Exactly so. Hence my "flowery" language early this morning. The Tory USP is or should be " we are careful with the taxpayers money because we know how hard you work to earn it." That is no longer a sustainable position.
If voters didn't want the country to be held to ransom by vested interests, they should have voted Conservative. They didn't, in sufficient numbers, so the government has to do what it can to deal with the situation.
It's all a side-show anyway - the DUP bung is completely negligible compared with the likely increased costs of the Brexit bill now that our negotiating position has been weakened so badly.
How does May's election defeat make striking a good deal any more difficult? Do you really think the EU negotiators care less what happened in the UK elections.
It's this sort of arrogance that is making us such a laughing stock. The Empire is no more. Get used to it.
How does May's election defeat make striking a good deal any more difficult? Do you really think the EU negotiators care less what happened in the UK elections.
It's this sort of arrogance that is making us such a laughing stock. The Empire is no more. Get used to it.
Why could nobody afford to move with CGT on homes. Prices would adjust accordingly and make first time buying more affordable. The introduction would be tricky.
Say you live in a London flat that you paid £250k for 20 years ago. You have since married and have kids approaching school age. You need to move out of town nearer schools and grandparents.
Your flat is now worth £1 million, and at the moment, you could sell it and spend the £1 million on a 3- or small 4-bedroom house somewhere like Kingston or Barnet...exactly as would have been the case 20 years ago.
This in itself tells you that there has been no capital gain. The £1 million price tag is just inflation. There's no way to sell for a million and re-buy for a quarter of that.
Selling a £1 million flat in London and buying a £250k flat in Northampton is not the answer. Before you had £1 million of assets and £0 cash. Now, you have £400k of assets and £600k cash. The total is the same either way. You have cash in the second scenario only because you have poorer accommodation.
If you tax the inflation on homes, first, any such tax is wholly disconnected from ability to pay. My mother paid £19k for her one house 47 years ago and today she still has one house that's worth £1.6 million or so for reasons nothing to do with her. She has a pensioner's income. Second, you create the problem of why is there no corresponding tax relief on the borrowing that gave rise to the supposed capital gain (they have both in the USA). Third, the result of this proposed CGT is that if I sell my £1 million flat, and some of the inflationary gain is confiscated, I now can't afford the house I want to buy. I can invite the seller to reduce his price to reflect my tax, but of course my own buyer is doing the same, so I'm no further forward and moving at all has become impossible.
Incidentally, if you think first time buying is more affordable in a property crash, think again. Lenders want bigger deposits and smaller salary multiples and nobody sells because of negative equity, to which you want to add CGT.
I find it frustrating (from an envy point of view I must admit) to know people living in certain parts of London who are now moving out on retirement to have made more money from their home than on working and not paid a penny in tax on it.
They paid tax on the earnings that bought it. If they had had tax relief on that and if improvements came off the CGT bill you'd have more of a point, but in any event the "gain" is illusory and cannot be spent.
Exactly so. Hence my "flowery" language early this morning. The Tory USP is or should be " we are careful with the taxpayers money because we know how hard you work to earn it." That is no longer a sustainable position.
our negotiating position has been weakened so badly.
During the election campaign we were assured by her opponents that the size of the Tory majority would have no impact on our negotiating position....
Selling a £1 million flat in London and buying a £250k flat in Northampton is not the answer. Before you had £1 million of assets and £0 cash. Now, you have £400k of assets and £600k cash. The total is the same either way. You have cash in the second scenario only because you have poorer accommodation.
Do people who live in London consider moving out to the provinces in the same light as moving to sub saharan Africa or something on retirement ?
Why could nobody afford to move with CGT on homes. Prices would adjust accordingly and make first time buying more affordable. The introduction would be tricky.
Say you live in a London flat that you paid £250k for 20 years ago. You have since married and have kids approaching school age. You need to move out of town nearer schools and grandparents.
Your flat is now worth £1 million, and at the moment, you could sell it and spend the £1 million on a 3- or small 4-bedroom house somewhere like Kingston or Barnet...exactly as would have been the case 20 years ago.
This in itself tells you that there has been no capital gain. The £1 million price tag is just inflation. There's no way to sell for a million and re-buy for a quarter of that.
Selling a £1 million flat in London and buying a £250k flat in Northampton is not the answer. Before you had £1 million of assets and £0 cash. Now, you have £400k of assets and £600k cash. The total is the same either way. You have cash in the second scenario only because you have poorer accommodation.
If you tax the inflation on homes, first, any such tax is wholly disconnected from ability to pay. My mother paid £19k for her one house 47 years ago and today she still has one house that's worth £1.6 million or so for reasons nothing to do with her. She has a pensioner's income. Second, you create the problem of why is there no corresponding tax relief on the borrowing that gave rise to the supposed capital gain (they have both in the USA). Third, the result of this proposed CGT is that if I sell my £1 million flat, and some of the inflationary gain is confiscated, I now can't afford the house I want to buy. I can invite the seller to reduce his price to reflect my tax, but of course my own buyer is doing the same, so I'm no further forward and moving at all has become impossible.
Incidentally, if you think first time buying is more affordable in a property crash, think again. Lenders want bigger deposits and smaller salary multiples and nobody sells because of negative equity, to which you want to add CGT.
I find it frustrating (from an envy point of view I must admit) to know people living in certain parts of London who are now moving out on retirement to have made more money from their home than on working and not paid a penny in tax on it.
They paid tax on the earnings that bought it. If they had had tax relief on that and if improvements came off the CGT bill you'd have more of a point, but in any event the "gain" is illusory and cannot be spent.
Exactly so. Hence my "flowery" language early this morning. The Tory USP is or should be " we are careful with the taxpayers money because we know how hard you work to earn it." That is no longer a sustainable position.
our negotiating position has been weakened so badly.
During the election campaign we were assured by her opponents that the size of the Tory majority would have no impact on our negotiating position....
And how has it been? The Greeks thought an election would improve their negotiating position and they won a landslide. But the EU ignored them. Mrs May's claim was complete bullshit and the public could smellit a mile away. They might fall for some crap but that was ridiculous!
No what I'm saying is it could force people into renting, rather than moving (and then renting out the house which you do own). If you're faced with a huge tax bill upon moving house, then not selling, but renting another house (which you do want to live in), and renting out the house you currently own might defer or avoid that tax.
Under the circumstances I think I should admit defeat!
I think the reintroduction of indexing would make CGT fairer.
OK, but why index CGT and no other tax, tax exemption or allowance? If you want to index, index the whole system. It would be manifestly unfair to index just one particular part of it.
Because CGT on houses is just inflation, not gain.
I bought my house for £950k in 2012. If I sold it I would probably find I could get £1.3 million for it. To buy another like it nearby would cost me £1.4 million including the transaction charges.
Please show me my "gain". I'd love to go and piss it away, but I've got a nagging suspicion that it doesn't exist.
How does May's election defeat make striking a good deal any more difficult? Do you really think the EU negotiators care less what happened in the UK elections.
It's this sort of arrogance that is making us such a laughing stock. The Empire is no more. Get used to it.
Is this a bid for non-sequitur of the year?
I'll never win 'non-sequitur of the year' award while Sunil is still posting!
Of course having a weak government makes it harder. I really can't see how anyone could conceivably disagree with this most obvious of uncontroversial points.
Exactly so. Hence my "flowery" language early this morning. The Tory USP is or should be " we are careful with the taxpayers money because we know how hard you work to earn it." That is no longer a sustainable position.
.
How does May's election defeat
May's election was many things, and she deserved some of the opprobrium, but defeat it was not.
Her party still polled higher than any other on all measures, including sitting MP's.
Exactly so. Hence my "flowery" language early this morning. The Tory USP is or should be " we are careful with the taxpayers money because we know how hard you work to earn it." That is no longer a sustainable position.
our negotiating position has been weakened so badly.
During the election campaign we were assured by her opponents that the size of the Tory majority would have no impact on our negotiating position....
And how has it been? The Greeks thought an election would improve their negotiating position and they won a landslide. But the EU ignored them. Mrs May's claim was complete bullshit and the public could smellit a mile away. They might fall for some crap but that was ridiculous!
The EU does not control our currency, nor our money supply. Nor can they veto trade with the UK. And the UK is a large economy.
They can do quite a bit of damage to the UK economy - as well as themselves - in the short-term, and that's about it.
Why could nobody afford to move with CGT on homes. Prices would adjust accordingly and make first time buying more affordable. The introduction would be tricky.
Say you live in a London flat that you paid £250k for 20 years ago. You have since married and have kids approaching school age. You need to move out of town nearer schools and grandparents.
Your flat is now worth £1 million, and at the moment, you could sell it and spend the £1 million on a 3- or small 4-bedroom house somewhere like Kingston or Barnet...exactly as would have been the case 20 years ago.
This in itself tells you that there has been no capital gain. The £1 million price tag is just inflation. There's no way to sell for a million and re-buy for a quarter of that.
Selling a £1 million flat in London and buying a £250k flat in Northampton is not the answer. Before you had £1 million of assets and £0 cash. Now, you have £400k of assets and £600k cash. The total is the same either way. You have cash in the second scenario only because you have poorer accommodation.
Ignoring changes in location, if you upsize, then increased house prices are bad for you. If you downsize, they're good. The problem is that you tend to do those things at certain times of your life (upsize as you start a family, potentially downsize when retiring), which means you have a generation of would-be upsizers losing out and a generation of potential downsizers gaining
How does May's election defeat make striking a good deal any more difficult? Do you really think the EU negotiators care less what happened in the UK elections.
