Just got my oldie winter fuel allowance which will go straight into my Betfair account. Wouldn't it be a smart idea if the transfer could go direct?
I did a walk from Bedford yesterday. Anyone who lives in or near that dump deserves state compensation.
(I'm semi-serious. The walk from the bus station to main station is dreary in the extreme, yet that is the face many will see of the place.)
The great thing about Bedford is that it leaves you alone to get on with stuff, unlike Cambridge where you are impeded by tourists at every turn under lowering grim skies.
That sounds about right.
I have a vague rule, however: most visitors to a town or city come in via the car parks, train or bus. The areas around the bus and train stations, and the main car parks, should therefore be at least inviting. The walk between Bedford's train and bus stations are just awful, considering many people may be interchanging. DIsmal and grey.
There was one relatively nice area, around the new bridge and cinema complex - and even that was spoilt by a concrete tower looming above a stone bridge.
The same can be said for Cambridge to a certain extent, although I'd argue that the long walk between bus and train stations is much more interesting, and there's also a shuttle bus between the two.
Some parts of Bedford are very fine. The Embankment is lovely, and there's a lot of very good housing heading North from there.
Would you support a 1p rise in income tax to help fund enhanced border control and security ?
What has that got to with anything. Even with free movement you still have to pass through border control just without so many checks.
'Back in the real world, the end of FoM is going to have impacts - people will still try to come here, there will be people smuggling as we've already seen (the actual numbers of people from Romania and Bulgaria and other countries is likely much higher than the official figures),there may be new jungles on the other side of the Channel and the possibility of people getting in illegally and living below the radar in terrible conditions as virtual slaves (it happens now under FoM).
The truth is there will need to be a considerable expansion in both the UK Border Agency and perhaps the HMRC as well - I'm merely asking you, as a Government supporter, how that should be funded.'
Perhaps by the savings in services and housing and welfare costs from falling immigration as a result of the end of free movement from the EU and from the reduced costs in crime and policing here as we have greater control over who we allow in
>What would be radical would be for Hammond to get the house builders to start working on their 400,000 plots (with planning permission) and start getting the houses built ?
That is mainly a red herring. Given the Planning System 400k plots is not an adequate buffer for business resilience even for the current level of house building. In Planning 18 months is no time at all; it can take far longer than that even to sort out details with the Authorities.
And PP only typically lasts 3 years, anyway. Plus perhaps 5-8 talking to the Council before or afterwards.
Actually it is more like 1 million plots they are sat on as there are 600,000 plots they ate sitting on where they would get planning permission but have purposefully not applied.
That is still not very many, and a good number are locked up in projects which will take 10-20 years to build.
Near here we have a 900 house development on a Rolls-Royce site.
Site basically became available in about 2007. Conversations started around 2010. Outline PP obtained 2014. 900 homes. 900k sq ft of employment space. Development has now started (2016) after a couple of years of more wrangling. It will not be complete until after 2025.
Throughout most of that period most of those houses will be in the alleged "landbank that developers are refusing to build", while in fact it is just an example of how long things take in our planning system.
The "land bank developers are sitting on" concept as used in the political debate is a pile of pish.
Figures for eg Paddington Basin are not dissimilar.
Sounds like Javid has been putting serious pressure on No.11 to do something on house building.
Gavin Barwell as well I think
TM as well - if Hammond does not address housing and reduces VAT registration to £20,000 he is a goner
I'm pretty sure the budget doesn't go through if there is any reduction to the VAT threshold.
Just one of the following groups opposing it would be a problem, and I honestly think all three would:
- influential right of centre Tory backbenchers - loud and proud wet Tories - the DUP
- shitloads of small businessmen and women, who will write to their Conservative MPs questioning why they should vote for increased taxes rather than reduced spending.
- WVM asking their Conservative MPs why they should pay more taxes under the Tories when they can do that under Labour and get more of it handed back in handouts and benefits.
If Brexit happens and causes SERIOUS economic distress it's unlikely Labour will reap any political dividend at all. Corbyn's done nothing but distance himself from day one exemplified by his abject performance at PMQs yesterday.
Come the day of reckoning it won't just be the Tory negotiators and the lumbering Tory Union Jack wavers or the quisling Remainers like May who will be lined up against the wall but also those who allowed it to happen and at the front of that particular queue will be Corbyn.
That seems like wishful thinking. Labour are getting the remain vote even though they are also for leave, presumably as least worst option. Even if they get some blame, it won't be as much as the tories, and with no credible third party, they come out on top still.
Sounds like Javid has been putting serious pressure on No.11 to do something on house building.
Gavin Barwell as well I think
TM as well - if Hammond does not address housing and reduces VAT registration to £20,000 he is a goner
I'm pretty sure the budget doesn't go through if there is any reduction to the VAT threshold.
Just one of the following groups opposing it would be a problem, and I honestly think all three would:
- influential right of centre Tory backbenchers - loud and proud wet Tories - the DUP
- shitloads of small businessmen and women, who will write to their Conservative MPs questioning why they should vote for increased taxes rather than reduced spending.
- WVM asking their Conservative MPs why they should pay more taxes under the Tories when they can do that under Labour and get more of it handed back in handouts and benefits.
Now not many WVM are going to vote for Corbyn, but the sentiment is there. They’ll be asking why they’re increasing tax on the British working man while continuing to pay housing benefit and tax credits to Romanian Big Issue sellers living in central London.
If Brexit happens and causes SERIOUS economic distress it's unlikely Labour will reap any political dividend at all. Corbyn's done nothing but distance himself from day one exemplified by his abject performance at PMQs yesterday.
Come the day of reckoning it won't just be the Tory negotiators and the lumbering Tory Union Jack wavers or the quisling Remainers like May who will be lined up against the wall but also those who allowed it to happen and at the front of that particular queue will be Corbyn.
That seems like wishful thinking. Labour are getting the remain vote even though they are also for leave, presumably as least worst option. Even if they get some blame, it won't be as much as the tories, and with no credible third party, they come out on top still.
The people who most care about 'serious economic distress' from Brexit are Remainers who are already largely voting Labour or LD anyway.
Leavers are more concerned about regaining sovereignty and reducing immigration, especially as so many are pensioners and own their own homes and no longer work and in any case we are still likely heading for a FTA anyway.
In 2016 we exported £242bn of goods and services to the EU and imported £302bn, a deficit of £60bn. Let's suppose the somewhat unlikely scenario that trade with the EU in each direction reduces by 10%. We would lose £24,2bn of exports and reduce imports by £30,2 bn. This would, all other things being equal boost growth by about 0.4% provided the unmet demand is met by import substitution.
Of course things are not equal and those who point out that our economic model is currently built on unrestricted access to the Single Market are right. There would be some disruption and refocusing of effort over a period of time. There might be some adverse investment decisions as well as some positive ones (where import substitution is made more attractive by the barriers). There would probably be a period of growth that would be modestly below par.
The point I have made on here on previous occasions is that these are very small effects and are likely to be subsumed in other effects. A material slow down in the US (our biggest single customer), for example, would have a larger effect than this. In reality I think that 10% is a significant overstatement of the consequences of WTO rules so the effects will be even smaller.
I completely get that some people think why should we suffer g the case. It just isn't.
The premise of us "taking control", as pushed by the Leave campaign is a false one.
Not when it comes to Immigration. Despite all the criticism of the government's approach at least they didn't try 'Single market membership with no freedom of movement'.......they recognised what had motivated a lot of the electorate, and it wasn't 'membership of the single market'.......(however good an idea that might be...)
My "never really being free of the EU" includes immigration.
