Mr. Observer, Labour's polling is too strong to consider that the entire socially conservative working class/WWC has jumped ship. However, I do think there has been and continues to be a substantial move directly from Labour to UKIP amongst the working class.
I read on Twitter Miliband will tomorrow attack Cameron over the EU, and acting in Britain's interest. The more Miliband stands up for the EU and migrations, the more UKIP benefits. Yes, he'll get nods of approval from big business and the Guardian, but smaller businesses are tired of the bureaucratic workload Brussels regulations impose (the vacuum cleaning nonsense is a small but easily understandable example, likewise the fire extinguisher nonsense).
There's an existential threat to both major parties posed by UKIP. It may well only claim one, but neither can take it lightly. The fragmentation we're seeing is a once in a generation opportunity for UKIP, and for other major parties to be seriously, perhaps mortally, wounded. It's also a once in a generation opportunity for the SNP to do to Labour what Hannibal did to Varro and Paullus.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Observer, UKIP didn't put in enough effort and still turned Heywood & Middleton from a safe Labour seat to an ultra-marginal. I fear you're being complacent, as Cameron was a couple of years ago.
"The more Miliband stands up for the EU and migrations, the more UKIP benefits. "
It should read: "The more Miliband stands up for the EU and migrations, the more AB voters it adds to its columns since they now think the Tories because of UKIP pressure is on a slippery slope out of the Single Market Thatcher negotiated"
Oh yes and the Mansion tax will bring even more AB voters streaming into the Labour camp!
I own two houses in London and I support the policy. Rich people can hide away their income and liquid assets. Buildings cannot be hidden.
Do you not think the Russian mafia should pay something ?
Do you not think it would be easier to ban foreign ownership thus stopping London housing being used for money laundering and improving affordability, rather than overturning a millennia of property rights?
Banning particular people from owning of property would be a far bigger infringement of property rights than just taxing it, which is normal, traditional and sensible.
Mr. Observer, Labour's polling is too strong to consider that the entire socially conservative working class/WWC has jumped ship. However, I do think there has been and continues to be a substantial move directly from Labour to UKIP amongst the working class.
I read on Twitter Miliband will tomorrow attack Cameron over the EU, and acting in Britain's interest. The more Miliband stands up for the EU and migrations, the more UKIP benefits. Yes, he'll get nods of approval from big business and the Guardian, but smaller businesses are tired of the bureaucratic workload Brussels regulations impose (the vacuum cleaning nonsense is a small but easily understandable example, likewise the fire extinguisher nonsense).
There's an existential threat to both major parties posed by UKIP. It may well only claim one, but neither can take it lightly. The fragmentation we're seeing is a once in a generation opportunity for UKIP, and for other major parties to be seriously, perhaps mortally, wounded. It's also a once in a generation opportunity for the SNP to do to Labour what Hannibal did to Varro and Paullus.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Observer, UKIP didn't put in enough effort and still turned Heywood & Middleton from a safe Labour seat to an ultra-marginal. I fear you're being complacent, as Cameron was a couple of years ago.
"The more Miliband stands up for the EU and migrations, the more UKIP benefits. "
It should read: "The more Miliband stands up for the EU and migrations, the more AB voters it adds to its columns since they now think the Tories because of UKIP pressure is on a slippery slope out of the Single Market Thatcher negotiated"
Oh yes and the Mansion tax will bring even more AB voters streaming into the Labour camp!
Good morning. How important is the Mansion Tax, as presently proposed, outside Greater London?
As few will pay it, the tax is reasonably popular. Taxes paid by other people are generally considered fair taxes.
It all seems to be part of Labours strategy for housing : tax the rich until they go offshore, punitive taxes on the City and a London house price crash.
Crashing the economy may also encourage Britain being a country of emigration once again, like in the Seventies and early Eighties.
Oh yes and the Mansion tax will bring even more AB voters streaming into the Labour camp!
The Mansion Tax is a car crash of epic proportions, only today we had Michael Caine adding his voice to the collections of luvvies who hate the idea, and these are all the sort of champagne socialists that previously would have voted Labour, and include the sort of people that write nice things about them in the newspaper columns and throw them softball questions on the TV.
As usual Labour fails to understand aspiration. Even C2 Londoners are going to hate the tax, because they are going to suspect it will creep down over time with the governments ever more voracious appetite for money, so that in 10 years time its less than 1 million, and house prices will continue to inflate, and almost everyone in the capital is paying. The tax doesn't allow for mortgages, so someone with a 1.9m mortgage on a 2.1m property pays a sack of tax, where as someone buying a 1.9m property in cash doesn't. Lots of young Londoners who don't currently own a 1m house, hope to in 5-10 years time, and don't want to pay a bucket of tax on top of the already usurious stamp duty they currently pay.
Imagine if we had some London based polling on the subject
"Since my research so far has shown the Conservatives and Labour ahead in equal numbers of seats currently held by the Lib Dems, and UKIP ahead in two seats currently held by the Tories, the Conservatives can afford to lose no more than 21 seats to Labour if they are to remain the largest party. My battleground polling has to date found them behind in 38 – albeit sometimes by very slim margins – and we have not yet reached the point at which the Tory losses end."
Gadfly touches on a question that I would like to see more discussion of: who are the voters moving towards the Conservatives? The Red Liberals and the rise of UKIP have been much debated, but this third element needs to be understood much better.
Lord Ashcroft describes these voters as 'joiners'.
"...They are more likely than average to say they might change their mind before the election, but they all but unanimously prefer Cameron as Prime Minister and trust the Tory team over Miliband and Balls when it comes to managing the economy. They are also more likely than most voters to name the deficit and the debt among the most important issues facing the country.
Nearly nine out of ten Loyalists and Joiners say they are already feeling the benefits of an economic recovery, or that they expect to soon. Most Considerers are also optimistic.
There is a similar pattern when it comes to the need for further austerity. Large majorities of Loyalists and Joiners agree that the economy is not yet full fixed and that austerity and cuts in public spending will need to continue for another five years."
