So Burnham is saying anyone who owns say a £400k house (with no other savings) will on retirement be forced to do a £60k equity release to pay that £60k to the Government.
It sounds very high risk to me - equity release at 75 or more preferably 80 might well be OK - but at 65? Say you live to 90 - that's 25 years of compound interest rolling up on a £60k debt - goodness knows what that would come to.
I would have thought such a proposal would be electorally toxic off the scale.
I am generally amenable to moderate Labour politicians and I am not remotely enthusiastic about a Boris branded Conservative Party (well any Conservative Party for that matter). If this was ever adopted as Labour Party Policy my cross would go next to Alun Cairn's name, and I can't abide the man.
I have worked hard, I have paid my taxes, I have lived frugally. My not insubstantial home is my pension!
The second word Mr Burnham is off!
To avoid punishing those who have saved for retirement, a Social care tax needs to be on income or consumption.
Phase out CGT relief on residences .
Which massively encourages people to keep the first house when they buy their second, rent it out, and make money that way.
It's also a massive disincentive to moving for work, as you'd effectively be paying potentially a year's salary or more if you had to relocate for work. Making the workforce much less mobile is not a good idea right now.
Well, moving for work also results in a big stamp duty charge...
My view is that housing is an area where we want to encourage the most efficient allocation of resources possible. That means that charging people who want to downgrade is dumb. It means that Granny McOldie doesn't sell her four bedroom house and move into a flat, because half of the cash she'd free up would end up in the hands of the government. Consequently, we end up with her having three unused bedrooms.
I would have a small annual "land value levy" of say 0.5%. This can be much more fairly adjudged than a house price, because there's no question about improvements and the line. But I would get rid of stamp duty altogether.
I am sympathetic to the no CGT rule, because (again) it encorages more efficient allocation of capital. However, I loathe treating different asset classes separately. If I want to rent and own a portfolio of shares instead of a home, why should I pay CGT on any gains on those, while somebody who chose to buy a home is exempt?
So Burnham is saying anyone who owns say a £400k house (with no other savings) will on retirement be forced to do a £60k equity release to pay that £60k to the Government.
It sounds very high risk to me - equity release at 75 or more preferably 80 might well be OK - but at 65? Say you live to 90 - that's 25 years of compound interest rolling up on a £60k debt - goodness knows what that would come to.
I would have thought such a proposal would be electorally toxic off the scale.
I agree it would be electorally toxic but, to do the maths, at current interest rates on equity release, about £150k. Of course, on historic house price growth, the £400k house would conservatively be worth at least a million by then.
Or, of course, you could pay interest-only of a couple of grand a year if you've the income and leave at at £60k. Or you could repay over time.
So it's not going to wipe out people's assets in reality. It'd be politically, er, courageous though.
Bit like tuition fees - if you actually look at the repayment terms, those repaying anything are those who can easily afford it and whose bet on university education paid off very nicely for them. But it's easily portrayed as appalling.
So Burnham is saying anyone who owns say a £400k house (with no other savings) will on retirement be forced to do a £60k equity release to pay that £60k to the Government.
It sounds very high risk to me - equity release at 75 or more preferably 80 might well be OK - but at 65? Say you live to 90 - that's 25 years of compound interest rolling up on a £60k debt - goodness knows what that would come to.
I would have thought such a proposal would be electorally toxic off the scale.
I am generally amenable to moderate Labour politicians and I am not remotely enthusiastic about a Boris branded Conservative Party (well any Conservative Party for that matter). If this was ever adopted as Labour Party Policy my cross would go next to Alun Cairn's name, and I can't abide the man.
I have worked hard, I have paid my taxes, I have lived frugally. My not insubstantial home is my pension!
The second word Mr Burnham is off!
To avoid punishing those who have saved for retirement, a Social care tax needs to be on income or consumption.
Phase out CGT relief on residences .
I agree with both comments of both these posts. I said the following on the last thread:
Like many people who are well off retired I am asset rich but do not have a high income as I don't need one. I have never benefited from a DB pension. Most of my asset value is in the house I live in which I will sell when I no longer need it and when I need cash and downsize and move to a smaller house.
