According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
That's a tax on Londoners. If they do it the Tory party will lose my vote for a very, very long time.
It would hit a lot of elderly, asset-rich and cash poor in London certainly very hard.
Then they can downsize if they want. Supply and demand.
Like the Scottish fishermen who can move into another business if they want, hey? Supply and demand.
If your purpose in posting here is to make the tory party look more attractive than it actually is, you do need to tone down the "fuck anybody who isn't me" vibe.
I am not a London homeowner, in case you were wondering.
That's not my purpose. My purpose is to debate politics, openly and honestly, with other politics nerds. I have no interest in reflecting the party and I don't take the party line, my opinions are my own.
I see no reason why tenants in the Northwest should be compelled by taxation to pay 1% of their properties value in Council Tax while owner occupiers in London can get away with paying just 0.2% of theirs. Do you care to justify it?
I'm not a fan of "progressive" taxation, but what we have now is positively regressive instead. A flat tax is fair, that people have gotten away without paying a flat tax for decades doesn't make introducing a flat tax unfair, it just means people haven't been paying their fair share.
I'm thinking strategically too, or at least I think I am.
I want broader property rights and capitalism defended long-term, and I simply see the current system as unsustainable.
This is a classic conservative case of lead mild reform now or suffer radical change later.
Reason 1 of many why the replacement of Council tax is very unlikely to happen.
It puts safe Tory seats like Bmth West and Bmth East in play. Electoral suicide. Boris simply won't let it happen.
There might be some tinkering around the edges, but an asset tax that includes the principal home of individuals is morally questionable, and electorally disasterous.
The losers will certainly be far more unhappy than the winners are happy. Close to an iron rule of politics.
Not having to pay Council Tax could certainly be very popular up here. It is the right thing to do, to make the policy fair and flat for all, and if the Tories don't do it then Labour certainly could offer it at the next election and sweep back to win back the North with policies like that.
It is a very socialist policy...
No, a socialist policy would be to put bands on in.
Property tax, if it's at 0.5% will be immensely popular in the north, as almost everyone will have a saving on their council tax and go down like cold sick in the south.
And for that reason any budget with it in wouldn't pass the house. Any Tory PM that stood by it would be on the kerb in hours.
The whole president pardon thing is so bent it makes the UK honours system look like a beacon of honesty and integrity.
The US presidential "pardon thing is so bent" when we have a bent President. Such as Bill Clinton and Donald Trumpsky.
Most presidents do NOT sell pardons OR allow others in the White House to peddle them.
Have mislaid my copy of "The Federalist Papers" but IIRC the rationale for granting presidents the power to pardon in the Constitution, was to serve as yet another check & balance, in this case on the judiciary.
Check out the link below, which includes the following:
"One of the sections of this new U.S. Constitution gave the president a power similar to the British King’s “royal prerogative of mercy.” In the U.S., this is known as a presidential pardon. Article II section 2 of the Constitution describes it as the “Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”
Federalists like Alexander Hamilton, who wanted the Constitution to set up a strong national government, supported the addition of this executive power. In the Federalist Papers—an anonymous series of letters that Hamilton and others wrote to newspapers—Hamilton argued that without a way to pardon people, “justice would wear a countenance too sanguinary and cruel.”
But the “principal argument” for the power, he wrote, was that if the U.S. ever experienced an insurrection or rebellion, “a welltimed [sic] offer of pardon to the insurgents or rebels may restore the tranquillity of the commonwealth.” George Washington used the power in this way when he pardoned two members of the Whiskey Rebellion, and so did Abraham Lincoln when he pardoned all but the highest-level Confederate officers after the Civil War.
The Anti-Federalists, though, feared that giving the president the sole power to pardon would result in tyranny. In the lesser-known Anti-Federalist Papers, future Vice President George Clinton warned that it would create “a vile and arbitrary aristocracy or monarchy,” according to The New York Times.
“There was a proposal to require Senate approval for [presidential] pardons, but it was rejected” by the Constitutional Convention, says Caroline Mala Corbin, a professor at the University of Miami School of Law. So too was a proposal to give this power to the Senate instead of the president.
She speculates these measures failed because the Constitutional framers “were worried about making the legislature too powerful,” and that “requiring that the Senate convene and debate and vote” would make it more difficult to quickly restore peace after an insurrection.
In the end, the winning argument was the Federalist position that executive pardons were necessary to correct miscarriages of justice. As federalist and future Supreme Court justice James Iredell wrote at the time, it was considered one of the “advantages of the British constitution” that could be adopted by the U.S. “with proper republican checks.”
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
That's a tax on Londoners. If they do it the Tory party will lose my vote for a very, very long time.
It would hit a lot of elderly, asset-rich and cash poor in London certainly very hard.
Then they can downsize if they want. Supply and demand.
Like the Scottish fishermen who can move into another business if they want, hey? Supply and demand.
If your purpose in posting here is to make the tory party look more attractive than it actually is, you do need to tone down the "fuck anybody who isn't me" vibe.
I am not a London homeowner, in case you were wondering.
That's not my purpose. My purpose is to debate politics, openly and honestly, with other politics nerds. I have no interest in reflecting the party and I don't take the party line, my opinions are my own.
I see no reason why tenants in the Northwest should be compelled by taxation to pay 1% of their properties value in Council Tax while owner occupiers in London can get away with paying just 0.2% of theirs. Do you care to justify it?
I'm not a fan of "progressive" taxation, but what we have now is positively regressive instead. A flat tax is fair, that people have gotten away without paying a flat tax for decades doesn't make introducing a flat tax unfair, it just means people haven't been paying their fair share.
I'm thinking strategically too, or at least I think I am.
I want broader property rights and capitalism defended long-term, and I simply see the current system as unsustainable.
This is a classic conservative case of lead mild reform now or suffer radical change later.
Reason 1 of many why the replacement of Council tax is very unlikely to happen.
It puts safe Tory seats like Bmth West and Bmth East in play. Electoral suicide. Boris simply won't let it happen.
There might be some tinkering around the edges, but an asset tax that includes the principal home of individuals is morally questionable, and electorally disasterous.
The losers will certainly be far more unhappy than the winners are happy. Close to an iron rule of politics.
Not having to pay Council Tax could certainly be very popular up here. It is the right thing to do, to make the policy fair and flat for all, and if the Tories don't do it then Labour certainly could offer it at the next election and sweep back to win back the North with policies like that.
It is a very socialist policy...
No, a socialist policy would be to put bands on in.
Property tax, if it's at 0.5% will be immensely popular in the north, as almost everyone will have a saving on their council tax and go down like cold sick in the south.
And for that reason any budget with it in wouldn't pass the house. Any Tory PM that stood by it would be on the kerb in hours.
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
That's a tax on Londoners. If they do it the Tory party will lose my vote for a very, very long time.
It would hit a lot of elderly, asset-rich and cash poor in London certainly very hard.
Then they can downsize if they want. Supply and demand.
They might, but they wouldn't vote Tory again.
Lunatic policy. This means everyone in London is going to vote Labour.
Bit like now!
The problem the Tories would have is that this would also spread out in effect through other wealthy home-owning areas of the South, such as Surrey or Buckinghamshire, that they've tended to depend on in the past. In a way, it would be an interesting test of whether they really have become a red wall, working class-centred party, as well as having some somewhat unfair marginal outcomes around the edges for a fair number pensioners in London and the South East - the evidence so far, though, suggests the Tories haven't yet become this sort of party. That's what happens when you inflate capital property prices and encourage an unbalanced economy for decades, as the Tories have done since 1979 ; you can't try and take redressing action against thism in the interests of the poorer parts of the country without some equally distorting and disproportionate results in other areas.
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
That's a tax on Londoners. If they do it the Tory party will lose my vote for a very, very long time.
It would hit a lot of elderly, asset-rich and cash poor in London certainly very hard.
Then they can downsize if they want. Supply and demand.
Like the Scottish fishermen who can move into another business if they want, hey? Supply and demand.
If your purpose in posting here is to make the tory party look more attractive than it actually is, you do need to tone down the "fuck anybody who isn't me" vibe.
I am not a London homeowner, in case you were wondering.
That's not my purpose. My purpose is to debate politics, openly and honestly, with other politics nerds. I have no interest in reflecting the party and I don't take the party line, my opinions are my own.
I see no reason why tenants in the Northwest should be compelled by taxation to pay 1% of their properties value in Council Tax while owner occupiers in London can get away with paying just 0.2% of theirs. Do you care to justify it?
I'm not a fan of "progressive" taxation, but what we have now is positively regressive instead. A flat tax is fair, that people have gotten away without paying a flat tax for decades doesn't make introducing a flat tax unfair, it just means people haven't been paying their fair share.
I'm thinking strategically too, or at least I think I am.
I want broader property rights and capitalism defended long-term, and I simply see the current system as unsustainable.
This is a classic conservative case of lead mild reform now or suffer radical change later.
Reason 1 of many why the replacement of Council tax is very unlikely to happen.
It puts safe Tory seats like Bmth West and Bmth East in play. Electoral suicide. Boris simply won't let it happen.
There might be some tinkering around the edges, but an asset tax that includes the principal home of individuals is morally questionable, and electorally disasterous.
What do you think of adding extra council tax bands, Band I and Band J?
I'd rather that govt stop spaffing money up the wall and talk about tax cuts, rather than rises.
Grow the economy, increase the pie. That is the Conservative way.
Tax rises are coming one way or another. The size of the hole we're in is ginormous.
Declinist....
Objective number one for me, as a Conservative, is a stable and content society. This is so the status quo is broadly maintained, and the economy can continue to grow and we can be prosperous long-term.
The generational gap in politics and wealth is vast, and we must address it. This overrides my proclivity for no wealth or land taxes whatsoever in principle. I think the facts have changed.
Young people have very little asset wealth or savings, whilst older people have a huge amount. It's all in assets and property. We need to find a way of more fairly taxing the nation's wealth base, just a tad more, and cutting taxes on income for working people. I'd even revisit going back to child trust accounts so that those without wealthy parents get, say, £10k to help them start out when they hit 18 or 19.
Otherwise, I fear we'll get full-blown socialism one day, and a completely fragmented society.
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
That's a tax on Londoners. If they do it the Tory party will lose my vote for a very, very long time.
It would hit a lot of elderly, asset-rich and cash poor in London certainly very hard.
Then they can downsize if they want. Supply and demand.
Like the Scottish fishermen who can move into another business if they want, hey? Supply and demand.
If your purpose in posting here is to make the tory party look more attractive than it actually is, you do need to tone down the "fuck anybody who isn't me" vibe.
I am not a London homeowner, in case you were wondering.
That's not my purpose. My purpose is to debate politics, openly and honestly, with other politics nerds. I have no interest in reflecting the party and I don't take the party line, my opinions are my own.
I see no reason why tenants in the Northwest should be compelled by taxation to pay 1% of their properties value in Council Tax while owner occupiers in London can get away with paying just 0.2% of theirs. Do you care to justify it?
I'm not a fan of "progressive" taxation, but what we have now is positively regressive instead. A flat tax is fair, that people have gotten away without paying a flat tax for decades doesn't make introducing a flat tax unfair, it just means people haven't been paying their fair share.
I'm thinking strategically too, or at least I think I am.
I want broader property rights and capitalism defended long-term, and I simply see the current system as unsustainable.
This is a classic conservative case of lead mild reform now or suffer radical change later.
Reason 1 of many why the replacement of Council tax is very unlikely to happen.
It puts safe Tory seats like Bmth West and Bmth East in play. Electoral suicide. Boris simply won't let it happen.
There might be some tinkering around the edges, but an asset tax that includes the principal home of individuals is morally questionable, and electorally disasterous.
The losers will certainly be far more unhappy than the winners are happy. Close to an iron rule of politics.
Not having to pay Council Tax could certainly be very popular up here. It is the right thing to do, to make the policy fair and flat for all, and if the Tories don't do it then Labour certainly could offer it at the next election and sweep back to win back the North with policies like that.
You've literally lost the 2024 election for the Tories. Attacking owner occupancy is electoral suicide. I doubt Labour would do it either, I expect them to go after holiday homes and second homes.
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
That's a tax on Londoners. If they do it the Tory party will lose my vote for a very, very long time.
It would hit a lot of elderly, asset-rich and cash poor in London certainly very hard.
Then they can downsize if they want. Supply and demand.
Like the Scottish fishermen who can move into another business if they want, hey? Supply and demand.
If your purpose in posting here is to make the tory party look more attractive than it actually is, you do need to tone down the "fuck anybody who isn't me" vibe.
I am not a London homeowner, in case you were wondering.
That's not my purpose. My purpose is to debate politics, openly and honestly, with other politics nerds. I have no interest in reflecting the party and I don't take the party line, my opinions are my own.
I see no reason why tenants in the Northwest should be compelled by taxation to pay 1% of their properties value in Council Tax while owner occupiers in London can get away with paying just 0.2% of theirs. Do you care to justify it?
I'm not a fan of "progressive" taxation, but what we have now is positively regressive instead. A flat tax is fair, that people have gotten away without paying a flat tax for decades doesn't make introducing a flat tax unfair, it just means people haven't been paying their fair share.
I'm thinking strategically too, or at least I think I am.
I want broader property rights and capitalism defended long-term, and I simply see the current system as unsustainable.
This is a classic conservative case of lead mild reform now or suffer radical change later.
Reason 1 of many why the replacement of Council tax is very unlikely to happen.
It puts safe Tory seats like Bmth West and Bmth East in play. Electoral suicide. Boris simply won't let it happen.
There might be some tinkering around the edges, but an asset tax that includes the principal home of individuals is morally questionable, and electorally disasterous.
The losers will certainly be far more unhappy than the winners are happy. Close to an iron rule of politics.
Not having to pay Council Tax could certainly be very popular up here. It is the right thing to do, to make the policy fair and flat for all, and if the Tories don't do it then Labour certainly could offer it at the next election and sweep back to win back the North with policies like that.
It is a very socialist policy...
No, a socialist policy would be to put bands on in.
Yes, an example of the immunosenescence of the elderly that I mentioned earlier.
We don’t have a great deal of data from the clinical trials themselves on response in the over 80s, do we ? Comparative results from here and Israel will tell us if the government’s gamble on delaying the second doses was correct.
Pfizer studied up to age 85, but the mean age was a lot lower.
Property tax, if it's at 0.5% will be immensely popular in the north, as almost everyone will have a saving on their council tax and go down like cold sick in the south.
And for that reason any budget with it in wouldn't pass the house. Any Tory PM that stood by it would be on the kerb in hours.
There are Tories in the north you know !
This would be a huge tax rise on those who already pay bear the biggest burden of taxation: the middle classes and well off.
Can't see e.g. Brady being a supporter - at least after his ear is bent on the issue by several thousand Tory residents in his constituency.
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
That's a tax on Londoners. If they do it the Tory party will lose my vote for a very, very long time.
It would hit a lot of elderly, asset-rich and cash poor in London certainly very hard.
Then they can downsize if they want. Supply and demand.
Like the Scottish fishermen who can move into another business if they want, hey? Supply and demand.
If your purpose in posting here is to make the tory party look more attractive than it actually is, you do need to tone down the "fuck anybody who isn't me" vibe.
I am not a London homeowner, in case you were wondering.
That's not my purpose. My purpose is to debate politics, openly and honestly, with other politics nerds. I have no interest in reflecting the party and I don't take the party line, my opinions are my own.
I see no reason why tenants in the Northwest should be compelled by taxation to pay 1% of their properties value in Council Tax while owner occupiers in London can get away with paying just 0.2% of theirs. Do you care to justify it?
I'm not a fan of "progressive" taxation, but what we have now is positively regressive instead. A flat tax is fair, that people have gotten away without paying a flat tax for decades doesn't make introducing a flat tax unfair, it just means people haven't been paying their fair share.
I'm thinking strategically too, or at least I think I am.
