Every BJESUS forecast has predicted EICIPM only 25 days till we know who is right BJO or JackW
I don't need 25 more days to know that my ARSE is completely accurate to determine that :
Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister
Very self confident despite MCARSE VI being so far out.
We will see in 25 days whether your confidence is as merited as your Scottish heritage (cough)
McARSE determined from the get go that :
Scotland Would Not Vote For Independence
That was correct as was the completely accurate turnout projection. I accept the gap projection was smaller than the one month early forecast that was forced on me, although McARSE was picking up the trend to YES which would have likely seen a final SUPER McARSE of 56.5/43.5.
Further a single question and first time independence referendum is a different matter from general elections where my ARSE has a spectacular record whereas your new offering has no form or bottom.
"There are many circumstances of a "spare room", ie you might have children and hope that your grandchildren can visit you now and again. You miss the point in that the people demonising it have spare houses not just spare rooms, and where are the thousands of spare "smaller" houses to move them too. It is a horrific policy thought up by rich gits who have spare houses, is shows the Tories for what they are , uncaring nasty barstewards, happy to rob any poor person to keep "
Indeed and people who have lived in a house all their lives are being forced to move because they now find themselves with a spare room. Could be death marriage or anything. Contrast this with the Tories new plan to remove inheritance tax from family homes so that their children-probably into their 60's or 70's-can have a spare house. With no tax to pay
They're not forced to move though are they? The rent goes up a bit that's all
Yes, its move or don't eat/heat your house , very nice alternative. Tax the poorest whilst giving handouts to the richest , it is the Tory way.
So Malcolm thinks wealth should be shared except he wants to hog North Sea oil money for his own benefit at the expense of the poorest. A total fraud.
village idiot has appeared. How thick can you be Monica , how could any fantasist imagine I could hog North Sea oil money to myself. Seek help.
On policies, YG has huge majorities for all Labour's controversial tax proposals (64-24 for raising top rate tax, 64-23 for the mansion tax [56-29 in London], 50-25 on non-doms)..... Have I missed something?
The truth. That imposing these means a large number of top-rate tax payers may leave the country. To the huge detriment of the NHS.
Try asking the same voters this: "Labour has outlined a series of polices that risk a very significant reduction in the taxes the Govt. collects. This could mean large funding cuts for the NHS. Do you think Labour should implement these policies?"
Then come here and tell us the answers.
Let's see if he has the guts to ask that question when out canvassing
"There are many circumstances of a "spare room", ie you might have children and hope that your grandchildren can visit you now and again. You miss the point in that the people demonising it have spare houses not just spare rooms, and where are the thousands of spare "smaller" houses to move them too. It is a horrific policy thought up by rich gits who have spare houses, is shows the Tories for what they are , uncaring nasty barstewards, happy to rob any poor person to keep "
Indeed and people who have lived in a house all their lives are being forced to move because they now find themselves with a spare room. Could be death marriage or anything. Contrast this with the Tories new plan to remove inheritance tax from family homes so that their children-probably into their 60's or 70's-can have a spare house. With no tax to pay
They're not forced to move though are they? The rent goes up a bit that's all
Yes, its move or don't eat/heat your house , very nice alternative. Tax the poorest whilst giving handouts to the richest , it is the Tory way.
Surely it depends his much the increase in rent is?
I'm not a Tory and never have been but seems you are extrapolating the worst possible outcome of the policy and presenting it as the norm.
When are the Tories going to come out with policies that appeal to the Midlands marginals? Train fares and IHT are very "South East" centric - are they aiming for bigger majorities there, while leaving the populist field free to Labour?
Yes, my patch is a reasonably prosperous Midlands constituency. The number of homes worth over £1 million is negligible - a typical large family home in a sought-after area is £700K. I can't imagine that it's very different in the others.
Well current IHT is at £650,000, so owners will be paying £20K on the house plus 40% of any other assets. Likely outcome is that they will need to sell the family house to pay tax.
Now they are being exempted from paying tax on the family house.
I'm sure they'll appreciate the thought.
This is not a tax break that benefits the wealthy (e.g. my 2 bedroom flat in London won't benefit), but hard-working families that have built up a decent nest-egg through saving and prudence.
On policies, YG has huge majorities for all Labour's controversial tax proposals (64-24 for raising top rate tax, 64-23 for the mansion tax [56-29 in London], 50-25 on non-doms)..... Have I missed something?
The truth. That imposing these means a large number of top-rate tax payers may leave the country. To the huge detriment of the NHS.
Try asking the same voters this: "Labour has outlined a series of polices that risk a very significant reduction in the taxes the Govt. collects. This could mean large funding cuts for the NHS. Do you think Labour should implement these policies?"
Then come here and tell us the answers.
Fantasy.
Where they off to.
Is one of the options
Would you like to help pack the selfish arses suitcases
So, family A that have to sell the family home in order to pay for a Care Home for their elderly relative will not benefit from the Conservatives IHT proposal. However family B who have enough other assets or income that they do not have to sell the family home will benefit. Is this fair or equitable?
Has this proosal been thought through? Why the favourable treatment to homes?
Why not just say income taxed during life should not be taxed a second time on death and raise the IHT threashold as a prelude to the abolition of IHT?
Excellent comment. The Graun article linked yesterday has the original Civil Service document wich flags this (care home etc.) up as an issue.
"There are many circumstances of a "spare room", ie you might have children and hope that your grandchildren can visit you now and again. You miss the point in that the people demonising it have spare houses not just spare rooms, and where are the thousands of spare "smaller" houses to move them too. It is a horrific policy thought up by rich gits who have spare houses, is shows the Tories for what they are , uncaring nasty barstewards, happy to rob any poor person to keep "
Indeed and people who have lived in a house all their lives are being forced to move because they now find themselves with a spare room. Could be death marriage or anything. Contrast this with the Tories new plan to remove inheritance tax from family homes so that their children-probably into their 60's or 70's-can have a spare house. With no tax to pay
They're not forced to move though are they? The rent goes up a bit that's all
Yes, its move or don't eat/heat your house , very nice alternative. Tax the poorest whilst giving handouts to the richest , it is the Tory way.
So Malcolm thinks wealth should be shared except he wants to hog North Sea oil money for his own benefit at the expense of the poorest. A total fraud.
Will the IHT announcement be a "game changer" like October 2007?
I suspect not.
1. The country feel's very different not to 2007.
2. I think generally, policies are actually far less important since the formation of the coalition and the way many of the Tory and Lib-Dem policies were torn up...
The fundamental principle is that it will have been built up out of income that has already been taxed, so why should the government get a second bite at the cherry.
The answer to your question "why should the government get a second bite at the cherry?" is "Because it does it with everything: that is the nature of taxation".
Objects are taxed when they change state, NOT one-off. Raw materials are dug up, refined into construction material, assembled, maintained, repaired, decommissioned, scrapped and disposed/recycled. At EVERY stage, the objects are taxed and the people also taxed. The same applies to services. If the "fundamental principle" you refer to (things once taxed should not be taxed again) was actually a fundamental principle, the only things taxed would be the sand for the bricks and imports.
From last night, this really shows why the Tories are so hated and called the nasty party, people with many houses , unlimited spare rooms, lackeys , money etc and yet they still want to shove the unfortunate poor into one room. Shameful. Charles said:
» show previous quotes I pay plenty in taxes, and I'm fine with that.
I just want it to be spent more productively than giving an individual a spare room unless they need it. There is too much need to waste resources like that.
care to comment on Overseas Aid ?
I have never voted Tory in my life, but I still don't see what's wrong with not paying for someone to have spare room if it is indeed a spare room, that is it is a room they do not need. Millions upon millions of Tory voters will not be the ones with unlimited money and rooms (they do get votes in poor areas too remember, just not enough to win in them), but paying for unnecessary things hurts those people too.
If the rooms are not in fact spare, then sure someone should be exempted or the policy clarified to make sure such people are not swept up in it, but the principle seems fair. Many things are ideal but not fair to provide - and yes, the rich absolutely should pay more to make things much fairer.
Overseas aid? I'm fine with it in principle, it can do a lot of good, although ti should be much tighter controlled.
There are many circumstances of a "spare room", ie you might have children and hope that your grandchildren can visit you now and again. You miss the point in that the people demonising it have spare houses not just spare rooms, and where are the thousands of spare "smaller" houses to move them too. It is a horrific policy thought up by rich gits who have spare houses, is shows the Tories for what they are , uncaring nasty barstewards, happy to rob any poor person to keep themselves rolling in it.
It was poorly drafted policy, have a son in the military based overseas and want to keep a room for him to return to? Too bad, that'll cost you.
More than that, it's just crappy politics, why pick a fight with a large number of people with no payback? The cash savings are negligible, it's just another example of poor retail political management
Exactly , especially as you know there are no houses to move them to even if it was fair. Just nasty and all the Tories seem capable of.
The people paying "spare room tax" can always get a job and then they wouldn't have to pay it. Your son in the army is an adult earning a wage and should pay his way. Maybe you should charge him a retainer for his room, after all you could let it to a lodger and are losing money as a result of keeping it available.
On policies, YG has huge majorities for all Labour's controversial tax proposals (64-24 for raising top rate tax, 64-23 for the mansion tax [56-29 in London], 50-25 on non-doms)..... Have I missed something?
The truth. That imposing these means a large number of top-rate tax payers may leave the country. To the huge detriment of the NHS.
Try asking the same voters this: "Labour has outlined a series of polices that risk a very significant reduction in the taxes the Govt. collects. This could mean large funding cuts for the NHS. Do you think Labour should implement these policies?"
Then come here and tell us the answers.
When all else fails, right-wingers can always take comfort in rocking back and forth and saying "Laffer curve" over and over again.
I'm surprised nobody's tried telling us yet that raising the IHT will raise enough money (by bringing rich people into the country) to fund the £8billion for the NHS and 3 volunteering day pledges.
"There are many circumstances of a "spare room", ie you might have children and hope that your grandchildren can visit you now and again. You miss the point in that the people demonising it have spare houses not just spare rooms, and where are the thousands of spare "smaller" houses to move them too. It is a horrific policy thought up by rich gits who have spare houses, is shows the Tories for what they are , uncaring nasty barstewards, happy to rob any poor person to keep "
Indeed and people who have lived in a house all their lives are being forced to move because they now find themselves with a spare room. Could be death marriage or anything. Contrast this with the Tories new plan to remove inheritance tax from family homes so that their children-probably into their 60's or 70's-can have a spare house. With no tax to pay
They're not forced to move though are they? The rent goes up a bit that's all
Yes, its move or don't eat/heat your house , very nice alternative. Tax the poorest whilst giving handouts to the richest , it is the Tory way.
Surely it depends his much the increase in rent is?