You don't think we will control immigration from the EU?
..........
Australia has the third lowest population density on earth we have one of the highest
Although people aren't moving to the sparsely populated areas: they're moving to the big cities.
That's true of nearly every country. People moving to the UK aren't usually settling in the Scottish Highlands or Powys.
>What would be radical would be for Hammond to get the house builders to start working on their 400,000 plots (with planning permission) and start getting the houses built ?
That is mainly a red herring. Given the Planning System 400k plots is not an adequate buffer for business resilience even for the current level of house building. In Planning 18 months is no time at all; it can take far longer than that even to sort out details with the Authorities.
And PP only typically lasts 3 years, anyway. Plus perhaps 5-8 talking to the Council before or afterwards.
Actually it is more like 1 million plots they are sat on as there are 600,000 plots they ate sitting on where they would get planning permission but have purposefully not applied.
That is still not very many, and a good number are locked up in projects which will take 10-20 years to build.
Near here we have a 900 house development on a Rolls-Royce site.
Site basically became available in about 2007. Conversations started around 2010. Outline PP obtained 2014. 900 homes. 900k sq ft of employment space. Development has now started (2016) after a couple of years of more wrangling. It will not be complete until after 2025.
Throughout most of that period most of those houses will be in the alleged "landbank that developers are refusing to build", while in fact it is just an example of how long things take in our planning system.
The "land bank developers are sitting on" concept as used in the political debate is a pile of pish.
Figures for eg Paddington Basin are not dissimilar.
Developers build at the speed that gives them the greatest profits. Obviously.
Just got my oldie winter fuel allowance which will go straight into my Betfair account. Wouldn't it be a smart idea if the transfer could go direct?
I did a walk from Bedford yesterday. Anyone who lives in or near that dump deserves state compensation.
(I'm semi-serious. The walk from the bus station to main station is dreary in the extreme, yet that is the face many will see of the place.)
The great thing about Bedford is that it leaves you alone to get on with stuff, unlike Cambridge where you are impeded by tourists at every turn under lowering grim skies.
That sounds about right.
I have a vague rule, however: most visitors to a town or city come in via the car parks, train or bus. The areas around the bus and train stations, and the main car parks, should therefore be at least inviting. The walk between Bedford's train and bus stations are just awful, considering many people may be interchanging. DIsmal and grey.
There was one relatively nice area, around the new bridge and cinema complex - and even that was spoilt by a concrete tower looming above a stone bridge.
The same can be said for Cambridge to a certain extent, although I'd argue that the long walk between bus and train stations is much more interesting, and there's also a shuttle bus between the two.
Some parts of Bedford are very fine. The Embankment is lovely, and there's a lot of very good housing heading North from there.
I see that Leavers are moving down the path. From the "best thing since sliced bread", they've reached "yes, it's bad economically but it's worth it because we hate the EU". Which is at least a bit more honest.
Oh come on, you know some said that all along, stop pretending otherwise, that all leavers did, or qualify the statement in the interests of courtesy at leaSt. It may not be an expletive, but it's almost as rude to deliberately misrepresent.
>What would be radical would be for Hammond to get the house builders to start working on their 400,000 plots (with planning permission) and start getting the houses built ?
That is mainly a red herring. Given the Planning System 400k plots is not an adequate buffer for business resilience even for the current level of house building. In Planning 18 months is no time at all; it can take far longer than that even to sort out details with the Authorities.
And PP only typically lasts 3 years, anyway. Plus perhaps 5-8 talking to the Council before or afterwards.
Actually it is more like 1 million plots they are sat on as there are 600,000 plots they ate sitting on where they would get planning permission but have purposefully not applied.
That is still not very many, and a good number are locked up in projects which will take 10-20 years to build.
Near here we have a 900 house development on a Rolls-Royce site.
Site basically became available in about 2007. Conversations started around 2010. Outline PP obtained 2014. 900 homes. 900k sq ft of employment space. Development has now started (2016) after a couple of years of more wrangling. It will not be complete until after 2025.
Throughout most of that period most of those houses will be in the alleged "landbank that developers are refusing to build", while in fact it is just an example of how long things take in our planning system.
The "land bank developers are sitting on" concept as used in the political debate is a pile of pish.
Figures for eg Paddington Basin are not dissimilar.
Developers build at the speed that gives them the greatest profits. Obviously.
And if “house prices” are rising at a greater rate than debt interest rates and construction costs, the builder is positively incentived to delay contruction of the project.
The housing market isn’t going to be fixed until interest rates get off the floor.
I see that Leavers are moving down the path. From the "best thing since sliced bread", they've reached "yes, it's bad economically but it's worth it because we hate the EU". Which is at least a bit more honest.
Oh come on, you know some said that all along, stop pretending otherwise, that all leavers did, or qualify the statement in the interests of courtesy at leaSt. It may not be an expletive, but it's almost as rude to deliberately misrepresent.
Oh come on, any suggestion that Leave was going to be anything other than wonderful for Britain was met with a hailstorm of abuse from swivel-eyed Leavers. Don't rewrite history.
>What would be radical would be for Hammond to get the house builders to start working on their 400,000 plots (with planning permission) and start getting the houses built ?
That is mainly a red herring. Given the Planning System 400k plots is not an adequate buffer for business resilience even for the current level of house building. In Planning 18 months is no time at all; it can take far longer than that even to sort out details with the Authorities.
And PP only typically lasts 3 years, anyway. Plus perhaps 5-8 talking to the Council before or afterwards.
Actually it is more like 1 million plots they are sat on as there are 600,000 plots they ate sitting on where they would get planning permission but have purposefully not applied.
That is still not very many, and a good number are locked up in projects which will take 10-20 years to build.
Near here we have a 900 house development on a Rolls-Royce site.
Site basically became available in about 2007. Conversations started around 2010. Outline PP obtained 2014. 900 homes. 900k sq ft of employment space. Development has now started (2016) after a couple of years of more wrangling. It will not be complete until after 2025.
Throughout most of that period most of those houses will be in the alleged "landbank that developers are refusing to build", while in fact it is just an example of how long things take in our planning system.
The "land bank developers are sitting on" concept as used in the political debate is a pile of pish.
Figures for eg Paddington Basin are not dissimilar.
Developers build at the speed that gives them the greatest profits. Obviously.
Well, yes, but that normally means phasing the development over a number of years because if the houses were all built at once there would be a glut which would depress prices, tie up capital and put off potential purchasers. There is nothing sinister in this, it is simple economics.
It is interesting that House Affordability ratio increases came to a screeching halt in K&C in 2014.
That was when Mr Osborne launched his tax attack on the rich foreigners, people in expensive houses, and the private landlords. One large element of that - taxing mortgage interest payments as income for LLs - will not be fully implemented for another several years.
I think I would advocate:
1 - Instant abolition of CGT relief on main dwellings. Either inside the M25 or nationwide. 2 - Driving much more investment out of London. For some weird reason the small % of the population in the richest area of the country around London still get around half of the investment in transport infrastructure. And let's not talk about eg museum subsidies.
1 - Instant abolition of CGT relief on main dwellings. Either inside the M25 or nationwide.
Right so pensioners can't sell. Brilliant.
Of course they can sell.
The only change would be that the part of their financial windfall provided by the taxpayer would no longer be there.
No, they won't sell, because they would be hit by CGT tax when they downsize and then hit again by IHT potentially.
That "won't" is very different from Mr White Rabbit's "can't" :-D. A somewhat less positive outcome does not equal "forced me not to".
Some could equally decide to sell sooner, before house prices adjust downwards. By definition they still have a windfall / gain since CGT is only a proportion of that gain.