I want broader property rights and capitalism defended long-term, and I simply see the current system as unsustainable.
This is a classic conservative case of lead mild reform now or suffer radical change later.
Reason 1 of many why the replacement of Council tax is very unlikely to happen.
It puts safe Tory seats like Bmth West and Bmth East in play. Electoral suicide. Boris simply won't let it happen.
There might be some tinkering around the edges, but an asset tax that includes the principal home of individuals is morally questionable, and electorally disasterous.
The losers will certainly be far more unhappy than the winners are happy. Close to an iron rule of politics.
A couple of thoughts occur.
- Transaction taxes alway reduce transactions - A property tax like this might reverse the current situation, where people are seen as a cost to many councils. Large numbers don't pay council tax through various exemptions. With this in place, the tax derived from a habitation would be constant and inevitable.
Naughty thought -
Farmer - "What are you doing here?" Council official - "Good news. You have planning permission to build on your entire 500 acre farm." Farmer - "Wut? I haven't asked...." Council Official - "No, you didn't. Think of it as a present. So the value of your farm has increased by about 1000%. Also, since it is now classified as property taxable, here is a nice bill. And if you don't build on it, it goes up."
The reason that even people who knew better attacked Rumfeld's famous "know unknowns etc., etc." spiel, was because they were strongly opposed to his warmongering. NOT his semantics.
What he said on then, was one of the FEW things to come out of his mouth that a) made sense and b) wasn't a barefaced lie.
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
That's a tax on Londoners. If they do it the Tory party will lose my vote for a very, very long time.
It would hit a lot of elderly, asset-rich and cash poor in London certainly very hard.
Then they can downsize if they want. Supply and demand.
Like the Scottish fishermen who can move into another business if they want, hey? Supply and demand.
If your purpose in posting here is to make the tory party look more attractive than it actually is, you do need to tone down the "fuck anybody who isn't me" vibe.
I am not a London homeowner, in case you were wondering.
That's not my purpose. My purpose is to debate politics, openly and honestly, with other politics nerds. I have no interest in reflecting the party and I don't take the party line, my opinions are my own.
I see no reason why tenants in the Northwest should be compelled by taxation to pay 1% of their properties value in Council Tax while owner occupiers in London can get away with paying just 0.2% of theirs. Do you care to justify it?
I'm not a fan of "progressive" taxation, but what we have now is positively regressive instead. A flat tax is fair, that people have gotten away without paying a flat tax for decades doesn't make introducing a flat tax unfair, it just means people haven't been paying their fair share.
I'm thinking strategically too, or at least I think I am.
I want broader property rights and capitalism defended long-term, and I simply see the current system as unsustainable.
This is a classic conservative case of lead mild reform now or suffer radical change later.
Then defend them, the idea of a property tax on primary residences is absolutely awful. Screw the landlords, not owner-occupiers, I've already paid ca. net 40% tax on my income.
This would be sticking it to all the people in the country who have worked hard and saved to own their own homes and telling us that the Tories aren't on our side, confirming what many of us already believe at the moment.
You're only getting screwed if you've been getting away with paying a much tinier percentage on bills than anyone else is. Why should taxes be so regressive?
Why is it acceptable to have a 0.8% tax in the North and a 0.2% tax in the South? Why shouldn't they be flat?
That's up to those councils to stop wasting so much money and cut council tax.
Given the two largest items of expenditure are adult social care and childhood social care - which are statutorily imposed duties - how do they go about doing that ?
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
That's a tax on Londoners. If they do it the Tory party will lose my vote for a very, very long time.
It would hit a lot of elderly, asset-rich and cash poor in London certainly very hard.
Then they can downsize if they want. Supply and demand.
Like the Scottish fishermen who can move into another business if they want, hey? Supply and demand.
If your purpose in posting here is to make the tory party look more attractive than it actually is, you do need to tone down the "fuck anybody who isn't me" vibe.
I am not a London homeowner, in case you were wondering.
That's not my purpose. My purpose is to debate politics, openly and honestly, with other politics nerds. I have no interest in reflecting the party and I don't take the party line, my opinions are my own.
I see no reason why tenants in the Northwest should be compelled by taxation to pay 1% of their properties value in Council Tax while owner occupiers in London can get away with paying just 0.2% of theirs. Do you care to justify it?
I'm not a fan of "progressive" taxation, but what we have now is positively regressive instead. A flat tax is fair, that people have gotten away without paying a flat tax for decades doesn't make introducing a flat tax unfair, it just means people haven't been paying their fair share.
I'm thinking strategically too, or at least I think I am.
I want broader property rights and capitalism defended long-term, and I simply see the current system as unsustainable.
This is a classic conservative case of lead mild reform now or suffer radical change later.
Reason 1 of many why the replacement of Council tax is very unlikely to happen.
It puts safe Tory seats like Bmth West and Bmth East in play. Electoral suicide. Boris simply won't let it happen.
There might be some tinkering around the edges, but an asset tax that includes the principal home of individuals is morally questionable, and electorally disasterous.
The losers will certainly be far more unhappy than the winners are happy. Close to an iron rule of politics.
Not having to pay Council Tax could certainly be very popular up here. It is the right thing to do, to make the policy fair and flat for all, and if the Tories don't do it then Labour certainly could offer it at the next election and sweep back to win back the North with policies like that.
It is a very socialist policy...
No, a socialist policy would be to put bands on in.
Interesting divide in the north/south Tory coalition on here tonight!
Full disclosure, I am a southern Shire Tory, but my house is at "par" around about £500k. So I have little skin in the game other than wanting a more stable society, and to spike socialism long-term.
I am one of those Tories for whom the nation and its cohesion is more important than my devotion to Adam Smith, or the free market, per say.
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
That's a tax on Londoners. If they do it the Tory party will lose my vote for a very, very long time.
It would hit a lot of elderly, asset-rich and cash poor in London certainly very hard.
Then they can downsize if they want. Supply and demand.
Like the Scottish fishermen who can move into another business if they want, hey? Supply and demand.
If your purpose in posting here is to make the tory party look more attractive than it actually is, you do need to tone down the "fuck anybody who isn't me" vibe.
I am not a London homeowner, in case you were wondering.
That's not my purpose. My purpose is to debate politics, openly and honestly, with other politics nerds. I have no interest in reflecting the party and I don't take the party line, my opinions are my own.
I see no reason why tenants in the Northwest should be compelled by taxation to pay 1% of their properties value in Council Tax while owner occupiers in London can get away with paying just 0.2% of theirs. Do you care to justify it?
I'm not a fan of "progressive" taxation, but what we have now is positively regressive instead. A flat tax is fair, that people have gotten away without paying a flat tax for decades doesn't make introducing a flat tax unfair, it just means people haven't been paying their fair share.
I'm thinking strategically too, or at least I think I am.
I want broader property rights and capitalism defended long-term, and I simply see the current system as unsustainable.
This is a classic conservative case of lead mild reform now or suffer radical change later.
Reason 1 of many why the replacement of Council tax is very unlikely to happen.
It puts safe Tory seats like Bmth West and Bmth East in play. Electoral suicide. Boris simply won't let it happen.
There might be some tinkering around the edges, but an asset tax that includes the principal home of individuals is morally questionable, and electorally disasterous.
The losers will certainly be far more unhappy than the winners are happy. Close to an iron rule of politics.
Not having to pay Council Tax could certainly be very popular up here. It is the right thing to do, to make the policy fair and flat for all, and if the Tories don't do it then Labour certainly could offer it at the next election and sweep back to win back the North with policies like that.
It is a very socialist policy...
No, a socialist policy would be to put bands on in.
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
That's a tax on Londoners. If they do it the Tory party will lose my vote for a very, very long time.
It would hit a lot of elderly, asset-rich and cash poor in London certainly very hard.
Then they can downsize if they want. Supply and demand.
Like the Scottish fishermen who can move into another business if they want, hey? Supply and demand.
If your purpose in posting here is to make the tory party look more attractive than it actually is, you do need to tone down the "fuck anybody who isn't me" vibe.
I am not a London homeowner, in case you were wondering.
That's not my purpose. My purpose is to debate politics, openly and honestly, with other politics nerds. I have no interest in reflecting the party and I don't take the party line, my opinions are my own.
I see no reason why tenants in the Northwest should be compelled by taxation to pay 1% of their properties value in Council Tax while owner occupiers in London can get away with paying just 0.2% of theirs. Do you care to justify it?
I'm not a fan of "progressive" taxation, but what we have now is positively regressive instead. A flat tax is fair, that people have gotten away without paying a flat tax for decades doesn't make introducing a flat tax unfair, it just means people haven't been paying their fair share.
I'm thinking strategically too, or at least I think I am.
I want broader property rights and capitalism defended long-term, and I simply see the current system as unsustainable.
This is a classic conservative case of lead mild reform now or suffer radical change later.
Reason 1 of many why the replacement of Council tax is very unlikely to happen.
It puts safe Tory seats like Bmth West and Bmth East in play. Electoral suicide. Boris simply won't let it happen.
There might be some tinkering around the edges, but an asset tax that includes the principal home of individuals is morally questionable, and electorally disasterous.
The losers will certainly be far more unhappy than the winners are happy. Close to an iron rule of politics.
Not having to pay Council Tax could certainly be very popular up here. It is the right thing to do, to make the policy fair and flat for all, and if the Tories don't do it then Labour certainly could offer it at the next election and sweep back to win back the North with policies like that.
You've literally lost the 2024 election for the Tories. Attacking owner occupancy is electoral suicide. I doubt Labour would do it either, I expect them to go after holiday homes and second homes.
Not attacking owner occupancy, just making it fair and flat rather than regressive as it is at the minute.
If people stop following NIMBY policies trying to artificially inflate their house prices to make a paper profit but a very real loss for those trying to get on the ladder, because doing so results in a tax rise, then so much the better. Good and fair for everyone then.
0.48% of property value would be amazing for me, around a £700 saving every year from my current council tax. It'd be even better for band A-Ders here and go down very well indeed in the red wall.
I agree that it would be better for me and my wife, a saving of £500 per year. Not sure it would be fair on other people in bigger, more expensive houses though.
I have always thought an income tax to fund local councils would be better. It would make families with more than one wage earner contribute more, and also take the pressure off pensioners and unemployed. I would also have a second home charge outwith the income tax system as well.
A local income tax would penalise those who live in less affluent areas - or areas with a lot of retired people - because there will be fewer taxpayers, and yet council outgoings will be greater.
So someone in Barnsley will pay a higher income tax than someone in London.
The property tax is better from that point of view.
Since I moved to Wales I found that household bills in general were lower anyway, so there would be room for any variation in council tax.
It would also make the local council more accountable to their tax payers surely.
The thing I remember about Rumsfeld's "known knowns", etc, is that it was widely mocked by the humanities graduates in journalism and then used as part of the intro to a noticeably large proportion of science seminars.
Symptomatic of a cultural divide within Western society.
Like others I've seen that Rumsfeld quote positively referenced many times. Maybe it was the man and the moment that saw it criticised more than its inherent quality.
The criticism was because of the situation. It was a perfectly sensible enumeration of a basic premise but it was delivered in a manner that made him look like a total dick.
I can't remember, were WMDs a known or an unknown known?
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
That's a tax on Londoners. If they do it the Tory party will lose my vote for a very, very long time.
It would hit a lot of elderly, asset-rich and cash poor in London certainly very hard.
Then they can downsize if they want. Supply and demand.
They might, but they wouldn't vote Tory again.
Lunatic policy. This means everyone in London is going to vote Labour.
Bit like now!
The problem the Tories would have is that this would also spread out in effect through other wealthy home-owning areas of the South, such as Surrey or Buckinghamshire, that the Tories have depended on in the past. In a way, it would be an interesting test of whether they really have become a red wall, working class-centred party, as well as having some somewhat unfair marginal outcomes around the edges for some pensioners in London and the South East - the evidence so far suggests the Tories haven't become this sort of party. That's what happens when you inflate capital property prices and encourage an unbalanced economy for decades, as the Tories have done since 1979 ; you can't try and take redressing action against in the interests of the poorer parts of the country without some equally distorting and disproportionate results in other places.
The Tories got a higher voteshare in Lincolnshire than Surrey at the last general election and a higher voteshare in North Yorkshire than in Buckinghamshire.
The Tories also got a bigger majority in Mansfield and Bishop Auckland than in Chelsea and Fulham or Kensington or Cities of London and Westminster.
Property tax, if it's at 0.5% will be immensely popular in the north, as almost everyone will have a saving on their council tax and go down like cold sick in the south.
And for that reason any budget with it in wouldn't pass the house. Any Tory PM that stood by it would be on the kerb in hours.
There are Tories in the north you know !
This would be a huge tax rise on those who already pay bear the biggest burden of taxation: the middle classes and well off.
Can't see e.g. Brady being a supporter - at least after his ear is bent on the issue by several thousand Tory residents in his constituency.
The middle class and the well off in the south.
You'll just have to move north. Don't panic, it isn't so bad up here.
Who is going to pay for the hole that we are in, though? Somebody will have to...
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
That's a tax on Londoners. If they do it the Tory party will lose my vote for a very, very long time.
It would hit a lot of elderly, asset-rich and cash poor in London certainly very hard.
Then they can downsize if they want. Supply and demand.
Like the Scottish fishermen who can move into another business if they want, hey? Supply and demand.
If your purpose in posting here is to make the tory party look more attractive than it actually is, you do need to tone down the "fuck anybody who isn't me" vibe.
I am not a London homeowner, in case you were wondering.
That's not my purpose. My purpose is to debate politics, openly and honestly, with other politics nerds. I have no interest in reflecting the party and I don't take the party line, my opinions are my own.
I see no reason why tenants in the Northwest should be compelled by taxation to pay 1% of their properties value in Council Tax while owner occupiers in London can get away with paying just 0.2% of theirs. Do you care to justify it?
I'm not a fan of "progressive" taxation, but what we have now is positively regressive instead. A flat tax is fair, that people have gotten away without paying a flat tax for decades doesn't make introducing a flat tax unfair, it just means people haven't been paying their fair share.
I'm thinking strategically too, or at least I think I am.
I want broader property rights and capitalism defended long-term, and I simply see the current system as unsustainable.
This is a classic conservative case of lead mild reform now or suffer radical change later.
Reason 1 of many why the replacement of Council tax is very unlikely to happen.
It puts safe Tory seats like Bmth West and Bmth East in play. Electoral suicide. Boris simply won't let it happen.
There might be some tinkering around the edges, but an asset tax that includes the principal home of individuals is morally questionable, and electorally disasterous.
What do you think of adding extra council tax bands, Band I and Band J?
I'd rather that govt stop spaffing money up the wall and talk about tax cuts, rather than rises.
Grow the economy, increase the pie. That is the Conservative way.
Tax rises are coming one way or another. The size of the hole we're in is ginormous.
Declinist....
Objective number one for me, as a Conservative, is a stable and content society. This is so the status quo is broadly maintained, and the economy can continue to grow and we can be prosperous long-term.
The generational gap in politics and wealth is vast, and we must address it. This overrides my proclivity for no wealth or land taxes whatsoever in principle. I think the facts have changed.
Young people have very little asset wealth or savings, whilst older people have a huge amount. It's all in assets and property. We need to find a way of more fairly taxing the nation's wealth base, just a tad more, and cutting taxes on income for working people. I'd even revisit going back to child trust accounts so that those without wealthy parents get, say, £10k to help them start out when they hit 18 or 19.
Otherwise, I fear we'll get full-blown socialism one day, and a completely fragmented society.
Your argument in bold is true, on average, but people like you, and me, and MaxPB are probably a few exceptions I can immediately think of - so is it true for Tory voters? I am not so sure.
Many of my generation are already wealthier than their parents in asset terms (whilst at the same time many are not, and I'll grant you the variation seems much bigger than it did for our parents) - but often stretched. They also have far, far greater outgoings.
