Boris now getting support from all wings of the party and almost as many former Remain MPs backing him as former Leave MPs, Chloe Smith from the Cameroon former Remainer wing and Owen Paterson from the No Deal, hard Brexit wing, as well as former May ally and Defence Secretary Michael Fallon.
Hancock and Hunt now the clear candidates of the Remain wing and Raab the clear candidate of the Leave wing of the party based on the percentage of their MP support
I would have thought that Johnson's backing from some quarters must be of grave concern to the ERG/No dealers. What is he saying in private to get that sort of backing?
I suspect Boris has made the following calculation. As the very personification of Brexit, TBP will wither and die the moment he becomes PM. Yet he needs to move to the centre to counter the threat of the revived Lib Dems, hence all the talk of One Nation Toryism and 'When I campaigned to be mayor London...'. It's an audacious tactic but it just might work!
Boris now getting support from all wings of the party and almost as many former Remain MPs backing him as former Leave MPs, Chloe Smith from the Cameroon former Remainer wing and Owen Paterson from the No Deal, hard Brexit wing, as well as former May ally and Defence Secretary Michael Fallon.
Hancock and Hunt now the clear candidates of the Remain wing and Raab the clear candidate of the Leave wing of the party based on the percentage of their MP support
I would have thought that Johnson's backing from some quarters must be of grave concern to the ERG/No dealers. What is he saying in private to get that sort of backing?
I suspect Boris has made the following calculation. As the very personification of Brexit, TBP will wither and die the moment he becomes PM. Yet he needs to move to the centre to counter the threat of the revived Lib Dems, hence all the talk of One Nation Toryism and 'When I campaigned to be mayor London...'. It's an audacious tactic but it just might work!
That also depends by how you describe 'inequality'.
In London it would be the difference between the extreme rich and the poor.
In much of the country it would be the difference between property owners and renters.
Then there is the inequality in employment and educational opportunities between deprived areas and average areas.
Not forgetting generational inequality.
And as inequality takes different forms then policies to reduce it will also need to be different.
So if a Labour government focuses on 'London type inequality' it much have no effect in reducing other forms of inequality and may instead worsen them.
Yes, you have to define something very precisely if your whole mission is to have a big impact on it. And although a targeted hike to tax & spend is great, you need more than that.
4 from me that I am hoping to see in the Labour manifesto -
1. CGT on sales of residential property. 2. Decentralized state bank to boost investment in the regions. 3. Social care part funded by higher IHT. 4. Heavily dis-incentivize private education.
Any of those grab you? - in a good way, I mean.
1. You've just created a massive disincentive for older people to sell up and downsize, exacerbating the housing crisis foe younger families. 2. We've just managed to get rid out state ownership of banks, it didn't go well. 3. You've just pushed more people into tax planning, causing a reduction in actual tax take. 4. Who pays for all of the additional pupils who's parents now decide that can't or won't send their kids to private school?
As always with the left, policies that sounds good but will wreck the economy (and in this case the education sector).
Fixing Council Tax with a price based land tax will sort an awful lot of the issues that still remain within the housing market. Yes prices will drop but we need to start taxing wealth and houses are just about the easiest starting point.
As for social care, the handling of that in the Manifesto is probably May's worst legacy (and when we look back at her I suspect as shown in those posts earlier today that there will be a lot of bad legacies).
That also depends by how you describe 'inequality'.
In London it would be the difference between the extreme rich and the poor.
In much of the country it would be the difference between property owners and renters.
Then there is the inequality in employment and educational opportunities between deprived areas and average areas.
Not forgetting generational inequality.
And as inequality takes different forms then policies to reduce it will also need to be different.
So if a Labour government focuses on 'London type inequality' it much have no effect in reducing other forms of inequality and may instead worsen them.
Yes, you have to define something very precisely if your whole mission is to have a big impact on it. And although a targeted hike to tax & spend is great, you need more than that.
4 from me that I am hoping to see in the Labour manifesto -
1. CGT on sales of residential property. 2. Decentralized state bank to boost investment in the regions. 3. Social care part funded by higher IHT. 4. Heavily dis-incentivize private education.
Any of those grab you? - in a good way, I mean.
No 1 worse than dementia tax x 100 for any chance of a labour win No 2 Why does that make any difference No 3 How much tax would higher IHT raise in comparision with the cost of social care No 4 615,000 children go to private education. So how much will absorbing them into state education cost
No 5 Please explain how confiscating share value from nationalising the national grid and other grossly expensive nationalisation will not result in the collapse of most everyone's pension funds and the loss of billions of investment from private industry
With respect socialist dogma lacking thought of the consequences
That also depends by how you describe 'inequality'.
In London it would be the difference between the extreme rich and the poor.
In much of the country it would be the difference between property owners and renters.
Then there is the inequality in employment and educational opportunities between deprived areas and average areas.
Not forgetting generational inequality.
And as inequality takes different forms then policies to reduce it will also need to be different.
So if a Labour government focuses on 'London type inequality' it much have no effect in reducing other forms of inequality and may instead worsen them.
Yes, you have to define something very precisely if your whole mission is to have a big impact on it. And although a targeted hike to tax & spend is great, you need more than that.
4 from me that I am hoping to see in the Labour manifesto -
1. CGT on sales of residential property. 2. Decentralized state bank to boost investment in the regions. 3. Social care part funded by higher IHT. 4. Heavily dis-incentivize private education.
Any of those grab you? - in a good way, I mean.
No 1 worse than dementia tax x 100 for any chance of a labour win No 2 Why does that make any difference No 3 How much tax would higher IHT raise in comparision with the cost of social care No 4 615,000 children go to private education. So how much will absorbing them into state education cost
No 5 Please explain how confiscating share value from nationalising the national grid and other grossly expensive nationalisation will not result in the collapse of most everyone's pension funds and the loss of billions of investment from private industry
With respect socialist dogma lacking thought of the consequences
On a point of order, there IS CGT on residential property. Just not on the sale of your principal private residence. Which for the vast majority of people, is their home.
That also depends by how you describe 'inequality'.
In London it would be the difference between the extreme rich and the poor.
In much of the country it would be the difference between property owners and renters.
Then there is the inequality in employment and educational opportunities between deprived areas and average areas.
Not forgetting generational inequality.
And as inequality takes different forms then policies to reduce it will also need to be different.
So if a Labour government focuses on 'London type inequality' it much have no effect in reducing other forms of inequality and may instead worsen them.
Yes, you have to define something very precisely if your whole mission is to have a big impact on it. And although a targeted hike to tax & spend is great, you need more than that.
4 from me that I am hoping to see in the Labour manifesto -
1. CGT on sales of residential property. 2. Decentralized state bank to boost investment in the regions. 3. Social care part funded by higher IHT. 4. Heavily dis-incentivize private education.
Any of those grab you? - in a good way, I mean.
1. You've just created a massive disincentive for older people to sell up and downsize, exacerbating the housing crisis foe younger families. 2. We've just managed to get rid out state ownership of banks, it didn't go well. 3. You've just pushed more people into tax planning, causing a reduction in actual tax take. 4. Who pays for all of the additional pupils who's parents now decide that can't or won't send their kids to private school?
As always with the left, policies that sounds good but will wreck the economy (and in this case the education sector).
I can see this being wound up in the next couple of weeks and never going to a members ballot to be honest.
Boris PM by the end of June?
I’m betting heavily that there’s a massive new skeleton in his closet, waiting to come out in the latter stages of the campaign. There’s enough people who really don’t want him to win, and it’s very unlikely that we have heard all the stories about Boris over the years.
That also depends by how you describe 'inequality'.
In London it would be the difference between the extreme rich and the poor.
In much of the country it would be the difference between property owners and renters.
Then there is the inequality in employment and educational opportunities between deprived areas and average areas.
Not forgetting generational inequality.
And as inequality takes different forms then policies to reduce it will also need to be different.
So if a Labour government focuses on 'London type inequality' it much have no effect in reducing other forms of inequality and may instead worsen them.
Yes, you have to define something very precisely if your whole mission is to have a big impact on it. And although a targeted hike to tax & spend is great, you need more than that.
4 from me that I am hoping to see in the Labour manifesto -
1. CGT on sales of residential property. 2. Decentralized state bank to boost investment in the regions. 3. Social care part funded by higher IHT. 4. Heavily dis-incentivize private education.
Any of those grab you? - in a good way, I mean.
No 1 worse than dementia tax x 100 for any chance of a labour win No 2 Why does that make any difference No 3 How much tax would higher IHT raise in comparision with the cost of social care No 4 615,000 children go to private education. So how much will absorbing them into state education cost
No 5 Please explain how confiscating share value from nationalising the national grid and other grossly expensive nationalisation will not result in the collapse of most everyone's pension funds and the loss of billions of investment from private industry
With respect socialist dogma lacking thought of the consequences
On a point of order, there IS CGT on residential property. Just not on the sale of your principal private residence. Which for the vast majority of people, is their home.
Yes but most people would associate that as an attack on home owner occupier ownership
I can see this being wound up in the next couple of weeks and never going to a members ballot to be honest.
Boris PM by the end of June?
I’m betting heavily that there’s a massive new skeleton in his closet, waiting to come out in the latter stages of the campaign. There’s enough people who really don’t want him to win, and it’s very unlikely that we have heard all the stories about Boris over the years.
Fixing Council Tax with a price based land tax will sort an awful lot of the issues that still remain within the housing market. Yes prices will drop but we need to start taxing wealth and houses are just about the easiest starting point.
As for social care, the handling of that in the Manifesto is probably May's worst legacy (and when we look back at her I suspect as shown in those posts earlier today that there will be a lot of bad legacies).
I remember saying at the time social care needs a cross party stitch up so it can be depoliticised. No one wants to pay for it, not least the baby boomer generation that is going to require the highest care costs.
I think LVTs should only be introduced on secondary property. Taxing people on (in addition to council tax) on where they live seem morally wrong, given that we already have council tax.
As a party we need to be actively hostile to residential landlords and lose the current tag we have as being on the side of landlords, it's a bit unfair because we've brought in a lot of changes which have helped house prices come down and hit scum bag estate agents and scum bag landlords, but in reality we need to go further. I'd say a 3% annual property value tax on all non-primary residential properties. Really turn the screw on the leeches.
That also depends by how you describe 'inequality'.
In London it would be the difference between the extreme rich and the poor.
In much of the country it would be the difference between property owners and renters.
Then there is the inequality in employment and educational opportunities between deprived areas and average areas.
Not forgetting generational inequality.
And as inequality takes different forms then policies to reduce it will also need to be different.
So if a Labour government focuses on 'London type inequality' it much have no effect in reducing other forms of inequality and may instead worsen them.
Yes, you have to define something very precisely if your whole mission is to have a big impact on it. And although a targeted hike to tax & spend is great, you need more than that.
4 from me that I am hoping to see in the Labour manifesto -
1. CGT on sales of residential property. 2. Decentralized state bank to boost investment in the regions. 3. Social care part funded by higher IHT. 4. Heavily dis-incentivize private education.
