One of Trumps last moves is to install one of his loyalists as the chief lawyer at the National Security Agency, a move that happened this weekend. This is not the first such move late on to put people into positions of influence within the Intelligence agencies.
He fears what these agencies know, and he is right because they have stuff on him and his overseas contacts going back a long way which could do him damage, so an inside man in such a post might be useful even with days to go.
And before anyone says that the move can be reversed, this wouldn't be done if the person couldn't do something even within a limited time frame.
My sister who works as a school secretary has succumbed to Covid (positive lateral flow test in followed by a positive PCR). Sister now has to submit a list of recent contacts. The headteacher, who was in regular contact with my sister during Thursday and Friday, is pleading with my sister not to list her as a contact, on the grounds that she is needed to oversee the school's testing in the week ahead. The Head will know that my sister listed her; hence my sister fears the consequences of doing so.
I suspect that I can already hear your answers.
Would like Cyclefree's take. Her area of expertise.
I would be inclined to write a letter to a national paper - all names redacted - explaining what has gone on. Copied to the Head. Daily Mail would be my choice. They will get fired up by this.
If the Head does not do the (very) right thing and self-isolate, it will say a second letter will follow, with names unredacted.
Ditto if there are any adverse consequences for your sister's employment.
Alternatively, she could speak to the School Governors, as a step prior to that outlined above.
Nobody is so vital they can put a school at risk by having asymptomatic Covid. Entitled, thoughtless, stupid, self-important maybe. Vital? No.
It's a no-brainer. @Gadfly's sister just lists the Head as a contact if they have been in contact.
There can be no 'consequences', as I'm sure the Head knows.
She should get a contemporaneous note witnessed by a lawyer. Future leverage for her next pay negotiation...
Not entirely fully up to speed on all today's excellent discussion on Stamp Duty et al. However, has anybody yet discussed Capital Gains Tax exemption for main residence?
There would be issues around exposing all gains to CGT, especially where somebody who bought a house 20 years ago would be no longer able to buy something similar - and would force downsizing. But there could be sliding scales, there could be a modest rate in the first five years, so little more than stamp duty.
Should people have a reasonable expectation to keep 100% of the gain on their primary residence? I'm not entirely convinced they should. They have sat in it and watched the value rise over time. If it were shares they had bought, that would not apply. Is it time to think the unthinkable - and tax gains on houses?
You should have 100% rollover relief - so you only get taxed on money that is not invested in a principle private residence within 18 months. But otherwise yes.
My sister who works as a school secretary has succumbed to Covid (positive lateral flow test in followed by a positive PCR). Sister now has to submit a list of recent contacts. The headteacher, who was in regular contact with my sister during Thursday and Friday, is pleading with my sister not to list her as a contact, on the grounds that she is needed to oversee the school's testing in the week ahead. The Head will know that my sister listed her; hence my sister fears the consequences of doing so.
I suspect that I can already hear your answers.
Would like Cyclefree's take. Her area of expertise.
I would be inclined to write a letter to a national paper - all names redacted - explaining what has gone on. Copied to the Head. Daily Mail would be my choice. They will get fired up by this.
If the Head does not do the (very) right thing and self-isolate, it will say a second letter will follow, with names unredacted.
Ditto if there are any adverse consequences for your sister's employment.
Alternatively, she could speak to the School Governors, as a step prior to that outlined above.
Nobody is so vital they can put a school at risk by having asymptomatic Covid. Entitled, thoughtless, stupid, self-important maybe. Vital? No.
It's a no-brainer. @Gadfly's sister just lists the Head as a contact if they have been in contact.
There can be no 'consequences', as I'm sure the Head knows.
She should get a contemporaneous note witnessed by a lawyer. Future leverage for her next pay negotiation...
Pay negotiation? In the public sector? Since when?
My sister who works as a school secretary has succumbed to Covid (positive lateral flow test in followed by a positive PCR). Sister now has to submit a list of recent contacts. The headteacher, who was in regular contact with my sister during Thursday and Friday, is pleading with my sister not to list her as a contact, on the grounds that she is needed to oversee the school's testing in the week ahead. The Head will know that my sister listed her; hence my sister fears the consequences of doing so.
I suspect that I can already hear your answers.
Would like Cyclefree's take. Her area of expertise.
I would be inclined to write a letter to a national paper - all names redacted - explaining what has gone on. Copied to the Head. Daily Mail would be my choice. They will get fired up by this.
If the Head does not do the (very) right thing and self-isolate, it will say a second letter will follow, with names unredacted.
Ditto if there are any adverse consequences for your sister's employment.
Alternatively, she could speak to the School Governors, as a step prior to that outlined above.
Nobody is so vital they can put a school at risk by having asymptomatic Covid. Entitled, thoughtless, stupid, self-important maybe. Vital? No.
HT will need to run tests via Zoom.
I perhaps didn't make it clear that the tests Headteacher feels the need to run next week are the lateral flow tests on the rest of the school's staff!
In case you missed my response above, my sister included the Head's name on her list and has now submitted this.
I've just done a rough calculation, my parents bought their house for 18K and would pay that amount in about 15 months under this new property tax.
And we're in the desolate North.
I suspect many in the South would be paying their purchase price within weeks under this new house tax.
well isn't that fair then? had a big property gain and giving some of it back?
Not really, over the last forty years, my parents have spent something like 500k on improving/extending the house, if not more.
Your parents house was bought for 18k and is worth 3 million quid ?!
I wish, last time I was valued it was something like £1.2 million in 2013.
Then the bill would be about 6k in a year, not 14.4k
Ah thanks, still more than we're currently paying in council tax.
The difficulty of this for any government is that no government has gone for changing the valuation for council tax, which is based on 1991(!!) values.
But, it sounds like you wouldn't want them to because it'd almost certainly land you with a larger bill?
Look, I get this, I really do, but I think it's gone too far now. The existing system isn't fair enough.
I want to lower taxes on younger and working people, to boost their economy and their prospects, and I think we need to assess how we do it.
Javid (briefly), Sunak, Osborne and even Hammond (I think) have all considered this in the last 10 years. So it's not a socialist ploy.
I’ve never understood why a council tax revaluation would lead to a rise in council tax? Presumably the same amount would be needed in a given area so, while there might be some rebalancing, it’s unlikely to be massive
I think Nigel put his finger on it earlier today when he said the winners would just pocket the difference and shrug but the losers would scream blue murder.
That's how it already is. Kids starve and a lot of rich people shrug.
Well I hope you noted all those !concerned about the poor! leftwingers objecting as they might have to pay more tax if council tax was replaced by a property tax
Who said anything about left wing? Plenty of people on the right are concerned about childhood malnutrition too.
I was merely commenting that many normally left wing posters were horrified that the proposal would mean they would end up paying more tax as they are the ones usually saying we should pay more tax
Everyone agrees that rich people should pay more tax.
Defining rich people is easy - anyone who earns 3-5x more than the person you ask.
I blame George Osborne. He started the idea that only millionaires should pay IHT. From there, it is only a short step to saying only millionaires should pay any tax.
'Twas ever thus. No one believes that they are The Man. Since the age of the financial qualification for the Senate. Of Rome.....
I remember the shock and horror among some young techies, when I explained that that being on high 5 figures at 25 put them in the 1%... They really, really thought they were in the trenches, slaving for a crust.
Another one was the time a lawyer, big house, 3 children in high private schools etc etc told me he poor...
Well, having three children often means you have to cut down from six to five skiing trips per year. I'm waiting for Marcus to tweet about their plight but he had a match today. Perhaps tomorrow.
I recall an article where a hedgie said that his 6 year old daughter was non-plussed on going on a flight - she asked "Why are people getting on our plane?"
He'd come down in the world a bit (they were still in first class) and had let the private plane go. She had never flown on a commercial jet in her life....
The Brexit situation is bad, worse than people think it is, and likely to get worse again before it gets better. The big known unknown was how much the new barriers to trade would affect imports and exports to and from the European Union As it turns out, they are in a state of collapse, with big shipping companies refusing to deal with the UK until people can get their paperwork sorted out and with lorries stuck all over the place.
There is a degree of "teething troubles" in the sense that people weren't prepared for the Tsunami of red tape. Eventually some, but by no means all, businesses will get on top of the bureaucracy, accept it as a new cost of business, and get on with importing and exporting. Others will give up with consequent losses of business and people's jobs.
There is no point crying over spilt milk - Brexit is done. Equally you can't mop it up unless you acknowledge you spilt it in the first place. The focus now should be on salvaging what we we can of our European business that makes up half our trade. I don't hold out much hope. No-one in politics is in damage limitation mode. Indeed Rishi Sunak is talking about bonfire of red tape, again. He should be trying to make the huge amounts of red tape that he was jointly responsible for burdening business with, kind of work.
London has seen a Covid-related flight to the suburbs. Meanwhile foreigners have gone home and probably won't return in the same numbers as London loses its international importance post-Brexit. Maybe this is OK. London becomes more of another capital city and less of the pre-eminent world city it was before.
Hmm. My forecast is London will bounce back.
Because London.
It will bounce back from Covid, like lots of other places. But I suspect it won't be the same as before. People aren't by and large in London because they enjoy it. It's because they have some compelling reason to be there. Those reasons are somewhat fading away.
A lot of the ‘loving London’ was rationalising being there by people who thought they had no choice. Now that firms are allowing people to work remotely, other more attractive and more economic options open up, without all the hassle and noise and pollution that London offers.
There is no hassle and pollution in London now. Seriously
The city is noticeably quieter, and easier, in terms of parking and traffic. The air is cleaner. The parks are calmer. Roads are pleasantly empty. Public transport is deserted. You can nip in an Uber and cross the town in 20 minutes.
Many more people are cycling.
Ultimately, Covid may point the way towards move liveable great cities. We just have to reframe our perspectives.
So basically cities become pleasanter if they reduce the effects of high population density.
Now that can be done by making people stay at home or by reducing the number of people.
Mmmm anyone who wants to reduce the number of people, please start with yourselves.
I have. Zero children. If everyone did the same all of our problems would be solved in 100 years or so.
The worst Tory general election campaign in living memory? The one where Theresa May became the house snatcher.
Why was Mrs Thatcher really ousted? Tory MPs had angry constituents that were massively worse off thanks to the changes in the rates when the community charge/poll tax came in and they needed a change, which Mrs T wasn't going to give.
Brief lesson, Tory PMs/Leaders who starts messing with council taxes/property taxes have unhappy endings.
It is, IMO, the strongest motivating factor for Tory inclined voters. Don't fuck with people's homes.
Sometimes, though, you need to do what is right, rather than what is popular.
And don't forget, this will be a boon to the retired, because it enables them (should they wish) to downsize without ending up paying a massive chunk of change in stamp duty.
We have 4.5m homes owned by private landlords in this country, target that property at a higher rate. Taxing primary residences for wealth taxes knowing that they can't be worked for income is morally wrong, regardless of whatever economic or social benefits it might bring.
We need rent controls and to make it less attractive to be a private landlord
The oldest mistake in the book.
Reduce supply whilst demand is continued to be high, and you get a slum situation.
Happened last time.
My focus would be on removing all tax allowances on property loans except for build to rent
If you want to ease the crisis of property prices in part of the UK... build a fuckton of houses.
It's an answer that upsets all kinds of people. It is the only policy that will actually work.
One of the main problems is homeownership is seen as financial security. An asset that only ever - and should only ever - increase in value.
Building a fuckton of houses where they’re needed would solve the housing crisis but result in financial insecurity for the Tory client vote.
It’s an obscene situation where one generation is taxing another generation and no one can do anything about it.
Vaguely linked - My stab at a solution to the housing crisis is to incentivise/bribe the nimbys with a moderately generous inflation-linked ns&i YIMBY bond to fund council housing within the tight postcode area. I think that might just break the current stalemate.
Nope, just insist houses are built in an area and fine the councils £100,000 for every house they fail to build
The house building rate to reduce house price inflation in the effected area is so insane, compared to what has been going on, that reducing prices by supply is impossible.
We are in a situation where building an additional 250K houses a year might or might not reduce house price inflation to single digits.
As to incentives - make sure the houses built are of good quality. No one wants to live next to Barrett homes shit. Funny that.
I know the Prince Charles is a Facist Reactionary Neon Nazi Scumbag - but he is right. Build houses for people. The people who want other people to live in "machines for living" can be dealt with thus -
Supply is overstated as an issue, in any case. Demand for housing arises because it’s an investment, at a time when the return on almost everything other than assets is depressed by QE and zero interest rates. Prices are pushed up by people looking for an income stream and capital gain, not by people looking for somewhere to live; the latter are innocent victims of a broken market. Make property less attractive as an investment and its price will settle at a level those needing somewhere to live can afford.
Nope - the population is still increasing faster than we are building bedrooms. They have to sleep somewhere. Hence homes in multiple occupation with bunk beds in every room.
Either
- stop the population increasing - build more houses - enjoy house price inflation
Pick one.
I am definitely in favour of affordable housing. Nevertheless the UK population is probably in decline and ageing right now. The birth rate has fallen in the last ten years to 1.6,not far off from Germany which has actually seen a small increase in fertility rates. IN 2020, obviously an unusual year, there was a exodus of mainly younger foreigners.
For the moment. Given that when things return to semi-normal, there is no indication that employment prospects will have changed in their various home countries.....
The UK population will be expanding again, shortly.
An ongoing UK population increase is possible, but it is not a given. See Japan and Germany over the past 20 years. I suppose another of Alistair Meeks' known unknowns.
Still in favour of affordable housing, however, which is your main point.
It is very, very probable that population will increase.
Only if there is future big net immigration. The fertility rate, which is falling, is well below replacement level.
Fertility has been below replacement for many many years. That was one of the reason for encouraging mass immigration - to stop the pay-as-you-go welfare systems collapsing.
We have had high levels of immigration for decades now.
Yes if it was money you were talking about it would fit the definition of a ponzi scheme. You need to get ever more new people in to sustain payments. Like all ponzi schemes it only lasts so long before it collapses. Ever increasing immigration is not the answer
A choice between absolute void of nothing or a chance at changing position and winning back some voters.
Here's guessing they will go with the howling void of nothing. Monica Lennon's radical "The SNP keep winning all the votes maybe they have a moral legitimacy in holding an IndyRef" will just be a gigantic step too far for SLab membership.
They'll go with "Better Together was flawless and the Scottish public will reward us soon" instead.
So Lennon is open to an Indyref? That would be an interesting position, though presumably she would campaign for the Union?
I've just done a rough calculation, my parents bought their house for 18K and would pay that amount in about 15 months under this new property tax.
And we're in the desolate North.
I suspect many in the South would be paying their purchase price within weeks under this new house tax.
well isn't that fair then? had a big property gain and giving some of it back?
Not really, over the last forty years, my parents have spent something like 500k on improving/extending the house, if not more.
Your parents house was bought for 18k and is worth 3 million quid ?!
I wish, last time I was valued it was something like £1.2 million in 2013.
Then the bill would be about 6k in a year, not 14.4k
Ah thanks, still more than we're currently paying in council tax.
The difficulty of this for any government is that no government has gone for changing the valuation for council tax, which is based on 1991(!!) values.
But, it sounds like you wouldn't want them to because it'd almost certainly land you with a larger bill?
Look, I get this, I really do, but I think it's gone too far now. The existing system isn't fair enough.
I want to lower taxes on younger and working people, to boost their economy and their prospects, and I think we need to assess how we do it.
Javid (briefly), Sunak, Osborne and even Hammond (I think) have all considered this in the last 10 years. So it's not a socialist ploy.
I’ve never understood why a council tax revaluation would lead to a rise in council tax? Presumably the same amount would be needed in a given area so, while there might be some rebalancing, it’s unlikely to be massive
I think Nigel put his finger on it earlier today when he said the winners would just pocket the difference and shrug but the losers would scream blue murder.
That's how it already is. Kids starve and a lot of rich people shrug.
Well I hope you noted all those !concerned about the poor! leftwingers objecting as they might have to pay more tax if council tax was replaced by a property tax
Who said anything about left wing? Plenty of people on the right are concerned about childhood malnutrition too.
I was merely commenting that many normally left wing posters were horrified that the proposal would mean they would end up paying more tax as they are the ones usually saying we should pay more tax
Everyone agrees that rich people should pay more tax.
Defining rich people is easy - anyone who earns 3-5x more than the person you ask.
I blame George Osborne. He started the idea that only millionaires should pay IHT. From there, it is only a short step to saying only millionaires should pay any tax.
'Twas ever thus. No one believes that they are The Man. Since the age of the financial qualification for the Senate. Of Rome.....