I'm not a Tory and never have been but seems you are extrapolating the worst possible outcome of the policy and presenting it as the norm.
so at 14% minimum of housing benefit it will be a large chunk of benefits and unaffordable to most. The cut is a fixed percentage of the Housing Benefit eligible rent. The reduction is 14% for one extra bedroom and 25% for two or more extra bedrooms.
Remind me again how many social houses the Tories have sold and how many new ones they built with the proceeds.
Why build more?
There's at least half a million empty bedrooms in social housing
You have evidence of your fantasy number. I also note you avoid the question.
Even if that is true and that’s a bit “even", the main problem is that they are in the “wrong" places. It’s no use telling someone in Southwark that there’s somewhere in Sunderland to which they can move, far away from family and friends.
From last night, this really shows why the Tories are so hated and called the nasty party, people with many houses , unlimited spare rooms, lackeys , money etc and yet they still want to shove the unfortunate poor into one room. Shameful. Charles said:
Living with a mortgage my house has a spare room which we deliberately decided for when we moved in. Guess what though, we pay extra each month as a result of that.
I pay for my own home and through taxes for other people's homes too....
Of course, if you want to buy a council house with a spare room the government will subsidise you up to £I00,000 to do so. Why should I pay for that?
Some maths for you. A London house commanding the max £100k discount would typically be worth £600k. So the Govt/Council receives a net £500k. The typical value of the subsidy is in the range of £20k pa. So after 5 years the "subsidy" has been re-paid.... Now the Council can use the £500k to fund the building of a new house which typically would cost less than £300k plus land cost. For every year after the 5 years, the Govt will be saving £20k + inflation having lost one unit/family needing subsidised housing. What I do not understand is why the Conservatives have been so timid over this. They could easily go to subsidies worth £200k or even £300k.
I am still subsidising someone who can clearly afford to buy housing within the private sector, but is instead effectively handed money to deplete social housing stock.
I am still subsidising someone who can clearly afford to buy housing within the private sector, but is instead effectively handed money to deplete social housing stock.
I had read that the coalition changed it to a "sell one build one" rule for Councils. so there would be no reduction in housing stock. As to the "still subsidising someone who can clearly afford to buy housing" well that is what net tax payers are doing now and will continue to do until people are better incentivised to leave. The late Bob Crowe was a classic example. Earning over £100k + perks and occupying a social housing unit. Former MP Frank Dobson in Holborn (£1m+?) is another.
What it also does, of course, is frees up Labour to use upper rate pension relief as a no comeback source of funding.
Hasn't Labour already "spent" that on reducing tuition fees for well-off students?
Indeed. And the Tories have now accepted it is a legitimate move. They would choose to give the money raised to people inheriting large estates. Labour will use it to reduce the costs of going to university. FOR RICH PEOPLE
"There are many circumstances of a "spare room", ie you might have children and hope that your grandchildren can visit you now and again. You miss the point in that the people demonising it have spare houses not just spare rooms, and where are the thousands of spare "smaller" houses to move them too. It is a horrific policy thought up by rich gits who have spare houses, is shows the Tories for what they are , uncaring nasty barstewards, happy to rob any poor person to keep "
Indeed and people who have lived in a house all their lives are being forced to move because they now find themselves with a spare room. Could be death marriage or anything. Contrast this with the Tories new plan to remove inheritance tax from family homes so that their children-probably into their 60's or 70's-can have a spare house. With no tax to pay
They're not forced to move though are they? The rent goes up a bit that's all
Yes, its move or don't eat/heat your house , very nice alternative. Tax the poorest whilst giving handouts to the richest , it is the Tory way.
So Malcolm thinks wealth should be shared except he wants to hog North Sea oil money for his own benefit at the expense of the poorest. A total fraud.
Peter Kellner reckons Lab will only poll 32% at GE 2015.borderline EICIPM
I reckon at least 34% myself but we will see.
Every BJESUS forecast has predicted EICIPM only 25 days till we know who is right BJO or JackW
Friendly bet (for the site):
£50: You pay lower than 33% and I will pay if above. Usual rules:
* Al-Beeb GB figures using natural rounding to the nearest integer. * All bets and debts settled via PtP.
Are you game...?
Sound OK to me do you want to let me know the logistics of how this works by PM and what usual rules entail 33.01% or above you pay £50 32.99% or less and I pay £50?
Logistics sent to yourself and Ptp. How complicated can it be...?
From last night, this really shows why the Tories are so hated and called the nasty party, people with many houses , unlimited spare rooms, lackeys , money etc and yet they still want to shove the unfortunate poor into one room. Shameful. Charles said:
» show previous quotes I pay plenty in taxes, and I'm fine with that.
I just want it to be spent more productively than giving an individual a spare room unless they need it. There is too much need to waste resources like that.
care to comment on Overseas Aid ?
I have never voted Tory in my life, but I still don't see what's wrong with not paying for someone to have spare room if it is indeed a spare room, that is it is a room they do not need. Millions upon millions of Tory voters will not be the ones with unlimited money and rooms (they do get votes in poor areas too remember, just not enough to win in them), but paying for unnecessary things hurts those people too.
If the rooms are not in fact spare, then sure someone should be exempted or the policy clarified to make sure such people are not swept up in it, but the principle seems fair. Many things are ideal but not fair to provide - and yes, the rich absolutely should pay more to make things much fairer.
Overseas aid? I'm fine with it in principle, it can do a lot of good, although ti should be much tighter controlled.
Living with a mortgage my house has a spare room which we deliberately decided for when we moved in. Guess what though, we pay extra each month as a result of that.
I pay for my own home and through taxes for other people's homes too. If people genuinely need that fair enough, but if they don't why should they get that? It's unfair that I pay for my own home and for spare rooms other people don't need. It's also unfair that people who do need bigger homes can't get them if those who don't need them won't move.
Of course, if you want to buy a council house with a spare room the government will subsidise you up to £I00,000 to do so. Why should I pay for that?
So long as the sale price is above replacement cost it's fine.
Remind me again how many social houses the Tories have sold and how many new ones they built with the proceeds.
Why build more?
There's at least half a million empty bedrooms in social housing
It is certainly true that many councils and housing associations have never built enough smaller properties, especially where land is cheap and demand low. They regarded it easier and cheaper to build loads of three bedroom houses rather than try to predict the range of different house sizes they need. I have some sympathy with people unable to escape the bedroom tax because their landlord has no smaller properties available.
On policies, YG has huge majorities for all Labour's controversial tax proposals (64-24 for raising top rate tax, 64-23 for the mansion tax [56-29 in London], 50-25 on non-doms)..... Have I missed something?
The truth. That imposing these means a large number of top-rate tax payers may leave the country. To the huge detriment of the NHS.
Try asking the same voters this: "Labour has outlined a series of polices that risk a very significant reduction in the taxes the Govt. collects. This could mean large funding cuts for the NHS. Do you think Labour should implement these policies?"
Then come here and tell us the answers.
When all else fails, right-wingers can always take comfort in rocking back and forth and saying "Laffer curve" over and over again.
I'm surprised nobody's tried telling us yet that raising the IHT will raise enough money (by bringing rich people into the country) to fund the £8billion for the NHS and 3 volunteering day pledges.
Why is Labour so cavalier with the future of the NHS?
On one level it would be tragic. But on another it would be so, so funny to see Ed Miliband having to explain away hospital closures and nursing redundancies in the first year of Labour's cobbled together coalition, because Mister Market will only lend them the money to keep them open at punitive rates.
It is going to need something like that for people to finally see that Labour is completely full of shit.
From last night, this really shows why the Tories are so hated and called the nasty party, people with many houses , unlimited spare rooms, lackeys , money etc and yet they still want to shove the unfortunate poor into one room. Shameful. Charles said:
Living with a mortgage my house has a spare room which we deliberately decided for when we moved in. Guess what though, we pay extra each month as a result of that.
I pay for my own home and through taxes for other people's homes too....
Of course, if you want to buy a council house with a spare room the government will subsidise you up to £I00,000 to do so. Why should I pay for that?
Some maths for you. A London house commanding the max £100k discount would typically be worth £600k. So the Govt/Council receives a net £500k. The typical value of the subsidy is in the range of £20k pa. So after 5 years the "subsidy" has been re-paid.... Now the Council can use the £500k to fund the building of a new house which typically would cost less than £300k plus land cost. For every year after the 5 years, the Govt will be saving £20k + inflation having lost one unit/family needing subsidised housing. What I do not understand is why the Conservatives have been so timid over this. They could easily go to subsidies worth £200k or even £300k.
I am still subsidising someone who can clearly afford to buy housing within the private sector, but is instead effectively handed money to deplete social housing stock.
I am still subsidising someone who can clearly afford to buy housing within the private sector, but is instead effectively handed money to deplete social housing stock.
I had read that the coalition changed it to a "sell one build one" rule for Councils. so there would be no reduction in housing stock. As to the "still subsidising someone who can clearly afford to buy housing" well that is what net tax payers are doing now and will continue to do until people are better incentivised to leave. The late Bob Crowe was a classic example. Earning over £100k + perks and occupying a social housing unit. Former MP Frank Dobson in Holborn (£1m+?) is another.
And the government would give Dobson a £100k subsidy to take his flat into the private sector. Bizarre. New social accommodation does not magically appear when properties transfer into the private sector.
From last night, this really shows why the Tories are so hated and called the nasty party, people with many houses , unlimited spare rooms, lackeys , money etc and yet they still want to shove the unfortunate poor into one room. Shameful. Charles said:
» show previous quotes I pay plenty in taxes, and I'm fine with that.
I just want it to be spent more productively than giving an individual a spare room unless they need it. There is too much need to waste resources like that.
care to comment on Overseas Aid ?
I have never voted Tory in my life, but I still don't see what's wrong with not paying for someone to have spare room if it is indeed a spare room, that is it is a room they do not need. Millions upon millions of Tory voters will not be the ones with unlimited money and rooms (they do get votes in poor areas too remember, just not enough to win in them), but paying for unnecessary things hurts those people too.
If the rooms are not in fact spare, then sure someone should be exempted or the policy clarified to make sure such people are not swept up in it, but the principle seems fair. Many things are ideal but not fair to provide - and yes, the rich absolutely should pay more to make things much fairer.
Overseas aid? I'm fine with it in principle, it can do a lot of good, although ti should be much tighter controlled.
Living with a mortgage my house has a spare room which we deliberately decided for when we moved in. Guess what though, we pay extra each month as a result of that.
I pay for my own home and through taxes for other people's homes too. If people genuinely need that fair enough, but if they don't why should they get that? It's unfair that I pay for my own home and for spare rooms other people don't need. It's also unfair that people who do need bigger homes can't get them if those who don't need them won't move.
Of course, if you want to buy a council house with a spare room the government will subsidise you up to £I00,000 to do so. Why should I pay for that?
So long as the sale price is above replacement cost it's fine.
I fail to see why the State should sell its assets below market price, especially if they are likely to appreciate. Maybe the State should subsequently take a share of any profit.