I can't afford 1% of the property value a year or anything like it! That will apply to a lot of people.
I personally don't understand why CGT does not apply to the main residence. It has the benefit of only being charged when assets are materialised and will reduce house prices which would be a good thing. Unfortunately there would have to be some tapering as the change in house prices overnight might be dramatic.
I also note that Charles said: Sell your home and move somewhere smaller. I wonder if Charles would say that to my father. He is 94 and lives in a small semi on an estate in Surrey. He has lived there since 1963. I have tried to get him to move into sheltered housing but he is afraid to move. he could not pay a property tax out of his pension. What is Charles's suggestion to him?
I wonder the outcome of the Labour inquiry. I wonder why the report was leaked and by whom.
I wonder whether there is the remotest provable overlap between the bad right-wing Labour types exposed by the leak and the good right wing Labour types now in charge of the show.
Two groups of people are going to come out of Coronageddon with paticularly tarnished reputations, bat-eating Chinese, and British "journalists".
As someone else pointed out, if you were going to have a conspiracy involving the PM you'd want a complete run of Tory supporters......and an NHS hospital isn't the first place you'd look.....
I wonder the outcome of the Labour inquiry. I wonder why the report was leaked and by whom.
I wonder whether there is the remotest provable overlap between the bad right-wing Labour types exposed by the leak and the good right wing Labour types now in charge of the show.
The right isn't in charge of Labour now. This lot have never been in charge, the so-called "soft left"
For those types who used to love seeing another 120k signatures added to a Remain petiton, Captain Tom and his walking around his garden for the NHS has now exceeded his £1,000 target by £3,613,000.....
So Burnham is saying anyone who owns say a £400k house (with no other savings) will on retirement be forced to do a £60k equity release to pay that £60k to the Government.
It sounds very high risk to me - equity release at 75 or more preferably 80 might well be OK - but at 65? Say you live to 90 - that's 25 years of compound interest rolling up on a £60k debt - goodness knows what that would come to.
I would have thought such a proposal would be electorally toxic off the scale.
I am generally amenable to moderate Labour politicians and I am not remotely enthusiastic about a Boris branded Conservative Party (well any Conservative Party for that matter). If this was ever adopted as Labour Party Policy my cross would go next to Alun Cairn's name, and I can't abide the man.
I have worked hard, I have paid my taxes, I have lived frugally. My not insubstantial home is my pension!
The second word Mr Burnham is off!
To avoid punishing those who have saved for retirement, a Social care tax needs to be on income or consumption.
Phase out CGT relief on residences .
Which massively encourages people to keep the first house when they buy their second, rent it out, and make money that way.
It's also a massive disincentive to moving for work, as you'd effectively be paying potentially a year's salary or more if you had to relocate for work. Making the workforce much less mobile is not a good idea right now.
Well, moving for work also results in a big stamp duty charge...
My view is that housing is an area where we want to encourage the most efficient allocation of resources possible. That means that charging people who want to downgrade is dumb. It means that Granny McOldie doesn't sell her four bedroom house and move into a flat, because half of the cash she'd free up would end up in the hands of the government. Consequently, we end up with her having three unused bedrooms.
I would have a small annual "land value levy" of say 0.5%. This can be much more fairly adjudged than a house price, because there's no question about improvements and the line. But I would get rid of stamp duty altogether.
I am sympathetic to the no CGT rule, because (again) it encorages more efficient allocation of capital. However, I loathe treating different asset classes separately. If I want to rent and own a portfolio of shares instead of a home, why should I pay CGT on any gains on those, while somebody who chose to buy a home is exempt?
I think your last point is a good one, but not everyone sees their home as an asset or an investment, they see it as a roof over their head.
If the government takes a share when you sell it, they are literally taking away a piece of the roof over your head, assuming you plan to buy another one to live in.
So it is a much more emotive piece of property, not just another asset class.
Does CGT exemption not apply to your car for the same reason?
