Tim Aker MEP (@Tim_Aker) 26/09/2014 11:45 Today we announced long serving members of our forces will be guaranteed a job in the border force, police or prison service #UKIPConf14
Tens of thousands of young people will be able to rent new homes at below-market rates with the opportunity to buy them at the end of their tenancy, Eric Pickles will announce this weekend. Housing associations and social landlords will be given £400million worth of cheap loans to build new homes.
Under a new “Rent to Buy” scheme, the associations and landlords will have to rent the new houses out at below market rates – capped at 80 per cent of local market value – for seven years. After this period, people will be given the opportunity to buy the homes.
The policy will be aimed at young people trying to build up a deposit to get on the housing ladder rather than those on benefits. The government claims 10,000 new homes will be built under the plans between 2015 and 2017.
Rubbish idea, has no merit at all.
How about this; ease up on the rules and regulations about planning permission.
More houses will be built, they will cost less and the taxpayer will not be £400m poorer.
This is exactly what the Tories tried to do in Guildford - and got utterly hammered in a local election. It is very clearly the right thing to do for the country as a whole but electorally suicidal. But never fear - brave Ed Miliband is going to force these things through without consequences and there'll be an avalnache of cheap new houses built and jammy dodgers for tea.
Why introduce another tax band? Why not simply put the 'threshold' for 40% up by £10k? It would have exactly the same effect, but would cost much less to implement.
Remember: as regards tax, simplification is *always* better.
Because it would affect a different bunch of people?
I don't think that's true:
Let's say (to simplify), you have two tax bands, 10% below £10,000 20% above £10,000
Now, imagine that you want to make the burden less on people earning £10,000 to £12,000, so you introduce an additional band:
10% below £10,000 15% between £10,000 and £12,000 20% above £12,000
Tim Aker MEP (@Tim_Aker) 26/09/2014 11:45 Today we announced long serving members of our forces will be guaranteed a job in the border force, police or prison service #UKIPConf14
The probability of leader change (short of falling under buses) for any party before may isn't 10%, or 5%, or 1%. It's zero.
Foxinsox on last thread expressing doubts on mansion tax:
Do you think Paxo wants his taxes going up? Janet Street Porter clearly does not.
We might LOSE the support of Paxman and Daily Express writer Janet Street-Porter? I want a bottle of what you were having... :-)
A more serious argument against the Mansion Tax is that it is effectively creating a ground rent, charged by the State, in perpetuity, for wholly owned property. This is a new class of tax. How long before it is moving down the scale of wealth? I'm wary myself of the long term consequences of this, although sympathetic to the impulse.
Good point. A £2 million house is not an ordinary family home and the Tories are daft to suggest that it is. But the problem with the proposal is that it raises so little - barely 1% of the NHS budget - that there must be a very high likelihood that it will be charged on properties worth much much less than that. That is the fear - that people owning houses worth £300K or £500K or whatever, which are not mansions, will be stung.
All taxes start out as taxes on the very rich and end up hitting ordinary people.
This will pretty quickly end up being a "terraced house" tax.
The Tories would be mad not to point this out at every possible opportunity between now and May 205.
Personally I think it would be much better to have more council tax bands at the high end. It is absurd and unfair that someone living in a house worth £350K pays the same council tax as someone in a £2 mio house.
And from the safety of no fingers on one hand when it comes to MPs right now, Kippers can get away with saying almost anything. I can see it chiming with their voter pool.
What I like most about conference season is the idea pinching afterwards by the Big Two. It always happens.
Did the TUC have a conf this year? I used to love those but the last one was dreadful/tiny affair and I'd almost forgotten about it being on.
Tim Aker MEP (@Tim_Aker) 26/09/2014 11:45 Today we announced long serving members of our forces will be guaranteed a job in the border force, police or prison service #UKIPConf14
The probability of leader change (short of falling under buses) for any party before may isn't 10%, or 5%, or 1%. It's zero.
Foxinsox on last thread expressing doubts on mansion tax:
Do you think Paxo wants his taxes going up? Janet Street Porter clearly does not.
We might LOSE the support of Paxman and Daily Express writer Janet Street-Porter? I want a bottle of what you were having... :-)
A more serious argument against the Mansion Tax is that it is effectively creating a ground rent, charged by the State, in perpetuity, for wholly owned property. This is a new class of tax. How long before it is moving down the scale of wealth? I'm wary myself of the long term consequences of this, although sympathetic to the impulse.
Good point. A £2 million house is not an ordinary family home and the Tories are daft to suggest that it is. But the problem with the proposal is that it raises so little - barely 1% of the NHS budget - that there must be a very high likelihood that it will be charged on properties worth much much less than that. That is the fear - that people owning houses worth £300K or £500K or whatever, which are not mansions, will be stung.
All taxes start out as taxes on the very rich and end up hitting ordinary people.
This will pretty quickly end up being a "terraced house" tax.
The Tories would be mad not to point this out at every possible opportunity between now and May 205.
Personally I think it would be much better to have more council tax bands at the high end. It is absurd and unfair that someone living in a house worth £350K pays the same council tax as someone in a £2 mio house.
Agree; why can’t there just be a couple of new, higher, bands of Council Tax?
As an aside, what assumption is UKIP making about paying to access the EU market, as Norway (for example) does?
Well, presumably it would be left to negotiation. We'd probably end up paying similar to Norway on a per capita basis. On the one hand they're richer so can afford to pay more, but on the other hand we'd probably have to give a bit more up to opt out of free movement.
And here I fundamentally disagree. I was a supporter of the Community Charge - it's equitable and based on use per person. That it was entirely botched at the time doesn't mean it wasn't a good idea.
I think Council Tax is entirely unfair. Why should I pay £2000 a year to get my only bin emptied? So what if there's a marginal reduction as a single resident - it's still fundamentally an asset tax [and that asset belongs to the bank for 25yrs].
It's got nothing to do with your income or usage or ability to pay unless you're on some means tested benefit. It's daft.
The probability of leader change (short of falling under buses) for any party before may isn't 10%, or 5%, or 1%. It's zero.
Foxinsox on last thread expressing doubts on mansion tax:
Do you think Paxo wants his taxes going up? Janet Street Porter clearly does not.
We might LOSE the support of Paxman and Daily Express writer Janet Street-Porter? I want a bottle of what you were having... :-)
A more serious argument against the Mansion Tax is that it is effectively creating a ground rent, charged by the State, in perpetuity, for wholly owned property. This is a new class of tax. How long before it is moving down the scale of wealth? I'm wary myself of the long term consequences of this, although sympathetic to the impulse.
Good point. A £2 million house is not an ordinary family home and the Tories are daft to suggest that it is. But the problem with the proposal is that it raises so little - barely 1% of the NHS budget - that there must be a very high likelihood that it will be charged on properties worth much much less than that. That is the fear - that people owning houses worth £300K or £500K or whatever, which are not mansions, will be stung.
All taxes start out as taxes on the very rich and end up hitting ordinary people.
This will pretty quickly end up being a "terraced house" tax.
The Tories would be mad not to point this out at every possible opportunity between now and May 205.
Personally I think it would be much better to have more council tax bands at the high end. It is absurd and unfair that someone living in a house worth £350K pays the same council tax as someone in a £2 mio house.
The probability of leader change (short of falling under buses) for any party before may isn't 10%, or 5%, or 1%. It's zero.
Foxinsox on last thread expressing doubts on mansion tax:
Do you think Paxo wants his taxes going up? Janet Street Porter clearly does not.
We might LOSE the support of Paxman and Daily Express writer Janet Street-Porter? I want a bottle of what you were having... :-)
A more serious argument against the Mansion Tax is that it is effectively creating a ground rent, charged by the State, in perpetuity, for wholly owned property. This is a new class of tax. How long before it is moving down the scale of wealth? I'm wary myself of the long term consequences of this, although sympathetic to the impulse.
Good point. A £2 million house is not an ordinary family home and the Tories are daft to suggest that it is. But the problem with the proposal is that it raises so little - barely 1% of the NHS budget - that there must be a very high likelihood that it will be charged on properties worth much much less than that. That is the fear - that people owning houses worth £300K or £500K or whatever, which are not mansions, will be stung.
All taxes start out as taxes on the very rich and end up hitting ordinary people.
This will pretty quickly end up being a "terraced house" tax.
The Tories would be mad not to point this out at every possible opportunity between now and May 205.
Personally I think it would be much better to have more council tax bands at the high end. It is absurd and unfair that someone living in a house worth £350K pays the same council tax as someone in a £2 mio house.
Agree; why can’t there just be a couple of new, higher, bands of Council Tax?
I guess one reason is that council tax goes to the council (duh!). Whereas mansion tax will go to the Treasury / UK level. If there's one thing the Treasury in our over-centralised bureaucratic state hates and that is money flowing elsewhere.
I can't believe he's been their leader for so long. It's been years now and I'm struggling to think of much that he's actually achieved with his Party bar cheap-seat applause.
I'm beginning to really think Labour would be better off with Gordon in charge instead. And I didn't think I'd EVER say that.
I can't see Miliband going now. It's not like he was amazing for the last three years and suddenly became rubbish (hence the pb catchphrase 'Ed Miliband is crap').
Labour are also rubbish at axing leaders.
And would Miliband make it easy? He would've effectively ended his brother's political career and then failed to even contest the election.
EdM's biggest achievements are that he's kept his party together and secured and retained the support of a quarter to a third of 2010 LDs representing 5-7% of the electorate. While they stay on board it's hard to see any other outcome than an Ed victory.