"There are many circumstances of a "spare room", ie you might have children and hope that your grandchildren can visit you now and again. You miss the point in that the people demonising it have spare houses not just spare rooms, and where are the thousands of spare "smaller" houses to move them too. It is a horrific policy thought up by rich gits who have spare houses, is shows the Tories for what they are , uncaring nasty barstewards, happy to rob any poor person to keep "
Indeed and people who have lived in a house all their lives are being forced to move because they now find themselves with a spare room. Could be death marriage or anything. Contrast this with the Tories new plan to remove inheritance tax from family homes so that their children-probably into their 60's or 70's-can have a spare house. With no tax to pay
They're not forced to move though are they? The rent goes up a bit that's all
Yes, its move or don't eat/heat your house , very nice alternative. Tax the poorest whilst giving handouts to the richest , it is the Tory way.
So Malcolm thinks wealth should be shared except he wants to hog North Sea oil money for his own benefit at the expense of the poorest. A total fraud.
Must be Scottish!
That's totally unfair. Malcolm is a far from typical Scot. Thank God.
I have never voted Tory in my life, but I still don't see what's wrong with not paying for someone to have spare room if it is indeed a spare room, that is it is a room they do not need. Millions upon millions of Tory voters will not be the ones with unlimited money and rooms (they do get votes in poor areas too remember, just not enough to win in them), but paying for unnecessary things hurts those people too.
If the rooms are not in fact spare, then sure someone should be exempted or the policy clarified to make sure such people are not swept up in it, but the principle seems fair. Many things are ideal but not fair to provide - and yes, the rich absolutely should pay more to make things much fairer.
Overseas aid? I'm fine with it in principle, it can do a lot of good, although ti should be much tighter controlled.
There are many circumstances of a "spare room", ie you might have children and hope that your grandchildren can visit you now and again. You miss the point in that the people demonising it have spare houses not just spare rooms, and where are the thousands of spare "smaller" houses to move them too. It is a horrific policy thought up by rich gits who have spare houses, is shows the Tories for what they are , uncaring nasty barstewards, happy to rob any poor person to keep themselves rolling in it.
I don't have a spare house. When I was young I did sometimes sleep over at my grandparents house, a one bedroom bungalow. We slept in sleeping bags on the floor in the dining room. That was fun, camping at your grandparents was great fun as a kid. Not sure why my grandparents should have moved into a bigger home as a result using your logic.
Nobody is saying they should move to bigger houses, I am saying they should not be chucked out just because for some reason they now have a spare room. We are talking about crap houses with very small rooms in most cases and there are no suitable houses to move them to , it is merely a scheme to demonise and hassle poor people. Thought up by well off people who cannot control their greed, you are just aspiring to climb the greasy pole and would like some poor sods shoulders to help you up a step.
Retired people are the only blanket exemption. Main reason the policy was stupid was that there weren't properties with the correct number of bedrooms for people to move in to.
If the government had started a big social housing building project first and then brought in the bedroom tax later, it would have made more sense. As it is the effect is punitive and Kafkaesque.
Remind me again how many social houses the Tories have sold and how many new ones they built with the proceeds.
Why build more?
There's at least half a million empty bedrooms in social housing
It is certainly true that many councils and housing associations have never built enough smaller properties, especially where land is cheap and demand low. They regarded it easier and cheaper to build loads of three bedroom houses rather than try to predict the range of different house sizes they need. I have some sympathy with people unable to escape the bedroom tax because their landlord has no smaller properties available.
Indeed. In some areas too it's not just the landlord but the entire market (so to speak). Some of the islands for instance.
What it also does, of course, is frees up Labour to use upper rate pension relief as a no comeback source of funding.
Hasn't Labour already "spent" that on reducing tuition fees for well-off students?
Indeed. And the Tories have now accepted it is a legitimate move. They would choose to give the money raised to people inheriting large estates. Labour will use it to reduce the costs of going to university. FOR RICH PEOPLE
fixed it for you
Blimey. Doesn't the Labour policy apply to everyone? I hadn't realised.
From last night, this really shows why the Tories are so hated and called the nasty party, people with many houses , unlimited spare rooms, lackeys , money etc and yet they still want to shove the unfortunate poor into one room. Shameful. Charles said:
» show previous quotes I pay plenty in taxes, and I'm fine with that.
I just want it to be spent more productively than giving an individual a spare room unless they need it. There is too much need to waste resources like that.
care to comment on Overseas Aid ?
I have never voted Tory in my life, but I still don't see what's wrong with not paying for someone to have spare room if it is indeed a spare room, that is it is a room they do not need. Millions upon millions of Tory voters will not be the ones with unlimited money and rooms (they do get votes in poor areas too remember, just not enough to win in them), but paying for unnecessary things hurts those people too.
If the rooms are not in fact spare, then sure someone should be exempted or the policy clarified to make sure such people are not swept up in it, but the
There are many circumstances of a "spare room", ie you might have children and hope that your grandchildren can visit you now and again. You miss the point in that the people demonising it have spare houses not just spare rooms, and where are the thousands of spare "smaller" houses to move them too. It is a horrific policy thought up by rich gits who have spare houses, is shows the Tories for what they are , uncaring nasty barstewards, happy to rob any poor person to keep themselves rolling in it.
Exactly , especially as you know there are no houses to move them to even if it was fair. Just nasty and all the Tories seem capable of.
The people paying "spare room tax" can always get a job and then they wouldn't have to pay it. Your son in the army is an adult earning a wage and should pay his way. Maybe you should charge him a retainer for his room, after all you could let it to a lodger and are losing money as a result of keeping it available.
I don't have a son in the army and I do not get benefits. I have 3 spare bedrooms and a spare house personally and pay mortgages for them, but I am still against some poor person being penalised and beggared whilst rich people get large cuts. Even a Tory like you John , deep in your frozen heart must know that demonising the poorest in society is wrong.
OT Local elections in Japan today. Some shops are doing voter discounts (in Japan you can get a receipt that says you voted, but not who for.)
Has this ever been done in the UK? If not would it be legal? I guess you could use a selfie of yourself outside the polling station to do without a receipt.
Liberal Democrats winning there?
As opposed to here.
Certainly winning in the single-seat ward around my office, they've got the only candidate running.
On policies, YG has huge majorities for all Labour's controversial tax proposals (64-24 for raising top rate tax, 64-23 for the mansion tax [56-29 in London], 50-25 on non-doms)..... Have I missed something?
The truth. That imposing these means a large number of top-rate tax payers may leave the country. To the huge detriment of the NHS.
Try asking the same voters this: "Labour has outlined a series of polices that risk a very significant reduction in the taxes the Govt. collects. This could mean large funding cuts for the NHS. Do you think Labour should implement these policies?"
Then come here and tell us the answers.
When all else fails, right-wingers can always take comfort in rocking back and forth and saying "Laffer curve" over and over again.
I'm surprised nobody's tried telling us yet that raising the IHT will raise enough money (by bringing rich people into the country) to fund the £8billion for the NHS and 3 volunteering day pledges.
Why is Labour so cavalier with the future of the NHS?
On one level it would be tragic. But on another it would be so, so funny to see Ed Miliband having to explain away hospital closures and nursing redundancies in the first year of Labour's cobbled together coalition, because Mister Market will only lend them the money to keep them open at punitive rates.
It is going to need something like that for people to finally see that Labour is completely full of shit.
Mister Market does not seem to have been panicked by George Osborne's record borrowing. The idea on the right that markets will panic because non-doms will be treated by Britain the same way as they are treated by most other countries is laughable.
Remind me again how many social houses the Tories have sold and how many new ones they built with the proceeds.
Why build more?
There's at least half a million empty bedrooms in social housing
You have evidence of your fantasy number. I also note you avoid the question.
Even if that is true and that’s a bit “even", the main problem is that they are in the “wrong" places. It’s no use telling someone in Southwark that there’s somewhere in Sunderland to which they can move, far away from family and friends.
In fact, it’s cruel.
People with mortgages have to make that sort of decision all the time.
Remind me again how many social houses the Tories have sold and how many new ones they built with the proceeds.
Why build more?
There's at least half a million empty bedrooms in social housing
You have evidence of your fantasy number. I also note you avoid the question.
Even if that is true and that’s a bit “even", the main problem is that they are in the “wrong" places. It’s no use telling someone in Southwark that there’s somewhere in Sunderland to which they can move, far away from family and friends.
In fact, it’s cruel.
Not to the Tories on here unfortunately , they would have them out on the street with no benefits if it put more money in their own pockets.
When are the Tories going to come out with policies that appeal to the Midlands marginals? Train fares and IHT are very "South East" centric - are they aiming for bigger majorities there, while leaving the populist field free to Labour?
Yes, my patch is a reasonably prosperous Midlands constituency. The number of homes worth over £1 million is negligible - a typical large family home in a sought-after area is £700K. I can't imagine that it's very different in the others.
Well current IHT is at £650,000, so owners will be paying £20K on the house plus 40% of any other assets. Likely outcome is that they will need to sell the family house to pay tax.
Now they are being exempted from paying tax on the family house.
I'm sure they'll appreciate the thought.
This is not a tax break that benefits the wealthy (e.g. my 2 bedroom flat in London won't benefit), but hard-working families that have built up a decent nest-egg through saving and prudence.
Gibberish. How would the policy not equally benefit lazy singletons who have inherited wealth on a slightly smaller scale than you have?
Surely it depends his much the increase in rent is?
I'm not a Tory and never have been but seems you are extrapolating the worst possible outcome of the policy and presenting it as the norm.
Please do not confuse the "troupe of clowns". When Labour (Scotland) introduced it for the private-sector it was good: When the nasty-English coalition made the change universal - i.e. to all forms of housing-stock - it is a regressive act by the rich.
Thankfully we have bright left-wingers on here - tips-hat-to kle3 - who recognise the stupidity of the "bedroom-tax" argument.
Remind me again how many social houses the Tories have sold and how many new ones they built with the proceeds.
Why build more?
There's at least half a million empty bedrooms in social housing
You have evidence of your fantasy number. I also note you avoid the question.
Even if that is true and that’s a bit “even", the main problem is that they are in the “wrong" places. It’s no use telling someone in Southwark that there’s somewhere in Sunderland to which they can move, far away from family and friends.
In fact, it’s cruel.
People with mortgages have to make that sort of decision all the time.
Not if they are buying their council home. They get to keep it at a subsidised price.
I don't have a son in the army and I do not get benefits. I have 3 spare bedrooms and a spare house personally and pay mortgages for them, but I am still against some poor person being penalised and beggared whilst rich people get large cuts. Even a Tory like you John , deep in your frozen heart must know that demonising the poorest in society is wrong.
I have never demonized anyone. In any case, claiming JSA (or in most cases ESA) should be a short term expedient. The bedroom tax is a useful incentive in getting people back into work. No-one should expect to be supported long term by benefits, unless they really are too ill or disabled to do any sort of work.