I think the decisions to sell depend on whether they think the CGT exemption will come back. The MIRAS change was never reversed.
On the IHT, can we agree that Mr O's shenanigans technically to fulfil his "one million" pledge were a dog's breakfast?
There has been a lot of rhetoric about generational imbalances. Perhaps Mr Hammond needs to be equally bold on housing and IHT - remove that exemption as well?
Mr. Meeks, many people intending to vote Leave believed we would have a period of economic turbulence.
It's more correct to say that many people who voted Leave now claim that they then believed that Britain would have a period of economic turbulence. The stated beliefs at the time were quite different.
It is interesting that House Affordability ratio increases came to a screeching halt in K&C in 2014.
That was when Mr Osborne launched his tax attack on the rich foreigners, people in expensive houses, and the private landlords. One large element of that - taxing mortgage interest payments as income for LLs - will not be fully implemented for another several years.
I think I would advocate:
1 - Instant abolition of CGT relief on main dwellings. Either inside the M25 or nationwide. 2 - Driving much more investment out of London. For some weird reason the small % of the population in the richest area of the country around London still get around half of the investment in transport infrastructure. And let's not talk about eg museum subsidies.
1 - Instant abolition of CGT relief on main dwellings. Either inside the M25 or nationwide.
Right so pensioners can't sell. Brilliant.
Of course they can sell.
The only change would be that the part of their financial windfall provided by the taxpayer would no longer be there.
No, they won't sell, because they would be hit by CGT tax when they downsize and then hit again by IHT potentially.
That "won't" is very different from Mr White Rabbit's "can't" :-D. A somewhat less positive outcome does not equal "forced me not to".
Some could equally decide to sell sooner, before house prices adjust downwards. By definition they still have a windfall / gain since CGT is only a proportion of that gain.
I think the decisions to sell depend on whether they think the CGT exemption will come back. The MIRAS change was never reversed.
On the IHT, can we agree that Mr O's shenanigans technically to fulfil his "one million" pledge were a dog's breakfast?
There has been a lot of rhetoric about generational imbalances. Perhaps Mr Hammond needs to be equally bold on housing and IHT - remove that exemption as well?
Whatever the merits, I humbly suggest that Hammond putting CGT on residential would mean he will be packing his bags in No.11 by 5pm on the day of the Budget.
The Tory demographic is vulnerable to a heavy,cold Winter like 1962/3, and a potentially serious flu epidemic so the Tories must make sure its supporters get vaccinated and check the old folk are keeping warm and well fed possibly providing free boiler breakdown cover,lunch clubs,free delivery on prescriptions and food. Like a few others.I expect the East Wind will blow this Winter-it cuts though you like a knife and is a bad precursor to worse.
I see that Leavers are moving down the path. From the "best thing since sliced bread", they've reached "yes, it's bad economically but it's worth it because we hate the EU". Which is at least a bit more honest.
Oh come on, you know some said that all along, stop pretending otherwise, that all leavers did, or qualify the statement in the interests of courtesy at leaSt. It may not be an expletive, but it's almost as rude to deliberately misrepresent.
Oh come on, any suggestion that Leave was going to be anything other than wonderful for Britain was met with a hailstorm of abuse from swivel-eyed Leavers. Don't rewrite history.
It is you who are rewriting history. But then since you consìder xenophobia to be the main driver of the Leave vote why should we expect you to have any sane or intelligent views on anything concetning Brexit.
I see that Leavers are moving down the path. From the "best thing since sliced bread", they've reached "yes, it's bad economically but it's worth it because we hate the EU". Which is at least a bit more honest.
Oh come on, you know some said that all along, stop pretending otherwise, that all leavers did, or qualify the statement in the interests of courtesy at leaSt. It may not be an expletive, but it's almost as rude to deliberately misrepresent.
Oh come on, any suggestion that Leave was going to be anything other than wonderful for Britain was met with a hailstorm of abuse from swivel-eyed Leavers. Don't rewrite history.
It is you who are rewriting history. But then since you consìder xenophobia to be the main driver of the Leave vote why should we expect you to have any sane or intelligent views on anything concetning Brexit.
Given what both Leave camps majored in on in the last three weeks of the campaign, it is clear that they both believed that xenophobia was the main driver of the Leave vote too.
I see that Leavers are moving down the path. From the "best thing since sliced bread", they've reached "yes, it's bad economically but it's worth it because we hate the EU". Which is at least a bit more honest.
Oh come on, you know some said that all along, stop pretending otherwise, that all leavers did, or qualify the statement in the interests of courtesy at leaSt. It may not be an expletive, but it's almost as rude to deliberately misrepresent.
Oh come on, any suggestion that Leave was going to be anything other than wonderful for Britain was met with a hailstorm of abuse from swivel-eyed Leavers. Don't rewrite history.
It is you who are rewriting history. But then since you consìder xenophobia to be the main driver of the Leave vote why should we expect you to have any sane or intelligent views on anything concetning Brexit.
Given what both Leave camps majored in on in the last three weeks of the campaign, it is clear that they both believed that xenophobia was the main driver of the Leave vote too.
It is interesting that House Affordability ratio increases came to a screeching halt in K&C in 2014.
That was when Mr Osborne launched his tax attack on the rich foreigners, people in expensive houses, and the private landlords. One large element of that - taxing mortgage interest payments as income for LLs - will not be fully implemented for another several years.
I think I would advocate:
1 - Instant abolition of CGT relief on main dwellings. Either inside the M25 or nationwide. 2 - Driving much more investment out of London. For some weird reason the small % of the population in the richest area of the country around London still get around half of the investment in transport infrastructure. And let's not talk about eg museum subsidies.
1 - Instant abolition of CGT relief on main dwellings. Either inside the M25 or nationwide.
Right so pensioners can't sell. Brilliant.
Of course they can sell.
The only change would be that the part of their financial windfall provided by the taxpayer would no longer be there.
No, they won't sell, because they would be hit by CGT tax when they downsize and then hit again by IHT potentially.
That "won't" is very different from Mr White Rabbit's "can't" :-D. A somewhat less positive outcome does not equal "forced me not to".
Some could equally decide to sell sooner, before house prices adjust downwards. By definition they still have a windfall / gain since CGT is only a proportion of that gain.
I think the decisions to sell depend on whether they think the CGT exemption will come back. The MIRAS change was never reversed.
On the IHT, can we agree that Mr O's shenanigans technically to fulfil his "one million" pledge were a dog's breakfast?
There has been a lot of rhetoric about generational imbalances. Perhaps Mr Hammond needs to be equally bold on housing and IHT - remove that exemption as well?
Whatever the merits, I humbly suggest that Hammond putting CGT on residential would mean he will be packing his bags in No.11 by 5pm on the day of the Budget.
Given that he normally sits down at around 1:30, I think you’re around three hours out on that prediction.
>What would be radical would be for Hammond to get the house builders to start working on their 400,000 plots (with planning permission) and start getting the houses built ?
That is mainly a red herring. Given the Planning System 400k plots is not an adequate buffer for business resilience even for the current level of house building. In Planning 18 months is no time at all; it can take far longer than that even to sort out details with the Authorities.
And PP only typically lasts 3 years, anyway. Plus perhaps 5-8 talking to the Council before or afterwards.
Actually it is more like 1 million plots they are sat on as there are 600,000 plots they ate sitting on where they would get planning permission but have purposefully not applied.
That is still not very many, and a good number are locked up in projects which will take 10-20 years to build.
Near here we have a 900 house development on a Rolls-Royce site.
