Labour knows what it's for. It has values and principles coming out of its ears. It spends far too much time agonising or talking about them.
What Labour needs is fresh ideas about how to put these ideas into practice. And then the competence to communicate the ideas and execute a plan.
Its actually annoyingly simple.
That's a good point. It's one thing to say that tax should be progressive and redistributive, another to go into an election promising to raise the 40% income tax rate to 45%.
Both Smith and Corbyn have said they would restore the 50% top income tax rate, a policy that is still quite popular. Accepting Osborne's inheritance tax cut would be a more sensible concession for Labour to make as that was liked by the public far more than his cut in the top income tax rate
Have they not shown that more was collected at the lower rate than the higher? The 50% rate would have been more acceptable had Brown done this 3 years earlier rather than 3 weeks before being ejected at the fag end of his calamitous government.
It's spite politics pure and simple and gained nothing in the longer term. Squeezing so "the pips squeak" as a cohesive tax principle simply doesn't work anymore except for people who want to go back to the 60's
A majority of the public backed the 50% tax rate when it was introduced. I did not support it personally but it is not a policy Labour has to reverse to win a general election regardless of its economic merits
I agree they probably don't. A tax policy should have a beneficial outcome and quite simply this outcome had no benefit to the Uk treasury yet did
1) appease Labour grass roots and make it harder for incoming government 2) gave Labour years of ammunition from 2010 onwards to prevent that damage being undone by stating any reduction would mean Tories are for the rich. **
** this after Labour and Brown retained it at the lower rate for 12 years and 11 months of a Labour government.
Labour knows what it's for. It has values and principles coming out of its ears. It spends far too much time agonising or talking about them.
What Labour needs is fresh ideas about how to put these ideas into practice. And then the competence to communicate the ideas and execute a plan.
Its actually annoyingly simple.
That's a good point. It's one thing to say that tax should be progressive and redistributive, another to go into an election promising to raise the 40% income tax rate to 45%.
Both Smith and Corbyn have said they would restore the 50% top income tax rate, a policy that is still quite popular. Accepting Osborne's inheritance tax cut would be a more sensible concession for Labour to make as that was liked by the public far more than his cut in the top income tax rate
Have they not shown that more was collected at the lower rate than the higher? The 50% rate would have been more acceptable had Brown done this 3 years earlier rather than 3 weeks before being ejected at the fag end of his calamitous government.
It's spite politics pure and simple and gained nothing in the longer term. Squeezing so "the pips squeak" as a cohesive tax principle simply doesn't work anymore except for people who want to go back to the 60's
A majority of the public backed the 50% tax rate when it was introduced. I did not support it personally but it is not a policy Labour has to reverse to win a general election regardless of its economic merits
Levy council tax on rented properties on the owner not the tenant and double it.
Hint, rents go up.
Increase the levies so much that it makes being a landlord unprofitable. Leeches on society deserved to be treated like parasites.
I guess you'll be selling up when you move to Switzerland then?
Probably. I'll be taking most of my stuff with me, everything else I'll give away or give to my parents.
Fair play if so. I don't usually make personal comments on here but that's the position I found myself in and it touched a nerve!
I'm not a landlord because I want to be a scumbag, I'm a landlord because I moved with work and wanted to keep somewhere I could go back to if circumstances changed (or prices massively increased and priced me out). A lot of landlords are in the same position.
Mr. Speedy, wouldn't that entail more than doubling the tax most businesses pay?
Not that sure that'll do much for the UK's reputation as a place to do business.
What is the total of Corporate tax plus VAT compared with an Income tax on book income, to level the two ?
You don't need to impose the current level of income tax on corporations, just enough to equalize the theoretical tax burden between the two systems, (in practice it could be much lower due to the extra efficiency of collecting taxes directly from the source).
I'm sure that a few percentages tax on book income will be more efficient in collecting taxes than the present system, especially with multinational companies who use subsidiaries to avoid paying tax.
Discouraging saving and investment isn't really beneficial to long term economic growth
I guess you could leave rates as they are for say the first £3k a year or so of investment income. What I'm getting at is people having so much such income that they can reduce working or not need to work at all.
It is iniquitous that such people pay just 10% income tax, while those who have to work pay 32% (20% + 12% NI)
The problem with a sales tax is that it deals poorly with businesses that intrinsically low margin.
Take pharmaceutical distributors. Their job is to buy drugs from drug companies and be able to deliver pretty much anything in under a day to any pharmacy in the UK. It's a low margin business: you might buy a packet of pills for $1,000, and you might get just $1,005 from the pharmacy for it. (Holding inventory, per se, is not a very high margin business.) But if you sales taxes the pharmaceutical wholesale business it would simply not exist. Pharmacies would instead have to buy direct from drug companies. And the drug companies aren't set up to deal with ten thousand plus pharmacies: they're set up to deal with a dozen pharmacy distribution businesses.
(In case you're wondering: pharmaceutical distributors exist all around the world: there's McKesson in the US, and Celesio in Germany, etc.)
Gross margins in the pharmaceutical distribution business are closer to 7-8% [i.e. $1,000 --> $1,070 not $1,005]. And Celesio is part of McKesson...
But apart from that, great post!
(Just teasing...your point is very fair. It's also a business where, if you do it right, you can make a lot of money. Stefano is now a billionaire many times over having started with a loss-making pharmaceutical business in Naples with revenues of $1m. One of the most impressive business careers that there is - and a pretty decent guy (although as sharp as tacks and takes no prisoners... I think it took Stefano 3 months to replace the chief executive of Walgreens after he sold Alliance Boots to him)
Yes, my knowledge is a few years out of date
Actually replacing Corporation tax and VAT with Income&Sales tax on Corporations might get rid of the tricks most corporations do to reduce their profits on paper.
Also it is a just move, if income tax is good for people then it's just as good for corporations.
The logical consequence of a sales tax on companies is that you end up with massively vertically integrated firms.
Company A buys iron ore and turns it into steel. They then sell this to a machining shop. (Kerching: sales tax!)
The machining shop then turns it into useful components, and sells it to a car gearbox maker. (Kerching: sales tax!)
The car gearbox maker then sells to a car manufacturer. (Kerching: sales tax!)
The car manufacturer then sells to a car dealership. (Kerching: sales tax!)
The dealership then sells to you. (Kerching: sales tax!)
On the other hand, a vertically integrated firm would mine to ore, smelt the ore, machine the parts, assemble them, and sell them to the consumer, and thus would only pay tax once.
Massively vertically integrated firms are horribly inefficient.
On the housing point, one needs to be very careful not to make national decisions based on a London-centric viewpoint. The property market for buying and renting is very different in London than the rest of the country, policies that might alleviate problems in the capital may well cause different issues elsewhere.
The problem with a sales tax is that it deals poorly with businesses that intrinsically low margin.
Take pharmaceutical distributors. Their job is to buy drugs from drug companies and be able to deliver pretty much anything in under a day to any pharmacy in the UK. It's a low margin business: you might buy a packet of pills for $1,000, and you might get just $1,005 from the pharmacy for it. (Holding inventory, per se, is not a very high margin business.) But if you sales taxes the pharmaceutical wholesale business it would simply not exist. Pharmacies would instead have to buy direct from drug companies. And the drug companies ...set up to deal with a dozen pharmacy distribution businesses.
(In case you're wondering: pharmaceutical distributors exist all around the world: there's McKesson in the US, and Celesio in Germany, etc.)
Gross margins in the pharmaceutical distribution business are closer to 7-8% [i.e. $1,000 --> $1,070 not $1,005]. And Celesio is part of McKesson...
But apart from that, great post!
(Just teasing...your point is very fair. It's also a business where, if you do it right, you can make a lot of money. Stefano is now a billionaire many times ... with revenues of $1m. One of the most impressive business careers that there is - and a pretty decent guy (although as sharp as tacks and takes no prisoners... I think it took Stefano 3 months to replace the chief executive of Walgreens after he sold Alliance Boots to him)
Yes, my knowledge is a few years out of date
Actually replacing Corporation tax and VAT with Income&Sales tax on Corporations might get rid of the tricks most corporations do to reduce their profits on paper.
Also it is a just move, if income tax is good for people then it's just as good for corporations.
The logical consequence of a sales tax on companies is that you end up with massively vertically integrated firms.
Company A buys iron ore and turns it into steel. They then sell this to a machining shop. (Kerching: sales tax!)
The machining shop then turns it into useful components, and sells it to a car gearbox maker. (Kerching: sales tax!)
The car gearbox maker then sells to a car manufacturer. (Kerching: sales tax!)
The car manufacturer then sells to a car dealership. (Kerching: sales tax!)
The dealership then sells to you. (Kerching: sales tax!)
On the other hand, a vertically integrated firm would mine to ore, smelt the ore, machine the parts, assemble them, and sell them to the consumer, and thus would only pay tax once.
Massively vertically integrated firms are horribly inefficient.
Has that happened with VAT - which is basically a sales tax.
Fair play if so. I don't usually make personal comments on here but that's the position I found myself in and it touched a nerve!
I'm not a landlord because I want to be a scumbag, I'm a landlord because I moved with work and wanted to keep somewhere I could go back to if circumstances changed (or prices massively increased and priced me out). A lot of landlords are in the same position.
Yes, but you aren't the problem. The problem comes from people who buy up existing property with interest only mortgages, out bid prospective owner occupiers and try and extract absolutely maximum yield with no regard to the tenant or local area. People in your (and soon my own) situation should be free to rent theor existing property but only at a non-profitable rate, cover the mortgage and a percentage for wear and tear.
Labour knows what it's for. It has values and principles coming out of its ears. It spends far too much time agonising or talking about them.
What Labour needs is fresh ideas about how to put these ideas into practice. And then the competence to communicate the ideas and execute a plan.
Its actually annoyingly simple.
That's a good point. It's one thing to say that tax should be progressive and redistributive, another to go into an election promising to raise the 40% income tax rate to 45%.