I remember the shock and horror among some young techies, when I explained that that being on high 5 figures at 25 put them in the 1%... They really, really thought they were in the trenches, slaving for a crust.
Another one was the time a lawyer, big house, 3 children in high private schools etc etc told me he poor...
Do you remember than wanker on QT haranguing Richard Burgon about Labour "lying" about their income tax rises only affecting the top 5% because he, earning a mere eighty grand a year, wasn't even in the top 50% of earners in the country and it would affect him.
Burgon was to totally flummoxed. The questioner point blank refused to believe he was in the top 5%.
A choice between absolute void of nothing or a chance at changing position and winning back some voters.
Here's guessing they will go with the howling void of nothing. Monica Lennon's radical "The SNP keep winning all the votes maybe they have a moral legitimacy in holding an IndyRef" will just be a gigantic step too far for SLab membership.
They'll go with "Better Together was flawless and the Scottish public will reward us soon" instead.
I don't find either at all appealing. Not attracted to a leadership contender who has sent his children to private schools.
The worst Tory general election campaign in living memory? The one where Theresa May became the house snatcher.
Why was Mrs Thatcher really ousted? Tory MPs had angry constituents that were massively worse off thanks to the changes in the rates when the community charge/poll tax came in and they needed a change, which Mrs T wasn't going to give.
Brief lesson, Tory PMs/Leaders who starts messing with council taxes/property taxes have unhappy endings.
It is, IMO, the strongest motivating factor for Tory inclined voters. Don't fuck with people's homes.
Sometimes, though, you need to do what is right, rather than what is popular.
And don't forget, this will be a boon to the retired, because it enables them (should they wish) to downsize without ending up paying a massive chunk of change in stamp duty.
We have 4.5m homes owned by private landlords in this country, target that property at a higher rate. Taxing primary residences for wealth taxes knowing that they can't be worked for income is morally wrong, regardless of whatever economic or social benefits it might bring.
We need rent controls and to make it less attractive to be a private landlord
The oldest mistake in the book.
Reduce supply whilst demand is continued to be high, and you get a slum situation.
Happened last time.
My focus would be on removing all tax allowances on property loans except for build to rent
If you want to ease the crisis of property prices in part of the UK... build a fuckton of houses.
It's an answer that upsets all kinds of people. It is the only policy that will actually work.
One of the main problems is homeownership is seen as financial security. An asset that only ever - and should only ever - increase in value.
Building a fuckton of houses where they’re needed would solve the housing crisis but result in financial insecurity for the Tory client vote.
It’s an obscene situation where one generation is taxing another generation and no one can do anything about it.
Vaguely linked - My stab at a solution to the housing crisis is to incentivise/bribe the nimbys with a moderately generous inflation-linked ns&i YIMBY bond to fund council housing within the tight postcode area. I think that might just break the current stalemate.
Nope, just insist houses are built in an area and fine the councils £100,000 for every house they fail to build
The house building rate to reduce house price inflation in the effected area is so insane, compared to what has been going on, that reducing prices by supply is impossible.
We are in a situation where building an additional 250K houses a year might or might not reduce house price inflation to single digits.
As to incentives - make sure the houses built are of good quality. No one wants to live next to Barrett homes shit. Funny that.
I know the Prince Charles is a Facist Reactionary Neon Nazi Scumbag - but he is right. Build houses for people. The people who want other people to live in "machines for living" can be dealt with thus -
Supply is overstated as an issue, in any case. Demand for housing arises because it’s an investment, at a time when the return on almost everything other than assets is depressed by QE and zero interest rates. Prices are pushed up by people looking for an income stream and capital gain, not by people looking for somewhere to live; the latter are innocent victims of a broken market. Make property less attractive as an investment and its price will settle at a level those needing somewhere to live can afford.
Nope - the population is still increasing faster than we are building bedrooms. They have to sleep somewhere. Hence homes in multiple occupation with bunk beds in every room.
Either
- stop the population increasing - build more houses - enjoy house price inflation
Pick one.
I am definitely in favour of affordable housing. Nevertheless the UK population is probably in decline and ageing right now. The birth rate has fallen in the last ten years to 1.6,not far off from Germany which has actually seen a small increase in fertility rates. IN 2020, obviously an unusual year, there was a exodus of mainly younger foreigners.
For the moment. Given that when things return to semi-normal, there is no indication that employment prospects will have changed in their various home countries.....
The UK population will be expanding again, shortly.
An ongoing UK population increase is possible, but it is not a given. See Japan and Germany over the past 20 years. I suppose another of Alistair Meeks' known unknowns.
Still in favour of affordable housing, however, which is your main point.
It is very, very probable that population will increase.
Only if there is future big net immigration. The fertility rate, which is falling, is well below replacement level.
Fertility has been below replacement for many many years. That was one of the reason for encouraging mass immigration - to stop the pay-as-you-go welfare systems collapsing.
We have had high levels of immigration for decades now.
Yes if it was money you were talking about it would fit the definition of a ponzi scheme. You need to get ever more new people in to sustain payments. Like all ponzi schemes it only lasts so long before it collapses. Ever increasing immigration is not the answer
Human society has been a ponzi scheme of that sort (haveing children so that you have someone to look after you in your old age) for thousands of years, so I think its probably got a few years left in it yet.
The worst Tory general election campaign in living memory? The one where Theresa May became the house snatcher.
Why was Mrs Thatcher really ousted? Tory MPs had angry constituents that were massively worse off thanks to the changes in the rates when the community charge/poll tax came in and they needed a change, which Mrs T wasn't going to give.
Brief lesson, Tory PMs/Leaders who starts messing with council taxes/property taxes have unhappy endings.
It is, IMO, the strongest motivating factor for Tory inclined voters. Don't fuck with people's homes.
Sometimes, though, you need to do what is right, rather than what is popular.
And don't forget, this will be a boon to the retired, because it enables them (should they wish) to downsize without ending up paying a massive chunk of change in stamp duty.
We have 4.5m homes owned by private landlords in this country, target that property at a higher rate. Taxing primary residences for wealth taxes knowing that they can't be worked for income is morally wrong, regardless of whatever economic or social benefits it might bring.
We need rent controls and to make it less attractive to be a private landlord
The oldest mistake in the book.
Reduce supply whilst demand is continued to be high, and you get a slum situation.
Happened last time.
My focus would be on removing all tax allowances on property loans except for build to rent
If you want to ease the crisis of property prices in part of the UK... build a fuckton of houses.
It's an answer that upsets all kinds of people. It is the only policy that will actually work.
One of the main problems is homeownership is seen as financial security. An asset that only ever - and should only ever - increase in value.
Building a fuckton of houses where they’re needed would solve the housing crisis but result in financial insecurity for the Tory client vote.
It’s an obscene situation where one generation is taxing another generation and no one can do anything about it.
Vaguely linked - My stab at a solution to the housing crisis is to incentivise/bribe the nimbys with a moderately generous inflation-linked ns&i YIMBY bond to fund council housing within the tight postcode area. I think that might just break the current stalemate.
Nope, just insist houses are built in an area and fine the councils £100,000 for every house they fail to build
The house building rate to reduce house price inflation in the effected area is so insane, compared to what has been going on, that reducing prices by supply is impossible.
We are in a situation where building an additional 250K houses a year might or might not reduce house price inflation to single digits.
As to incentives - make sure the houses built are of good quality. No one wants to live next to Barrett homes shit. Funny that.
I know the Prince Charles is a Facist Reactionary Neon Nazi Scumbag - but he is right. Build houses for people. The people who want other people to live in "machines for living" can be dealt with thus -
Supply is overstated as an issue, in any case. Demand for housing arises because it’s an investment, at a time when the return on almost everything other than assets is depressed by QE and zero interest rates. Prices are pushed up by people looking for an income stream and capital gain, not by people looking for somewhere to live; the latter are innocent victims of a broken market. Make property less attractive as an investment and its price will settle at a level those needing somewhere to live can afford.
Nope - the population is still increasing faster than we are building bedrooms. They have to sleep somewhere. Hence homes in multiple occupation with bunk beds in every room.
Either
- stop the population increasing - build more houses - enjoy house price inflation
Pick one.
I am definitely in favour of affordable housing. Nevertheless the UK population is probably in decline and ageing right now. The birth rate has fallen in the last ten years to 1.6,not far off from Germany which has actually seen a small increase in fertility rates. IN 2020, obviously an unusual year, there was a exodus of mainly younger foreigners.
For the moment. Given that when things return to semi-normal, there is no indication that employment prospects will have changed in their various home countries.....
The UK population will be expanding again, shortly.
An ongoing UK population increase is possible, but it is not a given. See Japan and Germany over the past 20 years. I suppose another of Alistair Meeks' known unknowns.
Still in favour of affordable housing, however, which is your main point.
It is very, very probable that population will increase.
Only if there is future big net immigration. The fertility rate, which is falling, is well below replacement level.
Whatever happens it's likely the UK population will overtake that of Germany where they've had more deaths than births every year since 1972.
It can't be likely "whatever happens". It wouldn't take much for the relative demographic trends to reverse themselves.
The worst Tory general election campaign in living memory? The one where Theresa May became the house snatcher.
Why was Mrs Thatcher really ousted? Tory MPs had angry constituents that were massively worse off thanks to the changes in the rates when the community charge/poll tax came in and they needed a change, which Mrs T wasn't going to give.
Brief lesson, Tory PMs/Leaders who starts messing with council taxes/property taxes have unhappy endings.
It is, IMO, the strongest motivating factor for Tory inclined voters. Don't fuck with people's homes.
Sometimes, though, you need to do what is right, rather than what is popular.
And don't forget, this will be a boon to the retired, because it enables them (should they wish) to downsize without ending up paying a massive chunk of change in stamp duty.
We have 4.5m homes owned by private landlords in this country, target that property at a higher rate. Taxing primary residences for wealth taxes knowing that they can't be worked for income is morally wrong, regardless of whatever economic or social benefits it might bring.
We need rent controls and to make it less attractive to be a private landlord
The oldest mistake in the book.
Reduce supply whilst demand is continued to be high, and you get a slum situation.
Happened last time.
My focus would be on removing all tax allowances on property loans except for build to rent
If you want to ease the crisis of property prices in part of the UK... build a fuckton of houses.
It's an answer that upsets all kinds of people. It is the only policy that will actually work.
One of the main problems is homeownership is seen as financial security. An asset that only ever - and should only ever - increase in value.
Building a fuckton of houses where they’re needed would solve the housing crisis but result in financial insecurity for the Tory client vote.
It’s an obscene situation where one generation is taxing another generation and no one can do anything about it.
Vaguely linked - My stab at a solution to the housing crisis is to incentivise/bribe the nimbys with a moderately generous inflation-linked ns&i YIMBY bond to fund council housing within the tight postcode area. I think that might just break the current stalemate.
Nope, just insist houses are built in an area and fine the councils £100,000 for every house they fail to build
The house building rate to reduce house price inflation in the effected area is so insane, compared to what has been going on, that reducing prices by supply is impossible.
We are in a situation where building an additional 250K houses a year might or might not reduce house price inflation to single digits.
As to incentives - make sure the houses built are of good quality. No one wants to live next to Barrett homes shit. Funny that.
I know the Prince Charles is a Facist Reactionary Neon Nazi Scumbag - but he is right. Build houses for people. The people who want other people to live in "machines for living" can be dealt with thus -
Supply is overstated as an issue, in any case. Demand for housing arises because it’s an investment, at a time when the return on almost everything other than assets is depressed by QE and zero interest rates. Prices are pushed up by people looking for an income stream and capital gain, not by people looking for somewhere to live; the latter are innocent victims of a broken market. Make property less attractive as an investment and its price will settle at a level those needing somewhere to live can afford.
Nope - the population is still increasing faster than we are building bedrooms. They have to sleep somewhere. Hence homes in multiple occupation with bunk beds in every room.
Either
- stop the population increasing - build more houses - enjoy house price inflation
Pick one.
I am definitely in favour of affordable housing. Nevertheless the UK population is probably in decline and ageing right now. The birth rate has fallen in the last ten years to 1.6,not far off from Germany which has actually seen a small increase in fertility rates. IN 2020, obviously an unusual year, there was a exodus of mainly younger foreigners.
For the moment. Given that when things return to semi-normal, there is no indication that employment prospects will have changed in their various home countries.....
The UK population will be expanding again, shortly.
An ongoing UK population increase is possible, but it is not a given. See Japan and Germany over the past 20 years. I suppose another of Alistair Meeks' known unknowns.
Still in favour of affordable housing, however, which is your main point.
It is very, very probable that population will increase.
Only if there is future big net immigration. The fertility rate, which is falling, is well below replacement level.
Whatever happens it's likely the UK population will overtake that of Germany where they've had more deaths than births every year since 1972.
I expect more deaths than births to be true in the UK as well. By definition immigrants aren't born in the UK.
The UK birth rate has fallen in the last ten years so it's now only a bit higher than Germany's, which has risen slightly. Which country will have the greatest population in the future depends on relative net immigration.
A choice between absolute void of nothing or a chance at changing position and winning back some voters.
Here's guessing they will go with the howling void of nothing. Monica Lennon's radical "The SNP keep winning all the votes maybe they have a moral legitimacy in holding an IndyRef" will just be a gigantic step too far for SLab membership.
They'll go with "Better Together was flawless and the Scottish public will reward us soon" instead.
So Lennon is open to an Indyref? That would be an interesting position, though presumably she would campaign for the Union?
When you say the union, do you mean Unite or Unison?
The worst Tory general election campaign in living memory? The one where Theresa May became the house snatcher.
Why was Mrs Thatcher really ousted? Tory MPs had angry constituents that were massively worse off thanks to the changes in the rates when the community charge/poll tax came in and they needed a change, which Mrs T wasn't going to give.
Brief lesson, Tory PMs/Leaders who starts messing with council taxes/property taxes have unhappy endings.
It is, IMO, the strongest motivating factor for Tory inclined voters. Don't fuck with people's homes.
Sometimes, though, you need to do what is right, rather than what is popular.
And don't forget, this will be a boon to the retired, because it enables them (should they wish) to downsize without ending up paying a massive chunk of change in stamp duty.
We have 4.5m homes owned by private landlords in this country, target that property at a higher rate. Taxing primary residences for wealth taxes knowing that they can't be worked for income is morally wrong, regardless of whatever economic or social benefits it might bring.
We need rent controls and to make it less attractive to be a private landlord
The oldest mistake in the book.
Reduce supply whilst demand is continued to be high, and you get a slum situation.
Happened last time.
My focus would be on removing all tax allowances on property loans except for build to rent
If you want to ease the crisis of property prices in part of the UK... build a fuckton of houses.
It's an answer that upsets all kinds of people. It is the only policy that will actually work.
One of the main problems is homeownership is seen as financial security. An asset that only ever - and should only ever - increase in value.
Building a fuckton of houses where they’re needed would solve the housing crisis but result in financial insecurity for the Tory client vote.
It’s an obscene situation where one generation is taxing another generation and no one can do anything about it.
Vaguely linked - My stab at a solution to the housing crisis is to incentivise/bribe the nimbys with a moderately generous inflation-linked ns&i YIMBY bond to fund council housing within the tight postcode area. I think that might just break the current stalemate.
Nope, just insist houses are built in an area and fine the councils £100,000 for every house they fail to build
The house building rate to reduce house price inflation in the effected area is so insane, compared to what has been going on, that reducing prices by supply is impossible.
We are in a situation where building an additional 250K houses a year might or might not reduce house price inflation to single digits.
As to incentives - make sure the houses built are of good quality. No one wants to live next to Barrett homes shit. Funny that.
I know the Prince Charles is a Facist Reactionary Neon Nazi Scumbag - but he is right. Build houses for people. The people who want other people to live in "machines for living" can be dealt with thus -
Supply is overstated as an issue, in any case. Demand for housing arises because it’s an investment, at a time when the return on almost everything other than assets is depressed by QE and zero interest rates. Prices are pushed up by people looking for an income stream and capital gain, not by people looking for somewhere to live; the latter are innocent victims of a broken market. Make property less attractive as an investment and its price will settle at a level those needing somewhere to live can afford.
Nope - the population is still increasing faster than we are building bedrooms. They have to sleep somewhere. Hence homes in multiple occupation with bunk beds in every room.
Either
- stop the population increasing - build more houses - enjoy house price inflation
Pick one.
I am definitely in favour of affordable housing. Nevertheless the UK population is probably in decline and ageing right now. The birth rate has fallen in the last ten years to 1.6,not far off from Germany which has actually seen a small increase in fertility rates. IN 2020, obviously an unusual year, there was a exodus of mainly younger foreigners.