Those who are stretched will often have worked hard, foregone luxuries, to secure a home. Any party that screws homeowners as a pure function of the value of their home, more of which is likely to be mortgaged amongst younger voters, is not going to be a party that forms the government.
I understand where you're coming from, but think the key is going to be the tax recoup from boomer estates. By simply failing to increase the threshold on IHT the govt are going to clean up through fiscal drag.
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
That's a tax on Londoners. If they do it the Tory party will lose my vote for a very, very long time.
It would hit a lot of elderly, asset-rich and cash poor in London certainly very hard.
Then they can downsize if they want. Supply and demand.
Like the Scottish fishermen who can move into another business if they want, hey? Supply and demand.
If your purpose in posting here is to make the tory party look more attractive than it actually is, you do need to tone down the "fuck anybody who isn't me" vibe.
I am not a London homeowner, in case you were wondering.
That's not my purpose. My purpose is to debate politics, openly and honestly, with other politics nerds. I have no interest in reflecting the party and I don't take the party line, my opinions are my own.
I see no reason why tenants in the Northwest should be compelled by taxation to pay 1% of their properties value in Council Tax while owner occupiers in London can get away with paying just 0.2% of theirs. Do you care to justify it?
I'm not a fan of "progressive" taxation, but what we have now is positively regressive instead. A flat tax is fair, that people have gotten away without paying a flat tax for decades doesn't make introducing a flat tax unfair, it just means people haven't been paying their fair share.
I'm thinking strategically too, or at least I think I am.
I want broader property rights and capitalism defended long-term, and I simply see the current system as unsustainable.
This is a classic conservative case of lead mild reform now or suffer radical change later.
Reason 1 of many why the replacement of Council tax is very unlikely to happen.
It puts safe Tory seats like Bmth West and Bmth East in play. Electoral suicide. Boris simply won't let it happen.
There might be some tinkering around the edges, but an asset tax that includes the principal home of individuals is morally questionable, and electorally disasterous.
The losers will certainly be far more unhappy than the winners are happy. Close to an iron rule of politics.
Not having to pay Council Tax could certainly be very popular up here. It is the right thing to do, to make the policy fair and flat for all, and if the Tories don't do it then Labour certainly could offer it at the next election and sweep back to win back the North with policies like that.
It is a very socialist policy...
No, a socialist policy would be to put bands on in.
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
That's a tax on Londoners. If they do it the Tory party will lose my vote for a very, very long time.
It would hit a lot of elderly, asset-rich and cash poor in London certainly very hard.
Then they can downsize if they want. Supply and demand.
Like the Scottish fishermen who can move into another business if they want, hey? Supply and demand.
If your purpose in posting here is to make the tory party look more attractive than it actually is, you do need to tone down the "fuck anybody who isn't me" vibe.
I am not a London homeowner, in case you were wondering.
That's not my purpose. My purpose is to debate politics, openly and honestly, with other politics nerds. I have no interest in reflecting the party and I don't take the party line, my opinions are my own.
I see no reason why tenants in the Northwest should be compelled by taxation to pay 1% of their properties value in Council Tax while owner occupiers in London can get away with paying just 0.2% of theirs. Do you care to justify it?
I'm not a fan of "progressive" taxation, but what we have now is positively regressive instead. A flat tax is fair, that people have gotten away without paying a flat tax for decades doesn't make introducing a flat tax unfair, it just means people haven't been paying their fair share.
I'm thinking strategically too, or at least I think I am.
I want broader property rights and capitalism defended long-term, and I simply see the current system as unsustainable.
This is a classic conservative case of lead mild reform now or suffer radical change later.
Reason 1 of many why the replacement of Council tax is very unlikely to happen.
It puts safe Tory seats like Bmth West and Bmth East in play. Electoral suicide. Boris simply won't let it happen.
There might be some tinkering around the edges, but an asset tax that includes the principal home of individuals is morally questionable, and electorally disasterous.
The losers will certainly be far more unhappy than the winners are happy. Close to an iron rule of politics.
Not having to pay Council Tax could certainly be very popular up here. It is the right thing to do, to make the policy fair and flat for all, and if the Tories don't do it then Labour certainly could offer it at the next election and sweep back to win back the North with policies like that.
You've literally lost the 2024 election for the Tories. Attacking owner occupancy is electoral suicide. I doubt Labour would do it either, I expect them to go after holiday homes and second homes.
Not attacking owner occupancy, just making it fair and flat rather than regressive as it is at the minute.
If people stop following NIMBY policies trying to artificially inflate their house prices to make a paper profit but a very real loss for those trying to get on the ladder, because doing so results in a tax rise, then so much the better. Good and fair for everyone then.
I don't want to defend property prices, nothing would make me happier than to see them fall as someone who is trying to buy a house right now.
What I'm saying is that I have already paid ca. 40% tax on the income to buy said property and it generates zero return, in fact it will end up being a money black hole which generates VAT and income tax for construction.
I'm all for taxing property, but only property which either sits empty (second homes, holiday homes) or is generating a return (rental property) and making that 2-3% per year.
Taxing something that it is inherently impossible to generate a return from is morally wrong. I have bought my flat to live in, not because I want to stare at the value.
Yes, an example of the immunosenescence of the elderly that I mentioned earlier.
We don’t have a great deal of data from the clinical trials themselves on response in the over 80s, do we ? Comparative results from here and Israel will tell us if the government’s gamble on delaying the second doses was correct.
Pfizer studied up to age 85, but the mean age was a lot lower.
They didn’t, from what I remember, have very many elderly subjects, though.
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
That's a tax on Londoners. If they do it the Tory party will lose my vote for a very, very long time.
It would hit a lot of elderly, asset-rich and cash poor in London certainly very hard.
Then they can downsize if they want. Supply and demand.
They might, but they wouldn't vote Tory again.
Lunatic policy. This means everyone in London is going to vote Labour.
Bit like now!
The problem the Tories would have is that this would also spread out in effect through other wealthy home-owning areas of the South, such as Surrey or Buckinghamshire, that the Tories have depended on in the past. In a way, it would be an interesting test of whether they really have become a red wall, working class-centred party, as well as having some somewhat unfair marginal outcomes around the edges for some pensioners in London and the South East - the evidence so far suggests the Tories haven't become this sort of party. That's what happens when you inflate capital property prices and encourage an unbalanced economy for decades, as the Tories have done since 1979 ; you can't try and take redressing action against in the interests of the poorer parts of the country without some equally distorting and disproportionate results in other places.
The Tories got a higher voteshare in Lincolnshire than Surrey at the last general election and a higher voteshare in North Yorkshire than in Surrey
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
That's a tax on Londoners. If they do it the Tory party will lose my vote for a very, very long time.
It would hit a lot of elderly, asset-rich and cash poor in London certainly very hard.
Then they can downsize if they want. Supply and demand.
Like the Scottish fishermen who can move into another business if they want, hey? Supply and demand.
If your purpose in posting here is to make the tory party look more attractive than it actually is, you do need to tone down the "fuck anybody who isn't me" vibe.
I am not a London homeowner, in case you were wondering.
That's not my purpose. My purpose is to debate politics, openly and honestly, with other politics nerds. I have no interest in reflecting the party and I don't take the party line, my opinions are my own.
I see no reason why tenants in the Northwest should be compelled by taxation to pay 1% of their properties value in Council Tax while owner occupiers in London can get away with paying just 0.2% of theirs. Do you care to justify it?
I'm not a fan of "progressive" taxation, but what we have now is positively regressive instead. A flat tax is fair, that people have gotten away without paying a flat tax for decades doesn't make introducing a flat tax unfair, it just means people haven't been paying their fair share.
I'm thinking strategically too, or at least I think I am.
I want broader property rights and capitalism defended long-term, and I simply see the current system as unsustainable.
This is a classic conservative case of lead mild reform now or suffer radical change later.
Reason 1 of many why the replacement of Council tax is very unlikely to happen.
It puts safe Tory seats like Bmth West and Bmth East in play. Electoral suicide. Boris simply won't let it happen.
There might be some tinkering around the edges, but an asset tax that includes the principal home of individuals is morally questionable, and electorally disasterous.
The losers will certainly be far more unhappy than the winners are happy. Close to an iron rule of politics.
Not having to pay Council Tax could certainly be very popular up here. It is the right thing to do, to make the policy fair and flat for all, and if the Tories don't do it then Labour certainly could offer it at the next election and sweep back to win back the North with policies like that.
It is a very socialist policy...
No, a socialist policy would be to put bands on in.
Interesting divide in the north/south Tory coalition on here tonight!
Full disclosure, I am a southern Shire Tory, but my house is at "par" around about £500k. So I have little skin in the game other than wanting a more stable society, and to spike socialism long-term.
I am one of those Tories for whom the nation and its cohesion is more important than my devotion to Adam Smith, or the free market, per say.
But will it actually spike socialism, or just accelerate it? Once the Tories concede the principle of a wealth tax on primary residences at 0.5%, it becomes much easier for Labour to promise or set one at 1%, then 1.5%, then...
There's a big risk in making a key political dividing line like this a matter of degree, rather than principle.
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
That's a tax on Londoners. If they do it the Tory party will lose my vote for a very, very long time.
It would hit a lot of elderly, asset-rich and cash poor in London certainly very hard.
Then they can downsize if they want. Supply and demand.
Like the Scottish fishermen who can move into another business if they want, hey? Supply and demand.
If your purpose in posting here is to make the tory party look more attractive than it actually is, you do need to tone down the "fuck anybody who isn't me" vibe.
I am not a London homeowner, in case you were wondering.
That's not my purpose. My purpose is to debate politics, openly and honestly, with other politics nerds. I have no interest in reflecting the party and I don't take the party line, my opinions are my own.
I see no reason why tenants in the Northwest should be compelled by taxation to pay 1% of their properties value in Council Tax while owner occupiers in London can get away with paying just 0.2% of theirs. Do you care to justify it?
I'm not a fan of "progressive" taxation, but what we have now is positively regressive instead. A flat tax is fair, that people have gotten away without paying a flat tax for decades doesn't make introducing a flat tax unfair, it just means people haven't been paying their fair share.
I'm thinking strategically too, or at least I think I am.
I want broader property rights and capitalism defended long-term, and I simply see the current system as unsustainable.
This is a classic conservative case of lead mild reform now or suffer radical change later.
Reason 1 of many why the replacement of Council tax is very unlikely to happen.
It puts safe Tory seats like Bmth West and Bmth East in play. Electoral suicide. Boris simply won't let it happen.
There might be some tinkering around the edges, but an asset tax that includes the principal home of individuals is morally questionable, and electorally disasterous.
What do you think of adding extra council tax bands, Band I and Band J?
I'd rather that govt stop spaffing money up the wall and talk about tax cuts, rather than rises.
Grow the economy, increase the pie. That is the Conservative way.
Tax rises are coming one way or another. The size of the hole we're in is ginormous.
Declinist....
Objective number one for me, as a Conservative, is a stable and content society. This is so the status quo is broadly maintained, and the economy can continue to grow and we can be prosperous long-term.
The generational gap in politics and wealth is vast, and we must address it. This overrides my proclivity for no wealth or land taxes whatsoever in principle. I think the facts have changed.
Young people have very little asset wealth or savings, whilst older people have a huge amount. It's all in assets and property. We need to find a way of more fairly taxing the nation's wealth base, just a tad more, and cutting taxes on income for working people. I'd even revisit going back to child trust accounts so that those without wealthy parents get, say, £10k to help them start out when they hit 18 or 19.
Otherwise, I fear we'll get full-blown socialism one day, and a completely fragmented society.
This is really quite on the money. I would have thought that more people would have taken a look at the near miss we had with Corbyn and thought a little more about where all that came from. People who vote for radical change aren't (always) stupid, they're just not sufficiently invested in the status quo. You can play a game of brinksmanship with it and say we're ok to continue on this course, but do acknowledge the risks please.
Another clown that did not look at who author was, bigoted Little Englander's who can see no further than their noses
Perhaps you are un-aware of the their methodology. They pay local politicians/notables in various countries large amounts of money to write for them. The catch is that, like the other Russian propaganda mills, the content is edited to match Russian state propaganda objectives.
This is why decent people wouldn't touch them with a stick.
So show where Theresa May's or anybody else mentioned has been edited , I dare you. PS: Have you heard of the BBC state propaganda unit where they do it for jobs and knighthoods, where everything is changed to suit UK state propaganda objectives, along with the majority of the newspapapers and paid dumplings. Lots of dummies in UK touch that with less than a bargepole.
I suggest you read the detailed reports, in various countries, as to why RT (for example) gets banned.
Sputnik is from the same stable.
If Mr Sheriddan wants to sit in a slurry pond, he will stink of shit.
No more cask strength turnip juice for you today.
BBC should be banned in Scotland given the propaganda they spit out daily. RT is a paragon of virtue compared to them.
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
That's a tax on Londoners. If they do it the Tory party will lose my vote for a very, very long time.
It would hit a lot of elderly, asset-rich and cash poor in London certainly very hard.
Then they can downsize if they want. Supply and demand.
Like the Scottish fishermen who can move into another business if they want, hey? Supply and demand.
If your purpose in posting here is to make the tory party look more attractive than it actually is, you do need to tone down the "fuck anybody who isn't me" vibe.
I am not a London homeowner, in case you were wondering.
That's not my purpose. My purpose is to debate politics, openly and honestly, with other politics nerds. I have no interest in reflecting the party and I don't take the party line, my opinions are my own.
I see no reason why tenants in the Northwest should be compelled by taxation to pay 1% of their properties value in Council Tax while owner occupiers in London can get away with paying just 0.2% of theirs. Do you care to justify it?
I'm not a fan of "progressive" taxation, but what we have now is positively regressive instead. A flat tax is fair, that people have gotten away without paying a flat tax for decades doesn't make introducing a flat tax unfair, it just means people haven't been paying their fair share.
I'm thinking strategically too, or at least I think I am.
I want broader property rights and capitalism defended long-term, and I simply see the current system as unsustainable.
This is a classic conservative case of lead mild reform now or suffer radical change later.
Reason 1 of many why the replacement of Council tax is very unlikely to happen.
It puts safe Tory seats like Bmth West and Bmth East in play. Electoral suicide. Boris simply won't let it happen.
There might be some tinkering around the edges, but an asset tax that includes the principal home of individuals is morally questionable, and electorally disasterous.
What do you think of adding extra council tax bands, Band I and Band J?
I'd rather that govt stop spaffing money up the wall and talk about tax cuts, rather than rises.
Grow the economy, increase the pie. That is the Conservative way.
Tax rises are coming one way or another. The size of the hole we're in is ginormous.
Declinist....
Objective number one for me, as a Conservative, is a stable and content society. This is so the status quo is broadly maintained, and the economy can continue to grow and we can be prosperous long-term.
The generational gap in politics and wealth is vast, and we must address it. This overrides my proclivity for no wealth or land taxes whatsoever in principle. I think the facts have changed.
Young people have very little asset wealth or savings, whilst older people have a huge amount. It's all in assets and property. We need to find a way of more fairly taxing the nation's wealth base, just a tad more, and cutting taxes on income for working people. I'd even revisit going back to child trust accounts so that those without wealthy parents get, say, £10k to help them start out when they hit 18 or 19.
Otherwise, I fear we'll get full-blown socialism one day, and a completely fragmented society.
Your argument in bold is true, on average, but people like you, and me, and MaxPB are probably a few exceptions I can immediately think of - so is it true for Tory voters? I am not so sure.
Many of my generation are already wealthier than their parents in asset terms (whilst at the same time many are not, and I'll grant you the variation seems much bigger than it did for our parents) - but often stretched. They also have far, far greater outgoings.
Those who are stretched will often have worked hard, foregone luxuries, to secure a home. Any party that screws homeowners as a pure function of the value of their home, more of which is likely to be mortgaged amongst younger voters, is not going to be a party that forms the government.
