politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Corbyn remains on the ballot and doesn’t require nomination

Pulpstar said:

nunu said:

ThreeQuidder said:

chestnut said:

Charles said:

taffys said:

''A wealth tax is great in theory, encourages efficient use of assets - you'd of course want it to replace income tax revenue so it is not just "more tax".''

I'm just trying to work out how many seats a 1% property tax might lose the tories.

100? 150?

That's why it hasn't happened. Doesn't mean it's the wrong thing to do theoretically.

Provided, of course, that it replaces other taxes

Total value of residential property is £6 trillion (end 2015 -Savills)
Total value of commercial property (end 2014 - RICS) is £0.8 trillion

Overall that means a 1% tax take would be worth £68 billion per year

- Cut council tax in half (so that centrally mandated spending is covered centrally even if managed by councils) at a cost of £14 billion
- Eliminate property stamp duty at a cost of £9bn

That basically gives you £45 billion to play with.

Personally I'd look for a reduction in employer NICs to make employment more attractive, possibly an increase in capital investment allowances (to encourage investment), a reduction in petrol taxes and utility taxes to reduce the cost of doing business/living, plus a reduction in income taxes. And a chunk - say £25bn or so - to reduce the deficit.

Large numbers of people have very little wealth beyond the home they live in.

A 1% charge in London would instantly = £5k pa tax bill on the most average of properties for many people with very modest incomes.

It's a really bad idea.

What happens to tenants?

Evictions.

Why would you evict tenants when they're paying the wealth tax ?

They might not be able to afford the increase in rents so will need to sell the property to pay the tax.

Wealth taxes will not be in the next Morris Dancer Party manifesto.

We are considering beard taxes. Three percent for a goatee. Thirty-two and a half percent plus one kidney for anyone with a ludicrously over-groomed Craig David nonsense of a beard. Zero percent for Brian Blessed.

AndyJS said:

logical_song said:

Just came across this:
https://ukgeneralelection2020.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/notional-results-for-parliamentary.html
It's predicting GE results from Council elections, probably not that accurate, but interesting nevertheless.

It's based on the ward data I compiled for the local elections.

It's real votes in real elections, so gives an indication of the way the wind is blowing as regards the GE, but local factors must be playing a significant part.

MTimT said:

Dromedary said:

Trump's new logo:



But I agree with Jake Novak that the Democrats would be crazy to focus on this: "The Democrats just fell for Trump's Russian email-hack bait".

I must admit a growing, grudging appreciation for Trump's strategy and tactics. His marketing skills and guerrilla tactics are leaving traditional politicians of all stripes in the dust.

"Paul Manafort, Trump's campaign chairman, has spent decades as a political adviser in eastern Europe.
Mr Manafort worked closely with former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, who was ousted from power in 2014 and is a known ally of Vladimir Putin.
According to Josh Marshall, one of the most vocal journalists questioning Mr Trump's Russian ties, his foreign policy advisor Carter Page has "deep and continuing financial and employment ties" to Gazprom, Russia's trillion dollar energy company.
"It is no exaggeration to say that you cannot be involved with Gazprom at the very high level which Page has been without being wholly in alignment with Putin's policies," Marshall writes."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-36862749

chestnut said:

nunu said:

chestnut said:

Tissue_Price said:

chestnut said:

Large numbers of people have very little wealth beyond the home they live in.

This is still wealth, and it's massively advantageous tax treatment is partly why this situation exists in the first place.

It is a home.

The net consequence of doing this would be to further concentrate wealth and property in the hands of the most wealthy, whilst taking capital from those of moderate means and socially cleansing places like London.

This doesn't just affect the homeowner, but all those who inherit. Reduce the inheritance; increase the future dependence.

Thatcher's greatest achievement was putting capital in the hands of the working class. It fostered far greater levels of independence not only for their generation, but those who followed on.

This idea would reverse it.