I think that's about what that 6,000 figure for one week implies. That's why I thought it looked consistent with a total of 50,000 deaths for the whole wave.
Do you reckon the 2500 ‘non covid’ extra deaths are covid in care homes?
Surely trying to extrapolate from the 'total' deaths figures are wildly inaccurate and they can demonstrate nothing more than direction of travel. International comparators are almost as pointless too if we are all measuring using different scales.
Seems to be the current game in town - "let's have a guess at some current, fuzzy, incomplete data - why wait for something actually analysable?"
At least these numbers seem rather more informative than the ones in the daily press conferences that most people here are obsessing over.
They seems pretty bizarre to me. Using the ONS's own data with the time lags removed you get far less excess death beyond the daily announced figures -
They also note that of those specifically mentioning Covid on the death certificate, 90% were from hospitals, so the supposed hidden iceberg of unregistered cases is not looking enormous, proportionally.
Or more simply, many of the Death Certificates are not accurate, hence the triangulation with excess deaths, as we do with seasonal flu.
Well quite - 6k excess deaths vs 5.2k in the daily announced numbers suggests the hospital figures are picking up most of the figure, so I'm left wondering what on earth this actuarial team are doing to imagine they need to double the announced figures.
It matches the rest of Europe. Why would we be different?
I think that's about what that 6,000 figure for one week implies. That's why I thought it looked consistent with a total of 50,000 deaths for the whole wave.
Do you reckon the 2500 ‘non covid’ extra deaths are covid in care homes?
Surely trying to extrapolate from the 'total' deaths figures are wildly inaccurate and they can demonstrate nothing more than direction of travel. International comparators are almost as pointless too if we are all measuring using different scales.
Seems to be the current game in town - "let's have a guess at some current, fuzzy, incomplete data - why wait for something actually analysable?"
At least these numbers seem rather more informative than the ones in the daily press conferences that most people here are obsessing over.
They seems pretty bizarre to me. Using the ONS's own data with the time lags removed you get far less excess death beyond the daily announced figures -
They also note that of those specifically mentioning Covid on the death certificate, 90% were from hospitals, so the supposed hidden iceberg of unregistered cases is not looking enormous, proportionally.
Or more simply, many of the Death Certificates are not accurate, hence the triangulation with excess deaths, as we do with seasonal flu.
Well quite - 6k excess deaths vs 5.2k in the daily announced numbers suggests the hospital figures are picking up most of the figure, so I'm left wondering what on earth this actuarial team are doing to imagine they need to double the announced figures.
How do you get to 5.2k in the daily numbers in the week to 3 April? I make it about 3k.
So Burnham is saying anyone who owns say a £400k house (with no other savings) will on retirement be forced to do a £60k equity release to pay that £60k to the Government.
It sounds very high risk to me - equity release at 75 or more preferably 80 might well be OK - but at 65? Say you live to 90 - that's 25 years of compound interest rolling up on a £60k debt - goodness knows what that would come to.
I would have thought such a proposal would be electorally toxic off the scale.
I am generally amenable to moderate Labour politicians and I am not remotely enthusiastic about a Boris branded Conservative Party (well any Conservative Party for that matter). If this was ever adopted as Labour Party Policy my cross would go next to Alun Cairn's name, and I can't abide the man.
I have worked hard, I have paid my taxes, I have lived frugally. My not insubstantial home is my pension!
The second word Mr Burnham is off!
To avoid punishing those who have saved for retirement, a Social care tax needs to be on income or consumption.
Phase out CGT relief on residences .
Which massively encourages people to keep the first house when they buy their second, rent it out, and make money that way.
It's also a massive disincentive to moving for work, as you'd effectively be paying potentially a year's salary or more if you had to relocate for work. Making the workforce much less mobile is not a good idea right now.
Well, moving for work also results in a big stamp duty charge...
My view is that housing is an area where we want to encourage the most efficient allocation of resources possible. That means that charging people who want to downgrade is dumb. It means that Granny McOldie doesn't sell her four bedroom house and move into a flat, because half of the cash she'd free up would end up in the hands of the government. Consequently, we end up with her having three unused bedrooms.