It's this sort of arrogance that is making us such a laughing stock. The Empire is no more. Get used to it.
Is this a bid for non-sequitur of the year?
I'll never win 'non-sequitur of the year' award while Sunil is still posting!
How does May's election defeat make striking a good deal any more difficult? Do you really think the EU negotiators care less what happened in the UK elections.
It's this sort of arrogance that is making us such a laughing stock. The Empire is no more. Get used to it.
Is this a bid for non-sequitur of the year?
I'll never win 'non-sequitur of the year' award while Sunil is still posting!
Selling a £1 million flat in London and buying a £250k flat in Northampton is not the answer. Before you had £1 million of assets and £0 cash. Now, you have £400k of assets and £600k cash. The total is the same either way. You have cash in the second scenario only because you have poorer accommodation.
Do people who live in London consider moving out to the provinces in the same light as moving to sub saharan Africa or something on retirement ?
If you can buy two identical properties in different areas for a different price - which of course you can - then one of them is worth less than the other, because of where it is. So yes, the cheaper one is poorer. You can have a £1 million property and no cash but if you turn that into a £250k property and £750k cash, or £400 and £600, or whatever (GOK how I cocked that up before) you're in exactly the same overall position.
Exactly so. Hence my "flowery" language early this morning. The Tory USP is or should be " we are careful with the taxpayers money because we know how hard you work to earn it." That is no longer a sustainable position.
If voters didn't want the country to be held to ransom by vested interests, they should have voted Conservative. They didn't, in sufficient numbers, so the government has to do what it can to deal with the situation.
It's all a side-show anyway - the DUP bung is completely negligible compared with the likely increased costs of the Brexit bill now that our negotiating position has been weakened so badly.
How does May's election defeat make striking a good deal any more difficult? Do you really think the EU negotiators care less what happened in the UK elections.
It's this sort of arrogance that is making us such a laughing stock. The Empire is no more. Get used to it.
Speak for yourself.
I have my pith helmet, jodhpurs, bugle and redcoat stored safely in my cupboard and ready to get out in April 2019.
Selling a £1 million flat in London and buying a £250k flat in Northampton is not the answer. Before you had £1 million of assets and £0 cash. Now, you have £400k of assets and £600k cash. The total is the same either way. You have cash in the second scenario only because you have poorer accommodation.
Do people who live in London consider moving out to the provinces in the same light as moving to sub saharan Africa or something on retirement ?
If you are only concerned about your accommodation and your available cash, not the position of your heirs, you could of course buy a lifetime lease property. You could probably sell your property to someone willing to grant a lifetime lease back on the same property.
"In the 2017 general election 18,566,218 votes were cast for parties other than the Conservatives. Bribing them all with £50 (assuming that's the going rate), costs you $928,310,900.
That's roughly £71.7 million short of the package pledged to Northern Ireland."
Cladding failure rate still 100% and up to 95 in 32 areas. Insanity. Only coming to light because of mass deaths in an Inferno. What else isn't up to scratch in UK 2017? What's next?
What are we not going to ask for that we were previously?
What are they not going to offer that they otherwise would?
Another Brexiteer fantasy with no basis in objective fact...
Fantasies with no basis in objective fact? Like calling me a Brexiteer?
To answer your questions:
The 'how' part is partly because the EU27 now don't know whether the PM can make any compromise which she agrees stick. So that makes a far-reaching deal, where the two sides would trade concessions, more difficult. It's also because there is now a non-negligible risk of the loonier type of Brexiteer MP forming a devil's alliance with the opposition to torpedo a deal.
Hmmm it seems that the Conservative Party has a "quality" issue with its MPs. Is this really the best reason for being PM?
"Philip Hammond thinks he can be Prime Minister because Theresa May is.
In yesterday's Sunday Times, political editor Tim Shipman revealed that some ministers want the current Chancellor, Philip Hammond to become a "caretaker Prime Minister".
The Sunday Times reports that a "former cabinet colleague" of the Chancellor said: "He told me that if Theresa May could be prime minister, so could he.""
So with the DUP deal in place it looks like there were won't be another election for a while. So the 2 key questions now are:
1) Will May survive? Parliament goes into recess on the 20th July so I feel that if May survives to then she'll probably hang on until the end of Brexit negotiations
2) Will the McDonnell amendment pass? If it passes then the left have secured the succession. As Corbyn is 70 in May 2019, he could well choose to stand down in a year or 2 and pass the baton on to someone with the same politics but without the baggage.
On the other hand if the amendment fails then Corbyn has to stay on (assuming the new intake isn't full of Corbynites). In this case it's not hard to see a renewed bout of infighting kicking off. I also wonder if in this scenario, the far left might start to look at the boundary review in a favourable light as a way of trying to replace some of the moderates.
Do any of our Labour commentators have a view on whether the amendment will pass?
Selling a £1 million flat in London and buying a £250k flat in Northampton is not the answer. Before you had £1 million of assets and £0 cash. Now, you have £400k of assets and £600k cash. The total is the same either way. You have cash in the second scenario only because you have poorer accommodation.
Do people who live in London consider moving out to the provinces in the same light as moving to sub saharan Africa or something on retirement ?
If you can buy two identical properties in different areas for a different price - which of course you can - then one of them is worth less than the other, because of where it is. So yes, the cheaper one is poorer. You can have a £1 million property and no cash but if you turn that into a £250k property and £750k cash, or £400 and £600, or whatever (GOK how I cocked that up before) you're in exactly the same overall position.
Surely the same applies to shares? If I buy shares in Barclays for 250k and they go up to £1m then I can't sell my shares at one price and then immediately buy them back at the original price.
Some of the rise will be inflation and some of it will be a capital gain.
If there is a difference - it's that you need a house to live in but you don't have to have Barclays shares. That said - indexing the gain to the increase of average house prices in the UK seems to solve the problem?
Hmmm it seems that the Conservative Party has a "quality" issue with its MPs. Is this really the best reason for being PM?
"Philip Hammond thinks he can be Prime Minister because Theresa May is.
In yesterday's Sunday Times, political editor Tim Shipman revealed that some ministers want the current Chancellor, Philip Hammond to become a "caretaker Prime Minister".
The Sunday Times reports that a "former cabinet colleague" of the Chancellor said: "He told me that if Theresa May could be prime minister, so could he.""
The best reason for Hammond to be PM is that toxic Theresa would be replaced. During the 1997-2010 period I repeatedly argued here that Gordon Brown was toxic and heading for certain defeat. With TMay this is not just speculation but based on her record - the chronic misjudgements and appalling campaigning skills. I think she's possibly worse than Gordon Brown.
Who do you think has the trickier job securing agreement to compromises - May or Barnier?
Good question. I suppose it depends on the nature of the compromise.
What I will say is that I think Barnier is a smart operator and he seems to have steered the EU27 quite skilfully away from some of their more extreme positions without anyone noticing - most notably, on the crucial issue of the timetable, where they've quietly abandoned their opening stance that we couldn't discuss the trade deal until everything else is largely agreed - or even, as they were originally saying, until after we'd left completely.
Selling a £1 million flat in London and buying a £250k flat in Northampton is not the answer. Before you had £1 million of assets and £0 cash. Now, you have £400k of assets and £600k cash. The total is the same either way. You have cash in the second scenario only because you have poorer accommodation.
Do people who live in London consider moving out to the provinces in the same light as moving to sub saharan Africa or something on retirement ?
If you can buy two identical properties in different areas for a different price - which of course you can - then one of them is worth less than the other, because of where it is. So yes, the cheaper one is poorer. You can have a £1 million property and no cash but if you turn that into a £250k property and £750k cash, or £400 and £600, or whatever (GOK how I cocked that up before) you're in exactly the same overall position.
Compare two realities, one where house prices has doubled over X years, one where they stay constant. In the first, you buy a house for £500k, sell for £1 mil, move to a house costing £600k (including moving costs) and are left with £400k. In the second, you buy and sell the same houses at the same time. This time you sell for £500k, buy the second house for £300k, and are left with £200k
So how have raising prices not helped in that first scenario?
The best reason for Hammond to be PM is that toxic Theresa would be replaced. During the 1997-2010 period I repeatedly argued here that Gordon Brown was toxic and heading for certain defeat. With TMay this is not just speculation but based on her record - the chronic misjudgements and appalling campaigning skills. I think she's possibly worse than Gordon Brown.
That's an argument for replacing her in time for the next election, not necessarily for replacing her immediately.
What are we not going to ask for that we were previously?
What are they not going to offer that they otherwise would?
Another Brexiteer fantasy with no basis in objective fact...
Fantasies with no basis in objective fact? Like calling me a Brexiteer?
To answer your questions:
The 'how' part is partly because the EU27 now don't know whether the PM can make any compromise which she agrees stick. So that makes a far-reaching deal, where the two sides would trade concessions, more difficult. It's also because there is now a non-negligible risk of the loonier type of Brexiteer MP forming a devil's alliance with the opposition to torpedo a deal.
The threat of a deal being torpedoed unless it's good enough could be helpful. Wasn't that the whole point of "no deal is better than a bad deal"?
Exactly so. Hence my "flowery" language early this morning. The Tory USP is or should be " we are careful with the taxpayers money because we know how hard you work to earn it." That is no longer a sustainable position.
If voters didn't want the country to be held to ransom by vested interests, they should have voted Conservative. They didn't, in sufficient numbers, so the government has to do what it can to deal with the situation.
It's all a side-show anyway - the DUP bung is completely negligible compared with the likely increased costs of the Brexit bill now that our negotiating position has been weakened so badly.
