Val Demmings from swing state Florida is an outside bet
Agreed - I'm on her as well
I bet on Harris when the odds were still very generous, so I'm not really tempted to do more than a couple of small insurance bets. She's rightly the favourite, but by no means certain to be picked.
Why? The logic as to why masks for offices have been rejected (that you're sat down and regularly working with the same people) is completely different to shops.
China's population is projected to fall by half between now and 2100. That has huge implications for China's economic and military heft.
The populations of the USA and UK will hardly change over that period. And, Nigeria could be the second most populous country on Earth, although it seems to me that population growth on that scale could provoke massive civil conflict.
Projecting demographic trends over the rest of the century is pure guesswork.
Not as much as you imagine. Much of those trends are baked in already. While 2100 is a long way off, the projections for 2030 are fairly accurate for example. The fertile young mothers of Nigeria and the Congo in 2050 are being born today.
Trends are baked in until they aren't. While it's very likely true that projections for the next decade or so aren't that far off, things can diverge very quickly indeed.
An extreme example is South Korea - thanks, I think, to the very rapidly changing culture over the last few decades. Economic and political emancipation of women means that marriage is no longer viewed as an inevitable necessity; but at the same time, patriarchal attitudes are still deeply ingrained. As a result, marriage has become a deeply unattractive prospect for women; they are either expected to give up their jobs, or continue working and take responsibility for all homework and childcare as well. Hence the lowest birthrate in the world.
A further change in social attitudes over the next decade or so could conceivably reverse that.
The only space where masks in offices would make sense for me is for eg the reception entrance areas of large office blocks, corridors, stairs, lifts etc - not while you're sat at a desk.
Maybe if wanted to maximise mask wearing a simple rule of thumb could be where a mask whenever you're somewhere its illegal to smoke except if you are sat down. So if you're sat at your desk doing your work, or sat at a table eating a meal or drinking a coffee then exempt, but when walking to counters or in stairwells etc then wear the mask.
Why? The logic as to why masks for offices have been rejected (that you're sat down and regularly working with the same people) is completely different to shops.
Perhaps someone should tell the NHS that! My other half, who works for the NHS, but in an office environment with no patient contact and little contact with clinical staff, has had to wear a mask for the last couple of weeks. She and her colleagues weren't very happy about it to begin with, but they seem to have got used to wearing them in the meantime.
Why? The logic as to why masks for offices have been rejected (that you're sat down and regularly working with the same people) is completely different to shops.
Perhaps someone should tell the NHS that! My other half, who works for the NHS, but in an office environment with no patient contact and little contact with clinical staff, has had to wear a mask for the last couple of weeks. She and her colleagues weren't very happy about it to begin with, but they seem to have got used to wearing them in the meantime.
Employers have always been permitted to enforce their own uniform rules and if the NHS as an employer wants to mandate masks - or any other employer - then that is fair enough.
For the NHS's case it makes some sense too. Little contact with clinical staff is not no contact with clinical staff, so if a clinical staff member with the disease infects your wife . . . who then goes on to infect other clinical staff . . . I can see why the NHS wants to prevent that.
The only space where masks in offices would make sense for me is for eg the reception entrance areas of large office blocks, corridors, stairs, lifts etc - not while you're sat at a desk.
Maybe if wanted to maximise mask wearing a simple rule of thumb could be where a mask whenever you're somewhere its illegal to smoke except if you are sat down. So if you're sat at your desk doing your work, or sat at a table eating a meal or drinking a coffee then exempt, but when walking to counters or in stairwells etc then wear the mask.
The other important point is that in offices you know whom you've been close to, so contact tracing if an outbreak begins is very easy. The same is true to a lesser extent in restaurants and pubs where they take your details on booking. It's not the case in retail or in public transport.
None of this is an absolute 'X is safe and Y isn't'. It's all about reducing the statistical risk of an exponentially-growing outbreak. The government's measures on masks do make sense (although they have been late getting there), but have been very badly communicated.
I was told just yesterday by people on here that face masks in shops was nothing to worry about,.
just a minor inconvenience,
a tiny sacrifice,
honestly what is your problem,
by people who think they are intelligent.
But the thing is that once you give authoritarians an inch, they will take a mile. Once you roll over on one freedom, they will take them all, step by step.
And we read today that after our freedoms, the next thing they are coming for is our money, via enormous increases in CGT.
And that's just the start.
New normal? there's nothing normal about it.
Last week stamp duty was cut and a VAT holiday given ie both tax cuts, CGT is imply being reviewed that is all
Got me worried though
I would like to see CGT on residential properties, although to make it fair it would have to be based upon current valuation (which could be tricky to establish) and not be retrospective for existing homes.
From a personal point of view it would not do me any favours as I basically have much of my pension in my house (like many) which I will downsize from in time, but I don't see why I shouldn't pay tax on that gain.
Because CGT is a tax on investing. Buying and living in a home isn't an investment, it's living. More than happy for them to put CGT up to income tax rates for non-primary residences, however.
Why? There is no tax when you are living in it. You pay the tax on your gains. Why is it any different to any other investment? You don't pay the tax until to make the gain.
It would also put downward pressure on house prices so shouldn't impact moving on, but will benefit 1st time buyers. The effective payers will be those selling not to rebuy or downsizing i.e. those that have made an untaxed profit.
Again, because it's not an investment, it's a home. As I said, more than happy for CGT to be raised to income tax levels for non-primary residences. I think any party which introduces this will be out of power for a very, very long time. It's probably the single most unpopular policy I can think of.
Max I don't disagree with you that it might be unpopular, but only because people will think that it is a tax hike and tax hikes are unpopular.
But what in principle is your objection? You keep saying it is a home but not an investment. So what. If you make a large untaxed profit on it it should be taxed like everything else.
I know people who have profited to such an extent in London that it dwarf there entire lifetime income. They then downsize outside of London and take the profit entirely untaxed.
As I said because of the impact on house prices the only people effectively paying the tax will be the downsizers and those not rebuying so those who are realising a profit.
It also will help first time buyers.
Its completely unreasonable to tax people on homes they live in for one simple reason: they need somewhere to live.
And you're mathematically wrong about the only people paying the tax will be downsizers and those not rebuying, because house price changes won't dwarf the tax.
Lets say that you buy a house for £200,000 and years later it is worth £300,000 . . . you then move and get a similar house elsewhere in the country so you sell that and then buy a £300,000 house elsewhere. How much have you gained?
Under our current system we rightly recognise you have gained nothing as it is your home. Under your proposal you would face a tax liability on a supposed £100k gain despite the fact that every penny of your supposed gain went into replacing what you already had when you moved.
Once again the government proving it is completely useless when it comes to basic data analysis. It shouldn't need a team of scientists from one of the world's top universities to figure this stuff out. A half decent team of data analysts would be able to automate this in no time and get accurate daily readings.
I do sometimes wonder how data literate the top scientific advisors actually are. I would never have gotten on that stage and presented those graphs, I'd have been too embarrassed.
Once again the government proving it is completely useless when it comes to basic data analysis. It shouldn't need a team of scientists from one of the world's top universities to figure this stuff out. A half decent team of data analysts would be able to automate this in no time and get accurate daily readings.
I do sometimes wonder how data literate the top scientific advisors actually are. I would never have gotten on that stage and presented those graphs, I'd have been too embarrassed.
No, this sort of data can only be discovered in hindsight not real time. Its impossible to know in real time how many people have been infected since you don't know in real time how many people are infected - it takes time before people can be tested and be found to be positive.
I was told just yesterday by people on here that face masks in shops was nothing to worry about,.
just a minor inconvenience,
a tiny sacrifice,
honestly what is your problem,
by people who think they are intelligent.
But the thing is that once you give authoritarians an inch, they will take a mile. Once you roll over on one freedom, they will take them all, step by step.
And we read today that after our freedoms, the next thing they are coming for is our money, via enormous increases in CGT.
And that's just the start.
New normal? there's nothing normal about it.
Last week stamp duty was cut and a VAT holiday given ie both tax cuts, CGT is imply being reviewed that is all
Got me worried though
I would like to see CGT on residential properties, although to make it fair it would have to be based upon current valuation (which could be tricky to establish) and not be retrospective for existing homes.
From a personal point of view it would not do me any favours as I basically have much of my pension in my house (like many) which I will downsize from in time, but I don't see why I shouldn't pay tax on that gain.
Because CGT is a tax on investing. Buying and living in a home isn't an investment, it's living. More than happy for them to put CGT up to income tax rates for non-primary residences, however.
Why? There is no tax when you are living in it. You pay the tax on your gains. Why is it any different to any other investment? You don't pay the tax until to make the gain.
It would also put downward pressure on house prices so shouldn't impact moving on, but will benefit 1st time buyers. The effective payers will be those selling not to rebuy or downsizing i.e. those that have made an untaxed profit.
Again, because it's not an investment, it's a home. As I said, more than happy for CGT to be raised to income tax levels for non-primary residences. I think any party which introduces this will be out of power for a very, very long time. It's probably the single most unpopular policy I can think of.
Max I don't disagree with you that it might be unpopular, but only because people will think that it is a tax hike and tax hikes are unpopular.
But what in principle is your objection? You keep saying it is a home but not an investment. So what. If you make a large untaxed profit on it it should be taxed like everything else.
I know people who have profited to such an extent in London that it dwarf there entire lifetime income. They then downsize outside of London and take the profit entirely untaxed.
As I said because of the impact on house prices the only people effectively paying the tax will be the downsizers and those not rebuying so those who are realising a profit.
It also will help first time buyers.
Its completely unreasonable to tax people on homes they live in for one simple reason: they need somewhere to live.
And you're mathematically wrong about the only people paying the tax will be downsizers and those not rebuying, because house price changes won't dwarf the tax.
Lets say that you buy a house for £200,000 and years later it is worth £300,000 . . . you then move and get a similar house elsewhere in the country so you sell that and then buy a £300,000 house elsewhere. How much have you gained?
Under our current system we rightly recognise you have gained nothing as it is your home. Under your proposal you would face a tax liability on a supposed £100k gain despite the fact that every penny of your supposed gain went into replacing what you already had when you moved.
You could use the same argument against paying stamp duty.
Once again the government proving it is completely useless when it comes to basic data analysis. It shouldn't need a team of scientists from one of the world's top universities to figure this stuff out. A half decent team of data analysts would be able to automate this in no time and get accurate daily readings.
I do sometimes wonder how data literate the top scientific advisors actually are. I would never have gotten on that stage and presented those graphs, I'd have been too embarrassed.
No, this sort of data can only be discovered in hindsight not real time. Its impossible to know in real time how many people have been infected since you don't know in real time how many people are infected - it takes time before people can be tested and be found to be positive.
And even then there are large uncertainties, as only a proportion of those infected are found and tested. Add to the the constantly changing nature of social mixing, as government policies cycle in and out, and people modify their behaviour in reponse to reported infection rates, and it's very difficult to make consistent estimates of those numbers.
I was told just yesterday by people on here that face masks in shops was nothing to worry about,.
just a minor inconvenience,
a tiny sacrifice,
honestly what is your problem,
by people who think they are intelligent.
But the thing is that once you give authoritarians an inch, they will take a mile. Once you roll over on one freedom, they will take them all, step by step.
And we read today that after our freedoms, the next thing they are coming for is our money, via enormous increases in CGT.
And that's just the start.
New normal? there's nothing normal about it.
Last week stamp duty was cut and a VAT holiday given ie both tax cuts, CGT is imply being reviewed that is all
Got me worried though
I would like to see CGT on residential properties, although to make it fair it would have to be based upon current valuation (which could be tricky to establish) and not be retrospective for existing homes.
From a personal point of view it would not do me any favours as I basically have much of my pension in my house (like many) which I will downsize from in time, but I don't see why I shouldn't pay tax on that gain.
Because CGT is a tax on investing. Buying and living in a home isn't an investment, it's living. More than happy for them to put CGT up to income tax rates for non-primary residences, however.
Why? There is no tax when you are living in it. You pay the tax on your gains. Why is it any different to any other investment? You don't pay the tax until to make the gain.
It would also put downward pressure on house prices so shouldn't impact moving on, but will benefit 1st time buyers. The effective payers will be those selling not to rebuy or downsizing i.e. those that have made an untaxed profit.
Again, because it's not an investment, it's a home. As I said, more than happy for CGT to be raised to income tax levels for non-primary residences. I think any party which introduces this will be out of power for a very, very long time. It's probably the single most unpopular policy I can think of.
Max I don't disagree with you that it might be unpopular, but only because people will think that it is a tax hike and tax hikes are unpopular.
But what in principle is your objection? You keep saying it is a home but not an investment. So what. If you make a large untaxed profit on it it should be taxed like everything else.
I know people who have profited to such an extent in London that it dwarf there entire lifetime income. They then downsize outside of London and take the profit entirely untaxed.
As I said because of the impact on house prices the only people effectively paying the tax will be the downsizers and those not rebuying so those who are realising a profit.
It also will help first time buyers.
Its completely unreasonable to tax people on homes they live in for one simple reason: they need somewhere to live.
And you're mathematically wrong about the only people paying the tax will be downsizers and those not rebuying, because house price changes won't dwarf the tax.
Lets say that you buy a house for £200,000 and years later it is worth £300,000 . . . you then move and get a similar house elsewhere in the country so you sell that and then buy a £300,000 house elsewhere. How much have you gained?
Under our current system we rightly recognise you have gained nothing as it is your home. Under your proposal you would face a tax liability on a supposed £100k gain despite the fact that every penny of your supposed gain went into replacing what you already had when you moved.
You could use the same argument against paying stamp duty.
I don't like Stamp Duty as a tax in general but it is a relatively small percentage of the cost of the home. CGT on residential property can be as high as 28%.
Losing 28% of the mythical "gains" in your home when you move and then being expected to pay stamp duty on top will simply ensure people never move home which is not good for either the economy or the housing market or those who need to move home.
I was told just yesterday by people on here that face masks in shops was nothing to worry about,.
just a minor inconvenience,
a tiny sacrifice,
honestly what is your problem,
by people who think they are intelligent.
But the thing is that once you give authoritarians an inch, they will take a mile. Once you roll over on one freedom, they will take them all, step by step.
And we read today that after our freedoms, the next thing they are coming for is our money, via enormous increases in CGT.
And that's just the start.
New normal? there's nothing normal about it.
Last week stamp duty was cut and a VAT holiday given ie both tax cuts, CGT is imply being reviewed that is all
Got me worried though
I would like to see CGT on residential properties, although to make it fair it would have to be based upon current valuation (which could be tricky to establish) and not be retrospective for existing homes.
