem is that the people pushing their buttons are fucking scum.
“West Midlands Police discuss disorder that kicked off after misinformation spread online. The Sky News crew covering the unrest in Birmingham were followed by a man holding a knife and wearing a balaclava after broadcasting live.”
Whenever there is "far right" violence, there are never calls to "avoid dehumanizing people" or to "reach out to moderate members of the community."
The guy is dangerous. How could anyone still support him?
He asks a question on whether the crux of that meme is true. Namely, “repeatedly raped a 12 year old girl, 180 community hours, no prison time”.
From the bbc:
"Hamoud Al Soaimi, 21, for three counts of sexual assault and one assault by penetration, jailed for two years suspended for two years with 180 hours unpaid work".
But hey, let’s ban Twitter because he says mean things about Keir Starmer.
But, come, Moonshine, you're a reasonable person, and you surely must know that he's not only doing that.
He's not only accusing Starmer of favouritism to minorities in policing, which no one's succeeded in posting any real evidence of, but seems to be actively willing on social collapse, breakdown and war, in our country, as also the leader of a vast overseas website. You would have to say that Governments all over the world would act in that situation.
Musk is a frequently misunderstood fellow, I have misunderstood him many times. He’s not always right. But I have come to realise his positions are generally (not always) well considered and come with good intentions.
His two tier Keir accusation is not his invention, he is aping an already wide viewpoint. And as others have discussed tonight, it is not true that the evidence slate is clean on that. We are far too soft on serious criminality, both in terms of arrests and sentencing. By the way, any arrests yet for the Southend machete fight or hotel inferno?
I’m looking at this sectarian violence between different components of the British underclass (no offence intended) and wonder indeed if we are now in a similar state to 20th N.Ireland, which by most reasonable definitions was a form of civil war.
I was appalled at some of his statements on Ukraine. But really I do increasingly wonder if he’s right. I don’t think there’s a cigarette paper between the Biden White House and Trump on Ukraine policy. Not really. Neither wants Ukraine to “win”, meaning a return to 2014 borders. And the half hearted support in 2023 makes me wonder whether the White House even wants a return to 2022. Musk is looking at this seeing tens of thousands of death per month on all sides and is saying what’s the f point, if the borders are going to be roughly frozen anyway? My personal view is we’re more not less likely to see nuclear exchange if Putin “wins” in Ukraine, he sees the opposite and seemingly so does the weight of the US security establishment. Perhaps I’m wrong?
Occasionally he likes or retweets inappropriate things out of curiosity or mischief, most likely at time from the karzy. But his vision for Twitter is essentially a global Speakers Corner and that the crowd will sort the sense from the nonsense.
He is very misunderstood by people, often by those that take life too seriously. These calls to ban or expropriate Twitter would be funny if they weren’t so sinister.
What evidence is there for believing the US does not want Ukraine to win? Surely the evidence is that the US administration is held back by the willingness of the Houses of Congress to send money and aid to Ukraine.
Sullivan has dragged his heels on enabling the needed military aid throughout. Tanks were needed in large numbers for the lightning manoeuvre warfare of the late 2022 counter attack but that debate dragged on. The 2023 counter offensive was with hindsight doomed to fail, because the US blocked effective air support to stop mine clearing equipment being taken out by Russian helicopters. Long range missiles should have been given far earlier and even in the last 24hrs, there’s a story that Ukraine was denied permission to take out Russian jets on the runway while they were still stationed within range of ATACMS.
It’s actually not clear the US would have even supported the initial resistance without Boris Johnson (remember him?) pushing for it. But once that decision was made, it seems very clear to me the White House policy has been to oversee a slow war of attrition between the Slavs, where no one really wins but Soviet stockpiles get slowly degraded. Trouble is, it has allowed Putin to consolidate his power base, eliminate his rivals and form a real rather than rhetorical Axis of Evil with China, North Korea and Iran.
Really US policy has been a catastrophe, because much like in its other recent wars, it can’t decide on its strategic goal. And I would argue, that while Trump would freeze the borders as they are, there’s sadly scant evidence that the outcome will be different with a Kamala victory.
As for Congress, yes it is true MAGA was blocking even basic armaments for a very long time. But lend lease in 2022 had almost unanimous approval and expired unused.
The truth is, the White House was funded and legally enabled to give far more useful equipment than it has, far earlier and with far less restrictive rules of engagement. It chose not to. But I must always remember that they have access to information channels I do not. And perhaps the Musk/Sullivan/Trump view on this is correct, even if they are varying shades of a similar theme rather than being identical.
Guido is talking about Council tax switching to a proportional system of x %(0.5%) of the current value. I suspect it's going to happen because changing the bands is impossible as even he points out...
I'd say there may be some weasel words in that from Paul Staines. He's quoting a report from the CSJ, which was founded by Iain Duncan Smith, Tim Montgomerie, Mark Florman and Philippa Stroud.
Havnig said that, a switch to 0.5% of market value would be a huge improvement imo, which if it includes an abolition of Stamp Duty as proposed by its main proponents will be in the financial interests of a large majority.
The main thing I'd say for RR and KS is not to be panicked by a bit of rhetoric from the Right.
Council Tax raises £46.7 billion according to the OBR or about 1.7% of national income so not huge in the cosmic scheme of things. Not sure how which Business Rates raises - way back in 2014-15, it was twice as much as Council Tax but that's probably changed with the pamdemic.