That's a pretty absurd formulation - voters vote for an MP who is a party member, not for a particular outcome, and just because they voted in an election doesn't mean they are individually responsible for its consequences. One might just as well argue that you ought to have voted for Corbyn.
The consequences for the Brexit bill are pretty imponderable at this point. One might argue on present form that a May government with a large majority might be even more of a disaster. the reality is that Brexit was always likely to be a mess; that we have a less than competent government; and that we have a hopelessly deluded utopianism opposition.
Why could nobody afford to move with CGT on homes. Prices would adjust accordingly and make first time buying more affordable. The introduction would be tricky.
Say you live in a London flat that you paid £250k for 20 years ago. You have since married and have kids approaching school age. You need to move out of town nearer schools and grandparents.
Your flat is now worth £1 million, and at the moment, you could sell it and spend the £1 million on a 3- or small 4-bedroom house somewhere like Kingston or Barnet...exactly as would have been the case 20 years ago.
This in itself tells you that there has been no capital gain. The £1 million price tag is just inflation. There's no way to sell for a million and re-buy for a quarter of that.
Selling a £1 million flat in London and buying a £250k flat in Northampton is not the answer. Before you had £1 million of assets and £0 cash. Now, you have £400k of assets and £600k cash. The total is the same either way. You have cash in the second scenario only because you have poorer accommodation.
Ignoring changes in location, if you upsize, then increased house prices are bad for you. If you downsize, they're good. The problem is that you tend to do those things at certain times of your life (upsize as you start a family, potentially downsize when retiring), which means you have a generation of would-be upsizers losing out and a generation of potential downsizers gaining
House price inflation may be bad, but its existence is not the fault of home owners. My mother paid £19k for a house 47 years ago, and she is still long exactly one house. She has not been bidding the market up. The market has gone up around her.
She is not minded to downsize because her doctor, friends, bridge club, trusted car dealership, and tradesmen are all nearby. If she sold up she'd get £1.6 million, but she'd have to pay £1 million for something smaller in the same area. She'd incur transaction costs of at least £60k doing so plus probably the same again on any work that needed doing to the place she was buying.
It adds up to paying at least £100k in cash needlessly, so she'd end up with £1.5 million of cash plus house, where before she had £1.6 million.
Hmmm it seems that the Conservative Party has a "quality" issue with its MPs. Is this really the best reason for being PM?
"Philip Hammond thinks he can be Prime Minister because Theresa May is.
In yesterday's Sunday Times, political editor Tim Shipman revealed that some ministers want the current Chancellor, Philip Hammond to become a "caretaker Prime Minister".
The Sunday Times reports that a "former cabinet colleague" of the Chancellor said: "He told me that if Theresa May could be prime minister, so could he.""
The best reason for Hammond to be PM is that toxic Theresa would be replaced. During the 1997-2010 period I repeatedly argued here that Gordon Brown was toxic and heading for certain defeat. With TMay this is not just speculation but based on her record - the chronic misjudgements and appalling campaigning skills. I think she's possibly worse than Gordon Brown.
Well she hasn't smeared millions of her core voters yet, although the Tory manifesto had the same effect.
Who do you think has the trickier job securing agreement to compromises - May or Barnier?
Good question. I suppose it depends on the nature of the compromise.
What I will say is that I think Barnier is a smart operator and he seems to have steered the EU27 quite skilfully away from some of their more extreme positions without anyone noticing - most notably, on the crucial issue of the timetable, where they've quietly abandoned their opening stance that we couldn't discuss the trade deal until everything else is largely agreed - or even, as they were originally saying, until after we'd left completely
Agree - now lets see if he can remove (or water down) the ECJ requirement that the Commission inserted into the EU27's original (ECJ free) position paper.
5.0 out of 5 starsSocialism is the Utopia we all deserve. ByMarkon 27 June 2017 Format: Paperback This is a well researched, incisive and gripping read. The myth that captialism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system is brutally exposed in this tour de force, and explains - in great detail - that socialism is the greatest wealth creator in human history.
From high taxes, state control, nationalisation, mass immigration, the appeasement of Islam, and many other worthwhile ideologies, this searing book shows us all that socialism really is the Utopia we all deserve.
It's now only a matter of time before our saviour, Saint Corbyn, sweeps into power and enriches each and every one of us!!
Exactly so. Hence my "flowery" language early this morning. The Tory USP is or should be " we are careful with the taxpayers money because we know how hard you work to earn it." That is no longer a sustainable position.
If voters didn't want the country to be held to ransom by vested interests, they should have voted Conservative. They didn't, in sufficient numbers, so the government has to do what it can to deal with the situation.
It's all a side-show anyway - the DUP bung is completely negligible compared with the likely increased costs of the Brexit bill now that our negotiating position has been weakened so badly.
How does May's election defeat make striking a good deal any more difficult? Do you really think the EU negotiators care less what happened in the UK elections.
It's this sort of arrogance that is making us such a laughing stock. The Empire is no more. Get used to it.
Speak for yourself.
I have my pith helmet, jodhpurs, bugle and redcoat stored safely in my cupboard and ready to get out in April 2019.
Who do you think has the trickier job securing agreement to compromises - May or Barnier?
Good question. I suppose it depends on the nature of the compromise.
What I will say is that I think Barnier is a smart operator and he seems to have steered the EU27 quite skilfully away from some of their more extreme positions without anyone noticing - most notably, on the crucial issue of the timetable, where they've quietly abandoned their opening stance that we couldn't discuss the trade deal until everything else is largely agreed - or even, as they were originally saying, until after we'd left completely.
@faisalislam: Davis says will be "no impact" on businesses from Government's introduction of "settled status"... but immigration will be brought down..
No impact on business, unless they want to hire immigrants...
Who do you think has the trickier job securing agreement to compromises - May or Barnier?
Good question. I suppose it depends on the nature of the compromise.
What I will say is that I think Barnier is a smart operator and he seems to have steered the EU27 quite skilfully away from some of their more extreme positions without anyone noticing - most notably, on the crucial issue of the timetable, where they've quietly abandoned their opening stance that we couldn't discuss the trade deal until everything else is largely agreed - or even, as they were originally saying, until after we'd left completely.
Yes, I think Barnier will be firm but fair.
Davis will be Brexity, but pragmatic.
A deal will be done.
I've got confidence in Davis. I thought he was good on Marr on Sunday
Who do you think has the trickier job securing agreement to compromises - May or Barnier?
Good question. I suppose it depends on the nature of the compromise.
What I will say is that I think Barnier is a smart operator and he seems to have steered the EU27 quite skilfully away from some of their more extreme positions without anyone noticing - most notably, on the crucial issue of the timetable, where they've quietly abandoned their opening stance that we couldn't discuss the trade deal until everything else is largely agreed - or even, as they were originally saying, until after we'd left completely.
Yes, I think Barnier will be firm but fair.
Davis will be Brexity, but pragmatic.
A deal will be done.
I've got confidence in Davis. I thought he was good on Marr on Sunday
Hmmm it seems that the Conservative Party has a "quality" issue with its MPs. Is this really the best reason for being PM?
"Philip Hammond thinks he can be Prime Minister because Theresa May is.
In yesterday's Sunday Times, political editor Tim Shipman revealed that some ministers want the current Chancellor, Philip Hammond to become a "caretaker Prime Minister".
The Sunday Times reports that a "former cabinet colleague" of the Chancellor said: "He told me that if Theresa May could be prime minister, so could he.""
The best reason for Hammond to be PM is that toxic Theresa would be replaced. During the 1997-2010 period I repeatedly argued here that Gordon Brown was toxic and heading for certain defeat. With TMay this is not just speculation but based on her record - the chronic misjudgements and appalling campaigning skills. I think she's possibly worse than Gordon Brown.
It is a difficult call, what is the right thing to do. Keeping TMay avoids an early leadership election (and we don't really do temporary PMs) which would instal Hammond or Davis as a forced choice. Strategically the Tories should time Corbyn out (he will be 70 in 2019), start playing the ball and not the man, and go into the next GE with a 40-something fresh face. Who that will be I don't know, but there is two years to find out.
@faisalislam: Davis says will be "no impact" on businesses from Government's introduction of "settled status"... but immigration will be brought down..
No impact on business, unless they want to hire immigrants...
pragmatic...
Yes, but you are a partisan plonker on all matters related to Brexit (as is Faisal, to be fair) so we ignore you.
So with the DUP deal in place it looks like there were won't be another election for a while. So the 2 key questions now are:
1) Will May survive? Parliament goes into recess on the 20th July so I feel that if May survives to then she'll probably hang on until the end of Brexit negotiations
2) Will the McDonnell amendment pass? If it passes then the left have secured the succession. As Corbyn is 70 in May 2019, he could well choose to stand down in a year or 2 and pass the baton on to someone with the same politics but without the baggage.
On the other hand if the amendment fails then Corbyn has to stay on (assuming the new intake isn't full of Corbynites). In this case it's not hard to see a renewed bout of infighting kicking off. I also wonder if in this scenario, the far left might start to look at the boundary review in a favourable light as a way of trying to replace some of the moderates.
Do any of our Labour commentators have a view on whether the amendment will pass?
I'm in favour of the McDonnell amendment and wrote an ingenious piece (well, I thought so) about why moderates should be keen:
But the discussion has moved on. Nobody is trying to get rid of Jeremy. His baggage has been considered by the electorate and priced in - if the Tories try to fight another election on "ooh, he was nice to the IRA in 1973" most people will just laugh. And it misunderstands his outlook on life to imagine him saying "I'm 70 soon, this is stressful, time to take it a bit easier" - he is both fit and sees life as a matter of socialist duty: he will carry on until either overthrown (unlikely before the next election) or persuaded that someone else would do it better (who?).