Both Smith and Corbyn have said they would restore the 50% top income tax rate, a policy that is still quite popular. Accepting Osborne's inheritance tax cut would be a more sensible concession for Labour to make as that was liked by the public far more than his cut in the top income tax rate
Have they not shown that more was collected at the lower rate than the higher? The 50% rate would have been more acceptable had Brown done this 3 years earlier rather than 3 weeks before being ejected at the fag end of his calamitous government.
It's spite politics pure and simple and gained nothing in the longer term. Squeezing so "the pips squeak" as a cohesive tax principle simply doesn't work anymore except for people who want to go back to the 60's
A majority of the public backed the 50% tax rate when it was introduced. I did not support it personally but it is not a policy Labour has to reverse to win a general election regardless of its economic merits
Levy council tax on rented properties on the owner not the tenant and double it.
Hint, rents go up.
Increase the levies so much that it makes being a landlord unprofitable. Leeches on society deserved to be treated like parasites.
Where do all the renters live?
Build more public housing and fund housing associations. Private rental is a scam and needs to be stamped out.
< Ditto, and the idea of living in a housing association or government property makes my stomach turn.
There is a problem in that many housing associations seem to have become sources of well paid cosy income for various hangers on associated with running and maintaining them.
I would rather see private companies running rented housing but with high standards compulsory and enforced by OFRent inspectors with powers to make unnanounced inspections and rents regulated in the way that water company charges are regulated.
Labour knows what it's for. It has values and principles coming out of its ears. It spends far too much time agonising or talking about them.
What Labour needs is fresh ideas about how to put these ideas into practice. And then the competence to communicate the ideas and execute a plan.
Its actually annoyingly simple.
That's a good point. It's one thing to say that tax should be progressive and redistributive, another to go into an election promising to raise the 40% income tax rate to 45%.
Both Smith and Corbyn have said they would restore the 50% top income tax rate, a policy that is still quite popular. Accepting Osborne's inheritance tax cut would be a more sensible concession for Labour to make as that was liked by the public far more than his cut in the top income tax rate
Have they not shown that more was collected at the lower rate than the higher? The 50% rate would have been more acceptable had Brown done this 3 years earlier rather than 3 weeks before being ejected at the fag end of his calamitous government.
It's spite politics pure and simple and gained nothing in the longer term. Squeezing so "the pips squeak" as a cohesive tax principle simply doesn't work anymore except for people who want to go back to the 60's
A majority of the public backed the 50% tax rate when it was introduced. I did not support it personally but it is not a policy Labour has to reverse to win a general election regardless of its economic merits
Levy council tax on rented properties on the owner not the tenant and double it.
Hint, rents go up.
Increase the levies so much that it makes being a landlord unprofitable. Leeches on society deserved to be treated like parasites.
Where do all the renters live?
Build more public housing and fund housing associations. Private rental is a scam and needs to be stamped out.
I and an increasing percentage of the population live in private rental
Wouldn't you prefer to live in your own home or in a public rental where the landlord won't bother you or decide to evict you for spurious reasons or jack up the rent so they can leech more money from you?
Labour knows what it's for. It has values and principles coming out of its ears. It spends far too much time agonising or talking about them.
What Labour needs is fresh ideas about how to put these ideas into practice. And then the competence to communicate the ideas and execute a plan.
Its actually annoyingly simple.
That's a good point. It's one thing to say that tax should be progressive and redistributive, another to go into an election promising to raise the 40% income tax rate to 45%.
Both Smith and Corbyn have said they would restore the 50% top income tax rate, a policy that is still quite popular. Accepting Osborne's inheritance tax cut would be a more sensible concession for Labour to make as that was liked by the public far more than his cut in the top income tax rate
Have they not shown that more was collected at the lower rate than the higher? The 50% rate would have been more acceptable had Brown done this 3 years earlier rather than 3 weeks before being ejected at the fag end of his calamitous government.
It's spite politics pure and simple and gained nothing in the longer term. Squeezing so "the pips squeak" as a cohesive tax principle simply doesn't work anymore except for people who want to go back to the 60's
A majority of the public backed the 50% tax rate when it was introduced. I did not support it personally but it is not a policy Labour has to reverse to win a general election regardless of its economic merits
Levy council tax on rented properties on the owner not the tenant and double it.
Hint, rents go up.
Increase the levies so much that it makes being a landlord unprofitable. Leeches on society deserved to be treated like parasites.
Where do all the renters live?
Build more public housing and fund housing associations. Private rental is a scam and needs to be stamped out.
I and an increasing percentage of the population live in private rental
When you get beyond working age how do you intend to pay for your accommodation?
Fair play if so. I don't usually make personal comments on here but that's the position I found myself in and it touched a nerve!
I'm not a landlord because I want to be a scumbag, I'm a landlord because I moved with work and wanted to keep somewhere I could go back to if circumstances changed (or prices massively increased and priced me out). A lot of landlords are in the same position.
Yes, but you aren't the problem. The problem comes from people who buy up existing property with interest only mortgages, out bid prospective owner occupiers and try and extract absolutely maximum yield with no regard to the tenant or local area. People in your (and soon my own) situation should be free to rent theor existing property but only at a non-profitable rate, cover the mortgage and a percentage for wear and tear.
Maybe you should look at the laws that apply to landlords - it might help remove a chip from your shoulder.
Has that happened with VAT - which is basically a sales tax.
VAT is reclaimable. A turnover tax compounds across a supply chain and would hurt British companies as companies would prefer foreign imports which are not subject to the turnover tax.
Fair play if so. I don't usually make personal comments on here but that's the position I found myself in and it touched a nerve!
I'm not a landlord because I want to be a scumbag, I'm a landlord because I moved with work and wanted to keep somewhere I could go back to if circumstances changed (or prices massively increased and priced me out). A lot of landlords are in the same position.
Yes, but you aren't the problem. The problem comes from people who buy up existing property with interest only mortgages, out bid prospective owner occupiers and try and extract absolutely maximum yield with no regard to the tenant or local area. People in your (and soon my own) situation should be free to rent theor existing property but only at a non-profitable rate, cover the mortgage and a percentage for wear and tear.
What happens if, and this happened to me, local rents stay around the same but mortgage interest rates drop to almost nothing - should I be forced to cut my rent below market value, just so I don't make a profit?
I think the root of the recent problems is down to very low yields on savings and pension funds, many people have invested in property because they can see a decent return on the investment. The way to fix this is not to try and clobber landlords, rather to make other, more traditional, investments profitable. This is why I thought the BoE messed up when they cut rates last week - they should have held tight with a view to increasing them in the medium term, as the devaluation of the pound introduces inflation into the economy.
Labour knows what it's for. It has values and principles coming out of its ears. It spends far too much time agonising or talking about them.
What Labour needs is fresh ideas about how to put these ideas into practice. And then the competence to communicate the ideas and execute a plan.
Its actually annoyingly simple.
That's a good point. It's one thing to say that tax should be progressive and redistributive, another to go into an election promising to raise the 40% income tax rate to 45%.
Both Smith and Corbyn have said they would restore the 50% top income tax rate, a policy that is still quite popular. Accepting Osborne's inheritance tax cut would be a more sensible concession for Labour to make as that was liked by the public far more than his cut in the top income tax rate
Have they not shown that more was collected at the lower rate than the higher? The 50% rate would have been more acceptable had Brown done this 3 years earlier rather than 3 weeks before being ejected at the fag end of his calamitous government.
It's spite politics pure and simple and gained nothing in the longer term. Squeezing so "the pips squeak" as a cohesive tax principle simply doesn't work anymore except for people who want to go back to the 60's
A majority of the public backed the 50% tax rate when it was introduced. I did not support it personally but it is not a policy Labour has to reverse to win a general election regardless of its economic merits
Levy council tax on rented properties on the owner not the tenant and double it.
Hint, rents go up.
Increase the levies so much that it makes being a landlord unprofitable. Leeches on society deserved to be treated like parasites.
Where do all the renters live?
Build more public housing and fund housing associations. Private rental is a scam and needs to be stamped out.
Fair play if so. I don't usually make personal comments on here but that's the position I found myself in and it touched a nerve!
I'm not a landlord because I want to be a scumbag, I'm a landlord because I moved with work and wanted to keep somewhere I could go back to if circumstances changed (or prices massively increased and priced me out). A lot of landlords are in the same position.
Yes, but you aren't the problem. The problem comes from people who buy up existing property with interest only mortgages, out bid prospective owner occupiers and try and extract absolutely maximum yield with no regard to the tenant or local area. People in your (and soon my own) situation should be free to rent theor existing property but only at a non-profitable rate, cover the mortgage and a percentage for wear and tear.
Maybe you should look at the laws that apply to landlords - it might help remove a chip from your shoulder.
In this thread, landlords who live in their ivory towers and tell people who have rented they've never had it so good.
Fair play if so. I don't usually make personal comments on here but that's the position I found myself in and it touched a nerve!
I'm not a landlord because I want to be a scumbag, I'm a landlord because I moved with work and wanted to keep somewhere I could go back to if circumstances changed (or prices massively increased and priced me out). A lot of landlords are in the same position.
Yes, but you aren't the problem. The problem comes from people who buy up existing property with interest only mortgages, out bid prospective owner occupiers and try and extract absolutely maximum yield with no regard to the tenant or local area. People in your (and soon my own) situation should be free to rent theor existing property but only at a non-profitable rate, cover the mortgage and a percentage for wear and tear.
What happens if, and this happened to me, local rents stay around the same but mortgage interest rates drop to almost nothing - should I be forced to cut my rent below market value, just so I don't make a profit?
I think the root of the recent problems is down to very low yields on savings and pension funds, many people have invested in property because they can see a decent return on the investment. The way to fix this is not to try and clobber landlords, rather to make other, more traditional, investments profitable. This is why I thought the BoE messed up when they cut rates last week - they should have held tight with a view to increasing them in the medium term, as the devaluation of the pound introduces inflation into the economy.