On policies, YG has huge majorities for all Labour's controversial tax proposals (64-24 for raising top rate tax, 64-23 for the mansion tax [56-29 in London], 50-25 on non-doms)..... Have I missed something?
The truth. That imposing these means a large number of top-rate tax payers may leave the country. To the huge detriment of the NHS.
Try asking the same voters this: "Labour has outlined a series of polices that risk a very significant reduction in the taxes the Govt. collects. This could mean large funding cuts for the NHS. Do you think Labour should implement these policies?"
Then come here and tell us the answers.
When all else fails, right-wingers can always take comfort in rocking back and forth and saying "Laffer curve" over and over again.
I'm surprised nobody's tried telling us yet that raising the IHT will raise enough money (by bringing rich people into the country) to fund the £8billion for the NHS and 3 volunteering day pledges.
Why is Labour so cavalier with the future of the NHS?
On one level it would be tragic. But on another it would be so, so funny to see Ed Miliband having to explain away hospital closures and nursing redundancies in the first year of Labour's cobbled together coalition, because Mister Market will only lend them the money to keep them open at punitive rates.
It is going to need something like that for people to finally see that Labour is completely full of shit.
I have never voted Tory in my life, but I still don't see what's wrong with not paying for someone to have spare room if it is indeed a spare room, that is it is a room they do not need. Millions upon millions of Tory voters will not be the ones with unlimited money and rooms (they do get votes in poor areas too remember, just not enough to win in them), but paying for unnecessary things hurts those people too.
If the rooms are not in fact spare, then sure someone should be exempted or the policy clarified to make sure such people are not swept up in it, but the principle seems fair. Many things are ideal but not fair to provide - and yes, the rich absolutely should pay more to make things much fairer.
Overseas aid? I'm fine with it in principle, it can do a lot of good, although ti should be much tighter controlled.
There are many circumstances of a "spare room", ie you might have children and hope that your grandchildren can visit you now and again. You miss the point in that the people demonising it have spare houses not just spare rooms, and where are the thousands of spare "smaller" houses to move them too. It is a horrific policy thought up by rich gits who have spare houses, is shows the Tories for what they are , uncaring nasty barstewards, happy to rob any poor person to keep themselves rolling in it.
I don't have a spare house. When I was young I did sometimes sleep over at my grandparents house, a one bedroom bungalow. We slept in sleeping bags on the floor in the dining room. That was fun, camping at your grandparents was great fun as a kid. Not sure why my grandparents should have moved into a bigger home as a result using your logic.
poor sods shoulders to help you up a step.
If the government had started a big social housing building project first and then brought in the bedroom tax later, it would have made more sense. As it is the effect is punitive and Kafkaesque.
Totally agree, but as they just saw it as a benefits cut they had no interest in the consequences or whether it would cause issues. In their mansions they just assumed the poor could pay the 14% or 25% of the rent themselves, just put it on credit card.
On policies, YG has huge majorities for all Labour's controversial tax proposals (64-24 for raising top rate tax, 64-23 for the mansion tax [56-29 in London], 50-25 on non-doms)..... Have I missed something?
The truth. That imposing these means a large number of top-rate tax payers may leave the country. To the huge detriment of the NHS.
Try asking the same voters this: "Labour has outlined a series of polices that risk a very significant reduction in the taxes the Govt. collects. This could mean large funding cuts for the NHS. Do you think Labour should implement these policies?" Then come here and tell us the answers.
Fantasy. Where they off to. Is one of the options Would you like to help pack the selfish arses suitcases
I have lived in 4 other countries, so I know something about this. The ability of the wealthy to move is much easier than you grasp. Even those with children can use UK boarding schools particularly for the 13+ year olds and yet stay outside our country under the "days" rules. The internet has made mobility even easier than when I did it in the 90s and 00s. There are even some countries in the EC that will provide a passport for under £ 1 million of investment such as in property etc. You clearly are too young (retired?) or forget the time in the recent past when under a Labour govt we had marginal tax rates of 98%. That led to a massive loss of entrepreneurs and artists, even in an age of currency restrictions. In an age without cross border currency restrictions the flood of money out of the UK could be very quick and very large.
Remind me again how many social houses the Tories have sold and how many new ones they built with the proceeds.
Why build more?
There's at least half a million empty bedrooms in social housing
You have evidence of your fantasy number. I also note you avoid the question.
Even if that is true and that’s a bit “even", the main problem is that they are in the “wrong" places. It’s no use telling someone in Southwark that there’s somewhere in Sunderland to which they can move, far away from family and friends.
In fact, it’s cruel.
People with mortgages have to make that sort of decision all the time.
But they make the decision themselves. And yes, I’ve had a mortgage in the past and had to find something in my price range near where I worked.
The fundamental principle is that it will have been built up out of income that has already been taxed, so why should the government get a second bite at the cherry.
As I said in my post the vast majority of the increase in “estates” is due to the increase in property values.
Yes, but that is the price, not the value.
Because of the increase in property prices - arguably the fault of governments over time - people will have the sell and asset and, at best, replace it with one of lower utility.
(It's the same argument as to why capital gains on principal private residences are tax free. Personally, I'd rather amend that to say that only the amount reinvested in a new PPR is tax free with any capital released being subject to normal capital gains tax)
Remind me again how many social houses the Tories have sold and how many new ones they built with the proceeds.
Why build more?
There's at least half a million empty bedrooms in social housing
You have evidence of your fantasy number. I also note you avoid the question.
Even if that is true and that’s a bit “even", the main problem is that they are in the “wrong" places. It’s no use telling someone in Southwark that there’s somewhere in Sunderland to which they can move, far away from family and friends.
In fact, it’s cruel.
People with mortgages have to make that sort of decision all the time.
Not if they are buying their council home. They get to keep it at a subsidised price.
As I replied to Charles, I am opposed to subsidies.
When are the Tories going to come out with policies that appeal to the Midlands marginals? Train fares and IHT are very "South East" centric - are they aiming for bigger majorities there, while leaving the populist field free to Labour?
Yes, my patch is a reasonably prosperous Midlands constituency. The number of homes worth over £1 million is negligible - a typical large family home in a sought-after area is £700K. I can't imagine that it's very different in the others.
Well current IHT is at £650,000, so owners will be paying £20K on the house plus 40% of any other assets. Likely outcome is that they will need to sell the family house to pay tax.
Now they are being exempted from paying tax on the family house.
I'm sure they'll appreciate the thought.
This is not a tax break that benefits the wealthy (e.g. my 2 bedroom flat in London won't benefit), but hard-working families that have built up a decent nest-egg through saving and prudence.
I don't know much about the British credit situation right now but even assuming a bank balance of zero at the time when you received a 650k asset, if you were still using the house I wouldn't have thought you'd have great difficulty securing a 20k loan to pay the tax on it.
IHT is generally one of the most unpopular taxes in the polls so this should boost the Tories, with rising house prices and the average house now worth between around £200-300,000 there are also far more people who would benefit from the IHT threshold rising from £300,000 to £1 million than the 1% or so who would have benefited from the cut in the top tax rate from 50% to 45% for those earning more than £150,000
"The fundamental principle is that it will have been built up out of income that has already been taxed, so why should the government get a second bite at the cherry. "
But the effect is to keep privilege going through the generations leading to the horrible class sysem which had bedevilled this country for centuries.
Wouldn't you like people to start with a slightly more even playing field?
Absolutely: it's why I'm such a strong supporter of the Coalition's education reforms.
Education is the foundation of success in life. LEA-lead education has been proven over a generation to have failed to majority of pupils.
When are the Tories going to come out with policies that appeal to the Midlands marginals? Train fares and IHT are very "South East" centric - are they aiming for bigger majorities there, while leaving the populist field free to Labour?
Yes, my patch is a reasonably prosperous Midlands constituency. The number of homes worth over £1 million is negligible - a typical large family home in a sought-after area is £700K. I can't imagine that it's very different in the others.
Well current IHT is at £650,000, so owners will be paying £20K on the house plus 40% of any other assets. Likely outcome is that they will need to sell the family house to pay tax.
Now they are being exempted from paying tax on the family house.
I'm sure they'll appreciate the thought.
This is not a tax break that benefits the wealthy (e.g. my 2 bedroom flat in London won't benefit), but hard-working families that have built up a decent nest-egg through saving and prudence.
I don't know much about the British credit situation right now but even assuming a bank balance of zero at the time when you received a 650k asset, if you were still using the house I wouldn't have thought you'd have great difficulty securing a 20k loan to pay the tax on it.
Wrong. The mortgage rules (daft as they are) that have come in are making it very difficult for the over 50s to get a mortgage on their main house. Easier to get a buy to let. More of these people are being forced into the wealth reducing equity release schemes.
OT Local elections in Japan today. Some shops are doing voter discounts (in Japan you can get a receipt that says you voted, but not who for.)
Has this ever been done in the UK? If not would it be legal? I guess you could use a selfie of yourself outside the polling station to do without a receipt.
Liberal Democrats winning there?
As opposed to here.
Certainly winning in the single-seat ward around my office, they've got the only candidate running.
Remind me again how many social houses the Tories have sold and how many new ones they built with the proceeds.
Why build more?
There's at least half a million empty bedrooms in social housing
You have evidence of your fantasy number. I also note you avoid the question.
Even if that is true and that’s a bit “even", the main problem is that they are in the “wrong" places. It’s no use telling someone in Southwark that there’s somewhere in Sunderland to which they can move, far away from family and friends.
In fact, it’s cruel.
Not to the Tories on here unfortunately , they would have them out on the street with no benefits if it put more money in their own pockets.
I'm off to buy a fresh pheasant for my Sunday roast from my man.
If I see any poor people en-route, I'll lean out of my Bentley and give them what for with my 12 gauge shotgun whilst laughing uproariously.
I don't have a son in the army and I do not get benefits. I have 3 spare bedrooms and a spare house personally and pay mortgages for them, but I am still against some poor person being penalised and beggared whilst rich people get large cuts. Even a Tory like you John , deep in your frozen heart must know that demonising the poorest in society is wrong.
I have never demonized anyone. In any case, claiming JSA (or in most cases ESA) should be a short term expedient. The bedroom tax is a useful incentive in getting people back into work. No-one should expect to be supported long term by benefits, unless they really are too ill or disabled to do any sort of work.
Dear Dear John, how naive can you be. So taking money off the poorest , so they have to choose between heating themselves or feeding themselves, who are the most certain to be unemployable in the country is an incentive to make them work. I presume you would think that bringing back the workhouse would be beneficial.
PS: I hope you are never down on your luck , you would be in for a shock.
From last night, this really shows why the Tories are so hated and called the nasty party, people with many houses , unlimited spare rooms, lackeys , money etc and yet they still want to shove the unfortunate poor into one room. Shameful. Charles said:
» show previous quotes I pay plenty in taxes, and I'm fine with that.