From a personal point of view it would not do me any favours as I basically have much of my pension in my house (like many) which I will downsize from in time, but I don't see why I shouldn't pay tax on that gain.
Because CGT is a tax on investing. Buying and living in a home isn't an investment, it's living. More than happy for them to put CGT up to income tax rates for non-primary residences, however.
Why? There is no tax when you are living in it. You pay the tax on your gains. Why is it any different to any other investment? You don't pay the tax until to make the gain.
It would also put downward pressure on house prices so shouldn't impact moving on, but will benefit 1st time buyers. The effective payers will be those selling not to rebuy or downsizing i.e. those that have made an untaxed profit.
Again, because it's not an investment, it's a home. As I said, more than happy for CGT to be raised to income tax levels for non-primary residences. I think any party which introduces this will be out of power for a very, very long time. It's probably the single most unpopular policy I can think of.
Max I don't disagree with you that it might be unpopular, but only because people will think that it is a tax hike and tax hikes are unpopular.
But what in principle is your objection? You keep saying it is a home but not an investment. So what. If you make a large untaxed profit on it it should be taxed like everything else.
I know people who have profited to such an extent in London that it dwarf there entire lifetime income. They then downsize outside of London and take the profit entirely untaxed.
As I said because of the impact on house prices the only people effectively paying the tax will be the downsizers and those not rebuying so those who are realising a profit.
It also will help first time buyers.
Its completely unreasonable to tax people on homes they live in for one simple reason: they need somewhere to live.
And you're mathematically wrong about the only people paying the tax will be downsizers and those not rebuying, because house price changes won't dwarf the tax.
Lets say that you buy a house for £200,000 and years later it is worth £300,000 . . . you then move and get a similar house elsewhere in the country so you sell that and then buy a £300,000 house elsewhere. How much have you gained?
Under our current system we rightly recognise you have gained nothing as it is your home. Under your proposal you would face a tax liability on a supposed £100k gain despite the fact that every penny of your supposed gain went into replacing what you already had when you moved.
Rollover relief: no tax payable on sale proceeds invested in a new main residence within say 2 years.
Once again the government proving it is completely useless when it comes to basic data analysis. It shouldn't need a team of scientists from one of the world's top universities to figure this stuff out. A half decent team of data analysts would be able to automate this in no time and get accurate daily readings.
I do sometimes wonder how data literate the top scientific advisors actually are. I would never have gotten on that stage and presented those graphs, I'd have been too embarrassed.
No, this sort of data can only be discovered in hindsight not real time. Its impossible to know in real time how many people have been infected since you don't know in real time how many people are infected - it takes time before people can be tested and be found to be positive.
It absolutely can be done in real time, I had a pretty lengthy meeting yesterday on the subject among other areas for improvement with the reporting.
In fact it's the kind of thing that can't be done on hindsight as it depends on antigen data, which is fleeting.
I was told just yesterday by people on here that face masks in shops was nothing to worry about,.
just a minor inconvenience,
a tiny sacrifice,
honestly what is your problem,
by people who think they are intelligent.
But the thing is that once you give authoritarians an inch, they will take a mile. Once you roll over on one freedom, they will take them all, step by step.
And we read today that after our freedoms, the next thing they are coming for is our money, via enormous increases in CGT.
And that's just the start.
New normal? there's nothing normal about it.
Last week stamp duty was cut and a VAT holiday given ie both tax cuts, CGT is imply being reviewed that is all
Got me worried though
I would like to see CGT on residential properties, although to make it fair it would have to be based upon current valuation (which could be tricky to establish) and not be retrospective for existing homes.
From a personal point of view it would not do me any favours as I basically have much of my pension in my house (like many) which I will downsize from in time, but I don't see why I shouldn't pay tax on that gain.
Because CGT is a tax on investing. Buying and living in a home isn't an investment, it's living. More than happy for them to put CGT up to income tax rates for non-primary residences, however.
Why? There is no tax when you are living in it. You pay the tax on your gains. Why is it any different to any other investment? You don't pay the tax until to make the gain.
It would also put downward pressure on house prices so shouldn't impact moving on, but will benefit 1st time buyers. The effective payers will be those selling not to rebuy or downsizing i.e. those that have made an untaxed profit.
Again, because it's not an investment, it's a home. As I said, more than happy for CGT to be raised to income tax levels for non-primary residences. I think any party which introduces this will be out of power for a very, very long time. It's probably the single most unpopular policy I can think of.
Max I don't disagree with you that it might be unpopular, but only because people will think that it is a tax hike and tax hikes are unpopular.
But what in principle is your objection? You keep saying it is a home but not an investment. So what. If you make a large untaxed profit on it it should be taxed like everything else.
I know people who have profited to such an extent in London that it dwarf there entire lifetime income. They then downsize outside of London and take the profit entirely untaxed.
As I said because of the impact on house prices the only people effectively paying the tax will be the downsizers and those not rebuying so those who are realising a profit.
It also will help first time buyers.
Its completely unreasonable to tax people on homes they live in for one simple reason: they need somewhere to live.
And you're mathematically wrong about the only people paying the tax will be downsizers and those not rebuying, because house price changes won't dwarf the tax.
Lets say that you buy a house for £200,000 and years later it is worth £300,000 . . . you then move and get a similar house elsewhere in the country so you sell that and then buy a £300,000 house elsewhere. How much have you gained?
Under our current system we rightly recognise you have gained nothing as it is your home. Under your proposal you would face a tax liability on a supposed £100k gain despite the fact that every penny of your supposed gain went into replacing what you already had when you moved.
Rollover relief: no tax payable on sale proceeds invested in a new main residence within say 2 years.
Ok so it's payable on death, which is then a lower tax than IHT.
I was told just yesterday by people on here that face masks in shops was nothing to worry about,.
just a minor inconvenience,
a tiny sacrifice,
honestly what is your problem,
by people who think they are intelligent.
But the thing is that once you give authoritarians an inch, they will take a mile. Once you roll over on one freedom, they will take them all, step by step.
And we read today that after our freedoms, the next thing they are coming for is our money, via enormous increases in CGT.
And that's just the start.
New normal? there's nothing normal about it.
Last week stamp duty was cut and a VAT holiday given ie both tax cuts, CGT is imply being reviewed that is all
Got me worried though
I would like to see CGT on residential properties, although to make it fair it would have to be based upon current valuation (which could be tricky to establish) and not be retrospective for existing homes.
From a personal point of view it would not do me any favours as I basically have much of my pension in my house (like many) which I will downsize from in time, but I don't see why I shouldn't pay tax on that gain.
Because CGT is a tax on investing. Buying and living in a home isn't an investment, it's living. More than happy for them to put CGT up to income tax rates for non-primary residences, however.
Why? There is no tax when you are living in it. You pay the tax on your gains. Why is it any different to any other investment? You don't pay the tax until to make the gain.
It would also put downward pressure on house prices so shouldn't impact moving on, but will benefit 1st time buyers. The effective payers will be those selling not to rebuy or downsizing i.e. those that have made an untaxed profit.
Again, because it's not an investment, it's a home. As I said, more than happy for CGT to be raised to income tax levels for non-primary residences. I think any party which introduces this will be out of power for a very, very long time. It's probably the single most unpopular policy I can think of.
Max I don't disagree with you that it might be unpopular, but only because people will think that it is a tax hike and tax hikes are unpopular.
But what in principle is your objection? You keep saying it is a home but not an investment. So what. If you make a large untaxed profit on it it should be taxed like everything else.
I know people who have profited to such an extent in London that it dwarf there entire lifetime income. They then downsize outside of London and take the profit entirely untaxed.
As I said because of the impact on house prices the only people effectively paying the tax will be the downsizers and those not rebuying so those who are realising a profit.
It also will help first time buyers.
Its completely unreasonable to tax people on homes they live in for one simple reason: they need somewhere to live.
And you're mathematically wrong about the only people paying the tax will be downsizers and those not rebuying, because house price changes won't dwarf the tax.
Lets say that you buy a house for £200,000 and years later it is worth £300,000 . . . you then move and get a similar house elsewhere in the country so you sell that and then buy a £300,000 house elsewhere. How much have you gained?
Under our current system we rightly recognise you have gained nothing as it is your home. Under your proposal you would face a tax liability on a supposed £100k gain despite the fact that every penny of your supposed gain went into replacing what you already had when you moved.
Rollover relief: no tax payable on sale proceeds invested in a new main residence within say 2 years.
That would be fairer but now you've eliminated most of the gains this tax would have given. Now you really are taxing downsizers, but then people will be discouraged from downsizing (why bother if the government going to take your money) which means that those who need to upsize will find it harder to do so. For ever downsizer there's an upsizer at the other end of the sale and why are you punishing them by throttling the supply of homes?
Once again the government proving it is completely useless when it comes to basic data analysis. It shouldn't need a team of scientists from one of the world's top universities to figure this stuff out. A half decent team of data analysts would be able to automate this in no time and get accurate daily readings.
I do sometimes wonder how data literate the top scientific advisors actually are. I would never have gotten on that stage and presented those graphs, I'd have been too embarrassed.
No, this sort of data can only be discovered in hindsight not real time. Its impossible to know in real time how many people have been infected since you don't know in real time how many people are infected - it takes time before people can be tested and be found to be positive.
It absolutely can be done in real time, I had a pretty lengthy meeting yesterday on the subject among other areas for improvement with the reporting.
In fact it's the kind of thing that can't be done on hindsight as it depends on antigen data, which is fleeting.
You only develop antigens in hindsight. You don't develop detectable antigens on the very day you are infected.
EDIT: Plus you have detectable antigens for more than one day, this is why the surveys have estimated R over periods of time and not in real time unique to days.
Val Demmings from swing state Florida is an outside bet
I have a few quid on her but the activists in the Democratic party are not getting quieter and her Police background might be too much of a risk for her.
Still think Harris should be a lay - I think for many Americans viewing her as a possible President, she will come across as too unlikeable plus there is her background as CA AG.
Still keen on Lujan Grisham as an outside bet given she is the lead Hispanic candidate and Biden's polling in that group is worse than Clinton's.
Duckworth has been mentioned but think that is a bit of a Andrew Cuomo moment - new name, veteran, ticks the woman of colour box but (a) doesn't bring much in terms of a state (b) her recent comments might lead some to question her temperament and (c) I'm not sure picking a Thai-American would go down well with the Black community. She was also born in Bangkok so not sure what the situation is with her eligibility to be President.
As an aside, looks like RBG is in hospital again so this could raise the stakes from a Supreme Court point of view
The Central London economy (Zone 1) is entirely reliant on office workers and tourists.
Tourism is unlikely to recover in full for some years. Office working will recover, but to a new “norm” - 2 days in / 3 days out seems likely.
We can fully expect and are already witnessing the collapse of the central London service economy - restaurants, cafes, theatres, galleries and indeed retail - and a savage scale back in public transport services, necessitated by inevitable budget crises.
*Some* economic activity will be displaced back to St Albans, Guildford etc, but most of it will migrate online in the form of Amazon and Ocado delivery. Theatres will not start putting productions on in Luton...the “creative pound” will move to Netflix.
The lamps are going out along Oxford Street, we shall not see them lit....for a long time.
This is approximately £9bn a year - but what does it look like? Is it share sales by company owners outside the exemptions? Is it hundreds of reasonably well off people with shares?
Val Demmings from swing state Florida is an outside bet
I have a few quid on her but the activists in the Democratic party are not getting quieter and her Police background might be too much of a risk for her.
Still think Harris should be a lay - I think for many Americans viewing her as a possible President, she will come across as too unlikeable plus there is her background as CA AG.
Still keen on Lujan Grisham as an outside bet given she is the lead Hispanic candidate and Biden's polling in that group is worse than Clinton's.
Duckworth has been mentioned but think that is a bit of a Andrew Cuomo moment - new name, veteran, ticks the woman of colour box but (a) doesn't bring much in terms of a state (b) her recent comments might lead some to question her temperament and (c) I'm not sure picking a Thai-American would go down well with the Black community. She was also born in Bangkok so not sure what the situation is with her eligibility to be President.
As an aside, looks like RBG is in hospital again so this could raise the stakes from a Supreme Court point of view
She's a natural born citizen, just like John McCain who was born in Panama. Her father was a US citizen so she is a natural born citizen, he was also a veteran and her families roots in America on his side go back to the American Revolution so definitely natural born!
Val Demmings from swing state Florida is an outside bet
I have a few quid on her but the activists in the Democratic party are not getting quieter and her Police background might be too much of a risk for her.
Still think Harris should be a lay - I think for many Americans viewing her as a possible President, she will come across as too unlikeable plus there is her background as CA AG.
Still keen on Lujan Grisham as an outside bet given she is the lead Hispanic candidate and Biden's polling in that group is worse than Clinton's.
Duckworth has been mentioned but think that is a bit of a Andrew Cuomo moment - new name, veteran, ticks the woman of colour box but (a) doesn't bring much in terms of a state (b) her recent comments might lead some to question her temperament and (c) I'm not sure picking a Thai-American would go down well with the Black community. She was also born in Bangkok so not sure what the situation is with her eligibility to be President.
As an aside, looks like RBG is in hospital again so this could raise the stakes from a Supreme Court point of view
She's a natural born citizen, just like John McCain who was born in Panama. Her father was a US citizen so she is a natural born citizen, he was also a veteran and her families roots in America on his side go back to the American Revolution so definitely natural born!
Ah thank you! I can never remember the full details about who is eligible or not!
If CGT is to be reformed then they also need to re-introduce a taper mechanism. That rewards long term investment versus speculation and can compensate for inflation.
USA Dem Veep betting. The header looks to have been written a couple of days ago, or at least the graph stops then. As reported on the previous thread, there has been an overnight movement for Karen Bass. Kamala Harris, though still a strong favourite, has been drifting for days now though she, along with Rice and Demings, have been backed since this thread went up.
Once again the government proving it is completely useless when it comes to basic data analysis. It shouldn't need a team of scientists from one of the world's top universities to figure this stuff out. A half decent team of data analysts would be able to automate this in no time and get accurate daily readings.
I do sometimes wonder how data literate the top scientific advisors actually are. I would never have gotten on that stage and presented those graphs, I'd have been too embarrassed.
No, this sort of data can only be discovered in hindsight not real time. Its impossible to know in real time how many people have been infected since you don't know in real time how many people are infected - it takes time before people can be tested and be found to be positive.
It absolutely can be done in real time, I had a pretty lengthy meeting yesterday on the subject among other areas for improvement with the reporting.
In fact it's the kind of thing that can't be done on hindsight as it depends on antigen data, which is fleeting.
You only develop antigens in hindsight. You don't develop detectable antigens on the very day you are infected.