The plan, AIUI, is 0.5% on occupied residential property and 2.5% on empty homes based on a revaluation. There are roughly 24 million homes in the UK.
Doing a crude calculation on Stodge Towers it would mean £250 extra per year.
The % of Council Revenue coming from Council Tax has increased, at the same time as funding levels have been restricted.
That is because Councils have been kept on a starvation diet since ~2010, in both England and Scotland. But more so in England. In Scotland (one of our North Britons such as @Eabhal will tell us) I believe they had a freeze in cash terms for 6-7 consecutive years.
If we want effective and capable Councils they need a fairly big funding boost, and it will take time to build capacity.
I'd say that conservatively Local Authorities need a funding boost from current levels of something like a quarter to a third in the short term, just for recovery to 2010 levels.
The 0.5% suggestion is interesting but it seems to me there are a few challenges:
1) Switching to this system would lead to increased tax in London and SE and reduced tax in the North. How do you make sure that each council has enough money to spend? It sounds like more lateral transfers would be required but then it becomes a less local tax. 2) How do you decide how much each property is worth? In the 1990s, the valuations were done by driving by. The fact there were bands meant into didn't matter if the valuations were slightly out. However, if you are charging 0.5% then you need more precise valuations e.g. a 5k value difference is worth £25 a year 3) How often would valuations be updated? Again there could be issues for council budgets as house prices change e.g. 10% rise=extra money to spend, 10% fall=austerity
I think that’s right. Personally I think the banding system is probably the right approach, though the higher bands could perhaps pay a bit more.
The issue with it is that it has never been updated and there’s never been a good time for a government to force a revaluation.
If Labour are smart they’ll get a revaluation through now and then they’ll set up an independent body to conduct the revaluations at ten year intervals, a bit like boundary commissions. It might not stop politicians campaigning to freeze the valuations but it will make it politically harder to do so.
And create an automatic revaluation once a house is extended. That can’t be too difficult to do, just tie it into the building control process.
What do you do about things such as - reworking a property to improve energy efficiency can increase the value substantially
?
I think this is why you can’t be too intricate with the valuation/banding process and why I think it needs to be tied to more “headline” items like bedrooms, size, location. You don’t want to discourage improving the housing stock.
How about hearths?
It’s why a land value tax is by far the best system. You can improve your property as much as you like but pay the same tax.
The trouble with all of these proposals is that anything based on a proportion of value that isn't locally set becomes a giant tax on London and the South East. If Barnet council think they're able to set the tax at a lower rate to deliver services then they should be able to do so. Setting a national rate of 0.5% leaves no flexibility and will either result in redistribution (which shouldn't be done with local government taxes) or waste in local governments as they try to spend money they don't need.
Being blunt - council tax is very poor way of raising local taxes - it probably should be a national tax with a percentage of income tax given to councils
No thanks. At least the councils have some say in this and therefore the residents have some say in it. A nationally set tax and settlement process takes local tax policy out of the hands of local people.
So how about 0.3% set by the council + 0.2% wealth
Nope, all set locally. Otherwise it just becomes another redistribution method from the south to the north. I don't have a problem with the concept of the latter but don't hide it under the guise of local taxation. Raise national taxes and do it from those funds if that's the end goal.
Why do you think I split it into 2 - the first bit is set by the council (and can be adjusted) the second (wealth part) is national…
Then add it onto income tax.
Add what - the wealth tax into income tax - that doesn’t work.
As I said earlier a better plan would be to use a proportion of income tax as the source of council tax income and use the house price tax as a source of government income to replace the bit of income tax that has been lost
Given how automated PAYE is nowadays and the fact postcode is provided as part of the weekly / monthly return it wouldn’t be difficult to allow local variations to income tax
“West Midlands Police discuss disorder that kicked off after misinformation spread online. The Sky News crew covering the unrest in Birmingham were followed by a man holding a knife and wearing a balaclava after broadcasting live.”
I have to say the police are handling this extremely poorly. I don't understand how they haven't cleared the streets of everyone holding weapons regardless of ethnicity. Threatening anyone with a knife is unacceptable and deserves at least a couple of years locked up. Just because the "community leaders" agreed some kind of plan it doesn't mean everyone will stick to it.
Guido is talking about Council tax switching to a proportional system of x %(0.5%) of the current value. I suspect it's going to happen because changing the bands is impossible as even he points out...
I'd say there may be some weasel words in that from Paul Staines. He's quoting a report from the CSJ, which was founded by Iain Duncan Smith, Tim Montgomerie, Mark Florman and Philippa Stroud.
Havnig said that, a switch to 0.5% of market value would be a huge improvement imo, which if it includes an abolition of Stamp Duty as proposed by its main proponents will be in the financial interests of a large majority.
The main thing I'd say for RR and KS is not to be panicked by a bit of rhetoric from the Right.
Council Tax raises £46.7 billion according to the OBR or about 1.7% of national income so not huge in the cosmic scheme of things. Not sure how which Business Rates raises - way back in 2014-15, it was twice as much as Council Tax but that's probably changed with the pamdemic.
The plan, AIUI, is 0.5% on occupied residential property and 2.5% on empty homes based on a revaluation. There are roughly 24 million homes in the UK.
Doing a crude calculation on Stodge Towers it would mean £250 extra per year.
The % of Council Revenue coming from Council Tax has increased, at the same time as funding levels have been restricted.