I would have a small annual "land value levy" of say 0.5%. This can be much more fairly adjudged than a house price, because there's no question about improvements and the line. But I would get rid of stamp duty altogether.
I am sympathetic to the no CGT rule, because (again) it encorages more efficient allocation of capital. However, I loathe treating different asset classes separately. If I want to rent and own a portfolio of shares instead of a home, why should I pay CGT on any gains on those, while somebody who chose to buy a home is exempt?
I think your last point is a good one, but not everyone sees their home as an asset or an investment, they see it as a roof over their head.
If the government takes a share when you sell it, they are literally taking away a piece of the roof over your head, assuming you plan to buy another one to live in.
So it is a much more emotive piece of property, not just another asset class.
Does CGT exemption not apply to your car for the same reason?
Rollover relief is the answer for dwellings. The point about cars is that 99.99999% of them decrease in value, so it's to deprive people of offsettable losses.
Does CGT exemption not apply to your car for the same reason?
What's the reason you don't have to pay income tax on your gambling income? :-)
(Liked the rest of your post, the emotive point is probably far more important politically than what rcs, also quite correctly, points out about distorting our portfolio choices! A lot of people who write and think about personal finance a lot would say that we mostly overweight our portfolios towards property in the UK, it's a point Chris Dillow often makes for example, and I think your sentiment-based approach explains why we do so. We don't even think of it as an investment so we don't notice how overinvested we are in that asset class.)
I think that's about what that 6,000 figure for one week implies. That's why I thought it looked consistent with a total of 50,000 deaths for the whole wave.
Do you reckon the 2500 ‘non covid’ extra deaths are covid in care homes?
Surely trying to extrapolate from the 'total' deaths figures are wildly inaccurate and they can demonstrate nothing more than direction of travel. International comparators are almost as pointless too if we are all measuring using different scales.
Seems to be the current game in town - "let's have a guess at some current, fuzzy, incomplete data - why wait for something actually analysable?"
At least these numbers seem rather more informative than the ones in the daily press conferences that most people here are obsessing over.
They seems pretty bizarre to me. Using the ONS's own data with the time lags removed you get far less excess death beyond the daily announced figures -
They also note that of those specifically mentioning Covid on the death certificate, 90% were from hospitals, so the supposed hidden iceberg of unregistered cases is not looking enormous, proportionally.
Or more simply, many of the Death Certificates are not accurate, hence the triangulation with excess deaths, as we do with seasonal flu.
Well quite - 6k excess deaths vs 5.2k in the daily announced numbers suggests the hospital figures are picking up most of the figure, so I'm left wondering what on earth this actuarial team are doing to imagine they need to double the announced figures.
6k is not excess deaths, it is deaths identified as COVID (90% were from hospitals just means 5.2k out of 6k, so there's 800 COVID death certs for home deaths). Without the true excess death figure you can't tell what the actuarial team is up to.
I think there are two different figures being discussed. The excess deaths compared to the average of previous deaths for the same week was nearly 6.5k.
For those types who used to love seeing another 120k signatures added to a Remain petiton, Captain Tom and his walking around his garden for the NHS has now exceeded his £1,000 target by £3,613,000.....
So Burnham is saying anyone who owns say a £400k house (with no other savings) will on retirement be forced to do a £60k equity release to pay that £60k to the Government.
It sounds very high risk to me - equity release at 75 or more preferably 80 might well be OK - but at 65? Say you live to 90 - that's 25 years of compound interest rolling up on a £60k debt - goodness knows what that would come to.
I would have thought such a proposal would be electorally toxic off the scale.
I am generally amenable to moderate Labour politicians and I am not remotely enthusiastic about a Boris branded Conservative Party (well any Conservative Party for that matter). If this was ever adopted as Labour Party Policy my cross would go next to Alun Cairn's name, and I can't abide the man.
I have worked hard, I have paid my taxes, I have lived frugally. My not insubstantial home is my pension!
The second word Mr Burnham is off!