Mr. Observer, Labour's polling is too strong to consider that the entire socially conservative working class/WWC has jumped ship. However, I do think there has been and continues to be a substantial move directly from Labour to UKIP amongst the working class.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Observer, UKIP didn't put in enough effort and still turned Heywood & Middleton from a safe Labour seat to an ultra-marginal. I fear you're being complacent, as Cameron was a couple of years ago.
"The more Miliband stands up for the EU and migrations, the more UKIP benefits. "
It should read: "The more Miliband stands up for the EU and migrations, the more AB voters it adds to its columns since they now think the Tories because of UKIP pressure is on a slippery slope out of the Single Market Thatcher negotiated"
Oh yes and the Mansion tax will bring even more AB voters streaming into the Labour camp!
I own two houses in London and I support the policy. Rich people can hide away their income and liquid assets. Buildings cannot be hidden.
Do you not think the Russian mafia should pay something ?
Do you not think it would be easier to ban foreign ownership thus stopping London housing being used for money laundering and improving affordability, rather than overturning a millennia of property rights?
Banning particular people from owning of property would be a far bigger infringement of property rights than just taxing it, which is normal, traditional and sensible.
Switzerland didn't allow foreign ownership of property until the nineties.
Why should investment groups in places like China and SIngapore be allowed to invest in the UK housing market?
Housing is a utility and while I wouldn't privatise the leccy and water again I'd certainly want the regulation to be a lot stronger and more effective.
It's a nonsense for the British Govt to price it's own people out of the property market for the benefit of Chinese housewives.
The mansion tax signals the intent to raise more tax on property.
How long before £2 million becomes £1 million? Or £500,000 ?
Labour will be quite sensitive to this so I doubt they'll do it. Since the expansion of this excellent tax will be such a good-government no-brainer, they'll be able to leave it to the next Tory chancellor.
The mansion tax signals the intent to raise more tax on property.
How long before £2 million becomes £1 million? Or £500,000 ?
Labour will be quite sensitive to this so I doubt they'll do it. Since the expansion of this excellent tax will be such a good-government no-brainer, they'll be able to leave it to the next Tory chancellor.
Exactly. What did the Tory Chancellor do regarding the Income Tax HRT threshold ? He lowered it so that the 40% catch was even larger. Of course, he lowered the 50% to 45%.
and while I wouldn't privatise the leccy and water again I'd certainly want the regulation to be a lot stronger and more effective.
It's a nonsense for the British Govt to price it's own people out of the property market for the benefit of Chinese housewives.
Beyond a few select areas it's Britain's insane Bastard Love-Child Of Karl Marx and Mary Whitehouse planning regulations that are pricing people out, not Chinese housewives.
The mansion tax signals the intent to raise more tax on property.
How long before £2 million becomes £1 million? Or £500,000 ?
Labour will be quite sensitive to this so I doubt they'll do it. Since the expansion of this excellent tax will be such a good-government no-brainer, they'll be able to leave it to the next Tory chancellor.
Exactly. What did the Tory Chancellor do regarding the Income Tax HRT threshold ? He lowered it so that the 40% catch was even larger. Of course, he lowered the 50% to 45%.
He did both of those for the same reason, because both changes increased the tax take. This would be the same Tories that Labour always complain are cutting spending and not raising taxes, if only.
Labour will be quite sensitive to this so I doubt they'll do it. Since the expansion of this excellent tax will be such a good-government no-brainer, they'll be able to leave it to the next Tory chancellor.
The important thing in terms of the election is whether the people of London believe Labour will tax them heavily for owning property.
Labour's London vote share has drifted considerably lower in recent weeks.
That could be general Ed-aversion. Or maybe not.
Livingstone on the Sunday Politics defending Lutfur Rahman as well.
Mr. Observer, Labour's polling is too strong to consider that the entire socially conservative working class/WWC has jumped ship. However, I do think there has been and continues to be a substantial move directly from Labour to UKIP amongst the working class.
I read on Twitter Miliband will tomorrow attack Cameron over the EU, and acting in Britain's interest. The more Miliband stands up for the EU and migrations, the more UKIP benefits. Yes, he'll get nods of approval from big business and the Guardian, but smaller businesses are tired of the bureaucratic workload Brussels regulations impose (the vacuum cleaning nonsense is a small but easily understandable example, likewise the fire extinguisher nonsense).
There's an existential threat to both major parties posed by UKIP. It may well only claim one, but neither can take it lightly. The fragmentation we're seeing is a once in a generation opportunity for UKIP, and for other major parties to be seriously, perhaps mortally, wounded. It's also a once in a generation opportunity for the SNP to do to Labour what Hannibal did to Varro and Paullus.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Observer, UKIP didn't put in enough effort and still turned Heywood & Middleton from a safe Labour seat to an ultra-marginal. I fear you're being complacent, as Cameron was a couple of years ago.
"The more Miliband stands up for the EU and migrations, the more UKIP benefits. "
It should read: "The more Miliband stands up for the EU and migrations, the more AB voters it adds to its columns since they now think the Tories because of UKIP pressure is on a slippery slope out of the Single Market Thatcher negotiated"
Oh yes and the Mansion tax will bring even more AB voters streaming into the Labour camp!
I own two houses in London and I support the policy. Rich people can hide away their income and liquid assets. Buildings cannot be hidden.
Do you not think the Russian mafia should pay something ?
Do you not think it would be easier to ban foreign ownership thus stopping London housing being used for money laundering and improving affordability, rather than overturning a millennia of property rights?
Banning particular people from owning of property would be a far bigger infringement of property rights than just taxing it, which is normal, traditional and sensible.
It's the rights of free born Englishmen not Chinese.
and while I wouldn't privatise the leccy and water again I'd certainly want the regulation to be a lot stronger and more effective.
It's a nonsense for the British Govt to price it's own people out of the property market for the benefit of Chinese housewives.