That is because Councils have been kept on a starvation diet since ~2010, in both England and Scotland. But more so in England. In Scotland (one of our North Britons such as @Eabhal will tell us) I believe they had a freeze in cash terms for 6-7 consecutive years.
If we want effective and capable Councils they need a fairly big funding boost, and it will take time to build capacity.
I'd say that conservatively Local Authorities need a funding boost from current levels of something like a quarter to a third in the short term, just for recovery to 2010 levels.
The 0.5% suggestion is interesting but it seems to me there are a few challenges:
1) Switching to this system would lead to increased tax in London and SE and reduced tax in the North. How do you make sure that each council has enough money to spend? It sounds like more lateral transfers would be required but then it becomes a less local tax. 2) How do you decide how much each property is worth? In the 1990s, the valuations were done by driving by. The fact there were bands meant into didn't matter if the valuations were slightly out. However, if you are charging 0.5% then you need more precise valuations e.g. a 5k value difference is worth £25 a year 3) How often would valuations be updated? Again there could be issues for council budgets as house prices change e.g. 10% rise=extra money to spend, 10% fall=austerity
I think that’s right. Personally I think the banding system is probably the right approach, though the higher bands could perhaps pay a bit more.
The issue with it is that it has never been updated and there’s never been a good time for a government to force a revaluation.
If Labour are smart they’ll get a revaluation through now and then they’ll set up an independent body to conduct the revaluations at ten year intervals, a bit like boundary commissions. It might not stop politicians campaigning to freeze the valuations but it will make it politically harder to do so.
And create an automatic revaluation once a house is extended. That can’t be too difficult to do, just tie it into the building control process.
What do you do about things such as - reworking a property to improve energy efficiency can increase the value substantially
?
I think this is why you can’t be too intricate with the valuation/banding process and why I think it needs to be tied to more “headline” items like bedrooms, size, location. You don’t want to discourage improving the housing stock.
How about hearths?
It’s why a land value tax is by far the best system. You can improve your property as much as you like but pay the same tax.
The trouble with all of these proposals is that anything based on a proportion of value that isn't locally set becomes a giant tax on London and the South East. If Barnet council think they're able to set the tax at a lower rate to deliver services then they should be able to do so. Setting a national rate of 0.5% leaves no flexibility and will either result in redistribution (which shouldn't be done with local government taxes) or waste in local governments as they try to spend money they don't need.
Being blunt - council tax is very poor way of raising local taxes - it probably should be a national tax with a percentage of income tax given to councils
No thanks. At least the councils have some say in this and therefore the residents have some say in it. A nationally set tax and settlement process takes local tax policy out of the hands of local people.
So how about 0.3% set by the council + 0.2% wealth
Nope, all set locally. Otherwise it just becomes another redistribution method from the south to the north. I don't have a problem with the concept of the latter but don't hide it under the guise of local taxation. Raise national taxes and do it from those funds if that's the end goal.
Why do you think I split it into 2 - the first bit is set by the council (and can be adjusted) the second (wealth part) is national…
Then add it onto income tax.
No, wealth needs to be taxed as well as income, or otherwise structural inequality in the country is entrenched.
Guido is talking about Council tax switching to a proportional system of x %(0.5%) of the current value. I suspect it's going to happen because changing the bands is impossible as even he points out...
I'd say there may be some weasel words in that from Paul Staines. He's quoting a report from the CSJ, which was founded by Iain Duncan Smith, Tim Montgomerie, Mark Florman and Philippa Stroud.
Havnig said that, a switch to 0.5% of market value would be a huge improvement imo, which if it includes an abolition of Stamp Duty as proposed by its main proponents will be in the financial interests of a large majority.
The main thing I'd say for RR and KS is not to be panicked by a bit of rhetoric from the Right.
Council Tax raises £46.7 billion according to the OBR or about 1.7% of national income so not huge in the cosmic scheme of things. Not sure how which Business Rates raises - way back in 2014-15, it was twice as much as Council Tax but that's probably changed with the pamdemic.
The plan, AIUI, is 0.5% on occupied residential property and 2.5% on empty homes based on a revaluation. There are roughly 24 million homes in the UK.
Doing a crude calculation on Stodge Towers it would mean £250 extra per year.
The % of Council Revenue coming from Council Tax has increased, at the same time as funding levels have been restricted.
That is because Councils have been kept on a starvation diet since ~2010, in both England and Scotland. But more so in England. In Scotland (one of our North Britons such as @Eabhal will tell us) I believe they had a freeze in cash terms for 6-7 consecutive years.
If we want effective and capable Councils they need a fairly big funding boost, and it will take time to build capacity.
I'd say that conservatively Local Authorities need a funding boost from current levels of something like a quarter to a third in the short term, just for recovery to 2010 levels.
The 0.5% suggestion is interesting but it seems to me there are a few challenges:
1) Switching to this system would lead to increased tax in London and SE and reduced tax in the North. How do you make sure that each council has enough money to spend? It sounds like more lateral transfers would be required but then it becomes a less local tax. 2) How do you decide how much each property is worth? In the 1990s, the valuations were done by driving by. The fact there were bands meant into didn't matter if the valuations were slightly out. However, if you are charging 0.5% then you need more precise valuations e.g. a 5k value difference is worth £25 a year 3) How often would valuations be updated? Again there could be issues for council budgets as house prices change e.g. 10% rise=extra money to spend, 10% fall=austerity
I think that’s right. Personally I think the banding system is probably the right approach, though the higher bands could perhaps pay a bit more.