To avoid punishing those who have saved for retirement, a Social care tax needs to be on income or consumption.
Phase out CGT relief on residences .
Which massively encourages people to keep the first house when they buy their second, rent it out, and make money that way.
It's also a massive disincentive to moving for work, as you'd effectively be paying potentially a year's salary or more if you had to relocate for work. Making the workforce much less mobile is not a good idea right now.
Well, moving for work also results in a big stamp duty charge...
My view is that housing is an area where we want to encourage the most efficient allocation of resources possible. That means that charging people who want to downgrade is dumb. It means that Granny McOldie doesn't sell her four bedroom house and move into a flat, because half of the cash she'd free up would end up in the hands of the government. Consequently, we end up with her having three unused bedrooms.
I would have a small annual "land value levy" of say 0.5%. This can be much more fairly adjudged than a house price, because there's no question about improvements and the line. But I would get rid of stamp duty altogether.
I am sympathetic to the no CGT rule, because (again) it encorages more efficient allocation of capital. However, I loathe treating different asset classes separately. If I want to rent and own a portfolio of shares instead of a home, why should I pay CGT on any gains on those, while somebody who chose to buy a home is exempt?
I think your last point is a good one, but not everyone sees their home as an asset or an investment, they see it as a roof over their head.
If the government takes a share when you sell it, they are literally taking away a piece of the roof over your head, assuming you plan to buy another one to live in.
So it is a much more emotive piece of property, not just another asset class.
Does CGT exemption not apply to your car for the same reason?
Who gains money on a car? And more importantly which model? I need to buy one.
Does CGT exemption not apply to your car for the same reason?
What's the reason you don't have to pay income tax on your gambling income? :-)
(Liked the rest of your post, the emotive point is probably far more important politically than what rcs, also quite correctly, points out about distorting our portfolio choices! A lot of people who write and think about personal finance a lot would say that we mostly overweight our portfolios towards property in the UK, it's a point Chris Dillow often makes for example, and I think your sentiment-based approach explains why we do so. We don't even think of it as an investment so we don't notice how overinvested we are in that asset class.)
We overinvest in property because we can leverage, and it usually pays to do so. If you financed your stock portfolio like you finance your house you'd be regarded as a lunatic.
I wonder how much of Ireland’s manufacturing output is US pharma.
There's also a massive Intel fab just outside Dublin (currently in the middle of an $8bn upgrade). And there's a big Apple factory in Cork too, I believe.
I think that's about what that 6,000 figure for one week implies. That's why I thought it looked consistent with a total of 50,000 deaths for the whole wave.
Do you reckon the 2500 ‘non covid’ extra deaths are covid in care homes?
Surely trying to extrapolate from the 'total' deaths figures are wildly inaccurate and they can demonstrate nothing more than direction of travel. International comparators are almost as pointless too if we are all measuring using different scales.
Seems to be the current game in town - "let's have a guess at some current, fuzzy, incomplete data - why wait for something actually analysable?"
At least these numbers seem rather more informative than the ones in the daily press conferences that most people here are obsessing over.
They seems pretty bizarre to me. Using the ONS's own data with the time lags removed you get far less excess death beyond the daily announced figures -
They also note that of those specifically mentioning Covid on the death certificate, 90% were from hospitals, so the supposed hidden iceberg of unregistered cases is not looking enormous, proportionally.
Or more simply, many of the Death Certificates are not accurate, hence the triangulation with excess deaths, as we do with seasonal flu.
Well quite - 6k excess deaths vs 5.2k in the daily announced numbers suggests the hospital figures are picking up most of the figure, so I'm left wondering what on earth this actuarial team are doing to imagine they need to double the announced figures.
6k is not excess deaths, it is deaths identified as COVID (90% were from hospitals just means 5.2k out of 6k, so there's 800 COVID death certs for home deaths). Without the true excess death figure you can't tell what the actuarial team is up to.
I think there are two different figures being discussed. The excess deaths compared to the average of previous deaths for the same week was nearly 6.5k.