Beyond a few select areas it's Britain's insane Bastard Love-Child Of Karl Marx and Mary Whitehouse planning regulations that are pricing people out, not Chinese housewives.
We'll have to disagree.
Personally I think it's insane that a Govt would screw it's own people for a few more quid stamp duty while at the same time having to fork out billions in Housing benefit becuase of the ridiculous rents in London where:
Estate agency Savills said the total foreign direct investment into London's property market was £7bn during 2013 alone.
Data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) shows London house prices rocketing 12% in the year to October 2013, amid emerging domestic and global economic recoveries and UK mortgage market stimulus to increase the flow of home loans.
"Beyond a few select areas it's Britain's insane Bastard Love-Child Of Karl Marx and Mary Whitehouse planning regulations that are pricing people out"
Your idea of planning regs and the restriction on building seems a little out of date. The amount of housebuilding going on, often on land that was deemed unsuitable in the recent past is phenomenal. However, with net immigration running at about 250k per year, plus increasing longevity and the increasing number of single adult homes due to family break-up building sufficient homes to reduce prices is never going to be possible.
If we accept , at face value, the UKIP figures, we are, by implication, also assuming that turnout will increase at the GE next year.
Not if 2010 voters (of all establishment parties) do note vote in 2015. Given the events of the last 4 years and the leaders these parties are offering that would hardly be surprising. After all I didn't vote between 1992 and 2005 but Blair and Brown eventually gave me the motivation to vote again (against them)!
A couple of years on PB, I pointed out that the Labour polling lead at that time risked making both Ed Miliband and the Labour Party far too complacent. They basically thought they could just sit back and do nothing while the Coalition Government did the job of getting them re-elected after only one term in Opposition.
Dan Hodges on BBC Scottish Politics show - "Ed Miliband has been wounded by events of this week, but he has not been killed off. And unless the Labour party does rally around its Leader, and its difficult to see how it can do given the antipathy towards Ed Miliband. If it doesn't do that, if it doesn't basically get rid of him and bring in a new Leader, then we are simple going to see the Labour Party staggering towards next election with a damaged Leader at its head. I think we have to be honest, I don't think anyone can see a way out of the mess that the Labour party has got itself into."
That idea from a Labour appointee to the last government, that people should pay the stamp duty on their houses every 7 years if they didn't move as they were cheating - any support here?
Interesting piece (and not totally off the wall) from Rod Liddle mainly about UKIP's disdain for the London mindset but with interesting views about the Labour party:
But increasingly, there is no need for Labour, either. Labour is perhaps more a party of London, these days, than either the Liberal Democrats or the Conservatives. It is led, ineptly, by someone who is almost the personification of effete, metropolitan-liberal milquetoast opinion (and yet who represents Doncaster, because Doncaster’s a safe seat, for a while).
He apparently originally was sympathetic to communism, but has voted for Thatcher and Blair and supported Cameron. He is a typical Blue Labour voter that has done well for himself I would say. That is to say, social conservative with a conscience that doesn't want the state taking more of his money than is necessary.
"Beyond a few select areas it's Britain's insane Bastard Love-Child Of Karl Marx and Mary Whitehouse planning regulations that are pricing people out"
Your idea of planning regs and the restriction on building seems a little out of date. The amount of housebuilding going on, often on land that was deemed unsuitable in the recent past is phenomenal. However, with net immigration running at about 250k per year, plus increasing longevity and the increasing number of single adult homes due to family break-up building sufficient homes to reduce prices is never going to be possible.
Looking this up new housing starts seem to be in the range of 30,000 to 40,000 per quarter. For the entire country. That's a tiny, teensy, miniscule, ridiculously low number.
I have it - on good authority - that anyone can set their tax-rate and, yet, fail to provide for their pension in Suisse. Thankfully they can return to the hated "Blighty" and bump-it-up* at the English tax-payers expense.
As it was a private communication I will not advise further whom that person was....
That idea from a Labour appointee to the last government, that people should pay the stamp duty on their houses every 7 years if they didn't move as they were cheating - any support here?
That will certainly help people getting onto the housing ladder! Clearly we are seeing the return of the loony left!
"What there is, as I documented in my piece in this week's magazine, is a huge amount of angst and anxiety over Miliband's performance and that of Labour. If the crisis has been amplified by the media, its origins lie in the party's flat conference, the increasing concerns expressed to MPs about their leader on the doorstep (and relayed to journalists), a poll showing Miliband to be more unpopular than Nick Clegg and another showing that Labour's vote share had fallen to its 2010 level of 29 per cent (which had a wounding psychological effect on the party).
For now, Labour is trapped in a downward spiral in which the party's funereal mood is reflected by the media, which further darkens the mood among MPs. To some, it is all dangerously reminiscent of the agonising over Gordon Brown's position in 2009-10. "If we bleed Ed, like we bled Gordon, we could end up with 25 per cent of the vote," one source warned."
That idea from a Labour appointee to the last government, that people should pay the stamp duty on their houses every 7 years if they didn't move as they were cheating - any support here?
"Beyond a few select areas it's Britain's insane Bastard Love-Child Of Karl Marx and Mary Whitehouse planning regulations that are pricing people out"
Your idea of planning regs and the restriction on building seems a little out of date. The amount of housebuilding going on, often on land that was deemed unsuitable in the recent past is phenomenal. However, with net immigration running at about 250k per year, plus increasing longevity and the increasing number of single adult homes due to family break-up building sufficient homes to reduce prices is never going to be possible.
Looking this up new housing starts seem to be in the range of 30,000 to 40,000 per quarter. For the entire country. That's a tiny, teensy, miniscule, ridiculously low number.
Mr. Observer, Labour's polling is too strong to consider that the entire socially conservative working class/WWC has jumped ship. However, I do think there has been and continues to be a substantial move directly from Labour to UKIP amongst the working class.
I read on Twitter Miliband will tomorrow attack Cameron over the EU, and acting in Britain's interest. The more Miliband stands up for the EU and migrations, the more UKIP benefits. Yes, he'll get nods of approval from big business and the Guardian, but smaller businesses are tired of the bureaucratic workload Brussels regulations impose (the vacuum cleaning nonsense is a small but easily understandable example, likewise the fire extinguisher nonsense).