The issue with it is that it has never been updated and there’s never been a good time for a government to force a revaluation.
If Labour are smart they’ll get a revaluation through now and then they’ll set up an independent body to conduct the revaluations at ten year intervals, a bit like boundary commissions. It might not stop politicians campaigning to freeze the valuations but it will make it politically harder to do so.
And create an automatic revaluation once a house is extended. That can’t be too difficult to do, just tie it into the building control process.
What do you do about things such as - reworking a property to improve energy efficiency can increase the value substantially
?
I think this is why you can’t be too intricate with the valuation/banding process and why I think it needs to be tied to more “headline” items like bedrooms, size, location. You don’t want to discourage improving the housing stock.
How about hearths?
Tie is to the market value of the land it sits on.
The guy is dangerous. How could anyone still support him?
He asks a question on whether the crux of that meme is true. Namely, “repeatedly raped a 12 year old girl, 180 community hours, no prison time”.
From the bbc:
"Hamoud Al Soaimi, 21, for three counts of sexual assault and one assault by penetration, jailed for two years suspended for two years with 180 hours unpaid work".
But hey, let’s ban Twitter because he says mean things about Keir Starmer.
But, come, Moonshine, you're a reasonable person, and you surely must know that he's not only doing that.
He's not only accusing Starmer of favouritism to minorities in policing, which no one's succeeded in posting any real evidence of, but seems to be actively willing on social collapse, breakdown and war, in our country, as also the leader of a vast overseas website. You would have to say that Governments all over the world would act in that situation.
Musk is a frequently misunderstood fellow, I have misunderstood him many times. He’s not always right. But I have come to realise his positions are generally (not always) well considered and come with good intentions.
His two tier Keir accusation is not his invention, he is aping an already wide viewpoint. And as others have discussed tonight, it is not true that the evidence slate is clean on that. We are far too soft on serious criminality, both in terms of arrests and sentencing. By the way, any arrests yet for the Southend machete fight or hotel inferno?
I’m looking at this sectarian violence between different components of the British underclass (no offence intended) and wonder indeed if we are now in a similar state to 20th N.Ireland, which by most reasonable definitions was a form of civil war.
I was appalled at some of his statements on Ukraine. But really I do increasingly wonder if he’s right. I don’t think there’s a cigarette paper between the Biden White House and Trump on Ukraine policy. Not really. Neither wants Ukraine to “win”, meaning a return to 2014 borders. And the half hearted support in 2023 makes me wonder whether the White House even wants a return to 2022. Musk is looking at this seeing tens of thousands of death per month on all sides and is saying what’s the f point, if the borders are going to be roughly frozen anyway? My personal view is we’re more not less likely to see nuclear exchange if Putin “wins” in Ukraine, he sees the opposite and seemingly so does the weight of the US security establishment. Perhaps I’m wrong?
Occasionally he likes or retweets inappropriate things out of curiosity or mischief, most likely at time from the karzy. But his vision for Twitter is essentially a global Speakers Corner and that the crowd will sort the sense from the nonsense.
He is very misunderstood by people, often by those that take life too seriously. These calls to ban or expropriate Twitter would be funny if they weren’t so sinister.
What evidence is there for believing the US does not want Ukraine to win? Surely the evidence is that the US administration is held back by the willingness of the Houses of Congress to send money and aid to Ukraine.
I don't think that this administration is wanting Russia to win, the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming. There are, however, a lot of people who are twitchy about the consequences of Russia actually losing. If the Russian army and then the criminal gang in the Kremlin lost control of the situation things could get very hairy indeed.
What I think they want is what they are getting: a Russia that is bled dry but not to the point of total collapse; that has ceased to be a conventional threat to Europe and who will play a much smaller role in the world going forward. And all without an American body bag. That is a real politik result like we haven't seen since the collapse of the Iron curtain.
I think it is more a worry what happens if Russia loses to the point that it is existential for Putin & chums.
Putin is only President for life.
What would Putin & Co *not* do to get 10 minutes more life?
That's why I say people are twitchy and the current bloody stalemate suits the US (and us) very well.
Guido is talking about Council tax switching to a proportional system of x %(0.5%) of the current value. I suspect it's going to happen because changing the bands is impossible as even he points out...
I'd say there may be some weasel words in that from Paul Staines. He's quoting a report from the CSJ, which was founded by Iain Duncan Smith, Tim Montgomerie, Mark Florman and Philippa Stroud.
Havnig said that, a switch to 0.5% of market value would be a huge improvement imo, which if it includes an abolition of Stamp Duty as proposed by its main proponents will be in the financial interests of a large majority.
The main thing I'd say for RR and KS is not to be panicked by a bit of rhetoric from the Right.
Council Tax raises £46.7 billion according to the OBR or about 1.7% of national income so not huge in the cosmic scheme of things. Not sure how which Business Rates raises - way back in 2014-15, it was twice as much as Council Tax but that's probably changed with the pamdemic.
The plan, AIUI, is 0.5% on occupied residential property and 2.5% on empty homes based on a revaluation. There are roughly 24 million homes in the UK.
Doing a crude calculation on Stodge Towers it would mean £250 extra per year.