So the issue has lost its urgency. I think the amendment will be lost and that nobody will greatly care. The new influx of MPs changes the arithmetic anyway.
Of course having a weak government makes it harder. I really can't see how anyone could conceivably disagree with this most obvious of uncontroversial points.
It makes the negotiation a great deal more difficult - but it does not necessarily mean a worse outcome.
Selling a £1 million flat in London and buying a £250k flat in Northampton is not the answer. Before you had £1 million of assets and £0 cash. Now, you have £400k of assets and £600k cash. The total is the same either way. You have cash in the second scenario only because you have poorer accommodation.
Do people who live in London consider moving out to the provinces in the same light as moving to sub saharan Africa or something on retirement ?
If you can buy two identical properties in different areas for a different price - which of course you can - then one of them is worth less than the other, because of where it is. So yes, the cheaper one is poorer. You can have a £1 million property and no cash but if you turn that into a £250k property and £750k cash, or £400 and £600, or whatever (GOK how I cocked that up before) you're in exactly the same overall position.
Compare two realities, one where house prices has doubled over X years, one where they stay constant. In the first, you buy a house for £500k, sell for £1 mil, move to a house costing £600k (including moving costs) and are left with £400k. In the second, you buy and sell the same houses at the same time. This time you sell for £500k, buy the second house for £300k, and are left with £200k
So how have raising prices not helped in that first scenario?
Because apparently "house" is now a unit of currency...
Selling a £1 million flat in London and buying a £250k flat in Northampton is not the answer. Before you had £1 million of assets and £0 cash. Now, you have £400k of assets and £600k cash. The total is the same either way. You have cash in the second scenario only because you have poorer accommodation.
Do people who live in London consider moving out to the provinces in the same light as moving to sub saharan Africa or something on retirement ?
If you can buy two identical properties in different areas for a different price - which of course you can - then one of them is worth less than the other, because of where it is. So yes, the cheaper one is poorer. You can have a £1 million property and no cash but if you turn that into a £250k property and £750k cash, or £400 and £600, or whatever (GOK how I cocked that up before) you're in exactly the same overall position.
Surely the same applies to shares? If I buy shares in Barclays for 250k and they go up to £1m then I can't sell my shares at one price and then immediately buy them back at the original price.
Some of the rise will be inflation and some of it will be a capital gain.
If there is a difference - it's that you need a house to live in but you don't have to have Barclays shares. That said - indexing the gain to the increase of average house prices in the UK seems to solve the problem?
There is CGT on shares, but you can sell the Barclays shares every year and set the gains off against your annual CGT allowance. You can also transfer some into an ISA every year so that after 20 years you'd have all your gains in a tax free wrapper.
So while shares attract CGT, there are ways to manage its impact to nil.
I don't see the point of indexing. The best index would be no CGT at all. Consider the following farcical situation. Fred buys a wreck of a semi for £500k and spends £100k doing it up. It sells for £575k, so he is charged CGT on the £75k "gain" even though it owes him £600k.
Bob buys the other half of the semi, also a wreck, does nothing to it and a year later he also sells for £575k. His CGT bill is the same as Fred's.
The best reason for Hammond to be PM is that toxic Theresa would be replaced. During the 1997-2010 period I repeatedly argued here that Gordon Brown was toxic and heading for certain defeat. With TMay this is not just speculation but based on her record - the chronic misjudgements and appalling campaigning skills. I think she's possibly worse than Gordon Brown.
That's an argument for replacing her in time for the next election, not necessarily for replacing her immediately.
If I were a Tory I'd replace her now. Three main reasons...
She has no authority, since everyone knows she is a goner (sooner or later) people don't have to take her seriously. They can wait it out. This is terrible for Brexit negotiations.
She is still as rubbish at politics as she was in the campaign. She will continue to cost you votes every day she stays. If a big event comes up, she will probably mishandle it and cost you votes.
In her heart of hearts she probably still believes she can fix this. She can't. She is likely to make decisions that are based on recovering her reputation.
Regarding the DUP deal, I do wonder if there is a longer term risk to British democracy.
(Hear me out.)
If I were an ambitious, sensible and smart leader of the Scottish nationalists, I would be thinking less about Scottish independence and more about Scottish pork. Bringing government spending to Scotland would seem to be a surer route to re-election than another referendum. "Only we will stand up for Scottish interests, and only we can bring jobs to Scotland" is a pretty effective rallying cry.
Now imagine you were sitting in Cornwall. It's another poorer part of the UK, with strong regional identity. It even has an existing nationalist party. Perhaps it could run candidates that would stand up and bring pork to Cornwall? The LibDems and Labour Party are weak there, and someone standing up for local interests who could bring a billion pounds to the region... well that would look pretty attractive.
I suspect I'm wrong. But if regionalism - and begger thy neighbour politics - is seen to pay, then we will get more of it. This is not a good thing.
There will be a big increase in patronage as a result of Brexit. The main diplomatic consequence of leaving the EU for the UK will be a big loss of influence, which the government will partially redeem by paying for it. I don't expect the UK contributions to the EU to fall much if at all, for that reason. The government will be in a mindset of paying for outcomes rather than having them through constitutional means. The Scottish government has some say over Brexit legislation thanks to the Sewell Convention, which was specifically discarded only for the Article 50 negotiation.
The EU like to claim that they are amazing negotiators with years of experience and that the UK don't know what they are doing etc etc, but the evidence is that the EU have always been inept at negotiation which is why they have so few deals with countries big enough to say 'no'.
Barnier is not a great operator - if he was he would never have allowed the ECJ to sneak into their position paper? It wasn't in the EU Council mandate. Now he is going to have to be the first one to concede on a major point - why would you set yourself up for that? No wonder DD was happy to let him have his timetable.
If the EU won't concede on the ECJ there won't be a deal and the overwhelming reaction will be that the EU deliberately sabotaged the process.
Then, even if he gets through this, Barnier then has to press a Brexit bill for which he has zero legal basis.
Truth is that the EU team does not know what it is doing.
Who do you think has the trickier job securing agreement to compromises - May or Barnier?
Good question. I suppose it depends on the nature of the compromise.
What I will say is that I think Barnier is a smart operator and he seems to have steered the EU27 quite skilfully away from some of their more extreme positions without anyone noticing - most notably, on the crucial issue of the timetable, where they've quietly abandoned their opening stance that we couldn't discuss the trade deal until everything else is largely agreed - or even, as they were originally saying, until after we'd left completely.
Hmmm it seems that the Conservative Party has a "quality" issue with its MPs. Is this really the best reason for being PM?
"Philip Hammond thinks he can be Prime Minister because Theresa May is.
In yesterday's Sunday Times, political editor Tim Shipman revealed that some ministers want the current Chancellor, Philip Hammond to become a "caretaker Prime Minister".
The Sunday Times reports that a "former cabinet colleague" of the Chancellor said: "He told me that if Theresa May could be prime minister, so could he.""
The best reason for Hammond to be PM is that toxic Theresa would be replaced. During the 1997-2010 period I repeatedly argued here that Gordon Brown was toxic and heading for certain defeat. With TMay this is not just speculation but based on her record - the chronic misjudgements and appalling campaigning skills. I think she's possibly worse than Gordon Brown.
It is still not a very good reason Mike. All we would be doing is upgrading from "cr*p and toxic" to "merely cr*p".
Surely they should be looking to upgrade to at least "competent"?
The best reason for Hammond to be PM is that toxic Theresa would be replaced. During the 1997-2010 period I repeatedly argued here that Gordon Brown was toxic and heading for certain defeat. With TMay this is not just speculation but based on her record - the chronic misjudgements and appalling campaigning skills. I think she's possibly worse than Gordon Brown.
That's an argument for replacing her in time for the next election, not necessarily for replacing her immediately.
If I were a Tory I'd replace her now. Three main reasons...
She has no authority, since everyone knows she is a goner (sooner or later) people don't have to take her seriously. They can wait it out. This is terrible for Brexit negotiations.
She is still as rubbish at politics as she was in the campaign. She will continue to cost you votes every day she stays. If a big event comes up, she will probably mishandle it and cost you votes.
In her heart of hearts she probably still believes she can fix this. She can't. She is likely to make decisions that are based on recovering her reputation.
If you ditch her now she can't take the heat for an economic slump or bad Brexit.
What are we not going to ask for that we were previously?
What are they not going to offer that they otherwise would?
Another Brexiteer fantasy with no basis in objective fact...
Fantasies with no basis in objective fact? Like calling me a Brexiteer?
To answer your questions:
The 'how' part is partly because the EU27 now don't know whether the PM can make any compromise which she agrees stick.
Who do you think has the trickier job securing agreement to compromises - May or Barnier?
Barnier has the trickier job to compromise. But with a stronger hand he doesn't need to compromise so much, nor does it matter so much to him if there's no deal.
I think Hammond would be a very poor choice. Incredibly uncharismatic figure who has done little except make a mess of the last Budget over NI contributions. Davis would be preferable but probably best in some ways to stick with May and then hand over to someone younger closer to the election. A parallel might be Enda Kenny/Leo Varadkar in Ireland. Kenny also lost lots of seats but scraped back into government. Stayed on a year or so before handing over to the next generation.
Say you live in a London flat that you paid £250k for 20 years ago. You have since married and have kids approaching school age. You need to move out of town nearer schools and grandparents.
Your flat is now worth £1 million, and at the moment, you could sell it and spend the £1 million on a 3- or small 4-bedroom house somewhere like Kingston or Barnet...exactly as would have been the case 20 years ago.
