@EdConwaySky: Three radical Budget ideas: 1. Merge national insurance & income tax 2. Levy CGT on primary homes 3. Abolish tax deductability of debt
Merging NI and income tax would penalise savers; and also increase the tax take on pensioner incomes, incomes that are fixed, incomes that have come from the NI contributions they have already paid in. It would probably affect the self employed as well - not to mention income from investments (which would also probably affect the retired). Would you bet your money on the necessary computer changes being carried out smoothly?
It is possible with other changes to for instance make sure that pensioners aren't unfairly affected. It is not a simple or easy change, but it is a sensible one. However, I take you point on IT, if we were talking about Amazon making such a change to their IT systems I would think it is more than likely be sorted with reasonable accuracy, the tax office doing so (head in hands).
@EdConwaySky: Three radical Budget ideas: 1. Merge national insurance & income tax 2. Levy CGT on primary homes 3. Abolish tax deductability of debt
There are excellent economic arguments for each of those. Not sure how popular they would be, mind.
I assume #3 would screw over my offset mortgage ?
No, that would be unaffected. This is all about corporates. Essentially, because interest is a cost (and therefore tax free), while dividends are taxed, it encourages businesses to have as little equity (shares) as possible and as much debt. The economically rational decision of businesses to have as much debt as possible therefore makes the economy much more vulnerable in a downturn.
An ex-News of the World reporter convicted of using a soldier in Prince Harry's regiment as a paid source has had his conviction quashed by the Court of Appeal.
I would make several points. The local authorities knowingly entered into the swap transactions in an attempt to frustrate the restrictions Parliament had placed on their ability to borrow. The courts upheld the will of Parliament in Hazell. It was not a case of gullible, naïve and impressionable local authorities being pressured into entering into larcenous transactions by villainous banks. The same is no doubt true of some of the new forms of transaction discussed in the article. Provided the transaction is valid in public law, I see no political or moral reason why a local authority and its ratepayers should not be liable for the melancholy consequences of its debt and improvidence.
The Local Government (Contracts) Act 1997 is, contrary to the suggestion in the article, of crucial significance, because it has the effect of validating otherwise ultra vires contracts which are certified under the provisions of that Act. Had the contracts in Hazell been so certified, it is likely they would have been declared valid and subsisting in private law. Albeit it is a wholly unconstitutional provision, it is still the law of the land. There is a similar regime in respect of contracts subject to European public procurement law.
The power of the general competence in s. 1(1) of the Localism Act 2011 (another wholly unconstitutional provision) is unlikely to have modified the law as stated in Hazell, since it is arguable Hazell established a pre-commencement limitation within the meaning of s. 2(2)(a) of the 2011 Act, or, in the alternative, that gambling of the sort identified in Hazell is done for a commercial purpose, and can only be done by a company set up by the local authority, for whose activities the authority would not be liable as a matter of company law (see s. 4 of the 2011 Act; Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] 2 AC 415 (SC)).
Fourthly, the saving for a local authority today, should a contract be held to be unlawful in public law, is likely to be considerably less than was thought at the time of Hazell because of subsequent developments in the law of restitution (see, in particular, Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council [1999] 2 AC 349 (HL); Sempra Metals Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners [2008] 1 AC 561 (HL)). There is no doubt that the banks would recover capital sums and compound interest today. Would there even be room for gain based damages?
Mr. 1000, the immediate pain is greater, but doing nothing will be worse in the long run. When the eurozone crumbles it'll cause more devastation the more closely integrated and prolonged its existence is.
The eurozone will not crumble. Greece might and that itself should be a worry. I am not bothered about the eurozone, I am glad we are not in it and we will not join it. But its hardly in our interests to see a poor european economy. What is in our interest is to negotiate a way to protect ourselves from the knock on effects of closer eurozone ties. That might end up with us formally leaving the EU. I don't think it will, but it might. Even if we end up simply being in the EEA, that will not make much real economic and trading difference and the EU/Eurozone will not go away and we will have to still deal with it.
The ability to own one's home? So rents might go up, but it might makes house prices fall (or not rise so much) - but that's why the government won't do it.
Making renting more expensive, and thereby incentivising people to buy their own property, is a funny way of making house prices fall. I'd have thought the net effect on house prices would be pretty neutral: house prices are high because of lack of supply. It's as simple as that.
I have sympathy for your argument but rental prices are not dictated by suppliers but set by the market. If the cost of debt goes up (due to different tax treatment) it just gives a competitive advantage to landlords with lower or no debt and incentivises others to reduce their debt.
The ability to own one's home? So rents might go up, but it might makes house prices fall (or not rise so much) - but that's why the government won't do it.
Making renting more expensive, and thereby incentivising people to buy their own property, is a funny way of making house prices fall. I'd have thought the net effect on house prices would be pretty neutral: house prices are high because of lack of supply. It's as simple as that.
So you don't think that making private rentals less profitable would increase the supply of housing? Time to go back to school I think.
Two spontaneous conversations about Greece with the plumber who saw me watching Sky News, said they were insane and was pretty knowledgeable about it - and then an hour later with two delivery guys from Tesco who also thought the Greeks deserved it/spent too much and joked about pitta bread in my order.
Now, if those three chaps - who were the definition of Joe Ordinary have taken that much notice of it - it's clearly going to be a useful stick to beat anti-austerity protesters.
A most peculiar couple of hours discussing something I never expected to.
So you don't think that making private rentals less profitable would increase the supply of housing? Time to go back to school I think.
Eh? Making something less profitable reduces supply. Or certainly that was the view when I was at school.
So existing landlords who's buy-to-let scams are no longer profitable are going to sit on their unprofitable investment rather than sell up and invest elsewhere?
I'm not talking about new builds, I'm talking about existing stock. There is, and has always been enough existing stock in the UK to meet demand, but so much of it is tied up with private landlords trying to gouge the generations below them that we have shortages.
The ability to own one's home? So rents might go up, but it might makes house prices fall (or not rise so much) - but that's why the government won't do it.
Making renting more expensive, and thereby incentivising people to buy their own property, is a funny way of making house prices fall. I'd have thought the net effect on house prices would be pretty neutral: house prices are high because of lack of supply. It's as simple as that.
So you don't think that making private rentals less profitable would increase the supply of housing? Time to go back to school I think.
Its not making them less profitable, its pushing their price up to maintain the same level of profitability. If the price of rental properties goes up, people who previously marginally favoured rental for whatever reason would take a fresh look at purchasing a property, there by increasing demand, and hence price on properties for sale.
Is hunting law reserved to Westminster? Or does the talking shop in Edinburgh decide on what happens in Scotland?
If the latter, SNP surely should abstain.
Yes, it is an issue which doesn't affect Scotland, so in the unlikely event that the SNP are not hypocritical, they should abstain.
In fact, it's even better than that: the proposal is to bring the law in England & Wales in line with that in Scotland. It's not a complete repeal of the Hunting Act. So it's hard to see how the SNP could justify voting against: it might, therefore, pass.
Mr. Borough, maybe they wouldn't've let go their most successful sports coverage if they didn't have guaranteed income, and spent £20-30m on the concept of The Voice at the same time.
Mr. JohnL, the price freeze was demented, the insanity of trying such things was known in the 4th century, as Ammianus Marcellinus told us. It's a dereliction of duty not to point out it's a crazy idea.
Mr. England, agree entirely, the fact we know the policy positions the BBC has on those subjects is a signal failure on its part to be objective.
You shouldn't be neutral over everything. Some things such as evolution and climate change.are pretty much proven.
Completely wrong to equate those.
Evolution is a Theory (with a capital T). AIUI (am not a scientist) that's only one level below being a Law. So, pretty much proven.
Climate change is a thesis that has been proposed. It fits some of the data, while it is contradicted by other data. It's in no way "settled" even if the current consensus among the scientific community is supportive of thesis.
The ability to own one's home? So rents might go up, but it might makes house prices fall (or not rise so much) - but that's why the government won't do it.
Making renting more expensive, and thereby incentivising people to buy their own property, is a funny way of making house prices fall. I'd have thought the net effect on house prices would be pretty neutral: house prices are high because of lack of supply. It's as simple as that.
So you don't think that making private rentals less profitable would increase the supply of housing? Time to go back to school I think.