The probability of leader change (short of falling under buses) for any party before may isn't 10%, or 5%, or 1%. It's zero.
Foxinsox on last thread expressing doubts on mansion tax:
Do you think Paxo wants his taxes going up? Janet Street Porter clearly does not.
We might LOSE the support of Paxman and Daily Express writer Janet Street-Porter? I want a bottle of what you were having... :-)
A more serious argument against the Mansion Tax is that it is effectively creating a ground rent, charged by the State, in perpetuity, for wholly owned property. This is a new class of tax. How long before it is moving down the scale of wealth? I'm wary myself of the long term consequences of this, although sympathetic to the impulse.
For wholly owned property that has been acquired with taxed money - the residue of income tax or under an inheritance tax regime.
In principle, what is the difference bewtween a Mansion Tax and adding a couple of higher bands to those used for Council Tax? I realise that the latter goes to local, rather than national, government, but the altter can reduce the grant paid to the former!
It is a step towards a wealth tax
Not a "step towards". It is a wealth tax - given that the biggest component of anyone's wealth is their house.
And here I fundamentally disagree. I was a supporter of the Community Charge - it's equitable and based on use per person. That it was entirely botched at the time doesn't mean it wasn't a good idea.
I think Council Tax is entirely unfair. Why should I pay £2000 a year to get my only bin emptied? So what if there's a marginal reduction as a single resident - it's still fundamentally an asset tax [and that asset belongs to the bank for 25yrs].
It's got nothing to do with your income or usage or ability to pay unless you're on some means tested benefit. It's daft.
The probability of leader change (short of falling under buses) for any party before may isn't 10%, or 5%, or 1%. It's zero.
Foxinsox on last thread expressing doubts on mansion tax:
Do you think Paxo wants his taxes going up? Janet Street Porter clearly does not.
We might LOSE the support of Paxman and Daily Express writer Janet Street-Porter? I want a bottle of what you were having... :-)
A more serious argument against the Mansion Tax is that it is effectively creating a ground rent, charged by the State, in perpetuity, for wholly owned property. This is a new class of tax. How long before it is moving down the scale of wealth? I'm wary myself of the long term consequences of this, although sympathetic to the impulse.
Good point. A £2 million house is not an ordinary family home and the Tories are daft to suggest that it is. But the problem with the proposal is that it raises so little - barely 1% of the NHS budget - that there must be a very high likelihood that it will be charged on properties worth much much less than that. That is the fear - that people owning houses worth £300K or £500K or whatever, which are not mansions, will be stung.
All taxes start out as taxes on the very rich and end up hitting ordinary people.
This will pretty quickly end up being a "terraced house" tax.
The Tories would be mad not to point this out at every possible opportunity between now and May 205.
Personally I think it would be much better to have more council tax bands at the high end. It is absurd and unfair that someone living in a house worth £350K pays the same council tax as someone in a £2 mio house.
Given that we have council tax I think it daft that there hasn't been a proper revaluation and that very expensive houses are taxed at the same rate as very modest ones.
The question of whether we have a council tax at all or something else e.g. local income tax or purely payment for services is a different one. But I don't think any government in my lifetime will reintroduce a poll tax.
The probability of leader change (short of falling under buses) for any party before may isn't 10%, or 5%, or 1%. It's zero.
Foxinsox on last thread expressing doubts on mansion tax:
Do you think Paxo wants his taxes going up? Janet Street Porter clearly does not.
We might LOSE the support of Paxman and Daily Express writer Janet Street-Porter? I want a bottle of what you were having... :-)
A more serious argument against the Mansion Tax is that it is effectively creating a ground rent, charged by the State, in perpetuity, for wholly owned property. This is a new class of tax. How long before it is moving down the scale of wealth? I'm wary myself of the long term consequences of this, although sympathetic to the impulse.
Good point. A £2 million house is not an ordinary family home and the Tories are daft to suggest that it is. But the problem with the proposal is that it raises so little - barely 1% of the NHS budget - that there must be a very high likelihood that it will be charged on properties worth much much less than that. That is the fear - that people owning houses worth £300K or £500K or whatever, which are not mansions, will be stung.
All taxes start out as taxes on the very rich and end up hitting ordinary people.
This will pretty quickly end up being a "terraced house" tax.
The Tories would be mad not to point this out at every possible opportunity between now and May 205.
Personally I think it would be much better to have more council tax bands at the high end. It is absurd and unfair that someone living in a house worth £350K pays the same council tax as someone in a £2 mio house.
Agree; why can’t there just be a couple of new, higher, bands of Council Tax?
I guess one reason is that council tax goes to the council (duh!). Whereas mansion tax will go to the Treasury / UK level. If there's one thing the Treasury in our over-centralised bureaucratic state hates and that is money flowing elsewhere.
Surely the Government then simply cuts back on council funding.
Rather than shoving taxes up, why doesn't Government simply stop spending money it doesn't have and balance the books?
I find it very hard to believe that Everyone's NHS can't find savings somewhere in it's truly gargantuan budget, that can be diverted and spent on clinical care.
Miss Cyclefree, whilst those things are advantages for Miliband they're down to good fortune rather than any cunning action on his part. Labour is by far the easiest party to keep together (they couldn't even properly rebel against Brown), and the Lib Dems drifting at least partially Labour's way would've also happened whoever had been Labour leader due to the Coalition.
And here I fundamentally disagree. I was a supporter of the Community Charge - it's equitable and based on use per person. That it was entirely botched at the time doesn't mean it wasn't a good idea.
I think Council Tax is entirely unfair. Why should I pay £2000 a year to get my only bin emptied? So what if there's a marginal reduction as a single resident - it's still fundamentally an asset tax [and that asset belongs to the bank for 25yrs].
It's got nothing to do with your income or usage or ability to pay unless you're on some means tested benefit. It's daft.
And here I fundamentally disagree. I was a supporter of the Community Charge - it's equitable and based on use per person. That it was entirely botched at the time doesn't mean it wasn't a good idea.
I think Council Tax is entirely unfair. Why should I pay £2000 a year to get my only bin emptied? So what if there's a marginal reduction as a single resident - it's still fundamentally an asset tax [and that asset belongs to the bank for 25yrs].
It's got nothing to do with your income or usage or ability to pay unless you're on some means tested benefit. It's daft.
The probability of leader change (short of falling under buses) for any party before may isn't 10%, or 5%, or 1%. It's zero.
Foxinsox on last thread expressing doubts on mansion tax:
Do you think Paxo wants his taxes going up? Janet Street Porter clearly does not.
We might LOSE the support of Paxman and Daily Express writer Janet Street-Porter? I want a bottle of what you were having... :-)
A more serious argument against the Mansion Tax is that it is effectively creating a ground rent, charged by the State, in perpetuity, for wholly owned property. This is a new class of tax. How long before it is moving down the scale of wealth? I'm wary myself of the long term consequences of this, although sympathetic to the impulse.
Good point. A £2 million house is not an ordinary family home and the Tories are daft to suggest that it is. But the problem with the proposal is that it raises so little - barely 1% of the NHS budget - that there must be a very high likelihood that it will be charged on properties worth much much less than that. That is the fear - that people owning houses worth £300K or £500K or whatever, which are not mansions, will be stung.
All taxes start out as taxes on the very rich and end up hitting ordinary people.
This will pretty quickly end up being a "terraced house" tax.
The Tories would be mad not to point this out at every possible opportunity between now and May 205.
Personally I think it would be much better to have more council tax bands at the high end. It is absurd and unfair that someone living in a house worth £350K pays the same council tax as someone in a £2 mio house.
The worst thing Cam could do is come out with a flashmany 'what a pr*t my opponent is' type of attitude at the tory conference. That is for the public to decide.
The probability of leader change (short of falling under buses) for any party before may isn't 10%, or 5%, or 1%. It's zero.
Foxinsox on last thread expressing doubts on mansion tax:
Do you think Paxo wants his taxes going up? Janet Street Porter clearly does not.
We might LOSE the support of Paxman and Daily Express writer Janet Street-Porter? I want a bottle of what you were having... :-)
A more serious argument against the Mansion Tax is that it is effectively creating a ground rent, charged by the State, in perpetuity, for wholly owned property. This is a new class of tax. How long before it is moving down the scale of wealth? I'm wary myself of the long term consequences of this, although sympathetic to the impulse.
Good point. A £2 million house is not an ordinary family home and the Tories are daft to suggest that it is. But the problem with the proposal is that it raises so little - barely 1% of the NHS budget - that there must be a very high likelihood that it will be charged on properties worth much much less than that. That is the fear - that people owning houses worth £300K or £500K or whatever, which are not mansions, will be stung.
All taxes start out as taxes on the very rich and end up hitting ordinary people.
This will pretty quickly end up being a "terraced house" tax.
The Tories would be mad not to point this out at every possible opportunity between now and May 205.
Personally I think it would be much better to have more council tax bands at the high end. It is absurd and unfair that someone living in a house worth £350K pays the same council tax as someone in a £2 mio house.
The logic of Plato's view is that we should only pay for the local services which we use.
So when we are young our parents should pay for the local school. When we are old and need care, we should pay for our own care.
And here I fundamentally disagree. I was a supporter of the Community Charge - it's equitable and based on use per person. That it was entirely botched at the time doesn't mean it wasn't a good idea.