EDIT: Plus you have detectable antigens for more than one day, this is why the surveys have estimated R over periods of time and not in real time unique to days.
R is the direction of travel, what you need to know is how many people have it today and how many people had it yesterday and so on. That data is available in real time by specimen date, complete data for a single day takes around three days to fil in, so the government should have a very accurate picture of what the national and local R is three days after event day. This study was conducted using the same data that the inaccurate value came from. It's not a data issue, it's an analyst issue.
I know it's definitely possible because we do it in our own work dashboard every morning using data we scrape from the official beta dashboard. The PHE guys seemed amazed that such a thing was possible. They have all of the building blocks when they explained what they do, just no high level analyst to stick it all into an automated function which spits out a number.
Once again the government proving it is completely useless when it comes to basic data analysis. It shouldn't need a team of scientists from one of the world's top universities to figure this stuff out. A half decent team of data analysts would be able to automate this in no time and get accurate daily readings.
I do sometimes wonder how data literate the top scientific advisors actually are. I would never have gotten on that stage and presented those graphs, I'd have been too embarrassed.
No, this sort of data can only be discovered in hindsight not real time. Its impossible to know in real time how many people have been infected since you don't know in real time how many people are infected - it takes time before people can be tested and be found to be positive.
And even then there are large uncertainties, as only a proportion of those infected are found and tested. Add to the the constantly changing nature of social mixing, as government policies cycle in and out, and people modify their behaviour in reponse to reported infection rates, and it's very difficult to make consistent estimates of those numbers.
I think @MaxPB is making the mistake of concentrating on the data analysis, which is the simple bit - I'm an epidemiologist and the vast majority of my time is spent collating, managing, quality controlling and stress testing the data, particularly working out what is missing, what is likely wrong and what the impacts of that are (and what other sources can be used to validate any of that) and defining, questioning and testing the assumptions underlying the process. The actual analysis, whether modelling or summarising, is a pretty trivial part of the overall process.
It's the old fallacy of thinking that if you know a little bit about something then you know a lot, while in fact as you learn more about something, you realise the extent of what you don't know. I'm probably closer in profession to the infectious disease epidemiologists than @MaxPB is and I'm more aware of the vast array of things I don't know about infectious disease modelling. I could throw together a SIR model of coronavirus in the UK in a couple of days given the data, but I know enough of my limitations of knowledge in that field to know that my assumptions would likely be pretty poor and the resulting predictions poor also.
He/she is however right to question how "data literate the top scientific advisors actually are" - probably not very, in many cases. That doesn't matter that much if they have good data crunchers working for them and good two-way communication with them.
I was told just yesterday by people on here that face masks in shops was nothing to worry about,.
just a minor inconvenience,
a tiny sacrifice,
honestly what is your problem,
by people who think they are intelligent.
But the thing is that once you give authoritarians an inch, they will take a mile. Once you roll over on one freedom, they will take them all, step by step.
And we read today that after our freedoms, the next thing they are coming for is our money, via enormous increases in CGT.
And that's just the start.
New normal? there's nothing normal about it.
Last week stamp duty was cut and a VAT holiday given ie both tax cuts, CGT is imply being reviewed that is all
Got me worried though
I would like to see CGT on residential properties, although to make it fair it would have to be based upon current valuation (which could be tricky to establish) and not be retrospective for existing homes.
From a personal point of view it would not do me any favours as I basically have much of my pension in my house (like many) which I will downsize from in time, but I don't see why I shouldn't pay tax on that gain.
Because CGT is a tax on investing. Buying and living in a home isn't an investment, it's living. More than happy for them to put CGT up to income tax rates for non-primary residences, however.
Why? There is no tax when you are living in it. You pay the tax on your gains. Why is it any different to any other investment? You don't pay the tax until to make the gain.
It would also put downward pressure on house prices so shouldn't impact moving on, but will benefit 1st time buyers. The effective payers will be those selling not to rebuy or downsizing i.e. those that have made an untaxed profit.
Again, because it's not an investment, it's a home. As I said, more than happy for CGT to be raised to income tax levels for non-primary residences. I think any party which introduces this will be out of power for a very, very long time. It's probably the single most unpopular policy I can think of.
Max I don't disagree with you that it might be unpopular, but only because people will think that it is a tax hike and tax hikes are unpopular.
But what in principle is your objection? You keep saying it is a home but not an investment. So what. If you make a large untaxed profit on it it should be taxed like everything else.
I know people who have profited to such an extent in London that it dwarf there entire lifetime income. They then downsize outside of London and take the profit entirely untaxed.
As I said because of the impact on house prices the only people effectively paying the tax will be the downsizers and those not rebuying so those who are realising a profit.
It also will help first time buyers.
Its completely unreasonable to tax people on homes they live in for one simple reason: they need somewhere to live.
And you're mathematically wrong about the only people paying the tax will be downsizers and those not rebuying, because house price changes won't dwarf the tax.
Lets say that you buy a house for £200,000 and years later it is worth £300,000 . . . you then move and get a similar house elsewhere in the country so you sell that and then buy a £300,000 house elsewhere. How much have you gained?
Under our current system we rightly recognise you have gained nothing as it is your home. Under your proposal you would face a tax liability on a supposed £100k gain despite the fact that every penny of your supposed gain went into replacing what you already had when you moved.
You could use the same argument against paying stamp duty.
I don't like Stamp Duty as a tax in general but it is a relatively small percentage of the cost of the home. CGT on residential property can be as high as 28%.
Losing 28% of the mythical "gains" in your home when you move and then being expected to pay stamp duty on top will simply ensure people never move home which is not good for either the economy or the housing market or those who need to move home.
Stamp duty is a ridiculous tax, which distorts the housing market and discourages mobility. Far better to have a low tax (eg <0.5%) on all wealth including primary residences, with the option of payment on death or on the sale of the primary residence for the elderly or those below a certain income threshold. CGT on primary residence would make sense but politically is probably a non-starter. The right to earn vast sums from the lottery ticket of house price appreciation has become too ingrained.
I was told just yesterday by people on here that face masks in shops was nothing to worry about,.
just a minor inconvenience,
a tiny sacrifice,
honestly what is your problem,
by people who think they are intelligent.
But the thing is that once you give authoritarians an inch, they will take a mile. Once you roll over on one freedom, they will take them all, step by step.
And we read today that after our freedoms, the next thing they are coming for is our money, via enormous increases in CGT.
And that's just the start.
New normal? there's nothing normal about it.
Last week stamp duty was cut and a VAT holiday given ie both tax cuts, CGT is imply being reviewed that is all
Got me worried though
I would like to see CGT on residential properties, although to make it fair it would have to be based upon current valuation (which could be tricky to establish) and not be retrospective for existing homes.
From a personal point of view it would not do me any favours as I basically have much of my pension in my house (like many) which I will downsize from in time, but I don't see why I shouldn't pay tax on that gain.
Because CGT is a tax on investing. Buying and living in a home isn't an investment, it's living. More than happy for them to put CGT up to income tax rates for non-primary residences, however.
Why? There is no tax when you are living in it. You pay the tax on your gains. Why is it any different to any other investment? You don't pay the tax until to make the gain.
It would also put downward pressure on house prices so shouldn't impact moving on, but will benefit 1st time buyers. The effective payers will be those selling not to rebuy or downsizing i.e. those that have made an untaxed profit.
Again, because it's not an investment, it's a home. As I said, more than happy for CGT to be raised to income tax levels for non-primary residences. I think any party which introduces this will be out of power for a very, very long time. It's probably the single most unpopular policy I can think of.
Max I don't disagree with you that it might be unpopular, but only because people will think that it is a tax hike and tax hikes are unpopular.
But what in principle is your objection? You keep saying it is a home but not an investment. So what. If you make a large untaxed profit on it it should be taxed like everything else.
I know people who have profited to such an extent in London that it dwarf there entire lifetime income. They then downsize outside of London and take the profit entirely untaxed.
As I said because of the impact on house prices the only people effectively paying the tax will be the downsizers and those not rebuying so those who are realising a profit.
It also will help first time buyers.
Its completely unreasonable to tax people on homes they live in for one simple reason: they need somewhere to live.
And you're mathematically wrong about the only people paying the tax will be downsizers and those not rebuying, because house price changes won't dwarf the tax.
Lets say that you buy a house for £200,000 and years later it is worth £300,000 . . . you then move and get a similar house elsewhere in the country so you sell that and then buy a £300,000 house elsewhere. How much have you gained?
Under our current system we rightly recognise you have gained nothing as it is your home. Under your proposal you would face a tax liability on a supposed £100k gain despite the fact that every penny of your supposed gain went into replacing what you already had when you moved.
Hi Philip,
Not mathematically wrong, although I agree with the point you are making (sounds like a contradiction I know) as it is effectively a cash flow issue. At that point in time you will be out of pocket because you have moved to the equivalent house and had to pay the tax (which is why it should have a downward pressure on house prices overall) so you now have to find the equivalent amount of the tax just to stand still when you buy your new house (same problem with stamp duty on the new house) but you will have benefited from lower house prices in the first place due to the impact of the tax. This is why I said in the very first post that if this is brought in (it won't be for all the reasons you guys have been saying) the calculation of the gain must be made on the valuation now (or subsequent purchase price) as it wouldn't be fair on current owners re any drop in value due to the CGT.
I do accept that this is a bridge too far for Conservatives. It is in my mind bizarre however. In my case I am likely to make an untaxed profit of getting on for £1m over a relatively short time for doing absolutely nothing for it.
Someone who is significantly poorer than me who rents gets none of that benefit.
I was told just yesterday by people on here that face masks in shops was nothing to worry about,.
just a minor inconvenience,
a tiny sacrifice,
honestly what is your problem,
by people who think they are intelligent.
But the thing is that once you give authoritarians an inch, they will take a mile. Once you roll over on one freedom, they will take them all, step by step.
And we read today that after our freedoms, the next thing they are coming for is our money, via enormous increases in CGT.
And that's just the start.
New normal? there's nothing normal about it.
Last week stamp duty was cut and a VAT holiday given ie both tax cuts, CGT is imply being reviewed that is all
Got me worried though
I would like to see CGT on residential properties, although to make it fair it would have to be based upon current valuation (which could be tricky to establish) and not be retrospective for existing homes.
From a personal point of view it would not do me any favours as I basically have much of my pension in my house (like many) which I will downsize from in time, but I don't see why I shouldn't pay tax on that gain.
Because CGT is a tax on investing. Buying and living in a home isn't an investment, it's living. More than happy for them to put CGT up to income tax rates for non-primary residences, however.
Why? There is no tax when you are living in it. You pay the tax on your gains. Why is it any different to any other investment? You don't pay the tax until to make the gain.
It would also put downward pressure on house prices so shouldn't impact moving on, but will benefit 1st time buyers. The effective payers will be those selling not to rebuy or downsizing i.e. those that have made an untaxed profit.
Again, because it's not an investment, it's a home. As I said, more than happy for CGT to be raised to income tax levels for non-primary residences. I think any party which introduces this will be out of power for a very, very long time. It's probably the single most unpopular policy I can think of.
Max I don't disagree with you that it might be unpopular, but only because people will think that it is a tax hike and tax hikes are unpopular.
But what in principle is your objection? You keep saying it is a home but not an investment. So what. If you make a large untaxed profit on it it should be taxed like everything else.
I know people who have profited to such an extent in London that it dwarf there entire lifetime income. They then downsize outside of London and take the profit entirely untaxed.
As I said because of the impact on house prices the only people effectively paying the tax will be the downsizers and those not rebuying so those who are realising a profit.
It also will help first time buyers.
Its completely unreasonable to tax people on homes they live in for one simple reason: they need somewhere to live.
And you're mathematically wrong about the only people paying the tax will be downsizers and those not rebuying, because house price changes won't dwarf the tax.
Lets say that you buy a house for £200,000 and years later it is worth £300,000 . . . you then move and get a similar house elsewhere in the country so you sell that and then buy a £300,000 house elsewhere. How much have you gained?
Under our current system we rightly recognise you have gained nothing as it is your home. Under your proposal you would face a tax liability on a supposed £100k gain despite the fact that every penny of your supposed gain went into replacing what you already had when you moved.
You could use the same argument against paying stamp duty.
I don't like Stamp Duty as a tax in general but it is a relatively small percentage of the cost of the home. CGT on residential property can be as high as 28%.
Losing 28% of the mythical "gains" in your home when you move and then being expected to pay stamp duty on top will simply ensure people never move home which is not good for either the economy or the housing market or those who need to move home.
Stamp duty is a ridiculous tax, which distorts the housing market and discourages mobility. Far better to have a low tax (eg <0.5%) on all wealth including primary residences, with the option of payment on death or on the sale of the primary residence for the elderly or those below a certain income threshold. CGT on primary residence would make sense but politically is probably a non-starter. The right to earn vast sums from the lottery ticket of house price appreciation has become too ingrained.</p>
If either main party introduces CGT on main residences, then the other can just take a holiday until the next election, secure in the knowledge that they'll have already won it...
CGT on main residence with rollover is a good idea. CGT should have taper for all asset classes. If there is to be wealth tax then it must cover everything including pensions and primary residence with public sector pensions properly priced. A specific land tax has a respectable intellectual pedigree though.
The Central London economy (Zone 1) is entirely reliant on office workers and tourists.
Tourism is unlikely to recover in full for some years. Office working will recover, but to a new “norm” - 2 days in / 3 days out seems likely.
We can fully expect and are already witnessing the collapse of the central London service economy - restaurants, cafes, theatres, galleries and indeed retail - and a savage scale back in public transport services, necessitated by inevitable budget crises.
*Some* economic activity will be displaced back to St Albans, Guildford etc, but most of it will migrate online in the form of Amazon and Ocado delivery. Theatres will not start putting productions on in Luton...the “creative pound” will move to Netflix.
The lamps are going out along Oxford Street, we shall not see them lit....for a long time.
The fear is not that economic activity will be displaced to St Albans or to (lightly taxed, mainly American companies) online but that it will disappear completely if no-one will visit London's theatres, galleries or Michelin-starred restaurants.
I was told just yesterday by people on here that face masks in shops was nothing to worry about,.
just a minor inconvenience,
a tiny sacrifice,
honestly what is your problem,
by people who think they are intelligent.
But the thing is that once you give authoritarians an inch, they will take a mile. Once you roll over on one freedom, they will take them all, step by step.
And we read today that after our freedoms, the next thing they are coming for is our money, via enormous increases in CGT.
And that's just the start.
New normal? there's nothing normal about it.
Last week stamp duty was cut and a VAT holiday given ie both tax cuts, CGT is imply being reviewed that is all
Got me worried though
I would like to see CGT on residential properties, although to make it fair it would have to be based upon current valuation (which could be tricky to establish) and not be retrospective for existing homes.