Its not making them less profitable, its pushing their price up to maintain the same level of profitability. If the price of rental properties goes up, people who previously marginally favoured rental for whatever reason would take a fresh look at purchasing a property, there by increasing demand, and hence price on properties for sale.
The market sets the rental price, not the supplier.
So existing landlords who's buy-to-let scams are no longer profitable are going to sit on their unprofitable investment rather than sell up and invest elsewhere?
I'm not talking about new builds, I'm talking about existing stock. There is, and has always been enough existing stock in the UK to meet demand, but so much of it is tied up with private landlords trying to gouge the generations below them that we have shortages.
Existing landlords would put the rent up, if their running costs increase. Inasmuch as this is a subsidy at all, it's a subsidy to tenants.
So existing landlords who's buy-to-let scams are no longer profitable are going to sit on their unprofitable investment rather than sell up and invest elsewhere?
I'm not talking about new builds, I'm talking about existing stock. There is, and has always been enough existing stock in the UK to meet demand, but so much of it is tied up with private landlords trying to gouge the generations below them that we have shortages.
Existing landlords would put the rent up, if their running costs increase. Inasmuch as this is a subsidy at all, it's a subsidy to tenants.
Are these landlords so charitable that they are currently charging less than the market can bear?
So existing landlords who's buy-to-let scams are no longer profitable are going to sit on their unprofitable investment rather than sell up and invest elsewhere?
I'm not talking about new builds, I'm talking about existing stock. There is, and has always been enough existing stock in the UK to meet demand, but so much of it is tied up with private landlords trying to gouge the generations below them that we have shortages.
Existing landlords would put the rent up, if their running costs increase. Inasmuch as this is a subsidy at all, it's a subsidy to tenants.
Are these landlords so charitable that they are currently charging less than the market can bear?
Are all shops being charitable by charging less than the market will bear when they set the cost for a loaf of bread, and yet what happened when VAT increases ?
So existing landlords who's buy-to-let scams are no longer profitable are going to sit on their unprofitable investment rather than sell up and invest elsewhere?
I'm not talking about new builds, I'm talking about existing stock. There is, and has always been enough existing stock in the UK to meet demand, but so much of it is tied up with private landlords trying to gouge the generations below them that we have shortages.
Existing landlords would put the rent up, if their running costs increase. Inasmuch as this is a subsidy at all, it's a subsidy to tenants.
And to the extent that they sell, they'll sell to nice young middle class people.
The remainder, those people who want to rent rather than buy, very often the poorer in society, will now find the supply of potential rental properties diminished and/or see their rents go up to cover the added costs of the landlords. They will probably be less happy.
I'm unclear what public policy purpose is served by favouring nice young middle class people at the expense of the poorer in society, but I can see that it would be enormously popular with nice young middle class people who would no doubt try hard to persuade themselves that there was a wider public policy purpose.
Nigel getting rare applause in the Euro Parly for telling Greece to leave with their heads held high.
It would almost certainly be the right thing for the Greeks, and also for the other countries in the Eurozone. The only problem being that Tsipiras promised the Greek people that it wouldn't happen. The Greek people have not been well served by their politicians.
Really? Will the good people of Greece line up to applaud Farage when the consequences of his sage advice come to fruition? For one thing (and there must be many more) the poor people in Greece will hardly benefit from the eruption in inflation that will ensue and with devaluation following devaluation the poor will not see much benefit thereafter. Even assuming Greece could get anyone to lend to them, the debasing of their currency which would follow the inevitable merry go round of paying for its spending by printing more of the worthless stuff would only be a tiny figleaf to cover its increasing poverty. We only need to look at ours own history to see where the chimera of competitiveness and productivity based on a falling currency leads.
Mr. Borough, maybe they wouldn't've let go their most successful sports coverage if they didn't have guaranteed income, and spent £20-30m on the concept of The Voice at the same time.
Mr. JohnL, the price freeze was demented, the insanity of trying such things was known in the 4th century, as Ammianus Marcellinus told us. It's a dereliction of duty not to point out it's a crazy idea.
Mr. England, agree entirely, the fact we know the policy positions the BBC has on those subjects is a signal failure on its part to be objective.
You shouldn't be neutral over everything. Some things such as evolution and climate change.are pretty much proven.
Completely wrong to equate those.
Evolution is a Theory (with a capital T). AIUI (am not a scientist) that's only one level below being a Law. So, pretty much proven.
Climate change is a thesis that has been proposed. It fits some of the data, while it is contradicted by other data. It's in no way "settled" even if the current consensus among the scientific community is supportive of thesis.
Nevertheless, I am sure you would agree that the BBC should not teach the controversy.
So you don't think that making private rentals less profitable would increase the supply of housing? Time to go back to school I think.
Eh? Making something less profitable reduces supply. Or certainly that was the view when I was at school.
Isn't that Max's goal here - to reduce the supply of let out homes. The existing housing stock, all else being equal does not change. Therefore the level of owner-occupiership must increase.
I'm not arguing the economics of the proposal here. I have no idea on either, but am merely arguing the logic...
Are these landlords so charitable that they are currently charging less than the market can bear?
They are setting the rent in line with the market, against competitors who also can claim interest as a business expense. If increased costs are imposed on the industry as a whole, prices (i.e. rentals) will rise, of course.
So existing landlords who's buy-to-let scams are no longer profitable are going to sit on their unprofitable investment rather than sell up and invest elsewhere?
I'm not talking about new builds, I'm talking about existing stock. There is, and has always been enough existing stock in the UK to meet demand, but so much of it is tied up with private landlords trying to gouge the generations below them that we have shortages.
Existing landlords would put the rent up, if their running costs increase. Inasmuch as this is a subsidy at all, it's a subsidy to tenants.
The market sets the rental value, not the supplier. It will make existing buy-to-let investments unprofitable. Tenants can only pay what they are able to if the landlord tries to raise rents, they will just leave and find an alternative leaving the landlord with an empty property.
I have faith in the rationality of renters, you clearly don't. Unsurprising given that you can't even see there is an issue with capital moving in the wrong direction at the moment from people who work (renters) to people who don't (landlords). Exempt build-to-let so new builds are not discouraged and just have at the leeches who buy up existing property to make a quick buck off people who actually go out to work for their income.
Yes, it is an issue which doesn't affect Scotland, so in the unlikely event that the SNP are not hypocritical, they should abstain.
In fact, it's even better than that: the proposal is to bring the law in England & Wales in line with that in Scotland. It's not a complete repeal of the Hunting Act. So it's hard to see how the SNP could justify voting against: it might, therefore, pass.
The Conservatives have once again broken their manifesto promise on this issue, and this time they cannot dishonestly use the fact of coalition as an excuse. The manifesto promised (at p. 23) that:
A Conservative Government will give Parliament the opportunity to repeal the Hunting Act [2004] on a free vote, with a government bill in government time.
What the government are in fact now proposing is a vote on subordinate legislation made under the said tyrannical Act of 2004, which by its very nature affirms the validity, continued enforcement and operation of the 2004 Act. The Conservative Party, as ever, will sacrifice individual liberty on the rocks of expediency.
In terms of the BBC...this is not their job. What company who claim they are short of money and struggling starts getting involved in freebie things that are not close to their core business.
BBC Micro Bit computer's final design revealed
The BBC has revealed the final design of the Micro Bit, a pocket-sized computer set to be given to about one million UK-based children in October.
Yes there are companies involved, but this is the sort of thing the BBC should be not spending time, energy and money on. There is no gap in the market for this stuff as there is now loads of Raspberry Pi type devices available. It is a vanity project, simple as that, and a very good example of BBC overreach.
I have faith in the rationality of renters, you clearly don't. Unsurprising given that you can't even see there is an issue with capital moving in the wrong direction at the moment from people who work (renters) to people who don't (landlords). Exempt build-to-let so new builds are not discouraged and just have at the leeches who buy up existing property to make a quick buck off people who actually go out to work for their income.
Is this how you would categorise all investors ? Are people who invest in new British businesses and then dare to enjoy the profits also leeches ?
The market sets the rental value, not the supplier. It will make existing buy-to-let investments unprofitable. Tenants can only pay what they are able to if the landlord tries to raise rents, they will just leave and find an alternative leaving the landlord with an empty property.
I have faith in the rationality of renters, you clearly don't. Unsurprising given that you can't even see there is an issue with capital moving in the wrong direction at the moment from people who work (renters) to people who don't (landlords). Exempt build-to-let so new builds are not discouraged and just have at the leeches who buy up existing property to make a quick buck off people who actually go out to work for their income.