I think Council Tax is entirely unfair. Why should I pay £2000 a year to get my only bin emptied? So what if there's a marginal reduction as a single resident - it's still fundamentally an asset tax [and that asset belongs to the bank for 25yrs].
It's got nothing to do with your income or usage or ability to pay unless you're on some means tested benefit. It's daft.
The probability of leader change (short of falling under buses) for any party before may isn't 10%, or 5%, or 1%. It's zero.
Foxinsox on last thread expressing doubts on mansion tax:
Do you think Paxo wants his taxes going up? Janet Street Porter clearly does not.
We might LOSE the support of Paxman and Daily Express writer Janet Street-Porter? I want a bottle of what you were having... :-)
Good point. A £2 million house is not an ordinary family home and the Tories are daft to suggest that it is. But the problem with the proposal is that it raises so little - barely 1% of the NHS budget - that there must be a very high likelihood that it will be charged on properties worth much much less than that. That is the fear - that people owning houses worth £300K or £500K or whatever, which are not mansions, will be stung.
All taxes start out as taxes on the very rich and end up hitting ordinary people.
This will pretty quickly end up being a "terraced house" tax.
The Tories would be mad not to point this out at every possible opportunity between now and May 205.
Personally I think it would be much better to have more council tax bands at the high end. It is absurd and unfair that someone living in a house worth £350K pays the same council tax as someone in a £2 mio house.
Council tax is a regressive form of taxation worked out by Tories in panic mode post-Thatcher.It is based on house values which are well out-dated.It was never fair.INHO a local income tax only helps out the tax-cheats as well,.a land value tax needs more research but from a tax collectors point of view property cannot be hidden. Council tax has collection rates of 97% so property tax is paid by consent much better than other taxes because it is property based.We need a fair property tax. Best route forward is a full UK property re-evaluation and a property tax based on percentage of house value,ideally set regionally,or as locally as possible,to the towns,cities and parishes-it could re-energise local government if everyone felt they were fair shares.
And here I fundamentally disagree. I was a supporter of the Community Charge - it's equitable and based on use per person. That it was entirely botched at the time doesn't mean it wasn't a good idea.
I think Council Tax is entirely unfair. Why should I pay £2000 a year to get my only bin emptied? So what if there's a marginal reduction as a single resident - it's still fundamentally an asset tax [and that asset belongs to the bank for 25yrs].
It's got nothing to do with your income or usage or ability to pay unless you're on some means tested benefit. It's daft.
The probability of leader change (short of falling under buses) for any party before may isn't 10%, or 5%, or 1%. It's zero.
Foxinsox on last thread expressing doubts on mansion tax:
Do you think Paxo wants his taxes going up? Janet Street Porter clearly does not.
We might LOSE the support of Paxman and Daily Express writer Janet Street-Porter? I want a bottle of what you were having... :-)
A more serious argument against the Mansion Tax is that it is effectively creating a ground rent, charged by the State, in perpetuity, for wholly owned property. This is a new class of tax. How long before it is moving down the scale of wealth? I'm wary myself of the long term consequences of this, although sympathetic to the impulse.
Good point. A £2 million house is not an ordinary family home and the Tories are daft to suggest that it is. But the problem with the proposal is that it raises so little - barely 1% of the NHS budget - that there must be a very high likelihood that it will be charged on properties worth much much less than that. That is the fear - that people owning houses worth £300K or £500K or whatever, which are not mansions, will be stung.
All taxes start out as taxes on the very rich and end up hitting ordinary people.
SNIP
Given that we have council tax I think it daft that there hasn't been a proper revaluation and that very expensive houses are taxed at the same rate as very modest ones.
The question of whether we have a council tax at all or something else e.g. local income tax or purely payment for services is a different one. But I don't think any government in my lifetime will reintroduce a poll tax.
Adding higher bands of council tax is long, long overdue. I actually support a progressive council tax on the basis of our housing stock being so stretched. We need some incentive to encourage unused homes and large homes to be distributed more effectively.
Tens of thousands of young people will be able to rent new homes at below-market rates with the opportunity to buy them at the end of their tenancy, Eric Pickles will announce this weekend. Housing associations and social landlords will be given £400million worth of cheap loans to build new homes.
Under a new “Rent to Buy” scheme, the associations and landlords will have to rent the new houses out at below market rates – capped at 80 per cent of local market value – for seven years. After this period, people will be given the opportunity to buy the homes.
The policy will be aimed at young people trying to build up a deposit to get on the housing ladder rather than those on benefits. The government claims 10,000 new homes will be built under the plans between 2015 and 2017.
Rubbish idea, has no merit at all.
How about this; ease up on the rules and regulations about planning permission.
More houses will be built, they will cost less and the taxpayer will not be £400m poorer.
Exactly the policies that helped inflate the US housing bubble, except they were based on race rather than age, daft.
Why should we ruin the countryside by concreting over it to provide housing for immigrants we don't want. The solution is tackle the root cause, zero immigration and deport illegals.
Miss Cyclefree, whilst those things are advantages for Miliband they're down to good fortune rather than any cunning action on his part. Labour is by far the easiest party to keep together (they couldn't even properly rebel against Brown), and the Lib Dems drifting at least partially Labour's way would've also happened whoever had been Labour leader due to the Coalition.
Maybe. But everyone expected Labour to implode after the last election and for there to be lots of in-fighting. And there hasn't been. EdM may have been lucky but I think some credit is still probably due to him.
At any event while I don't find him credible because of his lack of thought about what a social democratic party should be and do (I very much share SO's thoughts on this) I think he is ruthless and may well benefit from people - particularly his opponents - underestimating him. The fact that he seems like a bit of a geek may not be the insuperable barrier some seem to believe. We've had plenty of odd people as PM before: Heath, for instance. Even Thatcher was seen as a bit odd and weird and grating when she got the leadership and was endlessly patronised and underestimated.
And here I fundamentally disagree. I was a supporter of the Community Charge - it's equitable and based on use per person. That it was entirely botched at the time doesn't mean it wasn't a good idea.
I think Council Tax is entirely unfair. Why should I pay £2000 a year to get my only bin emptied? So what if there's a marginal reduction as a single resident - it's still fundamentally an asset tax [and that asset belongs to the bank for 25yrs].
It's got nothing to do with your income or usage or ability to pay unless you're on some means tested benefit. It's daft.
The probability of leader change (short of falling under buses) for any party before may isn't 10%, or 5%, or 1%. It's zero.
Foxinsox on last thread expressing doubts on mansion tax:
Do you think Paxo wants his taxes going up? Janet Street Porter clearly does not.
We might LOSE the support of Paxman and Daily Express writer Janet Street-Porter? I want a bottle of what you were having... :-)
A more serious argument against the Mansion Tax is that it is effectively creating a ground rent, charged by the State, in perpetuity, for wholly owned property. This is a new class of tax. How long before it is moving down the scale of wealth? I'm wary myself of the long term consequences of this, although sympathetic to the impulse.
A £2 million house is not an ordinary family home and the Tories are daft to suggest that it is. But the problem with the proposal is that it raises so little - barely 1% of the NHS budget - that there must be a very high likelihood that it will be charged on properties worth much much less than that. That is the fear - that people owning houses worth £300K or £500K or whatever, which are not mansions, will be stung.
All taxes start out as taxes on the very rich and end up hitting ordinary people.
This will pretty quickly end up being a "terraced house" tax.
The Tories would be mad not to point this out at every possible opportunity between now and May 205.
Personally I think it would be much better to have more council tax bands at the high end. It is absurd and unfair that someone living in a house worth £350K pays the same council tax as someone in a £2 mio house.
Given that we have council tax I think it daft that there hasn't been a proper revaluation and that very expensive houses are taxed at the same rate as very modest ones.
The question of whether we have a council tax at all or something else e.g. local income tax or purely payment for services is a different one. But I don't think any government in my lifetime will reintroduce a poll tax.
Council tax has relief and exceptions for those without the income to pay.
Very sad news about the death of Toby Balding.Tony Jacobson,one of his former assistants and Newmarket's best source of information for decades,will be distraught.Balding senior was respected both technically and personally.
The probability of leader change (short of falling under buses) for any party before may isn't 10%, or 5%, or 1%. It's zero.
Foxinsox on last thread expressing doubts on mansion tax:
Do you think Paxo wants his taxes going up? Janet Street Porter clearly does not.
We might LOSE the support of Paxman and Daily Express writer Janet Street-Porter? I want a bottle of what you were having... :-)
A more serious argument against the Mansion Tax is that it is effectively creating a ground rent, charged by the State, in perpetuity, for wholly owned property. This is a new class of tax. How long before it is moving down the scale of wealth? I'm wary myself of the long term consequences of this, although sympathetic to the impulse.
Good point. A £2 million house is not an ordinary family home and the Tories are daft to suggest that it is. But the problem with the proposal is that it raises so little - barely 1% of the NHS budget - that there must be a very high likelihood that it will be charged on properties worth much much less than that. That is the fear - that people owning houses worth £300K or £500K or whatever, which are not mansions, will be stung.
All taxes start out as taxes on the very rich and end up hitting ordinary people.
This will pretty quickly end up being a "terraced house" tax.
The Tories would be mad not to point this out at every possible opportunity between now and May 205.
Personally I think it would be much better to have more council tax bands at the high end. It is absurd and unfair that someone living in a house worth £350K pays the same council tax as someone in a £2 mio house.
The logic of Plato's view is that we should only pay for the local services which we use.