For the moment. Given that when things return to semi-normal, there is no indication that employment prospects will have changed in their various home countries.....
The UK population will be expanding again, shortly.
An ongoing UK population increase is possible, but it is not a given. See Japan and Germany over the past 20 years. I suppose another of Alistair Meeks' known unknowns.
Still in favour of affordable housing, however, which is your main point.
It is very, very probable that population will increase.
Only if there is future big net immigration. The fertility rate, which is falling, is well below replacement level.
Fertility has been below replacement for many many years. That was one of the reason for encouraging mass immigration - to stop the pay-as-you-go welfare systems collapsing.
We have had high levels of immigration for decades now.
Yes if it was money you were talking about it would fit the definition of a ponzi scheme. You need to get ever more new people in to sustain payments. Like all ponzi schemes it only lasts so long before it collapses. Ever increasing immigration is not the answer
Human society has been a ponzi scheme of that sort (haveing children so that you have someone to look after you in your old age) for thousands of years, so I think its probably got a few years left in it yet.
Yes but in those days we were having our own children, not expecting other people to have them for us. Given as countries get more advanced their fertility rate drops give it 100 years and we have real issues when everywhere is below replacement level. The time to work out a new way is now not 99 years time when we are looking around for extra migrants
My sister who works as a school secretary has succumbed to Covid (positive lateral flow test in followed by a positive PCR). Sister now has to submit a list of recent contacts. The headteacher, who was in regular contact with my sister during Thursday and Friday, is pleading with my sister not to list her as a contact, on the grounds that she is needed to oversee the school's testing in the week ahead. The Head will know that my sister listed her; hence my sister fears the consequences of doing so.
I suspect that I can already hear your answers.
Would like Cyclefree's take. Her area of expertise.
I would be inclined to write a letter to a national paper - all names redacted - explaining what has gone on. Copied to the Head. Daily Mail would be my choice. They will get fired up by this.
If the Head does not do the (very) right thing and self-isolate, it will say a second letter will follow, with names unredacted.
Ditto if there are any adverse consequences for your sister's employment.
Alternatively, she could speak to the School Governors, as a step prior to that outlined above.
Nobody is so vital they can put a school at risk by having asymptomatic Covid. Entitled, thoughtless, stupid, self-important maybe. Vital? No.
HT will need to run tests via Zoom.
I perhaps didn't make it clear that the tests Headteacher feels the need to run next week are the lateral flow tests on the rest of the school's staff!
In case you missed my response above, my sister included the Head's name on her list and has now submitted this.
Not entirely fully up to speed on all today's excellent discussion on Stamp Duty et al. However, has anybody yet discussed Capital Gains Tax exemption for main residence?
There would be issues around exposing all gains to CGT, especially where somebody who bought a house 20 years ago would be no longer able to buy something similar - and would force downsizing. But there could be sliding scales, there could be a modest rate in the first five years, so little more than stamp duty.
Should people have a reasonable expectation to keep 100% of the gain on their primary residence? I'm not entirely convinced they should. They have sat in it and watched the value rise over time. If it were shares they had bought, that would not apply. Is it time to think the unthinkable - and tax gains on houses?
Careful Mark. I went there a few months ago here. I got slaughtered.
The worst Tory general election campaign in living memory? The one where Theresa May became the house snatcher.
Why was Mrs Thatcher really ousted? Tory MPs had angry constituents that were massively worse off thanks to the changes in the rates when the community charge/poll tax came in and they needed a change, which Mrs T wasn't going to give.
Brief lesson, Tory PMs/Leaders who starts messing with council taxes/property taxes have unhappy endings.
It is, IMO, the strongest motivating factor for Tory inclined voters. Don't fuck with people's homes.
Sometimes, though, you need to do what is right, rather than what is popular.
And don't forget, this will be a boon to the retired, because it enables them (should they wish) to downsize without ending up paying a massive chunk of change in stamp duty.
We have 4.5m homes owned by private landlords in this country, target that property at a higher rate. Taxing primary residences for wealth taxes knowing that they can't be worked for income is morally wrong, regardless of whatever economic or social benefits it might bring.
We need rent controls and to make it less attractive to be a private landlord
The oldest mistake in the book.
Reduce supply whilst demand is continued to be high, and you get a slum situation.
Happened last time.
My focus would be on removing all tax allowances on property loans except for build to rent
If you want to ease the crisis of property prices in part of the UK... build a fuckton of houses.
It's an answer that upsets all kinds of people. It is the only policy that will actually work.
One of the main problems is homeownership is seen as financial security. An asset that only ever - and should only ever - increase in value.
Building a fuckton of houses where they’re needed would solve the housing crisis but result in financial insecurity for the Tory client vote.
It’s an obscene situation where one generation is taxing another generation and no one can do anything about it.
Vaguely linked - My stab at a solution to the housing crisis is to incentivise/bribe the nimbys with a moderately generous inflation-linked ns&i YIMBY bond to fund council housing within the tight postcode area. I think that might just break the current stalemate.
Nope, just insist houses are built in an area and fine the councils £100,000 for every house they fail to build
The house building rate to reduce house price inflation in the effected area is so insane, compared to what has been going on, that reducing prices by supply is impossible.
We are in a situation where building an additional 250K houses a year might or might not reduce house price inflation to single digits.
As to incentives - make sure the houses built are of good quality. No one wants to live next to Barrett homes shit. Funny that.
I know the Prince Charles is a Facist Reactionary Neon Nazi Scumbag - but he is right. Build houses for people. The people who want other people to live in "machines for living" can be dealt with thus -
Supply is overstated as an issue, in any case. Demand for housing arises because it’s an investment, at a time when the return on almost everything other than assets is depressed by QE and zero interest rates. Prices are pushed up by people looking for an income stream and capital gain, not by people looking for somewhere to live; the latter are innocent victims of a broken market. Make property less attractive as an investment and its price will settle at a level those needing somewhere to live can afford.
Nope - the population is still increasing faster than we are building bedrooms. They have to sleep somewhere. Hence homes in multiple occupation with bunk beds in every room.
Either
- stop the population increasing - build more houses - enjoy house price inflation
Pick one.
I am definitely in favour of affordable housing. Nevertheless the UK population is probably in decline and ageing right now. The birth rate has fallen in the last ten years to 1.6,not far off from Germany which has actually seen a small increase in fertility rates. IN 2020, obviously an unusual year, there was a exodus of mainly younger foreigners.
For the moment. Given that when things return to semi-normal, there is no indication that employment prospects will have changed in their various home countries.....
The UK population will be expanding again, shortly.
An ongoing UK population increase is possible, but it is not a given. See Japan and Germany over the past 20 years. I suppose another of Alistair Meeks' known unknowns.
Still in favour of affordable housing, however, which is your main point.
It is very, very probable that population will increase.
Only if there is future big net immigration. The fertility rate, which is falling, is well below replacement level.
Fertility has been below replacement for many many years. That was one of the reason for encouraging mass immigration - to stop the pay-as-you-go welfare systems collapsing.
We have had high levels of immigration for decades now.
Yes if it was money you were talking about it would fit the definition of a ponzi scheme. You need to get ever more new people in to sustain payments. Like all ponzi schemes it only lasts so long before it collapses. Ever increasing immigration is not the answer
Human society has been a ponzi scheme of that sort (haveing children so that you have someone to look after you in your old age) for thousands of years, so I think its probably got a few years left in it yet.
The various welfare schemes in question were generally setup in the early to mid 20th cent. when high pollution growth was a historic fact.
By the late 80s and early 90s, politicians were having to face up to a "pension gap" - too many old people. And not enough young people. All kinds of problems politically.
Mass immigration seemed like a simple fix - import tons of young people. They earn. No need to tell the oldies their pensions are about to halve or something....
I've just done a rough calculation, my parents bought their house for 18K and would pay that amount in about 15 months under this new property tax.
And we're in the desolate North.
I suspect many in the South would be paying their purchase price within weeks under this new house tax.
well isn't that fair then? had a big property gain and giving some of it back?
Not really, over the last forty years, my parents have spent something like 500k on improving/extending the house, if not more.
Your parents house was bought for 18k and is worth 3 million quid ?!
I wish, last time I was valued it was something like £1.2 million in 2013.
Then the bill would be about 6k in a year, not 14.4k
Ah thanks, still more than we're currently paying in council tax.
The difficulty of this for any government is that no government has gone for changing the valuation for council tax, which is based on 1991(!!) values.
But, it sounds like you wouldn't want them to because it'd almost certainly land you with a larger bill?
Look, I get this, I really do, but I think it's gone too far now. The existing system isn't fair enough.
I want to lower taxes on younger and working people, to boost their economy and their prospects, and I think we need to assess how we do it.
Javid (briefly), Sunak, Osborne and even Hammond (I think) have all considered this in the last 10 years. So it's not a socialist ploy.
I’ve never understood why a council tax revaluation would lead to a rise in council tax? Presumably the same amount would be needed in a given area so, while there might be some rebalancing, it’s unlikely to be massive
I think Nigel put his finger on it earlier today when he said the winners would just pocket the difference and shrug but the losers would scream blue murder.
That's how it already is. Kids starve and a lot of rich people shrug.
Well I hope you noted all those !concerned about the poor! leftwingers objecting as they might have to pay more tax if council tax was replaced by a property tax
Who said anything about left wing? Plenty of people on the right are concerned about childhood malnutrition too.
I was merely commenting that many normally left wing posters were horrified that the proposal would mean they would end up paying more tax as they are the ones usually saying we should pay more tax
Everyone agrees that rich people should pay more tax.
Defining rich people is easy - anyone who earns 3-5x more than the person you ask.
I blame George Osborne. He started the idea that only millionaires should pay IHT. From there, it is only a short step to saying only millionaires should pay any tax.
'Twas ever thus. No one believes that they are The Man. Since the age of the financial qualification for the Senate. Of Rome.....
I remember the shock and horror among some young techies, when I explained that that being on high 5 figures at 25 put them in the 1%... They really, really thought they were in the trenches, slaving for a crust.
Another one was the time a lawyer, big house, 3 children in high private schools etc etc told me he poor...
Do you remember than wanker on QT haranguing Richard Burgon about Labour "lying" about their income tax rises only affecting the top 5% because he, earning a mere eighty grand a year, wasn't even in the top 50% of earners in the country and it would affect him.
Burgon was to totally flummoxed. The questioner point blank refused to believe he was in the top 5%.
The worst Tory general election campaign in living memory? The one where Theresa May became the house snatcher.
Why was Mrs Thatcher really ousted? Tory MPs had angry constituents that were massively worse off thanks to the changes in the rates when the community charge/poll tax came in and they needed a change, which Mrs T wasn't going to give.
Brief lesson, Tory PMs/Leaders who starts messing with council taxes/property taxes have unhappy endings.
It is, IMO, the strongest motivating factor for Tory inclined voters. Don't fuck with people's homes.
Sometimes, though, you need to do what is right, rather than what is popular.
And don't forget, this will be a boon to the retired, because it enables them (should they wish) to downsize without ending up paying a massive chunk of change in stamp duty.
We have 4.5m homes owned by private landlords in this country, target that property at a higher rate. Taxing primary residences for wealth taxes knowing that they can't be worked for income is morally wrong, regardless of whatever economic or social benefits it might bring.
We need rent controls and to make it less attractive to be a private landlord
The oldest mistake in the book.
Reduce supply whilst demand is continued to be high, and you get a slum situation.
Happened last time.
My focus would be on removing all tax allowances on property loans except for build to rent
If you want to ease the crisis of property prices in part of the UK... build a fuckton of houses.
It's an answer that upsets all kinds of people. It is the only policy that will actually work.
One of the main problems is homeownership is seen as financial security. An asset that only ever - and should only ever - increase in value.
Building a fuckton of houses where they’re needed would solve the housing crisis but result in financial insecurity for the Tory client vote.
It’s an obscene situation where one generation is taxing another generation and no one can do anything about it.
Vaguely linked - My stab at a solution to the housing crisis is to incentivise/bribe the nimbys with a moderately generous inflation-linked ns&i YIMBY bond to fund council housing within the tight postcode area. I think that might just break the current stalemate.
Nope, just insist houses are built in an area and fine the councils £100,000 for every house they fail to build
The house building rate to reduce house price inflation in the effected area is so insane, compared to what has been going on, that reducing prices by supply is impossible.
We are in a situation where building an additional 250K houses a year might or might not reduce house price inflation to single digits.
As to incentives - make sure the houses built are of good quality. No one wants to live next to Barrett homes shit. Funny that.
I know the Prince Charles is a Facist Reactionary Neon Nazi Scumbag - but he is right. Build houses for people. The people who want other people to live in "machines for living" can be dealt with thus -
Supply is overstated as an issue, in any case. Demand for housing arises because it’s an investment, at a time when the return on almost everything other than assets is depressed by QE and zero interest rates. Prices are pushed up by people looking for an income stream and capital gain, not by people looking for somewhere to live; the latter are innocent victims of a broken market. Make property less attractive as an investment and its price will settle at a level those needing somewhere to live can afford.
Nope - the population is still increasing faster than we are building bedrooms. They have to sleep somewhere. Hence homes in multiple occupation with bunk beds in every room.
Either
- stop the population increasing - build more houses - enjoy house price inflation
Pick one.
I am definitely in favour of affordable housing. Nevertheless the UK population is probably in decline and ageing right now. The birth rate has fallen in the last ten years to 1.6,not far off from Germany which has actually seen a small increase in fertility rates. IN 2020, obviously an unusual year, there was a exodus of mainly younger foreigners.
For the moment. Given that when things return to semi-normal, there is no indication that employment prospects will have changed in their various home countries.....
The UK population will be expanding again, shortly.
An ongoing UK population increase is possible, but it is not a given. See Japan and Germany over the past 20 years. I suppose another of Alistair Meeks' known unknowns.
Still in favour of affordable housing, however, which is your main point.
It is very, very probable that population will increase.
Only if there is future big net immigration. The fertility rate, which is falling, is well below replacement level.
Whatever happens it's likely the UK population will overtake that of Germany where they've had more deaths than births every year since 1972.
From 1997 to 2019 Germany's population has risen by just 1 million, the UK's by 8.5 million.
At that rate the UK's population should overtake Germany's around the year 2063.
I've just done a rough calculation, my parents bought their house for 18K and would pay that amount in about 15 months under this new property tax.
And we're in the desolate North.
I suspect many in the South would be paying their purchase price within weeks under this new house tax.
well isn't that fair then? had a big property gain and giving some of it back?
Not really, over the last forty years, my parents have spent something like 500k on improving/extending the house, if not more.
Your parents house was bought for 18k and is worth 3 million quid ?!
I wish, last time I was valued it was something like £1.2 million in 2013.
Then the bill would be about 6k in a year, not 14.4k
Ah thanks, still more than we're currently paying in council tax.
The difficulty of this for any government is that no government has gone for changing the valuation for council tax, which is based on 1991(!!) values.
But, it sounds like you wouldn't want them to because it'd almost certainly land you with a larger bill?
Look, I get this, I really do, but I think it's gone too far now. The existing system isn't fair enough.
I want to lower taxes on younger and working people, to boost their economy and their prospects, and I think we need to assess how we do it.
Javid (briefly), Sunak, Osborne and even Hammond (I think) have all considered this in the last 10 years. So it's not a socialist ploy.
I’ve never understood why a council tax revaluation would lead to a rise in council tax? Presumably the same amount would be needed in a given area so, while there might be some rebalancing, it’s unlikely to be massive
I think Nigel put his finger on it earlier today when he said the winners would just pocket the difference and shrug but the losers would scream blue murder.
That's how it already is. Kids starve and a lot of rich people shrug.
Well I hope you noted all those !concerned about the poor! leftwingers objecting as they might have to pay more tax if council tax was replaced by a property tax
Who said anything about left wing? Plenty of people on the right are concerned about childhood malnutrition too.
I was merely commenting that many normally left wing posters were horrified that the proposal would mean they would end up paying more tax as they are the ones usually saying we should pay more tax
Everyone agrees that rich people should pay more tax.
Defining rich people is easy - anyone who earns 3-5x more than the person you ask.
I blame George Osborne. He started the idea that only millionaires should pay IHT. From there, it is only a short step to saying only millionaires should pay any tax.
Though the way it works out is that millionaires don't pay tax at all. For the super rich, taxation is voluntary.
They are liable to tax they might try and find loopholes to cut it or put their investments offshore but would still be liable to the non dom levy
I've just done a rough calculation, my parents bought their house for 18K and would pay that amount in about 15 months under this new property tax.
And we're in the desolate North.
I suspect many in the South would be paying their purchase price within weeks under this new house tax.
well isn't that fair then? had a big property gain and giving some of it back?