I understand where you're coming from, but think the key is going to be the tax recoup from boomer estates. By simply failing to increase the threshold on IHT the govt are going to clean up through fiscal drag.
Homeowners won't be screwed, they will just have a small percentage attached. If it was a large percentage then fair enough, but we're talking a very small percentage.
Homeowners here can pay 0.8% to 1% currently but you find it unthinkable that 0.48% could be found in the future elsewhere? Why?
Like others I've seen that Rumsfeld quote positively referenced many times. Maybe it was the man and the moment that saw it criticised more than its inherent quality.
The criticism was because of the situation. It was a perfectly sensible enumeration of a basic premise but it was delivered in a manner that made him look like a total dick.
I can't remember, were WMDs a known or an unknown known?
It was long before that - before the invasion of Iraq, IIRC
Property tax, if it's at 0.5% will be immensely popular in the north, as almost everyone will have a saving on their council tax and go down like cold sick in the south.
Well, yes. Like @dixiedean it would cut my council tax bill by around half.
However, I can foresee a small snag. If it’s nationally raised, the South East will go apeshit. If it’s locally raised, every county north of Hertford will be instantly bankrupted.
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.
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
That's a tax on Londoners. If they do it the Tory party will lose my vote for a very, very long time.
It would hit a lot of elderly, asset-rich and cash poor in London certainly very hard.
Then they can downsize if they want. Supply and demand.
They might, but they wouldn't vote Tory again.
Should tax policy just be set on what makes people vote Tory? If that's the only reason to do it, is it a good policy?
Its the worst form of Toryism that, like the "I'm alright Jack" NIMBYism that @IshmaelZ is a big fan of.
"We need to ensure we can object to new houses being built so that our house values stay high, don't want new homes being built which might mean people can afford to buy a home near us and not pay over the odds for ours instead - and don't you dare consider taxing us on the value of our home."
I have no time for that.
Do bugger off. My house is paid for, I intend to die in it and my children have quite enough money anyway. I don't give a toss what it is worth. You mustn't attribute to others the narrow material greed which clearly defines your own and your party's outlook on life.
Yes yours may be paid for so you're all right Jack.
But then you encourage and defend NIMBYism preventing the young from getting their own home built.
So you intend to occupy a home you live in that is all bought and paid for, you and your children have quite enough money, but god forbid that others have a house built for them. God forbid you pay half a percent of what your home is worth when the poorest are already paying 1% today.
You're selfish, selfish, selfish. All NIMBYs are, it is a hateful selfish creed.
So my offence is owning a house, then. Welcome to the world of orthodox Marxist-Thatcherism.
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
That's a tax on Londoners. If they do it the Tory party will lose my vote for a very, very long time.
It would hit a lot of elderly, asset-rich and cash poor in London certainly very hard.
Then they can downsize if they want. Supply and demand.
Like the Scottish fishermen who can move into another business if they want, hey? Supply and demand.
If your purpose in posting here is to make the tory party look more attractive than it actually is, you do need to tone down the "fuck anybody who isn't me" vibe.
I am not a London homeowner, in case you were wondering.
That's not my purpose. My purpose is to debate politics, openly and honestly, with other politics nerds. I have no interest in reflecting the party and I don't take the party line, my opinions are my own.
I see no reason why tenants in the Northwest should be compelled by taxation to pay 1% of their properties value in Council Tax while owner occupiers in London can get away with paying just 0.2% of theirs. Do you care to justify it?
I'm not a fan of "progressive" taxation, but what we have now is positively regressive instead. A flat tax is fair, that people have gotten away without paying a flat tax for decades doesn't make introducing a flat tax unfair, it just means people haven't been paying their fair share.
I'm thinking strategically too, or at least I think I am.
I want broader property rights and capitalism defended long-term, and I simply see the current system as unsustainable.
This is a classic conservative case of lead mild reform now or suffer radical change later.
Reason 1 of many why the replacement of Council tax is very unlikely to happen.
It puts safe Tory seats like Bmth West and Bmth East in play. Electoral suicide. Boris simply won't let it happen.
There might be some tinkering around the edges, but an asset tax that includes the principal home of individuals is morally questionable, and electorally disasterous.
What do you think of adding extra council tax bands, Band I and Band J?
I'd rather that govt stop spaffing money up the wall and talk about tax cuts, rather than rises.
Grow the economy, increase the pie. That is the Conservative way.
Tax rises are coming one way or another. The size of the hole we're in is ginormous.
Declinist....
Objective number one for me, as a Conservative, is a stable and content society. This is so the status quo is broadly maintained, and the economy can continue to grow and we can be prosperous long-term.
The generational gap in politics and wealth is vast, and we must address it. This overrides my proclivity for no wealth or land taxes whatsoever in principle. I think the facts have changed.
Young people have very little asset wealth or savings, whilst older people have a huge amount. It's all in assets and property. We need to find a way of more fairly taxing the nation's wealth base, just a tad more, and cutting taxes on income for working people. I'd even revisit going back to child trust accounts so that those without wealthy parents get, say, £10k to help them start out when they hit 18 or 19.
Otherwise, I fear we'll get full-blown socialism one day, and a completely fragmented society.
Your argument in bold is true, on average, but people like you, and me, and MaxPB are probably a few exceptions I can immediately think of - so is it true for Tory voters? I am not so sure.
Many of my generation are already wealthier than their parents in asset terms (whilst at the same time many are not, and I'll grant you the variation seems much bigger than it did for our parents) - but often stretched. They also have far, far greater outgoings.
Those who are stretched will often have worked hard, foregone luxuries, to secure a home. Any party that screws homeowners as a pure function of the value of their home, more of which is likely to be mortgaged amongst younger voters, is not going to be a party that forms the government.
I understand where you're coming from, but think the key is going to be the tax recoup from boomer estates. By simply failing to increase the threshold on IHT the govt are going to clean up through fiscal drag.
Homeowners won't be screwed, they will just have a small percentage attached. If it was a large percentage then fair enough, but we're talking a very small percentage.
Homeowners here can pay 0.8% to 1% currently but you find it unthinkable that 0.48% could be found in the future elsewhere? Why?
You're paying for council services, if that council is inefficient then vote for one that will cut those taxes.
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
That's a tax on Londoners. If they do it the Tory party will lose my vote for a very, very long time.
It would hit a lot of elderly, asset-rich and cash poor in London certainly very hard.
Then they can downsize if they want. Supply and demand.
Like the Scottish fishermen who can move into another business if they want, hey? Supply and demand.
If your purpose in posting here is to make the tory party look more attractive than it actually is, you do need to tone down the "fuck anybody who isn't me" vibe.
I am not a London homeowner, in case you were wondering.
That's not my purpose. My purpose is to debate politics, openly and honestly, with other politics nerds. I have no interest in reflecting the party and I don't take the party line, my opinions are my own.
I see no reason why tenants in the Northwest should be compelled by taxation to pay 1% of their properties value in Council Tax while owner occupiers in London can get away with paying just 0.2% of theirs. Do you care to justify it?
I'm not a fan of "progressive" taxation, but what we have now is positively regressive instead. A flat tax is fair, that people have gotten away without paying a flat tax for decades doesn't make introducing a flat tax unfair, it just means people haven't been paying their fair share.
I'm thinking strategically too, or at least I think I am.
I want broader property rights and capitalism defended long-term, and I simply see the current system as unsustainable.
This is a classic conservative case of lead mild reform now or suffer radical change later.
Reason 1 of many why the replacement of Council tax is very unlikely to happen.
It puts safe Tory seats like Bmth West and Bmth East in play. Electoral suicide. Boris simply won't let it happen.
There might be some tinkering around the edges, but an asset tax that includes the principal home of individuals is morally questionable, and electorally disasterous.
The losers will certainly be far more unhappy than the winners are happy. Close to an iron rule of politics.
Not having to pay Council Tax could certainly be very popular up here. It is the right thing to do, to make the policy fair and flat for all, and if the Tories don't do it then Labour certainly could offer it at the next election and sweep back to win back the North with policies like that.
It is a very socialist policy...
No, a socialist policy would be to put bands on in.
Interesting divide in the north/south Tory coalition on here tonight!
Full disclosure, I am a southern Shire Tory, but my house is at "par" around about £500k. So I have little skin in the game other than wanting a more stable society, and to spike socialism long-term.
I am one of those Tories for whom the nation and its cohesion is more important than my devotion to Adam Smith, or the free market, per say.
OTOH, I am one of those Tories who doesn't think it is possible to have a cohesive society if we fail to recognise the value of a free market...
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
That's a tax on Londoners. If they do it the Tory party will lose my vote for a very, very long time.
It would hit a lot of elderly, asset-rich and cash poor in London certainly very hard.
Then they can downsize if they want. Supply and demand.
Like the Scottish fishermen who can move into another business if they want, hey? Supply and demand.
If your purpose in posting here is to make the tory party look more attractive than it actually is, you do need to tone down the "fuck anybody who isn't me" vibe.
I am not a London homeowner, in case you were wondering.
That's not my purpose. My purpose is to debate politics, openly and honestly, with other politics nerds. I have no interest in reflecting the party and I don't take the party line, my opinions are my own.
I see no reason why tenants in the Northwest should be compelled by taxation to pay 1% of their properties value in Council Tax while owner occupiers in London can get away with paying just 0.2% of theirs. Do you care to justify it?
I'm not a fan of "progressive" taxation, but what we have now is positively regressive instead. A flat tax is fair, that people have gotten away without paying a flat tax for decades doesn't make introducing a flat tax unfair, it just means people haven't been paying their fair share.
I'm thinking strategically too, or at least I think I am.
I want broader property rights and capitalism defended long-term, and I simply see the current system as unsustainable.
This is a classic conservative case of lead mild reform now or suffer radical change later.
Reason 1 of many why the replacement of Council tax is very unlikely to happen.
It puts safe Tory seats like Bmth West and Bmth East in play. Electoral suicide. Boris simply won't let it happen.
There might be some tinkering around the edges, but an asset tax that includes the principal home of individuals is morally questionable, and electorally disasterous.
The losers will certainly be far more unhappy than the winners are happy. Close to an iron rule of politics.
Not having to pay Council Tax could certainly be very popular up here. It is the right thing to do, to make the policy fair and flat for all, and if the Tories don't do it then Labour certainly could offer it at the next election and sweep back to win back the North with policies like that.
You've literally lost the 2024 election for the Tories. Attacking owner occupancy is electoral suicide. I doubt Labour would do it either, I expect them to go after holiday homes and second homes.
Not attacking owner occupancy, just making it fair and flat rather than regressive as it is at the minute.
If people stop following NIMBY policies trying to artificially inflate their house prices to make a paper profit but a very real loss for those trying to get on the ladder, because doing so results in a tax rise, then so much the better. Good and fair for everyone then.
I don't want to defend property prices, nothing would make me happier than to see them fall as someone who is trying to buy a house right now.
What I'm saying is that I have already paid ca. 40% tax on the income to buy said property and it generates zero return, in fact it will end up being a money black hole which generates VAT and income tax for construction.
I'm all for taxing property, but only property which either sits empty (second homes, holiday homes) or is generating a return (rental property) and making that 2-3% per year.
Taxing something that it is inherently impossible to generate a return from is morally wrong. I have bought my flat to live in, not because I want to stare at the value.
This is entirely correct and is in line with my view that we should not put additional taxes on the home you live in (with the exception that we should consider more council tax bands at the top end). However I strongly support proper tax on investment/second property which is primarily held for investment - 3% capital value per year sounds reasonable.
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.
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
Paid by whom? And how would the property value be determined?
Very similar idea about 10 paras down in a piece by Kevin Holinrake MP on Con Home last September. Slightly more sophisticated, in fact.
In place of the administrative challenge of council tax, in which properties are taxed through a confusing and distorting system of bands and exemptions, the PPT would apply a single rate of tax – 0.48 per cent of property value – to all homes. Owners rather than tenants would be responsible for the tax, removing over 8.7 million households from property tax altogether and saving councils an annual £400 million in administrative costs.
To incentivise more efficient usage of existing property, a surcharge on second, empty and offshore-owned homes would be introduced, as well as on plots of land that received council planning permission yet have been left vacant by developers. The policy is revenue neutral – raising the same amount of money for the Treasury as the scrapped taxes currently do.
To maintain the important democratic link between local expenditure and local taxation, Fairer Share recommends that the 0.48 per cent rate should consist of two components. A fixed national rate (0.32 per cent) which would go to central government for redistribution and an initial floating local rate (0.16 per cent) which would go straight to the local authority and could subsequently be moved up or down by that authority. In this way local authorities retain flexibility over taxation and voters can still judge them on value for money.
And importantly, this approach includes the complete abolition of stamp duty land tax (SDLT) on owner-occupied residential property.
What's the point if we need to raise more tax, if it is revenue-neutral?
I'm also puzzled, becasue council tax is a modified version of a poll tax mitigated somewhat by the need to allow for single vs multiple occupiers. This new tax goes the other way - very hostile to the typical one or two oldies in an expensive SE England house - like Mrs May's so-called dementia tax, very unwelcome to the Tory party member demographic. It's\ so against the sustained Tory policy in recent yeats of pampering such folk in the tax system (e.g. on IHT, and allowances for various kinds of income) that I am startled. Is Mr Sunak being encouraged to wreck his own chances of becoming PM? Or is this being leaked by someone else with a motive?
Stamp duty discourages people from trading down, resulting in inefficient use of the housing stock.
Downsizing/trading down looks much easier on paper than it actually is for two reasons. First, a nice three-bed house costs a lot, probably more than half of a nice six-bed house, and is in the sights of two sets of buyers: both up and coming youngies and downsizing oldies (the more of the latter the more you tweak things to encourage downsizing). Second, even a successful house move is up there with divorce and job loss as a stressful life event; the appetite for it falls sharply away as people get past the age of 60.
Sure. But that's no reason to add artificial impediments to normal market movements. Artificially boosting how difficult it is to move house means a less efficient market.
From a straight economic basis, we want assets to be as well utilised as possible. A tax on the current value of the property does that: it means you save twice over if you trade down - a lower annual council tax charge combined with no need to pay stamp duty.
Now, there are bad outcomes we wish to avoid, such as the elderly being pushed out of their homes. But I think that can easily be solved by allowing the council to have a charge on the home (I'd have a 6-7% interest rate to discourage other people from doing this). But if you're in your 80s, not paying a couple of years of your council tax, and allowing it to be recovered from the eventual sale of your house makes perfect sense. (As well as being good business for the council too.)
Trump blows up the Arizona GOP on his way out “The craziness from the state Republican Party … it’s pretty embarrassing,” said a former top Republican official.
'The Trump era did more damage to the Republican Party in Arizona than almost anywhere else. Over the past two years, Republicans lost both Senate seats. In November, the state flipped Democratic in a presidential race for the first time since 1996. The GOP state party chair is currently at war with the governor.
President Donald Trump’s fingerprints are on all of it, yet the state party will likely pass a resolution next week to officially “support & thank” the president. It’ll also vote on measures to censure three prominent Republicans who were deemed insufficiently beholden to Trump: Gov. Doug Ducey, former Sen. Jeff Flake and Cindy McCain, the wife of the late senator. . . .
[Cindy] McCain, in a statement, said she was “not surprised by the continuous insults and personal attacks from Arizona GOP Chairman Kelli Ward. She’s shown how attacking Republicans like me can impact elections — her involvement in both Senate elections to replace Jeff Flake and my husband John McCain, two regular targets of her personal attacks, resulted in Democrat wins.”
As chairwoman of the party, McCain said, Ward “managed to turn Arizona blue in November for the first time since 1996. Maybe she should be reminded that my husband never lost an Arizona election since his first win in 1982; he and Governor Ducey are the last two Republicans to win statewide races in Arizona.”
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
That's a tax on Londoners. If they do it the Tory party will lose my vote for a very, very long time.