So when we are young our parents should pay for the local school. When we are old and need care, we should pay for our own care.
I think Miss P's point can be illustrated by a simple example I found when I was out trying to get people onto the electoral register. House A, is occupied by 5 earning adults, the parents and three grown up children who are all now working, their council tax bill is X. The identical house next door, House B, is occupied by a husband and wife couple, newly retired, their council tax bill is also X.
House A, containing more people will, consume more local services but the cost per head is much lower than House B. The occupants of House B use less but, per head, pay more. Even accepting we must all chuck into the common pot, what we have is not an equitable solution.
I note that Ed's disasterous decision not to kow tow to the Sun has also filtered through to the Populus polling. Now what was it someone said about the PB Tories never learning?
Never learning about what? Polling at these levels 6 months from the campaign has us heading for a minority Labour Govt. Not a majority one.
The probability of leader change (short of falling under buses) for any party before may isn't 10%, or 5%, or 1%. It's zero.
Foxinsox on last thread expressing doubts on mansion tax:
Do you think Paxo wants his taxes going up? Janet Street Porter clearly does not.
We might LOSE the support of Paxman and Daily Express writer Janet Street-Porter? I want a bottle of what you were having... :-)
A more serious argument against the Mansion Tax is that it is effectively creating a ground rent, charged by the State, in perpetuity, for wholly owned property. This is a new class of tax. How long before it is moving down the scale of wealth? I'm wary myself of the long term consequences of this, although sympathetic to the impulse.
SNIP
The logic of Plato's view is that we should only pay for the local services which we use.
So when we are young our parents should pay for the local school. When we are old and need care, we should pay for our own care.
I think Miss P's point can be illustrated by a simple example I found when I was out trying to get people onto the electoral register. House A, is occupied by 5 earning adults, the parents and three grown up children who are all now working, their council tax bill is X. The identical house next door, House B, is occupied by a husband and wife couple, newly retired, their council tax bill is also X.
House A, containing more people will, consume more local services but the cost per head is much lower than House B. The occupants of House B use less but, per head, pay more. Even accepting we must all chuck into the common pot, what we have is not an equitable solution.
You could say the same for income tax paying for the NHS.
I can't believe he's been their leader for so long. It's been years now and I'm struggling to think of much that he's actually achieved with his Party bar cheap-seat applause.
I'm beginning to really think Labour would be better off with Gordon in charge instead. And I didn't think I'd EVER say that.
I can't see Miliband going now. It's not like he was amazing for the last three years and suddenly became rubbish (hence the pb catchphrase 'Ed Miliband is crap').
Labour are also rubbish at axing leaders.
And would Miliband make it easy? He would've effectively ended his brother's political career and then failed to even contest the election.
EdM's biggest achievements are that he's kept his party together and secured and retained the support of a quarter to a third of 2010 LDs representing 5-7% of the electorate. While they stay on board it's hard to see any other outcome than an Ed victory.
The probability of leader change (short of falling under buses) for any party before may isn't 10%, or 5%, or 1%. It's zero.
Foxinsox on last thread expressing doubts on mansion tax:
Do you think Paxo wants his taxes going up? Janet Street Porter clearly does not.
We might LOSE the support of Paxman and Daily Express writer Janet Street-Porter? I want a bottle of what you were having... :-)
A more serious argument against the Mansion Tax is that it is effectively creating a ground rent, charged by the State, in perpetuity, for wholly owned property. This is a new class of tax. How long before it is moving down the scale of wealth? I'm wary myself of the long term consequences of this, although sympathetic to the impulse.
For wholly owned property that has been acquired with taxed money - the residue of income tax or under an inheritance tax regime.
In principle, what is the difference bewtween a Mansion Tax and adding a couple of higher bands to those used for Council Tax? I realise that the latter goes to local, rather than national, government, but the altter can reduce the grant paid to the former!
It is a step towards a wealth tax
Not a "step towards". It is a wealth tax - given that the biggest component of anyone's wealth is their house.
Actually it's worth than a wealth tax, as with a wealth tax you could deduct loans and mortgages against assets
Betting at the UKIP Conference "...the party put on a 'race night' which involved screening randomly selected DVDs of bygone horse races, asking punters to pony up £1 a pop for a bet on the winner."
The probability of leader change (short of falling under buses) for any party before may isn't 10%, or 5%, or 1%. It's zero.
Foxinsox on last thread expressing doubts on mansion tax:
Do you think Paxo wants his taxes going up? Janet Street Porter clearly does not.
We might LOSE the support of Paxman and Daily Express writer Janet Street-Porter? I want a bottle of what you were having... :-)
A more serious argument against the Mansion Tax is that it is effectively creating a ground rent, charged by the State, in perpetuity, for wholly owned property. This is a new class of tax. How long before it is moving down the scale of wealth? I'm wary myself of the long term consequences of this, although sympathetic to the impulse.
SNIP
The logic of Plato's view is that we should only pay for the local services which we use.
So when we are young our parents should pay for the local school. When we are old and need care, we should pay for our own care.
I think Miss P's point can be illustrated by a simple example I found when I was out trying to get people onto the electoral register. House A, is occupied by 5 earning adults, the parents and three grown up children who are all now working, their council tax bill is X. The identical house next door, House B, is occupied by a husband and wife couple, newly retired, their council tax bill is also X.
House A, containing more people will, consume more local services but the cost per head is much lower than House B. The occupants of House B use less but, per head, pay more. Even accepting we must all chuck into the common pot, what we have is not an equitable solution.
You could say the same for income tax paying for the NHS.
Sorry, you lost me there. Income taxis paid by the individual not the household. However, I have to go out so don't reply too quickly else I shall probably miss your point.
As an aside, what assumption is UKIP making about paying to access the EU market, as Norway (for example) does?
I believe they are making the Salmond assumption.
It has such a track record of working out just fine....
UKIP will make whatever assumptions its kippers want them to make. Milk, honey, green sunlit uplands, wine and roses. They are all there. There is a magic wand don't y'know. All will fall into place as is supposed. It is indeed the Salmond assumption. Which is interesting since the kippers derided Salmond and his assumptions.
And here I fundamentally disagree. I was a supporter of the Community Charge - it's equitable and based on use per person. That it was entirely botched at the time doesn't mean it wasn't a good idea.
I think Council Tax is entirely unfair. Why should I pay £2000 a year to get my only bin emptied? So what if there's a marginal reduction as a single resident - it's still fundamentally an asset tax [and that asset belongs to the bank for 25yrs].
It's got nothing to do with your income or usage or ability to pay unless you're on some means tested benefit. It's daft.
Do you not recycle?
And what pray is the purpose of that pointless remark?
Betting at the UKIP Conference "...the party put on a 'race night' which involved screening randomly selected DVDs of bygone horse races, asking punters to pony up £1 a pop for a bet on the winner."
very popular, are race nights...my main gripe with them is that usually they don't show the whole race which slightly defeats the purpose, although that could be local to me.
The probability of leader change (short of falling under buses) for any party before may isn't 10%, or 5%, or 1%. It's zero.
Foxinsox on last thread expressing doubts on mansion tax:
Do you think Paxo wants his taxes going up? Janet Street Porter clearly does not.
We might LOSE the support of Paxman and Daily Express writer Janet Street-Porter? I want a bottle of what you were having... :-)
A more serious argument against the Mansion Tax is that it is effectively creating a ground rent, charged by the State, in perpetuity, for wholly owned property. This is a new class of tax. How long before it is moving down the scale of wealth? I'm wary myself of the long term consequences of this, although sympathetic to the impulse.
SNIP
The logic of Plato's view is that we should only pay for the local services which we use.
So when we are young our parents should pay for the local school. When we are old and need care, we should pay for our own care.
I think Miss P's point can be illustrated by a simple example I found when I was out trying to get people onto the electoral register. House A, is occupied by 5 earning adults, the parents and three grown up children who are all now working, their council tax bill is X. The identical house next door, House B, is occupied by a husband and wife couple, newly retired, their council tax bill is also X.
House A, containing more people will, consume more local services but the cost per head is much lower than House B. The occupants of House B use less but, per head, pay more. Even accepting we must all chuck into the common pot, what we have is not an equitable solution.
You could say the same for income tax paying for the NHS.
Sorry, you lost me there. Income taxis paid by the individual not the household. However, I have to go out so don't reply too quickly else I shall probably miss your point.
The point is that just because tax funds services doesn't mean we get taxed based on how much we use those services.
(Obviously, I completely support the abolition of the 45% tax rate).
My preferred system would still be £20,000 tax free, and 33% on everything above.
That would be a massive cut mainly for those on very high incomes.
Yes I can see your point and would tend to agree. However we do have VAT at 20% now. So money not 'income taxed' would still be 'purchase taxed'. You could argue this might suck in imports I suppose, but you could also argue it would encourage enterprise and hence exports.
It draws attention to the point where we might ask should we have income tax at all? If we were to gain control of spending then there might be room to abolish it. If we place health and welfare spending on a basis of national insurance (employee and employer) with general taxation only paying for non taxpayers then the costs of health and welfare would be clear to everybody and there would be room to pay the NI because of the abolition of income tax. NI for welfare and other benefits would or could vary as the economy went through its cycles and if their costs were plainly paid for by the working population then there would be a clear incentive to vote for a party which controlled these costs.
