so it is illegal to bare your breasts (as presumably that would be the law for which the woman would be arrested).
No, it would be for the Crown to prove that under the circumstances the exposure was disorderly, that there was within sight a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress, and that the woman intended her behaviour to be, or was aware that it may be disorderly. There are also article 10 ECHR issues involved. It is by no means clear cut.
Hmm thanks.
I feel there is an interesting discussion to be had about this but we would both likely fall off the pinhead.
'Tory environment minister never been to a Scottish croft'
Tory MP Owen Paterson has admitted he has never visited a Highland farm or croft in his job as Secretary of State for Environment – despite them being directly affected by the Common Agriculture Policy.
Mr Paterson made the admission in an uncomfortable grilling by the Scottish Parliament’s Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee today.
He also made it clear Scotland’s allocation from the UK’s Common Agricultural Policy would not likely change – but could not give further details. He also added that any savings in his brief he would “put that money into promoting England’s wine industry” – demonstrating the actual cost of the future of the Union to Scotland’s farmers.
And visiting a croft, or not visiting one, doesn't give you any qualifications either.
What would you say are the SoS for the Environment's qualifications for having any influence over Scottish agriculture or making decisions about its CAP allocation?
The closure of the state broadcaster in Greece has caused a political clash, according to Bloomberg.
A motion is being prepared to re-open it by opposition parties. Markets a bit jittery, but its OK, because Mr Hollande has declared the eurozone crisis ouveurre...
@EdConwaySky: If George Osborne set the ceiling for Help to Buy at £300k instead of £600k it wld still cover almost 90% of non-London home purchases (2/2)
@EdConwaySky: I mean, £600k is a MILLION DOLLARS. UK govt is to offer unprecedented support for people to own $1m properties. Still find it astounding
Insane
The government is attempting to manipulate the economy for electoral purposes. What exactly is news, bar the extent of this government's extravagance?
What would you say are the SoS for the Environment's qualifications for having any influence over Scottish agriculture or making decisions about its CAP allocation?
Would you say the SoS for the Environment is better qualified than the man who said the Lockerbie bomber had 3 monhs to live?
I went to the government's website and it turns out that where the government is providing help for people to buy a complete home (as opposed to an equity share or shared ownership), the property must be the main home of the purchaser and cannot be rented out.
Which means your point about Osborne throwing money at buy to let landlords is absolute rubbish.
I went to the government's website and it turns out that where the government is providing help for people to buy a complete home (as opposed to an equity share or shared ownership), the property must be the main home of the purchaser and cannot be rented out.
Which means your point about Osborne throwing money at buy to let landlords is absolute rubbish.
This site best puts tim's case that Osborne is blowing a property bubble.
In fact there are four schemes, according to the government's own website. See link.. equity loans, shared ownership, new buy andhelp to buy mortgage guarantees.
Only the latter two enable you to own your own home outright. Both stipulate it must be your main home and can't be rented out
You should also check out the Guardian, where Cam has just confirmed that foreigners and second homes will NOT be eligible.
Gosh yes, Socrates, what this site is crying out for is more protection for right-wingers.
What this site needs is for decent people to condemn poor behaviour regardless of the political ideology of the posters giving or receiving abuse. I've criticised people being abusive to you in the past, but nice to know you don't think you should do the reverse, because of my political philosophy.
"The Bank of England Funding for Lending scheme will now allow Small and Medium sized enterpises (SMEs) to lend the money available on to property investors.
The Funding for lending scheme has been extended another year until January 2015 and from 2014 banks will be able to borrow £10 of cheap Bank of England money for every £1 the lend to SMEs. This has double the previous allowance of £5 for every £1 banks lend.
This doubling of incentive to try and stimulate the economy could have a very positive effect for property investors for the first time as Buy to Let is still seen as relatively low risk by banks compared to taking an educated gamble on a start up business.
Rob Wood, chief UK economist at Berenberg Bank, said ‘It could be a no-brainer. Lend to a landlord and get 10 times that lending back as essentially free funding, then recycle some of that back out again on mortgages or BuytoLet.’
£80 billion has been set aside by The Bank of England for this scheme to kick start the economy and get lending available to business, but to date the take up by banks has been disappointing with £14 billion being taken between August and December last year. However it is hoped that the extended scheme and greater incentive will boost the take up and for the Private Rental Sector add a much needed injection of competitive financing."
All aboard the taxpayer funded gravy train!
"Buy-to-let landlords could be the biggest beneficiaries of the Bank of England’s expanded Funding for Lending Scheme, providing another state-backed fillip to the property market. The BoE gave the go-ahead on Wednesday for banks tapping its new funding mechanism for small and medium-sized businesses to be allowed to lend the money on to property investors. "
FT
Oh dear, tim.
Producers of pornographic videos and sex toys are just as eligible to benefit from the Bank of England's Funding of Lending Scheme as Buy to Let Landlords. Similarly, privately owned kindergarten operators and hearing aid manufacturers are equally entitled to apply for funds.
Osborne is no more inflating the property market than he is blowing up the market for pneumatic sex-dolls.
"I've criticised people being abusive to you in the past"
What, about twice? I can handle the stupid abuse, but what I can't handle is the one-sided moderation that affects left-wingers and prevents us from defending ourselves on many occasions.
Have you spoken out against the repeated malicious blockings of Mick Pork, for example?
I don't think I've ever been aware of the circumstances of his blockings. But you've made yourself clear that you don't think people on the left of centre should ever condemn abuse of right of centre posters.
And how many operations has the SoS for Health done? How many battles has the SoS for Defence been in? What is the point you are trying to make?
Certainly not one that relates to any of those questions. You don't need any qualifications to visit a croft, for pity's sake.
And that is the SNP's best point to the Secretary of State is it? That he had not visited a croft? Sheesh...These people propose becoming the governing party if they get independence yes? The SNP have a very thin coat of cream over a pile of crud. Admittedly this puts them in quite a strong position in the Scottish Parliament but really...
"The Bank of England Funding for Lending scheme will now allow Small and Medium sized enterpises (SMEs) to lend the money available on to property investors.
The Funding for lending scheme has been extended another year until January 2015 and from 2014 banks will be able to borrow £10 of cheap Bank of England money for every £1 the lend to SMEs. This has double the previous allowance of £5 for every £1 banks lend.
This doubling of incentive to try and stimulate the economy could have a very positive effect for property investors for the first time as Buy to Let is still seen as relatively low risk by banks compared to taking an educated gamble on a start up business.
Rob Wood, chief UK economist at Berenberg Bank, said ‘It could be a no-brainer. Lend to a landlord and get 10 times that lending back as essentially free funding, then recycle some of that back out again on mortgages or BuytoLet.’
£80 billion has been set aside by The Bank of England for this scheme to kick start the economy and get lending available to business, but to date the take up by banks has been disappointing with £14 billion being taken between August and December last year. However it is hoped that the extended scheme and greater incentive will boost the take up and for the Private Rental Sector add a much needed injection of competitive financing."
All aboard the taxpayer funded gravy train!
"Buy-to-let landlords could be the biggest beneficiaries of the Bank of England’s expanded Funding for Lending Scheme, providing another state-backed fillip to the property market. The BoE gave the go-ahead on Wednesday for banks tapping its new funding mechanism for small and medium-sized businesses to be allowed to lend the money on to property investors. "
FT
Oh dear, tim.
Producers of pornographic videos and sex toys are just as eligible to benefit from the Bank of England's Funding of Lending Scheme as Buy to Let Landlords. Similarly, privately owned kindergarten operators and hearing aid manufacturers are equally entitled to apply for funds.
Osborne is no more inflating the property market than he is blowing up the market for pneumatic sex-dolls.