This in itself tells you that there has been no capital gain. The £1 million price tag is just inflation. There's no way to sell for a million and re-buy for a quarter of that.
Selling a £1 million flat in London and buying a £250k flat in Northampton is not the answer. Before you had £1 million of assets and £0 cash. Now, you have £400k of assets and £600k cash. The total is the same either way. You have cash in the second scenario only because you have poorer accommodation.
If you tax the inflation on homes, first, any such tax is wholly disconnected from ability to pay. My mother paid £19k for her one house 47 years ago and today she still has one house that's worth £1.6 million or so for reasons nothing to do with her. She has a pensioner's income. Second, you create the problem of why is there no corresponding tax relief on the borrowing that gave rise to the supposed capital gain (they have both in the USA). Third, the result of this proposed CGT is that if I sell my £1 million flat, and some of the inflationary gain is confiscated, I now can't afford the house I want to buy. I can invite the seller to reduce his price to reflect my tax, but of course my own buyer is doing the same, so I'm no further forward and moving at all has become impossible.
Incidentally, if you think first time buying is more affordable in a property crash, think again. Lenders want bigger deposits and smaller salary multiples and nobody sells because of negative equity, to which you want to add CGT.
They paid tax on the earnings that bought it. If they had had tax relief on that and if improvements came off the CGT bill you'd have more of a point, but in any event the "gain" is illusory and cannot be spent.
Startlingly sensible post.
It's not sensible, it's a load of bollocks.
For good reasons, a capital gain isn't nullified by the ability to buy something else in the same asset class that's seen the same gain. You can't do that with stocks either - if you had an investment in CocaCola and it went up in value, you can't say there was no capital gain because it would cost you an equal amount to buy Pepsi stocks.
The answer to the specific quandary is that you can spend the gain buy not buying more property in London.
I think Hammond would be a very poor choice. Incredibly uncharismatic figure who has done little except make a mess of the last Budget over NI contributions.
The u-turn on that was completely ridiculous, the government should have rode out the tiny storm in the teacup.
The best reason for Hammond to be PM is that toxic Theresa would be replaced. During the 1997-2010 period I repeatedly argued here that Gordon Brown was toxic and heading for certain defeat. With TMay this is not just speculation but based on her record - the chronic misjudgements and appalling campaigning skills. I think she's possibly worse than Gordon Brown.
That's an argument for replacing her in time for the next election, not necessarily for replacing her immediately.
If I were a Tory I'd replace her now. Three main reasons...
She has no authority, since everyone knows she is a goner (sooner or later) people don't have to take her seriously. They can wait it out. This is terrible for Brexit negotiations.
She is still as rubbish at politics as she was in the campaign. She will continue to cost you votes every day she stays. If a big event comes up, she will probably mishandle it and cost you votes.
In her heart of hearts she probably still believes she can fix this. She can't. She is likely to make decisions that are based on recovering her reputation.
If you ditch her now she can't take the heat for an economic slump or bad Brexit.
Harry, I presume you got the confirmation that bet was paid promptly to your charity of choice.
Selling a £1 million flat in London and buying a £250k flat in Northampton is not the answer. Before you had £1 million of assets and £0 cash. Now, you have £400k of assets and £600k cash. The total is the same either way. You have cash in the second scenario only because you have poorer accommodation.
Do people who live in London consider moving out to the provinces in the same light as moving to sub saharan Africa or something on retirement ?
If you can buy two identical properties in different areas for a different price - which of course you can - then one of them is worth less than the other, because of where it is. So yes, the cheaper one is poorer. You can have a £1 million property and no cash but if you turn that into a £250k property and £750k cash, or £400 and £600, or whatever (GOK how I cocked that up before) you're in exactly the same overall position.
Compare two realities, one where house prices has doubled over X years, one where they stay constant. In the first, you buy a house for £500k, sell for £1 mil, move to a house costing £600k (including moving costs) and are left with £400k. In the second, you buy and sell the same houses at the same time. This time you sell for £500k, buy the second house for £300k, and are left with £200k
So how have raising prices not helped in that first scenario?
I'm not sure I am following you. I think you are saying that in the one case where there have been x years of house price inflation you end up ahead of someone who trades down before those x years. Well, if so, the former has a house and no cash for x years, while the latter has a smaller house plus a sum of cash which can be stashed somewhere for the same x years. the correct comparison is with the situation of both after x years, not after x in one case and before x in the latter.
In general, any supposedly spendable benefit from downsizing turns out to be spurious on inspection, I find. The owner who downsizes a £1 million house to a £600k one now has cash and assets worth less than before, after considering the transaction costs. To say that s/he is better off from doing so is exactly like saying that if I flog my £10k second-hand Mercedes and buy a second £6k Vauxhall, I've "made" £4k.
The best reason for Hammond to be PM is that toxic Theresa would be replaced. During the 1997-2010 period I repeatedly argued here that Gordon Brown was toxic and heading for certain defeat. With TMay this is not just speculation but based on her record - the chronic misjudgements and appalling campaigning skills. I think she's possibly worse than Gordon Brown.
That's an argument for replacing her in time for the next election, not necessarily for replacing her immediately.
If I were a Tory I'd replace her now. Three main reasons...
She has no authority, since everyone knows she is a goner (sooner or later) people don't have to take her seriously. They can wait it out. This is terrible for Brexit negotiations.
She is still as rubbish at politics as she was in the campaign. She will continue to cost you votes every day she stays. If a big event comes up, she will probably mishandle it and cost you votes.
In her heart of hearts she probably still believes she can fix this. She can't. She is likely to make decisions that are based on recovering her reputation.
If you ditch her now she can't take the heat for an economic slump or bad Brexit.
Harry, I presume you got the confirmation that bet was paid promptly to your charity of choice.
Ah - just checked my private messages which I don't really do - thank you malc !
What are we not going to ask for that we were previously?
What are they not going to offer that they otherwise would?
Another Brexiteer fantasy with no basis in objective fact...
Fantasies with no basis in objective fact? Like calling me a Brexiteer?
To answer your questions:
The 'how' part is partly because the EU27 now don't know whether the PM can make any compromise which she agrees stick.
Who do you think has the trickier job securing agreement to compromises - May or Barnier?
Barnier has the trickier job to compromise. But with a stronger hand he doesn't need to compromise so much, nor does it matter so much to him if there's no deal.
The way the UK has approached Brexit so far has made the job of the EU27 and its negotiators much, much easier than it needed to be. We have allowed ourselves to come across as confrontational, obstructive, poorly prepared and incompetent - largely because we have been all those things - meaning that internal pressures on the EU27 to reach out and do a deal are almost non-existent. A sensible UK government would have been conciliatory, amicable, constructive and thorough - permanently engaged with media outlets across the EU27 to explain the UK's positions and why they make sense not just for the UK, but for the whole of Europe. When you have a weak hand willy-waving threats really don't work - unless your only interest is in getting positive headlines from right wing newspapers at home.
So with the DUP deal in place it looks like there were won't be another election for a while. So the 2 key questions now are:
1) Will May survive? Parliament goes into recess on the 20th July so I feel that if May survives to then she'll probably hang on until the end of Brexit negotiations
2) Will the McDonnell amendment pass? If it passes then the left have secured the succession. As Corbyn is 70 in May 2019, he could well choose to stand down in a year or 2 and pass the baton on to someone with the same politics but without the baggage.
On the other hand if the amendment fails then Corbyn has to stay on (assuming the new intake isn't full of Corbynites). In this case it's not hard to see a renewed bout of infighting kicking off. I also wonder if in this scenario, the far left might start to look at the boundary review in a favourable light as a way of trying to replace some of the moderates.
Do any of our Labour commentators have a view on whether the amendment will pass?
I'm in favour of the McDonnell amendment and wrote an ingenious piece (well, I thought so) about why moderates should be keen:
But the discussion has moved on. Nobody is trying to get rid of Jeremy. His baggage has been considered by the electorate and priced in - if the Tories try to fight another election on "ooh, he was nice to the IRA in 1973" most people will just laugh. And it misunderstands his outlook on life to imagine him saying "I'm 70 soon, this is stressful, time to take it a bit easier" - he is both fit and sees life as a matter of socialist duty: he will carry on until either overthrown (unlikely before the next election) or persuaded that someone else would do it better (who?).
So the issue has lost its urgency. I think the amendment will be lost and that nobody will greatly care. The new influx of MPs changes the arithmetic anyway.
When it comes to politics you are a very polite wolf in sheep's clothing.
That fake socialist economics book on amazon..The lefties buying it should have realised it was a setup, it was clearly too cheap, it should have been 10x and you have to go and print it yourself at the state run printers, but due to the inflexible way they are run you can't book online, they only do book printing every second Tuesday of the month and have to wait 4 months for a slot.
Say you live in a London flat that you paid £250k for 20 years ago. You have since married and have kids approaching school age. You need to move out of town nearer schools and grandparents.
Your flat is now worth £1 million, and at the moment, you could sell it and spend the £1 million on a 3- or small 4-bedroom house somewhere like Kingston or Barnet...exactly as would have been the case 20 years ago.
This in itself tells you that there has been no capital gain. The £1 million price tag is just inflation. There's no way to sell for a million and re-buy for a quarter of that.
Selling a £1 million flat in London and buying a £250k flat in Northampton is not the answer. Before you had £1 million of assets and £0 cash. Now, you have £400k of assets and £600k cash. The total is the same either way. You have cash in the second scenario only because you have poorer accommodation.
Incidentally, if you think first time buying is more affordable in a property crash, think again. Lenders want bigger deposits and smaller salary multiples and nobody sells because of negative equity, to which you want to add CGT.