Site basically became available in about 2007. Conversations started around 2010. Outline PP obtained 2014. 900 homes. 900k sq ft of employment space. Development has now started (2016) after a couple of years of more wrangling. It will not be complete until after 2025.
Throughout most of that period most of those houses will be in the alleged "landbank that developers are refusing to build", while in fact it is just an example of how long things take in our planning system.
The "land bank developers are sitting on" concept as used in the political debate is a pile of pish.
Figures for eg Paddington Basin are not dissimilar.
Developers build at the speed that gives them the greatest profits. Obviously.
And if “house prices” are rising at a greater rate than debt interest rates and construction costs, the builder is positively incentived to delay contruction of the project.
The housing market isn’t going to be fixed until interest rates get off the floor.
Its complicated because very low interest rates and very cheap mortgages has undoubtedly boosted the prices house builders can sell at increasing their profits. If interest rates rise significantly unsold housing stock is going to depreciate. At the moment, outside London prices don't seem to be going anywhere.
I mentioned that my daughter is flat hunting in the Dundee area. I am going to see another flat with her tonight. So far all the properties we have seen are on the market at less than the home buyers valuation (yes, sadly we have not abolished these north of the border) from a few months ago. Generally by 5-10% which, as they are moving to fixed price, they seem to be writing off.
It is interesting that House Affordability ratio increases came to a screeching halt in K&C in 2014.
That was when Mr Osborne launched his tax attack on the rich foreigners, people in expensive houses, and the private landlords. One large element of that - taxing mortgage interest payments as income for LLs - will not be fully implemented for another several years.
I think I would advocate:
1 - Instant abolition of CGT relief on main dwellings. Either inside the M25 or nationwide. 2 - Driving much more investment out of London. For some weird reason the small % of the population in the richest area of the country around London still get around half of the investment in transport infrastructure. And let's not talk about eg museum subsidies.
1 - Instant abolition of CGT relief on main dwellings. Either inside the M25 or nationwide.
Right so pensioners can't sell. Brilliant.
Of course they can sell.
The only change would be that the part of their financial windfall provided by the taxpayer would no longer be there.
No, they won't sell, because they would be hit by CGT tax when they downsize and then hit again by IHT potentially.
Why would anyone sell under those circumstances?
I'm in my mid-thirties and, having bought four and bit years ago, am looking to move on soon. In those years I've saved money intended to put towards my next place.
However if there was CGT on my main residence, I would be enormously incentivised instead to use that money saved as a deposit on a second place instead, renting out my first one, becoming a hated BTL landlord instead of freeing up a much needed starter home.
The people who would be hit the hardest are young families who need to trade up due to increasing family size, or divorcing couples who have no choice. The only choice would be to defer having a family (is this Tory policy now?) or remain in a loveless marriage (possibly Tory policy). Everyone else would cling on to their existing properties until you took them from their cold, dead hands.
With CGT on property at 28% and no exemption for main residence you are effectively incentivising people of all ages and all walks of life who are lucky enough to own property to never sell their homes.
I see that Leavers are moving down the path. From the "best thing since sliced bread", they've reached "yes, it's bad economically but it's worth it because we hate the EU". Which is at least a bit more honest.
Oh come on, you know some said that all along, stop pretending otherwise, that all leavers did, or qualify the statement in the interests of courtesy at leaSt. It may not be an expletive, but it's almost as rude to deliberately misrepresent.
Oh come on, any suggestion that Leave was going to be anything other than wonderful for Britain was met with a hailstorm of abuse from swivel-eyed Leavers. Don't rewrite history.
It is you who are rewriting history. But then since you consìder xenophobia to be the main driver of the Leave vote why should we expect you to have any sane or intelligent views on anything concetning Brexit.
Given what both Leave camps majored in on in the last three weeks of the campaign, it is clear that they both believed that xenophobia was the main driver of the Leave vote too.
I see that Leavers are moving down the path. From the "best thing since sliced bread", they've reached "yes, it's bad economically but it's worth it because we hate the EU". Which is at least a bit more honest.
Oh come on, you know some said that all along, stop pretending otherwise, that all leavers did, or qualify the statement in the interests of courtesy at leaSt. It may not be an expletive, but it's almost as rude to deliberately misrepresent.
Oh come on, any suggestion that Leave was going to be anything other than wonderful for Britain was met with a hailstorm of abuse from swivel-eyed Leavers. Don't rewrite history.
It is you who are rewriting history. But then since you consìder xenophobia to be the main driver of the Leave vote why should we expect you to have any sane or intelligent views on anything concetning Brexit.
We are constantly being told that Leavers voted mainly because of immigration (not you, obvs) so it's not surprising that people think that Leavers don't like foreigners.
I see that Leavers are moving down the path. From the "best thing since sliced bread", they've reached "yes, it's bad economically but it's worth it because we hate the EU". Which is at least a bit more honest.
Oh come on, you know some said that all along, stop pretending otherwise, that all leavers did, or qualify the statement in the interests of courtesy at leaSt. It may not be an expletive, but it's almost as rude to deliberately misrepresent.
Oh come on, any suggestion that Leave was going to be anything other than wonderful for Britain was met with a hailstorm of abuse from swivel-eyed Leavers. Don't rewrite history.
It is you who are rewriting history. But then since you consìder xenophobia to be the main driver of the Leave vote why should we expect you to have any sane or intelligent views on anything concetning Brexit.
Given what both Leave camps majored in on in the last three weeks of the campaign, it is clear that they both believed that xenophobia was the main driver of the Leave vote too.
Having control over who comes to the UK is not the same as preventing people of other nationalities coming to the UK. Controlling the numbers is nothing to do with Xenophobia and everything to do with Housing, Services and Employment, as well as culture.
If it gives you some moral comfort to believe that we're all bigots, then by all means believe that - it hurts me none. But you would be misguiding yourself as to the real issues and what has caused them.
Mr. Meeks, many people intending to vote Leave believed we would have a period of economic turbulence.
It's more correct to say that many people who voted Leave now claim that they then believed that Britain would have a period of economic turbulence. The stated beliefs at the time were quite different.
I actually wrote a thread header that suggested Remain were overlooking that many people would accept some economic cost:
Having control over who comes to the UK is not the same as preventing people of other nationalities coming to the UK. Controlling the numbers is nothing to do with Xenophobia and everything to do with Housing, Services and Employment, as well as culture.
If it gives you some moral comfort to believe that we're all bigots, then by all means believe that - it hurts me none. But you would be misguiding yourself as to the real issues and what has caused them.
I don't believe that all Leavers are bigots. I do believe that far too many Leavers are far too relaxed about pandering to bigots.
One of the chief reasons why the rest of the EU is cutting Britain so little slack is because the Leave campaign was won with xenophobic lies that the government has never distanced itself from. Why on earth should they facilitate the success of such a campaign?
It is interesting that House Affordability ratio increases came to a screeching halt in K&C in 2014.
That was when Mr Osborne launched his tax attack on the rich foreigners, people in expensive houses, and the private landlords. One large element of that - taxing mortgage interest payments as income for LLs - will not be fully implemented for another several years.
I think I would advocate:
1 - Instant abolition of CGT relief on main dwellings. Either inside the M25 or nationwide. 2 - Driving much more investment out of London. For some weird reason the small % of the population in the richest area of the country around London still get around half of the investment in transport infrastructure. And let's not talk about eg museum subsidies.
1 - Instant abolition of CGT relief on main dwellings. Either inside the M25 or nationwide.
Right so pensioners can't sell. Brilliant.
Of course they can sell.