Yes, but sex-doll manufacturers and kindergarten operators aren't particularly elderly, so tim doesn't single them out for scorn.
And how many operations has the SoS for Health done? How many battles has the SoS for Defence been in? What is the point you are trying to make?
Certainly not one that relates to any of those questions. You don't need any qualifications to visit a croft, for pity's sake.
And that is the SNP's best point to the Secretary of State is it? That he had not visited a croft? Sheesh...These people propose becoming the governing party if they get independence yes? The SNP have a very thin coat of cream over a pile of crud. Admittedly this puts them in quite a strong position in the Scottish Parliament but really...
It's the standard Nat nonsense.
Visit a croft and it's "interference". Don't visit a croft and it's a snub.
Maybe we should ask Nigel Farage to visit a croft to see which way they jump.
Gosh yes, Socrates, what this site is crying out for is more protection for right-wingers.
I got mullered by SeanT last night, and I'm no leftie.
Do you reckon I should start my own blog and whinge about it?
Or just man-up and accept that sometimes I deserve abuse for my obtuse opinions.
You have these immovable beliefs about Scottish Independence (fair enough, go you!) and given your intransigence and vehemence toward anything anti-Nat you are bound to attract flak. Your position is a minority one. Even in Scotland it's a minority one. So people are gonna disagree with you.
That's life. That's the joy of political blood-sport. So stop whingeing.
"I don't think I've ever been aware of the circumstances of his blockings."
How can you ever become aware? Any time someone tries to raise the issue, TSE comes up with an even less plausible explanation than the last time, and starts darkly hinting that anyone who challenges his absurdities will have their posts deleted or be banned. Are you content with this state of affairs?
"But you've made yourself clear that you don't think people on the left of centre should ever condemn abuse of right of centre posters."
I must have "made myself clear" in an astonishingly opaque way, then. It must be frustrating for you when people don't allow you to put words in their mouths, but there it is.
"I got mullered by SeanT last night, and I'm no leftie."
And how many posts have you had deleted, Fenster? How many times have you been blocked? I'll need to know that information before I can judge whether I can take any lessons from you on "manning up".
"I got mullered by SeanT last night, and I'm no leftie."
And how many posts have you had deleted, Fenster? How many times have you been blocked? I'll need to know that information before I can judge whether I can take any lessons from you on "manning up".
I don't know how many times I've been 'blocked' because sometimes I won't come here for a few days but I've had plenty of deletions. And deservedly so - sometimes I can be a knob.
The last time I was blocked was for abusing Mick Pork. My sinbin lasted about three days.
"You have these immovable beliefs about Scottish Independence (fair enough, go you!) and given your intransigence and vehemence toward anything anti-Nat you are bound to attract flak. Your position is a minority one. Even in Scotland it's a minority one. So people are gonna disagree with you."
That has the unfortunate distinction of being the most bizarre paragraph I've read on PB (yes, even on PB!) for some time. What exactly do you think you mean by "even in Scotland"? You have noticed that Scotland is the country that will make the decision, yes? Or do you really think I'm going to fret about whether Scottish independence is a minority passion in Bolivia?
As for the position in Scotland itself (trivial though you evidently think that is), many polls show that BOTH Yes and No to independence are minority positions, with don't knows making up the balance. The most recent poll was Yes 36%, No 44%.
"You have these immovable beliefs about Scottish Independence (fair enough, go you!) and given your intransigence and vehemence toward anything anti-Nat you are bound to attract flak. Your position is a minority one. Even in Scotland it's a minority one. So people are gonna disagree with you."
That has the unfortunate distinction of being the most bizarre paragraph I've read on PB (yes, even on PB!) for some time. What exactly do you think you mean by "even in Scotland"? You have noticed that Scotland is the country that will make the decision, yes? Or do you really think I'm going to fret about whether Scottish independence is a minority passion in Bolivia?
As for the position in Scotland itself (trivial though you evidently think that is), many polls show that BOTH Yes and No to independence are minority positions, with don't knows making up the balance. The most recent poll was Yes 36%, No 44%.
I'm happy for you. I'll congratulate you if get independence. I couldn't give a monkey's about Scottish independence or the Union - means nothing to me.
Two upsides if you win independence is that the rest of the UK will become richer after removing your life support and Labour will lose about 40 Westminster seats. Which would be funny.
I just hope the Welsh Nationalists don't gain any traction here in Wales because if we went it alone then God help us. We need the life support.
Oh, so that's why you hate the Conservatives and UKIP so much. Their support disproportionately skews towards the "coffin dodgers". Suddenly, it all makes sense.
No one noticing that David Cameron is more popular than his party in this poll? After all the fuss earlier in the week about a different poll that showed the opposite? The lure of the exciting always trumps the more mundane. But I'd expected pbers to have commented on this by now.
"The Bank of England Funding for Lending scheme will now allow Small and Medium sized enterpises (SMEs) to lend the money available on to property investors.
The Funding for lending scheme has been extended another year until January 2015 and from 2014 banks will be able to borrow £10 of cheap Bank of England money for every £1 the lend to SMEs. This has double the previous allowance of £5 for every £1 banks lend.
This doubling of incentive to try and stimulate the economy could have a very positive effect for property investors for the first time as Buy to Let is still seen as relatively low risk by banks compared to taking an educated gamble on a start up business.
Rob Wood, chief UK economist at Berenberg Bank, said ‘It could be a no-brainer. Lend to a landlord and get 10 times that lending back as essentially free funding, then recycle some of that back out again on mortgages or BuytoLet.’
£80 billion has been set aside by The Bank of England for this scheme to kick start the economy and get lending available to business, but to date the take up by banks has been disappointing with £14 billion being taken between August and December last year. However it is hoped that the extended scheme and greater incentive will boost the take up and for the Private Rental Sector add a much needed injection of competitive financing."
All aboard the taxpayer funded gravy train!
"Buy-to-let landlords could be the biggest beneficiaries of the Bank of England’s expanded Funding for Lending Scheme, providing another state-backed fillip to the property market. The BoE gave the go-ahead on Wednesday for banks tapping its new funding mechanism for small and medium-sized businesses to be allowed to lend the money on to property investors. "
FT
Oh dear, tim.
Producers of pornographic videos and sex toys are just as eligible to benefit from the Bank of England's Funding of Lending Scheme as Buy to Let Landlords. Similarly, privately owned kindergarten operators and hearing aid manufacturers are equally entitled to apply for funds.
Osborne is no more inflating the property market than he is blowing up the market for pneumatic sex-dolls.
Yes, but sex-doll manufacturers and kindergarten operators aren't particularly elderly, so tim doesn't single them out for scorn.
Old Tories and Old Kippers have views on Gay Marriage that I also scorn. MODERATED
Tim you are obviously having a moment. I perfectly understand that the adrenalin rush that comes with a return to your favourite blog can be overwhelming but you must try to get a grip.
My guess is that your knowledge of "Old Tories and Old Kippers" is zero and derived wholly from anecdote, wishful thinking, supposition and Polly.
So just to re-cap, as tim's gone a bit quiet...(shift change?)
Government help to buy homes scheme...
1. No foreigners. 2. No second homes. 3. Your main property only (ie no buy to let landlords can get in or skanks wanting to build a property empire). This also means only one property per person. 4. No letting on or renting on of property.
So it turns out that George Osborne is aiming his scheme at....er.....British people who don't own a home, who would like to own one.
"Stephen Hester is the brightest and most impressive individual that I have met in more than 30 years in the city. It was quite clear over the last few months that his relationship with George Osborne was deteriorating. I would back Hester's judgement over Osborne's every day of the week."
So just to re-cap, as tim's gone a bit quiet...(shift change?)
Government help to buy homes scheme...