I just want it to be spent more productively than giving an individual a spare room unless they need it. There is too much need to waste resources like that.
care to comment on Overseas Aid ?
I have never voted Tory in my life, but I still don't see what's wrong with not paying for someone to have spare room if it is indeed a spare room, that is it is a room they do not need. Millions upon millions of Tory voters will not be the ones with unlimited money and rooms (they do get votes in poor areas too remember, just not enough to win in them), but paying for unnecessary things hurts those people too.
If the rooms are not in fact spare, then sure someone should be exempted or the policy clarified to make sure such people are not swept up in it, but the principle seems fair. Many things are ideal but not fair to provide - and yes, the rich absolutely should pay more to make things much fairer.
Overseas aid? I'm fine with it in principle, it can do a lot of good, although ti should be much tighter controlled.
Living with a mortgage my house has a spare room which we deliberately decided for when we moved in. Guess what though, we pay extra each month as a result of that.
I pay for my own home and through taxes for other people's homes too. If people genuinely need that fair enough, but if they don't why should they get that? It's unfair that I pay for my own home and for spare rooms other people don't need. It's also unfair that people who do need bigger homes can't get them if those who don't need them won't move.
Of course, if you want to buy a council house with a spare room the government will subsidise you up to £I00,000 to do so. Why should I pay for that?
So long as the sale price is above replacement cost it's fine.
In London it takes 1.6 council home sales to fund the build of one replacement.
On policies, YG has huge majorities for all Labour's controversial tax proposals (64-24 for raising top rate tax, 64-23 for the mansion tax [56-29 in London], 50-25 on non-doms)..... Have I missed something?
The truth. That imposing these means a large number of top-rate tax payers may leave the country. To the huge detriment of the NHS.
Try asking the same voters this: "Labour has outlined a series of polices that risk a very significant reduction in the taxes the Govt. collects. This could mean large funding cuts for the NHS. Do you think Labour should implement these policies?"
Then come here and tell us the answers.
When all else fails, right-wingers can always take comfort in rocking back and forth and saying "Laffer curve" over and over again.
I'm surprised nobody's tried telling us yet that raising the IHT will raise enough money (by bringing rich people into the country) to fund the £8billion for the NHS and 3 volunteering day pledges.
Why is Labour so cavalier with the future of the NHS?
On one level it would be tragic. But on another it would be so, so funny to see Ed Miliband having to explain away hospital closures and nursing redundancies in the first year of Labour's cobbled together coalition, because Mister Market will only lend them the money to keep them open at punitive rates.
It is going to need something like that for people to finally see that Labour is completely full of shit.
Anyone with a mortgage should be scared witless about Labour getting in power. Interest rates will shoot up.
Remind me again how many social houses the Tories have sold and how many new ones they built with the proceeds.
Why build more?
There's at least half a million empty bedrooms in social housing
You have evidence of your fantasy number. I also note you avoid the question.
Even if that is true and that’s a bit “even", the main problem is that they are in the “wrong" places. It’s no use telling someone in Southwark that there’s somewhere in Sunderland to which they can move, far away from family and friends.
In fact, it’s cruel.
People with mortgages have to make that sort of decision all the time.
Not if they are buying their council home. They get to keep it at a subsidised price.
But you keep ignoring the equal or bigger saving in the cost of subsidising their social housing. (One last attempt, otherwise I have to give up trying to explain these facts to you).
Remind me again how many social houses the Tories have sold and how many new ones they built with the proceeds.
Why build more?
There's at least half a million empty bedrooms in social housing
You have evidence of your fantasy number. I also note you avoid the question.
Even if that is true and that’s a bit “even", the main problem is that they are in the “wrong" places. It’s no use telling someone in Southwark that there’s somewhere in Sunderland to which they can move, far away from family and friends.
In fact, it’s cruel.
Not to the Tories on here unfortunately , they would have them out on the street with no benefits if it put more money in their own pockets.
I'm off to buy a fresh pheasant for my Sunday roast from my man.
If I see any poor people en-route, I'll lean out of my Bentley and give them what for with my 12 gauge shotgun whilst laughing uproariously.
12 bore (gauge is American) and your pheasant will be a bit high by now - the season ends 1 February.
I know a certain poster on here - and I will try not upset his lickle-pup brain-cell - is not too bright but: Council-houses are subsidised. Why not sell said subsidised housing and shift the maintenance costs that will be accrueing off-the-books to the newly enfranchised house-owner?
On policies, YG has huge majorities for all Labour's controversial tax proposals (64-24 for raising top rate tax, 64-23 for the mansion tax [56-29 in London], 50-25 on non-doms)..... Have I missed something?
The truth. That imposing these means a large number of top-rate tax payers may leave the country. To the huge detriment of the NHS.
Try asking the same voters this: "Labour has outlined a series of polices that risk a very significant reduction in the taxes the Govt. collects. This could mean large funding cuts for the NHS. Do you think Labour should implement these policies?"
Then come here and tell us the answers.
When all else fails, right-wingers can always take comfort in rocking back and forth and saying "Laffer curve" over and over again.
I'm surprised nobody's tried telling us yet that raising the IHT will raise enough money (by bringing rich people into the country) to fund the £8billion for the NHS and 3 volunteering day pledges.
Why is Labour so cavalier with the future of the NHS?
On one level it would be tragic. But on another it would be so, so funny to see Ed Miliband having to explain away hospital closures and nursing redundancies in the first year of Labour's cobbled together coalition, because Mister Market will only lend them the money to keep them open at punitive rates.
It is going to need something like that for people to finally see that Labour is completely full of shit.
Mister Market does not seem to have been panicked by George Osborne's record borrowing. The idea on the right that markets will panic because non-doms will be treated by Britain the same way as they are treated by most other countries is laughable.
Oh yeah, Mister Market is REALLY going to take in its stride the combination of CotE Ed Balls, Prime Minister Ed Miliband and a drastically declining tax take. Osborne's greatest achievement has been to get Mister Market to believe in him - and consequently to lend him money at rates of interest the likes of which Labour could only dream about. But normal service will resume.
What is laughable is Labour optimism that it won't have a massive hike in the of servicing its debt. Mister Market knows your track party's track record. "Sorry. There's no money left..." It will price money accordingly.
Remind me again how many social houses the Tories have sold and how many new ones they built with the proceeds.
Why build more?
There's at least half a million empty bedrooms in social housing
You have evidence of your fantasy number. I also note you avoid the question.
Even if that is true and that’s a bit “even", the main problem is that they are in the “wrong" places. It’s no use telling someone in Southwark that there’s somewhere in Sunderland to which they can move, far away from family and friends.
In fact, it’s cruel.
Not to the Tories on here unfortunately , they would have them out on the street with no benefits if it put more money in their own pockets.
I'm off to buy a fresh pheasant for my Sunday roast from my man.
If I see any poor people en-route, I'll lean out of my Bentley and give them what for with my 12 gauge shotgun whilst laughing uproariously.
12 bore (gauge is American) and your pheasant will be a bit high by now - the season ends 1 February.
Remind me again how many social houses the Tories have sold and how many new ones they built with the proceeds.
Why build more?
There's at least half a million empty bedrooms in social housing
You have evidence of your fantasy number. I also note you avoid the question.
Even if that is true and that’s a bit “even", the main problem is that they are in the “wrong" places. It’s no use telling someone in Southwark that there’s somewhere in Sunderland to which they can move, far away from family and friends.
In fact, it’s cruel.
Not to the Tories on here unfortunately , they would have them out on the street with no benefits if it put more money in their own pockets.
I'm off to buy a fresh pheasant for my Sunday roast from my man.
If I see any poor people en-route, I'll lean out of my Bentley and give them what for with my 12 gauge shotgun whilst laughing uproariously.
Make sure you at least use heavy gauge so it is quick, and remember to throw out a few coins for the pauper's grave.
I know a certain poster on here - and I will try not upset his lickle-pup brain-cell - is not too bright but: Council-houses are subsidised. Why not sell said subsidised housing and shift the maintenance costs that will be accrueing off-the-books to the newly enfranchised house-owner? :tumbleweed:
By pledging an extra unfunded £8 billion for the NHS and introducing a £1m tax loophole on Inheritance tax, the Conservatives have obviously decided to exchabnge places with the Labour party and become the irresponsible party on the economy.
However, all the parties seem to be in a competition to promise to spend, spend, spend either the elector's own money. Maybe not the Liberal Democrats but it was hard to listen to what Nick Clegg said today about their solution to the deficit becasue of the poor sound and the ineffective activity by TV sound engineers to put it right.
On policies, YG has huge majorities for all Labour's controversial tax proposals (64-24 for raising top rate tax, 64-23 for the mansion tax [56-29 in London], 50-25 on non-doms)..... Have I missed something?
The truth. That imposing these means a large number of top-rate tax payers may leave the country. To the huge detriment of the NHS.
Try asking the same voters this: "Labour has outlined a series of polices that risk a very significant reduction in the taxes the Govt. collects. This could mean large funding cuts for the NHS. Do you think Labour should implement these policies?"
Then come here and tell us the answers.
When all else fails, right-wingers can always take comfort in rocking back and forth and saying "Laffer curve" over and over again.
I'm surprised nobody's tried telling us yet that raising the IHT will raise enough money (by bringing rich people into the country) to fund the £8billion for the NHS and 3 volunteering day pledges.
Why is Labour so cavalier with the future of the NHS?
On one level it would be tragic. But on another it would be so, so funny to see Ed Miliband having to explain away hospital closures and nursing redundancies in the first year of Labour's cobbled together coalition, because Mister Market will only lend them the money to keep them open at punitive rates.
It is going to need something like that for people to finally see that Labour is completely full of shit.
Anyone with a mortgage should be scared witless about Labour getting in power. Interest rates will shoot up.
They should, but would that interest rate hike start in 2015, 2016 or 2017? When would the outflow of cash and drop in tax earngs really bite or would the markets anticipate that date many months in advance?
I don't have a son in the army and I do not get benefits. I have 3 spare bedrooms and a spare house personally and pay mortgages for them, but I am still against some poor person being penalised and beggared whilst rich people get large cuts. Even a Tory like you John , deep in your frozen heart must know that demonising the poorest in society is wrong.
I have never demonized anyone. In any case, claiming JSA (or in most cases ESA) should be a short term expedient. The bedroom tax is a useful incentive in getting people back into work. No-one should expect to be supported long term by benefits, unless they really are too ill or disabled to do any sort of work.
Dear Dear John, how naive can you be. So taking money off the poorest , so they have to choose between heating themselves or feeding themselves, who are the most certain to be unemployable in the country is an incentive to make them work. I presume you would think that bringing back the workhouse would be beneficial.
PS: I hope you are never down on your luck , you would be in for a shock.
I dislike the term unemployable. Surely in a society in which someone of your calibre has well-paid work, there is hope for everyone.