The only change would be that the part of their financial windfall provided by the taxpayer would no longer be there.
No, they won't sell, because they would be hit by CGT tax when they downsize and then hit again by IHT potentially.
Why would anyone sell under those circumstances?
I'm in my mid-thirties and, having bought four and bit years ago, am looking to move on soon. In those years I've saved money intended to put towards my next place.
However if there was CGT on my main residence, I would be enormously incentivised instead to use that money saved as a deposit on a second place instead, renting out my first one, becoming a hated BTL landlord instead of freeing up a much needed starter home.
The people who would be hit the hardest are young families who need to trade up due to increasing family size, or divorcing couples who have no choice. The only choice would be to defer having a family (is this Tory policy now?) or remain in a loveless marriage (possibly Tory policy). Everyone else would cling on to their existing properties until you took them from their cold, dead hands.
With CGT on property at 28% and no exemption for main residence you are effectively incentivising people of all ages and all walks of life who are lucky enough to own property to never sell their homes.
I see that Leavers are moving down the path. From the "best thing since sliced bread", they've reached "yes, it's bad economically but it's worth it because we hate the EU". Which is at least a bit more honest.
Oh come on, you know some said that all along, stop pretending otherwise, that all leavers did, or qualify the statement in the interests of courtesy at leaSt. It may not be an expletive, but it's almost as rude to deliberately misrepresent.
Oh come on, any suggestion that Leave was going to be anything other than wonderful for Britain was met with a hailstorm of abuse from swivel-eyed Leavers. Don't rewrite history.
It is you who are rewriting history. But then since you consìder xenophobia to be the main driver of the Leave vote why should we expect you to have any sane or intelligent views on anything concetning Brexit.
We are constantly being told that Leavers voted mainly because of immigration (not you, obvs) so it's not surprising that people think that Leavers don't like foreigners.
You're confusing constantly with one person with repetitive posting syndrome and a tin ear.
>What would be radical would be for Hammond to get the house builders to start working on their 400,000 plots (with planning permission) and start getting the houses built ?
That is mainly a red herring. Given the Planning System 400k plots is not an adequate buffer for business resilience even for the current level of house building. In Planning 18 months is no time at all; it can take far longer than that even to sort out details with the Authorities.
And PP only typically lasts 3 years, anyway. Plus perhaps 5-8 talking to the Council before or afterwards.
Actually it is more like 1 million plots they are sat on as there are 600,000 plots they ate sitting on where they would get planning permission but have purposefully not applied.
That is still not very many, and a good number are locked up in projects which will take 10-20 years to build.
Near here we have a 900 house development on a Rolls-Royce site.
Site basically became available in about 2007. Conversations started around 2010. Outline PP obtained 2014. 900 homes. 900k sq ft of employment space. Development has now started (2016) after a couple of years of more wrangling. It will not be complete until after 2025.
Throughout most of that period most of those houses will be in the alleged "landbank that developers are refusing to build", while in fact it is just an example of how long things take in our planning system.
The "land bank developers are sitting on" concept as used in the political debate is a pile of pish.
Figures for eg Paddington Basin are not dissimilar.
Developers build at the speed that gives them the greatest profits. Obviously.
Actually, no. This is the Planning System, and there is a significant amount of control.
The supply of housing is also controlled by the Phasing in the Local Development Plan created by the Local Council, and developers also conform to expected housing mix etc. In our case it is 524 per year iirc up until 2028.
Each major site has a Council approved Development Brief as to what they wish to so, and which the developer has to address.
I see that Leavers are moving down the path. From the "best thing since sliced bread", they've reached "yes, it's bad economically but it's worth it because we hate the EU". Which is at least a bit more honest.
Oh come on, you know some said that all along, stop pretending otherwise, that all leavers did, or qualify the statement in the interests of courtesy at leaSt. It may not be an expletive, but it's almost as rude to deliberately misrepresent.
Oh come on, any suggestion that Leave was going to be anything other than wonderful for Britain was met with a hailstorm of abuse from swivel-eyed Leavers. Don't rewrite history.
It is you who are rewriting history. But then since you consìder xenophobia to be the main driver of the Leave vote why should we expect you to have any sane or intelligent views on anything concetning Brexit.
Given what both Leave camps majored in on in the last three weeks of the campaign, it is clear that they both believed that xenophobia was the main driver of the Leave vote too.
Having control over who comes to the UK is not the same as preventing people of other nationalities coming to the UK. Controlling the numbers is nothing to do with Xenophobia and everything to do with Housing, Services and Employment, as well as culture.
If it gives you some moral comfort to believe that we're all bigots, then by all means believe that - it hurts me none. But you would be misguiding yourself as to the real issues and what has caused them.
I see that Leavers are moving down the path. From the "best thing since sliced bread", they've reached "yes, it's bad economically but it's worth it because we hate the EU". Which is at least a bit more honest.
Oh come on, you know some said that all along, stop pretending otherwise, that all leavers did, or qualify the statement in the interests of courtesy at leaSt. It may not be an expletive, but it's almost as rude to deliberately misrepresent.
Oh come on, any suggestion that Leave was going to be anything other than wonderful for Britain was met with a hailstorm of abuse from swivel-eyed Leavers. Don't rewrite history.
It is you who are rewriting history. But then since you consìder xenophobia to be the main driver of the Leave vote why should we expect you to have any sane or intelligent views on anything concetning Brexit.
We are constantly being told that Leavers voted mainly because of immigration (not you, obvs) so it's not surprising that people think that Leavers don't like foreigners.
You are constantly being told this by a few sad individuals. At the time of the referendum I wrote a thread header that included polling data showing most people would on balance choose continued free movement and EEA membership to no deal and restrictions on migration. I very much doubt that balance has moved away from favouring EEA membership even if May refuses to countenance it.
Having control over who comes to the UK is not the same as preventing people of other nationalities coming to the UK. Controlling the numbers is nothing to do with Xenophobia and everything to do with Housing, Services and Employment, as well as culture.
If it gives you some moral comfort to believe that we're all bigots, then by all means believe that - it hurts me none. But you would be misguiding yourself as to the real issues and what has caused them.
I don't believe that all Leavers are bigots. I do believe that far too many Leavers are far too relaxed about pandering to bigots.
One of the chief reasons why the rest of the EU is cutting Britain so little slack is because the Leave campaign was won with xenophobic lies that the government has never distanced itself from. Why on earth should they facilitate the success of such a campaign?
This is really delusional. There are lots of reasons for the EU to give a significant net contributor leaver like the UK a hard time. If they ever thought about it at all I don't believe this would be in the top 100.
And there is a major difference between being opposed to uncontrolled immigration into a densely populated country and being xenophobic. No one ever said that immigration was going to be stopped. Indeed everyone I heard recognised that some immigration is desirable (at least for us, if not the poor countries that we are taking the qualified doctors and nurses from). But it needs controlled and it isn't.
Having control over who comes to the UK is not the same as preventing people of other nationalities coming to the UK. Controlling the numbers is nothing to do with Xenophobia and everything to do with Housing, Services and Employment, as well as culture.
If it gives you some moral comfort to believe that we're all bigots, then by all means believe that - it hurts me none. But you would be misguiding yourself as to the real issues and what has caused them.
I don't believe that all Leavers are bigots. I do believe that far too many Leavers are far too relaxed about pandering to bigots.
One of the chief reasons why the rest of the EU is cutting Britain so little slack is because the Leave campaign was won with xenophobic lies that the government has never distanced itself from. Why on earth should they facilitate the success of such a campaign?