Yes, housing demand is much, much more elastic than most people think. That's how we've been able to absorb such an increase in population without a commensurate increase in housing supply.
If prices go up people's calculus changes. They become more willing to share, couples stay together longer than they may wish, children stay with their parents for longer, etc.
Mr. Max, any chance you can tell me how to delete PS4 DLC? Downloaded one (alternate Ciri appearance) which I didn't realise was accidentally released early. Meant to delete it, but no idea how.
I have faith in the rationality of renters, you clearly don't. Unsurprising given that you can't even see there is an issue with capital moving in the wrong direction at the moment from people who work (renters) to people who don't (landlords). Exempt build-to-let so new builds are not discouraged and just have at the leeches who buy up existing property to make a quick buck off people who actually go out to work for their income.
Is this how you would categorise all investors ? Are people who invest in new British businesses and then dare to enjoy the profits also leeches ?
No because there is risk involved. Buying existing property carries zero risk. It is not investment, it is leeching.
From the FT, the German MEP who followed Tsipiras:
"The prime minister of Greece should apologise for those utterly unacceptable statements [terrorists]. Unfortunately he has passed over them in silence
You are destroying confidence in Europe. You're talking about dignity, but dignity means truth, honesty. You said that the banks are closing because the evil ECB is ratcheting up pressure. You said the banks would be open on Tuesday, it is now Wednesday, you are not being honest with the Greek people
Mr Tsipras, the extremists of Europe are applauding you. Fidel Castro wrote a message to congratulate you on your triumph. It seems to me you are surrounding yourself with the wrong friends.
If you're talking about a debt haircut, be honest. Its not extraneous financial institutions that will pay. It's Portugal… Spain… It's the nurses in Poland. You have to think about the dignity of people in other European countries
How can you tell Bulgaria in terms of solidarity that Greece cannot countenance further cuts, when in at least 5 other European countries the standard of living is lower than in Greece. The PM of Slovakia is also thinking about a referendum because the citizens are sick of shelling out for the Greeks.
You engage in confrontation, we engage in compromise. You are looking for failure, we are looking for success."
Re: BTL ending interest payments as a tax relief. Any disagreement? In Short Term (next 1yr+) = Fewer properties offered for rent & increase in rent charges = More properties offered for sale & small/nil reductions in house prices (but probably less than the rent reduction due to CGT). = Some irate Conservative voters = More tax raised
In Longer Term (>3yrs) = Less property built with massive decline of BTL purchasing = Higher rental costs = Similar property prices to the market trends before the BTL change = Similar tax raised in line with long term trends before the BTL change
I have faith in the rationality of renters, you clearly don't. Unsurprising given that you can't even see there is an issue with capital moving in the wrong direction at the moment from people who work (renters) to people who don't (landlords). Exempt build-to-let so new builds are not discouraged and just have at the leeches who buy up existing property to make a quick buck off people who actually go out to work for their income.
Is this how you would categorise all investors ? Are people who invest in new British businesses and then dare to enjoy the profits also leeches ?
Rent-seeking isn't productive. The solution, however, is to increase supply by embarking on a massive house-building programme in and around London (where the problem really is), not to throw bungs at a noisy subset of unwilling tenants.
Yes there are companies involved, but this is the sort of thing the BBC should be not spending time, energy and money on. There is no gap in the market for this stuff as there is now loads of Raspberry Pi type devices available. It is a vanity project, simple as that.
It not often that I am left speechless by this sort of idiocy, but really, what the hell are they thinking off.
So you don't think that making private rentals less profitable would increase the supply of housing? Time to go back to school I think.
Eh? Making something less profitable reduces supply. Or certainly that was the view when I was at school.
Isn't that Max's goal here - to reduce the supply of let out homes. The existing housing stock, all else being equal does not change. Therefore the level of owner-occupiership must increase.
I'm not arguing the economics of the proposal here. I have no idea on either, but am merely arguing the logic...
Yes, but there are three flaws in that. The first is that rentals will rise to compensate for the increased costs being put on all suppliers, so the effect on profitability will be very limited. The second is that, if there is any effect on profitability, some marginal properties may be taken off the market altogether (neither rented out nor sold to Max's mates). The third is that raising the cost of rentals also raises the marginal cost-effectiveness of owner-occupying, so tenants doing their sums will find that it's worth their while paying more to buy a flat.
It's a game of whack-a-mole. There are too many people chasing too few homes. There is one way, and one way only, of dealing with the problem, which is to build more (or reduce the population, I guess!)
From the FT, the German MEP who followed Tsipiras:
"The prime minister of Greece should apologise for those utterly unacceptable statements [terrorists]. Unfortunately he has passed over them in silence
You are destroying confidence in Europe. You're talking about dignity, but dignity means truth, honesty. You said that the banks are closing because the evil ECB is ratcheting up pressure. You said the banks would be open on Tuesday, it is now Wednesday, you are not being honest with the Greek people
Mr Tsipras, the extremists of Europe are applauding you. Fidel Castro wrote a message to congratulate you on your triumph. It seems to me you are surrounding yourself with the wrong friends.
If you're talking about a debt haircut, be honest. Its not extraneous financial institutions that will pay. It's Portugal… Spain… It's the nurses in Poland. You have to think about the dignity of people in other European countries
How can you tell Bulgaria in terms of solidarity that Greece cannot countenance further cuts, when in at least 5 other European countries the standard of living is lower than in Greece. The PM of Slovakia is also thinking about a referendum because the citizens are sick of shelling out for the Greeks.
You engage in confrontation, we engage in compromise. You are looking for failure, we are looking for success."
In terms of the BBC...this is not their job. What company who claim they are short of money and struggling starts getting involved in freebie things that are not close to their core business.
BBC Micro Bit computer's final design revealed
The BBC has revealed the final design of the Micro Bit, a pocket-sized computer set to be given to about one million UK-based children in October.
Yes there are companies involved, but this is the sort of thing the BBC should be not spending time, energy and money on. There is no gap in the market for this stuff as there is now loads of Raspberry Pi type devices available. It is a vanity project, simple as that, and a very good example of BBC overreach.
As a child at the time of the original BBC Micro, I hope it (and the Pi etc) enthuses another generation into technology the same way it (and the speccy) did for me.
Mr. Borough, maybe they wouldn't've let go their most successful sports coverage if they didn't have guaranteed income, and spent £20-30m on the concept of The Voice at the same time.
Mr. JohnL, the price freeze was demented, the insanity of trying such things was known in the 4th century, as Ammianus Marcellinus told us. It's a dereliction of duty not to point out it's a crazy idea.
Mr. England, agree entirely, the fact we know the policy positions the BBC has on those subjects is a signal failure on its part to be objective.
You shouldn't be neutral over everything. Some things such as evolution and climate change.are pretty much proven.
Completely wrong to equate those.
Evolution is a Theory (with a capital T). AIUI (am not a scientist) that's only one level below being a Law. So, pretty much proven.
Climate change is a thesis that has been proposed. It fits some of the data, while it is contradicted by other data. It's in no way "settled" even if the current consensus among the scientific community is supportive of thesis.
You are totally correct except in your belief that there is some consensus amongst scientists that 'climate change' exists. The climate is always changing we are currently in the middle of the latest in a long list of warm periods between ice ages). By 'climate change' I presume people really are trying to suggest man made global warming. There is absolutely no general scientific consensus about this and indeed no consensus amongst qualified climate scientists. The whole subject is in fact mired in controversy, not least the latest botched attempt to try to show that there has not in fact been a distinct pause in the rise in global temperatures in the last 18 years. The fact that the BBC is not objective in this is a disgrace and a dereliction of its statutory duty. No doubt if opponents to global warming theories daubed their slogans on a black flag they would get a better hearing.
In terms of the BBC...this is not their job. What company who claim they are short of money and struggling starts getting involved in freebie things that are not close to their core business.
BBC Micro Bit computer's final design revealed
The BBC has revealed the final design of the Micro Bit, a pocket-sized computer set to be given to about one million UK-based children in October.
Yes there are companies involved, but this is the sort of thing the BBC should be not spending time, energy and money on. There is no gap in the market for this stuff as there is now loads of Raspberry Pi type devices available. It is a vanity project, simple as that, and a very good example of BBC overreach.