Yes i think you are right. The central point remains that the excess deaths are a matter of record, not being dreamed up out of nothing.
So Burnham is saying anyone who owns say a £400k house (with no other savings) will on retirement be forced to do a £60k equity release to pay that £60k to the Government.
It sounds very high risk to me - equity release at 75 or more preferably 80 might well be OK - but at 65? Say you live to 90 - that's 25 years of compound interest rolling up on a £60k debt - goodness knows what that would come to.
I would have thought such a proposal would be electorally toxic off the scale.
I am generally amenable to moderate Labour politicians and I am not remotely enthusiastic about a Boris branded Conservative Party (well any Conservative Party for that matter). If this was ever adopted as Labour Party Policy my cross would go next to Alun Cairn's name, and I can't abide the man.
I have worked hard, I have paid my taxes, I have lived frugally. My not insubstantial home is my pension!
The second word Mr Burnham is off!
To avoid punishing those who have saved for retirement, a Social care tax needs to be on income or consumption.
Phase out CGT relief on residences .
Which massively encourages people to keep the first house when they buy their second, rent it out, and make money that way.
It's also a massive disincentive to moving for work, as you'd effectively be paying potentially a year's salary or more if you had to relocate for work. Making the workforce much less mobile is not a good idea right now.
Well, moving for work also results in a big stamp duty charge...
My view is that housing is an area where we want to encourage the most efficient allocation of resources possible. That means that charging people who want to downgrade is dumb. It means that Granny McOldie doesn't sell her four bedroom house and move into a flat, because half of the cash she'd free up would end up in the hands of the government. Consequently, we end up with her having three unused bedrooms.
I would have a small annual "land value levy" of say 0.5%. This can be much more fairly adjudged than a house price, because there's no question about improvements and the line. But I would get rid of stamp duty altogether.
I am sympathetic to the no CGT rule, because (again) it encorages more efficient allocation of capital. However, I loathe treating different asset classes separately. If I want to rent and own a portfolio of shares instead of a home, why should I pay CGT on any gains on those, while somebody who chose to buy a home is exempt?
I think your last point is a good one, but not everyone sees their home as an asset or an investment, they see it as a roof over their head.
If the government takes a share when you sell it, they are literally taking away a piece of the roof over your head, assuming you plan to buy another one to live in.
So it is a much more emotive piece of property, not just another asset class.
Does CGT exemption not apply to your car for the same reason?
My poorly thought through idea is that your first house is free if you only own one. As soon as you own more than one (with a grace period to cover moving house and the complications that can arise therefore) then you lose all exemptions.
For those types who used to love seeing another 120k signatures added to a Remain petiton, Captain Tom and his walking around his garden for the NHS has now exceeded his £1,000 target by £3,613,000.....
So Burnham is saying anyone who owns say a £400k house (with no other savings) will on retirement be forced to do a £60k equity release to pay that £60k to the Government.
It sounds very high risk to me - equity release at 75 or more preferably 80 might well be OK - but at 65? Say you live to 90 - that's 25 years of compound interest rolling up on a £60k debt - goodness knows what that would come to.
I would have thought such a proposal would be electorally toxic off the scale.
I am generally amenable to moderate Labour politicians and I am not remotely enthusiastic about a Boris branded Conservative Party (well any Conservative Party for that matter). If this was ever adopted as Labour Party Policy my cross would go next to Alun Cairn's name, and I can't abide the man.
I have worked hard, I have paid my taxes, I have lived frugally. My not insubstantial home is my pension!
The second word Mr Burnham is off!
To avoid punishing those who have saved for retirement, a Social care tax needs to be on income or consumption.
Phase out CGT relief on residences .
Which massively encourages people to keep the first house when they buy their second, rent it out, and make money that way.
It's also a massive disincentive to moving for work, as you'd effectively be paying potentially a year's salary or more if you had to relocate for work. Making the workforce much less mobile is not a good idea right now.
Well, moving for work also results in a big stamp duty charge...