Not really, over the last forty years, my parents have spent something like 500k on improving/extending the house, if not more.
Your parents house was bought for 18k and is worth 3 million quid ?!
I wish, last time I was valued it was something like £1.2 million in 2013.
Then the bill would be about 6k in a year, not 14.4k
Ah thanks, still more than we're currently paying in council tax.
The difficulty of this for any government is that no government has gone for changing the valuation for council tax, which is based on 1991(!!) values.
But, it sounds like you wouldn't want them to because it'd almost certainly land you with a larger bill?
Look, I get this, I really do, but I think it's gone too far now. The existing system isn't fair enough.
I want to lower taxes on younger and working people, to boost their economy and their prospects, and I think we need to assess how we do it.
Javid (briefly), Sunak, Osborne and even Hammond (I think) have all considered this in the last 10 years. So it's not a socialist ploy.
I’ve never understood why a council tax revaluation would lead to a rise in council tax? Presumably the same amount would be needed in a given area so, while there might be some rebalancing, it’s unlikely to be massive
I think Nigel put his finger on it earlier today when he said the winners would just pocket the difference and shrug but the losers would scream blue murder.
That's how it already is. Kids starve and a lot of rich people shrug.
Well I hope you noted all those !concerned about the poor! leftwingers objecting as they might have to pay more tax if council tax was replaced by a property tax
Who said anything about left wing? Plenty of people on the right are concerned about childhood malnutrition too.
I was merely commenting that many normally left wing posters were horrified that the proposal would mean they would end up paying more tax as they are the ones usually saying we should pay more tax
Everyone agrees that rich people should pay more tax.
Defining rich people is easy - anyone who earns 3-5x more than the person you ask.
Not really
I earn ~£50k
I and others on my wage can and should pay more tax.
The better off, of which I am one, are very fortunate and at a time like this should be asked to pay much more.
I also supported the most recent Scottish Government changes to income tax, which resulted in me paying more income tax.
This was one of the better attempts to convince Remainers that it was okay for Leavers to vote to make the country poorer if there was something that they valued more highly, by pointing out that there are many voters on the Left who willingly vote to make themselves poorer for the greater collective benefit.
The worst Tory general election campaign in living memory? The one where Theresa May became the house snatcher.
Why was Mrs Thatcher really ousted? Tory MPs had angry constituents that were massively worse off thanks to the changes in the rates when the community charge/poll tax came in and they needed a change, which Mrs T wasn't going to give.
Brief lesson, Tory PMs/Leaders who starts messing with council taxes/property taxes have unhappy endings.
It is, IMO, the strongest motivating factor for Tory inclined voters. Don't fuck with people's homes.
Sometimes, though, you need to do what is right, rather than what is popular.
And don't forget, this will be a boon to the retired, because it enables them (should they wish) to downsize without ending up paying a massive chunk of change in stamp duty.
We have 4.5m homes owned by private landlords in this country, target that property at a higher rate. Taxing primary residences for wealth taxes knowing that they can't be worked for income is morally wrong, regardless of whatever economic or social benefits it might bring.
We need rent controls and to make it less attractive to be a private landlord
The oldest mistake in the book.
Reduce supply whilst demand is continued to be high, and you get a slum situation.
Happened last time.
My focus would be on removing all tax allowances on property loans except for build to rent
If you want to ease the crisis of property prices in part of the UK... build a fuckton of houses.
It's an answer that upsets all kinds of people. It is the only policy that will actually work.
One of the main problems is homeownership is seen as financial security. An asset that only ever - and should only ever - increase in value.
Building a fuckton of houses where they’re needed would solve the housing crisis but result in financial insecurity for the Tory client vote.
It’s an obscene situation where one generation is taxing another generation and no one can do anything about it.
Vaguely linked - My stab at a solution to the housing crisis is to incentivise/bribe the nimbys with a moderately generous inflation-linked ns&i YIMBY bond to fund council housing within the tight postcode area. I think that might just break the current stalemate.
Nope, just insist houses are built in an area and fine the councils £100,000 for every house they fail to build
The house building rate to reduce house price inflation in the effected area is so insane, compared to what has been going on, that reducing prices by supply is impossible.
We are in a situation where building an additional 250K houses a year might or might not reduce house price inflation to single digits.
As to incentives - make sure the houses built are of good quality. No one wants to live next to Barrett homes shit. Funny that.
I know the Prince Charles is a Facist Reactionary Neon Nazi Scumbag - but he is right. Build houses for people. The people who want other people to live in "machines for living" can be dealt with thus -
Supply is overstated as an issue, in any case. Demand for housing arises because it’s an investment, at a time when the return on almost everything other than assets is depressed by QE and zero interest rates. Prices are pushed up by people looking for an income stream and capital gain, not by people looking for somewhere to live; the latter are innocent victims of a broken market. Make property less attractive as an investment and its price will settle at a level those needing somewhere to live can afford.
Nope - the population is still increasing faster than we are building bedrooms. They have to sleep somewhere. Hence homes in multiple occupation with bunk beds in every room.
Either
- stop the population increasing - build more houses - enjoy house price inflation
Pick one.
I am definitely in favour of affordable housing. Nevertheless the UK population is probably in decline and ageing right now. The birth rate has fallen in the last ten years to 1.6,not far off from Germany which has actually seen a small increase in fertility rates. IN 2020, obviously an unusual year, there was a exodus of mainly younger foreigners.
For the moment. Given that when things return to semi-normal, there is no indication that employment prospects will have changed in their various home countries.....
The UK population will be expanding again, shortly.
An ongoing UK population increase is possible, but it is not a given. See Japan and Germany over the past 20 years. I suppose another of Alistair Meeks' known unknowns.
Still in favour of affordable housing, however, which is your main point.
It is very, very probable that population will increase.
Only if there is future big net immigration. The fertility rate, which is falling, is well below replacement level.
Fertility has been below replacement for many many years. That was one of the reason for encouraging mass immigration - to stop the pay-as-you-go welfare systems collapsing.
We have had high levels of immigration for decades now.
I agree that has been the case. But the past isn't a guide to the future on this and there are some indications, including the falling birth rate plus new barriers to mobility, to make a population increase that bit less likely.
The worst Tory general election campaign in living memory? The one where Theresa May became the house snatcher.
Why was Mrs Thatcher really ousted? Tory MPs had angry constituents that were massively worse off thanks to the changes in the rates when the community charge/poll tax came in and they needed a change, which Mrs T wasn't going to give.
Brief lesson, Tory PMs/Leaders who starts messing with council taxes/property taxes have unhappy endings.
It is, IMO, the strongest motivating factor for Tory inclined voters. Don't fuck with people's homes.
Sometimes, though, you need to do what is right, rather than what is popular.
And don't forget, this will be a boon to the retired, because it enables them (should they wish) to downsize without ending up paying a massive chunk of change in stamp duty.
We have 4.5m homes owned by private landlords in this country, target that property at a higher rate. Taxing primary residences for wealth taxes knowing that they can't be worked for income is morally wrong, regardless of whatever economic or social benefits it might bring.
We need rent controls and to make it less attractive to be a private landlord
The oldest mistake in the book.
Reduce supply whilst demand is continued to be high, and you get a slum situation.
Happened last time.
My focus would be on removing all tax allowances on property loans except for build to rent
If you want to ease the crisis of property prices in part of the UK... build a fuckton of houses.
It's an answer that upsets all kinds of people. It is the only policy that will actually work.
One of the main problems is homeownership is seen as financial security. An asset that only ever - and should only ever - increase in value.
Building a fuckton of houses where they’re needed would solve the housing crisis but result in financial insecurity for the Tory client vote.
It’s an obscene situation where one generation is taxing another generation and no one can do anything about it.
Vaguely linked - My stab at a solution to the housing crisis is to incentivise/bribe the nimbys with a moderately generous inflation-linked ns&i YIMBY bond to fund council housing within the tight postcode area. I think that might just break the current stalemate.
Nope, just insist houses are built in an area and fine the councils £100,000 for every house they fail to build
The house building rate to reduce house price inflation in the effected area is so insane, compared to what has been going on, that reducing prices by supply is impossible.
We are in a situation where building an additional 250K houses a year might or might not reduce house price inflation to single digits.
As to incentives - make sure the houses built are of good quality. No one wants to live next to Barrett homes shit. Funny that.
I know the Prince Charles is a Facist Reactionary Neon Nazi Scumbag - but he is right. Build houses for people. The people who want other people to live in "machines for living" can be dealt with thus -
Supply is overstated as an issue, in any case. Demand for housing arises because it’s an investment, at a time when the return on almost everything other than assets is depressed by QE and zero interest rates. Prices are pushed up by people looking for an income stream and capital gain, not by people looking for somewhere to live; the latter are innocent victims of a broken market. Make property less attractive as an investment and its price will settle at a level those needing somewhere to live can afford.
Nope - the population is still increasing faster than we are building bedrooms. They have to sleep somewhere. Hence homes in multiple occupation with bunk beds in every room.
Either
- stop the population increasing - build more houses - enjoy house price inflation
Pick one.
I am definitely in favour of affordable housing. Nevertheless the UK population is probably in decline and ageing right now. The birth rate has fallen in the last ten years to 1.6,not far off from Germany which has actually seen a small increase in fertility rates. IN 2020, obviously an unusual year, there was a exodus of mainly younger foreigners.
For the moment. Given that when things return to semi-normal, there is no indication that employment prospects will have changed in their various home countries.....
The UK population will be expanding again, shortly.
An ongoing UK population increase is possible, but it is not a given. See Japan and Germany over the past 20 years. I suppose another of Alistair Meeks' known unknowns.
Still in favour of affordable housing, however, which is your main point.
It is very, very probable that population will increase.
Only if there is future big net immigration. The fertility rate, which is falling, is well below replacement level.
Fertility has been below replacement for many many years. That was one of the reason for encouraging mass immigration - to stop the pay-as-you-go welfare systems collapsing.
We have had high levels of immigration for decades now.
Yes if it was money you were talking about it would fit the definition of a ponzi scheme. You need to get ever more new people in to sustain payments. Like all ponzi schemes it only lasts so long before it collapses. Ever increasing immigration is not the answer
It's only a Ponzi scheme if you need exponential growth. A tax-based welfare system is sustainable, as long as the proportions remain constant. That means an increase is needed to counteract an ageing population (since pensions are a large part of the outlay), but when you have enough youth immigration where people come and work temporarily, you get an equilibrium point.
Without that easy migration, or by changing the profile so a higher percentage of migrants stay, you lose that benefit. The equilibrium is then found with lower pensions, higher taxes, or a decline in life expectancy. I'm not really sure what the good choice is there; I chose to keep free movement but didn't seem that enough people saw it the same way.
The worst Tory general election campaign in living memory? The one where Theresa May became the house snatcher.
Why was Mrs Thatcher really ousted? Tory MPs had angry constituents that were massively worse off thanks to the changes in the rates when the community charge/poll tax came in and they needed a change, which Mrs T wasn't going to give.
Brief lesson, Tory PMs/Leaders who starts messing with council taxes/property taxes have unhappy endings.
It is, IMO, the strongest motivating factor for Tory inclined voters. Don't fuck with people's homes.
Sometimes, though, you need to do what is right, rather than what is popular.
And don't forget, this will be a boon to the retired, because it enables them (should they wish) to downsize without ending up paying a massive chunk of change in stamp duty.
We have 4.5m homes owned by private landlords in this country, target that property at a higher rate. Taxing primary residences for wealth taxes knowing that they can't be worked for income is morally wrong, regardless of whatever economic or social benefits it might bring.
We need rent controls and to make it less attractive to be a private landlord
The oldest mistake in the book.
Reduce supply whilst demand is continued to be high, and you get a slum situation.
Happened last time.
My focus would be on removing all tax allowances on property loans except for build to rent
If you want to ease the crisis of property prices in part of the UK... build a fuckton of houses.
It's an answer that upsets all kinds of people. It is the only policy that will actually work.
One of the main problems is homeownership is seen as financial security. An asset that only ever - and should only ever - increase in value.
Building a fuckton of houses where they’re needed would solve the housing crisis but result in financial insecurity for the Tory client vote.
It’s an obscene situation where one generation is taxing another generation and no one can do anything about it.
Vaguely linked - My stab at a solution to the housing crisis is to incentivise/bribe the nimbys with a moderately generous inflation-linked ns&i YIMBY bond to fund council housing within the tight postcode area. I think that might just break the current stalemate.
Nope, just insist houses are built in an area and fine the councils £100,000 for every house they fail to build
The house building rate to reduce house price inflation in the effected area is so insane, compared to what has been going on, that reducing prices by supply is impossible.
We are in a situation where building an additional 250K houses a year might or might not reduce house price inflation to single digits.
As to incentives - make sure the houses built are of good quality. No one wants to live next to Barrett homes shit. Funny that.
I know the Prince Charles is a Facist Reactionary Neon Nazi Scumbag - but he is right. Build houses for people. The people who want other people to live in "machines for living" can be dealt with thus -
Supply is overstated as an issue, in any case. Demand for housing arises because it’s an investment, at a time when the return on almost everything other than assets is depressed by QE and zero interest rates. Prices are pushed up by people looking for an income stream and capital gain, not by people looking for somewhere to live; the latter are innocent victims of a broken market. Make property less attractive as an investment and its price will settle at a level those needing somewhere to live can afford.
Nope - the population is still increasing faster than we are building bedrooms. They have to sleep somewhere. Hence homes in multiple occupation with bunk beds in every room.
Either
- stop the population increasing - build more houses - enjoy house price inflation
Pick one.
I am definitely in favour of affordable housing. Nevertheless the UK population is probably in decline and ageing right now. The birth rate has fallen in the last ten years to 1.6,not far off from Germany which has actually seen a small increase in fertility rates. IN 2020, obviously an unusual year, there was a exodus of mainly younger foreigners.
For the moment. Given that when things return to semi-normal, there is no indication that employment prospects will have changed in their various home countries.....
The UK population will be expanding again, shortly.
An ongoing UK population increase is possible, but it is not a given. See Japan and Germany over the past 20 years. I suppose another of Alistair Meeks' known unknowns.
Still in favour of affordable housing, however, which is your main point.
It is very, very probable that population will increase.
Only if there is future big net immigration. The fertility rate, which is falling, is well below replacement level.
Whatever happens it's likely the UK population will overtake that of Germany where they've had more deaths than births every year since 1972.
From 1997 to 2019 Germany's population has risen by just 1 million, the UK's by 8.5 million.
At that rate the UK's population should overtake Germany's around the year 2063.
The worst Tory general election campaign in living memory? The one where Theresa May became the house snatcher.
Why was Mrs Thatcher really ousted? Tory MPs had angry constituents that were massively worse off thanks to the changes in the rates when the community charge/poll tax came in and they needed a change, which Mrs T wasn't going to give.
Brief lesson, Tory PMs/Leaders who starts messing with council taxes/property taxes have unhappy endings.
It is, IMO, the strongest motivating factor for Tory inclined voters. Don't fuck with people's homes.
Sometimes, though, you need to do what is right, rather than what is popular.
And don't forget, this will be a boon to the retired, because it enables them (should they wish) to downsize without ending up paying a massive chunk of change in stamp duty.
We have 4.5m homes owned by private landlords in this country, target that property at a higher rate. Taxing primary residences for wealth taxes knowing that they can't be worked for income is morally wrong, regardless of whatever economic or social benefits it might bring.
We need rent controls and to make it less attractive to be a private landlord
The oldest mistake in the book.
Reduce supply whilst demand is continued to be high, and you get a slum situation.
Happened last time.
My focus would be on removing all tax allowances on property loans except for build to rent
If you want to ease the crisis of property prices in part of the UK... build a fuckton of houses.
It's an answer that upsets all kinds of people. It is the only policy that will actually work.
One of the main problems is homeownership is seen as financial security. An asset that only ever - and should only ever - increase in value.
Building a fuckton of houses where they’re needed would solve the housing crisis but result in financial insecurity for the Tory client vote.
It’s an obscene situation where one generation is taxing another generation and no one can do anything about it.
Vaguely linked - My stab at a solution to the housing crisis is to incentivise/bribe the nimbys with a moderately generous inflation-linked ns&i YIMBY bond to fund council housing within the tight postcode area. I think that might just break the current stalemate.
Nope, just insist houses are built in an area and fine the councils £100,000 for every house they fail to build
The house building rate to reduce house price inflation in the effected area is so insane, compared to what has been going on, that reducing prices by supply is impossible.
We are in a situation where building an additional 250K houses a year might or might not reduce house price inflation to single digits.
As to incentives - make sure the houses built are of good quality. No one wants to live next to Barrett homes shit. Funny that.