1. No foreigners. 2. No second homes. 3. Your main property only (ie no buy to let landlords can get in or skanks wanting to build a property empire). This also means only one property per person. 4. No letting on or renting on of property.
So it turns out that George Osborne is aiming his scheme at....er.....British people who don't own a home, who would like to own one.
Fancy.
Just go and google Buy To Let/Funding For Lending and stop embarrassing yourself.
On the scheme you've been looking at is the £600k available for remortgaging? That's insane dont you think?
Remortgaging is often necessary when a couple divorces, the wife is granted custody of the children and possession of the marital home, with ownership split between the partners.
If the wife has sufficient income to support a full mortgage, or if she has a new cohabiting partner/husband, then it often makes sense to buy out the ex's share.
Why should a remortgage not be available under the government support schemes for this circumstance?
Back this afternoon from a luncheon at the Blue Boar (London, St James) given to me and my wife for Fathers Day. Sad to say that although the place and ambiance was very nice, the food to my taste at least, was not far short of abominable. The worst I've tasted in a long time.
That guy must have muttered, "Swivel Eyed Loons", after tasting the soup.
I used to think that a massive tax on inherited wealth would be a good answer to encouraging a more equal society without punishing hard working self made wealthy people, but making sure their kids didn't laze about living off the interest.
So 0% inheritance tax on wealth earned by individuals but 50% on inherited wealth for instance?
So Richard Branson can leave all his money to his kids free of tax but they would only be able to leave 50% of that inheritance to their children. The idea being with such a head start they should be able to earn the other 50% themselves.
Is this nonsense?!
Two things come to mind - sure they can be both worked around, but at the cost of significant complexity
(1) Money is fungible - how do you determine what is inherited wealth vs. what is earned. So say that someone inherits 100, earns 50 from salary and earns 50 from interest on inherited money. He spends 150 during the course of his life. The total he leaves to his kids is 50 - but is that inherited money, money earned on an inheritence or salary?
(2) It discourages the development of multi-generational family companies. For instance, I spent today with two German family companies, both in their third generation. They would have been forced to sell if they had been taxed 50% on the transmission to the third generation
Neil - Indeed, and Gillard could be gone by this time next week if rumours of a delegation paying her a visit are true. Maybe be worthwhile putting some money on the ALP at the weekend if Rudd does come back, as the odds are bound to shorten from their very long position at present
I bet you a penny to a pound that if a woman walked onto the Central Line topless then, if an BTP officer was called, and she refused to cover up, she would be arrested.
Quite. Just think how much that would offend muslims.
I was once waiting for a train early morning at Bath train station when a man on the opposite platform took all his clothes off.... most odd.
I was in a cab last weekend when I got stuck in the middle of a traffic jam of naked cyclists. Most disconcerning (and looked uncomfortable!)
Off topic, but there's a fascinating article by Ambose E/P in the telegraph to the effect that Italy is close to breaking point with austerity, and close to offering an ultimatum to the north. Reflate or....???
It's interesting in itself, but also because of how it plays into the potential renegotiation for the UK. Ours is not the only corner of Europe where the tectonic plates may be shifting.
'Tory environment minister never been to a Scottish croft'
Tory MP Owen Paterson has admitted he has never visited a Highland farm or croft in his job as Secretary of State for Environment – despite them being directly affected by the Common Agriculture Policy.
Mr Paterson made the admission in an uncomfortable grilling by the Scottish Parliament’s Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee today.
He also made it clear Scotland’s allocation from the UK’s Common Agricultural Policy would not likely change – but could not give further details. He also added that any savings in his brief he would “put that money into promoting England’s wine industry” – demonstrating the actual cost of the future of the Union to Scotland’s farmers.
I used to think that a massive tax on inherited wealth would be a good answer to encouraging a more equal society without punishing hard working self made wealthy people, but making sure their kids didn't laze about living off the interest.
So 0% inheritance tax on wealth earned by individuals but 50% on inherited wealth for instance?
So Richard Branson can leave all his money to his kids free of tax but they would only be able to leave 50% of that inheritance to their children. The idea being with such a head start they should be able to earn the other 50% themselves.
Is this nonsense?!
Two things come to mind - sure they can be both worked around, but at the cost of significant complexity
(1) Money is fungible - how do you determine what is inherited wealth vs. what is earned. So say that someone inherits 100, earns 50 from salary and earns 50 from interest on inherited money. He spends 150 during the course of his life. The total he leaves to his kids is 50 - but is that inherited money, money earned on an inheritence or salary?
(2) It discourages the development of multi-generational family companies. For instance, I spent today with two German family companies, both in their third generation. They would have been forced to sell if they had been taxed 50% on the transmission to the third generation
Not really all that well thought through by me, but...
In the first case I would say it was inherited money. If you are left 100 and only earn 50 in your life time you should have done better
In the second, I think it encourages the children to grow the company as much as their parent did
But this wasn't necessarily something I wanted to impose, just an idea that could well be wrong on may levels) on how to stop the wealth gap ever increasing
I used to think that a massive tax on inherited wealth would be a good answer to encouraging a more equal society without punishing hard working self made wealthy people, but making sure their kids didn't laze about living off the interest.
So 0% inheritance tax on wealth earned by individuals but 50% on inherited wealth for instance?
So Richard Branson can leave all his money to his kids free of tax but they would only be able to leave 50% of that inheritance to their children. The idea being with such a head start they should be able to earn the other 50% themselves.
Is this nonsense?!
Two things come to mind - sure they can be both worked around, but at the cost of significant complexity
(1) Money is fungible - how do you determine what is inherited wealth vs. what is earned. So say that someone inherits 100, earns 50 from salary and earns 50 from interest on inherited money. He spends 150 during the course of his life. The total he leaves to his kids is 50 - but is that inherited money, money earned on an inheritence or salary?
(2) It discourages the development of multi-generational family companies. For instance, I spent today with two German family companies, both in their third generation. They would have been forced to sell if they had been taxed 50% on the transmission to the third generation
They don't have to sell the whole company - just enough equity to pay the tax. Given that families managed by the eldest child of the entrepreneur are managed worse than average, it wouldn't be the end of the world to have someone interested in running the business well rather than someone interested in giving their son a job came into control anyway.
I went to the government's website and it turns out that where the government is providing help for people to buy a complete home (as opposed to an equity share or shared ownership), the property must be the main home of the purchaser and cannot be rented out.
Which means your point about Osborne throwing money at buy to let landlords is absolute rubbish.
Which scheme were you looking at there's three. The taxpayer BTL subsidies go through funding for lending and the Million Dollar Madness stars next year. Looks to me like you e made an elementary error and are looking at the smaller new build scheme running now rather than where you should be looking.
How large is Funding for Lending (in terms of drawdown, not potential)?
Of that, how much is going to BTL?
The answers, btw, are small and not much. It's going to have b*gger all impact.
What would you say are the SoS for the Environment's qualifications for having any influence over Scottish agriculture or making decisions about its CAP allocation?
Would you say the SoS for the Environment is better qualified than the man who said the Lockerbie bomber had 3 monhs to live?
And how many operations has the SoS for Health done? How many battles has the SoS for Defence been in? What is the point you are trying to make?
Certainly not one that relates to any of those questions. You don't need any qualifications to visit a croft, for pity's sake.
And that is the SNP's best point to the Secretary of State is it? That he had not visited a croft? Sheesh...These people propose becoming the governing party if they get independence yes? The SNP have a very thin coat of cream over a pile of crud. Admittedly this puts them in quite a strong position in the Scottish Parliament but really...
Also head and shoulders above the pile of ordure in Westminster
I used to think that a massive tax on inherited wealth would be a good answer to encouraging a more equal society without punishing hard working self made wealthy people, but making sure their kids didn't laze about living off the interest.