This is really delusional. There are lots of reasons for the EU to give a significant net contributor leaver like the UK a hard time. If they ever thought about it at all I don't believe this would be in the top 100.
And there is a major difference between being opposed to uncontrolled immigration into a densely populated country and being xenophobic. No one ever said that immigration was going to be stopped. Indeed everyone I heard recognised that some immigration is desirable (at least for us, if not the poor countries that we are taking the qualified doctors and nurses from). But it needs controlled and it isn't.
I realise that Leavers need to double down, having lined up behind those two profoundly malign posters at the time. I can't see how Leavers can deny that a large part of their campaign was devoted to a "keep out the foreigners" theme.
It is interesting that House Affordability ratio increases came to a screeching halt in K&C in 2014.
That was when Mr Osborne launched his tax attack on the rich foreigners, people in expensive houses, and the private landlords. One large element of that - taxing mortgage interest payments as income for LLs - will not be fully implemented for another several years.
I think I would advocate:
1 - Instant abolition of CGT relief on main dwellings. Either inside the M25 or nationwide. 2 - Driving much more investment out of London. For some weird reason the small % of the population in the richest area of the country around London still get around half of the investment in transport infrastructure. And let's not talk about eg museum subsidies.
1 - Instant abolition of CGT relief on main dwellings. Either inside the M25 or nationwide.
Right so pensioners can't sell. Brilliant.
Of course they can sell.
The only change would be that the part of their financial windfall provided by the taxpayer would no longer be there.
No, they won't sell, because they would be hit by CGT tax when they downsize and then hit again by IHT potentially.
That "won't" is very different from Mr White Rabbit's "can't" :-D. A somewhat less positive outcome does not equal "forced me not to".
Some could equally decide to sell sooner, before house prices adjust downwards. By definition they still have a windfall / gain since CGT is only a proportion of that gain.
I think the decisions to sell depend on whether they think the CGT exemption will come back. The MIRAS change was never reversed.
On the IHT, can we agree that Mr O's shenanigans technically to fulfil his "one million" pledge were a dog's breakfast?
There has been a lot of rhetoric about generational imbalances. Perhaps Mr Hammond needs to be equally bold on housing and IHT - remove that exemption as well?
Introducing CGT on house sales would be political suicide.
Having control over who comes to the UK is not the same as preventing people of other nationalities coming to the UK. Controlling the numbers is nothing to do with Xenophobia and everything to do with Housing, Services and Employment, as well as culture.
If it gives you some moral comfort to believe that we're all bigots, then by all means believe that - it hurts me none. But you would be misguiding yourself as to the real issues and what has caused them.
I don't believe that all Leavers are bigots. I do believe that far too many Leavers are far too relaxed about pandering to bigots.
One of the chief reasons why the rest of the EU is cutting Britain so little slack is because the Leave campaign was won with xenophobic lies that the government has never distanced itself from. Why on earth should they facilitate the success of such a campaign?
The Tory demographic is vulnerable to a heavy,cold Winter like 1962/3, and a potentially serious flu epidemic so the Tories must make sure its supporters get vaccinated and check the old folk are keeping warm and well fed possibly providing free boiler breakdown cover,lunch clubs,free delivery on prescriptions and food. Like a few others.I expect the East Wind will blow this Winter-it cuts though you like a knife and is a bad precursor to worse.
It was not just pensioners the Tories won, they also won most 45 to 65 year olds too. The same group, many of whom will have paid off the mortgage and some of whom will have taken early retirement, also voted for Brexit.
I see that Leavers are moving down the path. From the "best thing since sliced bread", they've reached "yes, it's bad economically but it's worth it because we hate the EU". Which is at least a bit more honest.
Oh come on, you know some said that all along, stop pretending otherwise, that all leavers did, or qualify the statement in the interests of courtesy at leaSt. It may not be an expletive, but it's almost as rude to deliberately misrepresent.
Oh come on, any suggestion that Leave was going to be anything other than wonderful for Britain was met with a hailstorm of abuse from swivel-eyed Leavers. Don't rewrite history.
It is you who are rewriting history. But then since you consìder xenophobia to be the main driver of the Leave vote why should we expect you to have any sane or intelligent views on anything concetning Brexit.
We are constantly being told that Leavers voted mainly because of immigration (not you, obvs) so it's not surprising that people think that Leavers don't like foreigners.
You are constantly being told this by a few sad individuals. At the time of the referendum I wrote a thread header that included polling data showing most people would on balance choose continued free movement and EEA membership to no deal and restrictions on migration. I very much doubt that balance has moved away from favouring EEA membership even if May refuses to countenance it.
To be fair, I think that most Leave voters would like to see levels of immigration reduced, but I see nothing wrong with that.
Having control over who comes to the UK is not the same as preventing people of other nationalities coming to the UK. Controlling the numbers is nothing to do with Xenophobia and everything to do with Housing, Services and Employment, as well as culture.
If it gives you some moral comfort to believe that we're all bigots, then by all means believe that - it hurts me none. But you would be misguiding yourself as to the real issues and what has caused them.
I don't believe that all Leavers are bigots. I do believe that far too many Leavers are far too relaxed about pandering to bigots.
One of the chief reasons why the rest of the EU is cutting Britain so little slack is because the Leave campaign was won with xenophobic lies that the government has never distanced itself from. Why on earth should they facilitate the success of such a campaign?
As I understand you - unless we have completely open borders where everyone in Africa and the wider world are allowed to come and be full citizens of the Uk with free healthcare and schooling then we are all horrible goose stepping racists ?
Having control over who comes to the UK is not the same as preventing people of other nationalities coming to the UK. Controlling the numbers is nothing to do with Xenophobia and everything to do with Housing, Services and Employment, as well as culture.
If it gives you some moral comfort to believe that we're all bigots, then by all means believe that - it hurts me none. But you would be misguiding yourself as to the real issues and what has caused them.
I don't believe that all Leavers are bigots. I do believe that far too many Leavers are far too relaxed about pandering to bigots.
One of the chief reasons why the rest of the EU is cutting Britain so little slack is because the Leave campaign was won with xenophobic lies that the government has never distanced itself from. Why on earth should they facilitate the success of such a campaign?
This is really delusional. There are lots of reasons for the EU to give a significant net contributor leaver like the UK a hard time. If they ever thought about it at all I don't believe this would be in the top 100.
And there is a major difference between being opposed to uncontrolled immigration into a densely populated country and being xenophobic. No one ever said that immigration was going to be stopped. Indeed everyone I heard recognised that some immigration is desirable (at least for us, if not the poor countries that we are taking the qualified doctors and nurses from). But it needs controlled and it isn't.
I realise that Leavers need to double down, having lined up behind those two profoundly malign posters at the time. I can't see how Leavers can deny that a large part of their campaign was devoted to a "keep out the foreigners" theme.
Control not stop. Its not difficult unless you close your mind completely.
Having control over who comes to the UK is not the same as preventing people of other nationalities coming to the UK. Controlling the numbers is nothing to do with Xenophobia and everything to do with Housing, Services and Employment, as well as culture.
If it gives you some moral comfort to believe that we're all bigots, then by all means believe that - it hurts me none. But you would be misguiding yourself as to the real issues and what has caused them.
I don't believe that all Leavers are bigots. I do believe that far too many Leavers are far too relaxed about pandering to bigots.
One of the chief reasons why the rest of the EU is cutting Britain so little slack is because the Leave campaign was won with xenophobic lies that the government has never distanced itself from. Why on earth should they facilitate the success of such a campaign?
As I understand you - unless we have completely open borders where everyone in Africa and the wider world are allowed to come and be full citizens of the Uk with free healthcare and schooling then we are all horrible goose stepping racists ?