My view is that housing is an area where we want to encourage the most efficient allocation of resources possible. That means that charging people who want to downgrade is dumb. It means that Granny McOldie doesn't sell her four bedroom house and move into a flat, because half of the cash she'd free up would end up in the hands of the government. Consequently, we end up with her having three unused bedrooms.
I would have a small annual "land value levy" of say 0.5%. This can be much more fairly adjudged than a house price, because there's no question about improvements and the line. But I would get rid of stamp duty altogether.
I am sympathetic to the no CGT rule, because (again) it encorages more efficient allocation of capital. However, I loathe treating different asset classes separately. If I want to rent and own a portfolio of shares instead of a home, why should I pay CGT on any gains on those, while somebody who chose to buy a home is exempt?
I think your last point is a good one, but not everyone sees their home as an asset or an investment, they see it as a roof over their head.
If the government takes a share when you sell it, they are literally taking away a piece of the roof over your head, assuming you plan to buy another one to live in.
So it is a much more emotive piece of property, not just another asset class.
Does CGT exemption not apply to your car for the same reason?
How about giving everybody a £1m lifetime CGT exemption (index linked?
Andrew Neil yet again showing that his Europhobia leads him into ludicrous error and he doesn’t have the self-respect to admit he got it wrong. He has still left his incorrect tweet up to keep swirling round Death Cult Twitter.
And he asks for others to apologise for their mistakes?
Spin the table and he's you Alistair.
You've simply described yourself.
For what it's worth I regard your, and AN's thoughts as essential listening.
Corbynism may be going down in flames. It looks like the Corbynistas are attempting to take the mother ship down with them. Every last man (and woman) jack of them are scoundrels to the core.
Try to spin this as much as you like it is not Corbyn or his supporters who are at fault here. Try reading the 800 pages.
Some staffers let AS people off if they were on the right of the party, wanted the Tories to win and adopted abusive and racist language as part of their roles.
They should be expelled
Its very simple - the party needs to split. Frankly that has been the case for a few years now. Your side wants to expel my side and vice versa. As my side won both 30 seats and the leadership election, and your side lost 60 seats and is led by Richard Burgon, it seems fairly clear who gets to keep the name, the party machine etc etc
You're only just back in and already wanting a split?
Events, dear boy... When I joined the party I had no idea that the General Secretary and a few Momentum Staffers had been writing the Book of Doom. Nor that the Socialist Campaign Group of MPs would demand no less that said Book of Doom be released by the party in full unredacted, thus bringing a bankrupting wall of litigation down upon the party.
When one faction is demanding an action that will literally destroy the party are there any alternatives than a split?
Bye lock the door behind you this time. Your in and out more often than Simon Danczuk's genitals
Does CGT exemption not apply to your car for the same reason?
What's the reason you don't have to pay income tax on your gambling income? :-)
(Liked the rest of your post, the emotive point is probably far more important politically than what rcs, also quite correctly, points out about distorting our portfolio choices! A lot of people who write and think about personal finance a lot would say that we mostly overweight our portfolios towards property in the UK, it's a point Chris Dillow often makes for example, and I think your sentiment-based approach explains why we do so. We don't even think of it as an investment so we don't notice how overinvested we are in that asset class.)
We overinvest in property because we can leverage, and it usually pays to do so. If you financed your stock portfolio like you finance your house you'd be regarded as a lunatic.
Also true! We wouldn't overinvest in property so much if it were impossible to take out a loan to play the property market, in the same way that my bank wouldn't let me take out a loan to invest in the stock market. Having said that I strongly suspect that if it became much harder to obtain a mortgage, there'd still be plenty of Brits saving up the cash to buy outright instead and who wouldn't be thinking of it as an "investment strategy" per se (even though by definition it is one). There's something about your own bricks and mortar, your own plot of land, owning the roof above your head, that gives people a sense of security or success in a way that holding a share portfolio of the same value doesn't.
So Burnham is saying anyone who owns say a £400k house (with no other savings) will on retirement be forced to do a £60k equity release to pay that £60k to the Government.