So 0% inheritance tax on wealth earned by individuals but 50% on inherited wealth for instance?
So Richard Branson can leave all his money to his kids free of tax but they would only be able to leave 50% of that inheritance to their children. The idea being with such a head start they should be able to earn the other 50% themselves.
Is this nonsense?!
Two things come to mind - sure they can be both worked around, but at the cost of significant complexity
(1) Money is fungible - how do you determine what is inherited wealth vs. what is earned. So say that someone inherits 100, earns 50 from salary and earns 50 from interest on inherited money. He spends 150 during the course of his life. The total he leaves to his kids is 50 - but is that inherited money, money earned on an inheritence or salary?
(2) It discourages the development of multi-generational family companies. For instance, I spent today with two German family companies, both in their third generation. They would have been forced to sell if they had been taxed 50% on the transmission to the third generation
They don't have to sell the whole company - just enough equity to pay the tax. Given that families managed by the eldest child of the entrepreneur are managed worse than average, it wouldn't be the end of the world to have someone interested in running the business well rather than someone interested in giving their son a job came into control anyway.
But the obvious question that has to be asked is why the government is entitled to anything? Given that government seems to be primarily a very effective way of squandering money one has to ask how society benefits from them taking even more money and in the process removing one of the big incentives for individuals starting a company in the first place (given that leaving a successful company to ones children is a common factor in putting in all that time and hard work in the first place.)
I used to think that a massive tax on inherited wealth would be a good answer to encouraging a more equal society without punishing hard working self made wealthy people, but making sure their kids didn't laze about living off the interest.
So 0% inheritance tax on wealth earned by individuals but 50% on inherited wealth for instance?
So Richard Branson can leave all his money to his kids free of tax but they would only be able to leave 50% of that inheritance to their children. The idea being with such a head start they should be able to earn the other 50% themselves.
Is this nonsense?!
Two things come to mind - sure they can be both worked around, but at the cost of significant complexity
(1) Money is fungible - how do you determine what is inherited wealth vs. what is earned. So say that someone inherits 100, earns 50 from salary and earns 50 from interest on inherited money. He spends 150 during the course of his life. The total he leaves to his kids is 50 - but is that inherited money, money earned on an inheritence or salary?
(2) It discourages the development of multi-generational family companies. For instance, I spent today with two German family companies, both in their third generation. They would have been forced to sell if they had been taxed 50% on the transmission to the third generation
They don't have to sell the whole company - just enough equity to pay the tax. Given that families managed by the eldest child of the entrepreneur are managed worse than average, it wouldn't be the end of the world to have someone interested in running the business well rather than someone interested in giving their son a job came into control anyway.
But the obvious question that has to be asked is why the government is entitled to anything? Given that government seems to be primarily a very effective way of squandering money one has to ask how society benefits from them taking even more money and in the process removing one of the big incentives for individuals starting a company in the first place (given that leaving a successful company to ones children is a common factor in putting in all that time and hard work in the first place.)
Governments need money from somewhere, and I think it's more reasonable to put the burden on unearned income rather than earned income. I wouldn't agree with isam's system, but I do think a pretty high, albeit progressive, income tax on money received via gifts or inheritance is reasonable.
So just to re-cap, as tim's gone a bit quiet...(shift change?)
Government help to buy homes scheme...
1. No foreigners. 2. No second homes. 3. Your main property only (ie no buy to let landlords can get in or skanks wanting to build a property empire). This also means only one property per person. 4. No letting on or renting on of property.
So it turns out that George Osborne is aiming his scheme at....er.....British people who don't own a home, who would like to own one.
Fancy.
Just go and google Buy To Let/Funding For Lending and stop embarrassing yourself.
On the scheme you've been looking at is the £600k available for remortgaging? That's insane dont you think?
Remortgaging is often necessary when a couple divorces, the wife is granted custody of the children and possession of the marital home, with ownership split between the partners.
If the wife has sufficient income to support a full mortgage, or if she has a new cohabiting partner/husband, then it often makes sense to buy out the ex's share.
Why should a remortgage not be available under the government support schemes for this circumstance?
Why should the taxpayer be subsidising anyone's mortgage? Are you seriously saying now that remortgaging where there's no equity in the house is a legitimate sphere for the taxpayer to pick up the tab?
And the person leaving also gets a taxpayer subsidised mortgage?
I guess you'll want the taxpayer subsidising a mortgage on a flat where one friend moves out will you?
This whole scheme is utterly bizarre.
tim
It is you who misunderstands the schemes.
The banks have not been lending to house buyers for a number of reasons. These include the need for banks to increase their share capital to meet regulatory requirements; their need to better manage overall credit risk by reducing exposure on high loan to value mortgages; and their need to manage the economic risk of a 'catastrophic' fall in house prices. As a result the supply of mortgage products has greatly diminished and volumes of lending have fallen.
Demand for mortgages has also been depressed. The lack of high loan to value mortgage products, relatively high borrowing costs and fear of house price falls have deterred buyers. First time and first move buyers have been fallen substantially. Property sales are still today running at 50% of pre-crisis volumes.
With both supply and demand constrained in the mortgage market, there is little incentive for construction companies to increase house building. This in turn depresses growth in the economy and, in the long term, inflates property prices further due to the imbalance of supply and demand.
The government schemes are designed to unblock the house purchase, mortgage finance and construction markets and to stimulate natural growth.
The BoE Funds for Lending Scheme, which is not aimed specifically at the housing market, addresses banking sector problems by freeing up money for lending and lowering interest rates.
The housing market schemes are each targetted at specific blocks. The new build scheme helps first time buyers by making high LTV mortgages available again in the market and stimulates construction by boosting demand. The guarantee and equity participation schemes (the latter to be replaced by the former) help a wider market by protecting banks, buyers and builders with protection against the economic risk of catastrophic house price falls.
The schemes self exit over a period of five to seven years. The scale of finance available will not exceed 10% of total UK mortgage values. All lending is subject to standard credit risk assessment. There is no subsidy to mortgagors in the sense of permanent value transfer. Fees are charged for government guarantees and equity participation costs which are sufficient to cover the government's costs.
The limited scale - timeframe, value and ratio to overall market size - and the self-liquidating and self-funding nature of the schemes mean that the risk of creating an uncontrollable pricing bubble in the housing market are limited and low.
The schemes are already proving successful as can be seen by recent growth in house building, property sales and first time buyer mortgages. There has, as yet been very limited house price inflation. Price rises have remained well below the rate of inflation and are still well below the peaks experienced in 2007 before the financial crisis.
... is anyone prepared to discuss why Osborne is now lagging behind Balls. Or why the key group of voters 2010 Lib Dems give Balls a 31% lead over Osborne?
Simple, becuase Osborne is not very good at job sharing. Something I have been saying since 2008.
I used to think that a massive tax on inherited wealth would be a good answer to encouraging a more equal society without punishing hard working self made wealthy people, but making sure their kids didn't laze about living off the interest.
So 0% inheritance tax on wealth earned by individuals but 50% on inherited wealth for instance?
So Richard Branson can leave all his money to his kids free of tax but they would only be able to leave 50% of that inheritance to their children. The idea being with such a head start they should be able to earn the other 50% themselves.
Is this nonsense?!
Two things come to mind - sure they can be both worked around, but at the cost of significant complexity
(1) Money is fungible - how do you determine what is inherited wealth vs. what is earned. So say that someone inherits 100, earns 50 from salary and earns 50 from interest on inherited money. He spends 150 during the course of his life. The total he leaves to his kids is 50 - but is that inherited money, money earned on an inheritence or salary?