On policies, YG has huge majorities for all Labour's controversial tax proposals (64-24 for raising top rate tax, 64-23 for the mansion tax [56-29 in London], 50-25 on non-doms)..... Have I missed something?
The truth. That imposing these means a large number of top-rate tax payers may leave the country. To the huge detriment of the NHS.
Try asking the same voters this: "Labour has outlined a series of polices that risk a very significant reduction in the taxes the Govt. collects. This could mean large funding cuts for the NHS. Do you think Labour should implement these policies?"
Then come here and tell us the answers.
When all else fails, right-wingers can always take comfort in rocking back and forth and saying "Laffer curve" over and over again.
I'm surprised nobody's tried telling us yet that raising the IHT will raise enough money (by bringing rich people into the country) to fund the £8billion for the NHS and 3 volunteering day pledges.
Why is Labour so cavalier with the future of the NHS?
On one level it would be tragic. But on another it would be so, so funny to see Ed Miliband having to explain away hospital closures and nursing redundancies in the first year of Labour's cobbled together coalition, because Mister Market will only lend them the money to keep them open at punitive rates.
It is going to need something like that for people to finally see that Labour is completely full of shit.
Anyone with a mortgage should be scared witless about Labour getting in power. Interest rates will shoot up.
Do you replace the "w "with "sh" if you have more than one
I know a certain poster on here - and I will try not upset his lickle-pup brain-cell - is not too bright but: Council-houses are subsidised. Why not sell said subsidised housing and shift the maintenance costs that will be accrueing off-the-books to the newly enfranchised house-owner? :tumbleweed:
Far too sensible for a socialist to understand.
You got there before me. I sometimes do wonder how certain posters have managed to use the internet....
Dear Dear John, how naive can you be. So taking money off the poorest , so they have to choose between heating themselves or feeding themselves, who are the most certain to be unemployable in the country is an incentive to make them work. I presume you would think that bringing back the workhouse would be beneficial.
PS: I hope you are never down on your luck , you would be in for a shock.
I dislike the term unemployable. Surely in a society in which someone of your caliber has well-paid work, there is hope for everyone.
Poor old Monica , green with envy and nose pressed up against the glass wishing she was like the big boys with all the toys.
The fundamental principle is that it will have been built up out of income that has already been taxed, so why should the government get a second bite at the cherry.
Transactions are taxed. They're being taxed all the time. Talking about "Double Taxation" is vacuous nonsense.
Harsh, but fair. Talk of "double taxation" is relevant when there is a danger of taxing what is effectively the same transaction twice; this is why there is a tax credit on dividends, because they've already paid corporation tax. But no one says VAT should be abolished because we buy vatable goods with income-taxed money.
Yes, I relalise I may have been slightly unclear, "Double Taxation" is a valid term it's just it gets used all the friggin' time in invalid contexts.
Remind me again how many social houses the Tories have sold and how many new ones they built with the proceeds.
Why build more?
There's at least half a million empty bedrooms in social housing
You have evidence of your fantasy number. I also note you avoid the question.
Even if that is true and that’s a bit “even", the main problem is that they are in the “wrong" places. It’s no use telling someone in Southwark that there’s somewhere in Sunderland to which they can move, far away from family and friends.
In fact, it’s cruel.
People with mortgages have to make that sort of decision all the time.
Not if they are buying their council home. They get to keep it at a subsidised price.
But you keep ignoring the equal or bigger saving in the cost of subsidising their social housing. (One last attempt, otherwise I have to give up trying to explain these facts to you).
The bigger saving would be for people who can afford to buy in the private sector to do so, thus freeing up homes for people who cannot. When a council house moves into the private sector it is not magically replaced. That's why in places such as London the amount of available council housing is decreasing, quite alarmingly in certain areas.
From last night, this really shows why the Tories are so hated and called the nasty party, people with many houses , unlimited spare rooms, lackeys , money etc and yet they still want to shove the unfortunate poor into one room. Shameful. Charles said:
» show previous quotes I pay plenty in taxes, and I'm fine with that.
I just want it to be spent more productively than giving an individual a spare room unless they need it. There is too much need to waste resources like that.
care to comment on Overseas Aid ?
I have never voted Tory in my life, but I still don't see what's wrong with not paying for someone to have spare room if it is indeed a spare room, that is it is a room they do not need. Millions upon millions of Tory voters will not be the ones with unlimited money and rooms (they do get votes in poor areas too remember, just not enough to win in them), but paying for unnecessary things hurts those people too.
If the rooms are not in fact spare, then sure someone should be exempted or the policy clarified to make sure such people are not swept up in it, but the principle seems fair. Many things are ideal but not fair to provide - and yes, the rich absolutely should pay more to make things much fairer.
Overseas aid? I'm fine with it in principle, it can do a lot of good, although ti should be much tighter controlled.
Living with a mortgage my house has a spare room which we deliberately decided for when we moved in. Guess what though, we pay extra each month as a result of that.
I pay for my own home and through taxes for other people's homes too. If people genuinely need that fair enough, but if they don't why should they get that? It's unfair that I pay for my own home and for spare rooms other people don't need. It's also unfair that people who do need bigger homes can't get them if those who don't need them won't move.
Of course, if you want to buy a council house with a spare room the government will subsidise you up to £I00,000 to do so. Why should I pay for that?
So long as the sale price is above replacement cost it's fine.
In London it takes 1.6 council home sales to fund the build of one replacement.
A real property I know very well in west London. Re-build cost quoted in 2013 = £270,000 Value of house for sale = £550,000 If social housing, then the receipt the Govt would get is at least £450,000. Unknown factor is cost of land wherever the replacement is. So as long as land costs are under £180,000 then there is no loss.
I can see the desirability of starting life with a level playing field. But IHT is levied far too late in life to achieve this.
If the parents have their first child at the age of thirty and die when they are eighty they have fifty years in which to pass on whatever privilege and advantage they have. If that advantage is cash then some of it is eventually taxed, but if the advantage is a skill or know-how it is impossible to tax. So the skilled and knowledgeable have incredible advantages.
On policies, YG has huge majorities for all Labour's controversial tax proposals (64-24 for raising top rate tax, 64-23 for the mansion tax [56-29 in London], 50-25 on non-doms)..... Have I missed something?
The truth. That imposing these means a large number of top-rate tax payers may leave the country. To the huge detriment of the NHS.
Try asking the same voters this: "Labour has outlined a series of polices that risk a very significant reduction in the taxes the Govt. collects. This could mean large funding cuts for the NHS. Do you think Labour should implement these policies?"
Then come here and tell us the answers.
When all else fails, right-wingers can always take comfort in rocking back and forth and saying "Laffer curve" over and over again.
I'm surprised nobody's tried telling us yet that raising the IHT will raise enough money (by bringing rich people into the country) to fund the £8billion for the NHS and 3 volunteering day pledges.
Why is Labour so cavalier with the future of the NHS?
On one level it would be tragic. But on another it would be so, so funny to see Ed Miliband having to explain away hospital closures and nursing redundancies in the first year of Labour's cobbled together coalition, because Mister Market will only lend them the money to keep them open at punitive rates.
It is going to need something like that for people to finally see that Labour is completely full of shit.
Anyone with a mortgage should be scared witless about Labour getting in power. Interest rates will shoot up.
Really? I've no mortgage but lots of savings. I may be a hitherto unknown target demographic for the Blessed Ed. Vote Labour everyone!
I don't have a son in the army and I do not get benefits. I have 3 spare bedrooms and a spare house personally and pay mortgages for them, but I am still against some poor person being penalised and beggared whilst rich people get large cuts. Even a Tory like you John , deep in your frozen heart must know that demonising the poorest in society is wrong.
I have never demonized anyone. In any case, claiming JSA (or in most cases ESA) should be a short term expedient. The bedroom tax is a useful incentive in getting people back into work. No-one should expect to be supported long term by benefits, unless they really are too ill or disabled to do any sort of work.
Dear Dear John, how naive can you be. So taking money off the poorest , so they have to choose between heating themselves or feeding themselves, who are the most certain to be unemployable in the country is an incentive to make them work. I presume you would think that bringing back the workhouse would be beneficial.
PS: I hope you are never down on your luck , you would be in for a shock.
I dislike the term unemployable. Surely in a society in which someone of your calibre has well-paid work, there is hope for everyone.
That must be worth at least 50 internet points. Well done You! :-)
There are, 100% for certain, MI5 agents online posing as “cybernats” who will be quoted in the media saying outlandishly unpleasant and threatening things.
My Great Great Great Grandfather returned to Scotland from the Colonies to take part in the debates about the disruption. He had been a minister and teacher in Jamaica to the newly liberated slaves.
But while the Free Presbyterians were about half the Congregation, the assets remained with the Orthodox Presbyterians, so he became an itinerent preacher and left Scotland for Australia instead.
I mustn't go even more off topic (or off track) but is he in the big Hill painting of the Disruption by any chance? Very impressive piece of work when seen in actual life, close up.
Is there a key to the painting? I would be interested to have a look for my ancestor. The disruption was a large part of the reason my ancesyltors became part of the Scottish Diaspora.
FPT
There is plenty on the painting on the net e.g. www.gla.ac.uk/services/specialcollections/collectionsa-z/hilladamson/disruptionpicture/ www.edinphoto.org.uk/pp_d/pp_hill_paintings_in_oil_disruption.htm www.edinphoto.org.uk/pp_d/pp_hill_paintings_in_oil_disruptionin_the_%20presbytery_hall.htm#The Disruption Painting
(and a book called 'Mr Hill's Big Picture by J. Fowler) and a key exists - I have a photocopy somewhere - but for the life of me I cannot find a copy of the key on the net. You could always beg one off the Free Church College (where the painting is, on the Mound) as they hand out copies to visitors, or just make an appointment to go and see it when next there. It would also be worth running a check to see if Hill and Adamson photographed your ancestor, if you haven't.
Robin Jenkins, a writer of whom I'm very fond, has a novel on the Great Disruption, 'The Awakening of George Darroch'. I haven't read it but very cheap editions are available on Amazon - nothing for kindle unfortunately.
'A novel of ideas and emotions, set in a country obsessed by sin and lust, rank and rebellion. --The Times'
There are, 100% for certain, MI5 agents online posing as “cybernats” who will be quoted in the media saying outlandishly unpleasant and threatening things.
When are the Tories going to come out with policies that appeal to the Midlands marginals? Train fares and IHT are very "South East" centric - are they aiming for bigger majorities there, while leaving the populist field free to Labour?
Yes, my patch is a reasonably prosperous Midlands constituency. The number of homes worth over £1 million is negligible - a typical large family home in a sought-after area is £700K. I can't imagine that it's very different in the others.
Well current IHT is at £650,000, so owners will be paying £20K on the house plus 40% of any other assets. Likely outcome is that they will need to sell the family house to pay tax.