It would hit a lot of elderly, asset-rich and cash poor in London certainly very hard.
Then they can downsize if they want. Supply and demand.
Like the Scottish fishermen who can move into another business if they want, hey? Supply and demand.
If your purpose in posting here is to make the tory party look more attractive than it actually is, you do need to tone down the "fuck anybody who isn't me" vibe.
I am not a London homeowner, in case you were wondering.
That's not my purpose. My purpose is to debate politics, openly and honestly, with other politics nerds. I have no interest in reflecting the party and I don't take the party line, my opinions are my own.
I see no reason why tenants in the Northwest should be compelled by taxation to pay 1% of their properties value in Council Tax while owner occupiers in London can get away with paying just 0.2% of theirs. Do you care to justify it?
I'm not a fan of "progressive" taxation, but what we have now is positively regressive instead. A flat tax is fair, that people have gotten away without paying a flat tax for decades doesn't make introducing a flat tax unfair, it just means people haven't been paying their fair share.
I'm thinking strategically too, or at least I think I am.
I want broader property rights and capitalism defended long-term, and I simply see the current system as unsustainable.
This is a classic conservative case of lead mild reform now or suffer radical change later.
Reason 1 of many why the replacement of Council tax is very unlikely to happen.
It puts safe Tory seats like Bmth West and Bmth East in play. Electoral suicide. Boris simply won't let it happen.
There might be some tinkering around the edges, but an asset tax that includes the principal home of individuals is morally questionable, and electorally disasterous.
The losers will certainly be far more unhappy than the winners are happy. Close to an iron rule of politics.
Not having to pay Council Tax could certainly be very popular up here. It is the right thing to do, to make the policy fair and flat for all, and if the Tories don't do it then Labour certainly could offer it at the next election and sweep back to win back the North with policies like that.
You've literally lost the 2024 election for the Tories. Attacking owner occupancy is electoral suicide. I doubt Labour would do it either, I expect them to go after holiday homes and second homes.
Not attacking owner occupancy, just making it fair and flat rather than regressive as it is at the minute.
If people stop following NIMBY policies trying to artificially inflate their house prices to make a paper profit but a very real loss for those trying to get on the ladder, because doing so results in a tax rise, then so much the better. Good and fair for everyone then.
I don't want to defend property prices, nothing would make me happier than to see them fall as someone who is trying to buy a house right now.
What I'm saying is that I have already paid ca. 40% tax on the income to buy said property and it generates zero return, in fact it will end up being a money black hole which generates VAT and income tax for construction.
I'm all for taxing property, but only property which either sits empty (second homes, holiday homes) or is generating a return (rental property) and making that 2-3% per year.
Taxing something that it is inherently impossible to generate a return from is morally wrong. I have bought my flat to live in, not because I want to stare at the value.
But we already have property taxes today, Council Tax already is a property tax. It is just a ridiculous unbalanced one at the minute.
Again why do you expect poor northerners to be able to find 1% of their property value to pay in a property tax, but you find it absolutely unthinkable that southerners can find 0.48% to fund theirs?
Property tax, if it's at 0.5% will be immensely popular in the north, as almost everyone will have a saving on their council tax and go down like cold sick in the south.
Well, yes. Like @dixiedean it would cut my council tax bill by around half.
However, I can foresee a small snag. If it’s nationally raised, the South East will go apeshit. If it’s locally raised, every county north of Hertford will be instantly bankrupted.
Neither would be popular.
So - which is it to be?
I think the proponent has suggested 2/3 (0.32%) national and redistributed, 1/3 (0.16%) local.
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.
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
That's a tax on Londoners. If they do it the Tory party will lose my vote for a very, very long time.
It would hit a lot of elderly, asset-rich and cash poor in London certainly very hard.
Then they can downsize if they want. Supply and demand.
Like the Scottish fishermen who can move into another business if they want, hey? Supply and demand.
If your purpose in posting here is to make the tory party look more attractive than it actually is, you do need to tone down the "fuck anybody who isn't me" vibe.
I am not a London homeowner, in case you were wondering.
That's not my purpose. My purpose is to debate politics, openly and honestly, with other politics nerds. I have no interest in reflecting the party and I don't take the party line, my opinions are my own.
I see no reason why tenants in the Northwest should be compelled by taxation to pay 1% of their properties value in Council Tax while owner occupiers in London can get away with paying just 0.2% of theirs. Do you care to justify it?
I'm not a fan of "progressive" taxation, but what we have now is positively regressive instead. A flat tax is fair, that people have gotten away without paying a flat tax for decades doesn't make introducing a flat tax unfair, it just means people haven't been paying their fair share.
I'm thinking strategically too, or at least I think I am.
I want broader property rights and capitalism defended long-term, and I simply see the current system as unsustainable.
This is a classic conservative case of lead mild reform now or suffer radical change later.
Reason 1 of many why the replacement of Council tax is very unlikely to happen.
It puts safe Tory seats like Bmth West and Bmth East in play. Electoral suicide. Boris simply won't let it happen.
There might be some tinkering around the edges, but an asset tax that includes the principal home of individuals is morally questionable, and electorally disasterous.
The losers will certainly be far more unhappy than the winners are happy. Close to an iron rule of politics.
Not having to pay Council Tax could certainly be very popular up here. It is the right thing to do, to make the policy fair and flat for all, and if the Tories don't do it then Labour certainly could offer it at the next election and sweep back to win back the North with policies like that.
You've literally lost the 2024 election for the Tories. Attacking owner occupancy is electoral suicide. I doubt Labour would do it either, I expect them to go after holiday homes and second homes.
Not attacking owner occupancy, just making it fair and flat rather than regressive as it is at the minute.
If people stop following NIMBY policies trying to artificially inflate their house prices to make a paper profit but a very real loss for those trying to get on the ladder, because doing so results in a tax rise, then so much the better. Good and fair for everyone then.
I don't want to defend property prices, nothing would make me happier than to see them fall as someone who is trying to buy a house right now.
What I'm saying is that I have already paid ca. 40% tax on the income to buy said property and it generates zero return, in fact it will end up being a money black hole which generates VAT and income tax for construction.
I'm all for taxing property, but only property which either sits empty (second homes, holiday homes) or is generating a return (rental property) and making that 2-3% per year.
Taxing something that it is inherently impossible to generate a return from is morally wrong. I have bought my flat to live in, not because I want to stare at the value.
This is entirely correct and is in line with my view that we should not put additional taxes on the home you live in (with the exception that we should consider more council tax bands at the top end). However I strongly support proper tax on investment/second property which is primarily held for investment - 3% capital value per year sounds reasonable.
What is the difference between council tax and a property tax, other than council tax being capped?
Property tax, if it's at 0.5% will be immensely popular in the north, as almost everyone will have a saving on their council tax and go down like cold sick in the south.
And for that reason any budget with it in wouldn't pass the house. Any Tory PM that stood by it would be on the kerb in hours.
There are Tories in the north you know !
This would be a huge tax rise on those who already pay bear the biggest burden of taxation: the middle classes and well off.
Can't see e.g. Brady being a supporter - at least after his ear is bent on the issue by several thousand Tory residents in his constituency.
The middle class and the well off in the south.
You'll just have to move north. Don't panic, it isn't so bad up here.
Who is going to pay for the hole that we are in, though? Somebody will have to...
There isn't anyone around to pay more personal tax except those who have got some assets/income and aren't going to skip off to a tax haven and also exist in substantial numbers. 'The middle class and the well off' is a rough and ready description of that group. There are no other candidates for the much envied position of paying more personal taxation. And if there are, then Who?
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
That's a tax on Londoners. If they do it the Tory party will lose my vote for a very, very long time.
It would hit a lot of elderly, asset-rich and cash poor in London certainly very hard.
Then they can downsize if they want. Supply and demand.
They might, but they wouldn't vote Tory again.
Should tax policy just be set on what makes people vote Tory? If that's the only reason to do it, is it a good policy?
Its the worst form of Toryism that, like the "I'm alright Jack" NIMBYism that @IshmaelZ is a big fan of.
"We need to ensure we can object to new houses being built so that our house values stay high, don't want new homes being built which might mean people can afford to buy a home near us and not pay over the odds for ours instead - and don't you dare consider taxing us on the value of our home."
I have no time for that.
Do bugger off. My house is paid for, I intend to die in it and my children have quite enough money anyway. I don't give a toss what it is worth. You mustn't attribute to others the narrow material greed which clearly defines your own and your party's outlook on life.
Yes yours may be paid for so you're all right Jack.
But then you encourage and defend NIMBYism preventing the young from getting their own home built.
So you intend to occupy a home you live in that is all bought and paid for, you and your children have quite enough money, but god forbid that others have a house built for them. God forbid you pay half a percent of what your home is worth when the poorest are already paying 1% today.
You're selfish, selfish, selfish. All NIMBYs are, it is a hateful selfish creed.
So my offence is owning a house, then. Welcome to the world of orthodox Marxist-Thatcherism.
No, there is nothing wrong with owning a house.
What is wrong is objecting to others constructing houses.
You have literally said in the past that home owners should be entitled to object to others building homes that can be lived in because it might make house prices go down. If your house price goes down then that should be supply and demand free market in action, it should be celebrated not complained about. With this scheme you'd get a tax cut if your house price went down.
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
That's a tax on Londoners. If they do it the Tory party will lose my vote for a very, very long time.
It would hit a lot of elderly, asset-rich and cash poor in London certainly very hard.
Then they can downsize if they want. Supply and demand.
Like the Scottish fishermen who can move into another business if they want, hey? Supply and demand.
If your purpose in posting here is to make the tory party look more attractive than it actually is, you do need to tone down the "fuck anybody who isn't me" vibe.
I am not a London homeowner, in case you were wondering.
That's not my purpose. My purpose is to debate politics, openly and honestly, with other politics nerds. I have no interest in reflecting the party and I don't take the party line, my opinions are my own.
I see no reason why tenants in the Northwest should be compelled by taxation to pay 1% of their properties value in Council Tax while owner occupiers in London can get away with paying just 0.2% of theirs. Do you care to justify it?
I'm not a fan of "progressive" taxation, but what we have now is positively regressive instead. A flat tax is fair, that people have gotten away without paying a flat tax for decades doesn't make introducing a flat tax unfair, it just means people haven't been paying their fair share.
I'm thinking strategically too, or at least I think I am.
I want broader property rights and capitalism defended long-term, and I simply see the current system as unsustainable.
This is a classic conservative case of lead mild reform now or suffer radical change later.
Reason 1 of many why the replacement of Council tax is very unlikely to happen.
It puts safe Tory seats like Bmth West and Bmth East in play. Electoral suicide. Boris simply won't let it happen.
There might be some tinkering around the edges, but an asset tax that includes the principal home of individuals is morally questionable, and electorally disasterous.
The losers will certainly be far more unhappy than the winners are happy. Close to an iron rule of politics.
Not having to pay Council Tax could certainly be very popular up here. It is the right thing to do, to make the policy fair and flat for all, and if the Tories don't do it then Labour certainly could offer it at the next election and sweep back to win back the North with policies like that.
You've literally lost the 2024 election for the Tories. Attacking owner occupancy is electoral suicide. I doubt Labour would do it either, I expect them to go after holiday homes and second homes.
Not attacking owner occupancy, just making it fair and flat rather than regressive as it is at the minute.
If people stop following NIMBY policies trying to artificially inflate their house prices to make a paper profit but a very real loss for those trying to get on the ladder, because doing so results in a tax rise, then so much the better. Good and fair for everyone then.
I have not thought through all the implications yet.
My CT is something like £1800-2000 I think, and .48% of the house value is slightly lower, and Stamp Duty would apply but is only 6k or so.
That makes it neutral as near as dammit, and we have the trends in place to solve the Stuck Granny problem over a number of years.
My relatives who live in a half-millions 30s semi in London suburbia get an extra few hundred of Council Tax, and escape 20k of Stamp Duty.
Generally I like as the vast majority would be not too worse off, and lower cost houses would be less targeted.
It is going to take some analysis to show that Birmingham E and W will be worse off. Not sure that I believe it.
Red Wall should like it. Ultra-rich London may not (though I have not calculated the balance .. and since they have the highest Stamp Duty rates of all, I am not sure if they suffer badly.) What is the seat balance for Boris between Central London and the Red Wall?
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
That's a tax on Londoners. If they do it the Tory party will lose my vote for a very, very long time.
It would hit a lot of elderly, asset-rich and cash poor in London certainly very hard.
Then they can downsize if they want. Supply and demand.
Like the Scottish fishermen who can move into another business if they want, hey? Supply and demand.
If your purpose in posting here is to make the tory party look more attractive than it actually is, you do need to tone down the "fuck anybody who isn't me" vibe.
I am not a London homeowner, in case you were wondering.
That's not my purpose. My purpose is to debate politics, openly and honestly, with other politics nerds. I have no interest in reflecting the party and I don't take the party line, my opinions are my own.
I see no reason why tenants in the Northwest should be compelled by taxation to pay 1% of their properties value in Council Tax while owner occupiers in London can get away with paying just 0.2% of theirs. Do you care to justify it?
I'm not a fan of "progressive" taxation, but what we have now is positively regressive instead. A flat tax is fair, that people have gotten away without paying a flat tax for decades doesn't make introducing a flat tax unfair, it just means people haven't been paying their fair share.
I'm thinking strategically too, or at least I think I am.
I want broader property rights and capitalism defended long-term, and I simply see the current system as unsustainable.
This is a classic conservative case of lead mild reform now or suffer radical change later.
Reason 1 of many why the replacement of Council tax is very unlikely to happen.
It puts safe Tory seats like Bmth West and Bmth East in play. Electoral suicide. Boris simply won't let it happen.
There might be some tinkering around the edges, but an asset tax that includes the principal home of individuals is morally questionable, and electorally disasterous.
The losers will certainly be far more unhappy than the winners are happy. Close to an iron rule of politics.
Not having to pay Council Tax could certainly be very popular up here. It is the right thing to do, to make the policy fair and flat for all, and if the Tories don't do it then Labour certainly could offer it at the next election and sweep back to win back the North with policies like that.
You've literally lost the 2024 election for the Tories. Attacking owner occupancy is electoral suicide. I doubt Labour would do it either, I expect them to go after holiday homes and second homes.
Not attacking owner occupancy, just making it fair and flat rather than regressive as it is at the minute.
If people stop following NIMBY policies trying to artificially inflate their house prices to make a paper profit but a very real loss for those trying to get on the ladder, because doing so results in a tax rise, then so much the better. Good and fair for everyone then.
I don't want to defend property prices, nothing would make me happier than to see them fall as someone who is trying to buy a house right now.
What I'm saying is that I have already paid ca. 40% tax on the income to buy said property and it generates zero return, in fact it will end up being a money black hole which generates VAT and income tax for construction.
I'm all for taxing property, but only property which either sits empty (second homes, holiday homes) or is generating a return (rental property) and making that 2-3% per year.
Taxing something that it is inherently impossible to generate a return from is morally wrong. I have bought my flat to live in, not because I want to stare at the value.
But we already have property taxes today, Council Tax already is a property tax. It is just a ridiculous unbalanced one at the minute.
Again why do you expect poor northerners to be able to find 1% of their property value to pay in a property tax, but you find it absolutely unthinkable that southerners can find 0.48% to fund theirs?
No, council tax is a tax for provision of services rendered based on the size/value of the property and occupancy. This is a central government tax which is then redistributed as grants to councils. Breaking the link between council tax and councils is also a poor idea, it means councils are no longer properly accountable to the residents.
Property tax, if it's at 0.5% will be immensely popular in the north, as almost everyone will have a saving on their council tax and go down like cold sick in the south.
Well, yes. Like @dixiedean it would cut my council tax bill by around half.
However, I can foresee a small snag. If it’s nationally raised, the South East will go apeshit. If it’s locally raised, every county north of Hertford will be instantly bankrupted.