From a personal point of view it would not do me any favours as I basically have much of my pension in my house (like many) which I will downsize from in time, but I don't see why I shouldn't pay tax on that gain.
Because CGT is a tax on investing. Buying and living in a home isn't an investment, it's living. More than happy for them to put CGT up to income tax rates for non-primary residences, however.
Why? There is no tax when you are living in it. You pay the tax on your gains. Why is it any different to any other investment? You don't pay the tax until to make the gain.
It would also put downward pressure on house prices so shouldn't impact moving on, but will benefit 1st time buyers. The effective payers will be those selling not to rebuy or downsizing i.e. those that have made an untaxed profit.
Again, because it's not an investment, it's a home. As I said, more than happy for CGT to be raised to income tax levels for non-primary residences. I think any party which introduces this will be out of power for a very, very long time. It's probably the single most unpopular policy I can think of.
Max I don't disagree with you that it might be unpopular, but only because people will think that it is a tax hike and tax hikes are unpopular.
But what in principle is your objection? You keep saying it is a home but not an investment. So what. If you make a large untaxed profit on it it should be taxed like everything else.
I know people who have profited to such an extent in London that it dwarf there entire lifetime income. They then downsize outside of London and take the profit entirely untaxed.
As I said because of the impact on house prices the only people effectively paying the tax will be the downsizers and those not rebuying so those who are realising a profit.
It also will help first time buyers.
Its completely unreasonable to tax people on homes they live in for one simple reason: they need somewhere to live.
And you're mathematically wrong about the only people paying the tax will be downsizers and those not rebuying, because house price changes won't dwarf the tax.
Lets say that you buy a house for £200,000 and years later it is worth £300,000 . . . you then move and get a similar house elsewhere in the country so you sell that and then buy a £300,000 house elsewhere. How much have you gained?
Under our current system we rightly recognise you have gained nothing as it is your home. Under your proposal you would face a tax liability on a supposed £100k gain despite the fact that every penny of your supposed gain went into replacing what you already had when you moved.
Hi Philip,
Not mathematically wrong, although I agree with the point you are making (sounds like a contradiction I know) as it is effectively a cash flow issue. At that point in time you will be out of pocket because you have moved to the equivalent house and had to pay the tax (which is why it should have a downward pressure on house prices overall) so you now have to find the equivalent amount of the tax just to stand still when you buy your new house (same problem with stamp duty on the new house) but you will have benefited from lower house prices in the first place due to the impact of the tax. This is why I said in the very first post that if this is brought in (it won't be for all the reasons you guys have been saying) the calculation of the gain must be made on the valuation now (or subsequent purchase price) as it wouldn't be fair on current owners re any drop in value due to the CGT.
I do accept that this is a bridge too far for Conservatives. It is in my mind bizarre however. In my case I am likely to make an untaxed profit of getting on for £1m over a relatively short time for doing absolutely nothing for it.
Someone who is significantly poorer than me who rents gets none of that benefit.
You know it's being mentioned now so that the land value tax that will appear instead looks reasonable...
I was told just yesterday by people on here that face masks in shops was nothing to worry about,.
just a minor inconvenience,
a tiny sacrifice,
honestly what is your problem,
by people who think they are intelligent.
But the thing is that once you give authoritarians an inch, they will take a mile. Once you roll over on one freedom, they will take them all, step by step.
And we read today that after our freedoms, the next thing they are coming for is our money, via enormous increases in CGT.
And that's just the start.
New normal? there's nothing normal about it.
Last week stamp duty was cut and a VAT holiday given ie both tax cuts, CGT is imply being reviewed that is all
Got me worried though
I would like to see CGT on residential properties, although to make it fair it would have to be based upon current valuation (which could be tricky to establish) and not be retrospective for existing homes.
From a personal point of view it would not do me any favours as I basically have much of my pension in my house (like many) which I will downsize from in time, but I don't see why I shouldn't pay tax on that gain.
Because CGT is a tax on investing. Buying and living in a home isn't an investment, it's living. More than happy for them to put CGT up to income tax rates for non-primary residences, however.
Why? There is no tax when you are living in it. You pay the tax on your gains. Why is it any different to any other investment? You don't pay the tax until to make the gain.
It would also put downward pressure on house prices so shouldn't impact moving on, but will benefit 1st time buyers. The effective payers will be those selling not to rebuy or downsizing i.e. those that have made an untaxed profit.
Again, because it's not an investment, it's a home. As I said, more than happy for CGT to be raised to income tax levels for non-primary residences. I think any party which introduces this will be out of power for a very, very long time. It's probably the single most unpopular policy I can think of.
Max I don't disagree with you that it might be unpopular, but only because people will think that it is a tax hike and tax hikes are unpopular.
But what in principle is your objection? You keep saying it is a home but not an investment. So what. If you make a large untaxed profit on it it should be taxed like everything else.
I know people who have profited to such an extent in London that it dwarf there entire lifetime income. They then downsize outside of London and take the profit entirely untaxed.
As I said because of the impact on house prices the only people effectively paying the tax will be the downsizers and those not rebuying so those who are realising a profit.
It also will help first time buyers.
Its completely unreasonable to tax people on homes they live in for one simple reason: they need somewhere to live.
And you're mathematically wrong about the only people paying the tax will be downsizers and those not rebuying, because house price changes won't dwarf the tax.
Lets say that you buy a house for £200,000 and years later it is worth £300,000 . . . you then move and get a similar house elsewhere in the country so you sell that and then buy a £300,000 house elsewhere. How much have you gained?
Under our current system we rightly recognise you have gained nothing as it is your home. Under your proposal you would face a tax liability on a supposed £100k gain despite the fact that every penny of your supposed gain went into replacing what you already had when you moved.
Hi Philip,
Not mathematically wrong, although I agree with the point you are making (sounds like a contradiction I know) as it is effectively a cash flow issue. At that point in time you will be out of pocket because you have moved to the equivalent house and had to pay the tax (which is why it should have a downward pressure on house prices overall) so you now have to find the equivalent amount of the tax just to stand still when you buy your new house (same problem with stamp duty on the new house) but you will have benefited from lower house prices in the first place due to the impact of the tax. This is why I said in the very first post that if this is brought in (it won't be for all the reasons you guys have been saying) the calculation of the gain must be made on the valuation now (or subsequent purchase price) as it wouldn't be fair on current owners re any drop in value due to the CGT.
I do accept that this is a bridge too far for Conservatives. It is in my mind bizarre however. In my case I am likely to make an untaxed profit of getting on for £1m over a relatively short time for doing absolutely nothing for it.
Someone who is significantly poorer than me who rents gets none of that benefit.
Shall we make a deal? We agree not to criticize your peculiar personal need to flagellate yourself for your good fortune and you agree not to take our money - whaddya say?
I was told just yesterday by people on here that face masks in shops was nothing to worry about,.
just a minor inconvenience,
a tiny sacrifice,
honestly what is your problem,
by people who think they are intelligent.
But the thing is that once you give authoritarians an inch, they will take a mile. Once you roll over on one freedom, they will take them all, step by step.
And we read today that after our freedoms, the next thing they are coming for is our money, via enormous increases in CGT.
And that's just the start.
New normal? there's nothing normal about it.
Last week stamp duty was cut and a VAT holiday given ie both tax cuts, CGT is imply being reviewed that is all
Got me worried though
I would like to see CGT on residential properties, although to make it fair it would have to be based upon current valuation (which could be tricky to establish) and not be retrospective for existing homes.
From a personal point of view it would not do me any favours as I basically have much of my pension in my house (like many) which I will downsize from in time, but I don't see why I shouldn't pay tax on that gain.
Because CGT is a tax on investing. Buying and living in a home isn't an investment, it's living. More than happy for them to put CGT up to income tax rates for non-primary residences, however.
Why? There is no tax when you are living in it. You pay the tax on your gains. Why is it any different to any other investment? You don't pay the tax until to make the gain.
It would also put downward pressure on house prices so shouldn't impact moving on, but will benefit 1st time buyers. The effective payers will be those selling not to rebuy or downsizing i.e. those that have made an untaxed profit.
Again, because it's not an investment, it's a home. As I said, more than happy for CGT to be raised to income tax levels for non-primary residences. I think any party which introduces this will be out of power for a very, very long time. It's probably the single most unpopular policy I can think of.
Max I don't disagree with you that it might be unpopular, but only because people will think that it is a tax hike and tax hikes are unpopular.
But what in principle is your objection? You keep saying it is a home but not an investment. So what. If you make a large untaxed profit on it it should be taxed like everything else.
I know people who have profited to such an extent in London that it dwarf there entire lifetime income. They then downsize outside of London and take the profit entirely untaxed.
As I said because of the impact on house prices the only people effectively paying the tax will be the downsizers and those not rebuying so those who are realising a profit.
It also will help first time buyers.
Its completely unreasonable to tax people on homes they live in for one simple reason: they need somewhere to live.
And you're mathematically wrong about the only people paying the tax will be downsizers and those not rebuying, because house price changes won't dwarf the tax.
Lets say that you buy a house for £200,000 and years later it is worth £300,000 . . . you then move and get a similar house elsewhere in the country so you sell that and then buy a £300,000 house elsewhere. How much have you gained?
Under our current system we rightly recognise you have gained nothing as it is your home. Under your proposal you would face a tax liability on a supposed £100k gain despite the fact that every penny of your supposed gain went into replacing what you already had when you moved.
Hi Philip,
Not mathematically wrong, although I agree with the point you are making (sounds like a contradiction I know) as it is effectively a cash flow issue. At that point in time you will be out of pocket because you have moved to the equivalent house and had to pay the tax (which is why it should have a downward pressure on house prices overall) so you now have to find the equivalent amount of the tax just to stand still when you buy your new house (same problem with stamp duty on the new house) but you will have benefited from lower house prices in the first place due to the impact of the tax. This is why I said in the very first post that if this is brought in (it won't be for all the reasons you guys have been saying) the calculation of the gain must be made on the valuation now (or subsequent purchase price) as it wouldn't be fair on current owners re any drop in value due to the CGT.
I do accept that this is a bridge too far for Conservatives. It is in my mind bizarre however. In my case I am likely to make an untaxed profit of getting on for £1m over a relatively short time for doing absolutely nothing for it.
Someone who is significantly poorer than me who rents gets none of that benefit.
You won't have benefited from lower house prices overall since the impact on house prices by the tax will be tiny compared to the change in house prices overall. Plus since CGT is charged on net gain, currently you're not paying a penny but in your scenario you are paying a percentage of your net gain regardless.
You are not making a profit on anything in your home as you need somewhere to live. If you don't move your home is still required for you so is not a real gain. If you do move, you will need somewhere else to live so still not a real gain. Only if you downsize are you making a gain - but stomping down on downsizing will put upward pressure on the housing market since demand will still be there but less supply.
1. They really should have been introduced with the lockdown. Presumably the government was concerned about the lack of PPE for the NHS and care workers (assuming they really thought about the latter at all) at the time. 2. If they had been we would accept that this was a sensible part of infection control and it would have seemed normal to use them as the range of shops and services expanded again. 3. Because they weren't, and because the connection between shops opening and masks having to be worn wasn't made, the utility of masks has become an issue in a way that it otherwise wouldn't. 4. That utility is a genuine issue. Almost none of us are trained to use masks properly, we touch them all the time, we fiddle about with them, we constantly steam up our glasses (more touching) and it is very questionable how much such badly used masks prevent infection spreading. I think it is evident that the protection given to the user him or her self is approaching zero. 5. I think those asking what the fuss is about are underestimating the psychological effects as well. We are trying to get our badly damaged economy back to something like normal in a time of relatively low infection in the community. Masks don't add normality, they make people very conscious that being out is not an entertainment but a risk. People will still go shopping when they need to. They may not go because they want something to do. 6. At a time when we are deeply concerned about our bounce back ability this is a significant problem. If we can't go to the shops without a mask should our kids really be going to school, should we go out for a meal, a pint, a coffee, back to the office?
If we had followed steps 1 and 2 then the impact would have been less and we might have accepted a trade off between 2m and masks. Now, I am not sure. I think we have made things more difficult for ourselves.
Once again the government proving it is completely useless when it comes to basic data analysis. It shouldn't need a team of scientists from one of the world's top universities to figure this stuff out. A half decent team of data analysts would be able to automate this in no time and get accurate daily readings.
I do sometimes wonder how data literate the top scientific advisors actually are. I would never have gotten on that stage and presented those graphs, I'd have been too embarrassed.
No, this sort of data can only be discovered in hindsight not real time. Its impossible to know in real time how many people have been infected since you don't know in real time how many people are infected - it takes time before people can be tested and be found to be positive.
And even then there are large uncertainties, as only a proportion of those infected are found and tested. Add to the the constantly changing nature of social mixing, as government policies cycle in and out, and people modify their behaviour in reponse to reported infection rates, and it's very difficult to make consistent estimates of those numbers.
I think @MaxPB is making the mistake of concentrating on the data analysis, which is the simple bit - I'm an epidemiologist and the vast majority of my time is spent collating, managing, quality controlling and stress testing the data, particularly working out what is missing, what is likely wrong and what the impacts of that are (and what other sources can be used to validate any of that) and defining, questioning and testing the assumptions underlying the process. The actual analysis, whether modelling or summarising, is a pretty trivial part of the overall process.
It's the old fallacy of thinking that if you know a little bit about something then you know a lot, while in fact as you learn more about something, you realise the extent of what you don't know. I'm probably closer in profession to the infectious disease epidemiologists than @MaxPB is and I'm more aware of the vast array of things I don't know about infectious disease modelling. I could throw together a SIR model of coronavirus in the UK in a couple of days given the data, but I know enough of my limitations of knowledge in that field to know that my assumptions would likely be pretty poor and the resulting predictions poor also.
He/she is however right to question how "data literate the top scientific advisors actually are" - probably not very, in many cases. That doesn't matter that much if they have good data crunchers working for them and good two-way communication with them.
Yes, the role of the CMOs and CSAs is not to be experts but to liaise between politicians and experts and interpret research. Trouble is, Dominic Cummings sought to usurp that role for himself and cast the CMOs and CSAs as experts, so now we have layer upon layer of misunderstanding.
Why? The logic as to why masks for offices have been rejected (that you're sat down and regularly working with the same people) is completely different to shops.
Perhaps someone should tell the NHS that! My other half, who works for the NHS, but in an office environment with no patient contact and little contact with clinical staff, has had to wear a mask for the last couple of weeks. She and her colleagues weren't very happy about it to begin with, but they seem to have got used to wearing them in the meantime.