Yes, you should. As long as your mortgage and wear and tear are covered that's enough really.
Could the IOC have made the decision before the olympics ? Making it now they appear to be mean on disabled people.
On what planet is this the point?
The Paralympic Committee have shown more guts than the craven, pathetic (probably still corrupt) IOC. No competitor should have to be in the Olympics knowing that they are up against a state apparatus supporting cheating. Russia have become the internet troll of the world, doing what they can to annoy and divide because of their own weakness. Let them carry on and we all lose.
< Ditto, and the idea of living in a housing association or government property makes my stomach turn.
There is a problem in that many housing associations seem to have become sources of well paid cosy income for various hangers on associated with running and maintaining them.
I would rather see private companies running rented housing but with high standards compulsory and enforced by OFRent inspectors with powers to make unnanounced inspections and rents regulated in the way that water company charges are regulated.
Forgive me if your government managed paradise sounds rather like creating the right for unannounced access to my private dwelling by strangers.
On topic: The people, who by going back to their roots Labour would seek the support of, no longer have views and approaches that tally with much of the modern Labour party hacks. If you don't change the people who front and run the party you won't ever get enough of them back.
Previous thread: The whole business regarding Trump and Russia has more to come. Names like Felix Sater, the views of his own guys Carter Page & Paul Manafort (well interesting, think Seaumas Milne there for dodge in the head), Trump's funding and any debts he may be hock to Russia individuals or institutions for, are going to keep coming up.
As I mentioned before, Clinton needn't do much, the work is being done by Trump's own party. When you get very senior officials linked to the intelligence community saying Trump and/or members of his team are in Russia's back pocket, that is likely to lead to more information coming out. Those same officials were very aware of Trumps business links to Russians that were enough for them to take note.
Trump' biggest negative though is that he is mean, and plenty of Americans don't like that. Just bash away at it and his opponents (or enemies in Trump's eyes) will score.
Off topic. For honesty one can't beat the latest release from IS bigwigs. They've been saying that things are actually really hard going in Iraq & Syria and promptly wrapped it in an 'Allah's testing us' covering. Curiously 'it isn't about victory, its about the fight' says they. Not having a good time then. Hatches down Europe.
Labour knows what it's for. It has values and principles coming out of its ears. It spends far too much time agonising or talking about them.
What Labour needs is fresh ideas about how to put these ideas into practice. And then the competence to communicate the ideas and execute a plan.
Its actually annoyingly simple.
That's a good point. It's one thing to say that tax should be progressive and redistributive, another to go into an election promising to raise the 40% income tax rate to 45%.
Both Smith and Corbyn have said they would restore the 50% top income tax rate, a policy that is still quite popular. Accepting Osborne's inheritance tax cut would be a more sensible concession for Labour to make as that was liked by the public far more than his cut in the top income tax rate
Have they not shown that more was collected at the lower rate than the higher? The 50% rate would have been more acceptable had Brown done this 3 years earlier rather than 3 weeks before being ejected at the fag end of his calamitous government.
It's spite politics pure and simple and gained nothing in the longer term. Squeezing so "the pips squeak" as a cohesive tax principle simply doesn't work anymore except for people who want to go back to the 60's
A majority of the public backed the 50% tax rate when it was introduced. I did not support it personally but it is not a policy Labour has to reverse to win a general election regardless of its economic merits
Levy council tax on rented properties on the owner not the tenant and double it.
Hint, rents go up.
Increase the levies so much that it makes being a landlord unprofitable. Leeches on society deserved to be treated like parasites.
Where do all the renters live?
Build more public housing and fund housing associations. Private rental is a scam and needs to be stamped out.
When were you last a tenant?
3 years ago.
And just because you were lucky enough to escape you're happy to hang out to dry everyone who's trapped?
I'd love to buy. I can afford mortgage repayments. What I can't do is get a bank to lend to me. So unless you're going to compel banks to lend against their wishes...
Fair play if so. I don't usually make personal comments on here but that's the position I found myself in and it touched a nerve!
I'm not a landlord because I want to be a scumbag, I'm a landlord because I moved with work and wanted to keep somewhere I could go back to if circumstances changed (or prices massively increased and priced me out). A lot of landlords are in the same position.
Yes, but you aren't the problem. The problem comes from people who buy up existing property with interest only mortgages, out bid prospective owner occupiers and try and extract absolutely maximum yield with no regard to the tenant or local area. People in your (and soon my own) situation should be free to rent theor existing property but only at a non-profitable rate, cover the mortgage and a percentage for wear and tear.
Maybe you should look at the laws that apply to landlords - it might help remove a chip from your shoulder.
If you borrow to outbid families and buy up a limited stock of assets and then charge the families who then have to live in them (and would otherwise have bought them) enough to pay your loan off and live off while also pocketing all the capital appreciation, don't be too surpirised if people consider you to be little better than Jimmy Saville.
More people in employment should be able to buy their own house but are unable.
To do this we need to get by the ridiculous amounts of deposits demanded by mortgage lenders which are almost unachievable by many while still paying to live in other accommodation. These people having the inability to get the deposit and secure the mortgage as a result then tend to pay more in rent in other accommodation than the actual mortgage itself would cost over the loan period. It's not the inability to keep up the payments it's the inability to secure 10 % or more deposit demanded.
It is an utter scandal and certainly is the largest barrier to younger people getting a foot on the housing ladder.
Fair play if so. I don't usually make personal comments on here but that's the position I found myself in and it touched a nerve!
I'm not a landlord because I want to be a scumbag, I'm a landlord because I moved with work and wanted to keep somewhere I could go back to if circumstances changed (or prices massively increased and priced me out). A lot of landlords are in the same position.
Yes, but you aren't the problem. The problem comes from people who buy up existing property with interest only mortgages, out bid prospective owner occupiers and try and extract absolutely maximum yield with no regard to the tenant or local area. People in your (and soon my own) situation should be free to rent theor existing property but only at a non-profitable rate, cover the mortgage and a percentage for wear and tear.
What happens if, and this happened to me, local rents stay around the same but mortgage interest rates drop to almost nothing - should I be forced to cut my rent below market value, just so I don't make a profit?
I think the root of the recent problems is down to very low yields on savings and pension funds, many people have invested in property because they can see a decent return on the investment. The way to fix this is not to try and clobber landlords, rather to make other, more traditional, investments profitable. This is why I thought the BoE messed up when they cut rates last week - they should have held tight with a view to increasing them in the medium term, as the devaluation of the pound introduces inflation into the economy.
Yes, you should. As long as your mortgage and wear and tear are covered that's enough really.
And when the mortgage is paid, I should be renting it out for free? If I can't get a reasonable profit, it's not worth the hassle, I'll leave it empty and ask my parents to drop by for the occasional weekend away. Maybe we will have to agree to disagree on this one!!
Fair play if so. I don't usually make personal comments on here but that's the position I found myself in and it touched a nerve!
I'm not a landlord because I want to be a scumbag, I'm a landlord because I moved with work and wanted to keep somewhere I could go back to if circumstances changed (or prices massively increased and priced me out). A lot of landlords are in the same position.
Yes, but you aren't the problem. The problem comes from people who buy up existing property with interest only mortgages, out bid prospective owner occupiers and try and extract absolutely maximum yield with no regard to the tenant or local area. People in your (and soon my own) situation should be free to rent theor existing property but only at a non-profitable rate, cover the mortgage and a percentage for wear and tear.
What happens if, and this happened to me, local rents stay around the same but mortgage interest rates drop to almost nothing - should I be forced to cut my rent below market value, just so I don't make a profit?
I think the root of the recent problems is down to very low yields on savings and pension funds, many people have invested in property because they can see a decent return on the investment. The way to fix this is not to try and clobber landlords, rather to make other, more traditional, investments profitable. This is why I thought the BoE messed up when they cut rates last week - they should have held tight with a view to increasing them in the medium term, as the devaluation of the pound introduces inflation into the economy.
Yes, you should. As long as your mortgage and wear and tear are covered that's enough really.
And when the mortgage is paid, I should be renting it out for free? If I can't get a reasonable profit, it's not worth the hassle, I'll leave it empty and ask my parents to drop by for the occasional weekend away. Maybe we will have to agree to disagree on this one!!
Labour knows what it's for. It has values and principles coming out of its ears. It spends far too much time agonising or talking about them.
What Labour needs is fresh ideas about how to put these ideas into practice. And then the competence to communicate the ideas and execute a plan.
Its actually annoyingly simple.
That's a good point. It's one thing to say that tax should be progressive and redistributive, another to go into an election promising to raise the 40% income tax rate to 45%.
Both Smith and Corbyn have said they would restore the 50% top income tax rate, a policy that is ate
Have they not shown that more was collected at the lower rate than the higher? The 50% rate
It's spite politics pure and simple and gained nothing in the longer term. Squeezing so "the pips squeak" as a cohesive tax principle simply doesn't work anymore except for people who want to go back to the 60's
A majority of the public backed the 50% tax rate when it was introduced. I did not support it personally but it is not a policy Labour has to reverse to win a general election regardless of its economic merits
Levy council tax on rented properties on the owner not the tenant and double it.
Hint, rents go up.
Increase the levies so much that it makes being a landlord unprofitable. Leeches on society deserved to be treated like parasites.
Where do all the renters live?
Build more public housing and fund housing associations. Private rental is a scam and needs to be stamped out.
I and an increasing percentage of the population live in private rental
Wouldn't you prefer to live in your own home or in a public rental where the landlord won't bother you or decide to evict you for spurious reasons or jack up the rent so they can leech more money from you?
They can't do now provided the contract is sound and why would I want to live in government housing unless I have to? In London a majority of the population now rent, most privately. Most people now do not buy until their mid thirties because of the high level of house prices
Labour knows what it's for. It has values and principles coming out of its ears. It spends far too much time agonising or talking about them.