Any of those grab you? - in a good way, I mean.
1. You've just created a massive disincentive for older people to sell up and downsize, exacerbating the housing crisis foe younger families. 2. We've just managed to get rid out state ownership of banks, it didn't go well. 3. You've just pushed more people into tax planning, causing a reduction in actual tax take. 4. Who pays for all of the additional pupils who's parents now decide that can't or won't send their kids to private school?
As always with the left, policies that sounds good but will wreck the economy (and in this case the education sector).
Very similar to my comments.
And that, BigG, is why we're on the same side despite our differences over brexit.
That also depends by how you describe 'inequality'.
In London it would be the difference between the extreme rich and the poor.
In much of the country it would be the difference between property owners and renters.
Then there is the inequality in employment and educational opportunities between deprived areas and average areas.
Not forgetting generational inequality.
And as inequality takes different forms then policies to reduce it will also need to be different.
So if a Labour government focuses on 'London type inequality' it much have no effect in reducing other forms of inequality and may instead worsen them.
Yes, you have to define something very precisely if your whole mission is to have a big impact on it. And although a targeted hike to tax & spend is great, you need more than that.
4 from me that I am hoping to see in the Labour manifesto -
1. CGT on sales of residential property. 2. Decentralized state bank to boost investment in the regions. 3. Social care part funded by higher IHT. 4. Heavily dis-incentivize private education.
Any of those grab you? - in a good way, I mean.
No 1 worse than dementia tax x 100 for any chance of a labour win No 2 Why does that make any difference No 3 How much tax would higher IHT raise in comparision with the cost of social care No 4 615,000 children go to private education. So how much will absorbing them into state education cost
No 5 Please explain how confiscating share value from nationalising the national grid and other grossly expensive nationalisation will not result in the collapse of most everyone's pension funds and the loss of billions of investment from private industry
With respect socialist dogma lacking thought of the consequences
On a point of order, there IS CGT on residential property. Just not on the sale of your principal private residence. Which for the vast majority of people, is their home.
Yes but most people would associate that as an attack on home owner occupier ownership
Which it would be.
If you buy a property for 100k then 10 years later you move, sell it for 200k while buying a new property in another town of the same specs for 200k then how much profit have you made? If you have to pay CGT on your sale how can you afford a new home?
1. You've just created a massive disincentive for older people to sell up and downsize, exacerbating the housing crisis foe younger families.
Nothing that can't be fixed with more property taxes...
How does the party proposing all of these additional property taxes win the election? Even people who don't own a home will be against them because one day they will.
I can see this being wound up in the next couple of weeks and never going to a members ballot to be honest.
Boris PM by the end of June?
I’m betting heavily that there’s a massive new skeleton in his closet, waiting to come out in the latter stages of the campaign. There’s enough people who really don’t want him to win, and it’s very unlikely that we have heard all the stories about Boris over the years.
Ironically I suspect that because there's enough people who really don't want him to win, that is probably why all his skeletons are in the open already.
All this talk of discouraging the rich is, of course, just jealousy and non-sense. What we should be doing to to discourage the poor, by making it easier for them to get out of poverty. No one should pay tax or NI until they are earning £20K. Jobseekers should be given free public transport for job interviews and for the first one month of any job (if you have been out of work for more than three months), or in areas with poor public transport free bicycles. Employers national Insurance should be waived on anyone being taken off long-term unemployment.
That also depends by how you describe 'inequality'.
In London it would be the difference between the extreme rich and the poor.
In much of the country it would be the difference between property owners and renters.
Then there is the inequality in employment and educational opportunities between deprived areas and average areas.
Not forgetting generational inequality.
And as inequality takes different forms then policies to reduce it will also need to be different.
So if a Labour government focuses on 'London type inequality' it much have no effect in reducing other forms of inequality and may instead worsen them.
Yes, you have to define something very precisely if your whole mission is to have a big impact on it. And although a targeted hike to tax & spend is great, you need more than that.
4 from me that I am hoping to see in the Labour manifesto -
1. CGT on sales of residential property. 2. Decentralized state bank to boost investment in the regions. 3. Social care part funded by higher IHT. 4. Heavily dis-incentivize private education.
Any of those grab you? - in a good way, I mean.
No 1 worse than dementia tax x 100 for any chance of a labour win No 2 Why does that make any difference No 3 How much tax would higher IHT raise in comparision with the cost of social care No 4 615,000 children go to private education. So how much will absorbing them into state education cost
No 5 Please explain how confiscating share value from nationalising the national grid and other grossly expensive nationalisation will not result in the collapse of most everyone's pension funds and the loss of billions of investment from private industry
With respect socialist dogma lacking thought of the consequences
On a point of order, there IS CGT on residential property. Just not on the sale of your principal private residence. Which for the vast majority of people, is their home.
And when house prices fall (as is surely the aim of such a policy), we’ll be able to offset the loss against other capital gains...
Fixing Council Tax with a price based land tax will sort an awful lot of the issues that still remain within the housing market. Yes prices will drop but we need to start taxing wealth and houses are just about the easiest starting point.
As for social care, the handling of that in the Manifesto is probably May's worst legacy (and when we look back at her I suspect as shown in those posts earlier today that there will be a lot of bad legacies).
I remember saying at the time social care needs a cross party stitch up so it can be depoliticised. No one wants to pay for it, not least the baby boomer generation that is going to require the highest care costs.
I think LVTs should only be introduced on secondary property. Taxing people on (in addition to council tax) on where they live seem morally wrong, given that we already have council tax.
As a party we need to be actively hostile to residential landlords and lose the current tag we have as being on the side of landlords, it's a bit unfair because we've brought in a lot of changes which have helped house prices come down and hit scum bag estate agents and scum bag landlords, but in reality we need to go further. I'd say a 3% annual property value tax on all non-primary residential properties. Really turn the screw on the leeches.
Any tax will be passed on to tenants in increased rents.
Without landlords who will tenants rent from?
Not everyone is in the position to either want to own a property or be able to.
All this talk of discouraging the rich is, of course, just jealousy and non-sense. What we should be doing to to discourage the poor, by making it easier for them to get out of poverty. No one should pay tax or NI until they are earning £20K. Jobseekers should be given free public transport for job interviews and for the first one month of any job (if you have been out of work for more than three months), or in areas with poor public transport free bicycles. Employers national Insurance should be waived on anyone being taken off long-term unemployment.
Even that's not a good policy. People need to be part of the system so they feel like they have a stake in it. The current policy has, IMO, removed too many people from income tax. We would have been better off lowering the rate to 18% once we got £10k on he allowance. Our tax base is becoming too narrow
I can see this being wound up in the next couple of weeks and never going to a members ballot to be honest.
Boris PM by the end of June?
I’m betting heavily that there’s a massive new skeleton in his closet, waiting to come out in the latter stages of the campaign. There’s enough people who really don’t want him to win, and it’s very unlikely that we have heard all the stories about Boris over the years.
"I think I was once given cocaine but I sneezed so it didn't go up my nose. In fact, it may have been icing sugar." - Boris, 2005
Fixing Council Tax with a price based land tax will sort an awful lot of the issues that still remain within the housing market. Yes prices will drop but we need to start taxing wealth and houses are just about the easiest starting point.
As for social care, the handling of that in the Manifesto is probably May's worst legacy (and when we look back at her I suspect as shown in those posts earlier today that there will be a lot of bad legacies).
I remember saying at the time social care needs a cross party stitch up so it can be depoliticised. No one wants to pay for it, not least the baby boomer generation that is going to require the highest care costs.
I think LVTs should only be introduced on secondary property. Taxing people on (in addition to council tax) on where they live seem morally wrong, given that we already have council tax.
As a party we need to be actively hostile to residential landlords and lose the current tag we have as being on the side of landlords, it's a bit unfair because we've brought in a lot of changes which have helped house prices come down and hit scum bag estate agents and scum bag landlords, but in reality we need to go further. I'd say a 3% annual property value tax on all non-primary residential properties. Really turn the screw on the leeches.
Any tax will be passed on to tenants in increased rents.
Without landlords who will tenants rent from?
Not everyone is in the position to either want to own a property or be able to.
How do you propose that a landlord passes on a 3% value tax to a tenant?
Without landlords tenants will buy, as is the aim of a huge proportion, and as the value of land falls the rest will find that social housing has suddey become available from housing associations.
I can see this being wound up in the next couple of weeks and never going to a members ballot to be honest.
Boris PM by the end of June?
I’m betting heavily that there’s a massive new skeleton in his closet, waiting to come out in the latter stages of the campaign. There’s enough people who really don’t want him to win, and it’s very unlikely that we have heard all the stories about Boris over the years.
Is that code for "underwater" ?
I wouldn’t put it in quite those terms, but let’s just say I’m doing a scuba diving course next week... 😮
On the fantasy note, just remembered I made some daft Politicians & Punters type mini-sheets for the 2010 election. Maybe I'll do something similar next time. If I have time/remember.
"Almost all businesspeople invest their own funds, blood, sweat and tears to make their businesses work. Asset strippers are the exception not the rule.
How does making footballers like Virgil van Dijk or Mo Salah poorer make our economy more efficient? Considering that Liverpool are getting great success in being the Champions of Europe and indeed all 4 European finalists were English how would driving talent like that out of the country improve our economy?
Liverpool with Salah, Van Dijk etc aren't just getting success on the field but are a financial success too making record profits drawing in income from across Europe and the world. So the players are more than justifying their wages.
Their success hasn't just improved the gaiety of the nation via their fans but economically their success helps businesses and other individuals across the country too.
Finally of course the country takes massive taxes from footballers, clubs etc
So please explain how actively seeking to make Mo Salah poorer would make the nation more efficient."
No issues with most business people, as you say they are trying to make things work and they should get more support from the state not less. I was specifically referring to those who use bankruptcy as a means of moving wealth, whether the builder who goes through many ltd co's with similar names to shaft suppliers and clients or the billionaires who pick up retail chains and play fast and loose with the pension funds. These are real problems in our economy but are not addressed because politicians have (until Brexit) been afraid to be seen anti business. Tackling the bad guys is pro-good business.
The Panama papers, convictions in Spain and HMRC investigations show footballers are not even paying the tax they are supposed to. Last year HMRC managed to get an extra £332m out of them which had been deliberately underpaid. How much more is being missed? Why do they and their advisors not end up in prison as a benefit claimant would?
I have been reflecting on this week's emotional ceremonies commemorating the 75th D Day anniversary. Older contributors may wish to correct me, but I do not recall such ceremonies being held back in 1964 , 1969 - or indeed 1974 - to honour the sacrifices made at the time of the 20th , 25th or 30th anniversaries. If so, I fail to understand why that did not happen - particularly as many leading participants such as Eisenhower and,Montgomery -to name but two - were still alive and able to share their memories. Unless I am mistaken, it was not until 1984 - and the 40th anniversary - that we saw ceremonies on such a scale.