Employers have always been permitted to enforce their own uniform rules and if the NHS as an employer wants to mandate masks - or any other employer - then that is fair enough.
For the NHS's case it makes some sense too. Little contact with clinical staff is not no contact with clinical staff, so if a clinical staff member with the disease infects your wife . . . who then goes on to infect other clinical staff . . . I can see why the NHS wants to prevent that.
It was a government announcement not an NHS Trust one. Indeed until June my Trust banned PPE including masks from office areas! The logic was to force people to remove it when leaving a clinical area, and not to contaminate admin areas. The weeks notice on masks becoming compulsory in administration areas came from a govt press conference, and a complete surprise.
I was told just yesterday by people on here that face masks in shops was nothing to worry about,.
just a minor inconvenience,
a tiny sacrifice,
honestly what is your problem,
by people who think they are intelligent.
But the thing is that once you give authoritarians an inch, they will take a mile. Once you roll over on one freedom, they will take them all, step by step.
And we read today that after our freedoms, the next thing they are coming for is our money, via enormous increases in CGT.
And that's just the start.
New normal? there's nothing normal about it.
Last week stamp duty was cut and a VAT holiday given ie both tax cuts, CGT is imply being reviewed that is all
Got me worried though
I would like to see CGT on residential properties, although to make it fair it would have to be based upon current valuation (which could be tricky to establish) and not be retrospective for existing homes.
From a personal point of view it would not do me any favours as I basically have much of my pension in my house (like many) which I will downsize from in time, but I don't see why I shouldn't pay tax on that gain.
Because CGT is a tax on investing. Buying and living in a home isn't an investment, it's living. More than happy for them to put CGT up to income tax rates for non-primary residences, however.
Why? There is no tax when you are living in it. You pay the tax on your gains. Why is it any different to any other investment? You don't pay the tax until to make the gain.
It would also put downward pressure on house prices so shouldn't impact moving on, but will benefit 1st time buyers. The effective payers will be those selling not to rebuy or downsizing i.e. those that have made an untaxed profit.
Again, because it's not an investment, it's a home. As I said, more than happy for CGT to be raised to income tax levels for non-primary residences. I think any party which introduces this will be out of power for a very, very long time. It's probably the single most unpopular policy I can think of.
Max I don't disagree with you that it might be unpopular, but only because people will think that it is a tax hike and tax hikes are unpopular.
But what in principle is your objection? You keep saying it is a home but not an investment. So what. If you make a large untaxed profit on it it should be taxed like everything else.
I know people who have profited to such an extent in London that it dwarf there entire lifetime income. They then downsize outside of London and take the profit entirely untaxed.
As I said because of the impact on house prices the only people effectively paying the tax will be the downsizers and those not rebuying so those who are realising a profit.
It also will help first time buyers.
Its completely unreasonable to tax people on homes they live in for one simple reason: they need somewhere to live.
And you're mathematically wrong about the only people paying the tax will be downsizers and those not rebuying, because house price changes won't dwarf the tax.
Lets say that you buy a house for £200,000 and years later it is worth £300,000 . . . you then move and get a similar house elsewhere in the country so you sell that and then buy a £300,000 house elsewhere. How much have you gained?
Under our current system we rightly recognise you have gained nothing as it is your home. Under your proposal you would face a tax liability on a supposed £100k gain despite the fact that every penny of your supposed gain went into replacing what you already had when you moved.
Hi Philip,
Not mathematically wrong, although I agree with the point you are making (sounds like a contradiction I know) as it is effectively a cash flow issue. At that point in time you will be out of pocket because you have moved to the equivalent house and had to pay the tax (which is why it should have a downward pressure on house prices overall) so you now have to find the equivalent amount of the tax just to stand still when you buy your new house (same problem with stamp duty on the new house) but you will have benefited from lower house prices in the first place due to the impact of the tax. This is why I said in the very first post that if this is brought in (it won't be for all the reasons you guys have been saying) the calculation of the gain must be made on the valuation now (or subsequent purchase price) as it wouldn't be fair on current owners re any drop in value due to the CGT.
I do accept that this is a bridge too far for Conservatives. It is in my mind bizarre however. In my case I am likely to make an untaxed profit of getting on for £1m over a relatively short time for doing absolutely nothing for it.
Someone who is significantly poorer than me who rents gets none of that benefit.
Shall we make a deal? We agree not to criticize your peculiar personal need to flagellate yourself for your good fortune and you agree not to take our money - whaddya say?
I don't want or need your money. Sadly some in society do need my and your money.
I am not in favour of taxes for the sake of them. I prefer them to be as low as is reasonable. They are there for a reason and should be as fair as possible.
The Central London economy (Zone 1) is entirely reliant on office workers and tourists.
Tourism is unlikely to recover in full for some years. Office working will recover, but to a new “norm” - 2 days in / 3 days out seems likely.
We can fully expect and are already witnessing the collapse of the central London service economy - restaurants, cafes, theatres, galleries and indeed retail - and a savage scale back in public transport services, necessitated by inevitable budget crises.
*Some* economic activity will be displaced back to St Albans, Guildford etc, but most of it will migrate online in the form of Amazon and Ocado delivery. Theatres will not start putting productions on in Luton...the “creative pound” will move to Netflix.
The lamps are going out along Oxford Street, we shall not see them lit....for a long time.
The fear is not that economic activity will be displaced to St Albans or to (lightly taxed, mainly American companies) online but that it will disappear completely if no-one will visit London's theatres, galleries or Michelin-starred restaurants.
The typical visitor to a London theatre show isn't an office worker - it's a visitor making a special trip to see a show (or 3 depending on the distance travelled).
Once again the government proving it is completely useless when it comes to basic data analysis. It shouldn't need a team of scientists from one of the world's top universities to figure this stuff out. A half decent team of data analysts would be able to automate this in no time and get accurate daily readings.
I do sometimes wonder how data literate the top scientific advisors actually are. I would never have gotten on that stage and presented those graphs, I'd have been too embarrassed.
No, this sort of data can only be discovered in hindsight not real time. Its impossible to know in real time how many people have been infected since you don't know in real time how many people are infected - it takes time before people can be tested and be found to be positive.
And even then there are large uncertainties, as only a proportion of those infected are found and tested. Add to the the constantly changing nature of social mixing, as government policies cycle in and out, and people modify their behaviour in reponse to reported infection rates, and it's very difficult to make consistent estimates of those numbers.
I think @MaxPB is making the mistake of concentrating on the data analysis, which is the simple bit - I'm an epidemiologist and the vast majority of my time is spent collating, managing, quality controlling and stress testing the data, particularly working out what is missing, what is likely wrong and what the impacts of that are (and what other sources can be used to validate any of that) and defining, questioning and testing the assumptions underlying the process. The actual analysis, whether modelling or summarising, is a pretty trivial part of the overall process.
It's the old fallacy of thinking that if you know a little bit about something then you know a lot, while in fact as you learn more about something, you realise the extent of what you don't know. I'm probably closer in profession to the infectious disease epidemiologists than @MaxPB is and I'm more aware of the vast array of things I don't know about infectious disease modelling. I could throw together a SIR model of coronavirus in the UK in a couple of days given the data, but I know enough of my limitations of knowledge in that field to know that my assumptions would likely be pretty poor and the resulting predictions poor also.
He/she is however right to question how "data literate the top scientific advisors actually are" - probably not very, in many cases. That doesn't matter that much if they have good data crunchers working for them and good two-way communication with them.
That's not what I'm talking about though, I'm specifically talking about how they're wrongly calculating the R from the data thy do have. You can't historically calculate an R value with new data, those people who had the infection in May don't have it any more so the only way to do it is using the same data as you had at the time just better. What I'm saying is that it shouldn't need a team from Imperial to do that better calculation. It is absolutely possible to calculate national and local R using the available data for England and after speaking to them the level of detail they have is well beyond what they release publicly.
It's my experience of speaking to the people who put the data together that has made me realise just how far behind government data literacy is compared to banking and tech.
CGT on main residence with rollover is a good idea. CGT should have taper for all asset classes. If there is to be wealth tax then it must cover everything including pensions and primary residence with public sector pensions properly priced ....
How to lose the votes of almost everyone in three short sentences.
I was told just yesterday by people on here that face masks in shops was nothing to worry about,.
just a minor inconvenience,
a tiny sacrifice,
honestly what is your problem,
by people who think they are intelligent.
But the thing is that once you give authoritarians an inch, they will take a mile. Once you roll over on one freedom, they will take them all, step by step.
And we read today that after our freedoms, the next thing they are coming for is our money, via enormous increases in CGT.
And that's just the start.
New normal? there's nothing normal about it.
Last week stamp duty was cut and a VAT holiday given ie both tax cuts, CGT is imply being reviewed that is all
Got me worried though
I would like to see CGT on residential properties, although to make it fair it would have to be based upon current valuation (which could be tricky to establish) and not be retrospective for existing homes.
From a personal point of view it would not do me any favours as I basically have much of my pension in my house (like many) which I will downsize from in time, but I don't see why I shouldn't pay tax on that gain.
Because CGT is a tax on investing. Buying and living in a home isn't an investment, it's living. More than happy for them to put CGT up to income tax rates for non-primary residences, however.
Why? There is no tax when you are living in it. You pay the tax on your gains. Why is it any different to any other investment? You don't pay the tax until to make the gain.
It would also put downward pressure on house prices so shouldn't impact moving on, but will benefit 1st time buyers. The effective payers will be those selling not to rebuy or downsizing i.e. those that have made an untaxed profit.
Again, because it's not an investment, it's a home. As I said, more than happy for CGT to be raised to income tax levels for non-primary residences. I think any party which introduces this will be out of power for a very, very long time. It's probably the single most unpopular policy I can think of.
Max I don't disagree with you that it might be unpopular, but only because people will think that it is a tax hike and tax hikes are unpopular.
But what in principle is your objection? You keep saying it is a home but not an investment. So what. If you make a large untaxed profit on it it should be taxed like everything else.
I know people who have profited to such an extent in London that it dwarf there entire lifetime income. They then downsize outside of London and take the profit entirely untaxed.
As I said because of the impact on house prices the only people effectively paying the tax will be the downsizers and those not rebuying so those who are realising a profit.
It also will help first time buyers.
Its completely unreasonable to tax people on homes they live in for one simple reason: they need somewhere to live.
And you're mathematically wrong about the only people paying the tax will be downsizers and those not rebuying, because house price changes won't dwarf the tax.
Lets say that you buy a house for £200,000 and years later it is worth £300,000 . . . you then move and get a similar house elsewhere in the country so you sell that and then buy a £300,000 house elsewhere. How much have you gained?
Under our current system we rightly recognise you have gained nothing as it is your home. Under your proposal you would face a tax liability on a supposed £100k gain despite the fact that every penny of your supposed gain went into replacing what you already had when you moved.
Hi Philip,
Not mathematically wrong, although I agree with the point you are making (sounds like a contradiction I know) as it is effectively a cash flow issue. At that point in time you will be out of pocket because you have moved to the equivalent house and had to pay the tax (which is why it should have a downward pressure on house prices overall) so you now have to find the equivalent amount of the tax just to stand still when you buy your new house (same problem with stamp duty on the new house) but you will have benefited from lower house prices in the first place due to the impact of the tax. This is why I said in the very first post that if this is brought in (it won't be for all the reasons you guys have been saying) the calculation of the gain must be made on the valuation now (or subsequent purchase price) as it wouldn't be fair on current owners re any drop in value due to the CGT.
I do accept that this is a bridge too far for Conservatives. It is in my mind bizarre however. In my case I am likely to make an untaxed profit of getting on for £1m over a relatively short time for doing absolutely nothing for it.
Someone who is significantly poorer than me who rents gets none of that benefit.
You know it's being mentioned now so that the land value tax that will appear instead looks reasonable...
Now a wealth tax is something I am not in favour of because of people who are asset rich and income poor.
For the very reason BigG argues I don't want people put in a situation where they are forced to consider selling to pay the tax.
I was told just yesterday by people on here that face masks in shops was nothing to worry about,.
just a minor inconvenience,
a tiny sacrifice,
honestly what is your problem,
by people who think they are intelligent.
But the thing is that once you give authoritarians an inch, they will take a mile. Once you roll over on one freedom, they will take them all, step by step.
And we read today that after our freedoms, the next thing they are coming for is our money, via enormous increases in CGT.
And that's just the start.
New normal? there's nothing normal about it.
Last week stamp duty was cut and a VAT holiday given ie both tax cuts, CGT is imply being reviewed that is all
Got me worried though
I would like to see CGT on residential properties, although to make it fair it would have to be based upon current valuation (which could be tricky to establish) and not be retrospective for existing homes.
From a personal point of view it would not do me any favours as I basically have much of my pension in my house (like many) which I will downsize from in time, but I don't see why I shouldn't pay tax on that gain.
Because CGT is a tax on investing. Buying and living in a home isn't an investment, it's living. More than happy for them to put CGT up to income tax rates for non-primary residences, however.
Why? There is no tax when you are living in it. You pay the tax on your gains. Why is it any different to any other investment? You don't pay the tax until to make the gain.
It would also put downward pressure on house prices so shouldn't impact moving on, but will benefit 1st time buyers. The effective payers will be those selling not to rebuy or downsizing i.e. those that have made an untaxed profit.
Again, because it's not an investment, it's a home. As I said, more than happy for CGT to be raised to income tax levels for non-primary residences. I think any party which introduces this will be out of power for a very, very long time. It's probably the single most unpopular policy I can think of.
Max I don't disagree with you that it might be unpopular, but only because people will think that it is a tax hike and tax hikes are unpopular.
But what in principle is your objection? You keep saying it is a home but not an investment. So what. If you make a large untaxed profit on it it should be taxed like everything else.
I know people who have profited to such an extent in London that it dwarf there entire lifetime income. They then downsize outside of London and take the profit entirely untaxed.
As I said because of the impact on house prices the only people effectively paying the tax will be the downsizers and those not rebuying so those who are realising a profit.
It also will help first time buyers.
Its completely unreasonable to tax people on homes they live in for one simple reason: they need somewhere to live.
And you're mathematically wrong about the only people paying the tax will be downsizers and those not rebuying, because house price changes won't dwarf the tax.
Lets say that you buy a house for £200,000 and years later it is worth £300,000 . . . you then move and get a similar house elsewhere in the country so you sell that and then buy a £300,000 house elsewhere. How much have you gained?
Under our current system we rightly recognise you have gained nothing as it is your home. Under your proposal you would face a tax liability on a supposed £100k gain despite the fact that every penny of your supposed gain went into replacing what you already had when you moved.