As a child at the time of the original BBC Micro, I hope it (and the Pi etc) enthuses another generation into technology the same way it (and the speccy) did for me.
I know it isn't the same as a Pi, but on the market now there are loads and loads of options when it comes to micro computing devices, sensors, etc to learn and enthuse about when it comes to programming and electronics.
There is no gap in the market here in terms of range of offerings and something that the commercial world is doing and offering extremely cheaply. There is no place for the tax payer funded state broadcaster to make a vanity project and give away for free, especially when they claim they are broke.
In terms of the BBC...this is not their job. What company who claim they are short of money and struggling starts getting involved in freebie things that are not close to their core business.
BBC Micro Bit computer's final design revealed
The BBC has revealed the final design of the Micro Bit, a pocket-sized computer set to be given to about one million UK-based children in October.
Yes there are companies involved, but this is the sort of thing the BBC should be not spending time, energy and money on. There is no gap in the market for this stuff as there is now loads of Raspberry Pi type devices available. It is a vanity project, simple as that, and a very good example of BBC overreach.
As a child at the time of the original BBC Micro, I hope it (and the Pi etc) enthuses another generation into technology the same way it (and the speccy) did for me.
The Micro:bit is also limited in capability compared to boards like the Raspberry Pi which support a full graphical display, run a well-known operating system, and for which there is already a wide range of resources. The Micro:bit is designed as an introduction to IoT, with its on-board sensors and tethering capability, when arguably kids would be better off learning with a more general-purpose device, though for those who already have computers it is a neat add-on
From the FT, the German MEP who followed Tsipiras:
"The prime minister of Greece should apologise for those utterly unacceptable statements [terrorists]. Unfortunately he has passed over them in silence
You are destroying confidence in Europe. You're talking about dignity, but dignity means truth, honesty. You said that the banks are closing because the evil ECB is ratcheting up pressure. You said the banks would be open on Tuesday, it is now Wednesday, you are not being honest with the Greek people
Mr Tsipras, the extremists of Europe are applauding you. Fidel Castro wrote a message to congratulate you on your triumph. It seems to me you are surrounding yourself with the wrong friends.
If you're talking about a debt haircut, be honest. Its not extraneous financial institutions that will pay. It's Portugal… Spain… It's the nurses in Poland. You have to think about the dignity of people in other European countries
How can you tell Bulgaria in terms of solidarity that Greece cannot countenance further cuts, when in at least 5 other European countries the standard of living is lower than in Greece. The PM of Slovakia is also thinking about a referendum because the citizens are sick of shelling out for the Greeks.
You engage in confrontation, we engage in compromise. You are looking for failure, we are looking for success."
Lets not forget that the paean of support from Farage is to a bunch of communists.
In terms of the BBC...this is not their job. What company who claim they are short of money and struggling starts getting involved in freebie things that are not close to their core business.
BBC Micro Bit computer's final design revealed
The BBC has revealed the final design of the Micro Bit, a pocket-sized computer set to be given to about one million UK-based children in October.
Yes there are companies involved, but this is the sort of thing the BBC should be not spending time, energy and money on. There is no gap in the market for this stuff as there is now loads of Raspberry Pi type devices available. It is a vanity project, simple as that, and a very good example of BBC overreach.
As a child at the time of the original BBC Micro, I hope it (and the Pi etc) enthuses another generation into technology the same way it (and the speccy) did for me.
I know it isn't the same as a Pi, but on the market now there are loads and loads of options when it comes to micro computing devices, sensors, etc to learn and enthuse about. There is no gap in the market here and something that the commercial world is doing and offering extremely cheaply.
Same could be said of the original BBC Micro.
Getting the device into the hands of school kids who otherwise would have not even looked at the choices out there could spark in some the sort of interest that the BBC Micro did with me. I hope it does.
What the government are in fact now proposing is a vote on subordinate legislation made under the said tyrannical Act of 2004, which by its very nature affirms the validity, continued enforcement and operation of the 2004 Act. The Conservative Party, as ever, will sacrifice individual liberty on the rocks of expediency.
If by 'expediency' you mean realism, yes, indeed so, and quite rightly so. We could either have a Don Quixote-style attempt to repeal the whole Act - which would fail, because the parliamentary arithmetic doesn't add up - or this more limited measure.
Personally I favour a successful if modest move in the right direction to a failed attempt at perfection. Reality trumps fantasy every time for me.
From the FT, the German MEP who followed Tsipiras:
"The prime minister of Greece should apologise for those utterly unacceptable statements [terrorists]. Unfortunately he has passed over them in silence
You are destroying confidence in Europe. You're talking about dignity, but dignity means truth, honesty. You said that the banks are closing because the evil ECB is ratcheting up pressure. You said the banks would be open on Tuesday, it is now Wednesday, you are not being honest with the Greek people
Mr Tsipras, the extremists of Europe are applauding you. Fidel Castro wrote a message to congratulate you on your triumph. It seems to me you are surrounding yourself with the wrong friends.
If you're talking about a debt haircut, be honest. Its not extraneous financial institutions that will pay. It's Portugal… Spain… It's the nurses in Poland. You have to think about the dignity of people in other European countries
How can you tell Bulgaria in terms of solidarity that Greece cannot countenance further cuts, when in at least 5 other European countries the standard of living is lower than in Greece. The PM of Slovakia is also thinking about a referendum because the citizens are sick of shelling out for the Greeks.
You engage in confrontation, we engage in compromise. You are looking for failure, we are looking for success."
Lets not forget that the paean of support from Farage is to a bunch of communists.
Lets not forget that the paean of support from Farage is to a bunch of communists who are about to do untold damage to the EU.
I think the second part is rather more important to Farage than the first, although obviously not to you.
So you don't think that making private rentals less profitable would increase the supply of housing? Time to go back to school I think.
Eh? Making something less profitable reduces supply. Or certainly that was the view when I was at school.
Isn't that Max's goal here - to reduce the supply of let out homes. The existing housing stock, all else being equal does not change. Therefore the level of owner-occupiership must increase.
I'm not arguing the economics of the proposal here. I have no idea on either, but am merely arguing the logic...
Yes, but there are three flaws in that. The first is that rentals will rise to compensate for the increased costs being put on all suppliers, so the effect on profitability will be very limited. The second is that, if there is any effect on profitability, some marginal properties may be taken off the market altogether (neither rented out nor sold to Max's mates). The third is that raising the cost of rentals also raises the marginal cost-effectiveness of owner-occupying, so tenants doing their sums will find that it's worth their while paying more to buy a flat.
It's a game of whack-a-mole. There are too many people chasing too few homes. There is one way, and one way only, of dealing with the problem, which is to build more (or reduce the population, I guess!)
No. Markets are, and have always been rational. Landlords might like to offset their extra cost by raising rents, but in practice the market will laugh at them and the rents will stay the same or there may be some marginal increase.
The best way to increase supply of homes to buy is to unlock existing stock owned by buy-to-let leeches by making it unprofitable to "invest" in it.
The question which has been ignored so far is what effect increasing the cost of BTL would have on asset prices. A not insignificant component of demand for house purchases comes from prospective landlords. If landlords suddenly need a lower price for their sums to add up, it's likely that prices will fall. Previous landlords who were carrying too much debt will find themselves in serious difficulties.
In terms of the BBC...this is not their job. What company who claim they are short of money and struggling starts getting involved in freebie things that are not close to their core business.
BBC Micro Bit computer's final design revealed
The BBC has revealed the final design of the Micro Bit, a pocket-sized computer set to be given to about one million UK-based children in October.
Yes there are companies involved, but this is the sort of thing the BBC should be not spending time, energy and money on. There is no gap in the market for this stuff as there is now loads of Raspberry Pi type devices available. It is a vanity project, simple as that, and a very good example of BBC overreach.
As a child at the time of the original BBC Micro, I hope it (and the Pi etc) enthuses another generation into technology the same way it (and the speccy) did for me.
I know it isn't the same as a Pi, but on the market now there are loads and loads of options when it comes to micro computing devices, sensors, etc to learn and enthuse about. There is no gap in the market here and something that the commercial world is doing and offering extremely cheaply.
Same could be said of the original BBC Micro.
Getting the device into the hands of school kids who otherwise would have not even looked at the choices out there could spark in some the sort of interest that the BBC Micro did with me. I hope it does.
We are in a different era to BBC Micro, there is absolutely no dearth of options.