There's an existential threat to both major parties posed by UKIP. It may well only claim one, but neither can take it lightly. The fragmentation we're seeing is a once in a generation opportunity for UKIP, and for other major parties to be seriously, perhaps mortally, wounded. It's also a once in a generation opportunity for the SNP to do to Labour what Hannibal did to Varro and Paullus.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Observer, UKIP didn't put in enough effort and still turned Heywood & Middleton from a safe Labour seat to an ultra-marginal. I fear you're being complacent, as Cameron was a couple of years ago.
"The more Miliband stands up for the EU and migrations, the more UKIP benefits. "
It should read: "The more Miliband stands up for the EU and migrations, the more AB voters it adds to its columns since they now think the Tories because of UKIP pressure is on a slippery slope out of the Single Market Thatcher negotiated"
Oh yes and the Mansion tax will bring even more AB voters streaming into the Labour camp!
I own two houses in London and I support the policy. Rich people can hide away their income and liquid assets. Buildings cannot be hidden.
Do you not think the Russian mafia should pay something ?
2 houses? You're part of the problem.
Funny how you support such a propertytax, yet from what you've told us previously you won't be paying it. The rich stench of hypocrisy....
"Beyond a few select areas it's Britain's insane Bastard Love-Child Of Karl Marx and Mary Whitehouse planning regulations that are pricing people out"
Your idea of planning regs and the restriction on building seems a little out of date. The amount of housebuilding going on, often on land that was deemed unsuitable in the recent past is phenomenal. However, with net immigration running at about 250k per year, plus increasing longevity and the increasing number of single adult homes due to family break-up building sufficient homes to reduce prices is never going to be possible.
Looking this up new housing starts seem to be in the range of 30,000 to 40,000 per quarter. For the entire country. That's a tiny, teensy, miniscule, ridiculously low number.
Nice to see Ed showing respect and decorum at the Festival of Rememberance last night. At least he trip up over his shoelaces at the cenotaph this morning.
Interesting, Mr. Pong, where was that photo taken? I only ask because there more people than ever at our village memorial this morning. By estimation, excluding organised groups, there were upwards of 300 people of all ages - filled the green and blocked all four roads to about six deep. For a little place like Hurst with no particular affinity to the services that is rather a good turnout.
It seems to me that over the past 20 years or so the Remembrance Day has been growing more popular, if you'll forgive the term. I remember in the seventies there was much talk in the media of doing away with it or at least expecting it to wither away as the veterans died off. That hasn't happened, quite the reverse. I am not sure why. That we have been fighting new wars recently maybe a factor and this being the centenary of the outbreak of WWI may have had a one off effect this year, but I suspect something deeper is going on.
Maybe it is tied in with the continued, perhaps increasing, popularity of the monarchy (something else that was not supposed to have happened).
Whatever the reasons, we've experienced the same increase in attendance in Beeston (our largest town). There has also been a marked growth in the number of organisations laying wreaths, which IIRC used to be limited to various official individuals - everyone from a school to a business group to a political club. (At present I think anyone who wants to can take part in the ceremony - at some point perhaps a selection criterion may be necessary: I wouldn't like to see someone from McDonalds laying a wreath.)
My local service had approx 300 people there this morning. I took a few minutes to read what was written on all the wreaths. I did not see any from commercial entities and there were a number from families remembering fallen relatives.
manofkent2014 - there ought to be a tax on all your possessions, with regular valuations by ex HIPs people...
They can try it! There is nothing more odious in politics than asset taxes. They are legalised robbery by the state! Even contemplating them should be a crime (conspiracy to rob)!
Nice to see Ed showing respect and decorum at the Festival of Rememberance last night. At least he trip up over his shoelaces at the cenotaph this morning.
Nice to see Ed showing respect and decorum at the Festival of Rememberance last night. At least he trip up over his shoelaces at the cenotaph this morning.
To be fair, I think he tries too hard. He is not a natural at these occasions.
I do not doubt that his heart is in the right place - most humans' hearts tend to - but he is not comfortable with the 'experience'. Being the younger brother of a Marxist parent cannot help his 'life-experience'.
Maybe the next government should find him a more suitable role. Belgian-Ambassador may be more his style.
manofkent2014 - there ought to be a tax on all your possessions, with regular valuations by ex HIPs people...
They can try it! There is nothing more odious in politics than asset taxes. They are legalised robbery by the state! Even contemplating them should be a crime (conspiracy to rob)!
Out of interest do you think that about income or sales taxes as well? If not what's the distinction here?
Nice to see Ed showing respect and decorum at the Festival of Rememberance last night. At least he trip up over his shoelaces at the cenotaph this morning.
To be fair, I think he tries too hard. He is not a natural at these occasions.
I do not doubt that his heart is in the right place - most humans' hearts tend to - but he is not comfortable with the 'experience'. Being the younger brother of a Marxist parent cannot help his 'life-experience'.
Maybe the next government should find him a more suitable role. Belgian-Ambassador may be more his style.
:just-a-thought:
Hmm...it's the 200th anniversary of Waterloo next year. We could let him take charge of our celebrations for that. But he'd probably fill the place with Abba tribute bands...
The Get Ed game played by the Westminster/London media elite with the help of the odd Blairite trougher has failed miserably.Ed emerges with extra confidence he has the full support of a united party in whoever he now decides to sack in the inevitable reshuffle.
Hmm...it's the 200th anniversary of Waterloo next year. We could let him take charge of our celebrations for that. But he'd probably fill the place with Abba tribute bands...
I think the Poles were on the wrong side at the time. Do we have any Prussians in Labour that could substitute?
manofkent2014 - there ought to be a tax on all your possessions, with regular valuations by ex HIPs people...
They can try it! There is nothing more odious in politics than asset taxes. They are legalised robbery by the state! Even contemplating them should be a crime (conspiracy to rob)!