Hi Philip,
Not mathematically wrong, although I agree with the point you are making (sounds like a contradiction I know) as it is effectively a cash flow issue. At that point in time you will be out of pocket because you have moved to the equivalent house and had to pay the tax (which is why it should have a downward pressure on house prices overall) so you now have to find the equivalent amount of the tax just to stand still when you buy your new house (same problem with stamp duty on the new house) but you will have benefited from lower house prices in the first place due to the impact of the tax. This is why I said in the very first post that if this is brought in (it won't be for all the reasons you guys have been saying) the calculation of the gain must be made on the valuation now (or subsequent purchase price) as it wouldn't be fair on current owners re any drop in value due to the CGT.
I do accept that this is a bridge too far for Conservatives. It is in my mind bizarre however. In my case I am likely to make an untaxed profit of getting on for £1m over a relatively short time for doing absolutely nothing for it.
Someone who is significantly poorer than me who rents gets none of that benefit.
Shall we make a deal? We agree not to criticize your peculiar personal need to flagellate yourself for your good fortune and you agree not to take our money - whaddya say?
I don't want or need your money. Sadly some in society do need my and your money.
I am not in favour of taxes for the sake of them. I prefer them to be as low as is reasonable. They are there for a reason and should be as fair as possible.
And how is it fair to exhorbitantly penalise those who move homes rather than those who stay in the same home?
On masks -- note that prices have increased with the new announcement re shops, and also that there are now many "fashion" masks on sale for the more discerning PBers and their, erm, nieces and secretaries.
Once again the government proving it is completely useless when it comes to basic data analysis. It shouldn't need a team of scientists from one of the world's top universities to figure this stuff out. A half decent team of data analysts would be able to automate this in no time and get accurate daily readings.
I do sometimes wonder how data literate the top scientific advisors actually are. I would never have gotten on that stage and presented those graphs, I'd have been too embarrassed.
I am not a mathematician but it just seemed obvious that the rate at which infections were falling indicated a lower R rate than they were announcing. Of course if you strip out the distorting effects of a few super spreaders and slave factories along with care homes the infectivity rate in the community overall was clearly very, very low.
The Central London economy (Zone 1) is entirely reliant on office workers and tourists.
Tourism is unlikely to recover in full for some years. Office working will recover, but to a new “norm” - 2 days in / 3 days out seems likely.
We can fully expect and are already witnessing the collapse of the central London service economy - restaurants, cafes, theatres, galleries and indeed retail - and a savage scale back in public transport services, necessitated by inevitable budget crises.
*Some* economic activity will be displaced back to St Albans, Guildford etc, but most of it will migrate online in the form of Amazon and Ocado delivery. Theatres will not start putting productions on in Luton...the “creative pound” will move to Netflix.
The lamps are going out along Oxford Street, we shall not see them lit....for a long time.
The fear is not that economic activity will be displaced to St Albans or to (lightly taxed, mainly American companies) online but that it will disappear completely if no-one will visit London's theatres, galleries or Michelin-starred restaurants.
If people don't visit London's restaurants or other entertainment they'll still want to eat or have other entertainment so they'll visit restaurants or other entertainment closer to home.
The idea restaurants only exist within London is . . . odd.
Once again the government proving it is completely useless when it comes to basic data analysis. It shouldn't need a team of scientists from one of the world's top universities to figure this stuff out. A half decent team of data analysts would be able to automate this in no time and get accurate daily readings.
I do sometimes wonder how data literate the top scientific advisors actually are. I would never have gotten on that stage and presented those graphs, I'd have been too embarrassed.
No, this sort of data can only be discovered in hindsight not real time. Its impossible to know in real time how many people have been infected since you don't know in real time how many people are infected - it takes time before people can be tested and be found to be positive.
It absolutely can be done in real time, I had a pretty lengthy meeting yesterday on the subject among other areas for improvement with the reporting.
In fact it's the kind of thing that can't be done on hindsight as it depends on antigen data, which is fleeting.
You only develop antigens in hindsight. You don't develop detectable antigens on the very day you are infected.
EDIT: Plus you have detectable antigens for more than one day, this is why the surveys have estimated R over periods of time and not in real time unique to days.
No antigens are viral proteins (antigen means able to generate antibodies) it is antibodies that take a little while to develop. IgM first, then the longer lasting IgG, and the relative amounts of these can give some clue to exposure.
Once again the government proving it is completely useless when it comes to basic data analysis. It shouldn't need a team of scientists from one of the world's top universities to figure this stuff out. A half decent team of data analysts would be able to automate this in no time and get accurate daily readings.
I do sometimes wonder how data literate the top scientific advisors actually are. I would never have gotten on that stage and presented those graphs, I'd have been too embarrassed.
I am not a mathematician but it just seemed obvious that the rate at which infections were falling indicated a lower R rate than they were announcing. Of course if you strip out the distorting effects of a few super spreaders and slave factories along with care homes the infectivity rate in the community overall was clearly very, very low.
I think they were (perhaps deliberately) erring on the side of giving a higher R so that people behaved better thus controlling the virus more.
Better to say R is 0.7-0.9 and its really 0.5 than to say it is 0.7-0.9 and its really 1.1
Once again the government proving it is completely useless when it comes to basic data analysis. It shouldn't need a team of scientists from one of the world's top universities to figure this stuff out. A half decent team of data analysts would be able to automate this in no time and get accurate daily readings.
I do sometimes wonder how data literate the top scientific advisors actually are. I would never have gotten on that stage and presented those graphs, I'd have been too embarrassed.
I am not a mathematician but it just seemed obvious that the rate at which infections were falling indicated a lower R rate than they were announcing. Of course if you strip out the distorting effects of a few super spreaders and slave factories along with care homes the infectivity rate in the community overall was clearly very, very low.
I'm just a lowly chemistry graduate and it's been fairly obvious that the government has been overestimating the R for ages.
Once again the government proving it is completely useless when it comes to basic data analysis. It shouldn't need a team of scientists from one of the world's top universities to figure this stuff out. A half decent team of data analysts would be able to automate this in no time and get accurate daily readings.
I do sometimes wonder how data literate the top scientific advisors actually are. I would never have gotten on that stage and presented those graphs, I'd have been too embarrassed.
No, this sort of data can only be discovered in hindsight not real time. Its impossible to know in real time how many people have been infected since you don't know in real time how many people are infected - it takes time before people can be tested and be found to be positive.
It absolutely can be done in real time, I had a pretty lengthy meeting yesterday on the subject among other areas for improvement with the reporting.
In fact it's the kind of thing that can't be done on hindsight as it depends on antigen data, which is fleeting.
You only develop antigens in hindsight. You don't develop detectable antigens on the very day you are infected.
EDIT: Plus you have detectable antigens for more than one day, this is why the surveys have estimated R over periods of time and not in real time unique to days.
No antigens are viral proteins (antigen means able to generate antibodies) it is antibodies that take a little while to develop. IgM first, then the longer lasting IgG, and the relative amounts of these can give some clue to exposure.
I understand that but can you detect antigens on the day you are infected?
I thought it took 2-3 days for the antigens to be detectable in a swab test.
Once again the government proving it is completely useless when it comes to basic data analysis. It shouldn't need a team of scientists from one of the world's top universities to figure this stuff out. A half decent team of data analysts would be able to automate this in no time and get accurate daily readings.
I do sometimes wonder how data literate the top scientific advisors actually are. I would never have gotten on that stage and presented those graphs, I'd have been too embarrassed.
I am not a mathematician but it just seemed obvious that the rate at which infections were falling indicated a lower R rate than they were announcing. Of course if you strip out the distorting effects of a few super spreaders and slave factories along with care homes the infectivity rate in the community overall was clearly very, very low.
the r number is an overall average encompassing both superspreadeds and hermits who infect no one. Indeed the 11 people traced in Leicester claimed to have never left their houses.
I was told just yesterday by people on here that face masks in shops was nothing to worry about,.
just a minor inconvenience,
a tiny sacrifice,
honestly what is your problem,
by people who think they are intelligent.
But the thing is that once you give authoritarians an inch, they will take a mile. Once you roll over on one freedom, they will take them all, step by step.
And we read today that after our freedoms, the next thing they are coming for is our money, via enormous increases in CGT.
And that's just the start.
New normal? there's nothing normal about it.
Last week stamp duty was cut and a VAT holiday given ie both tax cuts, CGT is imply being reviewed that is all
Got me worried though
I would like to see CGT on residential properties, although to make it fair it would have to be based upon current valuation (which could be tricky to establish) and not be retrospective for existing homes.
From a personal point of view it would not do me any favours as I basically have much of my pension in my house (like many) which I will downsize from in time, but I don't see why I shouldn't pay tax on that gain.
Because CGT is a tax on investing. Buying and living in a home isn't an investment, it's living. More than happy for them to put CGT up to income tax rates for non-primary residences, however.
Why? There is no tax when you are living in it. You pay the tax on your gains. Why is it any different to any other investment? You don't pay the tax until to make the gain.
It would also put downward pressure on house prices so shouldn't impact moving on, but will benefit 1st time buyers. The effective payers will be those selling not to rebuy or downsizing i.e. those that have made an untaxed profit.
Again, because it's not an investment, it's a home. As I said, more than happy for CGT to be raised to income tax levels for non-primary residences. I think any party which introduces this will be out of power for a very, very long time. It's probably the single most unpopular policy I can think of.
Max I don't disagree with you that it might be unpopular, but only because people will think that it is a tax hike and tax hikes are unpopular.
But what in principle is your objection? You keep saying it is a home but not an investment. So what. If you make a large untaxed profit on it it should be taxed like everything else.
I know people who have profited to such an extent in London that it dwarf there entire lifetime income. They then downsize outside of London and take the profit entirely untaxed.
As I said because of the impact on house prices the only people effectively paying the tax will be the downsizers and those not rebuying so those who are realising a profit.
It also will help first time buyers.
Its completely unreasonable to tax people on homes they live in for one simple reason: they need somewhere to live.
And you're mathematically wrong about the only people paying the tax will be downsizers and those not rebuying, because house price changes won't dwarf the tax.
Lets say that you buy a house for £200,000 and years later it is worth £300,000 . . . you then move and get a similar house elsewhere in the country so you sell that and then buy a £300,000 house elsewhere. How much have you gained?
Under our current system we rightly recognise you have gained nothing as it is your home. Under your proposal you would face a tax liability on a supposed £100k gain despite the fact that every penny of your supposed gain went into replacing what you already had when you moved.
Hi Philip,
Not mathematically wrong, although I agree with the point you are making (sounds like a contradiction I know) as it is effectively a cash flow issue. At that point in time you will be out of pocket because you have moved to the equivalent house and had to pay the tax (which is why it should have a downward pressure on house prices overall) so you now have to find the equivalent amount of the tax just to stand still when you buy your new house (same problem with stamp duty on the new house) but you will have benefited from lower house prices in the first place due to the impact of the tax. This is why I said in the very first post that if this is brought in (it won't be for all the reasons you guys have been saying) the calculation of the gain must be made on the valuation now (or subsequent purchase price) as it wouldn't be fair on current owners re any drop in value due to the CGT.
I do accept that this is a bridge too far for Conservatives. It is in my mind bizarre however. In my case I am likely to make an untaxed profit of getting on for £1m over a relatively short time for doing absolutely nothing for it.
Someone who is significantly poorer than me who rents gets none of that benefit.
You know it's being mentioned now so that the land value tax that will appear instead looks reasonable...
Now a wealth tax is something I am not in favour of because of people who are asset rich and income poor.
For the very reason BigG argues I don't want people put in a situation where they are forced to consider selling to pay the tax.
I don't see that being a problem you could just roll up the tax as a charge on the property to be paid on sale if not paid immediately.
The point is that the government needs money and it can't tax workers as wages are going to be dropping for years - because if you don't have people in the office / factory then you don't need them to even be in this country...
I was told just yesterday by people on here that face masks in shops was nothing to worry about,.
just a minor inconvenience,
a tiny sacrifice,
honestly what is your problem,
by people who think they are intelligent.
But the thing is that once you give authoritarians an inch, they will take a mile. Once you roll over on one freedom, they will take them all, step by step.
And we read today that after our freedoms, the next thing they are coming for is our money, via enormous increases in CGT.
And that's just the start.
New normal? there's nothing normal about it.
Last week stamp duty was cut and a VAT holiday given ie both tax cuts, CGT is imply being reviewed that is all
Got me worried though
I would like to see CGT on residential properties, although to make it fair it would have to be based upon current valuation (which could be tricky to establish) and not be retrospective for existing homes.
From a personal point of view it would not do me any favours as I basically have much of my pension in my house (like many) which I will downsize from in time, but I don't see why I shouldn't pay tax on that gain.
Because CGT is a tax on investing. Buying and living in a home isn't an investment, it's living. More than happy for them to put CGT up to income tax rates for non-primary residences, however.
Why? There is no tax when you are living in it. You pay the tax on your gains. Why is it any different to any other investment? You don't pay the tax until to make the gain.
It would also put downward pressure on house prices so shouldn't impact moving on, but will benefit 1st time buyers. The effective payers will be those selling not to rebuy or downsizing i.e. those that have made an untaxed profit.
Again, because it's not an investment, it's a home. As I said, more than happy for CGT to be raised to income tax levels for non-primary residences. I think any party which introduces this will be out of power for a very, very long time. It's probably the single most unpopular policy I can think of.
Max I don't disagree with you that it might be unpopular, but only because people will think that it is a tax hike and tax hikes are unpopular.
But what in principle is your objection? You keep saying it is a home but not an investment. So what. If you make a large untaxed profit on it it should be taxed like everything else.
I know people who have profited to such an extent in London that it dwarf there entire lifetime income. They then downsize outside of London and take the profit entirely untaxed.
As I said because of the impact on house prices the only people effectively paying the tax will be the downsizers and those not rebuying so those who are realising a profit.
It also will help first time buyers.
Its completely unreasonable to tax people on homes they live in for one simple reason: they need somewhere to live.
And you're mathematically wrong about the only people paying the tax will be downsizers and those not rebuying, because house price changes won't dwarf the tax.
Lets say that you buy a house for £200,000 and years later it is worth £300,000 . . . you then move and get a similar house elsewhere in the country so you sell that and then buy a £300,000 house elsewhere. How much have you gained?
Under our current system we rightly recognise you have gained nothing as it is your home. Under your proposal you would face a tax liability on a supposed £100k gain despite the fact that every penny of your supposed gain went into replacing what you already had when you moved.