The % of Council Revenue coming from Council Tax has increased, at the same time as funding levels have been restricted.
That is because Councils have been kept on a starvation diet since ~2010, in both England and Scotland. But more so in England. In Scotland (one of our North Britons such as @Eabhal will tell us) I believe they had a freeze in cash terms for 6-7 consecutive years.
If we want effective and capable Councils they need a fairly big funding boost, and it will take time to build capacity.
I'd say that conservatively Local Authorities need a funding boost from current levels of something like a quarter to a third in the short term, just for recovery to 2010 levels.
The 0.5% suggestion is interesting but it seems to me there are a few challenges:
1) Switching to this system would lead to increased tax in London and SE and reduced tax in the North. How do you make sure that each council has enough money to spend? It sounds like more lateral transfers would be required but then it becomes a less local tax. 2) How do you decide how much each property is worth? In the 1990s, the valuations were done by driving by. The fact there were bands meant into didn't matter if the valuations were slightly out. However, if you are charging 0.5% then you need more precise valuations e.g. a 5k value difference is worth £25 a year 3) How often would valuations be updated? Again there could be issues for council budgets as house prices change e.g. 10% rise=extra money to spend, 10% fall=austerity
I think that’s right. Personally I think the banding system is probably the right approach, though the higher bands could perhaps pay a bit more.
The issue with it is that it has never been updated and there’s never been a good time for a government to force a revaluation.
If Labour are smart they’ll get a revaluation through now and then they’ll set up an independent body to conduct the revaluations at ten year intervals, a bit like boundary commissions. It might not stop politicians campaigning to freeze the valuations but it will make it politically harder to do so.
And create an automatic revaluation once a house is extended. That can’t be too difficult to do, just tie it into the building control process.
What do you do about things such as - reworking a property to improve energy efficiency can increase the value substantially
?
I think this is why you can’t be too intricate with the valuation/banding process and why I think it needs to be tied to more “headline” items like bedrooms, size, location. You don’t want to discourage improving the housing stock.
How about hearths?
It’s why a land value tax is by far the best system. You can improve your property as much as you like but pay the same tax.
The trouble with all of these proposals is that anything based on a proportion of value that isn't locally set becomes a giant tax on London and the South East. If Barnet council think they're able to set the tax at a lower rate to deliver services then they should be able to do so. Setting a national rate of 0.5% leaves no flexibility and will either result in redistribution (which shouldn't be done with local government taxes) or waste in local governments as they try to spend money they don't need.
Being blunt - council tax is very poor way of raising local taxes - it probably should be a national tax with a percentage of income tax given to councils
No thanks. At least the councils have some say in this and therefore the residents have some say in it. A nationally set tax and settlement process takes local tax policy out of the hands of local people.
So how about 0.3% set by the council + 0.2% wealth
Nope, all set locally. Otherwise it just becomes another redistribution method from the south to the north. I don't have a problem with the concept of the latter but don't hide it under the guise of local taxation. Raise national taxes and do it from those funds if that's the end goal.
Why do you think I split it into 2 - the first bit is set by the council (and can be adjusted) the second (wealth part) is national…
Then add it onto income tax.
No, wealth needs to be taxed as well as income, or otherwise structural inequality in the country is entrenched.
It’s worth noting that it’s the wealthier right wing posters on here who are now objecting to a wealth tax…
“West Midlands Police discuss disorder that kicked off after misinformation spread online. The Sky News crew covering the unrest in Birmingham were followed by a man holding a knife and wearing a balaclava after broadcasting live.”
I have to say the police are handling this extremely poorly. I don't understand how they haven't cleared the streets of everyone holding weapons regardless of ethnicity. Threatening anyone with a knife is unacceptable and deserves at least a couple of years locked up. Just because the "community leaders" agreed some kind of plan it doesn't mean everyone will stick to it.
It’s utterly incredible
“Community leaders told us it would be fine so we didn’t bother policing it and anyway there were only 94 people with machetes”
“West Midlands Police discuss disorder that kicked off after misinformation spread online. The Sky News crew covering the unrest in Birmingham were followed by a man holding a knife and wearing a balaclava after broadcasting live.”
I have to say the police are handling this extremely poorly. I don't understand how they haven't cleared the streets of everyone holding weapons regardless of ethnicity. Threatening anyone with a knife is unacceptable and deserves at least a couple of years locked up. Just because the "community leaders" agreed some kind of plan it doesn't mean everyone will stick to it.
It’s utterly incredible
“Community leaders told us it would be fine so we didn’t bother policing it and anyway there were only 94 people with machetes”
The British approach of delegating authority to self appointed community leaders, often with extremely chauvinistic and backwards views, is bananas.
Guido is talking about Council tax switching to a proportional system of x %(0.5%) of the current value. I suspect it's going to happen because changing the bands is impossible as even he points out...
I'd say there may be some weasel words in that from Paul Staines. He's quoting a report from the CSJ, which was founded by Iain Duncan Smith, Tim Montgomerie, Mark Florman and Philippa Stroud.
Havnig said that, a switch to 0.5% of market value would be a huge improvement imo, which if it includes an abolition of Stamp Duty as proposed by its main proponents will be in the financial interests of a large majority.
The main thing I'd say for RR and KS is not to be panicked by a bit of rhetoric from the Right.