(2) It discourages the development of multi-generational family companies. For instance, I spent today with two German family companies, both in their third generation. They would have been forced to sell if they had been taxed 50% on the transmission to the third generation
They don't have to sell the whole company - just enough equity to pay the tax. Given that families managed by the eldest child of the entrepreneur are managed worse than average, it wouldn't be the end of the world to have someone interested in running the business well rather than someone interested in giving their son a job came into control anyway.
But the obvious question that has to be asked is why the government is entitled to anything? Given that government seems to be primarily a very effective way of squandering money one has to ask how society benefits from them taking even more money and in the process removing one of the big incentives for individuals starting a company in the first place (given that leaving a successful company to ones children is a common factor in putting in all that time and hard work in the first place.)
Governments need money from somewhere, and I think it's more reasonable to put the burden on unearned income rather than earned income. I wouldn't agree with isam's system, but I do think a pretty high, albeit progressive, income tax on money received via gifts or inheritance is reasonable.
Governments might think they need money but that doesn't mean they need as much as they keep trying to steal off us. This system of see how much money you can get and then find stuff to spend it on sums up perfectly what is wrong with our modern system of government.
And that money is not unearned. It was earned by the hard work of the person who set up the company and spent years making it a success - probably working many more hours to do so than someone in paid employment. Along the way they will have paid large sums of money in taxation - again probably far more than they would have done had they simply opted for paid employment.
So once again, why should the government then have the right to steal a large proportion of that company rather than it passing on to the children of the person who did all the hard work in the first place?
I used to think that a massive tax on inherited wealth would be a good answer to encouraging a more equal society without punishing hard working self made wealthy people, but making sure their kids didn't laze about living off the interest.
So 0% inheritance tax on wealth earned by individuals but 50% on inherited wealth for instance?
So Richard Branson can leave all his money to his kids free of tax but they would only be able to leave 50% of that inheritance to their children. The idea being with such a head start they should be able to earn the other 50% themselves.
Is this nonsense?!
Two things come to mind - sure they can be both worked around, but at the cost of significant complexity
(1) Money is fungible - how do you determine what is inherited wealth vs. what is earned. So say that someone inherits 100, earns 50 from salary and earns 50 from interest on inherited money. He spends 150 during the course of his life. The total he leaves to his kids is 50 - but is that inherited money, money earned on an inheritence or salary?
(2) It discourages the development of multi-generational family companies. For instance, I spent today with two German family companies, both in their third generation. They would have been forced to sell if they had been taxed 50% on the transmission to the third generation
They don't have to sell the whole company - just enough equity to pay the tax. Given that families managed by the eldest child of the entrepreneur are managed worse than average, it wouldn't be the end of the world to have someone interested in running the business well rather than someone interested in giving their son a job came into control anyway.
But the obvious question that has to be asked is why the government is entitled to anything? Given that government seems to be primarily a very effective way of squandering money one has to ask how society benefits from them taking even more money and in the process removing one of the big incentives for individuals starting a company in the first place (given that leaving a successful company to ones children is a common factor in putting in all that time and hard work in the first place.)
Governments need money from somewhere, and I think it's more reasonable to put the burden on unearned income rather than earned income. I wouldn't agree with isam's system, but I do think a pretty high, albeit progressive, income tax on money received via gifts or inheritance is reasonable.
Governments might think they need money but that doesn't mean they need as much as they keep trying to steal off us. This system of see how much money you can get and then find stuff to spend it on sums up perfectly what is wrong with our modern system of government.
And that money is not unearned. It was earned by the hard work of the person who set up the company and spent years making it a success - probably working many more hours to do so than someone in paid employment. Along the way they will have paid large sums of money in taxation - again probably far more than they would have done had they simply opted for paid employment.
So once again, why should the government then have the right to steal a large proportion of that company rather than it passing on to the children of the person who did all the hard work in the first place?
I'm all up for reducing the overall size of the state, but unless you're shrinking it to VERY low levels, you're still going to need more money than even a heavy inheritance tax can raise. In that case, I would rather the tax fell on inheritance rather than employment income. Yes, of course it was earned by someone in the first place, but the person receiving the inheritance didn't earn it themselves. As for business owners paying more tax along the way than someone of similar wealth generated through employment income, I'm not convinced that's true once you take account of income tax and national insurance.
As for your language of "steal", it's no more "stealing" than any other tax.
I used to think that a massive tax on inherited wealth would be a good answer to encouraging a more equal society without punishing hard working self made wealthy people, but making sure their kids didn't laze about living off the interest.
So 0% inheritance tax on wealth earned by individuals but 50% on inherited wealth for instance?
So Richard Branson can leave all his money to his kids free of tax but they would only be able to leave 50% of that inheritance to their children. The idea being with such a head start they should be able to earn the other 50% themselves.
Is this nonsense?!
Two things come to mind - sure they can be both worked around, but at the cost of significant complexity
(1) Money is fungible - how do you determine what is inherited wealth vs. what is earned. So say that someone inherits 100, earns 50 from salary and earns 50 from interest on inherited money. He spends 150 during the course of his life. The total he leaves to his kids is 50 - but is that inherited money, money earned on an inheritence or salary?
(2) It discourages the development of multi-generational family companies. For instance, I spent today with two German family companies, both in their third generation. They would have been forced to sell if they had been taxed 50% on the transmission to the third generation
They don't have to sell the whole company - just enough equity to pay the tax. Given that families managed by the eldest child of the entrepreneur are managed worse than average, it wouldn't be the end of the world to have someone interested in running the business well rather than someone interested in giving their son a job came into control anyway.
But the obvious question that has to be asked is why the government is entitled to anything? Given that government seems to be primarily a very effective way of squandering money one has to ask how society benefits from them taking even more money and in the process removing one of the big incentives for individuals starting a company in the first place (given that leaving a successful company to ones children is a common factor in putting in all that time and hard work in the first place.)
What if the wealth derives from govt subsidy in the first place, eg the Cameron's inheritance of huge accumulated CAP payments bulked out by wind farm payments. Should that be tax free?
A gift passed down for centuries from an adulterous King to an offsprings line. Tax free?
Why not tax it all as income and give people a big personal allowance.
Surely Libertarians don't believe wealth is stored in the DNA?
Libertarians believe the government should be as small as possible and do as little as possible. Anything that starves income from governments and forces them to cut back on how much they interfere in our lives is a good thing. Wealth belongs to the people not to the government and individuals should be the ones to decide how they dispose of their wealth.
On your first point the Government should not be making subsidies in the first place - and certainly not on idiotic schemes like wind farms, nor for that matter CAP payments.
Anything the government has given as a subsidy should indeed be clawed back. But far better not to give the subsidy in the first place.
I used to think that a massive tax on inherited wealth would be a good answer to encouraging a more equal society without punishing hard working self made wealthy people, but making sure their kids didn't laze about living off the interest.
So 0% inheritance tax on wealth earned by individuals but 50% on inherited wealth for instance?
So Richard Branson can leave all his money to his kids free of tax but they would only be able to leave 50% of that inheritance to their children. The idea being with such a head start they should be able to earn the other 50% themselves.
Is this nonsense?!
Two things come to mind - sure they can be both worked around, but at the cost of significant complexity
(1) Money is fungible - how do you determine what is inherited wealth vs. what is earned. So say that someone inherits 100, earns 50 from salary and earns 50 from interest on inherited money. He spends 150 during the course of his life. The total he leaves to his kids is 50 - but is that inherited money, money earned on an inheritence or salary?
(2) It discourages the development of multi-generational family companies. For instance, I spent today with two German family companies, both in their third generation. They would have been forced to sell if they had been taxed 50% on the transmission to the third generation
They don't have to sell the whole company - just enough equity to pay the tax. Given that families managed by the eldest child of the entrepreneur are managed worse than average, it wouldn't be the end of the world to have someone interested in running the business well rather than someone interested in giving their son a job came into control anyway.