They paid tax on the earnings that bought it. If they had had tax relief on that and if improvements came off the CGT bill you'd have more of a point, but in any event the "gain" is illusory and cannot be spent.
Startlingly sensible post.
It's not sensible, it's a load of bollocks.
For good reasons, a capital gain isn't nullified by the ability to buy something else in the same asset class that's seen the same gain. You can't do that with stocks either - if you had an investment in CocaCola and it went up in value, you can't say there was no capital gain because it would cost you an equal amount to buy Pepsi stocks.
The answer to the specific quandary is that you can spend the gain buy not buying more property in London.
We'll have to agree to differ. You get a capital gains tax allowance on shares that for most purposes means nobody need pay it.
If I sell my house and a replacement costs exactly the same as what I just sold mine for, I have no gain. If I spend (or an taxed on) whatever it has gone up in price by, I now can't afford to replace it.
A gain would be if I somehow sold my house for more than general house price inflation. I know someone who bought a flat then a year later sold it for just under double to the man who had bought all the other flats in the house and wanted to merge them back into a dwelling. That's a gain because absent that it would have been worth about what he paid.
I think Hammond would be a very poor choice. Incredibly uncharismatic figure who has done little except make a mess of the last Budget over NI contributions. Davis would be preferable but probably best in some ways to stick with May and then hand over to someone younger closer to the election. A parallel might be Enda Kenny/Leo Varadkar in Ireland. Kenny also lost lots of seats but scraped back into government. Stayed on a year or so before handing over to the next generation.
Yeah, I'm not understanding how anyone can think Hammond would be more of an electoral asset than May. He has similar levels of charisma and communication skills as her, and less gravitas.
On top of that, I also feel him not supporting gay marriage (and the same goes for Davis) will be a major black mark against him -- I get the sense that with the younger generations (by which I mean anyone under 40), supporting gay marriage is a basic test of whether someone is a decent humanbeing, rightly or wrongly. Similar to fox-hunting.
@Simon_Nixon: David Davis: "EU partnership will require new dispute resolution mechanism. It won't be ECJ but it will be supranational." #TimesCEOSummit
This thread strongly makes the case for wealth rather than income taxes to encourage efficient use of ones total resources..............
My mother has owned her house for 47 years and done nothing but live in it. Her income is that of a pensioner.
What is this wealth of which you speak? If she deserves a wealth tax now because of this house, why not in 1970, or 1975, or whatever? What has happened that makes her deserving of a tax?
@Simon_Nixon: David Davis: "EU partnership will require new dispute resolution mechanism. It won't be ECJ but it will be supranational." #TimesCEOSummit
I think Hammond would be a very poor choice. Incredibly uncharismatic figure who has done little except make a mess of the last Budget over NI contributions. Davis would be preferable but probably best in some ways to stick with May and then hand over to someone younger closer to the election. A parallel might be Enda Kenny/Leo Varadkar in Ireland. Kenny also lost lots of seats but scraped back into government. Stayed on a year or so before handing over to the next generation.
Yeah, I'm not understanding how anyone can think Hammond would be more of an electoral asset than May. He has similar levels of charisma and communication skills as her, and less gravitas.
On top of that, I also feel him not supporting gay marriage (and the same goes for Davis) will be a major black mark against him -- I get the sense that with the younger generations (by which I mean anyone under 40), supporting gay marriage is a basic test of whether someone is a decent humanbeing, rightly or wrongly. Similar to fox-hunting.
The younger generations appear unconcerned by whether Corbyn is a decent human being so I'm not sure how much this matters.
@Simon_Nixon: David Davis: "EU partnership will require new dispute resolution mechanism. It won't be ECJ but it will be supranational." #TimesCEOSummit
Yep - this is without doubt the case. And the UK will have to agree to be bound by it as both an arbiter of last resort and as a creator of case law. IN other words, we will continue to pool our sovereignty.
Selling a £1 million flat in London and buying a £250k flat in Northampton is not the answer. Before you had £1 million of assets and £0 cash. Now, you have £400k of assets and £600k cash. The total is the same either way. You have cash in the second scenario only because you have poorer accommodation.
?
Compare two realities, one where house prices has doubled over X years, one where they stay constant. In the first, you buy a house for £500k, sell for £1 mil, move to a house costing £600k (including moving costs) and are left with £400k. In the second, you buy and sell the same houses at the same time. This time you sell for £500k, buy the second house for £300k, and are left with £200k
So how have raising prices not helped in that first scenario?
I'm not sure I am following you. I think you are saying that in the one case where there have been x years of house price inflation you end up ahead of someone who trades down before those x years. Well, if so, the former has a house and no cash for x years, while the latter has a smaller house plus a sum of cash which can be stashed somewhere for the same x years. the correct comparison is with the situation of both after x years, not after x in one case and before x in the latter.
In general, any supposedly spendable benefit from downsizing turns out to be spurious on inspection, I find. The owner who downsizes a £1 million house to a £600k one now has cash and assets worth less than before, after considering the transaction costs. To say that s/he is better off from doing so is exactly like saying that if I flog my £10k second-hand Mercedes and buy a second £6k Vauxhall, I've "made" £4k.
House price inflation doesn't feel like a gain to owners simply because they perceive a lack of alternatives, and because of the hassle, costs and timescale involved in moving. In reality, of course, people do have alternatives - people who own most or all of their home in London could move to very many other places, both in this country or across the world, easily find a new property to meet all of their needs, and be left with a significant lump sum and greatly reduced need for income. Similarly people can move to smaller properties, rent, etc.
It would be sensible to try and tackle the housing bubble by gradually and progressively moving taxation toward property wealth, balanced off by reductions in other taxation such as stamp duty. The fixed taxes for owning a flat in New York are about ten times those in London. Higher property taxes would also bring in significant income from foreign "investors" including those who leave property sitting empty.
Yeah, you are just repeating EU propaganda. This is how they negotiate - leak to the press about how incompetent their opponents are etc - ask the Greeks how it works. The EU simply don't like anyone negotiating with them that might say no - they seem to be offended by the fact that the UK don't look like they will roll over on demand.
In fact, the EU have positioned themselves remarkably badly for these talks because they have overestimated their hand - something they do quite frequently. They should never have raised ECJ jurisdiction because they can't win on that. They should never have tried to force the Brexit bill up front, because they have zero legal basis for the bill. It would actually be in the EUs best interests to do this and trade at the same time, as they would at least have some basis to ask for concessions.
DD can call the EUs bluff on the Brexit bill in five seconds by offering to refer it to the ICJ IF there is a trade deal. Then, we get the trade deal and in all likelihood the EU never get any money as by law they are not entitled to anything.
The way the UK has approached Brexit so far has made the job of the EU27 and its negotiators much, much easier than it needed to be. We have allowed ourselves to come across as confrontational, obstructive, poorly prepared and incompetent - largely because we have been all those things - meaning that internal pressures on the EU27 to reach out and do a deal are almost non-existent. A sensible UK government would have been conciliatory, amicable, constructive and thorough - permanently engaged with media outlets across the EU27 to explain the UK's positions and why they make sense not just for the UK, but for the whole of Europe. When you have a weak hand willy-waving threats really don't work - unless your only interest is in getting positive headlines from right wing newspapers at home.
It would be sensible to try and tackle the housing bubble by gradually and progressively moving taxation toward property wealth, balanced off by reductions in other taxation such as stamp duty. The fixed taxes for owning a flat in New York are about ten times those in London. Higher property taxes would also bring in significant income from foreign "investors" including those who leave property sitting empty.
The lump sum can be put to work with a basket of dividend paying shares too, injecting money into the nations' companies and future pension pots
It would be sensible to try and tackle the housing bubble by gradually and progressively moving taxation toward property wealth, balanced off by reductions in other taxation such as stamp duty. The fixed taxes for owning a flat in New York are about ten times those in London. Higher property taxes would also bring in significant income from foreign "investors" including those who leave property sitting empty.
We could call this new tax 'the rates'.
I always thought it was quite a good tax. It provided a sensible nudge to people to downsize if they no longer needed to live in a large/expensive house, without being seen as confiscatory or unfair. Maggie got most things right, but abolishing the rates was a big mistake IMO.
I think Hammond would be a very poor choice. Incredibly uncharismatic figure who has done little except make a mess of the last Budget over NI contributions. Davis would be preferable but probably best in some ways to stick with May and then hand over to someone younger closer to the election. A parallel might be Enda Kenny/Leo Varadkar in Ireland. Kenny also lost lots of seats but scraped back into government. Stayed on a year or so before handing over to the next generation.
Yeah, I'm not understanding how anyone can think Hammond would be more of an electoral asset than May. He has similar levels of charisma and communication skills as her, and less gravitas.
On top of that, I also feel him not supporting gay marriage (and the same goes for Davis) will be a major black mark against him -- I get the sense that with the younger generations (by which I mean anyone under 40), supporting gay marriage is a basic test of whether someone is a decent humanbeing, rightly or wrongly. Similar to fox-hunting.
The younger generations appear unconcerned by whether Corbyn is a decent human being so I'm not sure how much this matters.
On the contray, many think that he is a decent human being and see Corbyn as a kind, gentle caring man. I know that quite a few on PB disagree with this analysis (I'm not on board with it either) but many people see Corbyn this way.