Out of interest do you think that about income or sales taxes as well? If not what's the distinction here?
The distinction is that income and sales taxes are one off taxes that are charged at the real value at that moment. An asset tax is a repetitive tax which will be charged at some nominal theoretical value made up by the state. Therefore the ability to pay is inherent within Sales and income tax whereas it is not within asset taxes. People know at any time what they will have to pay in terms of income and sales tax. The tax on an asset 20 years hence is anyone's guess because it will be affected by so many imponderable and uncontrollable factors.
Not only is it prone to being highly inaccurate, horrendously difficult to administer fairly but also it is at severe risk of government manipulation to serve a Treasury's wishes against the ability of the the electorate to pay.It is amongst the most statist acts a government can commit.
Nice to see Ed showing respect and decorum at the Festival of Rememberance last night. At least he trip up over his shoelaces at the cenotaph this morning.
To be fair, I think he tries too hard. He is not a natural at these occasions.
I do not doubt that his heart is in the right place - most humans' hearts tend to - but he is not comfortable with the 'experience'. Being the younger brother of a Marxist parent cannot help his 'life-experience'.
Maybe the next government should find him a more suitable role. Belgian-Ambassador may be more his style.
:just-a-thought:
Hmm...it's the 200th anniversary of Waterloo next year. We could let him take charge of our celebrations for that. But he'd probably fill the place with Abba tribute bands...
Just to give you an example of the sort of issues that make asset taxes so absurd. Back in the 1980's I bought a copy of the previously viewed (Blockbuster) video copy of the Total Recall film from the Virgin Megastore for £20 prior to the general release of the video. After general release the price will have reduced to say £10. Now you can buy a DVD copy probably for £5.
Now the actual sale value on eBay of my original copy of Total Recall is probably 0.50p if I can get rid of it. Chances are I'd get no offers. Except to me it's probably worthless. Now it may be that there is a video collector out there who desperately wants that particular issue of that particular tape and would be willing to pay £30.00 if in mint condition and a lesser value based on the quality of the tape if its degraded somewhat but until they view the tape will not commit to how much they would be willing to pay. Of course if at some point video tapes become collectable (unlikely) as records are the price could rise and fall dependent on availability
How much should the government charge annually as an asset tax for that tape and how often should they review that charge to ensure that it is taxed fairly?
manofkent2014 - there ought to be a tax on all your possessions, with regular valuations by ex HIPs people...
They can try it! There is nothing more odious in politics than asset taxes. They are legalised robbery by the state! Even contemplating them should be a crime (conspiracy to rob)!
Out of interest do you think that about income or sales taxes as well? If not what's the distinction here?
The distinction is that income and sales taxes are one off taxes that are charged at the real value at that moment. An asset tax is a repetitive tax which will be charged at some nominal theoretical value made up by the state.
I don't think that really gets it - you also have a nominal theoretical value if there's anything other than cash moving around.
Therefore the ability to pay is inherent within Sales and income tax whereas it is not within asset taxes. People know at any time what they will have to pay in terms of income and sales tax. The tax on an asset 20 years hence is anyone's guess because it will be affected by so many imponderable and uncontrollable factors.
I don't think that works - if the tax on the asset is getting too high in Year 10 you sell the asset then. Income and sales taxes change too, and their unknowable future rates accept decisions you'll have to make when you plan ahead.
Not only is it prone to being highly inaccurate, horrendously difficult to administer fairly but also it is at severe risk of government manipulation to serve a Treasury's wishes against the ability of the the electorate to pay.It is amongst the most statist acts a government can commit.
I don't think that's right. Some assets, like land, are land much easier to track and appraise than pretty much anything else. You're already relying on the state to enforce your ownership of it, so in most cases there's already a registry somewhere.
If you're really worried about the state mis-appraising assets then there are some ways to structure taxes where the state doesn't even have to appraise them, not even during audits. For example, let people post a valuation of their asset, and make it subject to compulsory purchase at some multiple (say 2x) of that valuation. So you can value your house at 25p if you like and pay tax on that, but if I come along and generously offer you 50p for it you have to sell it to me.
I know, see below. Nevertheless, the moment I saw it I thought it good value. Can you propose another serious candidate that would fulfill the criteria I layed out. Economically competent, will get the Scottish vote out and therefore win the election?
"... if the tax on the asset is getting too high in Year 10 you sell the asset then.
Mr. Tokyo, I think that's a monstrous way of viewing things. How about this: I own my possessions and the government can piss off if it thinks I should pay them for the privilege of owning my own property?
Right now my income is very low *cough*buymybooks*cough*. I've got a reasonable number of books, and a few other things, one or two of which are valuable. Why the hell should someone not making that much be priced out of owning anything worth more than a loaf of bread, or whatever the People's Department of Property thinks is the threshold?
It's the mansion tax, forcing out elderly homeowners whose properties have soared in value over decades, extended to everything. The state has no business taxing me for the having the temerity to own goods worth more than tuppence ha'penny.
Edited extra bit: a new comparison springs to mind: the communists who propose this want me to pay rent on my possessions, despite me owning them. It's indefensible tosh.
Just put a few quid on Alistair Darling as next Labour leader at 50-1.
He's Scottish so would save that vote, he's regarded as economically competent and would win a majority next May.
Sadly, Darling, like some others in politics, wants to move out of the limelight.
Why move into the political frontline and have the media criticising your every move rather than having an intelligent debate about the best policies to help the country.
Darling would be an excellent non executive director and his views respected in business - plus he could earn far more and not have the media commenting about the way he eats sandwiches or kisses his partner.
Just put a few quid on Alistair Darling as next Labour leader at 50-1.
He's Scottish so would save that vote, he's regarded as economically competent and would win a majority next May.
He's retiring but leading Better Together which almost lost Scotland proves he is no electoral asset, and imo Darling was the worst Labour Chancellor since Snowden.
"... if the tax on the asset is getting too high in Year 10 you sell the asset then.