I think Miss P's point can be illustrated by a simple example I found when I was out trying to get people onto the electoral register. House A, is occupied by 5 earning adults, the parents and three grown up children who are all now working, their council tax bill is X. The identical house next door, House B, is occupied by a husband and wife couple, newly retired, their council tax bill is also X.
House A, containing more people will, consume more local services but the cost per head is much lower than House B. The occupants of House B use less but, per head, pay more. Even accepting we must all chuck into the common pot, what we have is not an equitable solution.
What you are aiming at is effectively the Poll Tax...
Betting at the UKIP Conference "...the party put on a 'race night' which involved screening randomly selected DVDs of bygone horse races, asking punters to pony up £1 a pop for a bet on the winner."
I think Miss P's point can be illustrated by a simple example I found when I was out trying to get people onto the electoral register. House A, is occupied by 5 earning adults, the parents and three grown up children who are all now working, their council tax bill is X. The identical house next door, House B, is occupied by a husband and wife couple, newly retired, their council tax bill is also X.
House A, containing more people will, consume more local services but the cost per head is much lower than House B. The occupants of House B use less but, per head, pay more. Even accepting we must all chuck into the common pot, what we have is not an equitable solution.
What you are aiming at is effectively the Poll Tax...
Tim Aker MEP (@Tim_Aker) 26/09/2014 11:45 Today we announced long serving members of our forces will be guaranteed a job in the border force, police or prison service #UKIPConf14
Cute? Not sure on that.
Unfunded and impractical - certainly.
Otherwise known in the trade as a dog whistle. It also makes an assumption that the jobs mentioned are suitable for ex soldiers.
Very sad news about the death of Toby Balding.Tony Jacobson,one of his former assistants and Newmarket's best source of information for decades,will be distraught.Balding senior was respected both technically and personally.
I think Miss P's point can be illustrated by a simple example I found when I was out trying to get people onto the electoral register. House A, is occupied by 5 earning adults, the parents and three grown up children who are all now working, their council tax bill is X. The identical house next door, House B, is occupied by a husband and wife couple, newly retired, their council tax bill is also X.
House A, containing more people will, consume more local services but the cost per head is much lower than House B. The occupants of House B use less but, per head, pay more. Even accepting we must all chuck into the common pot, what we have is not an equitable solution.
What you are aiming at is effectively the Poll Tax...
Tim Aker MEP (@Tim_Aker) 26/09/2014 11:45 Today we announced long serving members of our forces will be guaranteed a job in the border force, police or prison service #UKIPConf14
Cute? Not sure on that.
Unfunded and impractical - certainly.
Otherwise known in the trade as a dog whistle. It also makes an assumption that the jobs mentioned are suitable for ex soldiers.
Ex soldiers would have more self respect than to get involved with UKBA.
""Modest” price drops in the London market are to be expected to follow this month's 0.1pc decline, according to the latest Hometrack report, as buyers reject inflated prices and force vendors to slash their expectations."
Can't be right.
For the last few years we were spammed here on a daily basis that Osborne was stoking a housing boom
Tens of thousands of young people will be able to rent new homes at below-market rates with the opportunity to buy them at the end of their tenancy, Eric Pickles will announce this weekend. Housing associations and social landlords will be given £400million worth of cheap loans to build new homes.
Under a new “Rent to Buy” scheme, the associations and landlords will have to rent the new houses out at below market rates – capped at 80 per cent of local market value – for seven years. After this period, people will be given the opportunity to buy the homes.
The policy will be aimed at young people trying to build up a deposit to get on the housing ladder rather than those on benefits. The government claims 10,000 new homes will be built under the plans between 2015 and 2017.
Rubbish idea, has no merit at all.
How about this; ease up on the rules and regulations about planning permission.
More houses will be built, they will cost less and the taxpayer will not be £400m poorer.
Exactly the policies that helped inflate the US housing bubble, except they were based on race rather than age, daft.
Why should we ruin the countryside by concreting over it to provide housing for immigrants we don't want. The solution is tackle the root cause, zero immigration and deport illegals.
Wrong.
Firstly, the US housing bubble was caused by the Community Reinvestment Act signed into law by Clinton that forced banks to give loans to bad risks.
Secondly, not only should we control immigation , we should also make housing costs much less for ordinary people. And the only way to do this is remove the only thing that causes housing to cost so much, govt regulation. Why should an ordinary person be forced to pay twice as much for their housing. You sound like a buy to let landlord. Are you, because that would explain you talking your own book.
Thirdly, have you ever used google maps or even taken a drive outside a conurbation. Only 6% of the country is built on, meaning 94% isn't. Do you actually know that or are you admitting that you are an ignorant muppet.
(Obviously, I completely support the abolition of the 45% tax rate).
My preferred system would still be £20,000 tax free, and 33% on everything above.
That would be a massive cut mainly for those on very high incomes.
Yes I can see your point and would tend to agree. However we do have VAT at 20% now. So money not 'income taxed' would still be 'purchase taxed'. You could argue this might suck in imports I suppose, but you could also argue it would encourage enterprise and hence exports.
It draws attention to the point where we might ask should we have income tax at all? If we were to gain control of spending then there might be room to abolish it. If we place health and welfare spending on a basis of national insurance (employee and employer) with general taxation only paying for non taxpayers then the costs of health and welfare would be clear to everybody and there would be room to pay the NI because of the abolition of income tax. NI for welfare and other benefits would or could vary as the economy went through its cycles and if their costs were plainly paid for by the working population then there would be a clear incentive to vote for a party which controlled these costs.
VAT is a far more regressive tax than income tax, because the poor spend most of their incomes while the rich do not. If we are to reduce the tax burden on society, we should do it on the poor.
Firstly, the US housing bubble was caused by the Community Reinvestment Act signed into law by Clinton that forced banks to give loans to bad risks.
Nah. The Community Reinvestment loans were only a small part of the total, and their default rates didn't turn out to be any worse than the loans the banks made of their own free will.
Edit to add: That said, your claim is less bonkers than the one you're replying to.
Good point. A £2 million house is not an ordinary family home and the Tories are daft to suggest that it is. But the problem with the proposal is that it raises so little - barely 1% of the NHS budget - that there must be a very high likelihood that it will be charged on properties worth much much less than that. That is the fear - that people owning houses worth £300K or £500K or whatever, which are not mansions, will be stung. .
Nonsense with stilts on. A friend of mine who lives in the family terraced house in W10 which is worth £2million, the family has owned it since the 50s. It no less a normal house than the similar house I grew up in the east end, but that is only worth £300k.
Firstly, the US housing bubble was caused by the Community Reinvestment Act signed into law by Clinton that forced banks to give loans to bad risks.
Nah. The Community Reinvestment loans were only a small part of the total, and their default rates didn't turn out to be any worse than the loans the banks made of their own free will.
Edit to add: That said, your claim is less bonkers than the one you're replying to.
Actually loans covered by the community reinvestment act were actually far, far better in terms of defaults than the loans not covered by it. This right-wing myth has been debunked so many times it's only the most ideologically blinkered that still believe it.
“The Commission concludes the CRA was not a significant factor in subprime lending or the crisis. Many subprime lenders were not subject to the CRA. Research indicates only 6% of high-cost loans—a proxy for subprime loans—had any connection to the law.
“Loans made by CRA-regulated lenders in the neighborhoods in which they were required to lend were half as likely to default as similar loans made in the same neighborhoods by independent mortgage originators not subject to the law.”
Good point. A £2 million house is not an ordinary family home and the Tories are daft to suggest that it is. But the problem with the proposal is that it raises so little - barely 1% of the NHS budget - that there must be a very high likelihood that it will be charged on properties worth much much less than that. That is the fear - that people owning houses worth £300K or £500K or whatever, which are not mansions, will be stung. .
Nonsense with stilts on. A friend of mine who lives in the family terraced house in W10 which is worth £2million, the family has owned it since the 50s. It no less a normal house than the similar house I grew up in the east end, but that is only worth £300k.
Except for the fact it has an incredibly easy commute to the West End that huge numbers of London workers would love to have.
Good point. A £2 million house is not an ordinary family home and the Tories are daft to suggest that it is. But the problem with the proposal is that it raises so little - barely 1% of the NHS budget - that there must be a very high likelihood that it will be charged on properties worth much much less than that. That is the fear - that people owning houses worth £300K or £500K or whatever, which are not mansions, will be stung. .
Nonsense with stilts on. A friend of mine who lives in the family terraced house in W10 which is worth £2million, the family has owned it since the 50s. It no less a normal house than the similar house I grew up in the east end, but that is only worth £300k.
How many such examples can you give ? Remember poll tax also increased some families total bill three, four times. But the Tories still went ahead with.
The mansion tax is largely symbolic. No one is pretending that the entire NHS growth will be funded by it. But it differentiates Labour from the Tories. Also LDs will look silly if they also didn't have the same policy as it is their's originally.
It will not be charged on properties less than £2m . So, don't try spreading scare stories.
How do you make rich Russians living in £10m houses gotten through immoral means pay ?
Houses cannot escape. I have two houses in London - both must be valued at around £900k. I am not worried.
Good point. A £2 million house is not an ordinary family home and the Tories are daft to suggest that it is. But the problem with the proposal is that it raises so little - barely 1% of the NHS budget - that there must be a very high likelihood that it will be charged on properties worth much much less than that. That is the fear - that people owning houses worth £300K or £500K or whatever, which are not mansions, will be stung. .