The removal of IDS was in opposition. If the Tories forcibly removed a sitting prime minister who had recently secured the biggest Tory vote since 1987, they could be accused of springing an unelected prime minister on the electorate, and removing an elected prime minister -and the opposition and media will accuse them of this. "Who elected David Davis as prime minister?", they will ask. Where is his mandate? I think Phillip Hammond would be a disaster for the Tories. David Davis has more charisma and personality, but what is really needed is someone younger and fresh. The hard faced Preti Patel who has been touted as a possibility would be akin to making the stepmother in Snow White prime minister. Boris Johnson would be a huge risk but risks are sometimes worth taking -unless you are Theresa May.
I think Hammond would be a very poor choice. Incredibly uncharismatic figure who has done little except make a mess of the last Budget over NI contributions. Davis would be preferable but probably best in some ways to stick with May and then hand over to someone younger closer to the election. A parallel might be Enda Kenny/Leo Varadkar in Ireland. Kenny also lost lots of seats but scraped back into government. Stayed on a year or so before handing over to the next generation.
Yeah, I'm not understanding how anyone can think Hammond would be more of an electoral asset than May. He has similar levels of charisma and communication skills as her, and less gravitas.
On top of that, I also feel him not supporting gay marriage (and the same goes for Davis) will be a major black mark against him -- I get the sense that with the younger generations (by which I mean anyone under 40), supporting gay marriage is a basic test of whether someone is a decent humanbeing, rightly or wrongly. Similar to fox-hunting.
There is nothing wrong with fox-hunting. Hunting is a basic human activity stretching back thousands of years, and perfectly natural within the animal kingdom as well.
We live in a time, right now, where it is considered increasingly a black and white issue and it is politically incorrect to support it, despite not being one.
Generations gone by wouldn't understand that, and it's very possible that neither will future generations as well.
Yeah, you are just repeating EU propaganda. This is how they negotiate - leak to the press about how incompetent their opponents are etc - ask the Greeks how it works. The EU simply don't like anyone negotiating with them that might say no - they seem to be offended by the fact that the UK don't look like they will roll over on demand.
In fact, the EU have positioned themselves remarkably badly for these talks because they have overestimated their hand - something they do quite frequently. They should never have raised ECJ jurisdiction because they can't win on that. They should never have tried to force the Brexit bill up front, because they have zero legal basis for the bill. It would actually be in the EUs best interests to do this and trade at the same time, as they would at least have some basis to ask for concessions.
DD can call the EUs bluff on the Brexit bill in five seconds by offering to refer it to the ICJ IF there is a trade deal. Then, we get the trade deal and in all likelihood the EU never get any money as by law they are not entitled to anything.
The way the UK has approached Brexit so far has made the job of the EU27 and its negotiators much, much easier than it needed to be. We have allowed ourselves to come across as confrontational, obstructive, poorly prepared and incompetent - largely because we have been all those things - meaning that internal pressures on the EU27 to reach out and do a deal are almost non-existent. A sensible UK government would have been conciliatory, amicable, constructive and thorough - permanently engaged with media outlets across the EU27 to explain the UK's positions and why they make sense not just for the UK, but for the whole of Europe. When you have a weak hand willy-waving threats really don't work - unless your only interest is in getting positive headlines from right wing newspapers at home.
The EU27 want a mechanism that ensures the rights of EU citizens in the UK are not under the jurisdiction of the UK courts and are not subject to unilateral change once a Brexit deal is done. They have suggested the ECJ. The UK has come back with a counter-suggestion to ensure that the EU27 get what they want - a supra-national body to settle disputes relating to the final EU/UK agreement. In other words, they are going to achieve their objective. I am struggling to see how that is anything other than a win for them - if you choose to see things in such confrontational terms.
@Simon_Nixon: David Davis: "EU partnership will require new dispute resolution mechanism. It won't be ECJ but it will be supranational." #TimesCEOSummit
Yep - this is without doubt the case. And the UK will have to agree to be bound by it as both an arbiter of last resort and as a creator of case law. IN other words, we will continue to pool our sovereignty.
Nice try at trolling.
Almost all nations agree to an ISDR system to adjudicate on matters relating to trade treaties. This will be limited to the scope of the agreement, and it will not presume to legislate for us, nor extend its competence.
If you can't see the difference (of course you can) then I can't help you.
There is CGT on shares, but you can sell the Barclays shares every year and set the gains off against your annual CGT allowance. You can also transfer some into an ISA every year so that after 20 years you'd have all your gains in a tax free wrapper.
So while shares attract CGT, there are ways to manage its impact to nil.
I don't see the point of indexing. The best index would be no CGT at all. Consider the following farcical situation. Fred buys a wreck of a semi for £500k and spends £100k doing it up. It sells for £575k, so he is charged CGT on the £75k "gain" even though it owes him £600k.
Bob buys the other half of the semi, also a wreck, does nothing to it and a year later he also sells for £575k. His CGT bill is the same as Fred's.
Equitable, or stupid?
Why is Bob's semi worth £575k if he hasn't done it up? Surely Fred's is worth more if he has done something useful to it? I'm not sure these examples are all that helpful at this stage.
Anyway - you can argue that all capital gains tax should be zero or tat they should be zero on housing. I think you're totally wrong but it's arguable where the burden of taxation should fall.
What you can't argue is that capital gains don't exist at all - and the enormous increase in value of London property clearly is a case of an asset increasing far more than inflation.
What are we not going to ask for that we were previously?
What are they not going to offer that they otherwise would?
Another Brexiteer fantasy with no basis in objective fact...
Fantasies with no basis in objective fact? Like calling me a Brexiteer?
To answer your questions:
The 'how' part is partly because the EU27 now don't know whether the PM can make any compromise which she agrees stick.
Who do you think has the trickier job securing agreement to compromises - May or Barnier?
Barnier has the trickier job to compromise. But with a stronger hand he doesn't need to compromise so much, nor does it matter so much to him if there's no deal.
The way the UK has approached Brexit so far has made the job of the EU27 and its negotiators much, much easier than it needed to be. We have allowed ourselves to come across as confrontational, obstructive, poorly prepared and incompetent - largely because we have been all those things - meaning that internal pressures on the EU27 to reach out and do a deal are almost non-existent. A sensible UK government would have been conciliatory, amicable, constructive and thorough - permanently engaged with media outlets across the EU27 to explain the UK's positions and why they make sense not just for the UK, but for the whole of Europe. When you have a weak hand willy-waving threats really don't work - unless your only interest is in getting positive headlines from right wing newspapers at home.
That's all true. But I think we also need to credit the EU side for tabling detailed, thought through and mostly sensible, if "uncompromising", proposals. They are good at this stuff. Which incidentally suggests we will struggle to replicate the set of existing agreements with third countries shroud we leave the Customs Union.
Comments
It's this sort of arrogance that is making us such a laughing stock. The Empire is no more. Get used to it.
Your flat is now worth £1 million, and at the moment, you could sell it and spend the £1 million on a 3- or small 4-bedroom house somewhere like Kingston or Barnet...exactly as would have been the case 20 years ago.
This in itself tells you that there has been no capital gain. The £1 million price tag is just inflation. There's no way to sell for a million and re-buy for a quarter of that.
Selling a £1 million flat in London and buying a £250k flat in Northampton is not the answer. Before you had £1 million of assets and £0 cash. Now, you have £400k of assets and £600k cash. The total is the same either way. You have cash in the second scenario only because you have poorer accommodation.
If you tax the inflation on homes, first, any such tax is wholly disconnected from ability to pay. My mother paid £19k for her one house 47 years ago and today she still has one house that's worth £1.6 million or so for reasons nothing to do with her. She has a pensioner's income. Second, you create the problem of why is there no corresponding tax relief on the borrowing that gave rise to the supposed capital gain (they have both in the USA). Third, the result of this proposed CGT is that if I sell my £1 million flat, and some of the inflationary gain is confiscated, I now can't afford the house I want to buy. I can invite the seller to reduce his price to reflect my tax, but of course my own buyer is doing the same, so I'm no further forward and moving at all has become impossible.
Incidentally, if you think first time buying is more affordable in a property crash, think again. Lenders want bigger deposits and smaller salary multiples and nobody sells because of negative equity, to which you want to add CGT. They paid tax on the earnings that bought it. If they had had tax relief on that and if improvements came off the CGT bill you'd have more of a point, but in any event the "gain" is illusory and cannot be spent.
meanwhile back in the real world, Brexit is officially declared boring
http://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/boring-brexit-a-turnoff-says-rt-editor-35869122.html
I expect her to serve out a full term.
I bought my house for £950k in 2012. If I sold it I would probably find I could get £1.3 million for it. To buy another like it nearby would cost me £1.4 million including the transaction charges.
Please show me my "gain". I'd love to go and piss it away, but I've got a nagging suspicion that it doesn't exist.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-jean-clause-juncker-brexit-general-election-a7784641.html
Of course having a weak government makes it harder. I really can't see how anyone could conceivably disagree with this most obvious of uncontroversial points.
Her party still polled higher than any other on all measures, including sitting MP's.
https://twitter.com/mrjohnofarrell/status/879661219153686528
They can do quite a bit of damage to the UK economy - as well as themselves - in the short-term, and that's about it.
What are we not going to ask for that we were previously?
What are they not going to offer that they otherwise would?
Another Brexiteer fantasy with no basis in objective fact...
I have my pith helmet, jodhpurs, bugle and redcoat stored safely in my cupboard and ready to get out in April 2019.
Can barely wait.
That's roughly £71.7 million short of the package pledged to Northern Ireland."
https://www.indy100.com/article/conservative-dup-deal-billion-pounds-northern-ireland-infrastructure-voters-cost-7809821
To answer your questions:
The 'how' part is partly because the EU27 now don't know whether the PM can make any compromise which she agrees stick. So that makes a far-reaching deal, where the two sides would trade concessions, more difficult. It's also because there is now a non-negligible risk of the loonier type of Brexiteer MP forming a devil's alliance with the opposition to torpedo a deal.