But the obvious question that has to be asked is why the government is entitled to anything? Given that government seems to be primarily a very effective way of squandering money one has to ask how society benefits from them taking even more money and in the process removing one of the big incentives for individuals starting a company in the first place (given that leaving a successful company to ones children is a common factor in putting in all that time and hard work in the first place.)
Governments need money from somewhere, and I think it's more reasonable to put the burden on unearned income rather than earned income. I wouldn't agree with isam's system, but I do think a pretty high, albeit progressive, income tax on money received via gifts or inheritance is reasonable.
Governments might think they need money but that doesn't mean they need as much as they keep trying to steal off us. This system of see how much money you can get and then find stuff to spend it on sums up perfectly what is wrong with our modern system of government.
And that money is not unearned. It was earned by the hard work of the person who set up the company and spent years making it a success - probably working many more hours to do so than someone in paid employment. Along the way they will have paid large sums of money in taxation - again probably far more than they would have done had they simply opted for paid employment.
So once again, why should the government then have the right to steal a large proportion of that company rather than it passing on to the children of the person who did all the hard work in the first place?
I'm all up for reducing the overall size of the state, but unless you're shrinking it to VERY low levels, you're still going to need more money than even a heavy inheritance tax can raise. In that case, I would rather the tax fell on inheritance rather than employment income. Yes, of course it was earned by someone in the first place, but the person receiving the inheritance didn't earn it themselves. As for business owners paying more tax along the way than someone of similar wealth generated through employment income, I'm not convinced that's true once you take account of income tax and national insurance.
As for your language of "steal", it's no more "stealing" than any other tax.
But of course I view almost all tax as theft.
Not sure if you have ever run a business but I can assure you that in actual monetary terms with tax, national insurance and VAT I pay a huge amount more tax to the exchequer than I would do if I was in paid employment. To argue it as a percentage is daft because if I were in paid employment I would not be generating anywhere near the amount of money I do running a company.
And as I say, one reason for working those long hours and taking all those risks is so Ican secure a future for my children. If the government are going to take the majority of that when I die then one has to ask why bother?
Let me guess, you're going to propose a system wher lands gifted to people called Charles by William the Conqueror should pass down the generations of Charles' untaxed so long as each Charles along the way gives some money to the peasants?
No. I'd rather a reasonable rate of inheritence tax that is very widely drawn and hard to avoid. The advantage of making it a reasonable rate (say 25-30%) is that it isn't worth paying expensive lawyers to avoid it.
Tax should be designed so it takes enough to sustain what the state should do without being an undue burden on any individual or dramatically distorting behaviour
So just to re-cap, as tim's gone a bit quiet...(shift change?)
Government help to buy homes scheme...
1. No foreigners. 2. No second homes. 3. Your main property only (ie no buy to let landlords can get in or skanks wanting to build a property empire). This also means only one property per person. 4. No letting on or renting on of property.
So it turns out that George Osborne is aiming his scheme at....er.....British people who don't own a home, who would like to own one.
Fancy.
Just go and google Buy To Let/Funding For Lending and stop embarrassing yourself.
On the scheme you've been looking at is the £600k available for remortgaging? That's insane dont you think?
Remortgaging is often necessary when a couple divorces, the wife is granted custody of the children and possession of the marital home, with ownership split between the partners.
If the wife has sufficient income to support a full mortgage, or if she has a new cohabiting partner/husband, then it often makes sense to buy out the ex's share.
Why should a remortgage not be available under the government support schemes for this circumstance?
Why should the taxpayer be subsidising anyone's mortgage? Are you seriously saying now that remortgaging where there's no equity in the house is a legitimate sphere for the taxpayer to pick up the tab?
And the person leaving also gets a taxpayer subsidised mortgage?
I guess you'll want the taxpayer subsidising a mortgage on a flat where one friend moves out will you?
This whole scheme is utterly bizarre.
tim
It is you who misunderstands the schemes.
The banks have not been lending to house buyers for a number of reasons. These include the need for banks to increase their share capital to meet regulatory requirements; their need to better manage overall credit risk by reducing exposure on high loan to value mortgages; and their need to manage the economic risk of a 'catastrophic' fall in house prices. As a result the supply of mortgage products has greatly diminished and volumes of lending have fallen.
Demand for mortgages has also been depressed. The lack of high loan to value mortgage products, relatively high borrowing costs and fear of house price falls have deterred buyers. First time and first move buyers have been fallen substantially. Property sales are still today running at 50% of pre-crisis volumes.
With both supply and demand constrained in the mortgage market, there is little incentive for construction companies to increase house building. This in turn depresses growth in the economy and, in the long term, inflates property prices further due to the imbalance of supply and demand.
The government schemes are designed to unblock the house purchase, mortgage finance and construction markets and to stimulate natural growth.
The BoE Funds for Lending Scheme, which is not aimed specifically at the housing market, addresses banking sector problems by freeing up money for lending and lowering interest rates.
The housing market schemes are each targetted at specific blocks. The new build scheme helps first time buyers by making high LTV mortgages available again in the market and stimulates construction by boosting demand. The guarantee and equity participation schemes (the latter to be replaced by the former) help a wider market by protecting banks, buyers and builders with protection against the economic risk of catastrophic house price falls.
The schemes self exit over a period of five to seven years. The scale of finance available will not exceed 10% of total UK mortgage values. All lending is subject to standard credit risk assessment. There is no subsidy to mortgagors in the sense of permanent value transfer. Fees are charged for government guarantees and equity participation costs which are sufficient to cover the government's costs.
The limited scale - timeframe, value and ratio to overall market size - and the self-liquidating and self-funding nature of the schemes mean that the risk of creating an uncontrollable pricing bubble in the housing market are limited and low.
The schemes are already proving successful as can be seen by recent growth in house building, property sales and first time buyer mortgages. There has, as yet been very limited house price inflation. Price rises have remained well below the rate of inflation and are still well below the peaks experienced in 2007 before the financial crisis.
I suspect that by the time that the scheme to assist housebuying comes into effect next year the need for it will have largely gone. The key factor in unlocking credit in the housing market was to put some sort of base on prices so the banks did not need such large deposits to protect themselves.
There is some evidence that even the prospect of the scheme has done that. If the bank shares can be sold and they are able to start lending again in a more normal way I suspect the market will resolve the issue and this scheme can be scaled back before it even starts.
The funding for lending scheme is likely to be more important and I very much hope smaller housebuilders will be a priority market for that.
Son of a drug dealer gets to inherit because the state hasn't had a role, son of a bar owner gets it clawed back because the state licence was the source of the wealth?
Stupid statement from you yet again Tim. You really are going off the rails lately. Son of a drug dealer would not be declaring the earnings anyway for paying tax since they come from illegal activities.
If a bar owner only had to pay the tax back equivalent to the cost of the licence I figure they would accept that - I certainly would.
Let me guess, you're going to propose a system wher lands gifted to people called Charles by William the Conqueror should pass down the generations of Charles' untaxed so long as each Charles along the way gives some money to the peasants?
No. I'd rather a reasonable rate of inheritence tax that is very widely drawn and hard to avoid. The advantage of making it a reasonable rate (say 25-30%) is that it isn't worth paying expensive lawyers to avoid it.
Tax should be designed so it takes enough to sustain what the state should do without being an undue burden on any individual or dramatically distorting behaviour
But at the same time what the state actually does should be massively reduced.
That's just as crazy as Martin Baxter's opposing prediction which said Labour had an 80% chance of a majority.
Both don't seem to take account of the potential for further events, which could upset the political applecart.