Nonsense with stilts on. A friend of mine who lives in the family terraced house in W10 which is worth £2million, the family has owned it since the 50s. It no less a normal house than the similar house I grew up in the east end, but that is only worth £300k.
I really don't have a problem with them sharing a tiny chunk of their unearned £1.7million windfall with those who weren't so lucky in the postcode lottery.
Good point. A £2 million house is not an ordinary family home and the Tories are daft to suggest that it is. But the problem with the proposal is that it raises so little - barely 1% of the NHS budget - that there must be a very high likelihood that it will be charged on properties worth much much less than that. That is the fear - that people owning houses worth £300K or £500K or whatever, which are not mansions, will be stung. .
Nonsense with stilts on. A friend of mine who lives in the family terraced house in W10 which is worth £2million, the family has owned it since the 50s. It no less a normal house than the similar house I grew up in the east end, but that is only worth £300k.
Here's Ed Miliband's house, £2.3 million. Family home or not?
The sums dog whistled by Labour don't buy mansions in decent areas of London, very nice houses but certainly not what one would consider to be a 'Mansion' (Google images is your friend if you're a bit slow on the uptake). £5-10 million+ might. Class war bollocks.
Mr. Isam, because that would mean giving millions of pounds to fanatical psychopaths whose hobbies include crucifying children, enslaving women and trying to wipe out religious minorities.
Indeed. Once we start to do it, we'd have to do it every time, and it would just be a very good money-raising strategy for a very evil organisation.
...
...
...
....
Maybe I should butt out of this one.. .instinctively I want harm to come to ISIL, and dontcare if they all die, but every time we go into these wars, we get more terrorism and extremism.. and is it really any of or business?
The hostages are going to die if we bomb them or if we don't...if we cant rescue them using the SAS, I would pay for their release & let the USA and other Arab countries continue bombing
I think that paying a ransom would only encourage more hostage-taking.
Our intervention abroad has both been successful on occasions (eg Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone) disastrous (Iraq) or somewhere in between (Afghanistan). IMO ISIL are like the Khmer Rouge of our time, and we should assist the Iraqi government to repel them.
They are taking hostages because they don't want us to take action.
The ransom is neither here nor there - it's not like they are all subsistence farmers in Quetta.
They want to terrorise us into not retaliating.
The ransoms are a red herring.
I may be being pedantic but this is not blackmail - which is where you have something to hide. This is extortion where you have a life and a living which a bully wants to take a share of, take control of. It may be as well that somewhere in all this is a big pile of money and the leadership liking the power it has over its stupid foot soldiers.
There is no defence against terror except not to be terrorised. Terror has proved a remarkably ineffective and pointless weapon. I am seriously tempted to think that the real reason is that it is something these people like doing, its purpose not that important. As Group Captain Lionel Mandrake said (about being tortured by the Japanese) - ''I don't think they wanted me to talk really. I don't think they wanted me to say anything. It was just their way of having a bit of fun, the swines. Strange thing is they make such bloody good cameras. ''
Good point. A £2 million house is not an ordinary family home and the Tories are daft to suggest that it is. But the problem with the proposal is that it raises so little - barely 1% of the NHS budget - that there must be a very high likelihood that it will be charged on properties worth much much less than that. That is the fear - that people owning houses worth £300K or £500K or whatever, which are not mansions, will be stung. .
Nonsense with stilts on. A friend of mine who lives in the family terraced house in W10 which is worth £2million, the family has owned it since the 50s. It no less a normal house than the similar house I grew up in the east end, but that is only worth £300k.
The house itself may be nothing special but the family lucky enough to own an asset like that is anything but ordinary.
The worst thing Cam could do is come out with a flashmany 'what a pr*t my opponent is' type of attitude at the tory conference. That is for the public to decide.
I suspect the line will be that his economics are dangerous.
Jobs at risk. Interest rates at risk etc etc.
For all the extremist rhethoric about millionaires and food banks, most people primarily care about their own family circumstances.
Their house. Their job, Their family. Their incomes. Their bills.
Salmond would have won the referendum if it was just hearts, dreams and the NHS. It was the economy that torpedoed him.
As bad as things may be, they can usually get worse and fear of change creeps in.
Scotland again demonstrated that the economics won't change tribal minds, nor those who feel they have nothing to lose...but someone who is in solid employment (as most are), who is getting by (as most are) and who want the insurance of stability will be susceptible to it.
Wonder if Sunil is off riding the Epping-Ongar railway today - they posted pics of diesel hauled train of Craven's tube stock on facebook. Apparently running all weekend to celebrate the original closure 20 years ago!
Well, I bought my ticket for tomorrow (Saturday)! You going too?
I wonder if Mr Stodge (of this parish) is also going.
My tip for tomorrow's Cambridgeshire is Niceofyoutotellme available at 14/1 with SkyBet who pay out on 6 places each way, no less. Nice of me to tell you don't you think? Do your own research.
Good point. A £2 million house is not an ordinary family home and the Tories are daft to suggest that it is. But the problem with the proposal is that it raises so little - barely 1% of the NHS budget - that there must be a very high likelihood that it will be charged on properties worth much much less than that. That is the fear - that people owning houses worth £300K or £500K or whatever, which are not mansions, will be stung. .
Nonsense with stilts on. A friend of mine who lives in the family terraced house in W10 which is worth £2million, the family has owned it since the 50s. It no less a normal house than the similar house I grew up in the east end, but that is only worth £300k.
The house itself may be nothing special but the family lucky enough to own an asset like that is anything but ordinary.
Why cannot 'ordinary' people be lucky? I don't get your drift at all.
“The Commission concludes the CRA was not a significant factor in subprime lending or the crisis. Many subprime lenders were not subject to the CRA. Research indicates only 6% of high-cost loans—a proxy for subprime loans—had any connection to the law.
“Loans made by CRA-regulated lenders in the neighborhoods in which they were required to lend were half as likely to default as similar loans made in the same neighborhoods by independent mortgage originators not subject to the law.”
One wonders what would have happened if this had been WASP's or, heaven forbid, Muslims. Plane diverted? Military plane escort? Armed police/military at the airport?
Firstly, the US housing bubble was caused by the Community Reinvestment Act signed into law by Clinton that forced banks to give loans to bad risks.
Nah. The Community Reinvestment loans were only a small part of the total, and their default rates didn't turn out to be any worse than the loans the banks made of their own free will.
Edit to add: That said, your claim is less bonkers than the one you're replying to.
The CRA was merely one component in a long process of changing the ecosystem of mortgage lending from one favoring gimlet-eyed pessimists to one favoring imprudent optimists.
For example, Kerry Killinger, CEO of the late, not so great Washington Mutual, won government approval under the CRA for 29 acquisitions of other lenders, sometimes by offering to make more billions in lower income and minority loans than other bidders. Winning all those government approvals to expand WaMu made Killinger a superstar role model in the industry.
Killinger didn’t promise $375 billion in CRA loans when buying Dime Savings because the government was holding a gun to his head and forcing him to make imprudent loans. Nobody wastes $375 b-b-b-billion. No, he was a Kool-Aid drinker. He thought the strategy the government was encouraging was a great strategy that would make him rich (indeed, he took home $88 million in compensation in the last decade).
Since Miliband's forgetfulness, Labour's lead has been 6%,4%,6%. Obviously, the Great British public are not PBTories and they do not read that hideous Blair arse licker John Rentoul.
Does anyone have any analysis of the previous effect on polling following Labour Conferences and how do these figures compare with the past? My recollection is that usually each party gets a small uplift which usually ends when the next main party's Conference ends.
Good point. A £2 million house is not an ordinary family home and the Tories are daft to suggest that it is. But the problem with the proposal is that it raises so little - barely 1% of the NHS budget - that there must be a very high likelihood that it will be charged on properties worth much much less than that. That is the fear - that people owning houses worth £300K or £500K or whatever, which are not mansions, will be stung. .
Nonsense with stilts on. A friend of mine who lives in the family terraced house in W10 which is worth £2million, the family has owned it since the 50s. It no less a normal house than the similar house I grew up in the east end, but that is only worth £300k.
The house itself may be nothing special but the family lucky enough to own an asset like that is anything but ordinary.
Why cannot 'ordinary' people be lucky? I don't get your drift at all.
Faced with crippling bills, 'ordinary families' will be moving elsewhere, selling up to the super rich from overseas who can cough up £10,000+ a year without blinking.
Is that what Labour want, more of London occupied by wealthy foreigners?
Good point. A £2 million house is not an ordinary family home and the Tories are daft to suggest that it is. But the problem with the proposal is that it raises so little - barely 1% of the NHS budget - that there must be a very high likelihood that it will be charged on properties worth much much less than that. That is the fear - that people owning houses worth £300K or £500K or whatever, which are not mansions, will be stung. .
Nonsense with stilts on. A friend of mine who lives in the family terraced house in W10 which is worth £2million, the family has owned it since the 50s. It no less a normal house than the similar house I grew up in the east end, but that is only worth £300k.
The house itself may be nothing special but the family lucky enough to own an asset like that is anything but ordinary.
Why cannot 'ordinary' people be lucky? I don't get your drift at all.
No one is saying they can't be. However, taxing productive activities such as employment income at up to 45%, but not taxing wholly unearned income from house price inflation at all is perverse. £12k a year is a tiny fraction of 6 figure profit they have made.
I can't believe he's been their leader for so long. It's been years now and I'm struggling to think of much that he's actually achieved with his Party bar cheap-seat applause.