-snip-
Its actually annoyingly simple.
That's a good point. It's one thing to say that tax should be progressive and redistributive, another to go into an election promising to raise the 40% income tax rate to 45%.
Both Smith and Corbyn have said they would restore the 50% top income tax rate, a policy that is still quite popular. Accepting Osborne's inheritance tax cut would be a more sensible concession for Labour to make as that was liked by the public far muore than his cut in the top income tax rate
Have they not shown that more was collected at the lower rate than the higher? The 50% rate would have been more acceptable had Brown done this 3 years earlier rather than 3 weeks before being ejected at the fag end of his calamitous government.
It's spite politics pure and simple and gained nothing in the longer term. Squeezing so "the pips squeak" as a cohesive tax principle simply doesn't work anymore except for people who want to go back to the 60's
A majority of the public backed the 50% tax rate when it was introduced. I did not support it personally but it is not a policy Labour has to reverse to win a general election regardless of its economic merits
Levy council tax on rented properties on the owner not the tenant and double it.
Hint, rents go up.
Increase the levies so much that it makes being a landlord unprofitable. Leeches on society deserved to be treated like parasites.
Where do all the renters live?
Build more public housing and fund housing associations. Private rental is a scam and needs to be stamped out.
When were you last a tenant?
3 years ago.
And just because you were lucky enough to escape you're happy to hang out to dry everyone who's trapped?
I'd love to buy. I can afford mortgage repayments. What I can't do is get a bank to lend to me. So unless you're going to compel banks to lend against their wishes...
If the wealthy landlords were not using their wealth to snap up the lower end properties with interest free loans then those properties would be cheaper and you would be able to get a mortgage with your income.
Mr. Thrak, it does raise the question of what you need to do to get banned. Russia had state sponsored doping, but didn't get a blanket ban.
The question remains as to whether their weak 'you decide, err no we will, oh well, just carry on' position was through weakness or corruption. Recent history suggests that such an organisation is governed by the latter.
The logical consequence of a sales tax on companies is that you end up with massively vertically integrated firms.
Company A buys iron ore and turns it into steel. They then sell this to a machining shop. (Kerching: sales tax!)
The machining shop then turns it into useful components, and sells it to a car gearbox maker. (Kerching: sales tax!)
The car gearbox maker then sells to a car manufacturer. (Kerching: sales tax!)
The car manufacturer then sells to a car dealership. (Kerching: sales tax!)
The dealership then sells to you. (Kerching: sales tax!)
On the other hand, a vertically integrated firm would mine to ore, smelt the ore, machine the parts, assemble them, and sell them to the consumer, and thus would only pay tax once.
Massively vertically integrated firms are horribly inefficient.
Lets say that the above companies (5 in total) each pay 1% tax on their book income.
If you add all the taxes from their income the total amount would be the same as if they where the same single company.
The only difference might come if they where a single company would they have the same total income as 5 different smaller ones?
That is debatable, is the production cost inside a single conglomerate more or less than it's constituent parts as individual companies.
Only if it's less would companies go the road of mergers, since only then they would need a smaller income to pay fewer production costs.
And just because you were lucky enough to escape you're happy to hang out to dry everyone who's trapped?
I'd love to buy. I can afford mortgage repayments. What I can't do is get a bank to lend to me. So unless you're going to compel banks to lend against their wishes...
Not hanging you out to dry at all, the property that gets sold because renting becomes unprofitable will have to be bought by someone. Why not someone like you, especially given with the mass supply that would it result in bringing down prices (and therefore deposit requirements).
More people in employment should be able to buy their own house but are unable.
To do this we need to get by the ridiculous amounts of deposits demanded by mortgage lenders which are almost unachievable by many while still paying to live in other accommodation. These people having the inability to get the deposit and secure the mortgage as a result then tend to pay more in rent in other accommodation than the actual mortgage itself would cost over the loan period. It's not the inability to keep up the payments it's the inability to secure 10 % or more deposit demanded.
It is an utter scandal and certainly is the largest barrier to younger people getting a foot on the housing ladder.
A very good point and one the government would do well to examine.
My point about what happens to renters when they retire is an important one I feel. We appear to have generations who can no longer buy a home, even at more advanced ages. So are they supposed to never retire? Or is the state going to be picking up the massive bill to pay for the continued rents of such a large number into old age? It appears to be a timebomb to me.
They can't do now provided the contract is sound and why would I want to live in government housing unless I have to? In London a majority of the population now rent, most privately. Most people now do not buy until their mid thirties because of the high level of house prices
Isn't that the problem? Working people in London can't afford to get on the housing ladder because landlords are muscling them out. Instead of just lying down and taking it, why not try and change it so the parasites are kicked out of the market.
They can't do now provided the contract is sound and why would I want to live in government housing unless I have to? In London a majority of the population now rent, most privately. Most people now do not buy until their mid thirties because of the high level of house prices
At the end of every six months, two years at most (rare) they can evict you for walking on the cracks on the pavement at a month or twos notice if they want to which is a barrel of laughs if you are a family with kids, elderly or disabled.
If the wealthy landlords were not using their wealth to snap up the lower end properties with interest free loans then those properties would be cheaper and you would be able to get a mortgage with your income.
And just because you were lucky enough to escape you're happy to hang out to dry everyone who's trapped?
I'd love to buy. I can afford mortgage repayments. What I can't do is get a bank to lend to me. So unless you're going to compel banks to lend against their wishes...
Not hanging you out to dry at all, the property that gets sold because renting becomes unprofitable will have to be bought by someone. Why not someone like you, especially given with the mass supply that would it result in bringing down prices (and therefore deposit requirements).
They can't do now provided the contract is sound and why would I want to live in government housing unless I have to? In London a majority of the population now rent, most privately. Most people now do not buy until their mid thirties because of the high level of house prices
Isn't that the problem? Working people in London can't afford to get on the housing ladder because landlords are muscling them out. Instead of just lying down and taking it, why not try and change it so the parasites are kicked out of the market.
It is now starting to hit young middle class articulate professionals so I think it will continue to escalate up the political agenda.
More people in employment should be able to buy their own house but are unable.
To do this we need to get by the ridiculous amounts of deposits demanded by mortgage lenders which are almost unachievable by many while still paying to live in other accommodation. These people having the inability to get the deposit and secure the mortgage as a result then tend to pay more in rent in other accommodation than the actual mortgage itself would cost over the loan period. It's not the inability to keep up the payments it's the inability to secure 10 % or more deposit demanded.
It is an utter scandal and certainly is the largest barrier to younger people getting a foot on the housing ladder.
A very good point and one the government would do well to examine.
My point about what happens to renters when they retire is an important one I feel. We appear to have generations who can no longer buy a home, even at more advanced ages. So are they supposed to never retire? Or is the state going to be picking up the massive bill to pay for the continued rents of such a large number into old age? It appears to be a timebomb to me.
If the wealthy landlords were not using their wealth to snap up the lower end properties with interest free loans then those properties would be cheaper and you would be able to get a mortgage with your income.
It's not the income, it's the deposit.
Which is also related to prices. It's easier to get £20k together than £30k together for a 10% deposit. High house prices are the root cause and taking the parasites out of the market will result in lower prices.
They can't do now provided the contract is sound and why would I want to live in government housing unless I have to? In London a majority of the population now rent, most privately. Most people now do not buy until their mid thirties because of the high level of house prices
At the end of every six months, two years at most (rare) they can evict you for walking on the cracks on the pavement at a month or twos notice if they want to which is a barrel of laughs if you are a family with kids, elderly or disabled.
That is a matter of tightening the rental laws, not making most rentals government owned. Switzerland and Germany manage to do it and about half the population rent there
If the wealthy landlords were not using their wealth to snap up the lower end properties with interest free loans then those properties would be cheaper and you would be able to get a mortgage with your income.
It's not the income, it's the deposit.
Which is also related to prices. It's easier to get £20k together than £30k together for a 10% deposit. High house prices are the root cause and taking the parasites out of the market will result in lower prices.
You just banned my landlord from renting to me.
Where do I live until I have 20k deposit?
That's an immense amount of money, normal people can't just find it.
If the wealthy landlords were not using their wealth to snap up the lower end properties with interest free loans then those properties would be cheaper and you would be able to get a mortgage with your income.
It's not the income, it's the deposit.
Which is also related to prices. It's easier to get £20k together than £30k together for a 10% deposit. High house prices are the root cause and taking the parasites out of the market will result in lower prices.
That'd require house prices to drop by a third, which would be quite something! I do however agree with the general theme of this thread that renting sucks.
They can't do now provided the contract is sound and why would I want to live in government housing unless I have to? In London a majority of the population now rent, most privately. Most people now do not buy until their mid thirties because of the high level of house prices
Isn't that the problem? Working people in London can't afford to get on the housing ladder because landlords are muscling them out. Instead of just lying down and taking it, why not try and change it so the parasites are kicked out of the market.
The logical consequence of a sales tax on companies is that you end up with massively vertically integrated firms.
Company A buys iron ore and turns it into steel. They then sell this to a machining shop. (Kerching: sales tax!)
The machining shop then turns it into useful components, and sells it to a car gearbox maker. (Kerching: sales tax!)
The car gearbox maker then sells to a car manufacturer. (Kerching: sales tax!)
The car manufacturer then sells to a car dealership. (Kerching: sales tax!)
The dealership then sells to you. (Kerching: sales tax!)
On the other hand, a vertically integrated firm would mine to ore, smelt the ore, machine the parts, assemble them, and sell them to the consumer, and thus would only pay tax once.
Massively vertically integrated firms are horribly inefficient.
Lets say that the above companies (5 in total) each pay 1% tax on their book income.
If you add all the taxes from their income the total amount would be the same as if they where the same single company.
The only difference might come if they where a single company would they have the same total income as 5 different smaller ones?