Concentrate on high value properties, high value incomes and high value products if taxing wealth is the aim.

Thachers home owning democracy has been reversed in London.

Most of those people are still homeowners, Nunu. Those who moved tended to move for reasons unrelated to money.

I have relatives - current and ex - who would be hit with £10k-£30k a year tax bills under this idea.

I'd be surprised if their incomes could cover the bill even before they thought about eating.

The taxman will get his chunk when they die.

Owner occupation has gone below the level of the eighties, we need a massive government led house building, we I never thought I'd say.

chestnut said:

Charles said:

taffys said:

''A wealth tax is great in theory, encourages efficient use of assets - you'd of course want it to replace income tax revenue so it is not just "more tax".''

I'm just trying to work out how many seats a 1% property tax might lose the tories.

100? 150?

That's why it hasn't happened. Doesn't mean it's the wrong thing to do theoretically.

Provided, of course, that it replaces other taxes

Total value of residential property is £6 trillion (end 2015 -Savills)
Total value of commercial property (end 2014 - RICS) is £0.8 trillion

Overall that means a 1% tax take would be worth £68 billion per year

- Cut council tax in half (so that centrally mandated spending is covered centrally even if managed by councils) at a cost of £14 billion
- Eliminate property stamp duty at a cost of £9bn

That basically gives you £45 billion to play with.

Personally I'd look for a reduction in employer NICs to make employment more attractive, possibly an increase in capital investment allowances (to encourage investment), a reduction in petrol taxes and utility taxes to reduce the cost of doing business/living, plus a reduction in income taxes. And a chunk - say £25bn or so - to reduce the deficit.

Large numbers of people have very little wealth beyond the home they live in.

A 1% charge in London would instantly = £5k pa tax bill on the most average of properties for many people with very modest incomes.

It's a really bad idea.

Better surely to cut IHT to 15%, but scrap every exemption and relief, other than the nil rate threshold? That way, you could raise serious sums from the very rich (but sums they can afford) without hammering the merely well off.

Mr. Rentool, half-mast trousers will be a criminal offence.

ThreeQuidder said:

nunu said:

chestnut said:

Tissue_Price said:

chestnut said:

Large numbers of people have very little wealth beyond the home they live in.

This is still wealth, and it's massively advantageous tax treatment is partly why this situation exists in the first place.

It is a home.

The net consequence of doing this would be to further concentrate wealth and property in the hands of the most wealthy, whilst taking capital from those of moderate means and socially cleansing places like London.

This doesn't just affect the homeowner, but all those who inherit. Reduce the inheritance; increase the future dependence.

Thatcher's greatest achievement was putting capital in the hands of the working class. It fostered far greater levels of independence not only for their generation, but those who followed on.

This idea would reverse it.

Concentrate on high value properties, high value incomes and high value products if taxing wealth is the aim.

Thachers home owning democracy has been reversed in London.

To buy the house we rent with the mortgage payments being what we pay in rent, we'd need to have a deposit of over a third. How do you save that kind of money whilst paying rent?

Why should the mortgage payments be no more than what you pay in rent?

Mortgage payments are made up of two parts, interest ("dead money", equivalent to rent) and capital repayments (equivalent to savings). As you repay your mortgage the split between interest and repayments becomes ever more advantageous to you.

If you can get a mortgage which has an interest-only component of the monthly payment (ie before capital repayments) equivalent to what you are paying in rent or less then all else being equal you are still better off buying than renting.

If you are currently renting £xxx per month and saving £yyy per month towards a deposit then why can't you afford monthly payments of (£xxx + £yyy) per month?

not_on_fire said:

Sean_F said:

chestnut said:

Charles said:

taffys said:

''A wealth tax is great in theory, encourages efficient use of assets - you'd of course want it to replace income tax revenue so it is not just "more tax".''

I'm just trying to work out how many seats a 1% property tax might lose the tories.

100? 150?