I'm beginning to really think Labour would be better off with Gordon in charge instead. And I didn't think I'd EVER say that.
I can't see Miliband going now. It's not like he was amazing for the last three years and suddenly became rubbish (hence the pb catchphrase 'Ed Miliband is crap').
Labour are also rubbish at axing leaders.
And would Miliband make it easy? He would've effectively ended his brother's political career and then failed to even contest the election.
EdM's biggest achievements are that he's kept his party together and secured and retained the support of a quarter to a third of 2010 LDs representing 5-7% of the electorate. While they stay on board it's hard to see any other outcome than an Ed victory.
That was my assumption until today but he just supported re-invading the middle-east. I know it's easier in opposition but can he hold the coalition together while doing that? Clearly the LibDems won't be doing any opposing either but maybe the combination of Green+UKIP+DNV could take a chunk?
Bombing some terrorists from the air isn't an invasion.
The US has people on the ground already if that's what you think is required for an invasion, and IIUC the motion parliament is voting on allows for British troops to take part in humanitarian missions. (Hint: they're always humanitarian missions.)
In any case what I'm watching on CNBC right now is the US bombing oil facilities. Even if you think ISIS are terrorists (hell, it means pretty much anything, go ahead and use it for one side in a civil war if you like) the people working at those oil facilities presumably aren't.
Support it if you like, but it's not "bombing some terrorists from the air".
Good point. A £2 million house is not an ordinary family home and the Tories are daft to suggest that it is. But the problem with the proposal is that it raises so little - barely 1% of the NHS budget - that there must be a very high likelihood that it will be charged on properties worth much much less than that. That is the fear - that people owning houses worth £300K or £500K or whatever, which are not mansions, will be stung. .
Nonsense with stilts on. A friend of mine who lives in the family terraced house in W10 which is worth £2million, the family has owned it since the 50s. It no less a normal house than the similar house I grew up in the east end, but that is only worth £300k.
How many such examples can you give ? Remember poll tax also increased some families total bill three, four times. But the Tories still went ahead with.
The mansion tax is largely symbolic. No one is pretending that the entire NHS growth will be funded by it. But it differentiates Labour from the Tories. Also LDs will look silly if they also didn't have the same policy as it is their's originally.
It will not be charged on properties less than £2m . So, don't try spreading scare stories.
How do you make rich Russians living in £10m houses gotten through immoral means pay ?
Houses cannot escape. I have two houses in London - both must be valued at around £900k. I am not worried.
So you can own two properties worth £2m and pay no tax. No wonder you're not worried!
Good point. A £2 million house is not an ordinary family home and the Tories are daft to suggest that it is. But the problem with the proposal is that it raises so little - barely 1% of the NHS budget - that there must be a very high likelihood that it will be charged on properties worth much much less than that. That is the fear - that people owning houses worth £300K or £500K or whatever, which are not mansions, will be stung. .
Nonsense with stilts on. A friend of mine who lives in the family terraced house in W10 which is worth £2million, the family has owned it since the 50s. It no less a normal house than the similar house I grew up in the east end, but that is only worth £300k.
The house itself may be nothing special but the family lucky enough to own an asset like that is anything but ordinary.
Why cannot 'ordinary' people be lucky? I don't get your drift at all.
No one is saying they can't be. However, taxing productive activities such as employment income at up to 45%, but not taxing wholly unearned income from house price inflation at all is perverse. £12k a year is a tiny fraction of 6 figure profit they have made.
Tax them on the 'profit' when the home is sold then.
Tens of thousands of young people will be able to rent new homes at below-market rates with the opportunity to buy them at the end of their tenancy, Eric Pickles will announce this weekend. Housing associations and social landlords will be given £400million worth of cheap loans to build new homes.
The policy will be aimed at young people trying to build up a deposit to get on the housing ladder rather than those on benefits. The government claims 10,000 new homes will be built under the plans between 2015 and 2017.
Rubbish idea, has no merit at all.
How about this; ease up on the rules and regulations about planning permission.
More houses will be built, they will cost less and the taxpayer will not be £400m poorer.
Exactly the policies that helped inflate the US housing bubble, except they were based on race rather than age, daft.
Why should we ruin the countryside by concreting over it to provide housing for immigrants we don't want. The solution is tackle the root cause, zero immigration and deport illegals.
Wrong.
Firstly, the US housing bubble was caused by the Community Reinvestment Act signed into law by Clinton that forced banks to give loans to bad risks.
Secondly, not only should we control immigation , we should also make housing costs much less for ordinary people. And the only way to do this is remove the only thing that causes housing to cost so much, govt regulation. Why should an ordinary person be forced to pay twice as much for their housing. You sound like a buy to let landlord. Are you, because that would explain you talking your own book.
Thirdly, have you ever used google maps or even taken a drive outside a conurbation. Only 6% of the country is built on, meaning 94% isn't. Do you actually know that or are you admitting that you are an ignorant muppet.
Actually Bush was as big a booster of undermining lending standards in a largely failed attempt to buy Hispanic voters, all those south west states were hardest hit as they had the highest levels of Hispanic immigration.
Housing cost is determined by supply and demand, as well as availability of credit. There is almost unlimited demand for London housing from the rest of the world. End foreign ownership and start deporting illegals as well as end immigration then prices will correct. We have sufficient supply.
Actually England is one of the most densely populated countries in the world.
Good point. A £2 million house is not an ordinary family home and the Tories are daft to suggest that it is. But the problem with the proposal is that it raises so little - barely 1% of the NHS budget - that there must be a very high likelihood that it will be charged on properties worth much much less than that. That is the fear - that people owning houses worth £300K or £500K or whatever, which are not mansions, will be stung. .
Nonsense with stilts on. A friend of mine who lives in the family terraced house in W10 which is worth £2million, the family has owned it since the 50s. It no less a normal house than the similar house I grew up in the east end, but that is only worth £300k.
The house itself may be nothing special but the family lucky enough to own an asset like that is anything but ordinary.
Why cannot 'ordinary' people be lucky? I don't get your drift at all.
No one is saying they can't be. However, taxing productive activities such as employment income at up to 45%, but not taxing wholly unearned income from house price inflation at all is perverse. £12k a year is a tiny fraction of 6 figure profit they have made.
Tax them on the 'profit' when the home is sold then.
Ah, so you want to get rid of the CGT exemption for primary residence sales? I could support that.
Good point. A £2 million house is not an ordinary family home and the Tories are daft to suggest that it is. But the problem with the proposal is that it raises so little - barely 1% of the NHS budget - that there must be a very high likelihood that it will be charged on properties worth much much less than that. That is the fear - that people owning houses worth £300K or £500K or whatever, which are not mansions, will be stung. .
Nonsense with stilts on. A friend of mine who lives in the family terraced house in W10 which is worth £2million, the family has owned it since the 50s. It no less a normal house than the similar house I grew up in the east end, but that is only worth £300k.
The house itself may be nothing special but the family lucky enough to own an asset like that is anything but ordinary.
Why cannot 'ordinary' people be lucky? I don't get your drift at all.
Faced with crippling bills, 'ordinary families' will be moving elsewhere, selling up to the super rich from overseas who can cough up £10,000+ a year without blinking. Is that what Labour want, more of London occupied by wealthy foreigners?
Answer Yes. Meets their goal of reducing the number of Conservative voters.
I can't believe he's been their leader for so long. It's been years now and I'm struggling to think of much that he's actually achieved with his Party bar cheap-seat applause.
I'm beginning to really think Labour would be better off with Gordon in charge instead. And I didn't think I'd EVER say that.
I can't see Miliband going now. It's not like he was amazing for the last three years and suddenly became rubbish (hence the pb catchphrase 'Ed Miliband is crap').
Labour are also rubbish at axing leaders.
And would Miliband make it easy? He would've effectively ended his brother's political career and then failed to even contest the election.
EdM's biggest achievements are that he's kept his party together and secured and retained the support of a quarter to a third of 2010 LDs representing 5-7% of the electorate. While they stay on board it's hard to see any other outcome than an Ed victory.
The probability of leader change (short of falling under buses) for any party before may isn't 10%, or 5%, or 1%. It's zero.
Foxinsox on last thread expressing doubts on mansion tax:
Do you think Paxo wants his taxes going up? Janet Street Porter clearly does not.
We might LOSE the support of Paxman and Daily Express writer Janet Street-Porter? I want a bottle of what you were having... :-)
A more serious argument against the Mansion Tax is that it is effectively creating a ground rent, charged by the State, in perpetuity, for wholly owned property. This is a new class of tax. How long before it is moving down the scale of wealth? I'm wary myself of the long term consequences of this, although sympathetic to the impulse.
For wholly owned property that has been acquired with taxed money - the residue of income tax or under an inheritance tax regime.
In principle, what is the difference bewtween a Mansion Tax and adding a couple of higher bands to those used for Council Tax? I realise that the latter goes to local, rather than national, government, but the altter can reduce the grant paid to the former!
It is a step towards a wealth tax
Not a "step towards". It is a wealth tax - given that the biggest component of anyone's wealth is their house.
Adding 5-7% to 30% is certainly a good outcome from Labour.
But, if some of that 30% leeches away to SNP, UKIP, and Greens, the outcome is less good.
Comments
Farage courts the Asian vote (yes, you heard that right....).
Let's say (to simplify), you have two tax bands,
10% below £10,000
20% above £10,000
Now, imagine that you want to make the burden less on people earning £10,000 to £12,000, so you introduce an additional band:
10% below £10,000
15% between £10,000 and £12,000
20% above £12,000
However, you get almost identical outcomes from:
10% below £10,200
20% above £10,200
And it costs far less to implement.