If the government want to encourage this stuff (and they should), they should fund schools to purchase the devices and encourage classes which utilise them. The cost wouldn't be very much, as commercial options are very cheap.
It isn't for the BBC to create a crappier product than those on the market and give away for free.
By your logic, the BBC could and should get involved in creating all sorts of educational equipment. How about interactive white boards, what about Bunsen burners? The reason they have got involved in this is it is currently sexy and it is vanity project.
The BBC is the state broadcaster, they should be tasked with creating impartial high quality programming, which range from entertainment to education. They shoudn't be pissing about buying the Lonely Planet or building micro computers, when the commercial world has plenty of options already.
So you don't think that making private rentals less profitable would increase the supply of housing? Time to go back to school I think.
Eh? Making something less profitable reduces supply. Or certainly that was the view when I was at school.
Isn't that Max's goal here - to reduce the supply of let out homes. The existing housing stock, all else being equal does not change. Therefore the level of owner-occupiership must increase.
I'm not arguing the economics of the proposal here. I have no idea on either, but am merely arguing the logic...
Yes, but there are three flaws in that. The first is that rentals will rise to compensate for the increased costs being put on all suppliers, so the effect on profitability will be very limited. The second is that, if there is any effect on profitability, some marginal properties may be taken off the market altogether (neither rented out nor sold to Max's mates). The third is that raising the cost of rentals also raises the marginal cost-effectiveness of owner-occupying, so tenants doing their sums will find that it's worth their while paying more to buy a flat.
It's a game of whack-a-mole. There are too many people chasing too few homes. There is one way, and one way only, of dealing with the problem, which is to build more (or reduce the population, I guess!)
No. Markets are, and have always been rational. Landlords might like to offset their extra cost by raising rents, but in practice the market will laugh at them and the rents will stay the same or there may be some marginal increase.
The best way to increase supply of homes to buy is to unlock existing stock owned by buy-to-let leeches by making it unprofitable to "invest" in it.
No the best way to increase supply of homes is to build new homes. Many new homes are paid for by what you disgustingly call leeches. Not sure who you think is supposed to pay for these new builds that provide a service of having homes built for people to live in if they're removed.
Unless you are a complete idiot and buy a property with structural problems then sure, it is a risk-free investment at the moment. If mortgage interest could no longer be offset then I wouldn't hold that view.
So you don't think that making private rentals less profitable would increase the supply of housing? Time to go back to school I think.
Eh? Making something less profitable reduces supply. Or certainly that was the view when I was at school.
Isn't that Max's goal here - to reduce the supply of let out homes. The existing housing stock, all else being equal does not change. Therefore the level of owner-occupiership must increase.
I'm not arguing the economics of the proposal here. I have no idea on either, but am merely arguing the logic...
Yes, but there are three flaws in that. The first is that rentals will rise to compensate for the increased costs being put on all suppliers, so the effect on profitability will be very limited. The second is that, if there is any effect on profitability, some marginal properties may be taken off the market altogether (neither rented out nor sold to Max's mates). The third is that raising the cost of rentals also raises the marginal cost-effectiveness of owner-occupying, so tenants doing their sums will find that it's worth their while paying more to buy a flat.
It's a game of whack-a-mole. There are too many people chasing too few homes. There is one way, and one way only, of dealing with the problem, which is to build more (or reduce the population, I guess!)
No. Markets are, and have always been rational. Landlords might like to offset their extra cost by raising rents, but in practice the market will laugh at them and the rents will stay the same or there may be some marginal increase.
The best way to increase supply of homes to buy is to unlock existing stock owned by buy-to-let leeches by making it unprofitable to "invest" in it.
Really... and all those people with casual jobs, and on benefit, or in their fifties with little equity, how do they buy these houses now they are not available to rent ? As was said earlier, its a nice bung for Mr & Mrs Middle Class, for the poor minimum wage earner, no so much.
So you don't think that making private rentals less profitable would increase the supply of housing? Time to go back to school I think.
Eh? Making something less profitable reduces supply. Or certainly that was the view when I was at school.
Isn't that Max's goal here - to reduce the supply of let out homes. The existing housing stock, all else being equal does not change. Therefore the level of owner-occupiership must increase.
I'm not arguing the economics of the proposal here. I have no idea on either, but am merely arguing the logic...
Yes, but there are three flaws in that. The first is that rentals will rise to compensate for the increased costs being put on all suppliers, so the effect on profitability will be very limited. The second is that, if there is any effect on profitability, some marginal properties may be taken off the market altogether (neither rented out nor sold to Max's mates). The third is that raising the cost of rentals also raises the marginal cost-effectiveness of owner-occupying, so tenants doing their sums will find that it's worth their while paying more to buy a flat.
It's a game of whack-a-mole. There are too many people chasing too few homes. There is one way, and one way only, of dealing with the problem, which is to build more (or reduce the population, I guess!)
No. Markets are, and have always been rational. Landlords might like to offset their extra cost by raising rents, but in practice the market will laugh at them and the rents will stay the same or there may be some marginal increase.
The best way to increase supply of homes to buy is to unlock existing stock owned by buy-to-let leeches by making it unprofitable to "invest" in it.
No the best way to increase supply of homes is to build new homes. Many new homes are paid for by what you disgustingly call leeches. Not sure who you think is supposed to pay for these new builds that provide a service of having homes built for people to live in if they're removed.
I said earlier, exempt build-to-let from any tax changes, encourage properties to be build and discourage existing property investment. Carrot and stick.
Unless you are a complete idiot and buy a property with structural problems then sure, it is a risk-free investment at the moment. If mortgage interest could no longer be offset then I wouldn't hold that view.
Not if property values go down. Or if you get dodgy tenants who trash your property (yes there's insurance but still major costs involved).
The "great" Lucy Powell on BBC2 at present..... "growth not yet reaching all parts of the country". Sticking to that Heineken strategy.
@stephenpollard Labour has put Lucy Powell up on BBC. Seriously? The woman whose every move under Miliband was a disaster. They really must have given up
In terms of the BBC...this is not their job. What company who claim they are short of money and struggling starts getting involved in freebie things that are not close to their core business.
BBC Micro Bit computer's final design revealed
The BBC has revealed the final design of the Micro Bit, a pocket-sized computer set to be given to about one million UK-based children in October.
Yes there are companies involved, but this is the sort of thing the BBC should be not spending time, energy and money on. There is no gap in the market for this stuff as there is now loads of Raspberry Pi type devices available. It is a vanity project, simple as that, and a very good example of BBC overreach.
As a child at the time of the original BBC Micro, I hope it (and the Pi etc) enthuses another generation into technology the same way it (and the speccy) did for me.
I know it isn't the same as a Pi, but on the market now there are loads and loads of options when it comes to micro computing devices, sensors, etc to learn and enthuse about. There is no gap in the market here and something that the commercial world is doing and offering extremely cheaply.
Same could be said of the original BBC Micro.
Getting the device into the hands of school kids who otherwise would have not even looked at the choices out there could spark in some the sort of interest that the BBC Micro did with me. I hope it does.
The BBC is the state broadcaster, they should be tasked with creating impartial high quality programming, which range from entertainment to education. They shoudn't be pissing about buying the Lonely Planet or building micro computers, when the commercial world has plenty of options already.
So the Conservative manifesto, on which the party won a majority, contained fantastical promises? That is a surprising admission, given your repeated claims about the unique responsibility of the party in government. It may well be that an attempt to repeal the 2004 Act would fail. All the government needs to do to meet its promise is to put a Bill before the Commons. That cannot be described as fantastic. Were the Bill to fall, there would be nothing to stop the government bringing forward the more limited measure it now claims amounts to the fulfilment of its solemn promise to the people of England, who have suffered for nearly a decade under the slavery of the 2004 Act. The apostasy from this promise, is, however, properly described as dishonesty.
Unless you are a complete idiot and buy a property with structural problems then sure, it is a risk-free investment at the moment. If mortgage interest could no longer be offset then I wouldn't hold that view.
Unless you are a complete idiot and buy a property with structural problems then sure, it is a risk-free investment at the moment. If mortgage interest could no longer be offset then I wouldn't hold that view.
Not if property values go down. Or if you get dodgy tenants who trash your property (yes there's insurance but still major costs involved).
That's a fairly minimal risk in the current and future climate of high immigration, no new builds.