Perhaps it was an all too real and very close memory? Something perhaps "people" didn't want to overly recall? (And in the 60s and 70s, the vast majority of adults would have had direct experience, especially those who would have been in a position to organise them). I seem to remember WW1 commemorations growing bigger as fewer and fewer of the participants were around.
All this talk of discouraging the rich is, of course, just jealousy and non-sense. What we should be doing to to discourage the poor, by making it easier for them to get out of poverty. No one should pay tax or NI until they are earning £20K. Jobseekers should be given free public transport for job interviews and for the first one month of any job (if you have been out of work for more than three months), or in areas with poor public transport free bicycles. Employers national Insurance should be waived on anyone being taken off long-term unemployment.
£20k is too high as it takes too many out of income tax so they no longer have a stake in the system. Better to make it £12k but at 15%. The rest though, absolutely, and add a few economic free zones in Northern towns where small businesses are exempt from NI, VAT and Corporation tax.
1. You've just created a massive disincentive for older people to sell up and downsize, exacerbating the housing crisis foe younger families. 2. We've just managed to get rid out state ownership of banks, it didn't go well. 3. You've just pushed more people into tax planning, causing a reduction in actual tax take. 4. Who pays for all of the additional pupils who's parents now decide that can't or won't send their kids to private school?
As always with the left, policies that sounds good but will wreck the economy (and in this case the education sector).
Good format. Will ape.
1. True. But the benefits of re-balancing way from property will be great and long-lasting. For example, the subsequent lower prices, especially if combined with building more, will go a long way towards solving the housing crisis.
2. It's not the whole sector, just the one bank with a specific brief to invest in the regions. And I must gently point out to you that PRIVATE ownership of banks does not always go well. The total meltdown a decade ago demonstrated this.
3. No doubt additional 'planning' would occur (fact of life) but at the numbers we are talking about, the effect would be to marginally reduce the INCREASE of the tax take, not to turn it negative.
4. Everybody, since it will require an increase to the education budget.
And my broadbrush one is -
As always with the right, policies that will reduce inequality in practice (rather than paying lip service to it) are disliked because for those on the right it is not, in truth, a priority. Which is fair enough - but one wishes they wouldn't pretend.
I can see this being wound up in the next couple of weeks and never going to a members ballot to be honest.
Boris PM by the end of June?
I’m betting heavily that there’s a massive new skeleton in his closet, waiting to come out in the latter stages of the campaign. There’s enough people who really don’t want him to win, and it’s very unlikely that we have heard all the stories about Boris over the years.
"I think I was once given cocaine but I sneezed so it didn't go up my nose. In fact, it may have been icing sugar." - Boris, 2005
Half of me thinks that Michael Gove getting his skeleton out of the closet this weekend has something to do with a forthcoming Boris story.
Or maybe it was just that one of the Sundays got him, so it was better to release the story on his own terms.
I can see this being wound up in the next couple of weeks and never going to a members ballot to be honest.
Boris PM by the end of June?
I think it has to go to the members
I think so too. But, with the greatest respect to you, what you and I think has little relevance. It is Tory MPs who matter. I would not be surprised at all to see 2nd place being put under extreme pressure to withdraw. "For the good of the country and the Party."
Fixing Council Tax with a price based land tax will sort an awful lot of the issues that still remain within the housing market. Yes prices will drop but we need to start taxing wealth and houses are just about the easiest starting point.
As for social care, the handling of that in the Manifesto is probably May's worst legacy (and when we look back at her I suspect as shown in those posts earlier today that there will be a lot of bad legacies).
I remember saying at the time social care needs a cross party stitch up so it can be depoliticised. No one wants to pay for it, not least the baby boomer generation that is going to require the highest care costs.
I think LVTs should only be introduced on secondary property. Taxing people on (in addition to council tax) on where they live seem morally wrong, given that we already have council tax.
As a party we need to be actively hostile to residential landlords and lose the current tag we have as being on the side of landlords, it's a bit unfair because we've brought in a lot of changes which have helped house prices come down and hit scum bag estate agents and scum bag landlords, but in reality we need to go further. I'd say a 3% annual property value tax on all non-primary residential properties. Really turn the screw on the leeches.
Any tax will be passed on to tenants in increased rents.
Without landlords who will tenants rent from?
Not everyone is in the position to either want to own a property or be able to.
How do you propose that a landlord passes on a 3% value tax to a tenant?
Without landlords tenants will buy, as is the aim of a huge proportion, and as the value of land falls the rest will find that social housing has suddey become available from housing associations.
It is basic economics that when you tax something the price goes up.
If every landlord puts their price up due to the tax then renters won't have much choice. So great you may have helped a few marginal cases get on the property ladder but anyone left behind renting is charged more. The gulf between renting and owning will grow even bigger.
Not everyone will buy. Not everyone either wants to or will be in a position to do so. And I'm not sure how social housing is any better than responsible and ethical landlords.
1. You've just created a massive disincentive for older people to sell up and downsize, exacerbating the housing crisis foe younger families. 2. We've just managed to get rid out state ownership of banks, it didn't go well. 3. You've just pushed more people into tax planning, causing a reduction in actual tax take. 4. Who pays for all of the additional pupils who's parents now decide that can't or won't send their kids to private school?
As always with the left, policies that sounds good but will wreck the economy (and in this case the education sector).
Good format. Will ape.
1. True. But the benefits of re-balancing way from property will be great and long-lasting. For example, the subsequent lower prices, especially if combined with building more, will go a long way towards solving the housing crisis.
2. It's not the whole sector, just the one bank with a specific brief to invest in the regions. And I must gently point out to you that PRIVATE ownership of banks does not always go well. The total meltdown a decade ago demonstrated this.
3. No doubt additional 'planning' would occur (fact of life) but at the numbers we are talking about, the effect would be to marginally reduce the INCREASE of the tax take, not to turn it negative.
4. Everybody, since it will require an increase to the education budget.
And my broadbrush one is -
As always with the right, policies that will reduce inequality in practice (rather than paying lip service to it) are disliked because for those on the right it is not in truth a priority. Which is fair enough - but one wishes they wouldn't pretend.
1. How do you build more property when prices are falling for all types of buyers? You can't force builders to work at less than cost. I guess maybe the hammer and sickle will force them into the fields. 2. That's not how it works. A nationalised bank will end in tears and recriminations. 3. People who are in the bracket already do it. Put more people in the bracket and more people will do it. 4. Who pays for it?
Fixing Council Tax with a price based land tax will sort an awful lot of the issues that still remain within the housing market. Yes prices will drop but we need to start taxing wealth and houses are just about the easiest starting point.
As for social care, the handling of that in the Manifesto is probably May's worst legacy (and when we look back at her I suspect as shown in those posts earlier today that there will be a lot of bad legacies).
I remember saying at the time social care needs a cross party stitch up so it can be depoliticised. No one wants to pay for it, not least the baby boomer generation that is going to require the highest care costs.
I think LVTs should only be introduced on secondary property. Taxing people on (in addition to council tax) on where they live seem morally wrong, given that we already have council tax.
As a party we need to be actively hostile to residential landlords and lose the current tag we have as being on the side of landlords, it's a bit unfair because we've brought in a lot of changes which have helped house prices come down and hit scum bag estate agents and scum bag landlords, but in reality we need to go further. I'd say a 3% annual property value tax on all non-primary residential properties. Really turn the screw on the leeches.
The problem with social care - in England anyway - is that we have 152 sets of politicians and bureaucrats across 152 local authorities all deciding different policies, assessment criteria, forms, charging regimes for home care with often huge variations in provision and quality. And its often impossible to find out those policies and charging arrangements until its too late and you have an elderly person or their relative needing to find homecare urgently. No central information point, no common procurement, often no help at all.
As an example my mother has to pay 60% more per week for her emergency lifeline alarm system (vital if elderly people fall ill or have a fall when they are on their own) in her home than equivalent elderly people in the neighbouring borough. Why exactly for a simple service like that should one borough charge 60% more than their neighbour for a vital service some of our most vulnerable citizens - shameful! Their council tax is higher too. Much of this of course arises due to differential funding with built in unfairness often going back decades.
Whats the best way to sort out social care and ensure its properly fund it - integrate it with the NHS and as far as possible have consistency in provision, charges and quality rather than 152 different ones. The current shocking postcode lottery is a joke!
I can see this being wound up in the next couple of weeks and never going to a members ballot to be honest.
Boris PM by the end of June?
I’m betting heavily that there’s a massive new skeleton in his closet, waiting to come out in the latter stages of the campaign. There’s enough people who really don’t want him to win, and it’s very unlikely that we have heard all the stories about Boris over the years.
"I think I was once given cocaine but I sneezed so it didn't go up my nose. In fact, it may have been icing sugar." - Boris, 2005
Can't tell his Coke from his icing sugar. Is that Boris code for arse and elbow?
For motorsports fans, the 3rd W-Series race is about to start live on ITV.
The first two races were quite good / reasonable. One was better than an average F1 race ...
I was sceptical about the premise of this series, but it’s gained a whole lot of publicity for some very good lady drivers, and the top 10 on the grid for today’s race were separated by a little over a second.
Young British driver Jamie Chadwick has just been signed by Williams on a development contract, and has a good chance of an FIA F3 or even F2 drive for next year off the back of this series. Well done to her!
All this talk of discouraging the rich is, of course, just jealousy and non-sense. What we should be doing to to discourage the poor, by making it easier for them to get out of poverty. No one should pay tax or NI until they are earning £20K. Jobseekers should be given free public transport for job interviews and for the first one month of any job (if you have been out of work for more than three months), or in areas with poor public transport free bicycles. Employers national Insurance should be waived on anyone being taken off long-term unemployment.
Even that's not a good policy. People need to be part of the system so they feel like they have a stake in it. The current policy has, IMO, removed too many people from income tax. We would have been better off lowering the rate to 18% once we got £10k on he allowance. Our tax base is becoming too narrow
People talk about merging income tax and national insurance but that is too simplistic. We should merge income tax, national insurance and universal credit.
The marginal tax rate of someone on 16 hours can be about 80%. It used to be worse but it is still far too high.
Fixing Council Tax with a price based land tax will sort an awful lot of the issues that still remain within the housing market. Yes prices will drop but we need to start taxing wealth and houses are just about the easiest starting point.
As for social care, the handling of that in the Manifesto is probably May's worst legacy (and when we look back at her I suspect as shown in those posts earlier today that there will be a lot of bad legacies).
I remember saying at the time social care needs a cross party stitch up so it can be depoliticised. No one wants to pay for it, not least the baby boomer generation that is going to require the highest care costs.
I think LVTs should only be introduced on secondary property. Taxing people on (in addition to council tax) on where they live seem morally wrong, given that we already have council tax.
As a party we need to be actively hostile to residential landlords and lose the current tag we have as being on the side of landlords, it's a bit unfair because we've brought in a lot of changes which have helped house prices come down and hit scum bag estate agents and scum bag landlords, but in reality we need to go further. I'd say a 3% annual property value tax on all non-primary residential properties. Really turn the screw on the leeches.