I'm a simple soul. I like my campaign posters not to echo exactly Nazi propaganda against Jewish refugees or to include straight lies designed to frighten people about mass migration from a country for which there is no prospect of joining the EU for decades.
I see that Leavers are moving down the path. From the "best thing since sliced bread", they've reached "yes, it's bad economically but it's worth it because we hate the EU". Which is at least a bit more honest.
Oh come on, you know some said that all along, stop pretending otherwise, that all leavers did, or qualify the statement in the interests of courtesy at leaSt. It may not be an expletive, but it's almost as rude to deliberately misrepresent.
Oh come on, any suggestion that Leave was going to be anything other than wonderful for Britain was met with a hailstorm of abuse from swivel-eyed Leavers. Don't rewrite history.
It is you who are rewriting history. But then since you consìder xenophobia to be the main driver of the Leave vote why should we expect you to have any sane or intelligent views on anything concetning Brexit.
We are constantly being told that Leavers voted mainly because of immigration (not you, obvs) so it's not surprising that people think that Leavers don't like foreigners.
You are constantly being told this by a few sad individuals. At the time of the referendum I wrote a thread header that included polling data showing most people would on balance choose continued free movement and EEA membership to no deal and restrictions on migration. I very much doubt that balance has moved away from favouring EEA membership even if May refuses to countenance it.
True but most Leave voters would choose the latter. EFTA or EEA is a long term solution but short term there have to be immigration controls, still possible with a FTA
I see that Leavers are moving down the path. From the "best thing since sliced bread", they've reached "yes, it's bad economically but it's worth it because we hate the EU". Which is at least a bit more honest.
Oh come on, you know some said that all along, stop pretending otherwise, that all leavers did, or qualify the statement in the interests of courtesy at leaSt. It may not be an expletive, but it's almost as rude to deliberately misrepresent.
Oh come on, any suggestion that Leave was going to be anything other than wonderful for Britain was met with a hailstorm of abuse from swivel-eyed Leavers. Don't rewrite history.
It is you who are rewriting history. But then since you consìder xenophobia to be the main driver of the Leave vote why should we expect you to have any sane or intelligent views on anything concetning Brexit.
We are constantly being told that Leavers voted mainly because of immigration (not you, obvs) so it's not surprising that people think that Leavers don't like foreigners.
You are constantly being told this by a few sad individuals. At the time of the referendum I wrote a thread header that included polling data showing most people would on balance choose continued free movement and EEA membership to no deal and restrictions on migration. I very much doubt that balance has moved away from favouring EEA membership even if May refuses to countenance it.
On the weekend before he election, Roland Smith (Liberal Leave) who was working with the Adam Smith institute did a tie up with the Telegraph in which the polling showed exactly that. I was only a peripheral participant in Liberal Leave as a blogger and researcher, but this was how we thought that it should be handled too.
I see that Leavers are moving down the path. From the "best thing since sliced bread", they've reached "yes, it's bad economically but it's worth it because we hate the EU". Which is at least a bit more honest.
Oh come on, you know some said that all along, stop pretending otherwise, that all leavers did, or qualify the statement in the interests of courtesy at leaSt. It may not be an expletive, but it's almost as rude to deliberately misrepresent.
Oh come on, any suggestion that Leave was going to be anything other than wonderful for Britain was met with a hailstorm of abuse from swivel-eyed Leavers. Don't rewrite history.
It is you who are rewriting history. But then since you consìder xenophobia to be the main driver of the Leave vote why should we expect you to have any sane or intelligent views on anything concetning Brexit.
We are constantly being told that Leavers voted mainly because of immigration (not you, obvs) so it's not surprising that people think that Leavers don't like foreigners.
You are constantly being told this by a few sad individuals. At the time of the referendum I wrote a thread header that included polling data showing most people would on balance choose continued free movement and EEA membership to no deal and restrictions on migration. I very much doubt that balance has moved away from favouring EEA membership even if May refuses to countenance it.
To be fair, I think that most Leave voters would like to see levels of immigration reduced, but I see nothing wrong with that.
Having control over who comes to the UK is not the same as preventing people of other nationalities coming to the UK. Controlling the numbers is nothing to do with Xenophobia and everything to do with Housing, Services and Employment, as well as culture.
If it gives you some moral comfort to believe that we're all bigots, then by all means believe that - it hurts me none. But you would be misguiding yourself as to the real issues and what has caused them.
I don't believe that all Leavers are bigots. I do believe that far too many Leavers are far too relaxed about pandering to bigots.
One of the chief reasons why the rest of the EU is cutting Britain so little slack is because the Leave campaign was won with xenophobic lies that the government has never distanced itself from. Why on earth should they facilitate the success of such a campaign?
As I understand you - unless we have completely open borders where everyone in Africa and the wider world are allowed to come and be full citizens of the Uk with free healthcare and schooling then we are all horrible goose stepping racists ?
I'm a simple soul. I like my campaign posters not to echo exactly Nazi propaganda against Jewish refugees or to include straight lies designed to frighten people about mass migration from a country for which there is no prospect of joining the EU for decades.
You, evidently, don't have those preferences.
So it's about the language not the practicalities ?
I'm pretty comfortable suggesting that there is a limit to the level of immigration that the Uk can absorb before public services begin to suffer significantly. That probably makes me a racist in your eyes.
The turnover of housing stock would decrease hugely if you had to shell out CGT every time (assuming a rising market). Renting would become much, much more commonplace and the 'evil' landlord would have the scale to work out a multitude of wheezes to reduce his liabilities when selling.
As ever, the unintended consequences would dwarf the supposed benefits, and it's the little man/woman* who bears the brunt.
* Terribly binary, I know. But "the little person" sounds a bit crap.
Having control over who comes to the UK is not the same as preventing people of other nationalities coming to the UK. Controlling the numbers is nothing to do with Xenophobia and everything to do with Housing, Services and Employment, as well as culture.
If it gives you some moral comfort to believe that we're all bigots, then by all means believe that - it hurts me none. But you would be misguiding yourself as to the real issues and what has caused them.
I don't believe that all Leavers are bigots. I do believe that far too many Leavers are far too relaxed about pandering to bigots.
One of the chief reasons why the rest of the EU is cutting Britain so little slack is because the Leave campaign was won with xenophobic lies that the government has never distanced itself from. Why on earth should they facilitate the success of such a campaign?
As I understand you - unless we have completely open borders where everyone in Africa and the wider world are allowed to come and be full citizens of the Uk with free healthcare and schooling then we are all horrible goose stepping racists ?
I think the point was that we had a workable relationship with our neighbour and largest trading partner and as a part of that relationship there was freedom of movement. This was part of a broader set of agreements which proved to be mutually beneficial. Over the years both parties have benefited.
What I think happened with the referendum is that this one element of the overall relationship was focused on by people who have never liked immigration and probably never will.
In years gone by EU immigration has ebbed and flowed and before that there was other kinds of immigration (Huguenots, Jews, Asian, Afro-Caribbean) and my guess is those were not liked either. The difference at the EU Ref was that those people who didn't like immigration could finally do something about it. So they did.
If you have annual land value tax (with frequent revaluations based on local area Land Registry prices), you could abolish SDLT. This would get rid of a large transactional cost on sales. This may well encourage more efficient use of houses by encouraging downsizing.
You could also use an annual tax to abolish capital taxes on housing ( eg CGT on second homes) and IHT.
IHT then becomes a tax on cash and investments, and could be converted to a tax on the recipient, rather than a tax on the death estate.