Council Tax raises £46.7 billion according to the OBR or about 1.7% of national income so not huge in the cosmic scheme of things. Not sure how which Business Rates raises - way back in 2014-15, it was twice as much as Council Tax but that's probably changed with the pamdemic.
The plan, AIUI, is 0.5% on occupied residential property and 2.5% on empty homes based on a revaluation. There are roughly 24 million homes in the UK.
Doing a crude calculation on Stodge Towers it would mean £250 extra per year.
The % of Council Revenue coming from Council Tax has increased, at the same time as funding levels have been restricted.
That is because Councils have been kept on a starvation diet since ~2010, in both England and Scotland. But more so in England. In Scotland (one of our North Britons such as @Eabhal will tell us) I believe they had a freeze in cash terms for 6-7 consecutive years.
If we want effective and capable Councils they need a fairly big funding boost, and it will take time to build capacity.
I'd say that conservatively Local Authorities need a funding boost from current levels of something like a quarter to a third in the short term, just for recovery to 2010 levels.
The 0.5% suggestion is interesting but it seems to me there are a few challenges:
1) Switching to this system would lead to increased tax in London and SE and reduced tax in the North. How do you make sure that each council has enough money to spend? It sounds like more lateral transfers would be required but then it becomes a less local tax. 2) How do you decide how much each property is worth? In the 1990s, the valuations were done by driving by. The fact there were bands meant into didn't matter if the valuations were slightly out. However, if you are charging 0.5% then you need more precise valuations e.g. a 5k value difference is worth £25 a year 3) How often would valuations be updated? Again there could be issues for council budgets as house prices change e.g. 10% rise=extra money to spend, 10% fall=austerity
I think that’s right. Personally I think the banding system is probably the right approach, though the higher bands could perhaps pay a bit more.
The issue with it is that it has never been updated and there’s never been a good time for a government to force a revaluation.
If Labour are smart they’ll get a revaluation through now and then they’ll set up an independent body to conduct the revaluations at ten year intervals, a bit like boundary commissions. It might not stop politicians campaigning to freeze the valuations but it will make it politically harder to do so.
And create an automatic revaluation once a house is extended. That can’t be too difficult to do, just tie it into the building control process.
What do you do about things such as - reworking a property to improve energy efficiency can increase the value substantially
?
I think this is why you can’t be too intricate with the valuation/banding process and why I think it needs to be tied to more “headline” items like bedrooms, size, location. You don’t want to discourage improving the housing stock.
How about hearths?
It’s why a land value tax is by far the best system. You can improve your property as much as you like but pay the same tax.
The trouble with all of these proposals is that anything based on a proportion of value that isn't locally set becomes a giant tax on London and the South East. If Barnet council think they're able to set the tax at a lower rate to deliver services then they should be able to do so. Setting a national rate of 0.5% leaves no flexibility and will either result in redistribution (which shouldn't be done with local government taxes) or waste in local governments as they try to spend money they don't need.
Being blunt - council tax is very poor way of raising local taxes - it probably should be a national tax with a percentage of income tax given to councils
No thanks. At least the councils have some say in this and therefore the residents have some say in it. A nationally set tax and settlement process takes local tax policy out of the hands of local people.
So how about 0.3% set by the council + 0.2% wealth
Nope, all set locally. Otherwise it just becomes another redistribution method from the south to the north. I don't have a problem with the concept of the latter but don't hide it under the guise of local taxation. Raise national taxes and do it from those funds if that's the end goal.
Why do you think I split it into 2 - the first bit is set by the council (and can be adjusted) the second (wealth part) is national…
Then add it onto income tax.
No, wealth needs to be taxed as well as income, or otherwise structural inequality in the country is entrenched.
It’s worth noting that it’s the wealthier right wing posters on here who are now objecting to a wealth tax…
A wealth tax would need to have minimum thresholds and fundamentally is someone who owns a £3m house with a £2.4m mortgage wealthy? Would you tax that person on the whole £3m or just the £0.6m?
Guido is talking about Council tax switching to a proportional system of x %(0.5%) of the current value. I suspect it's going to happen because changing the bands is impossible as even he points out...
I'd say there may be some weasel words in that from Paul Staines. He's quoting a report from the CSJ, which was founded by Iain Duncan Smith, Tim Montgomerie, Mark Florman and Philippa Stroud.
Havnig said that, a switch to 0.5% of market value would be a huge improvement imo, which if it includes an abolition of Stamp Duty as proposed by its main proponents will be in the financial interests of a large majority.
The main thing I'd say for RR and KS is not to be panicked by a bit of rhetoric from the Right.
Council Tax raises £46.7 billion according to the OBR or about 1.7% of national income so not huge in the cosmic scheme of things. Not sure how which Business Rates raises - way back in 2014-15, it was twice as much as Council Tax but that's probably changed with the pamdemic.
The plan, AIUI, is 0.5% on occupied residential property and 2.5% on empty homes based on a revaluation. There are roughly 24 million homes in the UK.
Doing a crude calculation on Stodge Towers it would mean £250 extra per year.
The % of Council Revenue coming from Council Tax has increased, at the same time as funding levels have been restricted.
That is because Councils have been kept on a starvation diet since ~2010, in both England and Scotland. But more so in England. In Scotland (one of our North Britons such as @Eabhal will tell us) I believe they had a freeze in cash terms for 6-7 consecutive years.
If we want effective and capable Councils they need a fairly big funding boost, and it will take time to build capacity.