Any tax will be passed on to tenants in increased rents.
Without landlords who will tenants rent from?
Not everyone is in the position to either want to own a property or be able to.
How do you propose that a landlord passes on a 3% value tax to a tenant?
Without landlords tenants will buy, as is the aim of a huge proportion, and as the value of land falls the rest will find that social housing has suddey become available from housing associations.
It is basic economics that when you tax something the price goes up.
If every landlord puts their price up due to the tax then renters won't have much choice. So great you may have helped a few marginal cases get on the property ladder but anyone left behind renting is charged more. The gulf between renting and owning will grow even bigger.
Not everyone will buy. Not everyone either wants to or will be in a position to do so. And I'm not sure how social housing is any better than responsible and ethical landlords.
It's you that doesn't understand economics. The market sets the rent, not landlords. That has and always will be the case, regardless of the special pleading from the scumbag association.
Responsible and ethical landlords, give me a break. Are you actually for real, they are all scum.
I can see this being wound up in the next couple of weeks and never going to a members ballot to be honest.
Boris PM by the end of June?
I think it has to go to the members
Depends whether the person Boris is up against thinks there's any point going through the members ballot given the polling clearly shows Boris will win easily.
I can see this being wound up in the next couple of weeks and never going to a members ballot to be honest.
Boris PM by the end of June?
I’m betting heavily that there’s a massive new skeleton in his closet, waiting to come out in the latter stages of the campaign. There’s enough people who really don’t want him to win, and it’s very unlikely that we have heard all the stories about Boris over the years.
Probably. But Boris is teflon when it comes to his private life so it would have to be really, really bad for it to make much difference to the members.
£20k is too high as it takes too many out of income tax so they no longer have a stake in the system. Better to make it £12k but at 15%. The rest though, absolutely, and add a few economic free zones in Northern towns where small businesses are exempt from NI, VAT and Corporation tax.
That 'stake in society' point has merit IMO. In fact I can see a case for levying income tax on unemployment benefits.
First, gross it up, then apply the tax to arrive at the same net. Thus the jobless recipient gets the same cash in pocket, but they also get one of the main advantages of being a tax payer - the feeling of contributing.
In particular they would not be excluded from being able to say with great passion, "Don't mind paying tax, not at all, but what I do mind is how it all goes on lazy scroungers!"
Boris now getting support from all wings of the party and almost as many former Remain MPs backing him as former Leave MPs, Chloe Smith from the Cameroon former Remainer wing and Owen Paterson from the No Deal, hard Brexit wing, as well as former May ally and Defence Secretary Michael Fallon.
Hancock and Hunt now the clear candidates of the Remain wing and Raab the clear candidate of the Leave wing of the party based on the percentage of their MP support
I would have thought that Johnson's backing from some quarters must be of grave concern to the ERG/No dealers. What is he saying in private to get that sort of backing?
I suspect Boris has made the following calculation. As the very personification of Brexit, TBP will wither and die the moment he becomes PM. Yet he needs to move to the centre to counter the threat of the revived Lib Dems, hence all the talk of One Nation Toryism and 'When I campaigned to be mayor London...'. It's an audacious tactic but it just might work!
£20k is too high as it takes too many out of income tax so they no longer have a stake in the system. Better to make it £12k but at 15%. The rest though, absolutely, and add a few economic free zones in Northern towns where small businesses are exempt from NI, VAT and Corporation tax.
That 'stake in society' point has merit IMO. In fact I can see a case for levying income tax on unemployment benefits.
First, gross it up, then apply the tax to arrive at the same net. Thus the jobless recipient gets the same cash in pocket, but they also get one of the main advantages of being a tax payer - the feeling of contributing.
In particular they would not be excluded from being able to say with great passion, "Don't mind paying tax, not at all, but what I do mind is how it all goes on lazy scroungers!"
Unemployment benefit isn't income, it's a benefit. Until Labour understand that difference you won't ever be suitable to run the country. Labour, the party of scroungers and wasters.
Rents are already mostly set by what tenants can afford. If renters could afford more then landlords would obviously charge them more. How much landlords are taxed is secondary. If landlords cannot charge enough to make it viable, they have to leave the market through selling (or more recently switching to airbnb).
Also note that as some renters buy, the ability to pay of the remaining renters decreases as it is the richer tenants who buy. So a decline in the number of properties available for rent is likely to reduce not increase prices.
Boris now getting support from all wings of the party and almost as many former Remain MPs backing him as former Leave MPs, Chloe Smith from the Cameroon former Remainer wing and Owen Paterson from the No Deal, hard Brexit wing, as well as former May ally and Defence Secretary Michael Fallon.
Hancock and Hunt now the clear candidates of the Remain wing and Raab the clear candidate of the Leave wing of the party based on the percentage of their MP support
I would have thought that Johnson's backing from some quarters must be of grave concern to the ERG/No dealers. What is he saying in private to get that sort of backing?
I suspect Boris has made the following calculation. As the very personification of Brexit, TBP will wither and die the moment he becomes PM. Yet he needs to move to the centre to counter the threat of the revived Lib Dems, hence all the talk of One Nation Toryism and 'When I campaigned to be mayor London...'. It's an audacious tactic but it just might work!
Still dead against the premise of W Series. Where does a driver who wins it go? If it's to F1, she's a token (this can be defeated if she's the female equivalent of a Schumacher, but that's unlikely, even if she's genuinely good enough to be in the sport). The whole series implicitly suggests that women aren't good enough to race men and prefer to be segregated.
It is basic economics that when you tax something the price goes up.
If every landlord puts their price up due to the tax then renters won't have much choice. So great you may have helped a few marginal cases get on the property ladder but anyone left behind renting is charged more. The gulf between renting and owning will grow even bigger.
Not everyone will buy. Not everyone either wants to or will be in a position to do so. And I'm not sure how social housing is any better than responsible and ethical landlords.
It's you that doesn't understand economics. The market sets the rent, not landlords. That has and always will be the case, regardless of the special pleading from the scumbag association.
Responsible and ethical landlords, give me a break. Are you actually for real, they are all scum.
Market rents are set by supply and demand based on the tax system in place. Changing taxes changes the market.
As for all scum? What have they done to you?
I have never been a landlord but I have repeatedly been a tenant. I've had a good experience every time. I'm curious who I was supposed to rent from and how I was victimised when I did so.
Should only people who can afford to buy homes go to university? What about working away from home? Should you buy even though you're only in a town for a few months? What about young couples who aren't committed to each other but want to move in together? People with poor credit history who can't get a mortgage?
For motorsports fans, the 3rd W-Series race is about to start live on ITV.
The first two races were quite good / reasonable. One was better than an average F1 race ...
I was sceptical about the premise of this series, but it’s gained a whole lot of publicity for some very good lady drivers, and the top 10 on the grid for today’s race were separated by a little over a second.
Young British driver Jamie Chadwick has just been signed by Williams on a development contract, and has a good chance of an FIA F3 or even F2 drive for next year off the back of this series. Well done to her!
Yeah, I was a bit sceptical about Chadwick a few years ago (e.g. in the Ginetta Junior series) as being a bit of a rich kid - and her brother Oliver appeared to be a better driver. However she also won the British GT series as a teenager, so I was probably wrong.
She does have one advantage: I think she's the only woman in W Series with past experience in these cars - she drives F3 cars in the Asian championship anad has competed in British F3.
That 'stake in society' point has merit IMO. In fact I can see a case for levying income tax on unemployment benefits.
Unemployment Benefit is taxable or at least it was in the 90s. The weekly/monthly rate was not enough to pay tax on when claiming, but had a hidden effect once you started work again. People who started/returned to work having had no taxable income for that part tax year (eg. students and school leavers) effectively got a small tax break for the rest of the tax year.
I can see this being wound up in the next couple of weeks and never going to a members ballot to be honest.
Boris PM by the end of June?
I’m betting heavily that there’s a massive new skeleton in his closet, waiting to come out in the latter stages of the campaign. There’s enough people who really don’t want him to win, and it’s very unlikely that we have heard all the stories about Boris over the years.
"I think I was once given cocaine but I sneezed so it didn't go up my nose. In fact, it may have been icing sugar." - Boris, 2005
Half of me thinks that Michael Gove getting his skeleton out of the closet this weekend has something to do with a forthcoming Boris story.
Or maybe it was just that one of the Sundays got him, so it was better to release the story on his own terms.
Quite possibly it was just a way to get the Gove name back in the papers and remind people he was still in the running. He'd already seen just a few days ago that Rory's opium story did him no harm.
Still dead against the premise of W Series. Where does a driver who wins it go? If it's to F1, she's a token (this can be defeated if she's the female equivalent of a Schumacher, but that's unlikely, even if she's genuinely good enough to be in the sport). The whole series implicitly suggests that women aren't good enough to race men and prefer to be segregated.
Step backwards, I think.
That was my initial thought too, but Jamie Chadwick has a pretty good shout of an F2 drive on merit next year, and now has backing from Williams that means she’s not going to need to find the ludicrous amounts of sponsorship required herself.
The reason there’s no women in F1 is primarily because there’s not many in F2 (one this year, Tatiana Calderon, and she’s the first in over a decade). If we can get a couple of women from this series into F2, and a couple more into FIA F3 (that also races with the F1 European calendar) then it will have achieved its aim.
I can see this being wound up in the next couple of weeks and never going to a members ballot to be honest.
Boris PM by the end of June?
I’m betting heavily that there’s a massive new skeleton in his closet, waiting to come out in the latter stages of the campaign. There’s enough people who really don’t want him to win, and it’s very unlikely that we have heard all the stories about Boris over the years.
"I think I was once given cocaine but I sneezed so it didn't go up my nose. In fact, it may have been icing sugar." - Boris, 2005
Half of me thinks that Michael Gove getting his skeleton out of the closet this weekend has something to do with a forthcoming Boris story.
Or maybe it was just that one of the Sundays got him, so it was better to release the story on his own terms.
Quite possibly it was just a way to get the Gove name back in the papers and remind people he was still in the running. He'd already seen just a few days ago that Rory's opium story did him no harm.
I dunno - doing cocaine social seems a bit different from not wanting to offend your hosts while treking across Afghanistan.
I can see this being wound up in the next couple of weeks and never going to a members ballot to be honest.
Boris PM by the end of June?
I’m betting heavily that there’s a massive new skeleton in his closet, waiting to come out in the latter stages of the campaign. There’s enough people who really don’t want him to win, and it’s very unlikely that we have heard all the stories about Boris over the years.
"I think I was once given cocaine but I sneezed so it didn't go up my nose. In fact, it may have been icing sugar." - Boris, 2005
Half of me thinks that Michael Gove getting his skeleton out of the closet this weekend has something to do with a forthcoming Boris story.
Or maybe it was just that one of the Sundays got him, so it was better to release the story on his own terms.