Neither would be popular.
So - which is it to be?
I think the proponent has suggested 2/3 (0.32%) national and redistributed, 1/3 (0.16%) local.
Which would, amazingly, cause the SouthEast to go apeshit *and* bankrupt every council north of Hertford.
A proposal worth exploring ruined by clearly being the work of a total fuckwit.
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
That's a tax on Londoners. If they do it the Tory party will lose my vote for a very, very long time.
You could argue it's not fair how people who happen to live in London have experienced such a big bonus in terms of the value of their property over the last 40 years or so compared to elsewhere in the UK.
I have to live in my house, how do I profit from something going up in paper value terms?
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.
One Tory strategist I know is of the belief the moment young people start becoming Tories is the moment they become homeowners.
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
That's a tax on Londoners. If they do it the Tory party will lose my vote for a very, very long time.
It would hit a lot of elderly, asset-rich and cash poor in London certainly very hard.
Then they can downsize if they want. Supply and demand.
Like the Scottish fishermen who can move into another business if they want, hey? Supply and demand.
If your purpose in posting here is to make the tory party look more attractive than it actually is, you do need to tone down the "fuck anybody who isn't me" vibe.
I am not a London homeowner, in case you were wondering.
That's not my purpose. My purpose is to debate politics, openly and honestly, with other politics nerds. I have no interest in reflecting the party and I don't take the party line, my opinions are my own.
I see no reason why tenants in the Northwest should be compelled by taxation to pay 1% of their properties value in Council Tax while owner occupiers in London can get away with paying just 0.2% of theirs. Do you care to justify it?
I'm not a fan of "progressive" taxation, but what we have now is positively regressive instead. A flat tax is fair, that people have gotten away without paying a flat tax for decades doesn't make introducing a flat tax unfair, it just means people haven't been paying their fair share.
I'm thinking strategically too, or at least I think I am.
I want broader property rights and capitalism defended long-term, and I simply see the current system as unsustainable.
This is a classic conservative case of lead mild reform now or suffer radical change later.
Reason 1 of many why the replacement of Council tax is very unlikely to happen.
It puts safe Tory seats like Bmth West and Bmth East in play. Electoral suicide. Boris simply won't let it happen.
There might be some tinkering around the edges, but an asset tax that includes the principal home of individuals is morally questionable, and electorally disasterous.
What do you think of adding extra council tax bands, Band I and Band J?
I'd rather that govt stop spaffing money up the wall and talk about tax cuts, rather than rises.
Grow the economy, increase the pie. That is the Conservative way.
Tax rises are coming one way or another. The size of the hole we're in is ginormous.
Declinist....
Objective number one for me, as a Conservative, is a stable and content society. This is so the status quo is broadly maintained, and the economy can continue to grow and we can be prosperous long-term.
The generational gap in politics and wealth is vast, and we must address it. This overrides my proclivity for no wealth or land taxes whatsoever in principle. I think the facts have changed.
Young people have very little asset wealth or savings, whilst older people have a huge amount. It's all in assets and property. We need to find a way of more fairly taxing the nation's wealth base, just a tad more, and cutting taxes on income for working people. I'd even revisit going back to child trust accounts so that those without wealthy parents get, say, £10k to help them start out when they hit 18 or 19.
Otherwise, I fear we'll get full-blown socialism one day, and a completely fragmented society.
Your argument in bold is true, on average, but people like you, and me, and MaxPB are probably a few exceptions I can immediately think of - so is it true for Tory voters? I am not so sure.
Many of my generation are already wealthier than their parents in asset terms (whilst at the same time many are not, and I'll grant you the variation seems much bigger than it did for our parents) - but often stretched. They also have far, far greater outgoings.
Those who are stretched will often have worked hard, foregone luxuries, to secure a home. Any party that screws homeowners as a pure function of the value of their home, more of which is likely to be mortgaged amongst younger voters, is not going to be a party that forms the government.
I understand where you're coming from, but think the key is going to be the tax recoup from boomer estates. By simply failing to increase the threshold on IHT the govt are going to clean up through fiscal drag.
Homeowners won't be screwed, they will just have a small percentage attached. If it was a large percentage then fair enough, but we're talking a very small percentage.
Homeowners here can pay 0.8% to 1% currently but you find it unthinkable that 0.48% could be found in the future elsewhere? Why?
How many times do I need to make this point? Because people's capacity to pay is not a function of the value of their property. Its fine and dandy talking in abstract economic terms in %, but not when it would fundamentally upturn the apple cart of our current economic settlement.
I don't get generate profits from my business as a % of the value of property. Nor to those who get paid PAYE get paid as a % of their property value. And this is before we get into the logistics of valuation, which are often the downfall of socialist asset taxation.
Introducing this policy would lead to immediate recession (if not depression), a house price collapse and a Labour government. Well done for implementing the triple whammy of things you don't want to do immediately after a pandemic which has screwed government finances....
Property tax, if it's at 0.5% will be immensely popular in the north, as almost everyone will have a saving on their council tax and go down like cold sick in the south.
Can only hope it would halve mine but I am not expecting it to happen that way.
Property tax, if it's at 0.5% will be immensely popular in the north, as almost everyone will have a saving on their council tax and go down like cold sick in the south.
Well, yes. Like @dixiedean it would cut my council tax bill by around half.
However, I can foresee a small snag. If it’s nationally raised, the South East will go apeshit. If it’s locally raised, every county north of Hertford will be instantly bankrupted.
Neither would be popular.
So - which is it to be?
I think the proponent has suggested 2/3 (0.32%) national and redistributed, 1/3 (0.16%) local.
Which would, amazingly, cause the SouthEast to go apeshit *and* bankrupt every council north of Hertford.
A proposal worth exploring ruined by clearly being the work of a total fuckwit.
Wouldn't the 2/3rd component easily make up for the lost revenue from the other third?
Solution to raising more tax is to cut inheritance tax to 6%, the same as the ten yearly charge for trusts, but include land and businesses. Landowners and business owners can afford to borrow 6% once every generation. Lots of votes from the people saving 34% on their inheritance as well.
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
That's a tax on Londoners. If they do it the Tory party will lose my vote for a very, very long time.
The other part of the package would be abolition of Stamp Duty.
Would that balance it out for you?
No. It's centralising council tax and then redistributing it so Londoners and people in the SE end up giving up yet another subsidy to the rest of the country.
Its called levelling up...
When London is ever paying its way I will be amazed, it is like a leech on the rest of the country.
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
That's a tax on Londoners. If they do it the Tory party will lose my vote for a very, very long time.
It would hit a lot of elderly, asset-rich and cash poor in London certainly very hard.
Then they can downsize if they want. Supply and demand.
Like the Scottish fishermen who can move into another business if they want, hey? Supply and demand.
If your purpose in posting here is to make the tory party look more attractive than it actually is, you do need to tone down the "fuck anybody who isn't me" vibe.
I am not a London homeowner, in case you were wondering.
That's not my purpose. My purpose is to debate politics, openly and honestly, with other politics nerds. I have no interest in reflecting the party and I don't take the party line, my opinions are my own.
I see no reason why tenants in the Northwest should be compelled by taxation to pay 1% of their properties value in Council Tax while owner occupiers in London can get away with paying just 0.2% of theirs. Do you care to justify it?
I'm not a fan of "progressive" taxation, but what we have now is positively regressive instead. A flat tax is fair, that people have gotten away without paying a flat tax for decades doesn't make introducing a flat tax unfair, it just means people haven't been paying their fair share.
I'm thinking strategically too, or at least I think I am.
I want broader property rights and capitalism defended long-term, and I simply see the current system as unsustainable.
This is a classic conservative case of lead mild reform now or suffer radical change later.
Reason 1 of many why the replacement of Council tax is very unlikely to happen.
It puts safe Tory seats like Bmth West and Bmth East in play. Electoral suicide. Boris simply won't let it happen.
There might be some tinkering around the edges, but an asset tax that includes the principal home of individuals is morally questionable, and electorally disasterous.
What do you think of adding extra council tax bands, Band I and Band J?
I'd rather that govt stop spaffing money up the wall and talk about tax cuts, rather than rises.
Grow the economy, increase the pie. That is the Conservative way.
Tax rises are coming one way or another. The size of the hole we're in is ginormous.
Declinist....
Objective number one for me, as a Conservative, is a stable and content society. This is so the status quo is broadly maintained, and the economy can continue to grow and we can be prosperous long-term.
The generational gap in politics and wealth is vast, and we must address it. This overrides my proclivity for no wealth or land taxes whatsoever in principle. I think the facts have changed.
Young people have very little asset wealth or savings, whilst older people have a huge amount. It's all in assets and property. We need to find a way of more fairly taxing the nation's wealth base, just a tad more, and cutting taxes on income for working people. I'd even revisit going back to child trust accounts so that those without wealthy parents get, say, £10k to help them start out when they hit 18 or 19.
Otherwise, I fear we'll get full-blown socialism one day, and a completely fragmented society.
Your argument in bold is true, on average, but people like you, and me, and MaxPB are probably a few exceptions I can immediately think of - so is it true for Tory voters? I am not so sure.
Many of my generation are already wealthier than their parents in asset terms (whilst at the same time many are not, and I'll grant you the variation seems much bigger than it did for our parents) - but often stretched. They also have far, far greater outgoings.
Those who are stretched will often have worked hard, foregone luxuries, to secure a home. Any party that screws homeowners as a pure function of the value of their home, more of which is likely to be mortgaged amongst younger voters, is not going to be a party that forms the government.
I understand where you're coming from, but think the key is going to be the tax recoup from boomer estates. By simply failing to increase the threshold on IHT the govt are going to clean up through fiscal drag.
Homeowners won't be screwed, they will just have a small percentage attached. If it was a large percentage then fair enough, but we're talking a very small percentage.
Homeowners here can pay 0.8% to 1% currently but you find it unthinkable that 0.48% could be found in the future elsewhere? Why?
How many times do I need to make this point? Because people's homeowner's capacity to pay is not a function of the value of their property. Its fine and dandy talking in abstract economic terms in %, but not when it would fundamentally upturn the apple cart of our current economic settlement.
I don't get generate profits from my business as a % of the value of property. Nor to those who get paid PAYE get paid as a % of their property value. And this is before we get into the logistics of valuation, which are often the downfall of socialist asset taxation.
Introducing this policy would lead to immediate recession (if not depression), a house price collapse and a Labour government. Well done for implementing the triple whammy of things you don't want to do immediately after a pandemic which has screwed government finances....
This argument slightly wants it both ways. Both wanting the high valuation of eg London houses not to be taken into account but ignoring the fact that houses are realisable assets free of CGT. I think, from my northern point of view where 1% plus of property value if often payable in council tax a middle way needs to be found.
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.
One Tory strategist I know is off the belief the moment young people start becoming Tories is the moment they become homeowners.
Don't mess with their homes.
It's definitely true, I've seen it happen among loads of my friends. They all talked fluent lefty for years voted for Chaos with Ed in 2015, flirted with Jez in 2017 but in 2019 when the chips were down they all voted for Boris because, and I can quote one of them "he won't hound me out of my home with taxes". What the government should be doing is attacking the private rental sector with large capital taxes to force landlords to sell existing property, Osborne made a really good start on that, Rishi is flunking it at the moment by burdening owner occupiers with a tax that will inevitable rise over time as it will be seen as an easy source of cash by future governments.
Like others I've seen that Rumsfeld quote positively referenced many times. Maybe it was the man and the moment that saw it criticised more than its inherent quality.
The criticism was because of the situation. It was a perfectly sensible enumeration of a basic premise but it was delivered in a manner that made him look like a total dick.
I can't remember, were WMDs a known or an unknown known?
That was indeed the question that Rumsfeld was replying too.
He came over as such smug condescending prick when giving that answer. It was classic GWB administration stuff.
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
That's a tax on Londoners. If they do it the Tory party will lose my vote for a very, very long time.
You could argue it's not fair how people who happen to live in London have experienced such a big bonus in terms of the value of their property over the last 40 years or so compared to elsewhere in the UK.
I have to live in my house, how do I profit from something going up in paper value terms?
you move house or suck it up
Maybe move to Ayrshire where the property is cheaper but you may encounter some odd, unfriendly people!
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
That's a tax on Londoners. If they do it the Tory party will lose my vote for a very, very long time.
It would hit a lot of elderly, asset-rich and cash poor in London certainly very hard.
Then they can downsize if they want. Supply and demand.
Like the Scottish fishermen who can move into another business if they want, hey? Supply and demand.
If your purpose in posting here is to make the tory party look more attractive than it actually is, you do need to tone down the "fuck anybody who isn't me" vibe.
I am not a London homeowner, in case you were wondering.
That's not my purpose. My purpose is to debate politics, openly and honestly, with other politics nerds. I have no interest in reflecting the party and I don't take the party line, my opinions are my own.
I see no reason why tenants in the Northwest should be compelled by taxation to pay 1% of their properties value in Council Tax while owner occupiers in London can get away with paying just 0.2% of theirs. Do you care to justify it?
I'm not a fan of "progressive" taxation, but what we have now is positively regressive instead. A flat tax is fair, that people have gotten away without paying a flat tax for decades doesn't make introducing a flat tax unfair, it just means people haven't been paying their fair share.
I'm thinking strategically too, or at least I think I am.
I want broader property rights and capitalism defended long-term, and I simply see the current system as unsustainable.
This is a classic conservative case of lead mild reform now or suffer radical change later.
Reason 1 of many why the replacement of Council tax is very unlikely to happen.
It puts safe Tory seats like Bmth West and Bmth East in play. Electoral suicide. Boris simply won't let it happen.
There might be some tinkering around the edges, but an asset tax that includes the principal home of individuals is morally questionable, and electorally disasterous.
What do you think of adding extra council tax bands, Band I and Band J?
I'd rather that govt stop spaffing money up the wall and talk about tax cuts, rather than rises.
Grow the economy, increase the pie. That is the Conservative way.
Tax rises are coming one way or another. The size of the hole we're in is ginormous.
Declinist....
Objective number one for me, as a Conservative, is a stable and content society. This is so the status quo is broadly maintained, and the economy can continue to grow and we can be prosperous long-term.
The generational gap in politics and wealth is vast, and we must address it. This overrides my proclivity for no wealth or land taxes whatsoever in principle. I think the facts have changed.
Young people have very little asset wealth or savings, whilst older people have a huge amount. It's all in assets and property. We need to find a way of more fairly taxing the nation's wealth base, just a tad more, and cutting taxes on income for working people. I'd even revisit going back to child trust accounts so that those without wealthy parents get, say, £10k to help them start out when they hit 18 or 19.
Otherwise, I fear we'll get full-blown socialism one day, and a completely fragmented society.
Your argument in bold is true, on average, but people like you, and me, and MaxPB are probably a few exceptions I can immediately think of - so is it true for Tory voters? I am not so sure.
Many of my generation are already wealthier than their parents in asset terms (whilst at the same time many are not, and I'll grant you the variation seems much bigger than it did for our parents) - but often stretched. They also have far, far greater outgoings.
Those who are stretched will often have worked hard, foregone luxuries, to secure a home. Any party that screws homeowners as a pure function of the value of their home, more of which is likely to be mortgaged amongst younger voters, is not going to be a party that forms the government.
I understand where you're coming from, but think the key is going to be the tax recoup from boomer estates. By simply failing to increase the threshold on IHT the govt are going to clean up through fiscal drag.
Homeowners won't be screwed, they will just have a small percentage attached. If it was a large percentage then fair enough, but we're talking a very small percentage.
Homeowners here can pay 0.8% to 1% currently but you find it unthinkable that 0.48% could be found in the future elsewhere? Why?
How many times do I need to make this point? Because people's homeowner's capacity to pay is not a function of the value of their property. Its fine and dandy talking in abstract economic terms in %, but not when it would fundamentally upturn the apple cart of our current economic settlement.