" Well, according to one cabinet minister present, Gove talked about Schumpeter and creative destruction and raised the question of whether the Bank of England’s monetary policy was creating zombie companies."
" Well, according to one cabinet minister present, Gove talked about Schumpeter and creative destruction and raised the question of whether the Bank of England’s monetary policy was creating zombie companies."
Its complicated because very low interest rates and very cheap mortgages has undoubtedly boosted the prices house builders can sell at increasing their profits. If interest rates rise significantly unsold housing stock is going to depreciate. At the moment, outside London prices don't seem to be going anywhere.
I mentioned that my daughter is flat hunting in the Dundee area. I am going to see another flat with her tonight. So far all the properties we have seen are on the market at less than the home buyers valuation (yes, sadly we have not abolished these north of the border) from a few months ago. Generally by 5-10% which, as they are moving to fixed price, they seem to be writing off.
I recommend looking for a flat in the Woodlands area of Glasgow instead. Nice one currently for sale!
Comments
The truth is there will need to be a considerable expansion in both the UK Border Agency and perhaps the HMRC as well - I'm merely asking you, as a Government supporter, how that should be funded.'
Perhaps by the savings in services and housing and welfare costs from falling immigration as a result of the end of free movement from the EU and from the reduced costs in crime and policing here as we have greater control over who we allow in
Near here we have a 900 house development on a Rolls-Royce site.
Site basically became available in about 2007.
Conversations started around 2010.
Outline PP obtained 2014. 900 homes. 900k sq ft of employment space.
Development has now started (2016) after a couple of years of more wrangling.
It will not be complete until after 2025.
Throughout most of that period most of those houses will be in the alleged "landbank that developers are refusing to build", while in fact it is just an example of how long things take in our planning system.
The "land bank developers are sitting on" concept as used in the political debate is a pile of pish.
Figures for eg Paddington Basin are not dissimilar.
Leavers are more concerned about regaining sovereignty and reducing immigration, especially as so many are pensioners and own their own homes and no longer work and in any case we are still likely heading for a FTA anyway.
'American couple told to leave home in Highlands'
http://tinyurl.com/ya23wnan
'Laggan's Zielsdorf family to be deported next month'
http://tinyurl.com/y943p8pt
'Australian family threatened with deportation from Scotland win reprieve '
http://tinyurl.com/zk6pd6b
The housing market isn’t going to be fixed until interest rates get off the floor.
https://twitter.com/HTScotPol/status/931129230167076864
Thanks for the comment.
That "won't" is very different from Mr White Rabbit's "can't" :-D. A somewhat less positive outcome does not equal "forced me not to".
Some could equally decide to sell sooner, before house prices adjust downwards. By definition they still have a windfall / gain since CGT is only a proportion of that gain.
I think the decisions to sell depend on whether they think the CGT exemption will come back. The MIRAS change was never reversed.
Removing such a huge distortion from the housing market would surely be an excellent thing. The current cost of the CGT exemption to the Exchequer is about £24 bn a year.
https://www.icas.com/technical-resources/the-9-most-costly-uk-tax-reliefs
On the IHT, can we agree that Mr O's shenanigans technically to fulfil his "one million" pledge were a dog's breakfast?
There has been a lot of rhetoric about generational imbalances. Perhaps Mr Hammond needs to be equally bold on housing and IHT - remove that exemption as well?
Like a few others.I expect the East Wind will blow this Winter-it cuts though you like a knife and is a bad precursor to worse.
I mentioned that my daughter is flat hunting in the Dundee area. I am going to see another flat with her tonight. So far all the properties we have seen are on the market at less than the home buyers valuation (yes, sadly we have not abolished these north of the border) from a few months ago. Generally by 5-10% which, as they are moving to fixed price, they seem to be writing off.
I'm in my mid-thirties and, having bought four and bit years ago, am looking to move on soon. In those years I've saved money intended to put towards my next place.
However if there was CGT on my main residence, I would be enormously incentivised instead to use that money saved as a deposit on a second place instead, renting out my first one, becoming a hated BTL landlord instead of freeing up a much needed starter home.
The people who would be hit the hardest are young families who need to trade up due to increasing family size, or divorcing couples who have no choice. The only choice would be to defer having a family (is this Tory policy now?) or remain in a loveless marriage (possibly Tory policy). Everyone else would cling on to their existing properties until you took them from their cold, dead hands.
With CGT on property at 28% and no exemption for main residence you are effectively incentivising people of all ages and all walks of life who are lucky enough to own property to never sell their homes.
That'll work.
https://brexiteu.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/breaking-point-nazi-style-propaganda.jpg?w=640
If it gives you some moral comfort to believe that we're all bigots, then by all means believe that - it hurts me none. But you would be misguiding yourself as to the real issues and what has caused them.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/05/16/mortimer-with-a-tip-for-the-more-adventurous-gamblers/
One of the chief reasons why the rest of the EU is cutting Britain so little slack is because the Leave campaign was won with xenophobic lies that the government has never distanced itself from. Why on earth should they facilitate the success of such a campaign?
The supply of housing is also controlled by the Phasing in the Local Development Plan created by the Local Council, and developers also conform to expected housing mix etc. In our case it is 524 per year iirc up until 2028.
Each major site has a Council approved Development Brief as to what they wish to so, and which the developer has to address.
Our Local Plan is here. All 300+ pages of it.
https://www.ashfield.gov.uk/media/2246/lp1-ashfield_publication_local_plan___2016.pdf
and there is a supporting library of scores of documents.
And there is a major difference between being opposed to uncontrolled immigration into a densely populated country and being xenophobic. No one ever said that immigration was going to be stopped. Indeed everyone I heard recognised that some immigration is desirable (at least for us, if not the poor countries that we are taking the qualified doctors and nurses from). But it needs controlled and it isn't.
https://twitter.com/TheCGA/status/931134391295840256
You, evidently, don't have those preferences.
thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/man-claims-hius-life-being-ruined-by-immigration-but-cant-explain-how-20170227122932
I'm pretty comfortable suggesting that there is a limit to the level of immigration that the Uk can absorb before public services begin to suffer significantly. That probably makes me a racist in your eyes.
The turnover of housing stock would decrease hugely if you had to shell out CGT every time (assuming a rising market). Renting would become much, much more commonplace and the 'evil' landlord would have the scale to work out a multitude of wheezes to reduce his liabilities when selling.
As ever, the unintended consequences would dwarf the supposed benefits, and it's the little man/woman* who bears the brunt.
* Terribly binary, I know. But "the little person" sounds a bit crap.
What I think happened with the referendum is that this one element of the overall relationship was focused on by people who have never liked immigration and probably never will.
In years gone by EU immigration has ebbed and flowed and before that there was other kinds of immigration (Huguenots, Jews, Asian, Afro-Caribbean) and my guess is those were not liked either. The difference at the EU Ref was that those people who didn't like immigration could finally do something about it. So they did.
If you have annual land value tax (with frequent revaluations based on local area Land Registry prices), you could abolish SDLT. This would get rid of a large transactional cost on sales. This may well encourage more efficient use of houses by encouraging downsizing.
You could also use an annual tax to abolish capital taxes on housing ( eg CGT on second homes) and IHT.
IHT then becomes a tax on cash and investments, and could be converted to a tax on the recipient, rather than a tax on the death estate.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/11/michael-goves-cabinet-critics-should-go-and-do-some-reading/
" Well, according to one cabinet minister present, Gove talked about Schumpeter and creative destruction and raised the question of whether the Bank of England’s monetary policy was creating zombie companies."
NEW THREAD