Mr. Tokyo, I think that's a monstrous way of viewing things. How about this: I own my possessions and the government can piss off if it thinks I should pay them for the privilege of owning my own property?
Right now my income is very low *cough*buymybooks*cough*. I've got a reasonable number of books, and a few other things, one or two of which are valuable. Why the hell should someone not making that much be priced out of owning anything worth more than a loaf of bread, or whatever the People's Department of Property thinks is the threshold?
It's the mansion tax, forcing out elderly homeowners whose properties have soared in value over decades, extended to everything. The state has no business taxing me for the having the temerity to own goods worth more than tuppence ha'penny.
Edited extra bit: a new comparison springs to mind: the communists who propose this want me to pay rent on my possessions, despite me owning them. It's indefensible tosh.
Well, if you're sitting on the asset but living on income, and the state decides to tax that income so that it's no longer enough to live off, you still have to sell the asset.
It's not obvious to me how this is worse than: The Communists who propose income tax want me to pay rent on my wages, despite it being me who earned them.
Just put a few quid on Alistair Darling as next Labour leader at 50-1.
He's Scottish so would save that vote, he's regarded as economically competent and would win a majority next May.
Sadly, Darling, like some others in politics, wants to move out of the limelight.
Why move into the political frontline and have the media criticising your every move rather than having an intelligent debate about the best policies to help the country.
Darling would be an excellent non executive director and his views respected in business - plus he could earn far more and not have the media commenting about the way he eats sandwiches or kisses his partner.
Darling has a decent media profile, I've not noticed any particular animosity towards him in the press, quite the contrary.
I don't think that really gets it - you also have a nominal theoretical value if there's anything other than cash moving around.
Do please tell me where the omnipotent valuer to provide the nominal theoretical value for the Total Recall video I mentioned is (and for all other items owned)?
I don't think that works - if the tax on the asset is getting too high in Year 10 you sell the asset then. Income and sales taxes change too, and their unknowable future rates accept decisions you'll have to make when you plan ahead.
You are conflating the value of the item with the rate of tax charged on it. Future changes in the rate of taxes is irrelevant because the item is being taxed at today's value. When the tax rises it will tax the item at that date's value. The problem with asset taxes is that the value varies and therefore at the point of purchase you do not know whats its future value will be.
As for flogging things off if they get too valuable. Well thanks a bundle matey. Nice to know you think the government can dictate how long we own things. In any case who do you think would profit from such enforced sales but predatory dealers offering the cheapest rate possible so either way the ordinary person gets screwed!
don't think that's right. Some assets, like land, are land much easier to track and appraise than pretty much anything else. You're already relying on the state to enforce your ownership of it, so in most cases there's already a registry somewhere.
Well yes there are registered items which given you have a list of them make's it easier but even so it requires an assessor to make a judgement call as to the value and an ongoing overhead of maintaining those values and facing appeals which inevitably will favour the wealthy because they will have better representation.
If you're really worried about the state mis-appraising assets then there are some ways to structure taxes where the state doesn't even have to appraise them, not even during audits. For example, let people post a valuation of their asset, and make it subject to compulsory purchase at some multiple (say 2x) of that valuation. So you can value your house at 25p if you like and pay tax on that, but if I come along and generously offer you 50p for it you have to sell it to me.
And the average person is expected to have the ability to satisfactorily judge the value of their assets? As with everything the wealthy will benefit most because they will be able to afford advice when those of lesser resources will simply be screwed either by the government or predators
Frankly I find the underlying assumption that everything belongs to the state to do as they will offensive and the sort of authoritarian statist hell you propose utterly repulsive. As I said the contemplation of asset taxes should be a criminal offence! Assets taxes are evil!
"... if the tax on the asset is getting too high in Year 10 you sell the asset then.
Mr. Tokyo, I think that's a monstrous way of viewing things. How about this: I own my possessions and the government can piss off if it thinks I should pay them for the privilege of owning my own property?
Right now my income is very low *cough*buymybooks*cough*. I've got a reasonable number of books, and a few other things, one or two of which are valuable. Why the hell should someone not making that much be priced out of owning anything worth more than a loaf of bread, or whatever the People's Department of Property thinks is the threshold?
It's the mansion tax, forcing out elderly homeowners whose properties have soared in value over decades, extended to everything. The state has no business taxing me for the having the temerity to own goods worth more than tuppence ha'penny.
Edited extra bit: a new comparison springs to mind: the communists who propose this want me to pay rent on my possessions, despite me owning them. It's indefensible tosh.
Well, if you're sitting on the asset but living on income, and the state decides to tax that income so that it's no longer enough to live off, you still have to sell the asset.
It's not obvious to me how this is worse than: The Communists who propose income tax want me to pay rent on my wages, despite it being me who earned them.
PS. How do you guys feel about rates?
How do I feel about council tax? Why should I and my partner subsidise the council services of a family of ten just because I've got one more bedroom than them? I didn't make them breed!
"... if the tax on the asset is getting too high in Year 10 you sell the asset then.
Mr. Tokyo, I think that's a monstrous way of viewing things. How about this: I own my possessions and the government can piss off if it thinks I should pay them for the privilege of owning my own property?
Right now my income is very low *cough*buymybooks*cough*. I've got a reasonable number of books, and a few other things, one or two of which are valuable. Why the hell should someone not making that much be priced out of owning anything worth more than a loaf of bread, or whatever the People's Department of Property thinks is the threshold?
It's the mansion tax, forcing out elderly homeowners whose properties have soared in value over decades, extended to everything. The state has no business taxing me for the having the temerity to own goods worth more than tuppence ha'penny.
Edited extra bit: a new comparison springs to mind: the communists who propose this want me to pay rent on my possessions, despite me owning them. It's indefensible tosh.
But Morris the value of those manuscripts you own is vast. They will earn an increasing income over decades as your work becomes increasingly popular (I hope). It is an asset that should be taxed, at a value that recognises its future value. Never mind that current income isn't sufficient to pay the tax, or sale of the manuscript assets will raise a pittance and leave you with no income.