"Philip Hammond thinks he can be Prime Minister because Theresa May is.
In yesterday's Sunday Times, political editor Tim Shipman revealed that some ministers want the current Chancellor, Philip Hammond to become a "caretaker Prime Minister".
The Sunday Times reports that a "former cabinet colleague" of the Chancellor said: "He told me that if Theresa May could be prime minister, so could he.""
https://www.indy100.com/article/philip-hammond-worst-justification-wanting-prime-minister-spreadsheet-phil-sunday-times-david-davis-7808426
1) Will May survive? Parliament goes into recess on the 20th July so I feel that if May survives to then she'll probably hang on until the end of Brexit negotiations
2) Will the McDonnell amendment pass? If it passes then the left have secured the succession. As Corbyn is 70 in May 2019, he could well choose to stand down in a year or 2 and pass the baton on to someone with the same politics but without the baggage.
On the other hand if the amendment fails then Corbyn has to stay on (assuming the new intake isn't full of Corbynites). In this case it's not hard to see a renewed bout of infighting kicking off. I also wonder if in this scenario, the far left might start to look at the boundary review in a favourable light as a way of trying to replace some of the moderates.
Do any of our Labour commentators have a view on whether the amendment will pass?
If I buy shares in Barclays for 250k and they go up to £1m then I can't sell my shares at one price and then immediately buy them back at the original price.
Some of the rise will be inflation and some of it will be a capital gain.
If there is a difference - it's that you need a house to live in but you don't have to have Barclays shares. That said - indexing the gain to the increase of average house prices in the UK seems to solve the problem?
What I will say is that I think Barnier is a smart operator and he seems to have steered the EU27 quite skilfully away from some of their more extreme positions without anyone noticing - most notably, on the crucial issue of the timetable, where they've quietly abandoned their opening stance that we couldn't discuss the trade deal until everything else is largely agreed - or even, as they were originally saying, until after we'd left completely.
So how have raising prices not helped in that first scenario?
The consequences for the Brexit bill are pretty imponderable at this point. One might argue on present form that a May government with a large majority might be even more of a disaster.
the reality is that Brexit was always likely to be a mess; that we have a less than competent government; and that we have a hopelessly deluded utopianism opposition.
She is not minded to downsize because her doctor, friends, bridge club, trusted car dealership, and tradesmen are all nearby. If she sold up she'd get £1.6 million, but she'd have to pay £1 million for something smaller in the same area. She'd incur transaction costs of at least £60k doing so plus probably the same again on any work that needed doing to the place she was buying.
It adds up to paying at least £100k in cash needlessly, so she'd end up with £1.5 million of cash plus house, where before she had £1.6 million.
5.0 out of 5 starsSocialism is the Utopia we all deserve.
ByMarkon 27 June 2017
Format: Paperback
This is a well researched, incisive and gripping read. The myth that captialism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system is brutally exposed in this tour de force, and explains - in great detail - that socialism is the greatest wealth creator in human history.
From high taxes, state control, nationalisation, mass immigration, the appeasement of Islam, and many other worthwhile ideologies, this searing book shows us all that socialism really is the Utopia we all deserve.
It's now only a matter of time before our saviour, Saint Corbyn, sweeps into power and enriches each and every one of us!!
LMFAO!!
Davis will be Brexity, but pragmatic.
A deal will be done.
As PM, can she not just order one ?
No impact on business, unless they want to hire immigrants...
pragmatic...
https://twitter.com/TimesBusiness/status/879670904598474752
https://twitter.com/TimesBusiness/status/879671115257450496
https://twitter.com/TimesBusiness/status/879671363077902340
In fact, you may be the same person.
http://labourlist.org/2017/05/nick-palmer-why-corbyns-critics-need-the-mcdonnell-amendment/
But the discussion has moved on. Nobody is trying to get rid of Jeremy. His baggage has been considered by the electorate and priced in - if the Tories try to fight another election on "ooh, he was nice to the IRA in 1973" most people will just laugh. And it misunderstands his outlook on life to imagine him saying "I'm 70 soon, this is stressful, time to take it a bit easier" - he is both fit and sees life as a matter of socialist duty: he will carry on until either overthrown (unlikely before the next election) or persuaded that someone else would do it better (who?).
So the issue has lost its urgency. I think the amendment will be lost and that nobody will greatly care. The new influx of MPs changes the arithmetic anyway.
So while shares attract CGT, there are ways to manage its impact to nil.
I don't see the point of indexing. The best index would be no CGT at all. Consider the following farcical situation. Fred buys a wreck of a semi for £500k and spends £100k doing it up. It sells for £575k, so he is charged CGT on the £75k "gain" even though it owes him £600k.
Bob buys the other half of the semi, also a wreck, does nothing to it and a year later he also sells for £575k. His CGT bill is the same as Fred's.
Equitable, or stupid?
She has no authority, since everyone knows she is a goner (sooner or later) people don't have to take her seriously. They can wait it out. This is terrible for Brexit negotiations.
She is still as rubbish at politics as she was in the campaign. She will continue to cost you votes every day she stays. If a big event comes up, she will probably mishandle it and cost you votes.
In her heart of hearts she probably still believes she can fix this. She can't. She is likely to make decisions that are based on recovering her reputation.
Barnier is not a great operator - if he was he would never have allowed the ECJ to sneak into their position paper? It wasn't in the EU Council mandate. Now he is going to have to be the first one to concede on a major point - why would you set yourself up for that? No wonder DD was happy to let him have his timetable.
If the EU won't concede on the ECJ there won't be a deal and the overwhelming reaction will be that the EU deliberately sabotaged the process.
Then, even if he gets through this, Barnier then has to press a Brexit bill for which he has zero legal basis.
Truth is that the EU team does not know what it is doing.
Surely they should be looking to upgrade to at least "competent"?
For good reasons, a capital gain isn't nullified by the ability to buy something else in the same asset class that's seen the same gain. You can't do that with stocks either - if you had an investment in CocaCola and it went up in value, you can't say there was no capital gain because it would cost you an equal amount to buy Pepsi stocks.
The answer to the specific quandary is that you can spend the gain buy not buying more property in London.
In general, any supposedly spendable benefit from downsizing turns out to be spurious on inspection, I find. The owner who downsizes a £1 million house to a £600k one now has cash and assets worth less than before, after considering the transaction costs. To say that s/he is better off from doing so is exactly like saying that if I flog my £10k second-hand Mercedes and buy a second £6k Vauxhall, I've "made" £4k.
If I sell my house and a replacement costs exactly the same as what I just sold mine for, I have no gain. If I spend (or an taxed on) whatever it has gone up in price by, I now can't afford to replace it.
A gain would be if I somehow sold my house for more than general house price inflation. I know someone who bought a flat then a year later sold it for just under double to the man who had bought all the other flats in the house and wanted to merge them back into a dwelling. That's a gain because absent that it would have been worth about what he paid.
On top of that, I also feel him not supporting gay marriage (and the same goes for Davis) will be a major black mark against him -- I get the sense that with the younger generations (by which I mean anyone under 40), supporting gay marriage is a basic test of whether someone is a decent humanbeing, rightly or wrongly. Similar to fox-hunting.
What is this wealth of which you speak? If she deserves a wealth tax now because of this house, why not in 1970, or 1975, or whatever? What has happened that makes her deserving of a tax?
This is unsurprising.
It would be sensible to try and tackle the housing bubble by gradually and progressively moving taxation toward property wealth, balanced off by reductions in other taxation such as stamp duty. The fixed taxes for owning a flat in New York are about ten times those in London. Higher property taxes would also bring in significant income from foreign "investors" including those who leave property sitting empty.
In fact, the EU have positioned themselves remarkably badly for these talks because they have overestimated their hand - something they do quite frequently. They should never have raised ECJ jurisdiction because they can't win on that. They should never have tried to force the Brexit bill up front, because they have zero legal basis for the bill. It would actually be in the EUs best interests to do this and trade at the same time, as they would at least have some basis to ask for concessions.
DD can call the EUs bluff on the Brexit bill in five seconds by offering to refer it to the ICJ IF there is a trade deal. Then, we get the trade deal and in all likelihood the EU never get any money as by law they are not entitled to anything.
I always thought it was quite a good tax. It provided a sensible nudge to people to downsize if they no longer needed to live in a large/expensive house, without being seen as confiscatory or unfair. Maggie got most things right, but abolishing the rates was a big mistake IMO.
Also that analysis by Danny is spot on.
I think Phillip Hammond would be a disaster for the Tories. David Davis has more charisma and personality, but what is really needed is someone younger and fresh. The hard faced Preti Patel who has been touted as a possibility would be akin to making the stepmother in Snow White prime minister. Boris Johnson would be a huge risk but risks are sometimes worth taking -unless you are Theresa May.
We live in a time, right now, where it is considered increasingly a black and white issue and it is politically incorrect to support it, despite not being one.
Generations gone by wouldn't understand that, and it's very possible that neither will future generations as well.
Almost all nations agree to an ISDR system to adjudicate on matters relating to trade treaties. This will be limited to the scope of the agreement, and it will not presume to legislate for us, nor extend its competence.
If you can't see the difference (of course you can) then I can't help you.
Anyway - you can argue that all capital gains tax should be zero or tat they should be zero on housing. I think you're totally wrong but it's arguable where the burden of taxation should fall.
What you can't argue is that capital gains don't exist at all - and the enormous increase in value of London property clearly is a case of an asset increasing far more than inflation.