Hi Philip,
Not mathematically wrong, although I agree with the point you are making (sounds like a contradiction I know) as it is effectively a cash flow issue. At that point in time you will be out of pocket because you have moved to the equivalent house and had to pay the tax (which is why it should have a downward pressure on house prices overall) so you now have to find the equivalent amount of the tax just to stand still when you buy your new house (same problem with stamp duty on the new house) but you will have benefited from lower house prices in the first place due to the impact of the tax. This is why I said in the very first post that if this is brought in (it won't be for all the reasons you guys have been saying) the calculation of the gain must be made on the valuation now (or subsequent purchase price) as it wouldn't be fair on current owners re any drop in value due to the CGT.
I do accept that this is a bridge too far for Conservatives. It is in my mind bizarre however. In my case I am likely to make an untaxed profit of getting on for £1m over a relatively short time for doing absolutely nothing for it.
Someone who is significantly poorer than me who rents gets none of that benefit.
You won't have benefited from lower house prices overall since the impact on house prices by the tax will be tiny compared to the change in house prices overall. Plus since CGT is charged on net gain, currently you're not paying a penny but in your scenario you are paying a percentage of your net gain regardless.
You are not making a profit on anything in your home as you need somewhere to live. If you don't move your home is still required for you so is not a real gain. If you do move, you will need somewhere else to live so still not a real gain. Only if you downsize are you making a gain - but stomping down on downsizing will put upward pressure on the housing market since demand will still be there but less supply.
I partly disagree with your 1st para. I agree you won't be able to see it in the grand movement of prices but it is a specific amount that a person moving has had their funds altered by. Exactly the same as stamp duty.
I agree with the rest but not sure of the impact on downsizing will be much. Although I will downsize to realise funds it will not be the main reason. I think this is the case for most people. They just want a smaller house/garden and/or move area.
The Central London economy (Zone 1) is entirely reliant on office workers and tourists.
Tourism is unlikely to recover in full for some years. Office working will recover, but to a new “norm” - 2 days in / 3 days out seems likely.
We can fully expect and are already witnessing the collapse of the central London service economy - restaurants, cafes, theatres, galleries and indeed retail - and a savage scale back in public transport services, necessitated by inevitable budget crises.
*Some* economic activity will be displaced back to St Albans, Guildford etc, but most of it will migrate online in the form of Amazon and Ocado delivery. Theatres will not start putting productions on in Luton...the “creative pound” will move to Netflix.
The lamps are going out along Oxford Street, we shall not see them lit....for a long time.
The fear is not that economic activity will be displaced to St Albans or to (lightly taxed, mainly American companies) online but that it will disappear completely if no-one will visit London's theatres, galleries or Michelin-starred restaurants.
If people don't visit London's restaurants or other entertainment they'll still want to eat or have other entertainment so they'll visit restaurants or other entertainment closer to home.
The idea restaurants only exist within London is . . . odd.
The idea is that Michelin-starred restaurants are concentrated in London for overpaid financial workers at lunchtime and visitors in the evening. £100 a head at a 3-star shop employing a dozen or more highly-skilled chefs is replaced by £5 at McDonalds. It is not the same. https://guide.michelin.com/gb/en/greater-london/london/restaurants
I dare say most towns have a municipal theatre; that does not negate the dozens in the West End.
Once again the government proving it is completely useless when it comes to basic data analysis. It shouldn't need a team of scientists from one of the world's top universities to figure this stuff out. A half decent team of data analysts would be able to automate this in no time and get accurate daily readings.
I do sometimes wonder how data literate the top scientific advisors actually are. I would never have gotten on that stage and presented those graphs, I'd have been too embarrassed.
I am not a mathematician but it just seemed obvious that the rate at which infections were falling indicated a lower R rate than they were announcing. Of course if you strip out the distorting effects of a few super spreaders and slave factories along with care homes the infectivity rate in the community overall was clearly very, very low.
the r number is an overall average encompassing both superspreadeds and hermits who infect no one. Indeed the 11 people traced in Leicester claimed to have never left their houses.
I agree and even understand that. But what that means is that the risk of me getting infected by going to a shop or going within 2m of someone in the library I used to work in, for example, is much less than the average would indicate (unless I am unlucky enough to come into contact with a super spreader). We are using sledgehammers instead of rapiers, significantly impeding recovery because our efforts are not properly targeted.
Contact, trace and isolate is obviously key to controlling future infection but we still need to find our weak spots as a society and focus our efforts on them. Instead we are disrupting everyone for minimal gain.
I was told just yesterday by people on here that face masks in shops was nothing to worry about,.
just a minor inconvenience,
a tiny sacrifice,
honestly what is your problem,
by people who think they are intelligent.
But the thing is that once you give authoritarians an inch, they will take a mile. Once you roll over on one freedom, they will take them all, step by step.
And we read today that after our freedoms, the next thing they are coming for is our money, via enormous increases in CGT.
And that's just the start.
New normal? there's nothing normal about it.
Last week stamp duty was cut and a VAT holiday given ie both tax cuts, CGT is imply being reviewed that is all
Got me worried though
I would like to see CGT on residential properties, although to make it fair it would have to be based upon current valuation (which could be tricky to establish) and not be retrospective for existing homes.
From a personal point of view it would not do me any favours as I basically have much of my pension in my house (like many) which I will downsize from in time, but I don't see why I shouldn't pay tax on that gain.
Because CGT is a tax on investing. Buying and living in a home isn't an investment, it's living. More than happy for them to put CGT up to income tax rates for non-primary residences, however.
Why? There is no tax when you are living in it. You pay the tax on your gains. Why is it any different to any other investment? You don't pay the tax until to make the gain.
It would also put downward pressure on house prices so shouldn't impact moving on, but will benefit 1st time buyers. The effective payers will be those selling not to rebuy or downsizing i.e. those that have made an untaxed profit.
Again, because it's not an investment, it's a home. As I said, more than happy for CGT to be raised to income tax levels for non-primary residences. I think any party which introduces this will be out of power for a very, very long time. It's probably the single most unpopular policy I can think of.
Max I don't disagree with you that it might be unpopular, but only because people will think that it is a tax hike and tax hikes are unpopular.
But what in principle is your objection? You keep saying it is a home but not an investment. So what. If you make a large untaxed profit on it it should be taxed like everything else.
I know people who have profited to such an extent in London that it dwarf there entire lifetime income. They then downsize outside of London and take the profit entirely untaxed.
As I said because of the impact on house prices the only people effectively paying the tax will be the downsizers and those not rebuying so those who are realising a profit.
It also will help first time buyers.
Its completely unreasonable to tax people on homes they live in for one simple reason: they need somewhere to live.
And you're mathematically wrong about the only people paying the tax will be downsizers and those not rebuying, because house price changes won't dwarf the tax.
Lets say that you buy a house for £200,000 and years later it is worth £300,000 . . . you then move and get a similar house elsewhere in the country so you sell that and then buy a £300,000 house elsewhere. How much have you gained?
Under our current system we rightly recognise you have gained nothing as it is your home. Under your proposal you would face a tax liability on a supposed £100k gain despite the fact that every penny of your supposed gain went into replacing what you already had when you moved.
Hi Philip,
Not mathematically wrong, although I agree with the point you are making (sounds like a contradiction I know) as it is effectively a cash flow issue. At that point in time you will be out of pocket because you have moved to the equivalent house and had to pay the tax (which is why it should have a downward pressure on house prices overall) so you now have to find the equivalent amount of the tax just to stand still when you buy your new house (same problem with stamp duty on the new house) but you will have benefited from lower house prices in the first place due to the impact of the tax. This is why I said in the very first post that if this is brought in (it won't be for all the reasons you guys have been saying) the calculation of the gain must be made on the valuation now (or subsequent purchase price) as it wouldn't be fair on current owners re any drop in value due to the CGT.
I do accept that this is a bridge too far for Conservatives. It is in my mind bizarre however. In my case I am likely to make an untaxed profit of getting on for £1m over a relatively short time for doing absolutely nothing for it.
Someone who is significantly poorer than me who rents gets none of that benefit.
Shall we make a deal? We agree not to criticize your peculiar personal need to flagellate yourself for your good fortune and you agree not to take our money - whaddya say?
I don't want or need your money. Sadly some in society do need my and your money.
I am not in favour of taxes for the sake of them. I prefer them to be as low as is reasonable. They are there for a reason and should be as fair as possible.
And how is it fair to exhorbitantly penalise those who move homes rather than those who stay in the same home?
That is a good point for someone who has to move regularly, but it is also the same point for stamp duty and I don't see the argument being put to get rid of that. How is it different.
Also no system is completely fair and what about all those people who don't get a chance to make an untaxed gain.
The Central London economy (Zone 1) is entirely reliant on office workers and tourists.
Tourism is unlikely to recover in full for some years. Office working will recover, but to a new “norm” - 2 days in / 3 days out seems likely.
We can fully expect and are already witnessing the collapse of the central London service economy - restaurants, cafes, theatres, galleries and indeed retail - and a savage scale back in public transport services, necessitated by inevitable budget crises.
*Some* economic activity will be displaced back to St Albans, Guildford etc, but most of it will migrate online in the form of Amazon and Ocado delivery. Theatres will not start putting productions on in Luton...the “creative pound” will move to Netflix.
The lamps are going out along Oxford Street, we shall not see them lit....for a long time.
The fear is not that economic activity will be displaced to St Albans or to (lightly taxed, mainly American companies) online but that it will disappear completely if no-one will visit London's theatres, galleries or Michelin-starred restaurants.
If people don't visit London's restaurants or other entertainment they'll still want to eat or have other entertainment so they'll visit restaurants or other entertainment closer to home.
The idea restaurants only exist within London is . . . odd.
Or London may decline in importance as a tourist/cultural capital. And if you take out London you may reduce the desire of tourists to come to the UK to see Stonehenge or the Angel of the North or Stratford upon Avon.
If you are saying that the UK can do without tourists I would call that "brave".
Just been to the local corner shop as I do most days and come to the conclusion that mandatory mask wearing is going to spread the disease as their plan is as they know most customers won't bother else is to have a box of masks at the door....take one as you go in then dump it back in as you go out.
Seems to comply totally with the law while being totally useless. Told him still won't go in though if they insist and will instead order my stuff from amazon
Once again the government proving it is completely useless when it comes to basic data analysis. It shouldn't need a team of scientists from one of the world's top universities to figure this stuff out. A half decent team of data analysts would be able to automate this in no time and get accurate daily readings.
I do sometimes wonder how data literate the top scientific advisors actually are. I would never have gotten on that stage and presented those graphs, I'd have been too embarrassed.
I am not a mathematician but it just seemed obvious that the rate at which infections were falling indicated a lower R rate than they were announcing. Of course if you strip out the distorting effects of a few super spreaders and slave factories along with care homes the infectivity rate in the community overall was clearly very, very low.
The Government have failed to realise how effective their advice to wash hands and social distance has been. It worked.
I was told just yesterday by people on here that face masks in shops was nothing to worry about,.
just a minor inconvenience,
a tiny sacrifice,
honestly what is your problem,
by people who think they are intelligent.
But the thing is that once you give authoritarians an inch, they will take a mile. Once you roll over on one freedom, they will take them all, step by step.
And we read today that after our freedoms, the next thing they are coming for is our money, via enormous increases in CGT.
And that's just the start.
New normal? there's nothing normal about it.
Last week stamp duty was cut and a VAT holiday given ie both tax cuts, CGT is imply being reviewed that is all
Got me worried though
I would like to see CGT on residential properties, although to make it fair it would have to be based upon current valuation (which could be tricky to establish) and not be retrospective for existing homes.
From a personal point of view it would not do me any favours as I basically have much of my pension in my house (like many) which I will downsize from in time, but I don't see why I shouldn't pay tax on that gain.
Because CGT is a tax on investing. Buying and living in a home isn't an investment, it's living. More than happy for them to put CGT up to income tax rates for non-primary residences, however.
Why? There is no tax when you are living in it. You pay the tax on your gains. Why is it any different to any other investment? You don't pay the tax until to make the gain.
It would also put downward pressure on house prices so shouldn't impact moving on, but will benefit 1st time buyers. The effective payers will be those selling not to rebuy or downsizing i.e. those that have made an untaxed profit.
Again, because it's not an investment, it's a home. As I said, more than happy for CGT to be raised to income tax levels for non-primary residences. I think any party which introduces this will be out of power for a very, very long time. It's probably the single most unpopular policy I can think of.
Max I don't disagree with you that it might be unpopular, but only because people will think that it is a tax hike and tax hikes are unpopular.
But what in principle is your objection? You keep saying it is a home but not an investment. So what. If you make a large untaxed profit on it it should be taxed like everything else.
I know people who have profited to such an extent in London that it dwarf there entire lifetime income. They then downsize outside of London and take the profit entirely untaxed.
As I said because of the impact on house prices the only people effectively paying the tax will be the downsizers and those not rebuying so those who are realising a profit.
It also will help first time buyers.
Its completely unreasonable to tax people on homes they live in for one simple reason: they need somewhere to live.
And you're mathematically wrong about the only people paying the tax will be downsizers and those not rebuying, because house price changes won't dwarf the tax.
Lets say that you buy a house for £200,000 and years later it is worth £300,000 . . . you then move and get a similar house elsewhere in the country so you sell that and then buy a £300,000 house elsewhere. How much have you gained?
Under our current system we rightly recognise you have gained nothing as it is your home. Under your proposal you would face a tax liability on a supposed £100k gain despite the fact that every penny of your supposed gain went into replacing what you already had when you moved.
Hi Philip,
Not mathematically wrong, although I agree with the point you are making (sounds like a contradiction I know) as it is effectively a cash flow issue. At that point in time you will be out of pocket because you have moved to the equivalent house and had to pay the tax (which is why it should have a downward pressure on house prices overall) so you now have to find the equivalent amount of the tax just to stand still when you buy your new house (same problem with stamp duty on the new house) but you will have benefited from lower house prices in the first place due to the impact of the tax. This is why I said in the very first post that if this is brought in (it won't be for all the reasons you guys have been saying) the calculation of the gain must be made on the valuation now (or subsequent purchase price) as it wouldn't be fair on current owners re any drop in value due to the CGT.
I do accept that this is a bridge too far for Conservatives. It is in my mind bizarre however. In my case I am likely to make an untaxed profit of getting on for £1m over a relatively short time for doing absolutely nothing for it.
Someone who is significantly poorer than me who rents gets none of that benefit.
You know it's being mentioned now so that the land value tax that will appear instead looks reasonable...
Now a wealth tax is something I am not in favour of because of people who are asset rich and income poor.
For the very reason BigG argues I don't want people put in a situation where they are forced to consider selling to pay the tax.
I don't see that being a problem you could just roll up the tax as a charge on the property to be paid on sale if not paid immediately.