Quite possibly it was just a way to get the Gove name back in the papers and remind people he was still in the running. He'd already seen just a few days ago that Rory's opium story did him no harm.
Given Boris's track record is there really anything career ending out there we don't know about or assume is the case.
Oh - its just Boris being Boris will probably be the reaction from many. The only people who will care won't vote for him anyway.
It is basic economics that when you tax something the price goes up.
If every landlord puts their price up due to the tax then renters won't have much choice. So great you may have helped a few marginal cases get on the property ladder but anyone left behind renting is charged more. The gulf between renting and owning will grow even bigger.
Not everyone will buy. Not everyone either wants to or will be in a position to do so. And I'm not sure how social housing is any better than responsible and ethical landlords.
It's you that doesn't understand economics. The market sets the rent, not landlords. That has and always will be the case, regardless of the special pleading from the scumbag association.
Responsible and ethical landlords, give me a break. Are you actually for real, they are all scum.
Market rents are set by supply and demand based on the tax system in place. Changing taxes changes the market.
As for all scum? What have they done to you?
I have never been a landlord but I have repeatedly been a tenant. I've had a good experience every time. I'm curious who I was supposed to rent from and how I was victimised when I did so.
Should only people who can afford to buy homes go to university? What about working away from home? Should you buy even though you're only in a town for a few months? What about young couples who aren't committed to each other but want to move in together? People with poor credit history who can't get a mortgage?
The rental market won't disappear, it will just get a lot smaller, as it was in the 90s before the baby boomer generation decided to leech off the next one by buying up all the property.
Landlords are by default scum because they take no risk and effectively thieve the productivity of those who actually work for a living. Ideally we would chase them all out of the sector and replace them with big multiples who don't care about making money from one flat or house because they have enough to run on a marginal basis.
Honestly, until the Tory party comes around to this view we aren't ever going to win with voters under the age of 45.
The problem with social care - in England anyway - is that we have 152 sets of politicians and bureaucrats across 152 local authorities all deciding different policies, assessment criteria, forms, charging regimes for home care with often huge variations in provision and quality. And its often impossible to find out those policies and charging arrangements until its too late and you have an elderly person or their relative needing to find homecare urgently. No central information point, no common procurement, often no help at all.
As an example my mother has to pay 60% more per week for her emergency lifeline alarm system (vital if elderly people fall ill or have a fall when they are on their own) in her home than equivalent elderly people in the neighbouring borough. Why exactly for a simple service like that should one borough charge 60% more than their neighbour for a vital service some of our most vulnerable citizens - shameful! Their council tax is higher too. Much of this of course arises due to differential funding with built in unfairness often going back decades.
Whats the best way to sort out social care and ensure its properly fund it - integrate it with the NHS and as far as possible have consistency in provision, charges and quality rather than 152 different ones. The current shocking postcode lottery is a joke!
I have never understood, why social care is the responsibility of local authorities.
The problem with your suggestion is that politicians are scared of increasing income tax, pretty much endoresed by the reactions here on PB. There is however a large number of people in Britain, who want the state to provide a sensible provision, for health, social care, education and essential services.
Still dead against the premise of W Series. Where does a driver who wins it go? If it's to F1, she's a token (this can be defeated if she's the female equivalent of a Schumacher, but that's unlikely, even if she's genuinely good enough to be in the sport). The whole series implicitly suggests that women aren't good enough to race men and prefer to be segregated.
Step backwards, I think.
It's a good idea.
I'm generally against positive discrimination, but this isn't really positive discrimination.
I'll give you another example of the problems women face being taken seriously in motorsport. Back in 2010 or 2011, Simona Silvestro was not allowed too enter the US for an Indycar race (I think it was the one Dan Wheldon tragically died in), just because the US customs officer saw she had many entries into the US, and did not believe she was a racing driver!
That would not happen to a male racing driver: AIUI all her paperwork was in order; she had all the visas she required.
It is basic economics that when you tax something the price goes up.
If every landlord puts their price up due to the tax then renters won't have much choice. So great you may have helped a few marginal cases get on the property ladder but anyone left behind renting is charged more. The gulf between renting and owning will grow even bigger.
Not everyone will buy. Not everyone either wants to or will be in a position to do so. And I'm not sure how social housing is any better than responsible and ethical landlords.
It's you that doesn't understand economics. The market sets the rent, not landlords. That has and always will be the case, regardless of the special pleading from the scumbag association.
Responsible and ethical landlords, give me a break. Are you actually for real, they are all scum.
Market rents are set by supply and demand based on the tax system in place. Changing taxes changes the market.
As for all scum? What have they done to you?
I have never been a landlord but I have repeatedly been a tenant. I've had a good experience every time. I'm curious who I was supposed to rent from and how I was victimised when I did so.
Should only people who can afford to buy homes go to university? What about working away from home? Should you buy even though you're only in a town for a few months? What about young couples who aren't committed to each other but want to move in together? People with poor credit history who can't get a mortgage?
The rental market won't disappear, it will just get a lot smaller, as it was in the 90s before the baby boomer generation decided to leech off the next one by buying up all the property.
Landlords are by default scum because they take no risk and effectively thieve the productivity of those who actually work for a living. Ideally we would chase them all out of the sector and replace them with big multiples who don't care about making money from one flat or house because they have enough to run on a marginal basis.
Honestly, until the Tory party comes around to this view we aren't ever going to win with voters under the age of 45.
The *only* housing policy that going to win us back votes from the under 40s, is to build more of them. A *lot* more of them. Anything else is tinkering around the edges.
Rents are already mostly set by what tenants can afford. If renters could afford more then landlords would obviously charge them more. How much landlords are taxed is secondary. If landlords cannot charge enough to make it viable, they have to leave the market through selling (or more recently switching to airbnb).
Also note that as some renters buy, the ability to pay of the remaining renters decreases as it is the richer tenants who buy. So a decline in the number of properties available for rent is likely to reduce not increase prices.
Rents work differently to normal markets.
Rents work differently to normal markets because a large part of the market is driven by the government and its willingness to pay the rents needed to house a low income person or family. In some parts of the country the Government is effectively the renter for more than half the rental properties - in terms of who pays it.
Housing isn't a real market at all - banks and levels of mortgage lending, planning policies, help to buy, housing benefit and a myriad of other distortions have served to stifle supply and drive up prices. We don't actually have a shortage in supply of housing in most of the country - but too much money chasing in.
Exactly the same numbers of people needed housing in early 2008 and in late 2009 - didin't stop prices falling sharply in some areas and collapsing in Ireland. Why - cos the banks stopped lending as much.
It is basic economics that when you tax something the price goes up.
If every landlord puts their price up due to the tax then renters won't have much choice. So great you may have helped a few marginal cases get on the property ladder but anyone left behind renting is charged more. The gulf between renting and owning will grow even bigger.
Not everyone will buy. Not everyone either wants to or will be in a position to do so. And I'm not sure how social housing is any better than responsible and ethical landlords.
It's you that doesn't understand economics. The market sets the rent, not landlords. That has and always will be the case, regardless of the special pleading from the scumbag association.
Responsible and ethical landlords, give me a break. Are you actually for real, they are all scum.
Market rents are set by supply and demand based on the tax system in place. Changing taxes changes the market.
As for all scum? What have they done to you?
I have never been a landlord but I have repeatedly been a tenant. I've had a good experience every time. I'm curious who I was supposed to rent from and how I was victimised when I did so.
Should only people who can afford to buy homes go to university? What about working away from home? Should you buy even though you're only in a town for a few months? What about young couples who aren't committed to each other but want to move in together? People with poor credit history who can't get a mortgage?
The rental market won't disappear, it will just get a lot smaller, as it was in the 90s before the baby boomer generation decided to leech off the next one by buying up all the property.
Landlords are by default scum because they take no risk and effectively thieve the productivity of those who actually work for a living. Ideally we would chase them all out of the sector and replace them with big multiples who don't care about making money from one flat or house because they have enough to run on a marginal basis.
Honestly, until the Tory party comes around to this view we aren't ever going to win with voters under the age of 45.
I am no fan of landlordism but scum is completely the wrong word for the majority of them, I accept it is sadly fine for a significant minority. Deluded that they are providing a service to the economy rather than leeching off it would be accurate for most.
Unemployment benefit isn't income, it's a benefit. Until Labour understand that difference you won't ever be suitable to run the country. Labour, the party of scroungers and wasters.
It's income to the recipient, though, I can assure you. Their ONLY income in many cases.
The unemployed are scroungers and wasters? OK, if you believe that, of course we will not see eye-to-eye on much.
The *only* housing policy that going to win us back votes from the under 40s, is to build more of them. A *lot* more of them. Anything else is tinkering around the edges.
No it's not, there is enough housing for the existing population, the issue is that the older generation decided to screw the next one by buying all the property. Forcing them to sell by any means necessary will do the same job and put us on the right side of the argument for once. It will put us on the front foot, rather than chasing after Corbyn who will propose to expropriate property and it will be extremely popular with the young renting from the scumlords.
It is basic economics that when you tax something the price goes up.
If every landlord puts their price up due to the tax then renters won't have much choice. So great you may have helped a few marginal cases get on the property ladder but anyone left behind renting is charged more. The gulf between renting and owning will grow even bigger.
Not everyone will buy. Not everyone either wants to or will be in a position to do so. And I'm not sure how social housing is any better than responsible and ethical landlords.
It's you that doesn't understand economics. The market sets the rent, not landlords. That has and always will be the case, regardless of the special pleading from the scumbag association.
Responsible and ethical landlords, give me a break. Are you actually for real, they are all scum.
Market rents are set by supply and demand based on the tax system in place. Changing taxes changes the market.
As for all scum? What have they done to you?
I have never been a landlord but I have repeatedly been a tenant. I've had a good experience every time. I'm curious who I was supposed to rent from and how I was victimised when I did so.
Should only people who can afford to buy homes go to university? What about working away from home? Should you buy even though you're only in a town for a few months? What about young couples who aren't committed to each other but want to move in together? People with poor credit history who can't get a mortgage?
The rental market won't disappear, it will just get a lot smaller, as it was in the 90s before the baby boomer generation decided to leech off the next one by buying up all the property.
Landlords are by default scum because they take no risk and effectively thieve the productivity of those who actually work for a living. Ideally we would chase them all out of the sector and replace them with big multiples who don't care about making money from one flat or house because they have enough to run on a marginal basis.
Honestly, until the Tory party comes around to this view we aren't ever going to win with voters under the age of 45.
The *only* housing policy that going to win us back votes from the under 40s, is to build more of them. A *lot* more of them. Anything else is tinkering around the edges.
80% of new houses are bought by landlords. How is that helping under 45s? The ones that are affordable are hugely overpriced because of help to buy (aka help to increase builders profits), have tiny rooms and often onerous leases, even on houses.
I am no fan of landlordism but scum is completely the wrong word for the majority of them, I accept it is sadly fine for a significant minority. Deluded that they are providing a service to the economy rather than leeching off it would be accurate for most.