Now they are being exempted from paying tax on the family house.
I'm sure they'll appreciate the thought.
This is not a tax break that benefits the wealthy (e.g. my 2 bedroom flat in London won't benefit), but hard-working families that have built up a decent nest-egg through saving and prudence.
I don't know much about the British credit situation right now but even assuming a bank balance of zero at the time when you received a 650k asset, if you were still using the house I wouldn't have thought you'd have great difficulty securing a 20k loan to pay the tax on it.
Wrong. The mortgage rules (daft as they are) that have come in are making it very difficult for the over 50s to get a mortgage on their main house. Easier to get a buy to let. More of these people are being forced into the wealth reducing equity release schemes.
That sounds absolutely mental. Is nobody allowed to make a 20k loan against a 650k asset, or are we just talking about high street banks? What on earth have you guys done to your financial system over there?
There are, 100% for certain, MI5 agents online posing as “cybernats” who will be quoted in the media saying outlandishly unpleasant and threatening things.
I don't have a son in the army and I do not get benefits. I have 3 spare bedrooms and a spare house personally and pay mortgages for them, but I am still against some poor person being penalised and beggared whilst rich people get large cuts. Even a Tory like you John , deep in your frozen heart must know that demonising the poorest in society is wrong.
I have never demonized anyone. In any case, claiming JSA (or in most cases ESA) should be a short term expedient. The bedroom tax is a useful incentive in getting people back into work. No-one should expect to be supported long term by benefits, unless they really are too ill or disabled to do any sort of work.
Dear Dear John, how naive can you be. So taking money off the poorest , so they have to choose between heating themselves or feeding themselves, who are the most certain to be unemployable in the country is an incentive to make them work. I presume you would think that bringing back the workhouse would be beneficial.
PS: I hope you are never down on your luck , you would be in for a shock.
I dislike the term unemployable. Surely in a society in which someone of your calibre has well-paid work, there is hope for everyone.
That must be worth at least 50 internet points. Well done You! :-)
Monica's even sadder alter ego Dave comes on to praise her idiocy
There are, 100% for certain, MI5 agents online posing as “cybernats” who will be quoted in the media saying outlandishly unpleasant and threatening things.
From last night, this really shows why the Tories are so hated and called the nasty party, people with many houses , unlimited spare rooms, lackeys , money etc and yet they still want to shove the unfortunate poor into one room. Shameful. Charles said:
» show previous quotes I pay plenty in taxes, and I'm fine with that.
I just want it to be spent more productively than giving an individual a spare room unless they need it. There is too much need to waste resources like that.
care to comment on Overseas Aid ?
I have never voted Tory in my life, but I still don't see what's wrong with not paying for someone to have spare room if it is indeed a spare room, that is it is a room they do not need. Millions upon millions of Tory voters will not be the ones with unlimited money and rooms (they do get votes in poor areas too remember, just not enough to win in them), but paying for unnecessary things hurts those people too.
If the rooms are not in fact spare, then sure someone should be exempted or the policy clarified to make sure such people are not swept up in it, but the principle seems fair. Many things are ideal but not fair to provide - and yes, the rich absolutely should pay more to make things much fairer.
Overseas aid? I'm fine with it in principle, it can do a lot of good, although ti should be much tighter controlled.
Living with a mortgage my house has a spare room which we deliberately decided for when we moved in. Guess what though, we pay extra each month as a result of that.
I pay for my own home and through taxes for other people's homes too. If people genuinely need that fair enough, but if they don't why should they get that? It's unfair that I pay for my own home and for spare rooms other people don't need. It's also unfair that people who do need bigger homes can't get them if those who don't need them won't move.
Of course, if you want to buy a council house with a spare room the government will subsidise you up to £I00,000 to do so. Why should I pay for that?
So long as the sale price is above replacement cost it's fine.
In London it takes 1.6 council home sales to fund the build of one replacement.
A real property I know very well in west London. Re-build cost quoted in 2013 = £270,000 Value of house for sale = £550,000 If social housing, then the receipt the Govt would get is at least £450,000. Unknown factor is cost of land wherever the replacement is. So as long as land costs are under £180,000 then there is no loss.
Yes, I relalise I may have been slightly unclear, "Double Taxation" is a valid term it's just it gets used all the friggin' time in invalid contexts.
Whilst I think that IHT should be shot-like-a-rabid-fox you make a clear and accurate point. I pay income-tax and that should be enough; it is not. VAT, council-tax and Al-Beeb servitude-tax do also appear in my expenditure.
A universal "negative-tax" would be good: Sadly the state has now invaded too many spheres of our life to allow the individual to claw-it-back! Is health-care, welfare or the 'Celtic-fringe' a neccessity or another concept whose date-of-expiration has - hmm - expired...?
On the doorstep the general feedback so far is "not impressed". Interestingly UKIP support seems to be going down very rapidly. Can be perhaps explained in the context of an issues based rather than a leadership based election? UKIP are very much a one-trick pony and if Europe is not the key election issue and leadership is not at the top of everyone's list they look likely to continue to drop in the polls.
Could our Scottish correspondents summarise how well the smaller political party in an arrangement to vote with the bigger government party has fared at subsequent elections.
In Germany the smaller FDP party in the coalition got wiped out at the following election. Might the same effect be seen in Scotland as regards Lib Dems and Conservative arrangements with Labour and SNP?
From last night, this really shows why the Tories are so hated and called the nasty party, people with many houses , unlimited spare rooms, lackeys , money etc and yet they still want to shove the unfortunate poor into one room. Shameful. Charles said:
» show previous quotes I pay plenty in taxes, and I'm fine with that.
I just want it to be spent more productively than giving an individual a spare room unless they need it. There is too much need to waste resources like that.
care to comment on Overseas Aid ?
I have never voted Tory in my life, but I still don't see what's wrong with not paying for someone to have spare room if it is indeed a spare room, that is it is a room they do not need. Millions u...
Overseas aid? I'm fine with it in principle, it can do a lot of good, although ti should be much tighter controlled.
Living with a mortgage my house has a spare room which we deliberately decided for when we moved in. Guess what though, we pay extra each month as a result of that.
I pay for my own home and through taxes for other people's homes too. If people genuinely need that fair enough, but if they don't why should they get that? It's unfair that I pay for my own home and for spare rooms other people don't need. It's also unfair that people who do need bigger homes can't get them if those who don't need them won't move.
Of course, if you want to buy a council house with a spare room the government will subsidise you up to £I00,000 to do so. Why should I pay for that?
So long as the sale price is above replacement cost it's fine.
In London it takes 1.6 council home sales to fund the build of one replacement.
A real property I know very well in west London. Re-build cost quoted in 2013 = £270,000 Value of house for sale = £550,000 If social housing, then the receipt the Govt would get is at least £450,000. Unknown factor is cost of land wherever the replacement is. So as long as land costs are under £180,000 then there is no loss.
In London? No chance
So do you own a property in London or work in this field? Please explain your expertise.
Gauke on Sunday Politics "in 5 years according to OBR IHT will be 12% of estates"
But since most of those are going to be in the South it could easily be 20% of south east households and probably over 30% of those in London. Which is why this issue could have a big impact.
Could our Scottish correspondents summarise how well the smaller political party in an arrangement to vote with the bigger government party has fared at subsequent elections.
In Germany the smaller FDP party in the coalition got wiped out at the following election. Might the same effect be seen in Scotland as regards Lib Dems and Conservative arrangements with Labour and SNP?
Lib Dems went down the toilet after propping up Labour in Holyrood and started the rise of the SNP. You would have thought they might have learned from that , but the lure of ministerial cars and snouts in troughs overcame it.
There are, 100% for certain, MI5 agents online posing as “cybernats” who will be quoted in the media saying outlandishly unpleasant and threatening things.
I don't have a son in the army and I do not get benefits. I have 3 spare bedrooms and a spare house personally and pay mortgages for them, but I am still against some poor person being penalised and beggared whilst rich people get large cuts. Even a Tory like you John , deep in your frozen heart must know that demonising the poorest in society is wrong.
I have never demonized anyone. In any case, claiming JSA (or in most cases ESA) should be a short term expedient. The bedroom tax is a useful incentive in getting people back into work. No-one should expect to be supported long term by benefits, unless they really are too ill or disabled to do any sort of work.
Dear Dear John, how naive can you be. So taking money off the poorest , so they have to choose between heating themselves or feeding themselves, who are the most certain to be unemployable in the country is an incentive to make them work. I presume you would think that bringing back the workhouse would be beneficial.
PS: I hope you are never down on your luck , you would be in for a shock.
I dislike the term unemployable. Surely in a society in which someone of your calibre has well-paid work, there is hope for everyone.
That must be worth at least 50 internet points. Well done You! :-)
Monica's even sadder alter ego Dave comes on to praise her idiocy
MalcG If you are unemployed you get JSA and Housing Benefit to give you enough to survive on until you get a new job and to meet basic needs. While it is fair enough for taxpayers to subsidise non-contributory, income based JSA and Housing Benefit in a civilised society, there is no reason they should have to subsidise bedrooms which are not needed and are unoccupied
I don't have a son in the army and I do not get benefits. I have 3 spare bedrooms and a spare house personally and pay mortgages for them, but I am still against some poor person being penalised and beggared whilst rich people get large cuts. Even a Tory like you John , deep in your frozen heart must know that demonising the poorest in society is wrong.
I have never demonized anyone. In any case, claiming JSA (or in most cases ESA) should be a short term expedient. The bedroom tax is a useful incentive in getting people back into work. No-one should expect to be supported long term by benefits, unless they really are too ill or disabled to do any sort of work.
Dear Dear John, how naive can you be. So taking money off the poorest , so they have to choose between heating themselves or feeding themselves, who are the most certain to be unemployable in the country is an incentive to make them work. I presume you would think that bringing back the workhouse would be beneficial.
PS: I hope you are never down on your luck , you would be in for a shock.
I dislike the term unemployable. Surely in a society in which someone of your calibre has well-paid work, there is hope for everyone.
That must be worth at least 50 internet points. Well done You! :-)
Monica's even sadder alter ego Dave comes on to praise her idiocy
I don't have a son in the army and I do not get benefits. I have 3 spare bedrooms and a spare house personally and pay mortgages for them, but I am still against some poor person being penalised and beggared whilst rich people get large cuts. Even a Tory like you John , deep in your frozen heart must know that demonising the poorest in society is wrong.
I have never demonized anyone. In any case, claiming JSA (or in most cases ESA) should be a short term expedient. The bedroom tax is a useful incentive in getting people back into work. No-one should expect to be supported long term by benefits, unless they really are too ill or disabled to do any sort of work.
Dear Dear John, how naive can you be. So taking money off the poorest , so they have to choose between heating themselves or feeding themselves, who are the most certain to be unemployable in the country is an incentive to make them work. I presume you would think that bringing back the workhouse would be beneficial.