I'd say that conservatively Local Authorities need a funding boost from current levels of something like a quarter to a third in the short term, just for recovery to 2010 levels.
The 0.5% suggestion is interesting but it seems to me there are a few challenges:
1) Switching to this system would lead to increased tax in London and SE and reduced tax in the North. How do you make sure that each council has enough money to spend? It sounds like more lateral transfers would be required but then it becomes a less local tax. 2) How do you decide how much each property is worth? In the 1990s, the valuations were done by driving by. The fact there were bands meant into didn't matter if the valuations were slightly out. However, if you are charging 0.5% then you need more precise valuations e.g. a 5k value difference is worth £25 a year 3) How often would valuations be updated? Again there could be issues for council budgets as house prices change e.g. 10% rise=extra money to spend, 10% fall=austerity
I think that’s right. Personally I think the banding system is probably the right approach, though the higher bands could perhaps pay a bit more.
The issue with it is that it has never been updated and there’s never been a good time for a government to force a revaluation.
If Labour are smart they’ll get a revaluation through now and then they’ll set up an independent body to conduct the revaluations at ten year intervals, a bit like boundary commissions. It might not stop politicians campaigning to freeze the valuations but it will make it politically harder to do so.
And create an automatic revaluation once a house is extended. That can’t be too difficult to do, just tie it into the building control process.
What do you do about things such as - reworking a property to improve energy efficiency can increase the value substantially
?
I think this is why you can’t be too intricate with the valuation/banding process and why I think it needs to be tied to more “headline” items like bedrooms, size, location. You don’t want to discourage improving the housing stock.
How about hearths?
Tie is to the market value of the land it sits on.
Requires work to calculate the value of the land - the price you bought the house at is way easier to calculate - 90% of the time a record will exist and where it doesn’t a nearby house will have sold and provide a suitable comparison
It’s worth saying that Nprthern Ireland uses bands based on sold prices for the same, avoid complexity, reasoning
Comments
Dizzying it is not.
Still, a nice day, concluding with a family swim in the sea in the sunset.
Amsterdam tomorrow.
The group of Just Stop Oil protesters were detained by officers near Manchester Airport on suspicion of conspiring to cause a public nuisance
That would mean tens of thousands of people posting on Facebook/twitter getting a knock on the door.
USA 28% (big improvement on earlier)
China 38%
Australia 40%
France 27%
GB 26%
Council tax bands might not be perfect but it's a system that everyone understands, smaller properties pay less and bigger ones pay more. A tax of 0.5% on value means everyone pays the "same" and everyone is going to hate it.
What better shoes and tracks might do is turn long jumpers into sprinters, thus denuding long jump of more potential record breakers.
(Not that I know Lembit to be racist.)
“Do you know the only other one term Presidency a party has had in the last century ?
Donald Trump…”
Here’s another Wiki article for you…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush
Hopefully that one won’t tax you too much.
It started to fall apart a bit over the economy, then the Iranian revolution, but the USA wasn't the only country struggling with the economic fallout of the 1970s oil crisis and worldwide inflation.
Looking back, like most politicians he ended in failure, but history will evaluate his Presidency better with time.
"There is little support for the unrest, and only a third support the wider peaceful protests
Regardless of what the rioters believe they are representing, their actions are not supported by the British public, with 85% of Britons opposing the unrest at recent protests and just 7% saying they support the violence. Even the broader protests only hold the support of one in three Britons (34%), with more than half (54%) opposed."
Given what your typical south east house is paying in council tax I don’t think the change is going to be that drastic
But the judges have been at levels of competence and honesty similar to politicians.
And of course there are many more winners than losers by a 0.5% tax on property value, as the distribution of house price values is highly skewed. Band H is hight than band A but nowhere near the difference in house values. Many of those winners would be in "left behind towns" like Southport and Hartlepool too.
His two tier Keir accusation is not his invention, he is aping an already wide viewpoint. And as others have discussed tonight, it is not true that the evidence slate is clean on that. We are far too soft on serious criminality, both in terms of arrests and sentencing. By the way, any arrests yet for the Southend machete fight or hotel inferno?
I’m looking at this sectarian violence between different components of the British underclass (no offence intended) and wonder indeed if we are now in a similar state to 20th N.Ireland, which by most reasonable definitions was a form of civil war.
I was appalled at some of his statements on Ukraine. But really I do increasingly wonder if he’s right. I don’t think there’s a cigarette paper between the Biden White House and Trump on Ukraine policy. Not really. Neither wants Ukraine to “win”, meaning a return to 2014 borders. And the half hearted support in 2023 makes me wonder whether the White House even wants a return to 2022. Musk is looking at this seeing tens of thousands of death per month on all sides and is saying what’s the f point, if the borders are going to be roughly frozen anyway? My personal view is we’re more not less likely to see nuclear exchange if Putin “wins” in Ukraine, he sees the opposite and seemingly so does the weight of the US security establishment. Perhaps I’m wrong?
Occasionally he likes or retweets inappropriate things out of curiosity or mischief, most likely at time from the karzy. But his vision for Twitter is essentially a global Speakers Corner and that the crowd will sort the sense from the nonsense.
He is very misunderstood by people, often by those that take life too seriously. These calls to ban or expropriate Twitter would be funny if they weren’t so sinister.
Actually I think it’s quite a depressing figure, but I am afraid I am not particularly surprised.