Private renting has reversed the flow of wealth that is healthy for the economy. Previously older generations spent and he younger ones benefited by them buying services etc... Now the younger generations spend 30-40% of their net income on rent which invariably goes to one of the scumbags in the older generation. It's not economically viable and is one of the reasons we're facing a long period of low growth.
I am no fan of landlordism but scum is completely the wrong word for the majority of them, I accept it is sadly fine for a significant minority. Deluded that they are providing a service to the economy rather than leeching off it would be accurate for most.
Private renting has reversed the flow of wealth that is healthy for the economy. Previously older generations spent and he younger ones benefited by them buying services etc... Now the younger generations spend 30-40% of their net income on rent which invariably goes to one of the scumbags in the older generation. It's not economically viable and is one of the reasons we're facing a long period of low growth.
Completely agree with all of that. Most landlords are not scum however as they do not realise what you have written. They are deluded not deliberately malign.
It's you that doesn't understand economics. The market sets the rent, not landlords. That has and always will be the case, regardless of the special pleading from the scumbag association.
Responsible and ethical landlords, give me a break. Are you actually for real, they are all scum.
Market rents are set by supply and demand based on the tax system in place. Changing taxes changes the market.
As for all scum? What have they done to you?
I have never been a landlord but I have repeatedly been a tenant. I've had a good experience every time. I'm curious who I was supposed to rent from and how I was victimised when I did so.
Should only people who can afford to buy homes go to university? What about working away from home? Should you buy even though you're only in a town for a few months? What about young couples who aren't committed to each other but want to move in together? People with poor credit history who can't get a mortgage?
The rental market won't disappear, it will just get a lot smaller, as it was in the 90s before the baby boomer generation decided to leech off the next one by buying up all the property.
Landlords are by default scum because they take no risk and effectively thieve the productivity of those who actually work for a living. Ideally we would chase them all out of the sector and replace them with big multiples who don't care about making money from one flat or house because they have enough to run on a marginal basis.
Honestly, until the Tory party comes around to this view we aren't ever going to win with voters under the age of 45.
The *only* housing policy that going to win us back votes from the under 40s, is to build more of them. A *lot* more of them. Anything else is tinkering around the edges.
80% of new houses are bought by landlords. How is that helping under 45s? The ones that are affordable are hugely overpriced because of help to buy (aka help to increase builders profits), have tiny rooms and often onerous leases, even on houses.
Do you have a source for the 80% figure?
Agree with the rest through, HtB is an unnecessary distortion and planners need to pay much more attention to exactly what is being built.
Unemployment benefit isn't income, it's a benefit. Until Labour understand that difference you won't ever be suitable to run the country. Labour, the party of scroungers and wasters.
It's income to the recipient, though, I can assure you. Their ONLY income in many cases.
The unemployed are scroungers and wasters? OK, if you believe that, of course we will not see eye-to-eye on much.
Why DO you believe that, as a matter of interest?
The long term unemployed need to get on the biked and get to work. Not whinge about how difficult it all is while staying on benefits.
Those who claim benefits while never having paid into the system are another group and care little for.
People who have lost a job or need to change their circumstances with a short period I'm unemployment I can live with.
I am no fan of landlordism but scum is completely the wrong word for the majority of them, I accept it is sadly fine for a significant minority. Deluded that they are providing a service to the economy rather than leeching off it would be accurate for most.
Private renting has reversed the flow of wealth that is healthy for the economy. Previously older generations spent and he younger ones benefited by them buying services etc... Now the younger generations spend 30-40% of their net income on rent which invariably goes to one of the scumbags in the older generation. It's not economically viable and is one of the reasons we're facing a long period of low growth.
Completely agree with all of that. Most landlords are not scum however as they do not realise what you have written. They are deluded not deliberately malign.
If they are scum by design or incedent is no matter, they are still scum. My experience of them is all extremely negative, it's just that I'm one of the few lucky ones that was able to buy and not look back.
It is basic economics that when you tax something the price goes up.
If every landlord puts their price up due to the tax then renters won't have much choice. So great you may have helped a few marginal cases get on the property ladder but anyone left behind renting is charged more. The gulf between renting and owning will grow even bigger.
Not everyone will buy. Not everyone either wants to or will be in a position to do so. And I'm not sure how social housing is any better than responsible and ethical landlords.
It's you that doesn't understand economics. The market sets the rent, not landlords. That has and always will be the case, regardless of the special pleading from the scumbag association.
Responsible and ethical landlords, give me a break. Are you actually for real, they are all scum.
Market rents are set by supply and demand based on the tax system in place. Changing taxes changes the market.
As for all scum? What have they done to you?
I have never been a landlord but I have repeatedly been a tenant. I've had a good experience every time. I'm curious who I was supposed to rent from and how I was victimised when I did so.
Should only people who can afford to buy homes go to university? What about working away from home? Should you buy even though you're only in a town for a few months? What about young couples who aren't committed to each other but want to move in together? People with poor credit history who can't get a mortgage?
The rental market won't disappear, it will just get a lot smaller, as it was in the 90s before the baby boomer generation decided to leech off the next one by buying up all the property.
Landlords are by default scum because they take no risk and effectively thieve the productivity of those who actually work for a living. Ideally we would chase them all out of the sector and replace them with big multiples who don't care about making money from one flat or house because they have enough to run on a marginal basis.
Honestly, until the Tory party comes around to this view we aren't ever going to win with voters under the age of 45.
No risk? I hope you're not a financial advisor, the first rule is always that all investments can go down as well as up.
That's before we take into account risks like not being able to let out the property so still having to pay for it (including Council Tax) while getting no income for it, or risks like tenants trashing the property more than the deposit.
Caught up with 63UP last night, essential viewing of course.
I see Tony the taxi-driver, having voted for Brexit, is now having doubts and suspects he ought to have gone Remain.
He speaks for the nation.
They’ve absolutely no right to be that old. It’s an outrage.
I watched the same programme and do not remember Tony saying he had changed his mind at all, he said he voted Leave so decisions in the UK could be made at Westminster.
LD activist Neil, musician and civil servant Peter and wealthy barrister John though were all unsurprisingly Remainers
Mr. Jessop, that does sound rubbish, but if W Series is actually successful that creates a problem. Either they wind it up, which will annoy people, or they continue it (which will annoy people through the positive, and effective, discrimination).
Anyway, I would love to stay and argue but I've got to go and take the most annoying dog in the world on a prolonged walk.
I do plan on putting up the pre-qualifying ramble but between that and the electricity coming and going as it pleases, we shall see.
Unemployment benefit isn't income, it's a benefit. Until Labour understand that difference you won't ever be suitable to run the country. Labour, the party of scroungers and wasters.
It's income to the recipient, though, I can assure you. Their ONLY income in many cases.
The unemployed are scroungers and wasters? OK, if you believe that, of course we will not see eye-to-eye on much.
Why DO you believe that, as a matter of interest?
The long term unemployed need to get on the [sic] biked [sic] and get to work. Not whinge about how difficult it all is while staying on benefits.
Those who claim benefits while never having paid into the system are another group and [sic] care little for.
People who have lost a job or need to change their circumstances with a short period I'm [sic] unemployment I can live with.
Blimey, it can't be hard to get a job if you can get one with literacy skills like that!
Mr. Jessop, that does sound rubbish, but if W Series is actually successful that creates a problem. Either they wind it up, which will annoy people, or they continue it (which will annoy people through the positive, and effective, discrimination).
Anyway, I would love to stay and argue but I've got to go and take the most annoying dog in the world on a prolonged walk.
I do plan on putting up the pre-qualifying ramble but between that and the electricity coming and going as it pleases, we shall see.
The ideal will be to create the environment that allows talented girls and women in the junior formula to progress, instead of having barriers put in their way. You appear to be blind to it, but there are real issues down there.
And for fans to take women racing drivers seriously.
£20k is too high as it takes too many out of income tax so they no longer have a stake in the system. Better to make it £12k but at 15%. The rest though, absolutely, and add a few economic free zones in Northern towns where small businesses are exempt from NI, VAT and Corporation tax.
That 'stake in society' point has merit IMO. In fact I can see a case for levying income tax on unemployment benefits.
First, gross it up, then apply the tax to arrive at the same net. Thus the jobless recipient gets the same cash in pocket, but they also get one of the main advantages of being a tax payer - the feeling of contributing.
In particular they would not be excluded from being able to say with great passion, "Don't mind paying tax, not at all, but what I do mind is how it all goes on lazy scroungers!"
Unemployment benefit isn't income, it's a benefit. Until Labour understand that difference you won't ever be suitable to run the country. Labour, the party of scroungers and wasters.
People earning it certainly view it that way, same as people earning Universal Credit or before that Tax Credits. Which is why in the real world so many people work deliberately 16 hours in order to maximise their benefits but then refuse to work more, because they view working more as not worth it because they'd lose their benefits.
Yes that's not what benefits are supposed to be there for, but I'd rather a system that works than one which is right on principle. Benefits and taxes are two sides of the same coin and should be merged.
Unemployment benefit isn't income, it's a benefit. Until Labour understand that difference you won't ever be suitable to run the country. Labour, the party of scroungers and wasters.
It's income to the recipient, though, I can assure you. Their ONLY income in many cases.
The unemployed are scroungers and wasters? OK, if you believe that, of course we will not see eye-to-eye on much.
Why DO you believe that, as a matter of interest?
The long term unemployed need to get on the [sic] biked [sic] and get to work. Not whinge about how difficult it all is while staying on benefits.
Those who claim benefits while never having paid into the system are another group and [sic] care little for.
People who have lost a job or need to change their circumstances with a short period I'm [sic] unemployment I can live with.
Blimey, it can't be hard to get a job if you can get one with literacy skills like that!
The *only* housing policy that going to win us back votes from the under 40s, is to build more of them. A *lot* more of them. Anything else is tinkering around the edges.
No it's not, there is enough housing for the existing population, the issue is that the older generation decided to screw the next one by buying all the property. Forcing them to sell by any means necessary will do the same job and put us on the right side of the argument for once. It will put us on the front foot, rather than chasing after Corbyn who will propose to expropriate property and it will be extremely popular with the young renting from the scumlords.
The majority of over 35s own property, Corbyn proposing to expropriate will be extremely unpopular with most voters.
Part of the problem on housing is too much demand because of excess immigration beyond need, hence Brexit as well as building more affordable homes which is now happening with new build construction hitting a 10 year high last year
The problem with social care - in England anyway - is that we have 152 sets of politicians and bureaucrats across 152 local authorities all deciding different policies, assessment criteria, forms, charging regimes for home care with often huge variations in provision and quality. And its often impossible to find out those policies and charging arrangements until its too late and you have an elderly person or their relative needing to find homecare urgently. No central information point, no common procurement, often no help at all.