Unfunded and impractical - certainly.
My preferred system would still be £20,000 tax free, and 33% on everything above.
All taxes start out as taxes on the very rich and end up hitting ordinary people.
This will pretty quickly end up being a "terraced house" tax.
The Tories would be mad not to point this out at every possible opportunity between now and May 205.
Personally I think it would be much better to have more council tax bands at the high end. It is absurd and unfair that someone living in a house worth £350K pays the same council tax as someone in a £2 mio house.
What I like most about conference season is the idea pinching afterwards by the Big Two. It always happens.
Did the TUC have a conf this year? I used to love those but the last one was dreadful/tiny affair and I'd almost forgotten about it being on.
I think Council Tax is entirely unfair. Why should I pay £2000 a year to get my only bin emptied? So what if there's a marginal reduction as a single resident - it's still fundamentally an asset tax [and that asset belongs to the bank for 25yrs].
It's got nothing to do with your income or usage or ability to pay unless you're on some means tested benefit. It's daft.
The question of whether we have a council tax at all or something else e.g. local income tax or purely payment for services is a different one. But I don't think any government in my lifetime will reintroduce a poll tax.
I find it very hard to believe that Everyone's NHS can't find savings somewhere in it's truly gargantuan budget, that can be diverted and spent on clinical care.
The worst thing Cam could do is come out with a flashmany 'what a pr*t my opponent is' type of attitude at the tory conference. That is for the public to decide.
The logic of Plato's view is that we should only pay for the local services which we use.
So when we are young our parents should pay for the local school. When we are old and need care, we should pay for our own care.
In their 10th May poll, UKIP was chosen by 21% of 'white' voters, and 8% of 'non-white' voters.
http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/MoS-tables-11-May-2014.pdf
Why should we ruin the countryside by concreting over it to provide housing for immigrants we don't want. The solution is tackle the root cause, zero immigration and deport illegals.
At any event while I don't find him credible because of his lack of thought about what a social democratic party should be and do (I very much share SO's thoughts on this) I think he is ruthless and may well benefit from people - particularly his opponents - underestimating him. The fact that he seems like a bit of a geek may not be the insuperable barrier some seem to believe. We've had plenty of odd people as PM before: Heath, for instance. Even Thatcher was seen as a bit odd and weird and grating when she got the leadership and was endlessly patronised and underestimated.
Wonder what's behind that. Lib switchers would almost certainly have given him another go.
Now what was it someone said about the PB Tories never learning?
Some of the press Miliband has received did remind me vaguely of the brick bats Thatcher got in 1978/79.
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/sep/26/toby-balding-dies-aged-78-tony-mccoy-paul-nicholls
House A, containing more people will, consume more local services but the cost per head is much lower than House B. The occupants of House B use less but, per head, pay more. Even accepting we must all chuck into the common pot, what we have is not an equitable solution.
"...the party put on a 'race night' which involved screening randomly selected DVDs of bygone horse races, asking punters to pony up £1 a pop for a bet on the winner."
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/09/26/Ukip-conference-kicks-off-with-confidence-high
It is indeed the Salmond assumption. Which is interesting since the kippers derided Salmond and his assumptions.
It draws attention to the point where we might ask should we have income tax at all?
If we were to gain control of spending then there might be room to abolish it.
If we place health and welfare spending on a basis of national insurance (employee and employer) with general taxation only paying for non taxpayers then the costs of health and welfare would be clear to everybody and there would be room to pay the NI because of the abolition of income tax.
NI for welfare and other benefits would or could vary as the economy went through its cycles and if their costs were plainly paid for by the working population then there would be a clear incentive to vote for a party which controlled these costs.
RIP Toby.
Beyond parody.
Wonder if house prices might fall enough by next May to attract generation rent back to the tories in the cities....
Firstly, the US housing bubble was caused by the Community Reinvestment Act signed into law by Clinton that forced banks to give loans to bad risks.
Secondly, not only should we control immigation , we should also make housing costs much less for ordinary people. And the only way to do this is remove the only thing that causes housing to cost so much, govt regulation. Why should an ordinary person be forced to pay twice as much for their housing. You sound like a buy to let landlord. Are you, because that would explain you talking your own book.
Thirdly, have you ever used google maps or even taken a drive outside a conurbation. Only 6% of the country is built on, meaning 94% isn't. Do you actually know that or are you admitting that you are an ignorant muppet.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27829958
Edit to add: That said, your claim is less bonkers than the one you're replying to.
LOL. Typical labour supporter. No faith in the market.
“Loans made by CRA-regulated lenders in the neighborhoods in which they were required to lend were half as likely to default as similar loans made in the same neighborhoods by independent mortgage originators not subject to the law.”
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-FCIC/pdf/GPO-FCIC.pdf
The mansion tax is largely symbolic. No one is pretending that the entire NHS growth will be funded by it. But it differentiates Labour from the Tories. Also LDs will look silly if they also didn't have the same policy as it is their's originally.
It will not be charged on properties less than £2m . So, don't try spreading scare stories.
How do you make rich Russians living in £10m houses gotten through immoral means pay ?
Houses cannot escape. I have two houses in London - both must be valued at around £900k. I am not worried.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/10/02/article-1317252-0B73CD7E000005DC-159_196x250.jpg
The sums dog whistled by Labour don't buy mansions in decent areas of London, very nice houses but certainly not what one would consider to be a 'Mansion' (Google images is your friend if you're a bit slow on the uptake). £5-10 million+ might. Class war bollocks.
Obviously, the Great British public are not PBTories and they do not read that hideous Blair arse licker John Rentoul.
It may be as well that somewhere in all this is a big pile of money and the leadership liking the power it has over its stupid foot soldiers.
There is no defence against terror except not to be terrorised. Terror has proved a remarkably ineffective and pointless weapon.
I am seriously tempted to think that the real reason is that it is something these people like doing, its purpose not that important.
As Group Captain Lionel Mandrake said (about being tortured by the Japanese) - ''I don't think they wanted me to talk really. I don't think they wanted me to say anything. It was just their way of having a bit of fun, the swines. Strange thing is they make such bloody good cameras. ''
Jobs at risk. Interest rates at risk etc etc.
For all the extremist rhethoric about millionaires and food banks, most people primarily care about their own family circumstances.
Their house. Their job, Their family. Their incomes. Their bills.
Salmond would have won the referendum if it was just hearts, dreams and the NHS. It was the economy that torpedoed him.
As bad as things may be, they can usually get worse and fear of change creeps in.
Scotland again demonstrated that the economics won't change tribal minds, nor those who feel they have nothing to lose...but someone who is in solid employment (as most are), who is getting by (as most are) and who want the insurance of stability will be susceptible to it.
I wonder if Mr Stodge (of this parish) is also going.
***** Betting Post *****
My tip for tomorrow's Cambridgeshire is Niceofyoutotellme available at 14/1 with SkyBet who pay out on 6 places each way, no less. Nice of me to tell you don't you think?
Do your own research.
I don't get your drift at all.
http://takimag.com/article/the_diversity_recession/print#axzz3EQTCKFib
Sometimes you just need to use commonsense, would giving loans to people unable to afford them lead to them defaulting?
CRA is just one piece of the puzzle.
Plane diverted?
Military plane escort?
Armed police/military at the airport?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11121519/Ultra-Orthodox-Jews-cause-chaos-on-flight-to-Israel.html
For example, Kerry Killinger, CEO of the late, not so great Washington Mutual, won government approval under the CRA for 29 acquisitions of other lenders, sometimes by offering to make more billions in lower income and minority loans than other bidders. Winning all those government approvals to expand WaMu made Killinger a superstar role model in the industry.
Killinger didn’t promise $375 billion in CRA loans when buying Dime Savings because the government was holding a gun to his head and forcing him to make imprudent loans. Nobody wastes $375 b-b-b-billion. No, he was a Kool-Aid drinker. He thought the strategy the government was encouraging was a great strategy that would make him rich (indeed, he took home $88 million in compensation in the last decade).
But, think of the Selection Effect. Financiers with more realistic views of the ability of lower income and minorities borrowers to pay back their mortgages were disadvantaged by the CRA in implementing mergers and acquisitions. They stayed small or got out of the business. The fools like Killinger got rich and famous, and their success encouraged other lenders to emulate them.
- See more at: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2012/12/did-the-community-reinvestment-act-cra-lead-to-risky-lending.html#sthash.vzKfQ0D6.dpuf
Is that what Labour want, more of London occupied by wealthy foreigners?
In any case what I'm watching on CNBC right now is the US bombing oil facilities. Even if you think ISIS are terrorists (hell, it means pretty much anything, go ahead and use it for one side in a civil war if you like) the people working at those oil facilities presumably aren't.
Support it if you like, but it's not "bombing some terrorists from the air".
Housing cost is determined by supply and demand, as well as availability of credit. There is almost unlimited demand for London housing from the rest of the world. End foreign ownership and start deporting illegals as well as end immigration then prices will correct. We have sufficient supply.
Actually England is one of the most densely populated countries in the world.
US economy grew at 4.6% rate between April & June (revised from 4.0%), fastest pace in more than 2 years
Whats that Ed? What's that?
*tumbleweed*
But, if some of that 30% leeches away to SNP, UKIP, and Greens, the outcome is less good.