I know the Prince Charles is a Facist Reactionary Neon Nazi Scumbag - but he is right. Build houses for people. The people who want other people to live in "machines for living" can be dealt with thus -
Supply is overstated as an issue, in any case. Demand for housing arises because it’s an investment, at a time when the return on almost everything other than assets is depressed by QE and zero interest rates. Prices are pushed up by people looking for an income stream and capital gain, not by people looking for somewhere to live; the latter are innocent victims of a broken market. Make property less attractive as an investment and its price will settle at a level those needing somewhere to live can afford.
Nope - the population is still increasing faster than we are building bedrooms. They have to sleep somewhere. Hence homes in multiple occupation with bunk beds in every room.
Either
- stop the population increasing - build more houses - enjoy house price inflation
Pick one.
I am definitely in favour of affordable housing. Nevertheless the UK population is probably in decline and ageing right now. The birth rate has fallen in the last ten years to 1.6,not far off from Germany which has actually seen a small increase in fertility rates. IN 2020, obviously an unusual year, there was a exodus of mainly younger foreigners.
For the moment. Given that when things return to semi-normal, there is no indication that employment prospects will have changed in their various home countries.....
The UK population will be expanding again, shortly.
An ongoing UK population increase is possible, but it is not a given. See Japan and Germany over the past 20 years. I suppose another of Alistair Meeks' known unknowns.
Still in favour of affordable housing, however, which is your main point.
It is very, very probable that population will increase.
Only if there is future big net immigration. The fertility rate, which is falling, is well below replacement level.
Fertility has been below replacement for many many years. That was one of the reason for encouraging mass immigration - to stop the pay-as-you-go welfare systems collapsing.
We have had high levels of immigration for decades now.
Yes if it was money you were talking about it would fit the definition of a ponzi scheme. You need to get ever more new people in to sustain payments. Like all ponzi schemes it only lasts so long before it collapses. Ever increasing immigration is not the answer
Human society has been a ponzi scheme of that sort (haveing children so that you have someone to look after you in your old age) for thousands of years, so I think its probably got a few years left in it yet.
The various welfare schemes in question were generally setup in the early to mid 20th cent. when high pollution growth was a historic fact.
By the late 80s and early 90s, politicians were having to face up to a "pension gap" - too many old people. And not enough young people. All kinds of problems politically.
Mass immigration seemed like a simple fix - import tons of young people. They earn. No need to tell the oldies their pensions are about to halve or something....
Those damn oldies kept staying alive far too long after they started receiving their pension and other benefits, rather than when those schemes were setup only thr lucky few got to really experience them for a substantial number of years.
A choice between absolute void of nothing or a chance at changing position and winning back some voters.
Here's guessing they will go with the howling void of nothing. Monica Lennon's radical "The SNP keep winning all the votes maybe they have a moral legitimacy in holding an IndyRef" will just be a gigantic step too far for SLab membership.
They'll go with "Better Together was flawless and the Scottish public will reward us soon" instead.
Anas Sarwar is the continuity candidate. If he wins, nothing will change, and SLAB will continue to struggle to achieve 20% of the vote. If they choose Monica Lennon, they may recover enough to ensure second place. Especially if she can marginalise Jackie Baillie and James Kelly, who will be doing their best to stab her in the back whenever possible.
I've just done a rough calculation, my parents bought their house for 18K and would pay that amount in about 15 months under this new property tax.
And we're in the desolate North.
I suspect many in the South would be paying their purchase price within weeks under this new house tax.
well isn't that fair then? had a big property gain and giving some of it back?
Not really, over the last forty years, my parents have spent something like 500k on improving/extending the house, if not more.
Your parents house was bought for 18k and is worth 3 million quid ?!
I wish, last time I was valued it was something like £1.2 million in 2013.
Then the bill would be about 6k in a year, not 14.4k
Ah thanks, still more than we're currently paying in council tax.
The difficulty of this for any government is that no government has gone for changing the valuation for council tax, which is based on 1991(!!) values.
But, it sounds like you wouldn't want them to because it'd almost certainly land you with a larger bill?
Look, I get this, I really do, but I think it's gone too far now. The existing system isn't fair enough.
I want to lower taxes on younger and working people, to boost their economy and their prospects, and I think we need to assess how we do it.
Javid (briefly), Sunak, Osborne and even Hammond (I think) have all considered this in the last 10 years. So it's not a socialist ploy.
I’ve never understood why a council tax revaluation would lead to a rise in council tax? Presumably the same amount would be needed in a given area so, while there might be some rebalancing, it’s unlikely to be massive
I think Nigel put his finger on it earlier today when he said the winners would just pocket the difference and shrug but the losers would scream blue murder.
That's how it already is. Kids starve and a lot of rich people shrug.
Well I hope you noted all those !concerned about the poor! leftwingers objecting as they might have to pay more tax if council tax was replaced by a property tax
Who said anything about left wing? Plenty of people on the right are concerned about childhood malnutrition too.
I was merely commenting that many normally left wing posters were horrified that the proposal would mean they would end up paying more tax as they are the ones usually saying we should pay more tax
Everyone agrees that rich people should pay more tax.
Defining rich people is easy - anyone who earns 3-5x more than the person you ask.
I blame George Osborne. He started the idea that only millionaires should pay IHT. From there, it is only a short step to saying only millionaires should pay any tax.
'Twas ever thus. No one believes that they are The Man. Since the age of the financial qualification for the Senate. Of Rome.....
I remember the shock and horror among some young techies, when I explained that that being on high 5 figures at 25 put them in the 1%... They really, really thought they were in the trenches, slaving for a crust.
Another one was the time a lawyer, big house, 3 children in high private schools etc etc told me he poor...
Do you remember than wanker on QT haranguing Richard Burgon about Labour "lying" about their income tax rises only affecting the top 5% because he, earning a mere eighty grand a year, wasn't even in the top 50% of earners in the country and it would affect him.
Burgon was to totally flummoxed. The questioner point blank refused to believe he was in the top 5%.
No, I didn't see that. I can completely believe it, and can picture the total sincerity of Mr 80K....
Kier Starmer will take us back into the Customs Union:
(1) His base will love it. (2) He can make an economic case for it. (3) He wants to use it to outflank the Tories on Unionism.
And he's already said as much.
Not a chance.
Labour might, but if they do it won't be Starmer, and the chances of them doing so are very small in the short to medium term.
There's an interview with him the other week where he strongly hinted this, but I can't find it.
Frankly if I were Starmer I would hold back on making any policy substantive announcements until at least 2022, maybe even 2023. Things have changed so fast so quickly that Labour need to see what the post Brexit and post Pandemic landscape looks like an then form proposals accordingly. If the mood shifts to in a more pro Europe direction I don’t think suggesting negotiation of a form of Customs Union with the EU is at all out of the question.
He's the brightest Labour leader ever.
Not as bright as Wilson - or Gaitskell.
Wilson was perhaps the brightest person ever to lead a political party in this country.
Possibly - though Asquith and Gladstone were also pretty bright. Wilson also did fail twice in the All Souls exam - unlike Keith Joseph, Brian Walden and - cough! Cough! - John Redwood.
Our brightest and most intellectual politicians, Powell, Redwood, Healey, Jenkins, Cable, Portillo, Hurd, Joseph etc rarely actually become PM, their influence is mainly on policy and the debate.
Brown is probably the only PM in my lifetime who can really be considered an intellectual but his time at the helm was not the greatest.
This 0.48 proposal would QUADRUPLE my council tax.
Lucky you. I’d be 14x greater
You’ve got a family money though. As part of the ancien regime, you’re a deserved target.
Nope. My brother has family money.
I have to work for a living
Can I just say that primogeniture sucks?
I've always thought that ultimogeniture makes more sense, as parents have learned from their mistakes and the youngest will be the best raised and prepared.
I have nothing to inherit anyway, so it is only theoretical benefit I would accrue from that kind of policy anyway.
The worst Tory general election campaign in living memory? The one where Theresa May became the house snatcher.
Why was Mrs Thatcher really ousted? Tory MPs had angry constituents that were massively worse off thanks to the changes in the rates when the community charge/poll tax came in and they needed a change, which Mrs T wasn't going to give.
Brief lesson, Tory PMs/Leaders who starts messing with council taxes/property taxes have unhappy endings.
It is, IMO, the strongest motivating factor for Tory inclined voters. Don't fuck with people's homes.
Sometimes, though, you need to do what is right, rather than what is popular.
And don't forget, this will be a boon to the retired, because it enables them (should they wish) to downsize without ending up paying a massive chunk of change in stamp duty.
We have 4.5m homes owned by private landlords in this country, target that property at a higher rate. Taxing primary residences for wealth taxes knowing that they can't be worked for income is morally wrong, regardless of whatever economic or social benefits it might bring.
We need rent controls and to make it less attractive to be a private landlord
The oldest mistake in the book.
Reduce supply whilst demand is continued to be high, and you get a slum situation.
Happened last time.
My focus would be on removing all tax allowances on property loans except for build to rent
If you want to ease the crisis of property prices in part of the UK... build a fuckton of houses.
It's an answer that upsets all kinds of people. It is the only policy that will actually work.
One of the main problems is homeownership is seen as financial security. An asset that only ever - and should only ever - increase in value.
Building a fuckton of houses where they’re needed would solve the housing crisis but result in financial insecurity for the Tory client vote.
It’s an obscene situation where one generation is taxing another generation and no one can do anything about it.
Vaguely linked - My stab at a solution to the housing crisis is to incentivise/bribe the nimbys with a moderately generous inflation-linked ns&i YIMBY bond to fund council housing within the tight postcode area. I think that might just break the current stalemate.
Nope, just insist houses are built in an area and fine the councils £100,000 for every house they fail to build
The house building rate to reduce house price inflation in the effected area is so insane, compared to what has been going on, that reducing prices by supply is impossible.
We are in a situation where building an additional 250K houses a year might or might not reduce house price inflation to single digits.
As to incentives - make sure the houses built are of good quality. No one wants to live next to Barrett homes shit. Funny that.
I know the Prince Charles is a Facist Reactionary Neon Nazi Scumbag - but he is right. Build houses for people. The people who want other people to live in "machines for living" can be dealt with thus -
Supply is overstated as an issue, in any case. Demand for housing arises because it’s an investment, at a time when the return on almost everything other than assets is depressed by QE and zero interest rates. Prices are pushed up by people looking for an income stream and capital gain, not by people looking for somewhere to live; the latter are innocent victims of a broken market. Make property less attractive as an investment and its price will settle at a level those needing somewhere to live can afford.
Nope - the population is still increasing faster than we are building bedrooms. They have to sleep somewhere. Hence homes in multiple occupation with bunk beds in every room.
Either
- stop the population increasing - build more houses - enjoy house price inflation
Pick one.
I am definitely in favour of affordable housing. Nevertheless the UK population is probably in decline and ageing right now. The birth rate has fallen in the last ten years to 1.6,not far off from Germany which has actually seen a small increase in fertility rates. IN 2020, obviously an unusual year, there was a exodus of mainly younger foreigners.
For the moment. Given that when things return to semi-normal, there is no indication that employment prospects will have changed in their various home countries.....
The UK population will be expanding again, shortly.
An ongoing UK population increase is possible, but it is not a given. See Japan and Germany over the past 20 years. I suppose another of Alistair Meeks' known unknowns.
Still in favour of affordable housing, however, which is your main point.
It is very, very probable that population will increase.
Only if there is future big net immigration. The fertility rate, which is falling, is well below replacement level.
Fertility has been below replacement for many many years. That was one of the reason for encouraging mass immigration - to stop the pay-as-you-go welfare systems collapsing.
We have had high levels of immigration for decades now.
Yes if it was money you were talking about it would fit the definition of a ponzi scheme. You need to get ever more new people in to sustain payments. Like all ponzi schemes it only lasts so long before it collapses. Ever increasing immigration is not the answer
Human society has been a ponzi scheme of that sort (haveing children so that you have someone to look after you in your old age) for thousands of years, so I think its probably got a few years left in it yet.
The various welfare schemes in question were generally setup in the early to mid 20th cent. when high pollution growth was a historic fact.
By the late 80s and early 90s, politicians were having to face up to a "pension gap" - too many old people. And not enough young people. All kinds of problems politically.
Mass immigration seemed like a simple fix - import tons of young people. They earn. No need to tell the oldies their pensions are about to halve or something....
Those damn oldies kept staying alive far too long after they started receiving their pension and other benefits, rather than when those schemes were setup only thr lucky few got to really experience them for a substantial number of years.
Yes, there was a reason that Bismarck chose the pension ages he did....
The worst Tory general election campaign in living memory? The one where Theresa May became the house snatcher.
Why was Mrs Thatcher really ousted? Tory MPs had angry constituents that were massively worse off thanks to the changes in the rates when the community charge/poll tax came in and they needed a change, which Mrs T wasn't going to give.
Brief lesson, Tory PMs/Leaders who starts messing with council taxes/property taxes have unhappy endings.
It is, IMO, the strongest motivating factor for Tory inclined voters. Don't fuck with people's homes.
Sometimes, though, you need to do what is right, rather than what is popular.
And don't forget, this will be a boon to the retired, because it enables them (should they wish) to downsize without ending up paying a massive chunk of change in stamp duty.
We have 4.5m homes owned by private landlords in this country, target that property at a higher rate. Taxing primary residences for wealth taxes knowing that they can't be worked for income is morally wrong, regardless of whatever economic or social benefits it might bring.
We need rent controls and to make it less attractive to be a private landlord
The oldest mistake in the book.
Reduce supply whilst demand is continued to be high, and you get a slum situation.
Happened last time.
My focus would be on removing all tax allowances on property loans except for build to rent
If you want to ease the crisis of property prices in part of the UK... build a fuckton of houses.
It's an answer that upsets all kinds of people. It is the only policy that will actually work.
One of the main problems is homeownership is seen as financial security. An asset that only ever - and should only ever - increase in value.
Building a fuckton of houses where they’re needed would solve the housing crisis but result in financial insecurity for the Tory client vote.
It’s an obscene situation where one generation is taxing another generation and no one can do anything about it.
Vaguely linked - My stab at a solution to the housing crisis is to incentivise/bribe the nimbys with a moderately generous inflation-linked ns&i YIMBY bond to fund council housing within the tight postcode area. I think that might just break the current stalemate.
Nope, just insist houses are built in an area and fine the councils £100,000 for every house they fail to build
The house building rate to reduce house price inflation in the effected area is so insane, compared to what has been going on, that reducing prices by supply is impossible.
We are in a situation where building an additional 250K houses a year might or might not reduce house price inflation to single digits.
As to incentives - make sure the houses built are of good quality. No one wants to live next to Barrett homes shit. Funny that.
I know the Prince Charles is a Facist Reactionary Neon Nazi Scumbag - but he is right. Build houses for people. The people who want other people to live in "machines for living" can be dealt with thus -
Supply is overstated as an issue, in any case. Demand for housing arises because it’s an investment, at a time when the return on almost everything other than assets is depressed by QE and zero interest rates. Prices are pushed up by people looking for an income stream and capital gain, not by people looking for somewhere to live; the latter are innocent victims of a broken market. Make property less attractive as an investment and its price will settle at a level those needing somewhere to live can afford.
Nope - the population is still increasing faster than we are building bedrooms. They have to sleep somewhere. Hence homes in multiple occupation with bunk beds in every room.
Either
- stop the population increasing - build more houses - enjoy house price inflation
Pick one.
I am definitely in favour of affordable housing. Nevertheless the UK population is probably in decline and ageing right now. The birth rate has fallen in the last ten years to 1.6,not far off from Germany which has actually seen a small increase in fertility rates. IN 2020, obviously an unusual year, there was a exodus of mainly younger foreigners.
For the moment. Given that when things return to semi-normal, there is no indication that employment prospects will have changed in their various home countries.....
The UK population will be expanding again, shortly.
An ongoing UK population increase is possible, but it is not a given. See Japan and Germany over the past 20 years. I suppose another of Alistair Meeks' known unknowns.
Still in favour of affordable housing, however, which is your main point.
It is very, very probable that population will increase.
Only if there is future big net immigration. The fertility rate, which is falling, is well below replacement level.
Fertility has been below replacement for many many years. That was one of the reason for encouraging mass immigration - to stop the pay-as-you-go welfare systems collapsing.
We have had high levels of immigration for decades now.
Yes if it was money you were talking about it would fit the definition of a ponzi scheme. You need to get ever more new people in to sustain payments. Like all ponzi schemes it only lasts so long before it collapses. Ever increasing immigration is not the answer
It's only a Ponzi scheme if you need exponential growth. A tax-based welfare system is sustainable, as long as the proportions remain constant. That means an increase is needed to counteract an ageing population (since pensions are a large part of the outlay), but when you have enough youth immigration where people come and work temporarily, you get an equilibrium point.