Comments
It all seems to be part of Labours strategy for housing : tax the rich until they go offshore, punitive taxes on the City and a London house price crash.
Crashing the economy may also encourage Britain being a country of emigration once again, like in the Seventies and early Eighties.
Another home disaster awaits.
I'm going out.
from Lord Ashcroft's November nationwide polling.
"...They are more likely than average to say they might change their mind before the election, but they all but unanimously prefer Cameron as Prime Minister and trust the Tory team over Miliband and Balls when it comes to managing the economy. They are also more likely than most voters to name the deficit and the debt among the most important issues facing the country.
Nearly nine out of ten Loyalists and Joiners say they are already feeling the benefits of an economic recovery, or that they expect to soon. Most Considerers are also optimistic.
There is a similar pattern when it comes to the need for further austerity. Large majorities of Loyalists and Joiners agree that the economy is not yet full fixed and that austerity and cuts in public spending will need to continue for another five years."
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2014/09/told-tories-birmingham/
The Spectator recently reported that the UK now has the largest budget deficit in the EU.
If this failure to address the public finances is widely reported the Conservatives might well lose these voters.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/11/did-george-osborne-halve-britains-eu-bill-by-admitting-that-his-growth-is-a-mirage/
They obviously do not feel it is in the bag.
Sky news still driving the pointy home that even his own party do not rate Ed
unlike a home win for spurs in the PL
Why should investment groups in places like China and SIngapore be allowed to invest in the UK housing market?
Housing is a utility and while I wouldn't privatise the leccy and water again I'd certainly want the regulation to be a lot stronger and more effective.
It's a nonsense for the British Govt to price it's own people out of the property market for the benefit of Chinese housewives.
I am grinning from ear to ear thinking of an episode of Red Dwarf concerning Rimmer (Read Ed) replicating himself . . . . .
Labour's London vote share has drifted considerably lower in recent weeks.
That could be general Ed-aversion. Or maybe not.
Livingstone on the Sunday Politics defending Lutfur Rahman as well.
http://www.economist.com/news/economic-and-financial-indicators/21631053-trade-exchange-rates-budget-balances-and-interest-rates
But I think that is true to whether most posters engage their brains.
:please-carry-on:
Personally I think it's insane that a Govt would screw it's own people for a few more quid stamp duty while at the same time having to fork out billions in Housing benefit becuase of the ridiculous rents in London where:
Estate agency Savills said the total foreign direct investment into London's property market was £7bn during 2013 alone.
Data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) shows London house prices rocketing 12% in the year to October 2013, amid emerging domestic and global economic recoveries and UK mortgage market stimulus to increase the flow of home loans.
It's stupid.
http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Hull-MP-Alan-Johnson-rejects-calls-challenge-Ed/story-24497604-detail/story.html
Is she always like this?
She seems normal.
"Beyond a few select areas it's Britain's insane Bastard Love-Child Of Karl Marx and Mary Whitehouse planning regulations that are pricing people out"
Your idea of planning regs and the restriction on building seems a little out of date. The amount of housebuilding going on, often on land that was deemed unsuitable in the recent past is phenomenal. However, with net immigration running at about 250k per year, plus increasing longevity and the increasing number of single adult homes due to family break-up building sufficient homes to reduce prices is never going to be possible.
Dan Hodges on BBC Scottish Politics show - "Ed Miliband has been wounded by events of this week, but he has not been killed off. And unless the Labour party does rally around its Leader, and its difficult to see how it can do given the antipathy towards Ed Miliband. If it doesn't do that, if it doesn't basically get rid of him and bring in a new Leader, then we are simple going to see the Labour Party staggering towards next election with a damaged Leader at its head. I think we have to be honest, I don't think anyone can see a way out of the mess that the Labour party has got itself into."
But increasingly, there is no need for Labour, either. Labour is perhaps more a party of London, these days, than either the Liberal Democrats or the Conservatives. It is led, ineptly, by someone who is almost the personification of effete, metropolitan-liberal milquetoast opinion (and yet who represents Doncaster, because Doncaster’s a safe seat, for a while).
http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/rod-liddle/9361412/ukip-is-a-party-for-people-who-hate-london-thats-why-labour-should-be-scared/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milquetoast
Does Ed have a favourite horse?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/michael-caine-won-over-by-blairs-vision-1248975.html
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/live-tables-on-house-building
I have it - on good authority - that anyone can set their tax-rate and, yet, fail to provide for their pension in Suisse. Thankfully they can return to the hated "Blighty" and bump-it-up* at the English tax-payers expense.
As it was a private communication I will not advise further whom that person was....
* "Buy" extra accrual years.
"What there is, as I documented in my piece in this week's magazine, is a huge amount of angst and anxiety over Miliband's performance and that of Labour. If the crisis has been amplified by the media, its origins lie in the party's flat conference, the increasing concerns expressed to MPs about their leader on the doorstep (and relayed to journalists), a poll showing Miliband to be more unpopular than Nick Clegg and another showing that Labour's vote share had fallen to its 2010 level of 29 per cent (which had a wounding psychological effect on the party).
For now, Labour is trapped in a downward spiral in which the party's funereal mood is reflected by the media, which further darkens the mood among MPs. To some, it is all dangerously reminiscent of the agonising over Gordon Brown's position in 2009-10. "If we bleed Ed, like we bled Gordon, we could end up with 25 per cent of the vote," one source warned."
http://www.economist.com/news/economic-and-financial-indicators/21631053-trade-exchange-rates-budget-balances-and-interest-rates
You - of all people - should be aware of which country is which! :P
Funny how you support such a propertytax, yet from what you've told us previously you won't be paying it. The rich stench of hypocrisy....
http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/justine-thornton-and-ed-miliband-watch-the-royal-british-news-photo/458639646
I took a few minutes to read what was written on all the wreaths. I did not see any from commercial entities and there were a number from families remembering fallen relatives.