As an example my mother has to pay 60% more per week for her emergency lifeline alarm system (vital if elderly people fall ill or have a fall when they are on their own) in her home than equivalent elderly people in the neighbouring borough. Why exactly for a simple service like that should one borough charge 60% more than their neighbour for a vital service some of our most vulnerable citizens - shameful! Their council tax is higher too. Much of this of course arises due to differential funding with built in unfairness often going back decades.
Whats the best way to sort out social care and ensure its properly fund it - integrate it with the NHS and as far as possible have consistency in provision, charges and quality rather than 152 different ones. The current shocking postcode lottery is a joke!
I have never understood, why social care is the responsibility of local authorities.
The problem with your suggestion is that politicians are scared of increasing income tax, pretty much endoresed by the reactions here on PB. There is however a large number of people in Britain, who want the state to provide a sensible provision, for health, social care, education and essential services.
Polling does show support for increased National Insurance to pay for more fund for the NHS and social care and Damian Green had a sensible proposal that over 50s should pay that NI increase as they are most likely to need the NHS and closer to the age they may need social care
1. How do you build more property when prices are falling for all types of buyers? You can't force builders to work at less than cost. I guess maybe the hammer and sickle will force them into the fields. 2. That's not how it works. A nationalised bank will end in tears and recriminations. 3. People who are in the bracket already do it. Put more people in the bracket and more people will do it. 4. Who pays for it?
1. After the adjustment the cost base would sink to a lower and sustainable level. Land would be cheaper for example. Instead of buy at 60 and sell at 100, buy at 50 and sell at 85. (Say). So the private sector remains viable. But of course let's have more social housing too.
2. Well, the entire (and private) sector ended in tears and recriminations in 08. So I don't think we can just say 'private good, public bad' in this case. Will a state bank investing in the regions be a success? I think there's a good chance it will. It's worth a try IMO. And we can take comfort from the fact that if it does go wrong, the ramifications will not be as severe as when the private banks went wrong en masse. But let's not be gloomy - I think it will work.
3. Sure, And as I say, the impact will be to reduce the increase in the tax take. We have to live with it. It's the way of the world.
4. I repeat. It will require an increase in the education budget. So essentially we all pay since that is an input to the overall tax & spend equation. Can't give you all the individuals - not this afternoon anyway!
That reaponse is utterly nonsensical to anyone who's watched the interview.
Just watched it. Wow. She essentially says that Dave's leaflet and Project Fear made the risks of Brexit abundantly apparent, so that anyone who loses their job because of Brexit can't say they weren't warned.
No risk? I hope you're not a financial advisor, the first rule is always that all investments can go down as well as up.
That's before we take into account risks like not being able to let out the property so still having to pay for it (including Council Tax) while getting no income for it, or risks like tenants trashing the property more than the deposit.
Drug dealers also take risks and work hard - doesn't mean they add value to society overall either!
The social consequences of the rise of buy to let and private renting are serious and grave:
no assets to pay for social care in retirement as fewer will own - bad news for the taxpayer and NHS
housing insecurity as you can be made homeless at 2 months notice - whereas in the past social housing offered a securty lifetime tenancy at a cheap rent. Bad news for homlessness figures.
lower homeownership - I saw a study which estimated at least 2.2 million families would now own rather than rent were it not for the rise of buy to let in the last 2 decades. Bad news for social mobility and of course the Tories.
insecurity for kids who suffer poorer quality of life and the risk of having to move schools regularly if their parents lose their tenancy or cannot afford rent rises. Part of the reason we have the most depressed kids in western Europe on some surveys. Bad news for our kids.
a deterioration of the housing stock - and developments of flats - as few of the residents care as they are only passing through. Bad news for housing stock quality.
fear of challenging your landlord re repairs - as they can chuck you out almost at will. Bad news for people, more damp homes, more ill people and kids with asthma and more costs for the NHS.
a potential huge housing benefit bill in future when renters retire and don't have the income to pay the rent. More bad news for future taxpayers.
fewer people with a long term stake in their community - so the wider community suffers. Bad news for society and communities.
I could add more but the costs outweigh the benefit. It sure has been a lucrative business - borrowing money and relying on someone else's productive work (either the taxpayer or more often a hard working young person who can't buy but does a useful job) to pay the mortgage as your asset value rises. But it really is no good at all.
At least I suppose the clients of drug users do get some momentary satisfaction!
Still boo hoo - those poor buy to let landlords......
It is basic economics that when you tax something the price goes up.
If every landlord puts their price up due to the tax then renters won't have much choice. So great you may have helped a few marginal cases get on the property ladder but anyone left behind renting is charged more. The gulf between renting and owning will grow even bigger.
Not everyone will buy. Not everyone either wants to or will be in a position to do so. And I'm not sure how social housing is any better than responsible and ethical landlords.
It's you that doesn't understand economics. The market sets the rent, not landlords. That has and always will be the case, regardless of the special pleading from the scumbag association.
Responsible and ethical landlords, give me a break. Are you actually for real, they are all scum.
Market rents are set by supply and demand based on the tax system in place. Changing taxes changes the market.
As for all scum? What have they done to you?
I have never been a landlord but I have repeatedly been a tenant. I've had a good experience every time. I'm curious who I was supposed to rent from and how I was victimised when I did so.
Should only people who can afford to buy homes go to university? What about working away from home? Should you buy even though you're only in a town for a few months? What about young couples who aren't committed to each other but want to move in together? People with poor credit history who can't get a mortgage?
The rental market won't disappear, it will just get a lot smaller, as it was in the 90s before the baby boomer generation decided to leech off the next one by buying up all the property.
Landlords are by default scum because they take no risk and effectively thieve the productivity of those who actually work for a living. Ideally we would chase them all out of the sector and replace them with big multiples who don't care about making money from one flat or house because they have enough to run on a marginal basis.
Honestly, until the Tory party comes around to this view we aren't ever going to win with voters under the age of 45.
No risk? I hope you're not a financial advisor, the first rule is always that all investments can go down as well as up.
That's before we take into account risks like not being able to let out the property so still having to pay for it (including Council Tax) while getting no income for it, or risks like tenants trashing the property more than the deposit.
You are treating a business as an investment. Renting property was always a risky business only in the 1990's did it become an investment...
80% of new houses are bought by landlords. How is that helping under 45s? The ones that are affordable are hugely overpriced because of help to buy (aka help to increase builders profits), have tiny rooms and often onerous leases, even on houses.
"Do you have a source for the 80% figure?
Agree with the rest through, HtB is an unnecessary distortion and planners need to pay much more attention to exactly what is being built."
Remember it from last year, had a quick google but hard to find (too many buy to let adverts....), the report below is out of date but shows 61% in London in 2013. House prices have gone up by around a third, more in London, since then making it harder for workers so it could be in line with 80% recently.
You are treating a business as an investment. Renting property was always a risky business only in the 1990's did it become an investment...
And unfairly, we've become the party of wealthy landlords and labour the party of private renters, despite Labour overseeing the huge rise in private renting. Either way we need to smash the private rental sector to smithereens and put the private landlords into the streets if we have to.
Now I’m convinced there’s a Boris story coming. And it won’t be from 35 years ago when he was a student.
Wouldn't it be quicker to count the MPs who have not dabbled? A certain T May perhaps, anyone else?
I would be pretty confident most students in the 80s and 90s tried at least one drug, given nearly all MPs are graduates why is this an issue? Unless they are for strict punishments for possession I am surprised anyone is remotely interested.
80% of new houses are bought by landlords. How is that helping under 45s? The ones that are affordable are hugely overpriced because of help to buy (aka help to increase builders profits), have tiny rooms and often onerous leases, even on houses.
"Do you have a source for the 80% figure?
Agree with the rest through, HtB is an unnecessary distortion and planners need to pay much more attention to exactly what is being built."
Remember it from last year, had a quick google but hard to find (too many buy to let adverts....), the report below is out of date but shows 61% in London in 2013. House prices have gone up by around a third, more in London, since then making it harder for workers so it could be in line with 80% recently.
To be clear then, you don’t have any recent evidence which supports your claim and any evidence which is tangentially related (and which you perform a heroic and evidence-free assertion with) related only to London. Where the new build sale to foreigners market has collapsed.
What on earth is happening with Andrea Leadsom's odds on Betfair? She is between second and third favourite constantly.
There is remarkable stability in her odds around 9.8 to 10.5. More stability than there has been for any of the other leading candidates.
We know there are very few MPs that have declared for her. Nor is there any reason why this will suddenly change, nor why she would have a better chance in the members' round (in the very remote chance she gets there) than the others.
Guido has her 10th place in MP support, ConHome has her joint 10th. In terms of member support ConHome has her in 11th place and behind 'Other'.
Comments
Boris PM by the end of June?
Lab 20
LD 15
BP10
Green 5
?
As for social care, the handling of that in the Manifesto is probably May's worst legacy (and when we look back at her I suspect as shown in those posts earlier today that there will be a lot of bad legacies).
No 2 Why does that make any difference
No 3 How much tax would higher IHT raise in comparision with the cost of social care
No 4 615,000 children go to private education. So how much will absorbing them into state education cost
No 5 Please explain how confiscating share value from nationalising the national grid and other grossly expensive nationalisation will not result in the collapse of most everyone's pension funds and the loss of billions of investment from private industry
With respect socialist dogma lacking thought of the consequences
I think this is a bad year for laying the favourite.
I think LVTs should only be introduced on secondary property. Taxing people on (in addition to council tax) on where they live seem morally wrong, given that we already have council tax.
As a party we need to be actively hostile to residential landlords and lose the current tag we have as being on the side of landlords, it's a bit unfair because we've brought in a lot of changes which have helped house prices come down and hit scum bag estate agents and scum bag landlords, but in reality we need to go further. I'd say a 3% annual property value tax on all non-primary residential properties. Really turn the screw on the leeches.
If you buy a property for 100k then 10 years later you move, sell it for 200k while buying a new property in another town of the same specs for 200k then how much profit have you made? If you have to pay CGT on your sale how can you afford a new home?
Without landlords who will tenants rent from?
Not everyone is in the position to either want to own a property or be able to.
- Boris, 2005
Without landlords tenants will buy, as is the aim of a huge proportion, and as the value of land falls the rest will find that social housing has suddey become available from housing associations.
On the fantasy note, just remembered I made some daft Politicians & Punters type mini-sheets for the 2010 election. Maybe I'll do something similar next time. If I have time/remember.
How does making footballers like Virgil van Dijk or Mo Salah poorer make our economy more efficient? Considering that Liverpool are getting great success in being the Champions of Europe and indeed all 4 European finalists were English how would driving talent like that out of the country improve our economy?
Liverpool with Salah, Van Dijk etc aren't just getting success on the field but are a financial success too making record profits drawing in income from across Europe and the world. So the players are more than justifying their wages.
Their success hasn't just improved the gaiety of the nation via their fans but economically their success helps businesses and other individuals across the country too.
Finally of course the country takes massive taxes from footballers, clubs etc
So please explain how actively seeking to make Mo Salah poorer would make the nation more efficient."