That is debatable, is the production cost inside a single conglomerate more or less than it's constituent parts as individual companies.
Only if it's less would companies go the road of mergers, since only then they would need a smaller income to pay fewer production costs.
Is Robert indirectly stating that the big move to outsourcing rather than doing it in house since the 80s is in part due to us joining the EU and having to change from sales tax to VAT.
I would dispute that in house is very efficient.
Network Rail bought most functions in house because partly it made things more flexible (you can just say Do That) but mainly because they got fed up with a 15% or more markup at every step of the supply chain and bringing in house meant all the high paid contract lawyers, sales executives and the like could be fired saving a fortune
o.t. I posted a racing trend which is a regular supply of income.Back all William Haggas to win in July and August.Here's his record so far.You may care to piggyback,just back blind.
More people in employment should be able to buy their own house but are unable.
To do this we need to get by the ridiculous amounts of deposits demanded by mortgage lenders which are almost unachievable by many while still paying to live in other accommodation. These people having the inability to get the deposit and secure the mortgage as a result then tend to pay more in rent in other accommodation than the actual mortgage itself would cost over the loan period. It's not the inability to keep up the payments it's the inability to secure 10 % or more deposit demanded.
It is an utter scandal and certainly is the largest barrier to younger people getting a foot on the housing ladder.
A very good point and one the government would do well to examine.
My point about what happens to renters when they retire is an important one I feel. We appear to have generations who can no longer buy a home, even at more advanced ages. So are they supposed to never retire? Or is the state going to be picking up the massive bill to pay for the continued rents of such a large number into old age? It appears to be a timebomb to me.
Retire? What's that?
I'm 36. I don't expect to ever be able to retire.
Retirement will still happen, just nearer 70 than 60
And just because you were lucky enough to escape you're happy to hang out to dry everyone who's trapped?
I'd love to buy. I can afford mortgage repayments. What I can't do is get a bank to lend to me. So unless you're going to compel banks to lend against their wishes...
Not hanging you out to dry at all, the property that gets sold because renting becomes unprofitable will have to be bought by someone. Why not someone like you, especially given with the mass supply that would it result in bringing down prices (and therefore deposit requirements).
You think we'll ever see 100% mortgages again?
95% for sure. I think there might be a new nationwide help to buy scheme where the government will give interest free loans for the final 5% as well to help people onto the housing ladder. However, with 95% mortgages it isn't that hard to get £15k together for a £300k purchase over a couple of years if you live in a housing association with a reasonable rent and a 5 year lease with fixed or no rent rises. The issue is when landlords decide to raise the rent because of market pressures they create and put tenants into a vicious circle of having to spend their savings on covering shortfalls, new deposits and moving every year.
If the wealthy landlords were not using their wealth to snap up the lower end properties with interest free loans then those properties would be cheaper and you would be able to get a mortgage with your income.
It's not the income, it's the deposit.
Which is also related to prices. It's easier to get £20k together than £30k together for a 10% deposit. High house prices are the root cause and taking the parasites out of the market will result in lower prices.
The high deposits are surely because even the banks think the prices are too high and they want some protection against negative equity if and when prices fall.
If banks thought house prices were low and would rise 2-3% for the next few years I suspect deposits would not be a problem.
If the wealthy landlords were not using their wealth to snap up the lower end properties with interest free loans then those properties would be cheaper and you would be able to get a mortgage with your income.
It's not the income, it's the deposit.
I think it's neither of them, it's investor hoarding.
The population has risen over the past 10 years about 5% , yet house prices are much higher in value and much smaller in size than 10 years ago.
The only thing that has changed is that investors are seeing property as speculative investments, lots of properties are bought up not to be used but for their future paper value.
Lots of properties remain empty and unused because those who buy them are interested in the annual return of their value, not in their use.
In a world of 0% interest rates and QE anything that makes even 1-2-3% per year is looked as a sound investment, be it stocks, government bonds, or property.
A levy on unused properties is the right way to go. Force investors to use their property instead of keeping it empty.
They can't do now provided the contract is sound and why would I want to live in government housing unless I have to? In London a majority of the population now rent, most privately. Most people now do not buy until their mid thirties because of the high level of house prices
At the end of every six months, two years at most (rare) they can evict you for walking on the cracks on the pavement at a month or twos notice if they want to which is a barrel of laughs if you are a family with kids, elderly or disabled.
That is a matter of tightening the rental laws, not making most rentals government owned. Switzerland and Germany manage to do it and about half the population rent there
I did actually call for that and condemn the well paid public sector housing leeches and hangers on further up thread
If the wealthy landlords were not using their wealth to snap up the lower end properties with interest free loans then those properties would be cheaper and you would be able to get a mortgage with your income.
It's not the income, it's the deposit.
I think it's neither of them, it's investor hoarding.
The population has risen over the past 10 years about 5% , yet house prices are much higher in value and much smaller in size than 10 years ago.
The only thing that has changed is that investors are seeing property as speculative investments, lots of properties are bought up not to be used but for their future paper value.
Lots of properties remain empty and unused because those who buy them are interested in the annual return of their value, not in their use.
In a world of 0% interest rates and QE anything that makes even 1-2-3% per year is looked as a sound investment, be it stocks, government bonds, or property.
A levy on unused properties is the right way to go. Force investors to use their property instead of keeping it empty.
Or liberalising squatting laws on such properties.
If the wealthy landlords were not using their wealth to snap up the lower end properties with interest free loans then those properties would be cheaper and you would be able to get a mortgage with your income.
It's not the income, it's the deposit.
Which is also related to prices. It's easier to get £20k together than £30k together for a 10% deposit. High house prices are the root cause and taking the parasites out of the market will result in lower prices.
The high deposits are surely because even the banks think the prices are too high and they want some protection against negative equity if and when prices fall.
If banks thought house prices were low and would rise 2-3% for the next few years I suspect deposits would not be a problem.
Back in the 80s it wasn't unknown for lenders to offer 95% or even 100% mortgages. In the dim and distant past I worked for the Halifax. IIRC second time buyers were limited to 80% and further advances to 70%.
There are some '100%' mortgages out there - I think Barclays is the best known, but it relies on a pump-primer from Bank of Mum&Dad.
However, a lot of people were burned very badly by high LTVs in the early 90s (my little sister amongst them). We just have to accept that house prices are too damn high and that they need to be lowered by whatever means necessary.
Discouraging saving and investment isn't really beneficial to long term economic growth
I guess you could leave rates as they are for say the first £3k a year or so of investment income. What I'm getting at is people having so much such income that they can reduce working or not need to work at all.
It is iniquitous that such people pay just 10% income tax, while those who have to work pay 32% (20% + 12% NI)
Just to put it in perspective, someone with £1 million of investible assets (i.e. excluding primary residence) can expect to earn £25,000 per year* Although they might be rich in asset terms, from an income perspective that's not a massive outlier that would deserve penal tax rates.
And there aren't a huge number of people with investible assets > £1 million (most of those who have will have saved all their lives to provide for their retirement)
* Yes, @rcs1000, I know you'd do better than that, but I'm thinking of a risk free portfolio where they can draw down the income while not impacting the principal.
Labour's roots are with workers in agriculture and the abolition of the AWB was one of the worst acts of the Tory/LibDem love-in.Labour needs to re-establish the connection with land workers to ensure equal treatment for all and decent wages to prevent exploitation.Agricultural labour is hard and dangeous work so needs strict regulation and an enhanced role for trade unions.
The logical consequence of a sales tax on companies is that you end up with massively vertically integrated firms.
Company A buys iron ore and turns it into steel. They then sell this to a machining shop. (Kerching: sales tax!)
The machining shop then turns it into useful components, and sells it to a car gearbox maker. (Kerching: sales tax!)
The car gearbox maker then sells to a car manufacturer. (Kerching: sales tax!)
The car manufacturer then sells to a car dealership. (Kerching: sales tax!)
The dealership then sells to you. (Kerching: sales tax!)
On the other hand, a vertically integrated firm would mine to ore, smelt the ore, machine the parts, assemble them, and sell them to the consumer, and thus would only pay tax once.
Massively vertically integrated firms are horribly inefficient.
Lets say that the above companies (5 in total) each pay 1% tax on their book income.
If you add all the taxes from their income the total amount would be the same as if they where the same single company.
The only difference might come if they where a single company would they have the same total income as 5 different smaller ones?
That is debatable, is the production cost inside a single conglomerate more or less than it's constituent parts as individual companies.
Only if it's less would companies go the road of mergers, since only then they would need a smaller income to pay fewer production costs.
Is Robert indirectly stating that the big move to outsourcing rather than doing it in house since the 80s is in part due to us joining the EU and having to change from sales tax to VAT.
I would dispute that in house is very efficient.
Network Rail bought most functions in house because partly it made things more flexible (you can just say Do That) but mainly because they got fed up with a 15% or more markup at every step of the supply chain and bringing in house meant all the high paid contract lawyers, sales executives and the like could be fired saving a fortune
Labour's roots are with workers in agriculture and the abolition of the AWB was one of the worst acts of the Tory/LibDem love-in.Labour needs to re-establish the connection with land workers to ensure equal treatment for all and decent wages to prevent exploitation.Agricultural labour is hard and dangeous work so needs strict regulation and an enhanced role for trade unions.
More rights for tractors and combine harvesters....
They can't do now provided the contract is sound and why would I want to live in government housing unless I have to? In London a majority of the population now rent, most privately. Most people now do not buy until their mid thirties because of the high level of house prices
At the end of every six months, two years at most (rare) they can evict you for walking on the cracks on the pavement at a month or twos notice if they want to which is a barrel of laughs if you are a family with kids, elderly or disabled.
That is a matter of tightening the rental laws, not making most rentals government owned. Switzerland and Germany manage to do it and about half the population rent there
I did actually call for that and condemn the well paid public sector housing leeches and hangers on further up thread
The logical consequence of a sales tax on companies is that you end up with massively vertically integrated firms.