Without that easy migration, or by changing the profile so a higher percentage of migrants stay, you lose that benefit. The equilibrium is then found with lower pensions, higher taxes, or a decline in life expectancy. I'm not really sure what the good choice is there; I chose to keep free movement but didn't seem that enough people saw it the same way.
Immigration only helps if they come when young then go away when they get old. Doesnt seem a good deal for their home country if they pay all their tax here while working then go home when they retire
The worst Tory general election campaign in living memory? The one where Theresa May became the house snatcher.
Why was Mrs Thatcher really ousted? Tory MPs had angry constituents that were massively worse off thanks to the changes in the rates when the community charge/poll tax came in and they needed a change, which Mrs T wasn't going to give.
Brief lesson, Tory PMs/Leaders who starts messing with council taxes/property taxes have unhappy endings.
It is, IMO, the strongest motivating factor for Tory inclined voters. Don't fuck with people's homes.
Sometimes, though, you need to do what is right, rather than what is popular.
And don't forget, this will be a boon to the retired, because it enables them (should they wish) to downsize without ending up paying a massive chunk of change in stamp duty.
We have 4.5m homes owned by private landlords in this country, target that property at a higher rate. Taxing primary residences for wealth taxes knowing that they can't be worked for income is morally wrong, regardless of whatever economic or social benefits it might bring.
We need rent controls and to make it less attractive to be a private landlord
The oldest mistake in the book.
Reduce supply whilst demand is continued to be high, and you get a slum situation.
Happened last time.
My focus would be on removing all tax allowances on property loans except for build to rent
If you want to ease the crisis of property prices in part of the UK... build a fuckton of houses.
It's an answer that upsets all kinds of people. It is the only policy that will actually work.
One of the main problems is homeownership is seen as financial security. An asset that only ever - and should only ever - increase in value.
Building a fuckton of houses where they’re needed would solve the housing crisis but result in financial insecurity for the Tory client vote.
It’s an obscene situation where one generation is taxing another generation and no one can do anything about it.
Vaguely linked - My stab at a solution to the housing crisis is to incentivise/bribe the nimbys with a moderately generous inflation-linked ns&i YIMBY bond to fund council housing within the tight postcode area. I think that might just break the current stalemate.
Nope, just insist houses are built in an area and fine the councils £100,000 for every house they fail to build
The house building rate to reduce house price inflation in the effected area is so insane, compared to what has been going on, that reducing prices by supply is impossible.
We are in a situation where building an additional 250K houses a year might or might not reduce house price inflation to single digits.
As to incentives - make sure the houses built are of good quality. No one wants to live next to Barrett homes shit. Funny that.
I know the Prince Charles is a Facist Reactionary Neon Nazi Scumbag - but he is right. Build houses for people. The people who want other people to live in "machines for living" can be dealt with thus -
Supply is overstated as an issue, in any case. Demand for housing arises because it’s an investment, at a time when the return on almost everything other than assets is depressed by QE and zero interest rates. Prices are pushed up by people looking for an income stream and capital gain, not by people looking for somewhere to live; the latter are innocent victims of a broken market. Make property less attractive as an investment and its price will settle at a level those needing somewhere to live can afford.
Nope - the population is still increasing faster than we are building bedrooms. They have to sleep somewhere. Hence homes in multiple occupation with bunk beds in every room.
Either
- stop the population increasing - build more houses - enjoy house price inflation
Pick one.
I am definitely in favour of affordable housing. Nevertheless the UK population is probably in decline and ageing right now. The birth rate has fallen in the last ten years to 1.6,not far off from Germany which has actually seen a small increase in fertility rates. IN 2020, obviously an unusual year, there was a exodus of mainly younger foreigners.
For the moment. Given that when things return to semi-normal, there is no indication that employment prospects will have changed in their various home countries.....
The UK population will be expanding again, shortly.
An ongoing UK population increase is possible, but it is not a given. See Japan and Germany over the past 20 years. I suppose another of Alistair Meeks' known unknowns.
Still in favour of affordable housing, however, which is your main point.
It is very, very probable that population will increase.
Only if there is future big net immigration. The fertility rate, which is falling, is well below replacement level.
Fertility has been below replacement for many many years. That was one of the reason for encouraging mass immigration - to stop the pay-as-you-go welfare systems collapsing.
We have had high levels of immigration for decades now.
Yes if it was money you were talking about it would fit the definition of a ponzi scheme. You need to get ever more new people in to sustain payments. Like all ponzi schemes it only lasts so long before it collapses. Ever increasing immigration is not the answer
Human society has been a ponzi scheme of that sort (haveing children so that you have someone to look after you in your old age) for thousands of years, so I think its probably got a few years left in it yet.
The various welfare schemes in question were generally setup in the early to mid 20th cent. when high pollution growth was a historic fact.
By the late 80s and early 90s, politicians were having to face up to a "pension gap" - too many old people. And not enough young people. All kinds of problems politically.
Mass immigration seemed like a simple fix - import tons of young people. They earn. No need to tell the oldies their pensions are about to halve or something....
Those damn oldies kept staying alive far too long after they started receiving their pension and other benefits, rather than when those schemes were setup only thr lucky few got to really experience them for a substantial number of years.
Perhaps we need some disease which will wipe out huge numbers of oldies while not affecting the young.
That would sort the problem unless we shut down the country to keep the oldies alive
Deeply dodgy that Bruce didn't lay down the facts there.
Unbelievable.
It is my firm and honest belief that if Burgon had said "shut it you ignorant c--t, here's the facts you thick blockhead" Labour could have won the election.
I've just done a rough calculation, my parents bought their house for 18K and would pay that amount in about 15 months under this new property tax.
And we're in the desolate North.
I suspect many in the South would be paying their purchase price within weeks under this new house tax.
well isn't that fair then? had a big property gain and giving some of it back?
Not really, over the last forty years, my parents have spent something like 500k on improving/extending the house, if not more.
Your parents house was bought for 18k and is worth 3 million quid ?!
I wish, last time I was valued it was something like £1.2 million in 2013.
Then the bill would be about 6k in a year, not 14.4k
Ah thanks, still more than we're currently paying in council tax.
The difficulty of this for any government is that no government has gone for changing the valuation for council tax, which is based on 1991(!!) values.
But, it sounds like you wouldn't want them to because it'd almost certainly land you with a larger bill?
Look, I get this, I really do, but I think it's gone too far now. The existing system isn't fair enough.
I want to lower taxes on younger and working people, to boost their economy and their prospects, and I think we need to assess how we do it.
Javid (briefly), Sunak, Osborne and even Hammond (I think) have all considered this in the last 10 years. So it's not a socialist ploy.
I’ve never understood why a council tax revaluation would lead to a rise in council tax? Presumably the same amount would be needed in a given area so, while there might be some rebalancing, it’s unlikely to be massive
I think Nigel put his finger on it earlier today when he said the winners would just pocket the difference and shrug but the losers would scream blue murder.
That's how it already is. Kids starve and a lot of rich people shrug.
Well I hope you noted all those !concerned about the poor! leftwingers objecting as they might have to pay more tax if council tax was replaced by a property tax
Who said anything about left wing? Plenty of people on the right are concerned about childhood malnutrition too.
I was merely commenting that many normally left wing posters were horrified that the proposal would mean they would end up paying more tax as they are the ones usually saying we should pay more tax
Everyone agrees that rich people should pay more tax.
Defining rich people is easy - anyone who earns 3-5x more than the person you ask.
Not really
I earn ~£50k
I and others on my wage can and should pay more tax.
The better off, of which I am one, are very fortunate and at a time like this should be asked to pay much more.
I also supported the most recent Scottish Government changes to income tax, which resulted in me paying more income tax.
This was one of the better attempts to convince Remainers that it was okay for Leavers to vote to make the country poorer if there was something that they valued more highly, by pointing out that there are many voters on the Left who willingly vote to make themselves poorer for the greater collective benefit.
Big difference between voting to make oneself poorer (to improve the country) and voting to make the country poorer.
This 0.48 proposal would QUADRUPLE my council tax.
Lucky you. I’d be 14x greater
You’ve got a family money though. As part of the ancien regime, you’re a deserved target.
Nope. My brother has family money.
I have to work for a living
Can I just say that primogeniture sucks?
ONE OF US
My brother has shares he can’t sell in a business he doesn’t control. He received about £3,000 in dividends last year but had to work in the shop full time to be allowed to keep the shares.
It’s an interesting philosophical debate as to how much his inheritance was actually worth.
The worst Tory general election campaign in living memory? The one where Theresa May became the house snatcher.
Why was Mrs Thatcher really ousted? Tory MPs had angry constituents that were massively worse off thanks to the changes in the rates when the community charge/poll tax came in and they needed a change, which Mrs T wasn't going to give.
Brief lesson, Tory PMs/Leaders who starts messing with council taxes/property taxes have unhappy endings.
It is, IMO, the strongest motivating factor for Tory inclined voters. Don't fuck with people's homes.
Sometimes, though, you need to do what is right, rather than what is popular.
And don't forget, this will be a boon to the retired, because it enables them (should they wish) to downsize without ending up paying a massive chunk of change in stamp duty.
We have 4.5m homes owned by private landlords in this country, target that property at a higher rate. Taxing primary residences for wealth taxes knowing that they can't be worked for income is morally wrong, regardless of whatever economic or social benefits it might bring.
We need rent controls and to make it less attractive to be a private landlord
The oldest mistake in the book.
Reduce supply whilst demand is continued to be high, and you get a slum situation.
Happened last time.
My focus would be on removing all tax allowances on property loans except for build to rent
If you want to ease the crisis of property prices in part of the UK... build a fuckton of houses.
It's an answer that upsets all kinds of people. It is the only policy that will actually work.
One of the main problems is homeownership is seen as financial security. An asset that only ever - and should only ever - increase in value.
Building a fuckton of houses where they’re needed would solve the housing crisis but result in financial insecurity for the Tory client vote.
It’s an obscene situation where one generation is taxing another generation and no one can do anything about it.
Vaguely linked - My stab at a solution to the housing crisis is to incentivise/bribe the nimbys with a moderately generous inflation-linked ns&i YIMBY bond to fund council housing within the tight postcode area. I think that might just break the current stalemate.
Nope, just insist houses are built in an area and fine the councils £100,000 for every house they fail to build
The house building rate to reduce house price inflation in the effected area is so insane, compared to what has been going on, that reducing prices by supply is impossible.
We are in a situation where building an additional 250K houses a year might or might not reduce house price inflation to single digits.
As to incentives - make sure the houses built are of good quality. No one wants to live next to Barrett homes shit. Funny that.
I know the Prince Charles is a Facist Reactionary Neon Nazi Scumbag - but he is right. Build houses for people. The people who want other people to live in "machines for living" can be dealt with thus -
Supply is overstated as an issue, in any case. Demand for housing arises because it’s an investment, at a time when the return on almost everything other than assets is depressed by QE and zero interest rates. Prices are pushed up by people looking for an income stream and capital gain, not by people looking for somewhere to live; the latter are innocent victims of a broken market. Make property less attractive as an investment and its price will settle at a level those needing somewhere to live can afford.
Nope - the population is still increasing faster than we are building bedrooms. They have to sleep somewhere. Hence homes in multiple occupation with bunk beds in every room.
Either
- stop the population increasing - build more houses - enjoy house price inflation
Pick one.
I am definitely in favour of affordable housing. Nevertheless the UK population is probably in decline and ageing right now. The birth rate has fallen in the last ten years to 1.6,not far off from Germany which has actually seen a small increase in fertility rates. IN 2020, obviously an unusual year, there was a exodus of mainly younger foreigners.
For the moment. Given that when things return to semi-normal, there is no indication that employment prospects will have changed in their various home countries.....
The UK population will be expanding again, shortly.
An ongoing UK population increase is possible, but it is not a given. See Japan and Germany over the past 20 years. I suppose another of Alistair Meeks' known unknowns.
Still in favour of affordable housing, however, which is your main point.
It is very, very probable that population will increase.
Only if there is future big net immigration. The fertility rate, which is falling, is well below replacement level.
Fertility has been below replacement for many many years. That was one of the reason for encouraging mass immigration - to stop the pay-as-you-go welfare systems collapsing.
We have had high levels of immigration for decades now.
Yes if it was money you were talking about it would fit the definition of a ponzi scheme. You need to get ever more new people in to sustain payments. Like all ponzi schemes it only lasts so long before it collapses. Ever increasing immigration is not the answer
It's only a Ponzi scheme if you need exponential growth. A tax-based welfare system is sustainable, as long as the proportions remain constant. That means an increase is needed to counteract an ageing population (since pensions are a large part of the outlay), but when you have enough youth immigration where people come and work temporarily, you get an equilibrium point.
Without that easy migration, or by changing the profile so a higher percentage of migrants stay, you lose that benefit. The equilibrium is then found with lower pensions, higher taxes, or a decline in life expectancy. I'm not really sure what the good choice is there; I chose to keep free movement but didn't seem that enough people saw it the same way.
Part of the problem is that no politicians were prepared to come up with an idea of what the steady state would be.
The ever growing version seemed easier. Combined with trying to constrict all the attendant structure of population growth, particularly housing, and you simply create a mess.
A choice between absolute void of nothing or a chance at changing position and winning back some voters.
Here's guessing they will go with the howling void of nothing. Monica Lennon's radical "The SNP keep winning all the votes maybe they have a moral legitimacy in holding an IndyRef" will just be a gigantic step too far for SLab membership.
They'll go with "Better Together was flawless and the Scottish public will reward us soon" instead.
Anas Sarwar is the continuity candidate. If he wins, nothing will change, and SLAB will continue to struggle to achieve 20% of the vote. If they choose Monica Lennon, they may recover enough to ensure second place. Especially if she can marginalise Jackie Baillie and James Kelly, who will be doing their best to stab her in the back whenever possible.
A choice between absolute void of nothing or a chance at changing position and winning back some voters.
Here's guessing they will go with the howling void of nothing. Monica Lennon's radical "The SNP keep winning all the votes maybe they have a moral legitimacy in holding an IndyRef" will just be a gigantic step too far for SLab membership.
They'll go with "Better Together was flawless and the Scottish public will reward us soon" instead.
Anas Sarwar is the continuity candidate. If he wins, nothing will change, and SLAB will continue to struggle to achieve 20% of the vote. If they choose Monica Lennon, they may recover enough to ensure second place. Especially if she can marginalise Jackie Baillie and James Kelly, who will be doing their best to stab her in the back whenever possible.
Why would Lennon get second making SLab an SNP mini me?
The SCons would obviously stay second as the main Unionist alternative
I've just done a rough calculation, my parents bought their house for 18K and would pay that amount in about 15 months under this new property tax.
And we're in the desolate North.
I suspect many in the South would be paying their purchase price within weeks under this new house tax.
well isn't that fair then? had a big property gain and giving some of it back?
Not really, over the last forty years, my parents have spent something like 500k on improving/extending the house, if not more.
Your parents house was bought for 18k and is worth 3 million quid ?!
I wish, last time I was valued it was something like £1.2 million in 2013.
Then the bill would be about 6k in a year, not 14.4k
Ah thanks, still more than we're currently paying in council tax.
The difficulty of this for any government is that no government has gone for changing the valuation for council tax, which is based on 1991(!!) values.
But, it sounds like you wouldn't want them to because it'd almost certainly land you with a larger bill?
Look, I get this, I really do, but I think it's gone too far now. The existing system isn't fair enough.
I want to lower taxes on younger and working people, to boost their economy and their prospects, and I think we need to assess how we do it.
Javid (briefly), Sunak, Osborne and even Hammond (I think) have all considered this in the last 10 years. So it's not a socialist ploy.
I’ve never understood why a council tax revaluation would lead to a rise in council tax? Presumably the same amount would be needed in a given area so, while there might be some rebalancing, it’s unlikely to be massive
I think Nigel put his finger on it earlier today when he said the winners would just pocket the difference and shrug but the losers would scream blue murder.
That's how it already is. Kids starve and a lot of rich people shrug.
Well I hope you noted all those !concerned about the poor! leftwingers objecting as they might have to pay more tax if council tax was replaced by a property tax
Who said anything about left wing? Plenty of people on the right are concerned about childhood malnutrition too.
I was merely commenting that many normally left wing posters were horrified that the proposal would mean they would end up paying more tax as they are the ones usually saying we should pay more tax
Everyone agrees that rich people should pay more tax.