I don't get generate profits from my business as a % of the value of property. Nor to those who get paid PAYE get paid as a % of their property value. And this is before we get into the logistics of valuation, which are often the downfall of socialist asset taxation.
Introducing this policy would lead to immediate recession (if not depression), a house price collapse and a Labour government. Well done for implementing the triple whammy of things you don't want to do immediately after a pandemic which has screwed government finances....
This argument slightly wants it both ways. Both wanting the high valuation of eg London houses not to be taken into account but ignoring the fact that houses are realisable assets free of CGT. I think, from my northern point of view where 1% plus of property value if often payable in council tax a middle way needs to be found.
The reality, and the point I am making, however, is that the current level of council tax a) reflects that the cost of provision of local services by council area isn't a function of the property value and (more importantly electorally) b) is what happens now.
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
That's a tax on Londoners. If they do it the Tory party will lose my vote for a very, very long time.
It would hit a lot of elderly, asset-rich and cash poor in London certainly very hard.
Then they can downsize if they want. Supply and demand.
Like the Scottish fishermen who can move into another business if they want, hey? Supply and demand.
If your purpose in posting here is to make the tory party look more attractive than it actually is, you do need to tone down the "fuck anybody who isn't me" vibe.
I am not a London homeowner, in case you were wondering.
That's not my purpose. My purpose is to debate politics, openly and honestly, with other politics nerds. I have no interest in reflecting the party and I don't take the party line, my opinions are my own.
I see no reason why tenants in the Northwest should be compelled by taxation to pay 1% of their properties value in Council Tax while owner occupiers in London can get away with paying just 0.2% of theirs. Do you care to justify it?
I'm not a fan of "progressive" taxation, but what we have now is positively regressive instead. A flat tax is fair, that people have gotten away without paying a flat tax for decades doesn't make introducing a flat tax unfair, it just means people haven't been paying their fair share.
I'm thinking strategically too, or at least I think I am.
I want broader property rights and capitalism defended long-term, and I simply see the current system as unsustainable.
This is a classic conservative case of lead mild reform now or suffer radical change later.
Reason 1 of many why the replacement of Council tax is very unlikely to happen.
It puts safe Tory seats like Bmth West and Bmth East in play. Electoral suicide. Boris simply won't let it happen.
There might be some tinkering around the edges, but an asset tax that includes the principal home of individuals is morally questionable, and electorally disasterous.
What do you think of adding extra council tax bands, Band I and Band J?
I'd rather that govt stop spaffing money up the wall and talk about tax cuts, rather than rises.
Grow the economy, increase the pie. That is the Conservative way.
Tax rises are coming one way or another. The size of the hole we're in is ginormous.
Declinist....
Objective number one for me, as a Conservative, is a stable and content society. This is so the status quo is broadly maintained, and the economy can continue to grow and we can be prosperous long-term.
The generational gap in politics and wealth is vast, and we must address it. This overrides my proclivity for no wealth or land taxes whatsoever in principle. I think the facts have changed.
Young people have very little asset wealth or savings, whilst older people have a huge amount. It's all in assets and property. We need to find a way of more fairly taxing the nation's wealth base, just a tad more, and cutting taxes on income for working people. I'd even revisit going back to child trust accounts so that those without wealthy parents get, say, £10k to help them start out when they hit 18 or 19.
Otherwise, I fear we'll get full-blown socialism one day, and a completely fragmented society.
Your argument in bold is true, on average, but people like you, and me, and MaxPB are probably a few exceptions I can immediately think of - so is it true for Tory voters? I am not so sure.
Many of my generation are already wealthier than their parents in asset terms (whilst at the same time many are not, and I'll grant you the variation seems much bigger than it did for our parents) - but often stretched. They also have far, far greater outgoings.
Those who are stretched will often have worked hard, foregone luxuries, to secure a home. Any party that screws homeowners as a pure function of the value of their home, more of which is likely to be mortgaged amongst younger voters, is not going to be a party that forms the government.
I understand where you're coming from, but think the key is going to be the tax recoup from boomer estates. By simply failing to increase the threshold on IHT the govt are going to clean up through fiscal drag.
Homeowners won't be screwed, they will just have a small percentage attached. If it was a large percentage then fair enough, but we're talking a very small percentage.
Homeowners here can pay 0.8% to 1% currently but you find it unthinkable that 0.48% could be found in the future elsewhere? Why?
How many times do I need to make this point? Because people's capacity to pay is not a function of the value of their property. Its fine and dandy talking in abstract economic terms in %, but not when it would fundamentally upturn the apple cart of our current economic settlement.
I don't get generate profits from my business as a % of the value of property. Nor to those who get paid PAYE get paid as a % of their property value. And this is before we get into the logistics of valuation, which are often the downfall of socialist asset taxation.
Introducing this policy would lead to immediate recession (if not depression), a house price collapse and a Labour government. Well done for implementing the triple whammy of things you don't want to do immediately after a pandemic which has screwed government finances....
But people have to pay their rent or their mortgage as a percentage.
Why would it lead to a recession? And if it led to a house price collapse then that would mean tax cuts for everyone!
The % house price tax sounds like an excellent idea.
Almost certainly won’t happen tho
It’s a completely stupid idea as it would screw everyone down here. Given that London and the South East is the driver for the whole UK economy it would be utter madness.
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
That's a tax on Londoners. If they do it the Tory party will lose my vote for a very, very long time.
It would hit a lot of elderly, asset-rich and cash poor in London certainly very hard.
Then they can downsize if they want. Supply and demand.
Like the Scottish fishermen who can move into another business if they want, hey? Supply and demand.
If your purpose in posting here is to make the tory party look more attractive than it actually is, you do need to tone down the "fuck anybody who isn't me" vibe.
I am not a London homeowner, in case you were wondering.
That's not my purpose. My purpose is to debate politics, openly and honestly, with other politics nerds. I have no interest in reflecting the party and I don't take the party line, my opinions are my own.
I see no reason why tenants in the Northwest should be compelled by taxation to pay 1% of their properties value in Council Tax while owner occupiers in London can get away with paying just 0.2% of theirs. Do you care to justify it?
I'm not a fan of "progressive" taxation, but what we have now is positively regressive instead. A flat tax is fair, that people have gotten away without paying a flat tax for decades doesn't make introducing a flat tax unfair, it just means people haven't been paying their fair share.
I'm thinking strategically too, or at least I think I am.
I want broader property rights and capitalism defended long-term, and I simply see the current system as unsustainable.
This is a classic conservative case of lead mild reform now or suffer radical change later.
Reason 1 of many why the replacement of Council tax is very unlikely to happen.
It puts safe Tory seats like Bmth West and Bmth East in play. Electoral suicide. Boris simply won't let it happen.
There might be some tinkering around the edges, but an asset tax that includes the principal home of individuals is morally questionable, and electorally disasterous.
What do you think of adding extra council tax bands, Band I and Band J?
I'd rather that govt stop spaffing money up the wall and talk about tax cuts, rather than rises.
Grow the economy, increase the pie. That is the Conservative way.
Tax rises are coming one way or another. The size of the hole we're in is ginormous.
Declinist....
Objective number one for me, as a Conservative, is a stable and content society. This is so the status quo is broadly maintained, and the economy can continue to grow and we can be prosperous long-term.
The generational gap in politics and wealth is vast, and we must address it. This overrides my proclivity for no wealth or land taxes whatsoever in principle. I think the facts have changed.
Young people have very little asset wealth or savings, whilst older people have a huge amount. It's all in assets and property. We need to find a way of more fairly taxing the nation's wealth base, just a tad more, and cutting taxes on income for working people. I'd even revisit going back to child trust accounts so that those without wealthy parents get, say, £10k to help them start out when they hit 18 or 19.
Otherwise, I fear we'll get full-blown socialism one day, and a completely fragmented society.
Your argument in bold is true, on average, but people like you, and me, and MaxPB are probably a few exceptions I can immediately think of - so is it true for Tory voters? I am not so sure.
Many of my generation are already wealthier than their parents in asset terms (whilst at the same time many are not, and I'll grant you the variation seems much bigger than it did for our parents) - but often stretched. They also have far, far greater outgoings.
Those who are stretched will often have worked hard, foregone luxuries, to secure a home. Any party that screws homeowners as a pure function of the value of their home, more of which is likely to be mortgaged amongst younger voters, is not going to be a party that forms the government.
I understand where you're coming from, but think the key is going to be the tax recoup from boomer estates. By simply failing to increase the threshold on IHT the govt are going to clean up through fiscal drag.
Homeowners won't be screwed, they will just have a small percentage attached. If it was a large percentage then fair enough, but we're talking a very small percentage.
Homeowners here can pay 0.8% to 1% currently but you find it unthinkable that 0.48% could be found in the future elsewhere? Why?
How many times do I need to make this point? Because people's capacity to pay is not a function of the value of their property. Its fine and dandy talking in abstract economic terms in %, but not when it would fundamentally upturn the apple cart of our current economic settlement.
I don't get generate profits from my business as a % of the value of property. Nor to those who get paid PAYE get paid as a % of their property value. And this is before we get into the logistics of valuation, which are often the downfall of socialist asset taxation.
Introducing this policy would lead to immediate recession (if not depression), a house price collapse and a Labour government. Well done for implementing the triple whammy of things you don't want to do immediately after a pandemic which has screwed government finances....
But people have to pay their rent or their mortgage as a percentage.
Why would it lead to a recession? And if it led to a house price collapse then that would mean tax cuts for everyone!
Which leads to a revenue shortfall and the rate having to be increased. It's a completely stupid idea. Property taxes are good for forcing behavioural change because markets are rational.
Solution to raising more tax is to cut inheritance tax to 6%, the same as the ten yearly charge for trusts, but include land and businesses. Landowners and business owners can afford to borrow 6% once every generation. Lots of votes from the people saving 34% on their inheritance as well.
Inheritance tax is so avoidable and raises so little - and what it raises is often extraordinarily unfair - that it would be much better to replace it with a lowish flat rate unavoidable, no exemptions, tax with a reasonably modest threshold. At the moment it makes more money for lawyers and accountants than it does for the exchequer.
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
That's a tax on Londoners. If they do it the Tory party will lose my vote for a very, very long time.
The other part of the package would be abolition of Stamp Duty.
Would that balance it out for you?
No. It's centralising council tax and then redistributing it so Londoners and people in the SE end up giving up yet another subsidy to the rest of the country.
Its called levelling up...
When London is ever paying its way I will be amazed, it is like a leech on the rest of the country.
It really isn’t. It pays for most of the rest of the country, although rarely gets much gratitude. Especially on PB, which is a London Haters paradise.
The % house price tax sounds like an excellent idea.
Almost certainly won’t happen tho
It’s a completely stupid idea as it would screw everyone down here. Given that London and the South East is the driver for the whole UK economy it would be utter madness.
As the good doctor fox pointed out, it’s called levelling up.
Solution to raising more tax is to cut inheritance tax to 6%, the same as the ten yearly charge for trusts, but include land and businesses. Landowners and business owners can afford to borrow 6% once every generation. Lots of votes from the people saving 34% on their inheritance as well.
Inheritance tax is so avoidable and raises so little - and what it raises is often extraordinarily unfair - that it would be much better to replace it with a lowish flat rate unavoidable, no exemptions, tax with a reasonably modest threshold. At the moment it makes more money for lawyers and accountants than it does for the exchequer.
I'm just dealing with IHT, and I don't currently feel it raises very little .
Bloody expensive, in fact.
Yes, we swerved a good deal - but there's still plenty left.
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
That's a tax on Londoners. If they do it the Tory party will lose my vote for a very, very long time.
It would hit a lot of elderly, asset-rich and cash poor in London certainly very hard.
Then they can downsize if they want. Supply and demand.
Like the Scottish fishermen who can move into another business if they want, hey? Supply and demand.
If your purpose in posting here is to make the tory party look more attractive than it actually is, you do need to tone down the "fuck anybody who isn't me" vibe.
I am not a London homeowner, in case you were wondering.
That's not my purpose. My purpose is to debate politics, openly and honestly, with other politics nerds. I have no interest in reflecting the party and I don't take the party line, my opinions are my own.
I see no reason why tenants in the Northwest should be compelled by taxation to pay 1% of their properties value in Council Tax while owner occupiers in London can get away with paying just 0.2% of theirs. Do you care to justify it?
I'm not a fan of "progressive" taxation, but what we have now is positively regressive instead. A flat tax is fair, that people have gotten away without paying a flat tax for decades doesn't make introducing a flat tax unfair, it just means people haven't been paying their fair share.
I'm thinking strategically too, or at least I think I am.
I want broader property rights and capitalism defended long-term, and I simply see the current system as unsustainable.
This is a classic conservative case of lead mild reform now or suffer radical change later.
Reason 1 of many why the replacement of Council tax is very unlikely to happen.
It puts safe Tory seats like Bmth West and Bmth East in play. Electoral suicide. Boris simply won't let it happen.
There might be some tinkering around the edges, but an asset tax that includes the principal home of individuals is morally questionable, and electorally disasterous.
What do you think of adding extra council tax bands, Band I and Band J?
I'd rather that govt stop spaffing money up the wall and talk about tax cuts, rather than rises.
Grow the economy, increase the pie. That is the Conservative way.
Tax rises are coming one way or another. The size of the hole we're in is ginormous.
Declinist....
Objective number one for me, as a Conservative, is a stable and content society. This is so the status quo is broadly maintained, and the economy can continue to grow and we can be prosperous long-term.
The generational gap in politics and wealth is vast, and we must address it. This overrides my proclivity for no wealth or land taxes whatsoever in principle. I think the facts have changed.
Young people have very little asset wealth or savings, whilst older people have a huge amount. It's all in assets and property. We need to find a way of more fairly taxing the nation's wealth base, just a tad more, and cutting taxes on income for working people. I'd even revisit going back to child trust accounts so that those without wealthy parents get, say, £10k to help them start out when they hit 18 or 19.
Otherwise, I fear we'll get full-blown socialism one day, and a completely fragmented society.
Your argument in bold is true, on average, but people like you, and me, and MaxPB are probably a few exceptions I can immediately think of - so is it true for Tory voters? I am not so sure.
Many of my generation are already wealthier than their parents in asset terms (whilst at the same time many are not, and I'll grant you the variation seems much bigger than it did for our parents) - but often stretched. They also have far, far greater outgoings.
Those who are stretched will often have worked hard, foregone luxuries, to secure a home. Any party that screws homeowners as a pure function of the value of their home, more of which is likely to be mortgaged amongst younger voters, is not going to be a party that forms the government.
I understand where you're coming from, but think the key is going to be the tax recoup from boomer estates. By simply failing to increase the threshold on IHT the govt are going to clean up through fiscal drag.
Homeowners won't be screwed, they will just have a small percentage attached. If it was a large percentage then fair enough, but we're talking a very small percentage.
Homeowners here can pay 0.8% to 1% currently but you find it unthinkable that 0.48% could be found in the future elsewhere? Why?
How many times do I need to make this point? Because people's capacity to pay is not a function of the value of their property. Its fine and dandy talking in abstract economic terms in %, but not when it would fundamentally upturn the apple cart of our current economic settlement.
I don't get generate profits from my business as a % of the value of property. Nor to those who get paid PAYE get paid as a % of their property value. And this is before we get into the logistics of valuation, which are often the downfall of socialist asset taxation.
Introducing this policy would lead to immediate recession (if not depression), a house price collapse and a Labour government. Well done for implementing the triple whammy of things you don't want to do immediately after a pandemic which has screwed government finances....
But people have to pay their rent or their mortgage as a percentage.
Why would it lead to a recession? And if it led to a house price collapse then that would mean tax cuts for everyone!
Which leads to a revenue shortfall and the rate having to be increased. It's a completely stupid idea. Property taxes are good for forcing behavioural change because markets are rational.