And if people are feeling richer, they don't tend to be unhappy about immigration levels.
Where the UK has failed is that it combined high levels of immigration with - for example - far too little provision of housing, so that disposable income has been squeezed for tens of millions of people.
When you sell it for far beyond the price you paid + house price inflation the owner pays based on the price he agreed to pay…
The only issue would be if e had house price deflation but I think the inflation adjustment fixes that issue
I think band H is 3x the charge of band A.
Now if we had bands through to Z then band Z would be approximately 10x the charge for band A.
Better late than never is the logic. But I agree that it doesn't pass the political feasibility test, at least in this form. It remains the only way to introduce a proxy wealth tax in the UK, and even then it must be done with a great deal of care.
My issue with any proposal right based on proportion of value is that it will raise way too much in some places and way too little in other places and then suddenly Londoners are paying for pot holes to be filled in Newcastle while our roads are still shit.
What I think they want is what they are getting: a Russia that is bled dry but not to the point of total collapse; that has ceased to be a conventional threat to Europe and who will play a much smaller role in the world going forward. And all without an American body bag. That is a real politik result like we haven't seen since the collapse of the Iron curtain.
My Council Tax as a single person is £1200+. That's 4%.
I think its important that councils have some discretion as to what level of tax they set.
If everything originates nationally then we might have the situation where parish councils have more tax raising powers than metropolitan and district councils.
Lovely day on the great little trains of Wales and far from the serious crisis engulfing the country
I have no words for the extreme thugs and justice needs to be swift but I am very concerned where this is going and my fear is a terrible clash between the present protagonists and opposing groups resorting to tit for tat violence with serious injuries or worse
The next few days and weeks may well be frightening to witness with nobody able to predict the outcome
It is certain that Starmer, his ministers and the police do need to act with no fear or favour and indeed name and shame those involved no matter who they are
I'm a big fan of local government in theory but let's not pretend that's what we have at the moment.
The areas where the riots are happening are where there are poor educational achievement levels, poor job and income opportunities, and economic stagnation.
Although it’s likely to be 0.5% on the council tax side of things because for many councils even 0.5% won’t match what they currently charge a band a household as @dixiedean points out.
First time I think I would baulk at a tax increase.
Putin is only President for life.
What would Putin & Co *not* do to get 10 minutes more life?
Poor white people exist. Many of them are holding down multiple jobs to feed their children and heat their homes. If people like Farage and Yaxley-Lennon tell them they can't heat their homes and feed their children because of foreigners, or the EU some might believe them, but few will go out and riot. The trouble is the people pushing their buttons have less working class credentials that you suggest I have.
It was very noticeable today, on the streets & buses and in the shops, that ordinary strangers going about their ordinary lives were being abnormally courteous and kind to other strangers. A sort of compensating civility as a rejection of the violence.
It was heartening.
Things will happen. Or won't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_United_States_presidential_election
https://x.com/skynews/status/1820881508413899082?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
Even Sky tacitly admits this
“West Midlands Police discuss disorder that kicked off after misinformation spread online. The Sky News crew covering the unrest in Birmingham were followed by a man holding a knife and wearing a balaclava after broadcasting live.”
If you look at immigration to places like Canada, it has been very high skill there. Though, Canadians are upset with even that well done immigration and the impact it is having on house prices.
Throughout history there have been many statesmen and women who helped the Head Count without being of them.
The problem is that the people pushing their buttons are fucking scum.
It’s actually not clear the US would have even supported the initial resistance without Boris Johnson (remember him?) pushing for it. But once that decision was made, it seems very clear to me the White House policy has been to oversee a slow war of attrition between the Slavs, where no one really wins but Soviet stockpiles get slowly degraded. Trouble is, it has allowed Putin to consolidate his power base, eliminate his rivals and form a real rather than rhetorical Axis of Evil with China, North Korea and Iran.
Really US policy has been a catastrophe, because much like in its other recent wars, it can’t decide on its strategic goal. And I would argue, that while Trump would freeze the borders as they are, there’s sadly scant evidence that the outcome will be different with a Kamala victory.
As for Congress, yes it is true MAGA was blocking even basic armaments for a very long time. But lend lease in 2022 had almost unanimous approval and expired unused.
The truth is, the White House was funded and legally enabled to give far more useful equipment than it has, far earlier and with far less restrictive rules of engagement. It chose not to. But I must always remember that they have access to information channels I do not. And perhaps the Musk/Sullivan/Trump view on this is correct, even if they are varying shades of a similar theme rather than being identical.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.176878927
As I said earlier a better plan would be to use a proportion of income tax as the source of council tax income and use the house price tax as a source of government income to replace the bit of income tax that has been lost
Given how automated PAYE is nowadays and the fact postcode is provided as part of the weekly / monthly return it wouldn’t be difficult to allow local variations to income tax
@AllieHBNews
·
2m
Wednesday’s Daily TELEGRAPH: “Rioters face terror charges, warns DPP”
Throw the book at them. No mercy.
“Community leaders told us it would be fine so we didn’t bother policing it and anyway there were only 94 people with machetes”
Your boy has lost control of the streets.
The US haven't given this dual nationality entitlement guy the Shameena Begum treatment yet. Expel him.
In any case he is not welcome in the UK ever again, in my eyes.
It’s worth saying that Nprthern Ireland uses bands based on sold prices for the same, avoid complexity, reasoning