It sounds very high risk to me - equity release at 75 or more preferably 80 might well be OK - but at 65? Say you live to 90 - that's 25 years of compound interest rolling up on a £60k debt - goodness knows what that would come to.
I would have thought such a proposal would be electorally toxic off the scale.
I am generally amenable to moderate Labour politicians and I am not remotely enthusiastic about a Boris branded Conservative Party (well any Conservative Party for that matter). If this was ever adopted as Labour Party Policy my cross would go next to Alun Cairn's name, and I can't abide the man.
I have worked hard, I have paid my taxes, I have lived frugally. My not insubstantial home is my pension!
The second word Mr Burnham is off!
To avoid punishing those who have saved for retirement, a Social care tax needs to be on income or consumption.
Phase out CGT relief on residences .
I agree with both comments of both these posts. I said the following on the last thread:
Like many people who are well off retired I am asset rich but do not have a high income as I don't need one. I have never benefited from a DB pension. Most of my asset value is in the house I live in which I will sell when I no longer need it and when I need cash and downsize and move to a smaller house.
I can't afford 1% of the property value a year or anything like it! That will apply to a lot of people.
I personally don't understand why CGT does not apply to the main residence. It has the benefit of only being charged when assets are materialised and will reduce house prices which would be a good thing. Unfortunately there would have to be some tapering as the change in house prices overnight might be dramatic.
I also note that Charles said: Sell your home and move somewhere smaller. I wonder if Charles would say that to my father. He is 94 and lives in a small semi on an estate in Surrey. He has lived there since 1963. I have tried to get him to move into sheltered housing but he is afraid to move. he could not pay a property tax out of his pension. What is Charles's suggestion to him?
So, being straightforward, that may be an argument that a property tax - rather than not taxing the property - would encourage movement.
Comments
My view is that housing is an area where we want to encourage the most efficient allocation of resources possible. That means that charging people who want to downgrade is dumb. It means that Granny McOldie doesn't sell her four bedroom house and move into a flat, because half of the cash she'd free up would end up in the hands of the government. Consequently, we end up with her having three unused bedrooms.
I would have a small annual "land value levy" of say 0.5%. This can be much more fairly adjudged than a house price, because there's no question about improvements and the line. But I would get rid of stamp duty altogether.
I am sympathetic to the no CGT rule, because (again) it encorages more efficient allocation of capital. However, I loathe treating different asset classes separately. If I want to rent and own a portfolio of shares instead of a home, why should I pay CGT on any gains on those, while somebody who chose to buy a home is exempt?
Or, of course, you could pay interest-only of a couple of grand a year if you've the income and leave at at £60k. Or you could repay over time.
So it's not going to wipe out people's assets in reality. It'd be politically, er, courageous though.
Bit like tuition fees - if you actually look at the repayment terms, those repaying anything are those who can easily afford it and whose bet on university education paid off very nicely for them. But it's easily portrayed as appalling.
https://www.justgiving.com/fundraising/tomswalkforthenhs?fbclid=IwAR1b02ccPC_I9w9hojdjedpFV4Kh8NOrl5BF3-K9kLSxwv23BkuDnd-a8oE
If the government takes a share when you sell it, they are literally taking away a piece of the roof over your head, assuming you plan to buy another one to live in.
So it is a much more emotive piece of property, not just another asset class.
Does CGT exemption not apply to your car for the same reason?
The guy is an irrelevance; ignore him.
Prime candidate for C4 chief correspondent then.
(Liked the rest of your post, the emotive point is probably far more important politically than what rcs, also quite correctly, points out about distorting our portfolio choices! A lot of people who write and think about personal finance a lot would say that we mostly overweight our portfolios towards property in the UK, it's a point Chris Dillow often makes for example, and I think your sentiment-based approach explains why we do so. We don't even think of it as an investment so we don't notice how overinvested we are in that asset class.)
https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/iips/irishindustrialproductionbysector2017/
https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/1250158635675762699?s=20
https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/politics/scottish-politics/1266046/public-health-england-got-their-finger-out-company-at-heart-of-a-cross-border-storm-defends-sending-ppe-kit-to-english-care-homes/