Markets are rational yes, by and large. Currently the market is distorted with a regressive tax and a planning system that is designed to price people out of owning their own home by design.
According to the Sunday Times the Treasury is investigating scrapping stamp duty and council tax and replacing these with a simple annual tax of 0.48% of a property's value.
That's a tax on Londoners. If they do it the Tory party will lose my vote for a very, very long time.
It would hit a lot of elderly, asset-rich and cash poor in London certainly very hard.
Then they can downsize if they want. Supply and demand.
Like the Scottish fishermen who can move into another business if they want, hey? Supply and demand.
If your purpose in posting here is to make the tory party look more attractive than it actually is, you do need to tone down the "fuck anybody who isn't me" vibe.
I am not a London homeowner, in case you were wondering.
That's not my purpose. My purpose is to debate politics, openly and honestly, with other politics nerds. I have no interest in reflecting the party and I don't take the party line, my opinions are my own.
I see no reason why tenants in the Northwest should be compelled by taxation to pay 1% of their properties value in Council Tax while owner occupiers in London can get away with paying just 0.2% of theirs. Do you care to justify it?
I'm not a fan of "progressive" taxation, but what we have now is positively regressive instead. A flat tax is fair, that people have gotten away without paying a flat tax for decades doesn't make introducing a flat tax unfair, it just means people haven't been paying their fair share.
I'm thinking strategically too, or at least I think I am.
I want broader property rights and capitalism defended long-term, and I simply see the current system as unsustainable.
This is a classic conservative case of lead mild reform now or suffer radical change later.
Reason 1 of many why the replacement of Council tax is very unlikely to happen.
It puts safe Tory seats like Bmth West and Bmth East in play. Electoral suicide. Boris simply won't let it happen.
There might be some tinkering around the edges, but an asset tax that includes the principal home of individuals is morally questionable, and electorally disasterous.
What do you think of adding extra council tax bands, Band I and Band J?
I'd rather that govt stop spaffing money up the wall and talk about tax cuts, rather than rises.
Grow the economy, increase the pie. That is the Conservative way.
Tax rises are coming one way or another. The size of the hole we're in is ginormous.
Declinist....
Objective number one for me, as a Conservative, is a stable and content society. This is so the status quo is broadly maintained, and the economy can continue to grow and we can be prosperous long-term.
The generational gap in politics and wealth is vast, and we must address it. This overrides my proclivity for no wealth or land taxes whatsoever in principle. I think the facts have changed.
Young people have very little asset wealth or savings, whilst older people have a huge amount. It's all in assets and property. We need to find a way of more fairly taxing the nation's wealth base, just a tad more, and cutting taxes on income for working people. I'd even revisit going back to child trust accounts so that those without wealthy parents get, say, £10k to help them start out when they hit 18 or 19.
Otherwise, I fear we'll get full-blown socialism one day, and a completely fragmented society.
Your argument in bold is true, on average, but people like you, and me, and MaxPB are probably a few exceptions I can immediately think of - so is it true for Tory voters? I am not so sure.
Many of my generation are already wealthier than their parents in asset terms (whilst at the same time many are not, and I'll grant you the variation seems much bigger than it did for our parents) - but often stretched. They also have far, far greater outgoings.
Those who are stretched will often have worked hard, foregone luxuries, to secure a home. Any party that screws homeowners as a pure function of the value of their home, more of which is likely to be mortgaged amongst younger voters, is not going to be a party that forms the government.
I understand where you're coming from, but think the key is going to be the tax recoup from boomer estates. By simply failing to increase the threshold on IHT the govt are going to clean up through fiscal drag.
Homeowners won't be screwed, they will just have a small percentage attached. If it was a large percentage then fair enough, but we're talking a very small percentage.
Homeowners here can pay 0.8% to 1% currently but you find it unthinkable that 0.48% could be found in the future elsewhere? Why?
How many times do I need to make this point? Because people's capacity to pay is not a function of the value of their property. Its fine and dandy talking in abstract economic terms in %, but not when it would fundamentally upturn the apple cart of our current economic settlement.
I don't get generate profits from my business as a % of the value of property. Nor to those who get paid PAYE get paid as a % of their property value. And this is before we get into the logistics of valuation, which are often the downfall of socialist asset taxation.
Introducing this policy would lead to immediate recession (if not depression), a house price collapse and a Labour government. Well done for implementing the triple whammy of things you don't want to do immediately after a pandemic which has screwed government finances....
(1)But people have to pay their rent or their mortgage as a percentage.
(2)Why would it lead to a recession? And if it led to a house price collapse then that would mean tax cuts for everyone!
1) When people take on a rental or a mortgage they know what the costs are going to be (albeit with some mild fluctuation due to interests rates, something never experienced by an increasing number of homeowners). So fundamentally changing the basis of charges on where people live on a governmental whim like this would be immoral. And any govt introducing it would rightfully be turfed out.
2) a)Reducing the amount of spending money that people expect to have will lead to a reduction in spending. b) The house price crash combined with huge tax hikes will lead to associated foreclosures and bankruptcies.
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.
Yes, honestly my wife and I have set aside a lot of money for refurbing the house we're almost through purchasing. We both realise for the next few years it's going to be a money black hole and then our future children will take its place!
Comments
0-£200k 0.3%
200-400k 0.5%
400k-1m 0.75%
1m-2m 1%
2m+ 1.5%
I dread to think what books the ugly golden turd of a building would contain.
Edit - actually given what a grifter he is, probably no books at all.
Most presidents do NOT sell pardons OR allow others in the White House to peddle them.
Have mislaid my copy of "The Federalist Papers" but IIRC the rationale for granting presidents the power to pardon in the Constitution, was to serve as yet another check & balance, in this case on the judiciary.
Check out the link below, which includes the following:
"One of the sections of this new U.S. Constitution gave the president a power similar to the British King’s “royal prerogative of mercy.” In the U.S., this is known as a presidential pardon. Article II section 2 of the Constitution describes it as the “Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”
Federalists like Alexander Hamilton, who wanted the Constitution to set up a strong national government, supported the addition of this executive power. In the Federalist Papers—an anonymous series of letters that Hamilton and others wrote to newspapers—Hamilton argued that without a way to pardon people, “justice would wear a countenance too sanguinary and cruel.”
But the “principal argument” for the power, he wrote, was that if the U.S. ever experienced an insurrection or rebellion, “a welltimed [sic] offer of pardon to the insurgents or rebels may restore the tranquillity of the commonwealth.” George Washington used the power in this way when he pardoned two members of the Whiskey Rebellion, and so did Abraham Lincoln when he pardoned all but the highest-level Confederate officers after the Civil War.
The Anti-Federalists, though, feared that giving the president the sole power to pardon would result in tyranny. In the lesser-known Anti-Federalist Papers, future Vice President George Clinton warned that it would create “a vile and arbitrary aristocracy or monarchy,” according to The New York Times.
“There was a proposal to require Senate approval for [presidential] pardons, but it was rejected” by the Constitutional Convention, says Caroline Mala Corbin, a professor at the University of Miami School of Law. So too was a proposal to give this power to the Senate instead of the president.
She speculates these measures failed because the Constitutional framers “were worried about making the legislature too powerful,” and that “requiring that the Senate convene and debate and vote” would make it more difficult to quickly restore peace after an insurrection.
In the end, the winning argument was the Federalist position that executive pardons were necessary to correct miscarriages of justice. As federalist and future Supreme Court justice James Iredell wrote at the time, it was considered one of the “advantages of the British constitution” that could be adopted by the U.S. “with proper republican checks.”
https://www.history.com/news/how-american-presidents-ended-up-with-the-kingly-power-to-pardon-2
The generational gap in politics and wealth is vast, and we must address it. This overrides my proclivity for no wealth or land taxes whatsoever in principle. I think the facts have changed.
Young people have very little asset wealth or savings, whilst older people have a huge amount. It's all in assets and property. We need to find a way of more fairly taxing the nation's wealth base, just a tad more, and cutting taxes on income for working people. I'd even revisit going back to child trust accounts so that those without wealthy parents get, say, £10k to help them start out when they hit 18 or 19.
Otherwise, I fear we'll get full-blown socialism one day, and a completely fragmented society.
Council Tax is in part already a property tax but based on valuations three decades ago. 🙄
Can't see e.g. Brady being a supporter - at least after his ear is bent on the issue by several thousand Tory residents in his constituency.
- Transaction taxes alway reduce transactions
- A property tax like this might reverse the current situation, where people are seen as a cost to many councils. Large numbers don't pay council tax through various exemptions. With this in place, the tax derived from a habitation would be constant and inevitable.
Naughty thought -
Farmer - "What are you doing here?"
Council official - "Good news. You have planning permission to build on your entire 500 acre farm."
Farmer - "Wut? I haven't asked...."
Council Official - "No, you didn't. Think of it as a present. So the value of your farm has increased by about 1000%. Also, since it is now classified as property taxable, here is a nice bill. And if you don't build on it, it goes up."
What he said on then, was one of the FEW things to come out of his mouth that a) made sense and b) wasn't a barefaced lie.
Full disclosure, I am a southern Shire Tory, but my house is at "par" around about £500k. So I have little skin in the game other than wanting a more stable society, and to spike socialism long-term.
I am one of those Tories for whom the nation and its cohesion is more important than my devotion to Adam Smith, or the free market, per say.
If people stop following NIMBY policies trying to artificially inflate their house prices to make a paper profit but a very real loss for those trying to get on the ladder, because doing so results in a tax rise, then so much the better. Good and fair for everyone then.
It would also make the local council more accountable to their tax payers surely.
Symptomatic of a cultural divide within Western society.
And is probably hoping to profit both off the construction, and subsequent visitor fees.
The Tories also got a bigger majority in Mansfield and Bishop Auckland than in Chelsea and Fulham or Kensington or Cities of London and Westminster.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_United_Kingdom_general_election_in_England
You'll just have to move north. Don't panic, it isn't so bad up here.
Who is going to pay for the hole that we are in, though? Somebody will have to...
Many of my generation are already wealthier than their parents in asset terms (whilst at the same time many are not, and I'll grant you the variation seems much bigger than it did for our parents) - but often stretched. They also have far, far greater outgoings.
Those who are stretched will often have worked hard, foregone luxuries, to secure a home. Any party that screws homeowners as a pure function of the value of their home, more of which is likely to be mortgaged amongst younger voters, is not going to be a party that forms the government.
I understand where you're coming from, but think the key is going to be the tax recoup from boomer estates. By simply failing to increase the threshold on IHT the govt are going to clean up through fiscal drag.
What I'm saying is that I have already paid ca. 40% tax on the income to buy said property and it generates zero return, in fact it will end up being a money black hole which generates VAT and income tax for construction.
I'm all for taxing property, but only property which either sits empty (second homes, holiday homes) or is generating a return (rental property) and making that 2-3% per year.
Taxing something that it is inherently impossible to generate a return from is morally wrong. I have bought my flat to live in, not because I want to stare at the value.
There's a big risk in making a key political dividing line like this a matter of degree, rather than principle.
People who vote for radical change aren't (always) stupid, they're just not sufficiently invested in the status quo. You can play a game of brinksmanship with it and say we're ok to continue on this course, but do acknowledge the risks please.
Homeowners here can pay 0.8% to 1% currently but you find it unthinkable that 0.48% could be found in the future elsewhere? Why?
Yes, the irony of the WMD situation was that....
However, I can foresee a small snag. If it’s nationally raised, the South East will go apeshit. If it’s locally raised, every county north of Hertford will be instantly bankrupted.
Neither would be popular.
So - which is it to be?
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.
From a straight economic basis, we want assets to be as well utilised as possible. A tax on the current value of the property does that: it means you save twice over if you trade down - a lower annual council tax charge combined with no need to pay stamp duty.
Now, there are bad outcomes we wish to avoid, such as the elderly being pushed out of their homes. But I think that can easily be solved by allowing the council to have a charge on the home (I'd have a 6-7% interest rate to discourage other people from doing this). But if you're in your 80s, not paying a couple of years of your council tax, and allowing it to be recovered from the eventual sale of your house makes perfect sense. (As well as being good business for the council too.)
Trump blows up the Arizona GOP on his way out
“The craziness from the state Republican Party … it’s pretty embarrassing,” said a former top Republican official.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/16/arizona-gop-trump-459772
'The Trump era did more damage to the Republican Party in Arizona than almost anywhere else. Over the past two years, Republicans lost both Senate seats. In November, the state flipped Democratic in a presidential race for the first time since 1996. The GOP state party chair is currently at war with the governor.
President Donald Trump’s fingerprints are on all of it, yet the state party will likely pass a resolution next week to officially “support & thank” the president. It’ll also vote on measures to censure three prominent Republicans who were deemed insufficiently beholden to Trump: Gov. Doug Ducey, former Sen. Jeff Flake and Cindy McCain, the wife of the late senator. . . .
[Cindy] McCain, in a statement, said she was “not surprised by the continuous insults and personal attacks from Arizona GOP Chairman Kelli Ward. She’s shown how attacking Republicans like me can impact elections — her involvement in both Senate elections to replace Jeff Flake and my husband John McCain, two regular targets of her personal attacks, resulted in Democrat wins.”
As chairwoman of the party, McCain said, Ward “managed to turn Arizona blue in November for the first time since 1996. Maybe she should be reminded that my husband never lost an Arizona election since his first win in 1982; he and Governor Ducey are the last two Republicans to win statewide races in Arizona.”
Again why do you expect poor northerners to be able to find 1% of their property value to pay in a property tax, but you find it absolutely unthinkable that southerners can find 0.48% to fund theirs?
What is wrong is objecting to others constructing houses.
You have literally said in the past that home owners should be entitled to object to others building homes that can be lived in because it might make house prices go down. If your house price goes down then that should be supply and demand free market in action, it should be celebrated not complained about. With this scheme you'd get a tax cut if your house price went down.
My CT is something like £1800-2000 I think, and .48% of the house value is slightly lower, and Stamp Duty would apply but is only 6k or so.
That makes it neutral as near as dammit, and we have the trends in place to solve the Stuck Granny problem over a number of years.
My relatives who live in a half-millions 30s semi in London suburbia get an extra few hundred of Council Tax, and escape 20k of Stamp Duty.
Generally I like as the vast majority would be not too worse off, and lower cost houses would be less targeted.
It is going to take some analysis to show that Birmingham E and W will be worse off. Not sure that I believe it.
Red Wall should like it. Ultra-rich London may not (though I have not calculated the balance .. and since they have the highest Stamp Duty rates of all, I am not sure if they suffer badly.) What is the seat balance for Boris between Central London and the Red Wall?
However the devil is in the detail.
A proposal worth exploring ruined by clearly being the work of a total fuckwit.
Don't mess with their homes.
I don't get generate profits from my business as a % of the value of property. Nor to those who get paid PAYE get paid as a % of their property value. And this is before we get into the logistics of valuation, which are often the downfall of socialist asset taxation.
Introducing this policy would lead to immediate recession (if not depression), a house price collapse and a Labour government. Well done for implementing the triple whammy of things you don't want to do immediately after a pandemic which has screwed government finances....
Almost certainly won’t happen tho
Can someone point me to a Twitter account / website that provides the daily vax numbers? I have to bother people on here!
What were today’s figures?
Cheers.
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/
He came over as such smug condescending prick when giving that answer. It was classic GWB administration stuff.
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.
Would SKS be on board with such a Council Tax policy put forward by a Tory Government?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55694598
Why would it lead to a recession? And if it led to a house price collapse then that would mean tax cuts for everyone!
‘Swot we voted for.
Bloody expensive, in fact.
Yes, we swerved a good deal - but there's still plenty left.
A flat tax is a simple free market move.
2) a)Reducing the amount of spending money that people expect to have will lead to a reduction in spending. b) The house price crash combined with huge tax hikes will lead to associated foreclosures and bankruptcies.
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/healthcare#card-people_who_have_received_vaccinations_by_report_date_daily