That's why it hasn't happened. Doesn't mean it's the wrong thing to do theoretically.

Provided, of course, that it replaces other taxes

Total value of residential property is £6 trillion (end 2015 -Savills)
Total value of commercial property (end 2014 - RICS) is £0.8 trillion

Overall that means a 1% tax take would be worth £68 billion per year

- Cut council tax in half (so that centrally mandated spending is covered centrally even if managed by councils) at a cost of £14 billion
- Eliminate property stamp duty at a cost of £9bn

That basically gives you £45 billion to play with.

Personally I'd look for a reduction in employer NICs to make employment more attractive, possibly an increase in capital investment allowances (to encourage investment), a reduction in petrol taxes and utility taxes to reduce the cost of doing business/living, plus a reduction in income taxes. And a chunk - say £25bn or so - to reduce the deficit.

Large numbers of people have very little wealth beyond the home they live in.

A 1% charge in London would instantly = £5k pa tax bill on the most average of properties for many people with very modest incomes.

It's a really bad idea.

Better surely to cut IHT to 15%, but scrap every exemption and relief, other than the nil rate threshold? That way, you could raise serious sums from the very rich (but sums they can afford) without hammering the merely well off.

Or just remove the primary residence exemption from Capital Gains Tax (maybe allowing people to keep the first £100k or so of profit tax-free). Would have the positive effect of reducing house prices for all.

And mean that no one could afford to move home.

I would have a gross assets tax, as it would discourage people from over-leveraging themselves. (Donald Trump would have been screwed.)

But 1% is far too high: 0.2% would be more than enough.

runnymede said:

logical_song said:

runnymede said:

Sean_F said:

OllyT said:

Sean_F said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

I noticed that Lord Deben had retweeted something from this twitter account and intrigued I had a look at what else they had written. This line about LEAVE = STUPID people seems to be a common view amongst the hardened REMAINers.

InForBritain ‏@InForBritain Jul 26
Our SHOCKING poll finds number of thick, stupid Leavers has actually grown since #EUref. I despair. #brexitin5words

Like hardened people of any political persuasion, it's if you were clever, you'd understand and agree; you disagree => you are not clever.

Like gay marriage, Brexit has gone from being part of the lunatic fringe to the conventional wisdom in half a generation. Trying to overturn Brexit is now a lost cause.

Gay marriage will not adversely affect even the most avid opponent,

Brexit, on the other hand, is entirely different. Substantial numbers of people will never reconcile to what we have done, particularly if the economic consequences become demonstrably negative.

It's still like being a Southern Irish Unionist after 1922.

Remainers will be like Catholic recusants were in England in the 16th & 17th centuries in a few years. Skulking in dark corners of their houses fingering their way through copies of the Lisbon Treaty.

Weird - and that's nearly half the electorate!

Probably it was rather more than half in 1536. Not so many fifty years later.

True EU believers are a small minority of the Remain vote from June. They will be seen as cranks and oddballs a decade from now.

Will be really entertaining to see the Eurofanatics argue that we should rejoin the EU with no opt-outs or rebate.

SandyRentool said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Wealth taxes will not be in the next Morris Dancer Party manifesto.

We are considering beard taxes. Three percent for a goatee. Thirty-two and a half percent plus one kidney for anyone with a ludicrously over-groomed Craig David nonsense of a beard. Zero percent for Brian Blessed.

You've just lost the hipster vote.

Why not tax half-mast trousers to really screw them?

It's hipsters, hippies, and 'new age' types make me wince.

It's not what they believe: it's the unbearable smugness, and their utter vacuity and narcissism.

(Well, it is a little bit what they believe. Don't mind someone being left-wing, much, but why be so wanky about it?)

MTimT said:

Dromedary said:

Trump's new logo:



But I agree with Jake Novak that the Democrats would be crazy to focus on this: "The Democrats just fell for Trump's Russian email-hack bait".