Um, Baxter isn't a prediction, although it touts itself as one. It's the boring "If there was an election tomorrow (on current polling through his semi-proportional loss swingometer)" the result would be.... Not very useful, and useless for punters.
No model 'can take account of further events.' You don't say...! IIRC, Nostradamus has been dead for 400 years....
But L&N's models and other models such as swingback, local elections, etc can give a glimpse into the future using a predictor variable - other than useless opinion polls - which has performed well in the past.
I used to think that a massive tax on inherited wealth would be a good answer to encouraging a more equal society without punishing hard working self made wealthy people, but making sure their kids didn't laze about living off the interest.
So 0% inheritance tax on wealth earned by individuals but 50% on inherited wealth for instance?
So Richard Branson can leave all his money to his kids free of tax but they would only be able to leave 50% of that inheritance to their children. The idea being with such a head start they should be able to earn the other 50% themselves.
Is this nonsense?!
Two things come to mind - sure they can be both worked around, but at the cost of significant complexity
(1) Money is fungible - how do you determine what is inherited wealth vs. what is earned. So say that someone inherits 100, earns 50 from salary and earns 50 from interest on inherited money. He spends 150 during the course of his life. The total he leaves to his kids is 50 - but is that inherited money, money earned on an inheritence or salary?
(2) It discourages the development of multi-generational family companies. For instance, I spent today with two German family companies, both in their third generation. They would have been forced to sell if they had been taxed 50% on the transmission to the third generation
They don't have to sell the whole company - just enough equity to pay the tax. Given that families managed by the eldest child of the entrepreneur are managed worse than average, it wouldn't be the end of the world to have someone interested in running the business well rather than someone interested in giving their son a job came into control anyway.
But the obvious question that has to be asked is why the government is entitled to anything? Given that government seems to be primarily a very effective way of squandering money one has to ask how society benefits from them taking even more money and in the process removing one of the big incentives for individuals starting a company in the first place (given that leaving a successful company to ones children is a common factor in putting in all that time and hard work in the first place.)
Governments need money from somewhere, and I think it's more reasonable to put the burden on unearned income rather than earned income. I wouldn't agree with isam's system, but I do think a pretty high, albeit progressive, income tax on money received via gifts or inheritance is reasonable.
Governments might think they need money but that doesn't mean they need as much as they keep trying to steal off us. This system of see how much money you can get and then find stuff to spend it on sums up perfectly what is wrong with our modern system of government.
And that money is not unearned. It was earned by the hard work of the person who set up the company and spent years making it a success - probably working many more hours to do so than someone in paid employment. Along the way they will have paid large sums of money in taxation - again probably far more than they would have done had they simply opted for paid employment.
So once again, why should the government then have the right to steal a large proportion of that company rather than it passing on to the children of the person who did all the hard work in the first place?
I'm all up for reducing the overall size of the state, but unless you're shrinking it to VERY low levels, you're still going to need more money than even a heavy inheritance tax can raise. In that case, I would rather the tax fell on inheritance rather than employment income. Yes, of course it was earned by someone in the first place, but the person receiving the inheritance didn't earn it themselves. As for business owners paying more tax along the way than someone of similar wealth generated through employment income, I'm not convinced that's true once you take account of income tax and national insurance.
As for your language of "steal", it's no more "stealing" than any other tax.
The wealth of such companies is clearly not unearned but it may well be untaxed. Unless the profits have been recognised on the balance sheet it is quite possible for a property based company or a company with significant IP to be sitting on substantial capital gains that have not been taxed. Allowing the shares of such companies to pass to the next generation without taking a cut in those circumstances becomes a form of tax avoidance.
Our society is dangerously unequal and IHT is an admittedly random and ineffective way of addressing that to some extent.
Comments
I feel there is an interesting discussion to be had about this but we would both likely fall off the pinhead.
And how many operations has the SoS for Health done? How many battles has the SoS for Defence been in? What is the point you are trying to make?
Certainly not one that relates to any of those questions. You don't need any qualifications to visit a croft, for pity's sake.
I am surprised the SNP are complaining about an English MP NOT visiting Scotland!
Scottish crofts for Scottish people...
A motion is being prepared to re-open it by opposition parties. Markets a bit jittery, but its OK, because Mr Hollande has declared the eurozone crisis ouveurre...
LOL. Is he doing it deliberately?
O/T: First Broxtowe Labour selection challenger's website appears:
http://www.nickmcdonald.info/
(Have posted mine before: http://www.nickpalmer.org.uk/re-selection/)
You're tone resembles the rising hysteria of your Bettertogether mates.
Is he better qualified than the SNP legal advisers (who turned out to be fictional)?
PMQs: Twitter analysis shows David Cameron really did win today bit.ly/16e3zFn
I'd hope like hell policy is made based on advice of expert in agricultural policy etc rather than the SoS spending half an hour visiting a croft.
I went to the government's website and it turns out that where the government is providing help for people to buy a complete home (as opposed to an equity share or shared ownership), the property must be the main home of the purchaser and cannot be rented out.
Which means your point about Osborne throwing money at buy to let landlords is absolute rubbish.
"I am surprised the SNP are complaining about an English MP NOT visiting Scotland!"
Why?
http://turkishawakening.com/2013/06/12/lawyers-swarm-in-protest/
http://bit.ly/2n3Lg
Read with caution.
@NickPalmer ? @SouthamObserver ? Any leftie at all?
In God we Truss?
In fact there are four schemes, according to the government's own website. See link.. equity loans, shared ownership, new buy andhelp to buy mortgage guarantees.
Only the latter two enable you to own your own home outright. Both stipulate it must be your main home and can't be rented out
You should also check out the Guardian, where Cam has just confirmed that foreigners and second homes will NOT be eligible.
Tory/UKIP 43%
Labour 35%
Producers of pornographic videos and sex toys are just as eligible to benefit from the Bank of England's Funding of Lending Scheme as Buy to Let Landlords. Similarly, privately owned kindergarten operators and hearing aid manufacturers are equally entitled to apply for funds.
Osborne is no more inflating the property market than he is blowing up the market for pneumatic sex-dolls.
Visit a croft and it's "interference". Don't visit a croft and it's a snub.
Maybe we should ask Nigel Farage to visit a croft to see which way they jump.
Do you reckon I should start my own blog and whinge about it?
Or just man-up and accept that sometimes I deserve abuse for my obtuse opinions.
You have these immovable beliefs about Scottish Independence (fair enough, go you!) and given your intransigence and vehemence toward anything anti-Nat you are bound to attract flak. Your position is a minority one. Even in Scotland it's a minority one. So people are gonna disagree with you.
That's life. That's the joy of political blood-sport. So stop whingeing.
How can you ever become aware? Any time someone tries to raise the issue, TSE comes up with an even less plausible explanation than the last time, and starts darkly hinting that anyone who challenges his absurdities will have their posts deleted or be banned. Are you content with this state of affairs?
"But you've made yourself clear that you don't think people on the left of centre should ever condemn abuse of right of centre posters."
I must have "made myself clear" in an astonishingly opaque way, then. It must be frustrating for you when people don't allow you to put words in their mouths, but there it is.
And how many posts have you had deleted, Fenster? How many times have you been blocked? I'll need to know that information before I can judge whether I can take any lessons from you on "manning up".
He is a useful barometer of the desperation of Labour.
From talking about triple dips just 2 months ago he is now reduced to inventing fictional borrowing bubbles whilst borrowing falls.
The last time I was blocked was for abusing Mick Pork. My sinbin lasted about three days.
Does that sit well with your conspiracy theory?
That has the unfortunate distinction of being the most bizarre paragraph I've read on PB (yes, even on PB!) for some time. What exactly do you think you mean by "even in Scotland"? You have noticed that Scotland is the country that will make the decision, yes? Or do you really think I'm going to fret about whether Scottish independence is a minority passion in Bolivia?