Company A buys iron ore and turns it into steel. They then sell this to a machining shop. (Kerching: sales tax!)
The machining shop then turns it into useful components, and sells it to a car gearbox maker. (Kerching: sales tax!)
The car gearbox maker then sells to a car manufacturer. (Kerching: sales tax!)
The car manufacturer then sells to a car dealership. (Kerching: sales tax!)
The dealership then sells to you. (Kerching: sales tax!)
On the other hand, a vertically integrated firm would mine to ore, smelt the ore, machine the parts, assemble them, and sell them to the consumer, and thus would only pay tax once.
Massively vertically integrated firms are horribly inefficient.
Lets say that the above companies (5 in total) each pay 1% tax on their book income.
If you add all the taxes from their income the total amount would be the same as if they where the same single company.
The only difference might come if they where a single company would they have the same total income as 5 different smaller ones?
That is debatable, is the production cost inside a single conglomerate more or less than it's constituent parts as individual companies.
Only if it's less would companies go the road of mergers, since only then they would need a smaller income to pay fewer production costs.
I think US state sales taxes are only charged at retail level which could make sense as it then takes much less work than collecting VAT on all B2B and B2C sales.
Fair play if so. I don't usually make personal comments on here but that's the position I found myself in and it touched a nerve!
I'm not a landlord because I want to be a scumbag, I'm a landlord because I moved with work and wanted to keep somewhere I could go back to if circumstances changed (or prices massively increased and priced me out). A lot of landlords are in the same position.
Yes, but you aren't the problem. The problem comes from people who buy up existing property with interest only mortgages, out bid prospective owner occupiers and try and extract absolutely maximum yield with no regard to the tenant or local area. People in your (and soon my own) situation should be free to rent theor existing property but only at a non-profitable rate, cover the mortgage and a percentage for wear and tear.
What happens if, and this happened to me, local rents stay around the same but mortgage interest rates drop to almost nothing - should I be forced to cut my rent below market value, just so I don't make a profit?
I think the root of the recent problems is down to very low yields on savings and pension funds, many people have invested in property because they can see a decent return on the investment. The way to fix this is not to try and clobber landlords, rather to make other, more traditional, investments profitable. This is why I thought the BoE messed up when they cut rates last week - they should have held tight with a view to increasing them in the medium term, as the devaluation of the pound introduces inflation into the economy.
Yes, you should. As long as your mortgage and wear and tear are covered that's enough really.
And when the mortgage is paid, I should be renting it out for free? If I can't get a reasonable profit, it's not worth the hassle, I'll leave it empty and ask my parents to drop by for the occasional weekend away. Maybe we will have to agree to disagree on this one!!
Sell?
So you are asking him to go structurally short of the UK property market when he may only be temporarily absent? And to incur transaction expenses and taxes in the process?
Increase council tax by 25% for every bedroom a property has in excess of the number of occupants (if more than three non bedroom rooms the excess also deemed to be Bedrooms.
No Stamp Duty on any property sale when both occupants are over 60 and it is a main residence being sold to buy another main residence of lesser value and/or rooms. Unblock many of those large family homes with only a retired couple living in it.
Where is Trump in the dump if he's down by almost 10 points nationally ? So far it's N.H., Virginia, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Utah.
But curiously it's not Arizona or Nevada or much in Florida.
One wonders if Trump hadn't lost his mind last week where would the race have been.
Historically the POTUS polling for Nevada is about 4 points shy for the Dems added to which Trump has strong ties to the state. I'm not surprised by Arizona. The VA poll looks heavy for Clinton. +8 seems in the zone.
One other factor is to look at whether hispanics are polled in Spanish or just English.
Trying to make direct comparisons between national and state polls is tricky. I use national polls to provide the mood music but reliable state polling for the full ensemble in ARSE4US.
They can't do now provided the contract is sound and why would I want to live in government housing unless I have to? In London a majority of the population now rent, most privately. Most people now do not buy until their mid thirties because of the high level of house prices
At the end of every six months, two years at most (rare) they can evict you for walking on the cracks on the pavement at a month or twos notice if they want to which is a barrel of laughs if you are a family with kids, elderly or disabled.
That is a matter of tightening the rental laws, not making most rentals government owned. Switzerland and Germany manage to do it and about half the population rent there
I did actually call for that and condemn the well paid public sector housing leeches and hangers on further up thread
Good to see we are both agreed then
Yes, what is needed is a private rented sector that is obliged to provide the same quality as social housing associations with rents regulated like water charges are and an OFRENT who would do unannounced inspections (with right of entry), also decent length (5, 10 or 20 year leases)
Ideally be attractive enough that renting would become a preferred choice for many.
This sector would only be able to ourpose build or buy a whole estate/block of flats, not individual houses in owner occupier estates, and once established with limited companies running them the council housing/housing association stock would be privatised in a similar manner.
Where is Trump in the dump if he's down by almost 10 points nationally ? So far it's N.H., Virginia, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Utah.
But curiously it's not Arizona or Nevada or much in Florida.
One wonders if Trump hadn't lost his mind last week where would the race have been.
Historically the POTUS polling for Nevada is about 4 points shy for the Dems added to which Trump has strong ties to the state. I'm not surprised by Arizona. The VA poll looks heavy for Clinton. +8 seems in the zone.
One other factor is to look at whether hispanics are polled in Spanish or just English.
Trying to make direct comparisons between national and state polls is tricky. I use national polls to provide the mood music but reliable state polling for the full ensemble in ARSE4US.
There has been almost no movement downwards for Trump in Nevada or Arizona, that's curious.
Trump slumps 10 points nationally yet it's a mixed picture in state polls, some states record that slump, others don't.
But enough states have recorded that slump to put victory very far away from Trump already.
As Labour faces the biggest crisis in its history and is disintegrating in front of us Good to see Owen concentrating on the really important stuff
"Labour leadership challenger Owen Smith says honours will not be bestowed upon Labour donors, MPs, advisers and staff for five years if he wins the contest"
As Labour faces the biggest crisis in its history and is disintegrating in front of us Good to see Owen concentrating on the really important stuff
"Labour leadership challenger Owen Smith says honours will not be bestowed upon Labour donors, MPs, advisers and staff for five years if he wins the contest"
As Labour faces the biggest crisis in its history and is disintegrating in front of us Good to see Owen concentrating on the really important stuff
"Labour leadership challenger Owen Smith says honours will not be bestowed upon Labour donors, MPs, advisers and staff for five years if he wins the contest"
As Labour faces the biggest crisis in its history and is disintegrating in front of us Good to see Owen concentrating on the really important stuff
"Labour leadership challenger Owen Smith says honours will not be bestowed upon Labour donors, MPs, advisers and staff for five years if he wins the contest"
The logical consequence of a sales tax on companies is that you end up with massively vertically integrated firms.
Company A buys iron ore and turns it into steel. They then sell this to a machining shop. (Kerching: sales tax!)
The machining shop then turns it into useful components, and sells it to a car gearbox maker. (Kerching: sales tax!)
The car gearbox maker then sells to a car manufacturer. (Kerching: sales tax!)
The car manufacturer then sells to a car dealership. (Kerching: sales tax!)
The dealership then sells to you. (Kerching: sales tax!)
On the other hand, a vertically integrated firm would mine to ore, smelt the ore, machine the parts, assemble them, and sell them to the consumer, and thus would only pay tax once.
Massively vertically integrated firms are horribly inefficient.
Lets say that the above companies (5 in total) each pay 1% tax on their book income.
If you add all the taxes from their income the total amount would be the same as if they where the same single company.
The only difference might come if they where a single company would they have the same total income as 5 different smaller ones?
That is debatable, is the production cost inside a single conglomerate more or less than it's constituent parts as individual companies.
Only if it's less would companies go the road of mergers, since only then they would need a smaller income to pay fewer production costs.
That's rubbish. Do the maths (and ignore the fact that the prices I've used are totally unrealistic!).
Company A buys iron ore and turns it into enough steel to make a gearbox. They sell it for £10. Sales tax at 1% = 10p.
Machine shop turns it into gearbox components and sells for £20. Sales tax at 1% = 20p.
Gearbox maker puts together a gearbox and sells for £30. Sales tax at 1% = 30p.
Car manufacturer sells to dealership for £40. Sales tax at 1% = 40p.
Dealership sells to consumer for £50. Sales tax at 1% = 50p.
Total sales tax paid = £1.50.
Whereas a vertically integrated firm would only pay sales tax when it sells the gearbox to a consumer for £50, so total tax this way is 50p.
The only way the total tax is the same as for a single company is if each company can reclaim the input tax but that is VAT, not a sales tax.
They can't do now provided the contract is sound and why would I want to live in government housing unless I have to? In London a majority of the population now rent, most privately. Most people now do not buy until their mid thirties because of the high level of house prices
At the end of every six months, two years at most (rare) they can evict you for walking on the cracks on the pavement at a month or twos notice if they want to which is a barrel of laughs if you are a family with kids, elderly or disabled.
That is a matter of tightening the rental laws, not making most rentals government owned. Switzerland and Germany manage to do it and about half the population rent there
I did actually call for that and condemn the well paid public sector housing leeches and hangers on further up thread
Good to see we are both agreed then
Yes, what is needed is a private rented sector that is obliged to provide the same quality as social housing associations with rents regulated like water charges are and an OFRENT who would do unannounced inspections (with right of entry), also decent length (5, 10 or 20 year leases)
Ideally be attractive enough that renting would become a preferred choice for many.
This sector would only be able to ourpose build or buy a whole estate/block of flats, not individual houses in owner occupier estates, and once established with limited companies running them the council housing/housing association stock would be privatised in a similar manner.