No construction work in Japan for those biulders? Or are you all talk and spannahrisms...?
Or are you back in Essex? Your "involvement" is very convoluted!
I do not doubt that his heart is in the right place - most humans' hearts tend to - but he is not comfortable with the 'experience'. Being the younger brother of a Marxist parent cannot help his 'life-experience'.
Maybe the next government should find him a more suitable role. Belgian-Ambassador may be more his style.
:just-a-thought:
Twitter
CCHQ Press Office @CCHQPress now8 seconds ago
Leave the man where he is #webackEd
Not only is it prone to being highly inaccurate, horrendously difficult to administer fairly but also it is at severe risk of government manipulation to serve a Treasury's wishes against the ability of the the electorate to pay.It is amongst the most statist acts a government can commit.
Just to give you an example of the sort of issues that make asset taxes so absurd. Back in the 1980's I bought a copy of the previously viewed (Blockbuster) video copy of the Total Recall film from the Virgin Megastore for £20 prior to the general release of the video. After general release the price will have reduced to say £10. Now you can buy a DVD copy probably for £5.
Now the actual sale value on eBay of my original copy of Total Recall is probably 0.50p if I can get rid of it. Chances are I'd get no offers. Except to me it's probably worthless. Now it may be that there is a video collector out there who desperately wants that particular issue of that particular tape and would be willing to pay £30.00 if in mint condition and a lesser value based on the quality of the tape if its degraded somewhat but until they view the tape will not commit to how much they would be willing to pay. Of course if at some point video tapes become collectable (unlikely) as records are the price could rise and fall dependent on availability
How much should the government charge annually as an asset tax for that tape and how often should they review that charge to ensure that it is taxed fairly?
He's Scottish so would save that vote, he's regarded as economically competent and would win a majority next May.
If you're really worried about the state mis-appraising assets then there are some ways to structure taxes where the state doesn't even have to appraise them, not even during audits. For example, let people post a valuation of their asset, and make it subject to compulsory purchase at some multiple (say 2x) of that valuation. So you can value your house at 25p if you like and pay tax on that, but if I come along and generously offer you 50p for it you have to sell it to me.
Alistair Darling to stand down as MP
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29873595
Edited extra bit: last sentence in the bit before the contents:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alistair_Darling
You might be happy to stay on, if it was your duty, and it looked like you'd be PM. The Jim Hacker route.
Expecting Hamilton to pass Rosberg :-)
Mr. Tokyo, I think that's a monstrous way of viewing things. How about this: I own my possessions and the government can piss off if it thinks I should pay them for the privilege of owning my own property?
Right now my income is very low *cough*buymybooks*cough*. I've got a reasonable number of books, and a few other things, one or two of which are valuable. Why the hell should someone not making that much be priced out of owning anything worth more than a loaf of bread, or whatever the People's Department of Property thinks is the threshold?
It's the mansion tax, forcing out elderly homeowners whose properties have soared in value over decades, extended to everything. The state has no business taxing me for the having the temerity to own goods worth more than tuppence ha'penny.
Edited extra bit: a new comparison springs to mind: the communists who propose this want me to pay rent on my possessions, despite me owning them. It's indefensible tosh.
Why move into the political frontline and have the media criticising your every move rather than having an intelligent debate about the best policies to help the country.
Darling would be an excellent non executive director and his views respected in business - plus he could earn far more and not have the media commenting about the way he eats sandwiches or kisses his partner.
Twitter
Tim Montgomerie @montie 5 mins5 minutes ago
Do we really need party political branding on Remembrance Day messages? https://twitter.com/nick_clegg/status/531348639659360256 …
It's not obvious to me how this is worse than: The Communists who propose income tax want me to pay rent on my wages, despite it being me who earned them.
PS. How do you guys feel about rates?
New Thread by the way.
As a Chelsea fan it gives me great pleasure to see Spurs being so awful, but it's time to get behind a manager and let him build his own team.
I don't think that really gets it - you also have a nominal theoretical value if there's anything other than cash moving around.
Do please tell me where the omnipotent valuer to provide the nominal theoretical value for the Total Recall video I mentioned is (and for all other items owned)?
I don't think that works - if the tax on the asset is getting too high in Year 10 you sell the asset then. Income and sales taxes change too, and their unknowable future rates accept decisions you'll have to make when you plan ahead.
You are conflating the value of the item with the rate of tax charged on it. Future changes in the rate of taxes is irrelevant because the item is being taxed at today's value. When the tax rises it will tax the item at that date's value. The problem with asset taxes is that the value varies and therefore at the point of purchase you do not know whats its future value will be.
As for flogging things off if they get too valuable. Well thanks a bundle matey. Nice to know you think the government can dictate how long we own things. In any case who do you think would profit from such enforced sales but predatory dealers offering the cheapest rate possible so either way the ordinary person gets screwed!
don't think that's right. Some assets, like land, are land much easier to track and appraise than pretty much anything else. You're already relying on the state to enforce your ownership of it, so in most cases there's already a registry somewhere.
Well yes there are registered items which given you have a list of them make's it easier but even so it requires an assessor to make a judgement call as to the value and an ongoing overhead of maintaining those values and facing appeals which inevitably will favour the wealthy because they will have better representation.
If you're really worried about the state mis-appraising assets then there are some ways to structure taxes where the state doesn't even have to appraise them, not even during audits. For example, let people post a valuation of their asset, and make it subject to compulsory purchase at some multiple (say 2x) of that valuation. So you can value your house at 25p if you like and pay tax on that, but if I come along and generously offer you 50p for it you have to sell it to me.
And the average person is expected to have the ability to satisfactorily judge the value of their assets? As with everything the wealthy will benefit most because they will be able to afford advice when those of lesser resources will simply be screwed either by the government or predators
Frankly I find the underlying assumption that everything belongs to the state to do as they will offensive and the sort of authoritarian statist hell you propose utterly repulsive. As I said the contemplation of asset taxes should be a criminal offence! Assets taxes are evil!