From the FT, the German MEP who followed Tsipiras:
"The prime minister of Greece should apologise for those utterly unacceptable statements [terrorists]. Unfortunately he has passed over them in silence
You are destroying confidence in Europe. You're talking about dignity, but dignity means truth, honesty. You said that the banks are closing because the evil ECB is ratcheting up pressure. You said the banks would be open on Tuesday, it is now Wednesday, you are not being honest with the Greek people
Mr Tsipras, the extremists of Europe are applauding you. Fidel Castro wrote a message to congratulate you on your triumph. It seems to me you are surrounding yourself with the wrong friends.
If you're talking about a debt haircut, be honest. Its not extraneous financial institutions that will pay. It's Portugal… Spain… It's the nurses in Poland. You have to think about the dignity of people in other European countries
How can you tell Bulgaria in terms of solidarity that Greece cannot countenance further cuts, when in at least 5 other European countries the standard of living is lower than in Greece. The PM of Slovakia is also thinking about a referendum because the citizens are sick of shelling out for the Greeks.
You engage in confrontation, we engage in compromise. You are looking for failure, we are looking for success."
From this side of the Channel, the sound of harmony in Euroland is deafening.
This is the kind of opportunity that comes to politicians but rarely. A disorganised, leaderless opposition completely bereft of ideas, a new majority, an economy that is motoring away, pretty much full employment and time to fix things before another election.
If Osborne cannot change Britain today then he never will.
Yes, it is an issue which doesn't affect Scotland, so in the unlikely event that the SNP are not hypocritical, they should abstain.
In fact, it's even better than that: the proposal is to bring the law in England & Wales in line with that in Scotland. It's not a complete repeal of the Hunting Act. So it's hard to see how the SNP could justify voting against: it might, therefore, pass.
The Conservatives have once again broken their manifesto promise on this issue, and this time they cannot dishonestly use the fact of coalition as an excuse. The manifesto promised (at p. 23) that:
A Conservative Government will give Parliament the opportunity to repeal the Hunting Act [2004] on a free vote, with a government bill in government time.
What the government are in fact now proposing is a vote on subordinate legislation made under the said tyrannical Act of 2004, which by its very nature affirms the validity, continued enforcement and operation of the 2004 Act. The Conservative Party, as ever, will sacrifice individual liberty on the rocks of expediency.
What an utter myopic pontificator you are. This 'expedient' has a chance of actually getting through and will still allow fox hunting to go on as it does in Scotland now. A repeal would probably fail.
So you don't think that making private rentals less profitable would increase the supply of housing? Time to go back to school I think.
Eh? Making something less profitable reduces supply. Or certainly that was the view when I was at school.
Isn't that Max's goal here - to reduce the supply of let out homes. The existing housing stock, all else being equal does not change. Therefore the level of owner-occupiership must increase.
I'm not arguing the economics of the proposal here. I have no idea on either, but am merely arguing the logic...
Yes, but there are three flaws in that. The first is that rentals will rise to compensate for the increased costs being put on all suppliers, so the effect on profitability will be very limited. The second is that, if there is any effect on profitability, some marginal properties may be taken off the market altogether (neither rented out nor sold to Max's mates). The third is that raising the cost of rentals also raises the marginal cost-effectiveness of owner-occupying, so tenants doing their sums will find that it's worth their while paying more to buy a flat.
It's a game of whack-a-mole. There are too many people chasing too few homes. There is one way, and one way only, of dealing with the problem, which is to build more (or reduce the population, I guess!)
No. Markets are, and have always been rational. Landlords might like to offset their extra cost by raising rents, but in practice the market will laugh at them and the rents will stay the same or there may be some marginal increase.
The best way to increase supply of homes to buy is to unlock existing stock owned by buy-to-let leeches by making it unprofitable to "invest" in it.
No the best way to increase supply of homes is to build new homes. Many new homes are paid for by what you disgustingly call leeches. Not sure who you think is supposed to pay for these new builds that provide a service of having homes built for people to live in if they're removed.
I said earlier, exempt build-to-let from any tax changes, encourage properties to be build and discourage existing property investment. Carrot and stick.
Except there's a circle of investment, a ladder. If someone is thinking buying a build-to-let they'll know that in the future they'll want to sell it on; but if you're ruling out half the potential buyers then are they going to be as interested or confident in investing and building in the first place?
Unless you are a complete idiot and buy a property with structural problems then sure, it is a risk-free investment at the moment. If mortgage interest could no longer be offset then I wouldn't hold that view.
Only a complete idiot thinks there is any such thing as a risk-free investment (except perhaps top-quality sovereign debt held to maturity). Historically investment in UK property has been really quite risky - look at what happened after 1990 or 2008. Of course a geared play is especially risky. Average returns over the past 40 years have been good but not exceptional compared with other asset classes of similar riskiness.
So you don't think that making private rentals less profitable would increase the supply of housing? Time to go back to school I think.
Eh? Making something less profitable reduces supply. Or certainly that was the view when I was at school.
Isn't that Max's goal here - to reduce the supply of let out homes. The existing housing stock, all else being equal does not change. Therefore the level of owner-occupiership must increase.
I'm not arguing the economics of the proposal here. I have no idea on either, but am merely arguing the logic...
Yes, but there are three flaws in that. The first is that rentals will rise to compensate for the increased costs being put on all suppliers, so the effect on profitability will be very limited. The second is that, if there is any effect on profitability, some marginal properties may be taken off the market altogether (neither rented out nor sold to Max's mates). The third is that raising the cost of rentals also raises the marginal cost-effectiveness of owner-occupying, so tenants doing their sums will find that it's worth their while paying more to buy a flat.
It's a game of whack-a-mole. There are too many people chasing too few homes. There is one way, and one way only, of dealing with the problem, which is to build more (or reduce the population, I guess!)
No. Markets are, and have always been rational. Landlords might like to offset their extra cost by raising rents, but in practice the market will laugh at them and the rents will stay the same or there may be some marginal increase.
The best way to increase supply of homes to buy is to unlock existing stock owned by buy-to-let leeches by making it unprofitable to "invest" in it.
Really... and all those people with casual jobs, and on benefit, or in their fifties with little equity, how do they buy these houses now they are not available to rent ? As was said earlier, its a nice bung for Mr & Mrs Middle Class, for the poor minimum wage earner, no so much.
There was a poster here called Boobajob who was continually whining about how tough it was to buy a house in a trendy and expensive part of London, because he couldn't be arsed to lower himself to commuting with ordinary people. He was another one to ignore.
Unless you are a complete idiot and buy a property with structural problems then sure, it is a risk-free investment at the moment. If mortgage interest could no longer be offset then I wouldn't hold that view.
Yes, it is an issue which doesn't affect Scotland, so in the unlikely event that the SNP are not hypocritical, they should abstain.
In fact, it's even better than that: the proposal is to bring the law in England & Wales in line with that in Scotland. It's not a complete repeal of the Hunting Act. So it's hard to see how the SNP could justify voting against: it might, therefore, pass.
The Conservatives have once again broken their manifesto promise on this issue, and this time they cannot dishonestly use the fact of coalition as an excuse. The manifesto promised (at p. 23) that:
A Conservative Government will give Parliament the opportunity to repeal the Hunting Act [2004] on a free vote, with a government bill in government time.
What the government are in fact now proposing is a vote on subordinate legislation made under the said tyrannical Act of 2004, which by its very nature affirms the validity, continued enforcement and operation of the 2004 Act. The Conservative Party, as ever, will sacrifice individual liberty on the rocks of expediency.
What an utter myopic pontificator you are. This 'expedient' has a chance of actually getting through and will still allow fox hunting to go on as it does in Scotland now. A repeal would probably fail.
I can see you follow the lead of Mr Cameron with your "enviable moral manoeuvrability and intellectual suppleness". Cameron not for the first time promised the British people something he had no intention of keeping. All of the above was known before the manifesto was written, and yet it was still put in the manifesto. No wonder he is being so quite about Mr Tsipiras' mutterings. No ifs, no buts, remember.
Unless you are a complete idiot and buy a property with structural problems then sure, it is a risk-free investment at the moment. If mortgage interest could no longer be offset then I wouldn't hold that view.
Not if property values go down. Or if you get dodgy tenants who trash your property (yes there's insurance but still major costs involved).
That's a fairly minimal risk in the current and future climate of high immigration, no new builds.