My landlord normally arranges inspections every couple of months and lends anything which needs doing. I agree with a lot of that though am not sure about privatising all council housing and housing association stock until we have seen how the limited companies work and ensured they are effectively regulated
...an OFRENT who would do unannounced inspections (with right of entry)...
Unannounced inspections are illegal under every single tenancy agreement in England and Wales: the right to enjoy the property without somebody bursting in unannounced is (one of) the difference(s) between a "tenant" (who has rights) and an "excluded occupier" (who has fewer). Tenants have keys for a reason.
...also decent length (5, 10 or 20 year leases)...
You've just killed the rental sector. The rental sector covers not just people who live in an area permanently, but also people who are there temporarily for work or other purposes and who do not want to be there for lengthy periods. Also some people when they sell their house cannot purchase a new one simultaneously and rent a flat for six months to cover the gap. Assured shorthold tenancies were bought in (in the 80's?) for this very reason.
Labour knows what it's for. It has values and principles coming out of its ears. It spends far too much time agonising or talking about them.
What Labour needs is fresh ideas about how to put these ideas into practice. And then the competence to communicate the ideas and execute a plan.
Its actually annoyingly simple.
That's a good point. It's one thing to say that tax should be progressive and redistributive, another to go into an election promising to raise the 40% income tax rate to 45%.
Both Smith and Corbyn have said they would restore the 50% top income tax rate, a policy that is still quite popular. Accepting Osborne's inheritance tax cut would be a more sensible concession for Labour to make as that was liked by the public far more than his cut in the top income tax rate
Have they not shown that more was collected at the lower rate than the higher? The 50% rate would have been more acceptable had Brown done this 3 years earlier rather than 3 weeks before being ejected at the fag end of his calamitous government.
It's spite politics pure and simple and gained nothing in the longer term. Squeezing so "the pips squeak" as a cohesive tax principle simply doesn't work anymore except for people who want to go back to the 60's
A majority of the public backed the 50% tax rate when it was introduced. I did not support it personally but it is not a policy Labour has to reverse to win a general election regardless of its economic merits
I think the income tax rates are pretty well geared to maximum income.
They need to focus on property taxes, in particular:
Split band H into eight new bands enabling a massive incease in council tax for these properties.
Levy council tax on rented properties on the owner not the tenant and double it.
Tax all land at 1% of its value.
Increase council tax by 25% for every bedroom a property has in excess of the number of occupants (if more than three non bedroom rooms the excess also deemed to be Bedrooms.
Sounds possible and Miliband proposed a mansion tax of course
Sounds more like the deranged rantings of a sad loser wanting other people to pay for him rather than having to work for his money.
...an OFRENT who would do unannounced inspections (with right of entry)...
Unannounced inspections are illegal under every single tenancy agreement in England and Wales: the right to enjoy the property without somebody bursting in unannounced is (one of) the difference(s) between a "tenant" (who has rights) and an "excluded occupier" (who has fewer). Tenants have keys for a reason.
And thank God for that.. gives me a chance to tidy up before inspection
Labour knows what it's for. It has values and principles coming out of its ears. It spends far too much time agonising or talking about them.
What Labour needs is fresh ideas about how to put these ideas into practice. And then the competence to communicate the ideas and execute a plan.
Its actually annoyingly simple.
That's a good point. It's one thing to say that tax should be progressive and redistributive, another to go into an election promising to raise the 40% income tax rate to 45%.
Both Smith and Corbyn have said they would restore the 50% top income tax rate, a policy that is still quite popular. Accepting Osborne's inheritance tax cut would be a more sensible concession for Labour to make as that was liked by the public far more than his cut in the top income tax rate
Have they not shown that more was collected at the lower rate than the higher? The 50% rate would have been more acceptable had Brown done this 3 years earlier rather than 3 weeks before being ejected at the fag end of his calamitous government.
It's spite politics pure and simple and gained nothing in the longer term. Squeezing so "the pips squeak" as a cohesive tax principle simply doesn't work anymore except for people who want to go back to the 60's
A majority of the public backed the 50% tax rate when it was introduced. I did not support it personally but it is not a policy Labour has to reverse to win a general election regardless of its economic merits
Levy council tax on rented properties on the owner not the tenant and double it.
Hint, rents go up.
Increase the levies so much that it makes being a landlord unprofitable. Leeches on society deserved to be treated like parasites.
Where do all the renters live?
Just what you would expect from a nasty Tory, next he will be saying "let them eat cake". Sadsack indeed, hopefully his day will come.
Labour knows what it's for. It has values and principles coming out of its ears. It spends far too much time agonising or talking about them.
What Labour needs is fresh ideas about how to put these ideas into practice. And then the competence to communicate the ideas and execute a plan.
Its actually annoyingly simple.
That's a good point. It's one thing to say that tax should be progressive and redistributive, another to go into an election promising to raise the 40% income tax rate to 45%.
Both Smith and Corbyn have said they would restore the 50% top income tax rate, a policy that is still quite popular. Accepting Osborne's inheritance tax cut would be a more sensible concession for Labour to make as that was liked by the public far more than his cut in the top income tax rate
Have they not shown that more was collected at the lower rate than the higher? The 50% rate would have been more acceptable had Brown done this 3 years earlier rather than 3 weeks before being ejected at the fag end of his calamitous government.
It's spite politics pure and simple and gained nothing in the longer term. Squeezing so "the pips squeak" as a cohesive tax principle simply doesn't work anymore except for people who want to go back to the 60's
A majority of the public backed the 50% tax rate when it was introduced. I did not support it personally but it is not a policy Labour has to reverse to win a general election regardless of its economic merits
Levy council tax on rented properties on the owner not the tenant and double it.
Hint, rents go up.
Increase the levies so much that it makes being a landlord unprofitable. Leeches on society deserved to be treated like parasites.
Where do all the renters live?
Build more public housing and fund housing associations. Private rental is a scam and needs to be stamped out.
Instead I would install a levy on empty properties to force investors to put them on market for rent or sale.
It is ludicrous that some councils exempt your property from council tax if it is empty.
Why , it is only for a specific short period , and if you are not using services at that address and paying for them elsewhere, why should you pay twice.
Back in the 80s it wasn't unknown for lenders to offer 95% or even 100% mortgages. In the dim and distant past I worked for the Halifax. IIRC second time buyers were limited to 80% and further advances to 70%.
There are some '100%' mortgages out there - I think Barclays is the best known, but it relies on a pump-primer from Bank of Mum&Dad.
During the 1997-2007 boom, you could get the infamous "Together" mortgage (I think from Halifax 2004?) which enabled you to get a 105% mortgage. They disappeared rapidly during the 2008 crash, with the last 95% mortgage disappearing in late 2008/early 2009.
Prices recovered a bit in 2009 then remained stable from 2009-2012. George Osborne thought that was a Bad Thing and started to inject liquidity into the house market via things like the Help-To-Buy schemes and its successors. People can get additional finance from the government to buy new-build flats (and other properties?), depending on their age, size of deposit, profession, singing voice, did they vote Conservative, whatever. Prices started going up again and house price inflation is currently running at, what, 5-10%?
The situation was made much worse by Osborne's premature announcement in October 2015 of different tax rules for BTLs, to come in on April 2016, which led to a BTL feeding frenzy.
However, a lot of people were burned very badly by high LTVs in the early 90s (my little sister amongst them). We just have to accept that house prices are too damn high and that they need to be lowered by whatever means necessary.
If you *really* want to stop house prices going up, kill HelpToBuy et al like a diseased shithouse rat. I am sympathetic to those who point to migration or BTLs (both of which are drivers of house prices), but HTB is just stupid and makes the situation worse.
Unannounced inspections are illegal under every single tenancy agreement in England and Wales: the right to enjoy the property without somebody bursting in unannounced is (one of) the difference(s) between a "tenant" (who has rights) and an "excluded occupier" (who has fewer). Tenants have keys for a reason.
And thank God for that.. gives me a chance to tidy up before inspection
That's rubbish. Do the maths (and ignore the fact that the prices I've used are totally unrealistic!).
Company A buys iron ore and turns it into enough steel to make a gearbox. They sell it for £10. Sales tax at 1% = 10p.
Machine shop turns it into gearbox components and sells for £20. Sales tax at 1% = 20p.
Gearbox maker puts together a gearbox and sells for £30. Sales tax at 1% = 30p.
Car manufacturer sells to dealership for £40. Sales tax at 1% = 40p.
Dealership sells to consumer for £50. Sales tax at 1% = 50p.
Total sales tax paid = £1.50.
Whereas a vertically integrated firm would only pay sales tax when it sells the gearbox to a consumer for £50, so total tax this way is 50p.
The only way the total tax is the same as for a single company is if each company can reclaim the input tax but that is VAT, not a sales tax.
Company A has 100 in income, is taxed 1% on it's income, tax revenue 1. B has 200, is taxed 1%, tax revenue 2. C 300, revenue 3 D 400, revenue 4 E 500, revenue 5
Total tax revenue 15.
Total income of all 5 companies 1500, if taxed by 1%, that gives you 15 in revenue.
Only if a single conglomerate had income less than the sum of each part on their own, would tax revenue be less.
Would a single conglomerate have less production costs than if it where 5 different companies, and therefore could afford to sell at lower prices and record lower income ?
If Yes then the 5 companies would merge regardless of any tax, just from the production cost limiting point of view.
If No then the 5 companies would not merge.
It's all part of a risk analysis involving the Conglomerate Discount.
Comments
I'm not a landlord because I want to be a scumbag, I'm a landlord because I moved with work and wanted to keep somewhere I could go back to if circumstances changed (or prices massively increased and priced me out). A lot of landlords are in the same position.
You don't need to impose the current level of income tax on corporations, just enough to equalize the theoretical tax burden between the two systems, (in practice it could be much lower due to the extra efficiency of collecting taxes directly from the source).
I'm sure that a few percentages tax on book income will be more efficient in collecting taxes than the present system, especially with multinational companies who use subsidiaries to avoid paying tax.