No issues with most business people, as you say they are trying to make things work and they should get more support from the state not less. I was specifically referring to those who use bankruptcy as a means of moving wealth, whether the builder who goes through many ltd co's with similar names to shaft suppliers and clients or the billionaires who pick up retail chains and play fast and loose with the pension funds. These are real problems in our economy but are not addressed because politicians have (until Brexit) been afraid to be seen anti business. Tackling the bad guys is pro-good business.
The Panama papers, convictions in Spain and HMRC investigations show footballers are not even paying the tax they are supposed to. Last year HMRC managed to get an extra £332m out of them which had been deliberately underpaid. How much more is being missed? Why do they and their advisors not end up in prison as a benefit claimant would?
I seem to remember WW1 commemorations growing bigger as fewer and fewer of the participants were around.
1. True. But the benefits of re-balancing way from property will be great and long-lasting. For example, the subsequent lower prices, especially if combined with building more, will go a long way towards solving the housing crisis.
2. It's not the whole sector, just the one bank with a specific brief to invest in the regions. And I must gently point out to you that PRIVATE ownership of banks does not always go well. The total meltdown a decade ago demonstrated this.
3. No doubt additional 'planning' would occur (fact of life) but at the numbers we are talking about, the effect would be to marginally reduce the INCREASE of the tax take, not to turn it negative.
4. Everybody, since it will require an increase to the education budget.
And my broadbrush one is -
As always with the right, policies that will reduce inequality in practice (rather than paying lip service to it) are disliked because for those on the right it is not, in truth, a priority. Which is fair enough - but one wishes they wouldn't pretend.
Or maybe it was just that one of the Sundays got him, so it was better to release the story on his own terms.
I would not be surprised at all to see 2nd place being put under extreme pressure to withdraw. "For the good of the country and the Party."
If every landlord puts their price up due to the tax then renters won't have much choice. So great you may have helped a few marginal cases get on the property ladder but anyone left behind renting is charged more. The gulf between renting and owning will grow even bigger.
Not everyone will buy. Not everyone either wants to or will be in a position to do so. And I'm not sure how social housing is any better than responsible and ethical landlords.
The first two races were quite good / reasonable. One was better than an average F1 race ...
2. That's not how it works. A nationalised bank will end in tears and recriminations.
3. People who are in the bracket already do it. Put more people in the bracket and more people will do it.
4. Who pays for it?
As an example my mother has to pay 60% more per week for her emergency lifeline alarm system (vital if elderly people fall ill or have a fall when they are on their own) in her home than equivalent elderly people in the neighbouring borough. Why exactly for a simple service like that should one borough charge 60% more than their neighbour for a vital service some of our most vulnerable citizens - shameful! Their council tax is higher too. Much of this of course arises due to differential funding with built in unfairness often going back decades.
Whats the best way to sort out social care and ensure its properly fund it - integrate it with the NHS and as far as possible have consistency in provision, charges and quality rather than 152 different ones. The current shocking postcode lottery is a joke!
Is that Boris code for arse and elbow?
Young British driver Jamie Chadwick has just been signed by Williams on a development contract, and has a good chance of an FIA F3 or even F2 drive for next year off the back of this series. Well done to her!
The marginal tax rate of someone on 16 hours can be about 80%. It used to be worse but it is still far too high.
Responsible and ethical landlords, give me a break. Are you actually for real, they are all scum.
First, gross it up, then apply the tax to arrive at the same net. Thus the jobless recipient gets the same cash in pocket, but they also get one of the main advantages of being a tax payer - the feeling of contributing.
In particular they would not be excluded from being able to say with great passion, "Don't mind paying tax, not at all, but what I do mind is how it all goes on lazy scroungers!"
Con majority of 310?
Rents are already mostly set by what tenants can afford. If renters could afford more then landlords would obviously charge them more. How much landlords are taxed is secondary. If landlords cannot charge enough to make it viable, they have to leave the market through selling (or more recently switching to airbnb).
Also note that as some renters buy, the ability to pay of the remaining renters decreases as it is the richer tenants who buy. So a decline in the number of properties available for rent is likely to reduce not increase prices.
Rents work differently to normal markets.
Step backwards, I think.
As for all scum? What have they done to you?
I have never been a landlord but I have repeatedly been a tenant. I've had a good experience every time. I'm curious who I was supposed to rent from and how I was victimised when I did so.
Should only people who can afford to buy homes go to university? What about working away from home? Should you buy even though you're only in a town for a few months? What about young couples who aren't committed to each other but want to move in together? People with poor credit history who can't get a mortgage?
She does have one advantage: I think she's the only woman in W Series with past experience in these cars - she drives F3 cars in the Asian championship anad has competed in British F3.
The reason there’s no women in F1 is primarily because there’s not many in F2 (one this year, Tatiana Calderon, and she’s the first in over a decade). If we can get a couple of women from this series into F2, and a couple more into FIA F3 (that also races with the F1 European calendar) then it will have achieved its aim.
Oh - its just Boris being Boris will probably be the reaction from many. The only people who will care won't vote for him anyway.
Landlords are by default scum because they take no risk and effectively thieve the productivity of those who actually work for a living. Ideally we would chase them all out of the sector and replace them with big multiples who don't care about making money from one flat or house because they have enough to run on a marginal basis.
Honestly, until the Tory party comes around to this view we aren't ever going to win with voters under the age of 45.
The problem with your suggestion is that politicians are scared of increasing income tax, pretty much endoresed by the reactions here on PB. There is however a large number of people in Britain, who want the state to provide a sensible provision, for health, social care, education and essential services.
I'm generally against positive discrimination, but this isn't really positive discrimination.
I'll give you another example of the problems women face being taken seriously in motorsport. Back in 2010 or 2011, Simona Silvestro was not allowed too enter the US for an Indycar race (I think it was the one Dan Wheldon tragically died in), just because the US customs officer saw she had many entries into the US, and did not believe she was a racing driver!
That would not happen to a male racing driver: AIUI all her paperwork was in order; she had all the visas she required.
But women cannot be racing drivers, can they?
Housing isn't a real market at all - banks and levels of mortgage lending, planning policies, help to buy, housing benefit and a myriad of other distortions have served to stifle supply and drive up prices. We don't actually have a shortage in supply of housing in most of the country - but too much money chasing in.
Exactly the same numbers of people needed housing in early 2008 and in late 2009 - didin't stop prices falling sharply in some areas and collapsing in Ireland. Why - cos the banks stopped lending as much.
The unemployed are scroungers and wasters? OK, if you believe that, of course we will not see eye-to-eye on much.
Why DO you believe that, as a matter of interest?
Agree with the rest through, HtB is an unnecessary distortion and planners need to pay much more attention to exactly what is being built.
Those who claim benefits while never having paid into the system are another group and care little for.
People who have lost a job or need to change their circumstances with a short period I'm unemployment I can live with.
That's before we take into account risks like not being able to let out the property so still having to pay for it (including Council Tax) while getting no income for it, or risks like tenants trashing the property more than the deposit.
LD activist Neil, musician and civil servant Peter and wealthy barrister John though were all unsurprisingly Remainers
Anyway, I would love to stay and argue but I've got to go and take the most annoying dog in the world on a prolonged walk.
I do plan on putting up the pre-qualifying ramble but between that and the electricity coming and going as it pleases, we shall see.
And for fans to take women racing drivers seriously.
Yes that's not what benefits are supposed to be there for, but I'd rather a system that works than one which is right on principle. Benefits and taxes are two sides of the same coin and should be merged.
Part of the problem on housing is too much demand because of excess immigration beyond need, hence Brexit as well as building more affordable homes which is now happening with new build construction hitting a 10 year high last year
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/uk-homes-new-numbers-high-construction-a8177061.html
2. Well, the entire (and private) sector ended in tears and recriminations in 08. So I don't think we can just say 'private good, public bad' in this case. Will a state bank investing in the regions be a success? I think there's a good chance it will. It's worth a try IMO. And we can take comfort from the fact that if it does go wrong, the ramifications will not be as severe as when the private banks went wrong en masse. But let's not be gloomy - I think it will work.
3. Sure, And as I say, the impact will be to reduce the increase in the tax take. We have to live with it. It's the way of the world.
4. I repeat. It will require an increase in the education budget. So essentially we all pay since that is an input to the overall tax & spend equation. Can't give you all the individuals - not this afternoon anyway!
The social consequences of the rise of buy to let and private renting are serious and grave:
no assets to pay for social care in retirement as fewer will own - bad news for the taxpayer and NHS
housing insecurity as you can be made homeless at 2 months notice - whereas in the past social housing offered a securty lifetime tenancy at a cheap rent. Bad news for homlessness figures.
lower homeownership - I saw a study which estimated at least 2.2 million families would now own rather than rent were it not for the rise of buy to let in the last 2 decades. Bad news for social mobility and of course the Tories.
insecurity for kids who suffer poorer quality of life and the risk of having to move schools regularly if their parents lose their tenancy or cannot afford rent rises. Part of the reason we have the most depressed kids in western Europe on some surveys. Bad news for our kids.
a deterioration of the housing stock - and developments of flats - as few of the residents care as they are only passing through. Bad news for housing stock quality.
fear of challenging your landlord re repairs - as they can chuck you out almost at will. Bad news for people, more damp homes, more ill people and kids with asthma and more costs for the NHS.
a potential huge housing benefit bill in future when renters retire and don't have the income to pay the rent. More bad news for future taxpayers.
fewer people with a long term stake in their community - so the wider community suffers. Bad news for society and communities.
I could add more but the costs outweigh the benefit. It sure has been a lucrative business - borrowing money and relying on someone else's productive work (either the taxpayer or more often a hard working young person who can't buy but does a useful job) to pay the mortgage as your asset value rises. But it really is no good at all.
At least I suppose the clients of drug users do get some momentary satisfaction!
Still boo hoo - those poor buy to let landlords......
"Do you have a source for the 80% figure?
Agree with the rest through, HtB is an unnecessary distortion and planners need to pay much more attention to exactly what is being built."
Remember it from last year, had a quick google but hard to find (too many buy to let adverts....), the report below is out of date but shows 61% in London in 2013. House prices have gone up by around a third, more in London, since then making it harder for workers so it could be in line with 80% recently.
https://www.bpf.org.uk/sites/default/files/resources/BPF-Who-buys-new-homes-in-London-and-why.pdf
I would be pretty confident most students in the 80s and 90s tried at least one drug, given nearly all MPs are graduates why is this an issue? Unless they are for strict punishments for possession I am surprised anyone is remotely interested.
There is remarkable stability in her odds around 9.8 to 10.5. More stability than there has been for any of the other leading candidates.
We know there are very few MPs that have declared for her. Nor is there any reason why this will suddenly change, nor why she would have a better chance in the members' round (in the very remote chance she gets there) than the others.
Guido has her 10th place in MP support, ConHome has her joint 10th. In terms of member support ConHome has her in 11th place and behind 'Other'.
Who in the market is not following the data?