As for the position in Scotland itself (trivial though you evidently think that is), many polls show that BOTH Yes and No to independence are minority positions, with don't knows making up the balance. The most recent poll was Yes 36%, No 44%.
Two upsides if you win independence is that the rest of the UK will become richer after removing your life support and Labour will lose about 40 Westminster seats. Which would be funny.
I just hope the Welsh Nationalists don't gain any traction here in Wales because if we went it alone then God help us. We need the life support.
Oh, so that's why you hate the Conservatives and UKIP so much. Their support disproportionately skews towards the "coffin dodgers". Suddenly, it all makes sense.
Tsk.
My guess is that your knowledge of "Old Tories and Old Kippers" is zero and derived wholly from anecdote, wishful thinking, supposition and Polly.
As such perhaps you could wind it all down a bit.
thanks
We're unlikely to do so given that PB reported that one and ignored the more recent one that showed Yes 36%, No 44%.
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2013/06/the-number-of-special-advisers-keeps-growing-but-they-keep-going.html
Government help to buy homes scheme...
1. No foreigners.
2. No second homes.
3. Your main property only (ie no buy to let landlords can get in or skanks wanting to build a property empire). This also means only one property per person.
4. No letting on or renting on of property.
So it turns out that George Osborne is aiming his scheme at....er.....British people who don't own a home, who would like to own one.
Fancy.
"Stephen Hester is the brightest and most impressive individual that I have met in more than 30 years in the city. It was quite clear over the last few months that his relationship with George Osborne was deteriorating. I would back Hester's judgement over Osborne's every day of the week."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-12/restaurant-owner-says-he-wrote-sexist-gillard-menu/4750226
Is he the drippy council bod at 03:43 or the soppy PE teacher at 04:23?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COt65HZCJaA
If the wife has sufficient income to support a full mortgage, or if she has a new cohabiting partner/husband, then it often makes sense to buy out the ex's share.
Why should a remortgage not be available under the government support schemes for this circumstance?
Whatever else you might say about Australian politics, you cant knock them for entertainment value!
Perhaps its resting or pining for the fjords ?
Swingback has started...
L&N model puts Labour majority at 999/1 against.
That guy must have muttered, "Swivel Eyed Loons", after tasting the soup.
(1) Money is fungible - how do you determine what is inherited wealth vs. what is earned. So say that someone inherits 100, earns 50 from salary and earns 50 from interest on inherited money. He spends 150 during the course of his life. The total he leaves to his kids is 50 - but is that inherited money, money earned on an inheritence or salary?
(2) It discourages the development of multi-generational family companies. For instance, I spent today with two German family companies, both in their third generation. They would have been forced to sell if they had been taxed 50% on the transmission to the third generation
It's interesting in itself, but also because of how it plays into the potential renegotiation for the UK. Ours is not the only corner of Europe where the tectonic plates may be shifting.
In the first case I would say it was inherited money. If you are left 100 and only earn 50 in your life time you should have done better
In the second, I think it encourages the children to grow the company as much as their parent did
But this wasn't necessarily something I wanted to impose, just an idea that could well be wrong on may levels) on how to stop the wealth gap ever increasing
Of that, how much is going to BTL?
The answers, btw, are small and not much. It's going to have b*gger all impact.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22873790
http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/10480142.Would_you_dress_as_a_walrus_for_free_rent_in_Brighton_/?ref=twtrec
It is you who misunderstands the schemes.
The banks have not been lending to house buyers for a number of reasons. These include the need for banks to increase their share capital to meet regulatory requirements; their need to better manage overall credit risk by reducing exposure on high loan to value mortgages; and their need to manage the economic risk of a 'catastrophic' fall in house prices. As a result the supply of mortgage products has greatly diminished and volumes of lending have fallen.
Demand for mortgages has also been depressed. The lack of high loan to value mortgage products, relatively high borrowing costs and fear of house price falls have deterred buyers. First time and first move buyers have been fallen substantially. Property sales are still today running at 50% of pre-crisis volumes.
With both supply and demand constrained in the mortgage market, there is little incentive for construction companies to increase house building. This in turn depresses growth in the economy and, in the long term, inflates property prices further due to the imbalance of supply and demand.
The government schemes are designed to unblock the house purchase, mortgage finance and construction markets and to stimulate natural growth.
The BoE Funds for Lending Scheme, which is not aimed specifically at the housing market, addresses banking sector problems by freeing up money for lending and lowering interest rates.
The housing market schemes are each targetted at specific blocks. The new build scheme helps first time buyers by making high LTV mortgages available again in the market and stimulates construction by boosting demand. The guarantee and equity participation schemes (the latter to be replaced by the former) help a wider market by protecting banks, buyers and builders with protection against the economic risk of catastrophic house price falls.
The schemes self exit over a period of five to seven years. The scale of finance available will not exceed 10% of total UK mortgage values. All lending is subject to standard credit risk assessment. There is no subsidy to mortgagors in the sense of permanent value transfer. Fees are charged for government guarantees and equity participation costs which are sufficient to cover the government's costs.
The limited scale - timeframe, value and ratio to overall market size - and the self-liquidating and self-funding nature of the schemes mean that the risk of creating an uncontrollable pricing bubble in the housing market are limited and low.
The schemes are already proving successful as can be seen by recent growth in house building, property sales and first time buyer mortgages. There has, as yet been very limited house price inflation. Price rises have remained well below the rate of inflation and are still well below the peaks experienced in 2007 before the financial crisis.
And that money is not unearned. It was earned by the hard work of the person who set up the company and spent years making it a success - probably working many more hours to do so than someone in paid employment. Along the way they will have paid large sums of money in taxation - again probably far more than they would have done had they simply opted for paid employment.
So once again, why should the government then have the right to steal a large proportion of that company rather than it passing on to the children of the person who did all the hard work in the first place?
As for your language of "steal", it's no more "stealing" than any other tax.
On your first point the Government should not be making subsidies in the first place - and certainly not on idiotic schemes like wind farms, nor for that matter CAP payments.
Anything the government has given as a subsidy should indeed be clawed back. But far better not to give the subsidy in the first place.
http://ms.cc.sunysb.edu/~mlebo/Lebo and Norpoth.2012.pdf
Both don't seem to take account of the potential for further events, which could upset the political applecart.
Not sure if you have ever run a business but I can assure you that in actual monetary terms with tax, national insurance and VAT I pay a huge amount more tax to the exchequer than I would do if I was in paid employment. To argue it as a percentage is daft because if I were in paid employment I would not be generating anywhere near the amount of money I do running a company.
And as I say, one reason for working those long hours and taking all those risks is so Ican secure a future for my children. If the government are going to take the majority of that when I die then one has to ask why bother?
What do you think UKIP will get? How will swingback affect them?
Tax should be designed so it takes enough to sustain what the state should do without being an undue burden on any individual or dramatically distorting behaviour
There is some evidence that even the prospect of the scheme has done that. If the bank shares can be sold and they are able to start lending again in a more normal way I suspect the market will resolve the issue and this scheme can be scaled back before it even starts.
The funding for lending scheme is likely to be more important and I very much hope smaller housebuilders will be a priority market for that.
If a bar owner only had to pay the tax back equivalent to the cost of the licence I figure they would accept that - I certainly would.
No model 'can take account of further events.' You don't say...! IIRC, Nostradamus has been dead for 400 years....
But L&N's models and other models such as swingback, local elections, etc can give a glimpse into the future using a predictor variable - other than useless opinion polls - which has performed well in the past.
Our society is dangerously unequal and IHT is an admittedly random and ineffective way of addressing that to some extent.