It is iniquitous that such people pay just 10% income tax, while those who have to work pay 32% (20% + 12% NI)
Company A buys iron ore and turns it into steel. They then sell this to a machining shop. (Kerching: sales tax!)
The machining shop then turns it into useful components, and sells it to a car gearbox maker. (Kerching: sales tax!)
The car gearbox maker then sells to a car manufacturer. (Kerching: sales tax!)
The car manufacturer then sells to a car dealership. (Kerching: sales tax!)
The dealership then sells to you. (Kerching: sales tax!)
On the other hand, a vertically integrated firm would mine to ore, smelt the ore, machine the parts, assemble them, and sell them to the consumer, and thus would only pay tax once.
Massively vertically integrated firms are horribly inefficient.
I would rather see private companies running rented housing but with high standards compulsory and enforced by OFRent inspectors with powers to make unnanounced inspections and rents regulated in the way that water company charges are regulated.
I think the root of the recent problems is down to very low yields on savings and pension funds, many people have invested in property because they can see a decent return on the investment. The way to fix this is not to try and clobber landlords, rather to make other, more traditional, investments profitable. This is why I thought the BoE messed up when they cut rates last week - they should have held tight with a view to increasing them in the medium term, as the devaluation of the pound introduces inflation into the economy.
Taxing profits makes sense. Taxing turnover does not.
"Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong."
I'm not immune of course
The Paralympic Committee have shown more guts than the craven, pathetic (probably still corrupt) IOC. No competitor should have to be in the Olympics knowing that they are up against a state apparatus supporting cheating. Russia have become the internet troll of the world, doing what they can to annoy and divide because of their own weakness. Let them carry on and we all lose.
Previous thread: The whole business regarding Trump and Russia has more to come. Names like Felix Sater, the views of his own guys Carter Page & Paul Manafort (well interesting, think Seaumas Milne there for dodge in the head), Trump's funding and any debts he may be hock to Russia individuals or institutions for, are going to keep coming up.
As I mentioned before, Clinton needn't do much, the work is being done by Trump's own party. When you get very senior officials linked to the intelligence community saying Trump and/or members of his team are in Russia's back pocket, that is likely to lead to more information coming out. Those same officials were very aware of Trumps business links to Russians that were enough for them to take note.
Trump' biggest negative though is that he is mean, and plenty of Americans don't like that. Just bash away at it and his opponents (or enemies in Trump's eyes) will score.
Off topic. For honesty one can't beat the latest release from IS bigwigs. They've been saying that things are actually really hard going in Iraq & Syria and promptly wrapped it in an 'Allah's testing us' covering. Curiously 'it isn't about victory, its about the fight' says they. Not having a good time then. Hatches down Europe.
I'd love to buy. I can afford mortgage repayments. What I can't do is get a bank to lend to me. So unless you're going to compel banks to lend against their wishes...
To do this we need to get by the ridiculous amounts of deposits demanded by mortgage lenders which are almost unachievable by many while still paying to live in other accommodation. These people having the inability to get the deposit and secure the mortgage as a result then tend to pay more in rent in other accommodation than the actual mortgage itself would cost over the loan period. It's not the inability to keep up the payments it's the inability to secure 10 % or more deposit demanded.
It is an utter scandal and certainly is the largest barrier to younger people getting a foot on the housing ladder.
If I can't get a reasonable profit, it's not worth the hassle, I'll leave it empty and ask my parents to drop by for the occasional weekend away.
Maybe we will have to agree to disagree on this one!!
If you add all the taxes from their income the total amount would be the same as if they where the same single company.
The only difference might come if they where a single company would they have the same total income as 5 different smaller ones?
That is debatable, is the production cost inside a single conglomerate more or less than it's constituent parts as individual companies.
Only if it's less would companies go the road of mergers, since only then they would need a smaller income to pay fewer production costs.
My point about what happens to renters when they retire is an important one I feel. We appear to have generations who can no longer buy a home, even at more advanced ages. So are they supposed to never retire? Or is the state going to be picking up the massive bill to pay for the continued rents of such a large number into old age? It appears to be a timebomb to me.
I'm 36. I don't expect to ever be able to retire.
Where do I live until I have 20k deposit?
That's an immense amount of money, normal people can't just find it.
I would dispute that in house is very efficient.
Network Rail bought most functions in house because partly it made things more flexible (you can just say Do That) but mainly because they got fed up with a 15% or more markup at every step of the supply chain and bringing in house meant all the high paid contract lawyers, sales executives and the like could be fired saving a fortune
http://www.racingpost.com/horses/trainer_home.sd?trainer_id=3415#topTrainerTabs=trainer_record_race_form&bottomTrainerTabs=trainer_big_race_wins
If banks thought house prices were low and would rise 2-3% for the next few years I suspect deposits would not be a problem.
The population has risen over the past 10 years about 5% , yet house prices are much higher in value and much smaller in size than 10 years ago.
The only thing that has changed is that investors are seeing property as speculative investments, lots of properties are bought up not to be used but for their future paper value.
Lots of properties remain empty and unused because those who buy them are interested in the annual return of their value, not in their use.
In a world of 0% interest rates and QE anything that makes even 1-2-3% per year is looked as a sound investment, be it stocks, government bonds, or property.
A levy on unused properties is the right way to go.
Force investors to use their property instead of keeping it empty.
There are some '100%' mortgages out there - I think Barclays is the best known, but it relies on a pump-primer from Bank of Mum&Dad.
However, a lot of people were burned very badly by high LTVs in the early 90s (my little sister amongst them). We just have to accept that house prices are too damn high and that they need to be lowered by whatever means necessary.
VA - Clinton 49 .. Trump 37
NV - Clinton 43 .. Trump 41
AZ - Clinton 42 .. Trump 44
https://today.yougov.com/news/2016/08/07/cbs-battleground-tracker-arizona-nevada-virginia/
And there aren't a huge number of people with investible assets > £1 million (most of those who have will have saved all their lives to provide for their retirement)
* Yes, @rcs1000, I know you'd do better than that, but I'm thinking of a risk free portfolio where they can draw down the income while not impacting the principal.
Synergy (run for the hills)
Unless, perhaps, you're a high flying City worker who's been offered a job in Switzerland.
Where is Trump in the dump if he's down by almost 10 points nationally ?
So far it's N.H., Virginia, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Utah.
But curiously it's not Arizona or Nevada or much in Florida.
One wonders if Trump hadn't lost his mind last week where would the race have been.
See e.g. http://dor.wa.gov/content/FindTaxesAndRates/RetailSalesTax/
Leaving the EU and VAT behind would also mean an end to VAT carousel fraud.
One other factor is to look at whether hispanics are polled in Spanish or just English.
Trying to make direct comparisons between national and state polls is tricky. I use national polls to provide the mood music but reliable state polling for the full ensemble in ARSE4US.
Ideally be attractive enough that renting would become a preferred choice for many.
This sector would only be able to ourpose build or buy a whole estate/block of flats, not individual houses in owner occupier estates, and once established with limited companies running them the council housing/housing association stock would be privatised in a similar manner.
Trump slumps 10 points nationally yet it's a mixed picture in state polls, some states record that slump, others don't.
But enough states have recorded that slump to put victory very far away from Trump already.
"Labour leadership challenger Owen Smith says honours will not be bestowed upon Labour donors, MPs, advisers and staff for five years if he wins the contest"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37001754
#passingbandwagon
So why is he complaining about Corbyn then ?
Company A buys iron ore and turns it into enough steel to make a gearbox. They sell it for £10. Sales tax at 1% = 10p.
Machine shop turns it into gearbox components and sells for £20. Sales tax at 1% = 20p.
Gearbox maker puts together a gearbox and sells for £30. Sales tax at 1% = 30p.
Car manufacturer sells to dealership for £40. Sales tax at 1% = 40p.
Dealership sells to consumer for £50. Sales tax at 1% = 50p.
Total sales tax paid = £1.50.
Whereas a vertically integrated firm would only pay sales tax when it sells the gearbox to a consumer for £50, so total tax this way is 50p.
The only way the total tax is the same as for a single company is if each company can reclaim the input tax but that is VAT, not a sales tax.
When we leave the EU does that mean I will stop having to click a button to accept cookies every time I visit a new website?
Prices recovered a bit in 2009 then remained stable from 2009-2012. George Osborne thought that was a Bad Thing and started to inject liquidity into the house market via things like the Help-To-Buy schemes and its successors. People can get additional finance from the government to buy new-build flats (and other properties?), depending on their age, size of deposit, profession, singing voice, did they vote Conservative, whatever. Prices started going up again and house price inflation is currently running at, what, 5-10%?
The situation was made much worse by Osborne's premature announcement in October 2015 of different tax rules for BTLs, to come in on April 2016, which led to a BTL feeding frenzy. If you *really* want to stop house prices going up, kill HelpToBuy et al like a diseased shithouse rat. I am sympathetic to those who point to migration or BTLs (both of which are drivers of house prices), but HTB is just stupid and makes the situation worse.
Company A has 100 in income, is taxed 1% on it's income, tax revenue 1.
B has 200, is taxed 1%, tax revenue 2.
C 300, revenue 3
D 400, revenue 4
E 500, revenue 5
Total tax revenue 15.
Total income of all 5 companies 1500, if taxed by 1%, that gives you 15 in revenue.
Only if a single conglomerate had income less than the sum of each part on their own, would tax revenue be less.
Would a single conglomerate have less production costs than if it where 5 different companies, and therefore could afford to sell at lower prices and record lower income ?
If Yes then the 5 companies would merge regardless of any tax, just from the production cost limiting point of view.
If No then the 5 companies would not merge.
It's all part of a risk analysis involving the Conglomerate Discount.
White old pensioners spending their last days in sunny lands.
Nevada, Arizona and Florida are the ghost images of California and N.Jersey of the 1980's.
Back when California and N.Jersey where solidly republican.