PS: I hope you are never down on your luck , you would be in for a shock.
I have been, on a couple of occasions. Last time I took a job 300 miles away and let my home as I was in negative equity.
Actually I think indoor relief for drug addicts would be sensible.
MalcG If you are unemployed you get JSA and Housing Benefit to give you enough to survive on until you get a new job and to meet basic needs. While it is fair enough for taxpayers to subsidise non-contributory, income based JSA and Housing Benefit in a civilised society, there is no reason they should have to subsidise bedrooms which are not needed and are unoccupied
Even you should be able to take 14% of rent allowance off your £70 JSA and be able to work out that you are not living in luxury. Six fingers on the one hand should be enough to do it, if you put your banjo down..
'This hasn't been thought through. Do we really want people to hang on to their over large houses as their families get smaller?
As these houses have been bought with taxed income they can do what the hell they like with them.
The housing shortage is the fault of the government & not repeat not people that independently take care of themselves.
Perhaps you had conveniently forgotten that New Labour had the worst social; house building record since the second world war with no excuse with so much cash around at that time.
Where does the nasty come in , I am merely pointing out that you think it is fine to have poor people put out of their houses just because at the minute they have a spare room. You said you supported it as you were paying for your house so it is hard to then get on your high horse and get upset when I say you are heartless and self interested and care not a jot for anyone but yourself. Think yourself lucky you can afford to have the choice to take a bigger mortgage to have a spare room, most of these people have no choices in life. Count your blessings rather than harbour ill feelings.
Actually you kept some of what I said but snipped out the part where I said we should pay for what people need.
What I object to is paying for that which people don't need. If I'm saying we should pay for what people need then I think its fair to get upset when you lie that I "care not a jot for anyone but yourself" - that made up lie is totally incompatible with saying we should pay for what people need.
I don't have a son in the army and I do not get benefits. I have 3 spare bedrooms and a spare house personally and pay mortgages for them, but I am still against some poor person being penalised and beggared whilst rich people get large cuts. Even a Tory like you John , deep in your frozen heart must know that demonising the poorest in society is wrong.
I have never demonized anyone. In any case, claiming JSA (or in most cases ESA) should be a short term expedient. The bedroom tax is a useful incentive in getting people back into work. No-one should expect to be supported long term by benefits, unless they really are too ill or disabled to do any sort of work.
Dear Dear John, how naive can you be. So taking money off the poorest , so they have to choose between heating themselves or feeding themselves, who are the most certain to be unemployable in the country is an incentive to make them work. I presume you would think that bringing back the workhouse would be beneficial.
PS: I hope you are never down on your luck , you would be in for a shock.
I dislike the term unemployable. Surely in a society in which someone of your calibre has well-paid work, there is hope for everyone.
That must be worth at least 50 internet points. Well done You! :-)
Monica's even sadder alter ego Dave comes on to praise her idiocy
:-( Beast.
I hope you get tan lines!
Did you miss that I live in Scotland
Hmm. Perhaps you can find a streaming webcam from Berkshire? We have seasons other than winter.
Could our Scottish correspondents summarise how well the smaller political party in an arrangement to vote with the bigger government party has fared at subsequent elections.
In Germany the smaller FDP party in the coalition got wiped out at the following election. Might the same effect be seen in Scotland as regards Lib Dems and Conservative arrangements with Labour and SNP?
There are some data in the form of the Labour-LD coalition up to 2007 at Holyrood. They stagnated in 2003 and lost one seat in 2007. They lost 2 seats in the FPTP element but gained one in the list vote to give a total of 16. It was before I started getting really interested in politics, so others may correct me, but I got the strong impression at the time that being in coalition had damaged the LDs, and it was enough to make me wonder about the sanity of Mr Clegg getting into bed with Mr Cameron (metaphorically, I hasten to add).
The SNP minority government from 2007 didn't have any such arrangements - it was a case of horsetrading day by day. SLAB like to claim it was a formal SNP-Tory alliance, but that's just ih hindsight - in fact SLAB was stupid and preferred to throw all its toys out the pram rather than swap them for other toys.
Comments
Scotland Would Not Vote For Independence
That was correct as was the completely accurate turnout projection. I accept the gap projection was smaller than the one month early forecast that was forced on me, although McARSE was picking up the trend to YES which would have likely seen a final SUPER McARSE of 56.5/43.5.
Further a single question and first time independence referendum is a different matter from general elections where my ARSE has a spectacular record whereas your new offering has no form or bottom.
I'm not a Tory and never have been but seems you are extrapolating the worst possible outcome of the policy and presenting it as the norm.
Now they are being exempted from paying tax on the family house.
I'm sure they'll appreciate the thought.
This is not a tax break that benefits the wealthy (e.g. my 2 bedroom flat in London won't benefit), but hard-working families that have built up a decent nest-egg through saving and prudence.
Where they off to.
Is one of the options
Would you like to help pack the selfish arses suitcases
I suspect not.
1. The country feel's very different not to 2007.
2. I think generally, policies are actually far less important since the formation of the coalition and the way many of the Tory and Lib-Dem policies were torn up...
Objects are taxed when they change state, NOT one-off. Raw materials are dug up, refined into construction material, assembled, maintained, repaired, decommissioned, scrapped and disposed/recycled. At EVERY stage, the objects are taxed and the people also taxed. The same applies to services. If the "fundamental principle" you refer to (things once taxed should not be taxed again) was actually a fundamental principle, the only things taxed would be the sand for the bricks and imports.
I'm surprised nobody's tried telling us yet that raising the IHT will raise enough money (by bringing rich people into the country) to fund the £8billion for the NHS and 3 volunteering day pledges.
The cut is a fixed percentage of the Housing Benefit eligible rent. The reduction is 14% for one extra bedroom and 25% for two or more extra bedrooms.
In fact, it’s cruel.
As to the "still subsidising someone who can clearly afford to buy housing" well that is what net tax payers are doing now and will continue to do until people are better incentivised to leave. The late Bob Crowe was a classic example. Earning over £100k + perks and occupying a social housing unit. Former MP Frank Dobson in Holborn (£1m+?) is another.
On one level it would be tragic. But on another it would be so, so funny to see Ed Miliband having to explain away hospital closures and nursing redundancies in the first year of Labour's cobbled together coalition, because Mister Market will only lend them the money to keep them open at punitive rates.
It is going to need something like that for people to finally see that Labour is completely full of shit.
If the government had started a big social housing building project first and then brought in the bedroom tax later, it would have made more sense. As it is the effect is punitive and Kafkaesque.
Thankfully we have bright left-wingers on here - tips-hat-to kle3 - who recognise the stupidity of the "bedroom-tax" argument.
The ability of the wealthy to move is much easier than you grasp. Even those with children can use UK boarding schools particularly for the 13+ year olds and yet stay outside our country under the "days" rules. The internet has made mobility even easier than when I did it in the 90s and 00s. There are even some countries in the EC that will provide a passport for under £ 1 million of investment such as in property etc. You clearly are too young (retired?) or forget the time in the recent past when under a Labour govt we had marginal tax rates of 98%. That led to a massive loss of entrepreneurs and artists, even in an age of currency restrictions. In an age without cross border currency restrictions the flood of money out of the UK could be very quick and very large.
Because of the increase in property prices - arguably the fault of governments over time - people will have the sell and asset and, at best, replace it with one of lower utility.
(It's the same argument as to why capital gains on principal private residences are tax free. Personally, I'd rather amend that to say that only the amount reinvested in a new PPR is tax free with any capital released being subject to normal capital gains tax)
Education is the foundation of success in life. LEA-lead education has been proven over a generation to have failed to majority of pupils.
If I see any poor people en-route, I'll lean out of my Bentley and give them what for with my 12 gauge shotgun whilst laughing uproariously.
PS: I hope you are never down on your luck , you would be in for a shock.
:tumbleweed:
What is laughable is Labour optimism that it won't have a massive hike in the of servicing its debt. Mister Market knows your track party's track record. "Sorry. There's no money left..." It will price money accordingly.
However, all the parties seem to be in a competition to promise to spend, spend, spend either the elector's own money. Maybe not the Liberal Democrats but it was hard to listen to what Nick Clegg said today about their solution to the deficit becasue of the poor sound and the ineffective activity by TV sound engineers to put it right.
Surely in a society in which someone of your calibre has well-paid work, there is hope for everyone.
Poor old Monica , green with envy and nose pressed up against the glass wishing she was like the big boys with all the toys.
Yes, I relalise I may have been slightly unclear, "Double Taxation" is a valid term it's just it gets used all the friggin' time in invalid contexts.
Re-build cost quoted in 2013 = £270,000
Value of house for sale = £550,000
If social housing, then the receipt the Govt would get is at least £450,000.
Unknown factor is cost of land wherever the replacement is.
So as long as land costs are under £180,000 then there is no loss.
If the parents have their first child at the age of thirty and die when they are eighty they have fifty years in which to pass on whatever privilege and advantage they have. If that advantage is cash then some of it is eventually taxed, but if the advantage is a skill or know-how it is impossible to tax. So the skilled and knowledgeable have incredible advantages.
There are, 100% for certain, MI5 agents online posing as “cybernats” who will be quoted in the media saying outlandishly unpleasant and threatening things.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2015/04/false-flag-is-starting/
'A novel of ideas and emotions, set in a country obsessed by sin and lust, rank and rebellion. --The Times'
Plus ça change!
A universal "negative-tax" would be good: Sadly the state has now invaded too many spheres of our life to allow the individual to claw-it-back! Is health-care, welfare or the 'Celtic-fringe' a neccessity or another concept whose date-of-expiration has - hmm - expired...?
In Germany the smaller FDP party in the coalition got wiped out at the following election. Might the same effect be seen in Scotland as regards Lib Dems and Conservative arrangements with Labour and SNP?
But since most of those are going to be in the South it could easily be 20% of south east households and probably over 30% of those in London. Which is why this issue could have a big impact.
He is a Tottenham-HS supporter. Why question his insignificance...?
I hope you get tan lines!
Actually I think indoor relief for drug addicts would be sensible.
'This hasn't been thought through. Do we really want people to hang on to their over large houses as their families get smaller?
As these houses have been bought with taxed income they can do what the hell they like with them.
The housing shortage is the fault of the government & not repeat not people that independently take care of themselves.
Perhaps you had conveniently forgotten that New Labour had the worst social; house building record since the second world war with no excuse with so much cash around at that time.
What I object to is paying for that which people don't need. If I'm saying we should pay for what people need then I think its fair to get upset when you lie that I "care not a jot for anyone but yourself" - that made up lie is totally incompatible with saying we should pay for what people need.
The SNP minority government from 2007 didn't have any such arrangements - it was a case of horsetrading day by day. SLAB like to claim it was a formal SNP-Tory alliance, but that's just ih hindsight - in fact SLAB was stupid and preferred to throw all its toys out the pram rather than swap them for other toys.