The point is that the government needs money and it can't tax workers as wages are going to be dropping for years - because if you don't have people in the office / factory then you don't need them to even be in this country...
I agree. I was aware of that as I had thought about releasing capital from my property anyway, so similar thing, but (and I know this is going to make me sound like a hypocrite) people who have paid off their mortgages are not going to like doing that (I can't believe I just typed that!).
Just been to the local corner shop as I do most days and come to the conclusion that mandatory mask wearing is going to spread the disease as their plan is as they know most customers won't bother else is to have a box of masks at the door....take one as you go in then dump it back in as you go out.
Seems to comply totally with the law while being totally useless. Told him still won't go in though if they insist and will instead order my stuff from amazon
Unless I'm mistaken and you mean a new mask each time there's got to be some sort of law or regulation against that or you're on the wind up.
Just been to the local corner shop as I do most days and come to the conclusion that mandatory mask wearing is going to spread the disease as their plan is as they know most customers won't bother else is to have a box of masks at the door....take one as you go in then dump it back in as you go out.
Seems to comply totally with the law while being totally useless. Told him still won't go in though if they insist and will instead order my stuff from amazon
Unless I'm mistaken and you mean a new mask each time there's got to be some sort of law or regulation against that or you're on the wind up.
the law I believe merely states you have to wear a mask while in the shop.
Just been to the local corner shop as I do most days and come to the conclusion that mandatory mask wearing is going to spread the disease as their plan is as they know most customers won't bother else is to have a box of masks at the door....take one as you go in then dump it back in as you go out.
Seems to comply totally with the law while being totally useless. Told him still won't go in though if they insist and will instead order my stuff from amazon
Unless I'm mistaken and you mean a new mask each time there's got to be some sort of law or regulation against that or you're on the wind up.
Just been to the local corner shop as I do most days and come to the conclusion that mandatory mask wearing is going to spread the disease as their plan is as they know most customers won't bother else is to have a box of masks at the door....take one as you go in then dump it back in as you go out.
Seems to comply totally with the law while being totally useless. Told him still won't go in though if they insist and will instead order my stuff from amazon
Unless I'm mistaken and you mean a new mask each time there's got to be some sort of law or regulation against that or you're on the wind up.
the law I believe merely states you have to wear a mask while in the shop.
And no not on a wind up, he is doing it because a) he doesnt want to have to call the police on regular customers and b) he knows other shops will turn a blind eye and people will just go there instead
Just been to the local corner shop as I do most days and come to the conclusion that mandatory mask wearing is going to spread the disease as their plan is as they know most customers won't bother else is to have a box of masks at the door....take one as you go in then dump it back in as you go out.
Seems to comply totally with the law while being totally useless. Told him still won't go in though if they insist and will instead order my stuff from amazon
Unless I'm mistaken and you mean a new mask each time there's got to be some sort of law or regulation against that or you're on the wind up.
Voters People, eh?
I'd be straight on the line to enviromental health if I see what I think he's saying is taking place.. Are the masks being used by different people ?!
Just been to the local corner shop as I do most days and come to the conclusion that mandatory mask wearing is going to spread the disease as their plan is as they know most customers won't bother else is to have a box of masks at the door....take one as you go in then dump it back in as you go out.
Seems to comply totally with the law while being totally useless. Told him still won't go in though if they insist and will instead order my stuff from amazon
Unless I'm mistaken and you mean a new mask each time there's got to be some sort of law or regulation against that or you're on the wind up.
Voters People, eh?
I'd be straight on the line to enviromental health if I see what I think he's saying is taking place.. Are the masks being used by different people ?!
And exactly what law is he breaking? As I have said before its an unenforceable law and I expect large numbers to ignore it including shops as they will lose custom to shops that don't enforce it
I heard a guy from Slanj who make the face coverings on the radio saying that the turnover from sales of the mask had replaced what they'd lost due to the lockdown, plus a handy chunk of money for the homeless. Pathetic and adolescent indeed.
Just been to the local corner shop as I do most days and come to the conclusion that mandatory mask wearing is going to spread the disease as their plan is as they know most customers won't bother else is to have a box of masks at the door....take one as you go in then dump it back in as you go out.
Seems to comply totally with the law while being totally useless. Told him still won't go in though if they insist and will instead order my stuff from amazon
Unless I'm mistaken and you mean a new mask each time there's got to be some sort of law or regulation against that or you're on the wind up.
Voters People, eh?
I'd be straight on the line to enviromental health if I see what I think he's saying is taking place.. Are the masks being used by different people ?!
You've had your net curtains removed, I take it, to allow greater optics on your neighbours?
Just been to the local corner shop as I do most days and come to the conclusion that mandatory mask wearing is going to spread the disease as their plan is as they know most customers won't bother else is to have a box of masks at the door....take one as you go in then dump it back in as you go out.
Seems to comply totally with the law while being totally useless. Told him still won't go in though if they insist and will instead order my stuff from amazon
I can imagine having a box at the door with a bin to disposal, but not for reuse. What kind of person would reuse a mask? It's like using someone else's napkin, disgusting.
Comments
https://twitter.com/QuickTake/status/1283228093889409024?s=20
She's rightly the favourite, but by no means certain to be picked.
While it's very likely true that projections for the next decade or so aren't that far off, things can diverge very quickly indeed.
An extreme example is South Korea - thanks, I think, to the very rapidly changing culture over the last few decades. Economic and political emancipation of women means that marriage is no longer viewed as an inevitable necessity; but at the same time, patriarchal attitudes are still deeply ingrained.
As a result, marriage has become a deeply unattractive prospect for women; they are either expected to give up their jobs, or continue working and take responsibility for all homework and childcare as well.
Hence the lowest birthrate in the world.
A further change in social attitudes over the next decade or so could conceivably reverse that.
Maybe if wanted to maximise mask wearing a simple rule of thumb could be where a mask whenever you're somewhere its illegal to smoke except if you are sat down. So if you're sat at your desk doing your work, or sat at a table eating a meal or drinking a coffee then exempt, but when walking to counters or in stairwells etc then wear the mask.
https://twitter.com/Independent/status/1283302914002432000?s=20
For the NHS's case it makes some sense too. Little contact with clinical staff is not no contact with clinical staff, so if a clinical staff member with the disease infects your wife . . . who then goes on to infect other clinical staff . . . I can see why the NHS wants to prevent that.
None of this is an absolute 'X is safe and Y isn't'. It's all about reducing the statistical risk of an exponentially-growing outbreak. The government's measures on masks do make sense (although they have been late getting there), but have been very badly communicated.
And you're mathematically wrong about the only people paying the tax will be downsizers and those not rebuying, because house price changes won't dwarf the tax.
Lets say that you buy a house for £200,000 and years later it is worth £300,000 . . . you then move and get a similar house elsewhere in the country so you sell that and then buy a £300,000 house elsewhere. How much have you gained?
Under our current system we rightly recognise you have gained nothing as it is your home. Under your proposal you would face a tax liability on a supposed £100k gain despite the fact that every penny of your supposed gain went into replacing what you already had when you moved.
Once again the government proving it is completely useless when it comes to basic data analysis. It shouldn't need a team of scientists from one of the world's top universities to figure this stuff out. A half decent team of data analysts would be able to automate this in no time and get accurate daily readings.
I do sometimes wonder how data literate the top scientific advisors actually are. I would never have gotten on that stage and presented those graphs, I'd have been too embarrassed.
Losing 28% of the mythical "gains" in your home when you move and then being expected to pay stamp duty on top will simply ensure people never move home which is not good for either the economy or the housing market or those who need to move home.
In fact it's the kind of thing that can't be done on hindsight as it depends on antigen data, which is fleeting.
Go Susan!
EDIT: Plus you have detectable antigens for more than one day, this is why the surveys have estimated R over periods of time and not in real time unique to days.
Still think Harris should be a lay - I think for many Americans viewing her as a possible President, she will come across as too unlikeable plus there is her background as CA AG.
Still keen on Lujan Grisham as an outside bet given she is the lead Hispanic candidate and Biden's polling in that group is worse than Clinton's.
Duckworth has been mentioned but think that is a bit of a Andrew Cuomo moment - new name, veteran, ticks the woman of colour box but (a) doesn't bring much in terms of a state (b) her recent comments might lead some to question her temperament and (c) I'm not sure picking a Thai-American would go down well with the Black community. She was also born in Bangkok so not sure what the situation is with her eligibility to be President.
As an aside, looks like RBG is in hospital again so this could raise the stakes from a Supreme Court point of view
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/14/supreme-court-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-hospitalized-for-possible-infection.html
The Central London economy (Zone 1) is entirely reliant on office workers and tourists.
Tourism is unlikely to recover in full for some years. Office working will recover, but to a new “norm” - 2 days in / 3 days out seems likely.
We can fully expect and are already witnessing the collapse of the central London service economy - restaurants, cafes, theatres, galleries and indeed retail - and a savage scale back in public transport services, necessitated by inevitable budget crises.
*Some* economic activity will be displaced back to St Albans, Guildford etc, but most of it will migrate online in the form of Amazon and Ocado delivery. Theatres will not start putting productions on in Luton...the “creative pound” will move to Netflix.
The lamps are going out along Oxford Street, we shall not see them lit....for a long time.
This is approximately £9bn a year - but what does it look like? Is it share sales by company owners outside the exemptions? Is it hundreds of reasonably well off people with shares?
I know it's definitely possible because we do it in our own work dashboard every morning using data we scrape from the official beta dashboard. The PHE guys seemed amazed that such a thing was possible. They have all of the building blocks when they explained what they do, just no high level analyst to stick it all into an automated function which spits out a number.
https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1283330143566671872
It's the old fallacy of thinking that if you know a little bit about something then you know a lot, while in fact as you learn more about something, you realise the extent of what you don't know. I'm probably closer in profession to the infectious disease epidemiologists than @MaxPB is and I'm more aware of the vast array of things I don't know about infectious disease modelling. I could throw together a SIR model of coronavirus in the UK in a couple of days given the data, but I know enough of my limitations of knowledge in that field to know that my assumptions would likely be pretty poor and the resulting predictions poor also.
He/she is however right to question how "data literate the top scientific advisors actually are" - probably not very, in many cases. That doesn't matter that much if they have good data crunchers working for them and good two-way communication with them.
Not mathematically wrong, although I agree with the point you are making (sounds like a contradiction I know) as it is effectively a cash flow issue. At that point in time you will be out of pocket because you have moved to the equivalent house and had to pay the tax (which is why it should have a downward pressure on house prices overall) so you now have to find the equivalent amount of the tax just to stand still when you buy your new house (same problem with stamp duty on the new house) but you will have benefited from lower house prices in the first place due to the impact of the tax. This is why I said in the very first post that if this is brought in (it won't be for all the reasons you guys have been saying) the calculation of the gain must be made on the valuation now (or subsequent purchase price) as it wouldn't be fair on current owners re any drop in value due to the CGT.
I do accept that this is a bridge too far for Conservatives. It is in my mind bizarre however. In my case I am likely to make an untaxed profit of getting on for £1m over a relatively short time for doing absolutely nothing for it.
Someone who is significantly poorer than me who rents gets none of that benefit.
You are not making a profit on anything in your home as you need somewhere to live. If you don't move your home is still required for you so is not a real gain. If you do move, you will need somewhere else to live so still not a real gain. Only if you downsize are you making a gain - but stomping down on downsizing will put upward pressure on the housing market since demand will still be there but less supply.
Here's my thoughts on masks FWIW
1. They really should have been introduced with the lockdown. Presumably the government was concerned about the lack of PPE for the NHS and care workers (assuming they really thought about the latter at all) at the time.
2. If they had been we would accept that this was a sensible part of infection control and it would have seemed normal to use them as the range of shops and services expanded again.
3. Because they weren't, and because the connection between shops opening and masks having to be worn wasn't made, the utility of masks has become an issue in a way that it otherwise wouldn't.
4. That utility is a genuine issue. Almost none of us are trained to use masks properly, we touch them all the time, we fiddle about with them, we constantly steam up our glasses (more touching) and it is very questionable how much such badly used masks prevent infection spreading. I think it is evident that the protection given to the user him or her self is approaching zero.
5. I think those asking what the fuss is about are underestimating the psychological effects as well. We are trying to get our badly damaged economy back to something like normal in a time of relatively low infection in the community. Masks don't add normality, they make people very conscious that being out is not an entertainment but a risk. People will still go shopping when they need to. They may not go because they want something to do.
6. At a time when we are deeply concerned about our bounce back ability this is a significant problem. If we can't go to the shops without a mask should our kids really be going to school, should we go out for a meal, a pint, a coffee, back to the office?
If we had followed steps 1 and 2 then the impact would have been less and we might have accepted a trade off between 2m and masks. Now, I am not sure. I think we have made things more difficult for ourselves.
I am not in favour of taxes for the sake of them. I prefer them to be as low as is reasonable. They are there for a reason and should be as fair as possible.
It's my experience of speaking to the people who put the data together that has made me realise just how far behind government data literacy is compared to banking and tech.
For the very reason BigG argues I don't want people put in a situation where they are forced to consider selling to pay the tax.
Not you obviously but this decision. Apple's setup is absolute bullshit.
The idea restaurants only exist within London is . . . odd.
So this CGT flag is designed to run just long enough to make the subsequent announcement seem less bad....
Better to say R is 0.7-0.9 and its really 0.5 than to say it is 0.7-0.9 and its really 1.1
I thought it took 2-3 days for the antigens to be detectable in a swab test.
The point is that the government needs money and it can't tax workers as wages are going to be dropping for years - because if you don't have people in the office / factory then you don't need them to even be in this country...
I agree with the rest but not sure of the impact on downsizing will be much. Although I will downsize to realise funds it will not be the main reason. I think this is the case for most people. They just want a smaller house/garden and/or move area.
https://guide.michelin.com/gb/en/greater-london/london/restaurants
I dare say most towns have a municipal theatre; that does not negate the dozens in the West End.
Contact, trace and isolate is obviously key to controlling future infection but we still need to find our weak spots as a society and focus our efforts on them. Instead we are disrupting everyone for minimal gain.
Also no system is completely fair and what about all those people who don't get a chance to make an untaxed gain.
If you are saying that the UK can do without tourists I would call that "brave".
Seems to comply totally with the law while being totally useless. Told him still won't go in though if they insist and will instead order my stuff from amazon
https://twitter.com/paulbsinclair/status/1276820688410750976?s=20
https://twitter.com/ScotTories/status/1283306093540777992?s=20
https://twitter.com/NicolaSturgeon/status/1276824045758095360
VotersPeople, eh?Are the masks being used by different people ?!
I also think a wealth tax would be difficult to implement.