Defining rich people is easy - anyone who earns 3-5x more than the person you ask.
I blame George Osborne. He started the idea that only millionaires should pay IHT. From there, it is only a short step to saying only millionaires should pay any tax.
'Twas ever thus. No one believes that they are The Man. Since the age of the financial qualification for the Senate. Of Rome.....
I remember the shock and horror among some young techies, when I explained that that being on high 5 figures at 25 put them in the 1%... They really, really thought they were in the trenches, slaving for a crust.
Another one was the time a lawyer, big house, 3 children in high private schools etc etc told me he poor...
Do you remember than wanker on QT haranguing Richard Burgon about Labour "lying" about their income tax rises only affecting the top 5% because he, earning a mere eighty grand a year, wasn't even in the top 50% of earners in the country and it would affect him.
Burgon was to totally flummoxed. The questioner point blank refused to believe he was in the top 5%.
No, I didn't see that. I can completely believe it, and can picture the total sincerity of Mr 80K....
80K would be top 5%, IIRC
I found the video (a few posts up), as you say, total aggressive sincerity. It enrages me even now.
This 0.48 proposal would QUADRUPLE my council tax.
Lucky you. I’d be 14x greater
You’ve got a family money though. As part of the ancien regime, you’re a deserved target.
Nope. My brother has family money.
I have to work for a living
Can I just say that primogeniture sucks?
I've always thought that ultimogeniture makes more sense, as parents have learned from their mistakes and the youngest will be the best raised and prepared.
I have nothing to inherit anyway, so it is only theoretical benefit I would accrue from that kind of policy anyway.
Or pehaps the thunderdome approach, all siblings enter one sibling leaves, you could even do pay per view streaming to boost the family wealth
This 0.48 proposal would QUADRUPLE my council tax.
Lucky you. I’d be 14x greater
You’ve got a family money though. As part of the ancien regime, you’re a deserved target.
Nope. My brother has family money.
I have to work for a living
Can I just say that primogeniture sucks?
I've always thought that ultimogeniture makes more sense, as parents have learned from their mistakes and the youngest will be the best raised and prepared.
I have nothing to inherit anyway, so it is only theoretical benefit I would accrue from that kind of policy anyway.
That a recipe for some epic jealous older sibling behaviour. "We keep having children but they keep disappearing down the well when we turn our backs. We can't think who might be doing this"
Deeply dodgy that Bruce didn't lay down the facts there.
Unbelievable.
It is my firm and honest belief that if Burgon had said "shut it you ignorant c--t, here's the facts you thick blockhead" Labour could have won the election.
Lol!
In reality of course, 95% of those watching were thinking: "You earn £80k? Damn right you should be paying more tax, you big gobshite"
My sister who works as a school secretary has succumbed to Covid (positive lateral flow test in followed by a positive PCR). Sister now has to submit a list of recent contacts. The headteacher, who was in regular contact with my sister during Thursday and Friday, is pleading with my sister not to list her as a contact, on the grounds that she is needed to oversee the school's testing in the week ahead. The Head will know that my sister listed her; hence my sister fears the consequences of doing so.
I suspect that I can already hear your answers.
Would like Cyclefree's take. Her area of expertise.
I would be inclined to write a letter to a national paper - all names redacted - explaining what has gone on. Copied to the Head. Daily Mail would be my choice. They will get fired up by this.
If the Head does not do the (very) right thing and self-isolate, it will say a second letter will follow, with names unredacted.
Ditto if there are any adverse consequences for your sister's employment.
Alternatively, she could speak to the School Governors, as a step prior to that outlined above.
Nobody is so vital they can put a school at risk by having asymptomatic Covid. Entitled, thoughtless, stupid, self-important maybe. Vital? No.
The headmistress is behaving very badly.
The school ought to have a whistleblowing policy not to mention a safeguarding one, a health and safety policy and a risk assessment policy covering how the school deals with Covid. The headmistress is potentially in breach of some or all of these policies, not to mention the law.
The school secretary should speak privately to whoever is responsible for those policies and explain the situation. If they are not available, she should speak to the Chair of Governors about what has happened. A careful note should be made of each conversation. She should say that she will provide the names of all her contacts, including the Headmistress, and that she is formally blowing the whistle to the Governors about what the Headmistress has asked her to do - as it appears to be a breach of legal requirements relating to Covid and self-isolation (and school policies). She should make it clear that she is doing so both to bring this to the Governors attention but also to protect herself from any retaliation for having done her legal duty and acted in the best interests of the children and her families.
What she should not do is go to the press. That could harm her legal position and risks making a sensitive situation worse.
If NI was combined with Income Tax, most pensioners would presumably pay more than they do currently, unless there was an adjustment to the tax free allowance. It would certainly be fairer, but would the government dare to do it?
If NI was combined with Income Tax, most pensioners would presumably pay more than they do currently, unless there was an adjustment to the tax free allowance. It would certainly be fairer, but would the government dare to do it?
Tories probably not as that is their prime vote base
If NI was combined with Income Tax, most pensioners would presumably pay more than they do currently, unless there was an adjustment to the tax free allowance. It would certainly be fairer, but would the government dare to do it?
No, they won't be brave enough to do it. Sadly.
Of course, it's not just pensioners like myself who would pay more, those living on investment income and the self-employed would also pay more.
A choice between absolute void of nothing or a chance at changing position and winning back some voters.
Here's guessing they will go with the howling void of nothing. Monica Lennon's radical "The SNP keep winning all the votes maybe they have a moral legitimacy in holding an IndyRef" will just be a gigantic step too far for SLab membership.
They'll go with "Better Together was flawless and the Scottish public will reward us soon" instead.
Anas Sarwar is the continuity candidate. If he wins, nothing will change, and SLAB will continue to struggle to achieve 20% of the vote. If they choose Monica Lennon, they may recover enough to ensure second place. Especially if she can marginalise Jackie Baillie and James Kelly, who will be doing their best to stab her in the back whenever possible.
A choice between absolute void of nothing or a chance at changing position and winning back some voters.
Here's guessing they will go with the howling void of nothing. Monica Lennon's radical "The SNP keep winning all the votes maybe they have a moral legitimacy in holding an IndyRef" will just be a gigantic step too far for SLab membership.
They'll go with "Better Together was flawless and the Scottish public will reward us soon" instead.
Anas Sarwar is the continuity candidate. If he wins, nothing will change, and SLAB will continue to struggle to achieve 20% of the vote. If they choose Monica Lennon, they may recover enough to ensure second place. Especially if she can marginalise Jackie Baillie and James Kelly, who will be doing their best to stab her in the back whenever possible.
Why would Lennon get second making SLab an SNP mini me?
The SCons would obviously stay second as the main Unionist alternative
Because not all Scottish politics are about independence. A less right wing Labour party would be more likely to pick up votes from the SNP and the Greens. Although Richard Leonard is a Corbyn supporter, most of the SLAB MSPs are well to the right of their voters.
Kier Starmer will take us back into the Customs Union:
(1) His base will love it. (2) He can make an economic case for it. (3) He wants to use it to outflank the Tories on Unionism.
And he's already said as much.
Not a chance.
Labour might, but if they do it won't be Starmer, and the chances of them doing so are very small in the short to medium term.
There's an interview with him the other week where he strongly hinted this, but I can't find it.
Frankly if I were Starmer I would hold back on making any policy substantive announcements until at least 2022, maybe even 2023. Things have changed so fast so quickly that Labour need to see what the post Brexit and post Pandemic landscape looks like an then form proposals accordingly. If the mood shifts to in a more pro Europe direction I don’t think suggesting negotiation of a form of Customs Union with the EU is at all out of the question.
He's the brightest Labour leader ever.
Not as bright as Wilson - or Gaitskell.
Wilson was perhaps the brightest person ever to lead a political party in this country.
Possibly - though Asquith and Gladstone were also pretty bright. Wilson also did fail twice in the All Souls exam - unlike Keith Joseph, Brian Walden and - cough! Cough! - John Redwood.
Our brightest and most intellectual politicians, Powell, Redwood, Healey, Jenkins, Cable, Portillo, Hurd, Joseph etc rarely actually become PM, their influence is mainly on policy and the debate.
Brown is probably the only PM in my lifetime who can really be considered an intellectual but his time at the helm was not the greatest.
Wilson clearly was very bright - having become an Oxford economics Don at such a young age. From memory , in his schooldays I don't sense that he was seen as ' brilliant' rather than 'good' - but he certainly did flourish at Oxford. When people are described as 'brilliant' etc, it does make me ponder how far that relates - maybe is confined to - to their chosen disciplines. So Wilson was top class re- Economics, but how would he have fared studying English or Modern Languages - never mind science subjects such as Physics, Chemistry or Medicine?
If NI was combined with Income Tax, most pensioners would presumably pay more than they do currently, unless there was an adjustment to the tax free allowance. It would certainly be fairer, but would the government dare to do it?
No, they won't be brave enough to do it. Sadly.
Of course, it's not just pensioners like myself who would pay more, those living on investment income and the self-employed would also pay more.
True but it would certainly be fairer and, with more and more people working after their retirement age and more and more self employed it strikes me it is inevitable. In the end I think it would be a good thing. And I speak as someone who is both self employed and will hopefully be retired in 10-15 years.
The tax system has to reflect society today and at the moment it doesn't.
If NI was combined with Income Tax, most pensioners would presumably pay more than they do currently, unless there was an adjustment to the tax free allowance. It would certainly be fairer, but would the government dare to do it?
No, they won't be brave enough to do it. Sadly.
Of course, it's not just pensioners like myself who would pay more, those living on investment income and the self-employed would also pay more.
True but it would certainly be fairer and, with more and more people working after their retirement age and more and more self employed it strikes me it is inevitable. In the end I think it would be a good thing. And I speak as someone who is both self employed and will hopefully be retired in 10-15 years.
The tax system has to reflect society today and at the moment it doesn't.
A good tax system is simple, fair, consistent and hard to avoid.
A lot of tax avoidance schemes play on the fact that the 'self employed' don't have to pay national insurance thus evading the tax and putting ever more complicated schemes together to try and sort between the genuinely self-employed and the employed . . . rather than cleaning up the system to be simple, flat, fair and consistent.
Probably doesn't help that much of the media is 'self-employed' so benefit from the current system.
If NI was combined with Income Tax, most pensioners would presumably pay more than they do currently, unless there was an adjustment to the tax free allowance. It would certainly be fairer, but would the government dare to do it?
No, they won't be brave enough to do it. Sadly.
Of course, it's not just pensioners like myself who would pay more, those living on investment income and the self-employed would also pay more.
True but it would certainly be fairer and, with more and more people working after their retirement age and more and more self employed it strikes me it is inevitable. In the end I think it would be a good thing. And I speak as someone who is both self employed and will hopefully be retired in 10-15 years.
The tax system has to reflect society today and at the moment it doesn't.
There are many more self employed now, including my daughter, who set up her own business in July 2019, and is therefore not eligible for any compensation for having to close her business.
Kier Starmer will take us back into the Customs Union:
(1) His base will love it. (2) He can make an economic case for it. (3) He wants to use it to outflank the Tories on Unionism.
And he's already said as much.
Not a chance.
Labour might, but if they do it won't be Starmer, and the chances of them doing so are very small in the short to medium term.
There's an interview with him the other week where he strongly hinted this, but I can't find it.
Frankly if I were Starmer I would hold back on making any policy substantive announcements until at least 2022, maybe even 2023. Things have changed so fast so quickly that Labour need to see what the post Brexit and post Pandemic landscape looks like an then form proposals accordingly. If the mood shifts to in a more pro Europe direction I don’t think suggesting negotiation of a form of Customs Union with the EU is at all out of the question.
He's the brightest Labour leader ever.
Not as bright as Wilson - or Gaitskell.
Wilson was perhaps the brightest person ever to lead a political party in this country.
Possibly - though Asquith and Gladstone were also pretty bright. Wilson also did fail twice in the All Souls exam - unlike Keith Joseph, Brian Walden and - cough! Cough! - John Redwood.
Our brightest and most intellectual politicians, Powell, Redwood, Healey, Jenkins, Cable, Portillo, Hurd, Joseph etc rarely actually become PM, their influence is mainly on policy and the debate.
Brown is probably the only PM in my lifetime who can really be considered an intellectual but his time at the helm was not the greatest.
Wilson clearly was very bright - having become an Oxford economics Don at such a young age. From memory , in his schooldays I don't sense that he was seen as ' brilliant' rather than 'good' - but he certainly did flourish at Oxford. When people are described as 'brilliant' etc, it does make me ponder how far that relates - maybe is confined to - to their chosen disciplines. So Wilson was top class re- Economics, but how would he have fared studying English or Modern Languages - never mind science subjects such as Physics, Chemistry or Medicine?
As you yourself pointed out Wilson was very bright but not All Souls intellectual quality bright.
He was probably the brightest of our postwar PMs along with Brown but none of them were genuine intellectuals in the sense a PM Portillo or Redwood or Enoch Powell or Roy Jenkins would have been.
A choice between absolute void of nothing or a chance at changing position and winning back some voters.
Here's guessing they will go with the howling void of nothing. Monica Lennon's radical "The SNP keep winning all the votes maybe they have a moral legitimacy in holding an IndyRef" will just be a gigantic step too far for SLab membership.
They'll go with "Better Together was flawless and the Scottish public will reward us soon" instead.
Anas Sarwar is the continuity candidate. If he wins, nothing will change, and SLAB will continue to struggle to achieve 20% of the vote. If they choose Monica Lennon, they may recover enough to ensure second place. Especially if she can marginalise Jackie Baillie and James Kelly, who will be doing their best to stab her in the back whenever possible.
A choice between absolute void of nothing or a chance at changing position and winning back some voters.
Here's guessing they will go with the howling void of nothing. Monica Lennon's radical "The SNP keep winning all the votes maybe they have a moral legitimacy in holding an IndyRef" will just be a gigantic step too far for SLab membership.
They'll go with "Better Together was flawless and the Scottish public will reward us soon" instead.
Anas Sarwar is the continuity candidate. If he wins, nothing will change, and SLAB will continue to struggle to achieve 20% of the vote. If they choose Monica Lennon, they may recover enough to ensure second place. Especially if she can marginalise Jackie Baillie and James Kelly, who will be doing their best to stab her in the back whenever possible.
Why would Lennon get second making SLab an SNP mini me?
The SCons would obviously stay second as the main Unionist alternative
Because not all Scottish politics are about independence. A less right wing Labour party would be more likely to pick up votes from the SNP and the Greens. Although Richard Leonard is a Corbyn supporter, most of the SLAB MSPs are well to the right of their voters.
No actually most Scottish politics is about independence now, certainly in terms of which party you vote for and will be for at least another decade.
Most SLab voters now are centrist Unionists, the leftwing Nationalists left for the SNP or Greens years ago. Leonard was less representative of SLab voters now therefore than his MSPs
The fact that he was a murdering bastard doesn't take away from his achievements in music, any more than his achievements in music mitigate the fact that he was a murdering bastard. It's entirely OK to celebrate the music whilst not applauding the murder; it's just a shame some people aren't capable of making the distinction.
I can make the distinction, it just seems like the headline, not just subtitled and other info, should say something like 'Music producer and murderer, Phil Spector, dead'.
It's not some incidental quirk that needs bringing up but doesn't need to be prominent, it should be right there up front and centre. I don't see how that could be objected to.
Because they're not writing him an obituary due to his career as a murderer.
The fact that he was a murdering bastard doesn't take away from his achievements in music, any more than his achievements in music mitigate the fact that he was a murdering bastard. It's entirely OK to celebrate the music whilst not applauding the murder; it's just a shame some people aren't capable of making the distinction.
I can make the distinction, it just seems like the headline, not just subtitled and other info, should say something like 'Music producer and murderer, Phil Spector, dead'.
It's not some incidental quirk that needs bringing up but doesn't need to be prominent, it should be right there up front and centre. I don't see how that could be objected to.
Because they're not writing him an obituary due to his career as a murderer.
But they should.
Some things trump anything else you did. Murder is one of them. He should be remembered as a murderer first, with sympathy for his victims family, and incidentally a music producer second.
Kier Starmer will take us back into the Customs Union:
(1) His base will love it. (2) He can make an economic case for it. (3) He wants to use it to outflank the Tories on Unionism.
And he's already said as much.
Not a chance.
Labour might, but if they do it won't be Starmer, and the chances of them doing so are very small in the short to medium term.
There's an interview with him the other week where he strongly hinted this, but I can't find it.