No new builds? Funny that given I live in a new build that we bought as our first home. Check your facts the reality we have more than a hundred thousand homes built each year. Ideally it should be more, but over 100k is not none. Furthermore cutting that won't help.
@tnewtondunn: Breaking: David Cameron will offer MPs a free vote to repeal the ban on traditional fox hunts next Thursday http://t.co/C8Zrl6xlAN
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) & Kevin Foster (Torbay)
Will be voting against.
Kate Hoey I think is in favour.
Most of Labour against, most Tories in favour of repeal otherwise ?
What will the SNP do.
Isn't Anna Soubry Anti hunt too?
There will be 20 or so Tory MPs voting against, e.g. Simon Kirby (Kemptown) and Roger Gale. AS has said she doesn't think change is a priority - I'd have thought on a free vote she'd be against, no point in annoying a lot of constituents (the hunting community in Broxtowe is roughly zero), and that may be the case for quite a few in marginal seats. Kate Hoey was a Middle Way supporter and might go for Cameron's idea.
Unless you are a complete idiot and buy a property with structural problems then sure, it is a risk-free investment at the moment. If mortgage interest could no longer be offset then I wouldn't hold that view.
Only a complete idiot thinks there is any such thing as a risk-free investment (except perhaps top-quality sovereign debt held to maturity). Historically investment in UK property has been really quite risky - look at what happened after 1990 or 2008. Of course a geared play is especially risky. Average returns over the past 40 years have been good but not exceptional compared with other asset classes of similar riskiness.
I remember in 2009/10 how many BTL landlords found themselves being sequestrated and their properties repossessed as they found they could not renew their loan arrangements from banks that were desperate to reduce their balance sheets by fair means or foul.
What I object to in the BTL market is the extent to which rental income is being supported and maintained by HB. If anyone wants to attack BTL for social reasons or otherwise that is surely the point of attack, not debt interest.
Unless you are a complete idiot and buy a property with structural problems then sure, it is a risk-free investment at the moment. If mortgage interest could no longer be offset then I wouldn't hold that view.
Why oh why are Labour picking a process fight over EVEL? Hattie sounds so out of touch.
Not as much as the Labourites picking a fight over Sunday trading hours. Do they really think the public will be in uproar if Tesco's Extra opens 9am-9pm on a Sunday, when they currently go to Tesco's Metro for their goods on a Sunday.
Unless you are a complete idiot and buy a property with structural problems then sure, it is a risk-free investment at the moment. If mortgage interest could no longer be offset then I wouldn't hold that view.
A small majority. You don't seem to have quite understood this point.
Yes, we could have a free vote, and the Hunting Act would remain unchanged on the statute book. Would that be better?
The size of the Conservatives' majority would not prevent them bringing forward a Bill. Were such a Bill to be defeated, the government could always do what it is now proposing in substitution for its manifesto promise. Slavish adherence to party policy, no matter how dishonest or disreputable, does you no favours.
Why oh why are Labour picking a process fight over EVEL? Hattie sounds so out of touch.
Not as much as the Labourites picking a fight over Sunday trading hours. Do they really think the public will be in uproar if Tesco's Extra opens 9am-9pm on a Sunday, when they currently go to Tesco's Metro for their goods on a Sunday.
What I object to in the BTL market is the extent to which rental income is being supported and maintained by HB. If anyone wants to attack BTL for social reasons or otherwise that is surely the point of attack, not debt interest.
Yes, precisely.
I came across an interesting pair of statistics recently. I'd be interested in people's guesses as to the correct answers to these two questions (no Googling!):
1. How often does the average house change hands (i.e. number of years)?
2. What proportion of housing transactions are new-build?
The reason to end Buy-to-let mortage relief is that home owners (rightly) don't get mortgage relief
Person A goes up against Landlord B to buy a house. Lanlord B can afford a larger mortgage as they get tax relief on the interest.
Person A is frozen out of buying the house.
That assumes Person A and Person B have identical means, which seems unlikely. Person A might also be frozen out by Person C who has a better job, Person D who has a better credit history or Person E who has just inherited a tidy sum from his Auntie.
Why oh why are Labour picking a process fight over EVEL? Hattie sounds so out of touch.
Especially as it's not even English votes for English laws. It's English votes for English laws at First Reading. The Scots and Welsh still vote and make amendments to the final bill.
So you don't think that making private rentals less profitable would increase the supply of housing? Time to go back to school I think.
Eh? Making something less profitable reduces supply. Or certainly that was the view when I was at school.
Isn't that Max's goal here - to reduce the supply of let out homes. The existing housing stock, all else being equal does not change. Therefore the level of owner-occupiership must increase.
I'm not arguing the economics of the proposal here. I have no idea on either, but am merely arguing the logic...
Yes, but there are three flaws in that. The first is that rentals will rise to compensate for the increased costs being put on all suppliers, so the effect on profitability will be very limited. The second is that, if there is any effect on profitability, some marginal properties may be taken off the market altogether (neither rented out nor sold to Max's mates). The third is that raising the cost of rentals also raises the marginal cost-effectiveness of owner-occupying, so tenants doing their sums will find that it's worth their while paying more to buy a flat.
It's a game of whack-a-mole. There are too many people chasing too few homes. There is one way, and one way only, of dealing with the problem, which is to build more (or reduce the population, I guess!)
No. Markets are, and have always been rational. Landlords might like to offset their extra cost by raising rents, but in practice the market will laugh at them and the rents will stay the same or there may be some marginal increase.
The best way to increase supply of homes to buy is to unlock existing stock owned by buy-to-let leeches by making it unprofitable to "invest" in it.
Really... and all those people with casual jobs, and on benefit, or in their fifties with little equity, how do they buy these houses now they are not available to rent ? As was said earlier, its a nice bung for Mr & Mrs Middle Class, for the poor minimum wage earner, no so much.
There was a poster here called Boobajob who was continually whining about how tough it was to buy a house in a trendy and expensive part of London, because he couldn't be arsed to lower himself to commuting with ordinary people. He was another one to ignore.
You end up paying a lot for a season ticket to commute in from the home counties, as I do, so it's questionable how much more affordable it is.
What I object to in the BTL market is the extent to which rental income is being supported and maintained by HB. If anyone wants to attack BTL for social reasons or otherwise that is surely the point of attack, not debt interest.
Yes, precisely.
I came across an interesting pair of statistics recently. I'd be interested in people's guesses as to the correct answers to these two questions (no Googling!):
1. How often does the average house change hands (i.e. number of years)?
2. What proportion of housing transactions are new-build?
Comments
If the latter, SNP surely should abstain.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33439003
Another victory for the CPS.
The Local Government (Contracts) Act 1997 is, contrary to the suggestion in the article, of crucial significance, because it has the effect of validating otherwise ultra vires contracts which are certified under the provisions of that Act. Had the contracts in Hazell been so certified, it is likely they would have been declared valid and subsisting in private law. Albeit it is a wholly unconstitutional provision, it is still the law of the land. There is a similar regime in respect of contracts subject to European public procurement law.
The power of the general competence in s. 1(1) of the Localism Act 2011 (another wholly unconstitutional provision) is unlikely to have modified the law as stated in Hazell, since it is arguable Hazell established a pre-commencement limitation within the meaning of s. 2(2)(a) of the 2011 Act, or, in the alternative, that gambling of the sort identified in Hazell is done for a commercial purpose, and can only be done by a company set up by the local authority, for whose activities the authority would not be liable as a matter of company law (see s. 4 of the 2011 Act; Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] 2 AC 415 (SC)).
Fourthly, the saving for a local authority today, should a contract be held to be unlawful in public law, is likely to be considerably less than was thought at the time of Hazell because of subsequent developments in the law of restitution (see, in particular, Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council [1999] 2 AC 349 (HL); Sempra Metals Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners [2008] 1 AC 561 (HL)). There is no doubt that the banks would recover capital sums and compound interest today. Would there even be room for gain based damages?
I am not bothered about the eurozone, I am glad we are not in it and we will not join it. But its hardly in our interests to see a poor european economy. What is in our interest is to negotiate a way to protect ourselves from the knock on effects of closer eurozone ties. That might end up with us formally leaving the EU. I don't think it will, but it might. Even if we end up simply being in the EEA, that will not make much real economic and trading difference and the EU/Eurozone will not go away and we will have to still deal with it.