Frankly if I were Starmer I would hold back on making any policy substantive announcements until at least 2022, maybe even 2023. Things have changed so fast so quickly that Labour need to see what the post Brexit and post Pandemic landscape looks like an then form proposals accordingly. If the mood shifts to in a more pro Europe direction I don’t think suggesting negotiation of a form of Customs Union with the EU is at all out of the question.
He's the brightest Labour leader ever.
Not as bright as Wilson - or Gaitskell.
Wilson was perhaps the brightest person ever to lead a political party in this country.
Possibly - though Asquith and Gladstone were also pretty bright. Wilson also did fail twice in the All Souls exam - unlike Keith Joseph, Brian Walden and - cough! Cough! - John Redwood.
Our brightest and most intellectual politicians, Powell, Redwood, Healey, Jenkins, Cable, Portillo, Hurd, Joseph etc rarely actually become PM, their influence is mainly on policy and the debate.
Brown is probably the only PM in my lifetime who can really be considered an intellectual but his time at the helm was not the greatest.
Wilson clearly was very bright - having become an Oxford economics Don at such a young age. From memory , in his schooldays I don't sense that he was seen as ' brilliant' rather than 'good' - but he certainly did flourish at Oxford. When people are described as 'brilliant' etc, it does make me ponder how far that relates - maybe is confined to - to their chosen disciplines. So Wilson was top class re- Economics, but how would he have fared studying English or Modern Languages - never mind science subjects such as Physics, Chemistry or Medicine?
As you yourself pointed out Wilson was very bright but not All Souls intellectual quality bright.
He was probably the brightest of our postwar PMs along with Brown but none of them were genuine intellectuals in the sense a PM Portillo or Redwood or Enoch Powell or Roy Jenkins would have been.
Kier Starmer will take us back into the Customs Union:
(1) His base will love it. (2) He can make an economic case for it. (3) He wants to use it to outflank the Tories on Unionism.
And he's already said as much.
Not a chance.
Labour might, but if they do it won't be Starmer, and the chances of them doing so are very small in the short to medium term.
There's an interview with him the other week where he strongly hinted this, but I can't find it.
Frankly if I were Starmer I would hold back on making any policy substantive announcements until at least 2022, maybe even 2023. Things have changed so fast so quickly that Labour need to see what the post Brexit and post Pandemic landscape looks like an then form proposals accordingly. If the mood shifts to in a more pro Europe direction I don’t think suggesting negotiation of a form of Customs Union with the EU is at all out of the question.
He's the brightest Labour leader ever.
Not as bright as Wilson - or Gaitskell.
Wilson was perhaps the brightest person ever to lead a political party in this country.
Possibly - though Asquith and Gladstone were also pretty bright. Wilson also did fail twice in the All Souls exam - unlike Keith Joseph, Brian Walden and - cough! Cough! - John Redwood.
Our brightest and most intellectual politicians, Powell, Redwood, Healey, Jenkins, Cable, Portillo, Hurd, Joseph etc rarely actually become PM, their influence is mainly on policy and the debate.
Brown is probably the only PM in my lifetime who can really be considered an intellectual but his time at the helm was not the greatest.
Wilson clearly was very bright - having become an Oxford economics Don at such a young age. From memory , in his schooldays I don't sense that he was seen as ' brilliant' rather than 'good' - but he certainly did flourish at Oxford. When people are described as 'brilliant' etc, it does make me ponder how far that relates - maybe is confined to - to their chosen disciplines. So Wilson was top class re- Economics, but how would he have fared studying English or Modern Languages - never mind science subjects such as Physics, Chemistry or Medicine?
As you yourself pointed out Wilson was very bright but not All Souls intellectual quality bright.
He was probably the brightest of our postwar PMs along with Brown but none of them were genuine intellectuals in the sense a PM Portillo or Redwood or Enoch Powell or Roy Jenkins would have been.
I doubt that Roy Jenkins was of Wilson's calibre in academic terms. Both gained first class honours degrees in PPE, but Jenkins never came close to gaining a Fellowship at Oxford. - despite becoming an eminent historian as exemplified by his biographies of Asquith, Gladstone and Churchill.
The fact that he was a murdering bastard doesn't take away from his achievements in music, any more than his achievements in music mitigate the fact that he was a murdering bastard. It's entirely OK to celebrate the music whilst not applauding the murder; it's just a shame some people aren't capable of making the distinction.
I can make the distinction, it just seems like the headline, not just subtitled and other info, should say something like 'Music producer and murderer, Phil Spector, dead'.
It's not some incidental quirk that needs bringing up but doesn't need to be prominent, it should be right there up front and centre. I don't see how that could be objected to.
Because they're not writing him an obituary due to his career as a murderer.
But they should.
Some things trump anything else you did. Murder is one of them. He should be remembered as a murderer first, with sympathy for his victims family, and incidentally a music producer second.
He was not just any music producer though, John Lennon called him 'the greatest music producer of all time.'
That does not erase the crime he was convicted of but at the same time few convicted murderers achieve such distinction in their career if they even had a career before they were convicted.
The fact that he was a murdering bastard doesn't take away from his achievements in music, any more than his achievements in music mitigate the fact that he was a murdering bastard. It's entirely OK to celebrate the music whilst not applauding the murder; it's just a shame some people aren't capable of making the distinction.
I can make the distinction, it just seems like the headline, not just subtitled and other info, should say something like 'Music producer and murderer, Phil Spector, dead'.
It's not some incidental quirk that needs bringing up but doesn't need to be prominent, it should be right there up front and centre. I don't see how that could be objected to.
Because they're not writing him an obituary due to his career as a murderer.
But they should.
Some things trump anything else you did. Murder is one of them. He should be remembered as a murderer first, with sympathy for his victims family, and incidentally a music producer second.
He was not just any music producer though, John Lennon called him 'the greatest music producer of all time.'
That does not erase the crime he was convicted of but at the same time few convicted murderers achieve such distinction in their career if they even had a career before they were convicted.
John Lennon did not live to see him become a convicted killer, if he had he may have chosen different words.
Absolutely mention his music career as well as being a convicted murderer. But it should be both, not an incidental.
A choice between absolute void of nothing or a chance at changing position and winning back some voters.
Here's guessing they will go with the howling void of nothing. Monica Lennon's radical "The SNP keep winning all the votes maybe they have a moral legitimacy in holding an IndyRef" will just be a gigantic step too far for SLab membership.
They'll go with "Better Together was flawless and the Scottish public will reward us soon" instead.
Anas Sarwar is the continuity candidate. If he wins, nothing will change, and SLAB will continue to struggle to achieve 20% of the vote. If they choose Monica Lennon, they may recover enough to ensure second place. Especially if she can marginalise Jackie Baillie and James Kelly, who will be doing their best to stab her in the back whenever possible.
A choice between absolute void of nothing or a chance at changing position and winning back some voters.
Here's guessing they will go with the howling void of nothing. Monica Lennon's radical "The SNP keep winning all the votes maybe they have a moral legitimacy in holding an IndyRef" will just be a gigantic step too far for SLab membership.
They'll go with "Better Together was flawless and the Scottish public will reward us soon" instead.
Anas Sarwar is the continuity candidate. If he wins, nothing will change, and SLAB will continue to struggle to achieve 20% of the vote. If they choose Monica Lennon, they may recover enough to ensure second place. Especially if she can marginalise Jackie Baillie and James Kelly, who will be doing their best to stab her in the back whenever possible.
Why would Lennon get second making SLab an SNP mini me?
The SCons would obviously stay second as the main Unionist alternative
Because not all Scottish politics are about independence. A less right wing Labour party would be more likely to pick up votes from the SNP and the Greens. Although Richard Leonard is a Corbyn supporter, most of the SLAB MSPs are well to the right of their voters.
No actually most Scottish politics is about independence now, certainly in terms of which party you vote for and will be for at least another decade.
Most SLab voters now are centrist Unionists, the leftwing Nationalists left for the SNP or Greens years ago. Leonard was less representative of SLab voters now therefore than his MSPs
Last week’s Comres poll showed that 33% of Labour votes would vote Yes to independence, 52% would vote no, with 15% undecided. So not as cut and dried as Conservatives for no , 91%, or SNP for yes, 81%.
The fact that he was a murdering bastard doesn't take away from his achievements in music, any more than his achievements in music mitigate the fact that he was a murdering bastard. It's entirely OK to celebrate the music whilst not applauding the murder; it's just a shame some people aren't capable of making the distinction.
I can make the distinction, it just seems like the headline, not just subtitled and other info, should say something like 'Music producer and murderer, Phil Spector, dead'.
It's not some incidental quirk that needs bringing up but doesn't need to be prominent, it should be right there up front and centre. I don't see how that could be objected to.
Because they're not writing him an obituary due to his career as a murderer.
But they should.
Some things trump anything else you did. Murder is one of them. He should be remembered as a murderer first, with sympathy for his victims family, and incidentally a music producer second.
Why should he? He didn't impact thousands of peoples' lives, as the soundtrack to their youth, with his murder, he did that with his music. It should be mentioned of course.
The fact that he was a murdering bastard doesn't take away from his achievements in music, any more than his achievements in music mitigate the fact that he was a murdering bastard. It's entirely OK to celebrate the music whilst not applauding the murder; it's just a shame some people aren't capable of making the distinction.
I can make the distinction, it just seems like the headline, not just subtitled and other info, should say something like 'Music producer and murderer, Phil Spector, dead'.
It's not some incidental quirk that needs bringing up but doesn't need to be prominent, it should be right there up front and centre. I don't see how that could be objected to.
Because they're not writing him an obituary due to his career as a murderer.
But they should.
Some things trump anything else you did. Murder is one of them. He should be remembered as a murderer first, with sympathy for his victims family, and incidentally a music producer second.
He was not just any music producer though, John Lennon called him 'the greatest music producer of all time.'
That does not erase the crime he was convicted of but at the same time few convicted murderers achieve such distinction in their career if they even had a career before they were convicted.
John Lennon did not live to see him become a convicted killer, if he had he may have chosen different words.
Absolutely mention his music career as well as being a convicted murderer. But it should be both, not an incidental.
Actually Lennon also said he thought Specter might kill someone someday, Paul McCartney joked Specter had a bodyguard to protect the Beatles from him! Specter was a genius but volatile and mentally unstable his whole life
My sister who works as a school secretary has succumbed to Covid (positive lateral flow test in followed by a positive PCR). Sister now has to submit a list of recent contacts. The headteacher, who was in regular contact with my sister during Thursday and Friday, is pleading with my sister not to list her as a contact, on the grounds that she is needed to oversee the school's testing in the week ahead. The Head will know that my sister listed her; hence my sister fears the consequences of doing so.
I suspect that I can already hear your answers.
Would like Cyclefree's take. Her area of expertise.
I would be inclined to write a letter to a national paper - all names redacted - explaining what has gone on. Copied to the Head. Daily Mail would be my choice. They will get fired up by this.
If the Head does not do the (very) right thing and self-isolate, it will say a second letter will follow, with names unredacted.
Ditto if there are any adverse consequences for your sister's employment.
Alternatively, she could speak to the School Governors, as a step prior to that outlined above.
Nobody is so vital they can put a school at risk by having asymptomatic Covid. Entitled, thoughtless, stupid, self-important maybe. Vital? No.
It's a no-brainer. @Gadfly's sister just lists the Head as a contact if they have been in contact.
There can be no 'consequences', as I'm sure the Head knows.
Thanks for all the responses.
Prior to her positive results, my sister received a negative lateral flow result at school of Friday morning, which led to the Head arguing that my sister cannot have been positive at the time. Clearly this is incorrect, but it raised doubts in my sister's minds.
The contact form asks my sister to list everybody she met in the 48 hours prior to developing symptoms, and that is what she has now done.
Sorry, just catching up with this.
As an educationalist rather than a lawyer: the head's 'pleading' is wholly inappropriate. If there is any comeback on your sister, she should instigate a private conversation with the school's Chair of Governors. If s/he is any good, they will take a very dim view of the head's behaviour and deal with it.
Comments
In case you missed my response above, my sister included the Head's name on her list and has now submitted this.
He'd come down in the world a bit (they were still in first class) and had let the private plane go. She had never flown on a commercial jet in her life....
Burgon was to totally flummoxed. The questioner point blank refused to believe he was in the top 5%.
I make that proposal as one who would be adversely impact.
The UK birth rate has fallen in the last ten years so it's now only a bit higher than Germany's, which has risen slightly. Which country will have the greatest population in the future depends on relative net immigration.
https://youtu.be/n4g6k1a4XYA
Deeply dodgy that Bruce didn't lay down the facts there.
I have to work for a living
Can I just say that primogeniture sucks?
By the late 80s and early 90s, politicians were having to face up to a "pension gap" - too many old people. And not enough young people. All kinds of problems politically.
Mass immigration seemed like a simple fix - import tons of young people. They earn. No need to tell the oldies their pensions are about to halve or something....
At that rate the UK's population should overtake Germany's around the year 2063.
This was one of the better attempts to convince Remainers that it was okay for Leavers to vote to make the country poorer if there was something that they valued more highly, by pointing out that there are many voters on the Left who willingly vote to make themselves poorer for the greater collective benefit.
Another poster many explode in a different way.....
Without that easy migration, or by changing the profile so a higher percentage of migrants stay, you lose that benefit. The equilibrium is then found with lower pensions, higher taxes, or a decline in life expectancy. I'm not really sure what the good choice is there; I chose to keep free movement but didn't seem that enough people saw it the same way.
https://twitter.com/vote_leave/status/741363396550000640
80K would be top 5%, IIRC
Brown is probably the only PM in my lifetime who can really be considered an intellectual but his time at the helm was not the greatest.
I have nothing to inherit anyway, so it is only theoretical benefit I would accrue from that kind of policy anyway.
That would sort the problem unless we shut down the country to keep the oldies alive
(Paradox Crusader Kings)
It’s an interesting philosophical debate as to how much his inheritance was actually worth.
The ever growing version seemed easier. Combined with trying to constrict all the attendant structure of population growth, particularly housing, and you simply create a mess.
The SCons would obviously stay second as the main Unionist alternative
"We keep having children but they keep disappearing down the well when we turn our backs. We can't think who might be doing this"
In reality of course, 95% of those watching were thinking: "You earn £80k? Damn right you should be paying more tax, you big gobshite"
The school ought to have a whistleblowing policy not to mention a safeguarding one, a health and safety policy and a risk assessment policy covering how the school deals with Covid. The headmistress is potentially in breach of some or all of these policies, not to mention the law.
The school secretary should speak privately to whoever is responsible for those policies and explain the situation. If they are not available, she should speak to the Chair of Governors about what has happened. A careful note should be made of each conversation. She should say that she will provide the names of all her contacts, including the Headmistress, and that she is formally blowing the whistle to the Governors about what the Headmistress has asked her to do - as it appears to be a breach of legal requirements relating to Covid and self-isolation (and school policies). She should make it clear that she is doing so both to bring this to the Governors attention but also to protect herself from any retaliation for having done her legal duty and acted in the best interests of the children and her families.
What she should not do is go to the press. That could harm her legal position and risks making a sensitive situation worse.
Of course, it's not just pensioners like myself who would pay more, those living on investment income and the self-employed would also pay more.
When people are described as 'brilliant' etc, it does make me ponder how far that relates - maybe is confined to - to their chosen disciplines. So Wilson was top class re- Economics, but how would he have fared studying English or Modern Languages - never mind science subjects such as Physics, Chemistry or Medicine?
The tax system has to reflect society today and at the moment it doesn't.
A lot of tax avoidance schemes play on the fact that the 'self employed' don't have to pay national insurance thus evading the tax and putting ever more complicated schemes together to try and sort between the genuinely self-employed and the employed . . . rather than cleaning up the system to be simple, flat, fair and consistent.
Probably doesn't help that much of the media is 'self-employed' so benefit from the current system.
He was probably the brightest of our postwar PMs along with Brown but none of them were genuine intellectuals in the sense a PM Portillo or Redwood or Enoch Powell or Roy Jenkins would have been.
Most SLab voters now are centrist Unionists, the leftwing Nationalists left for the SNP or Greens years ago. Leonard was less representative of SLab voters now therefore than his MSPs
Some things trump anything else you did. Murder is one of them. He should be remembered as a murderer first, with sympathy for his victims family, and incidentally a music producer second.
That does not erase the crime he was convicted of but at the same time few convicted murderers achieve such distinction in their career if they even had a career before they were convicted.
Absolutely mention his music career as well as being a convicted murderer. But it should be both, not an incidental.
On that note, goodnight all!
As an educationalist rather than a lawyer: the head's 'pleading' is wholly inappropriate. If there is any comeback on your sister, she should instigate a private conversation with the school's Chair of Governors. If s/he is any good, they will take a very dim view of the head's behaviour and deal with it.