In any case the fox hunters don't seem to be very good at hunting down foxes in suburbs.
Two spontaneous conversations about Greece with the plumber who saw me watching Sky News, said they were insane and was pretty knowledgeable about it - and then an hour later with two delivery guys from Tesco who also thought the Greeks deserved it/spent too much and joked about pitta bread in my order.
Now, if those three chaps - who were the definition of Joe Ordinary have taken that much notice of it - it's clearly going to be a useful stick to beat anti-austerity protesters.
A most peculiar couple of hours discussing something I never expected to.
I'm not talking about new builds, I'm talking about existing stock. There is, and has always been enough existing stock in the UK to meet demand, but so much of it is tied up with private landlords trying to gouge the generations below them that we have shortages.
In fact, it's even better than that: the proposal is to bring the law in England & Wales in line with that in Scotland. It's not a complete repeal of the Hunting Act. So it's hard to see how the SNP could justify voting against: it might, therefore, pass.
Evolution is a Theory (with a capital T). AIUI (am not a scientist) that's only one level below being a Law. So, pretty much proven.
Climate change is a thesis that has been proposed. It fits some of the data, while it is contradicted by other data. It's in no way "settled" even if the current consensus among the scientific community is supportive of thesis.
The remainder, those people who want to rent rather than buy, very often the poorer in society, will now find the supply of potential rental properties diminished and/or see their rents go up to cover the added costs of the landlords. They will probably be less happy.
I'm unclear what public policy purpose is served by favouring nice young middle class people at the expense of the poorer in society, but I can see that it would be enormously popular with nice young middle class people who would no doubt try hard to persuade themselves that there was a wider public policy purpose.
Will the good people of Greece line up to applaud Farage when the consequences of his sage advice come to fruition?
For one thing (and there must be many more) the poor people in Greece will hardly benefit from the eruption in inflation that will ensue and with devaluation following devaluation the poor will not see much benefit thereafter.
Even assuming Greece could get anyone to lend to them, the debasing of their currency which would follow the inevitable merry go round of paying for its spending by printing more of the worthless stuff would only be a tiny figleaf to cover its increasing poverty.
We only need to look at ours own history to see where the chimera of competitiveness and productivity based on a falling currency leads.
I'm not arguing the economics of the proposal here. I have no idea on either, but am merely arguing the logic...
I have faith in the rationality of renters, you clearly don't. Unsurprising given that you can't even see there is an issue with capital moving in the wrong direction at the moment from people who work (renters) to people who don't (landlords). Exempt build-to-let so new builds are not discouraged and just have at the leeches who buy up existing property to make a quick buck off people who actually go out to work for their income.
BBC Micro Bit computer's final design revealed
The BBC has revealed the final design of the Micro Bit, a pocket-sized computer set to be given to about one million UK-based children in October.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-33409311
Yes there are companies involved, but this is the sort of thing the BBC should be not spending time, energy and money on. There is no gap in the market for this stuff as there is now loads of Raspberry Pi type devices available. It is a vanity project, simple as that, and a very good example of BBC overreach.
If prices go up people's calculus changes. They become more willing to share, couples stay together longer than they may wish, children stay with their parents for longer, etc.
"The prime minister of Greece should apologise for those utterly unacceptable statements [terrorists]. Unfortunately he has passed over them in silence
You are destroying confidence in Europe. You're talking about dignity, but dignity means truth, honesty. You said that the banks are closing because the evil ECB is ratcheting up pressure. You said the banks would be open on Tuesday, it is now Wednesday, you are not being honest with the Greek people
Mr Tsipras, the extremists of Europe are applauding you. Fidel Castro wrote a message to congratulate you on your triumph. It seems to me you are surrounding yourself with the wrong friends.
If you're talking about a debt haircut, be honest. Its not extraneous financial institutions that will pay. It's Portugal… Spain… It's the nurses in Poland. You have to think about the dignity of people in other European countries
How can you tell Bulgaria in terms of solidarity that Greece cannot countenance further cuts, when in at least 5 other European countries the standard of living is lower than in Greece. The PM of Slovakia is also thinking about a referendum because the citizens are sick of shelling out for the Greeks.
You engage in confrontation, we engage in compromise. You are looking for failure, we are looking for success."
In Short Term (next 1yr+)
= Fewer properties offered for rent & increase in rent charges
= More properties offered for sale & small/nil reductions in house prices (but probably less than the rent reduction due to CGT).
= Some irate Conservative voters
= More tax raised
In Longer Term (>3yrs)
= Less property built with massive decline of BTL purchasing
= Higher rental costs
= Similar property prices to the market trends before the BTL change
= Similar tax raised in line with long term trends before the BTL change
Reviving this classic 20yrs after the event? Just no. No and No.
It's a game of whack-a-mole. There are too many people chasing too few homes. There is one way, and one way only, of dealing with the problem, which is to build more (or reduce the population, I guess!)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/more-britons-believe-that-multiculturalism-makes-the-country-worse--not-better-says-poll-10366003.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/07/bbc_microbit_final_specification_announced_a_million_devices_to_be_flung_at_schools_in_october/?page=2
As a child at the time of the original BBC Micro, I hope it (and the Pi etc) enthuses another generation into technology the same way it (and the speccy) did for me.
The fact that the BBC is not objective in this is a disgrace and a dereliction of its statutory duty. No doubt if opponents to global warming theories daubed their slogans on a black flag they would get a better hearing.
There is no gap in the market here in terms of range of offerings and something that the commercial world is doing and offering extremely cheaply. There is no place for the tax payer funded state broadcaster to make a vanity project and give away for free, especially when they claim they are broke.
Getting the device into the hands of school kids who otherwise would have not even looked at the choices out there could spark in some the sort of interest that the BBC Micro did with me. I hope it does.
Personally I favour a successful if modest move in the right direction to a failed attempt at perfection. Reality trumps fantasy every time for me.
I think the second part is rather more important to Farage than the first, although obviously not to you.
The best way to increase supply of homes to buy is to unlock existing stock owned by buy-to-let leeches by making it unprofitable to "invest" in it.
http://www.sportingindex.com/spread-betting/politics/british/mm4.uk.meeting.5291168/the-2015-emergency-budget
If the government want to encourage this stuff (and they should), they should fund schools to purchase the devices and encourage classes which utilise them. The cost wouldn't be very much, as commercial options are very cheap.
It isn't for the BBC to create a crappier product than those on the market and give away for free.
By your logic, the BBC could and should get involved in creating all sorts of educational equipment. How about interactive white boards, what about Bunsen burners? The reason they have got involved in this is it is currently sexy and it is vanity project.
The BBC is the state broadcaster, they should be tasked with creating impartial high quality programming, which range from entertainment to education. They shoudn't be pissing about buying the Lonely Planet or building micro computers, when the commercial world has plenty of options already.
@stephenpollard
Labour has put Lucy Powell up on BBC. Seriously? The woman whose every move under Miliband was a disaster. They really must have given up
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-26389009
I seem to remember rather a lot of people being in negative equity in the 80s.
If Osborne cannot change Britain today then he never will.
I expect him to give it a pretty good shot.
What an utter myopic pontificator you are. This 'expedient' has a chance of actually getting through and will still allow fox hunting to go on as it does in Scotland now. A repeal would probably fail.
I can see you follow the lead of Mr Cameron with your "enviable moral manoeuvrability and intellectual suppleness". Cameron not for the first time promised the British people something he had no intention of keeping. All of the above was known before the manifesto was written, and yet it was still put in the manifesto. No wonder he is being so quite about Mr Tsipiras' mutterings. No ifs, no buts, remember.
Person A goes up against Landlord B to buy a house. Lanlord B can afford a larger mortgage as they get tax relief on the interest.
Person A is frozen out of buying the house.
What I object to in the BTL market is the extent to which rental income is being supported and maintained by HB. If anyone wants to attack BTL for social reasons or otherwise that is surely the point of attack, not debt interest.
Yes, we could have a free vote, and the Hunting Act would remain unchanged on the statute book. Would that be better?
I came across an interesting pair of statistics recently. I'd be interested in people's guesses as to the correct answers to these two questions (no Googling!):
1. How often does the average house change hands (i.e. number of years)?
2. What proportion of housing transactions are new-build?
On the other hand, it remains infinitely better than the aspirations of some to carve England into pathetic little political fiefdoms.
15-20%
How did I do?