I must admit a growing, grudging appreciation for Trump's strategy and tactics. His marketing skills and guerrilla tactics are leaving traditional politicians of all stripes in the dust.

I can't view that as anything but obscene: it looks like Putin is jerking Trump off.

That might be the message Trump intended with that logo, but I doubt it.

kle4 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Rentool, half-mast trousers will be a criminal offence.

What's your position on really long shorts?

Put to the rack.

MTimT said:

ThreeQuidder said:

chestnut said:

Charles said:

taffys said:

''A wealth tax is great in theory, encourages efficient use of assets - you'd of course want it to replace income tax revenue so it is not just "more tax".''

I'm just trying to work out how many seats a 1% property tax might lose the tories.

100? 150?

That's why it hasn't happened. Doesn't mean it's the wrong thing to do theoretically.

Provided, of course, that it replaces other taxes

Total value of residential property is £6 trillion (end 2015 -Savills)
Total value of commercial property (end 2014 - RICS) is £0.8 trillion

Overall that means a 1% tax take would be worth £68 billion per year

- Cut council tax in half (so that centrally mandated spending is covered centrally even if managed by councils) at a cost of £14 billion
- Eliminate property stamp duty at a cost of £9bn

That basically gives you £45 billion to play with.

Personally I'd look for a reduction in employer NICs to make employment more attractive, possibly an increase in capital investment allowances (to encourage investment), a reduction in petrol taxes and utility taxes to reduce the cost of doing business/living, plus a reduction in income taxes. And a chunk - say £25bn or so - to reduce the deficit.

Large numbers of people have very little wealth beyond the home they live in.

A 1% charge in London would instantly = £5k pa tax bill on the most average of properties for many people with very modest incomes.

It's a really bad idea.

What happens to tenants?

Even worse for tenants. They don't have the wealth of the value of the property, but the tax on the value of the property now gets added to their rent.

I don't think the rental market would sustain that. Additionally if you are thoughtful about how the proceeds are deployed you can eliminate a lot of the costs.

I'd also remove the tax relief on principal properties although allow you to roll over any profits into a new principal residence

Moses_ said:

ThreeQuidder said:

nunu said:

chestnut said:

Tissue_Price said:

chestnut said:

Large numbers of people have very little wealth beyond the home they live in.

This is still wealth, and it's massively advantageous tax treatment is partly why this situation exists in the first place.

It is a home.

The net consequence of doing this would be to further concentrate wealth and property in the hands of the most wealthy, whilst taking capital from those of moderate means and socially cleansing places like London.

This doesn't just affect the homeowner, but all those who inherit. Reduce the inheritance; increase the future dependence.

Thatcher's greatest achievement was putting capital in the hands of the working class. It fostered far greater levels of independence not only for their generation, but those who followed on.

This idea would reverse it.

Concentrate on high value properties, high value incomes and high value products if taxing wealth is the aim.

Thachers home owning democracy has been reversed in London.

To buy the house we rent with the mortgage payments being what we pay in rent, we'd need to have a deposit of over a third. How do you save that kind of money whilst paying rent?

That's the nub of the argument here. I suspect a number of people are paying the rent plus more simply to pay off someone else's mortgage. The basic principle of the banks is to ensure repayments can be made and in this case they obviously can. Then they demand a whacking great deposit which sinks most people there and then.

The mortgage system has always been unfair. When I bought my first house in the early 80's I could get a loan of twice may salary only. My wife could get a loan of half her salary only. Friends of ours who were not married got twice on both their salaries and of course got a much better house as a result. We were penalised basically for doing the right thing however Live in sin and I would have been far better off in the long term. It still irritates me now when I think about it.

( am aware of married couples allowance I seek only to indicate the difficulties in mortgages then and even now.)

I must admit, I think the French have this right. Every member of the family comes with their own tax allowance and thresholds stack. So, if you've a wife and three kids, and you're the only earner, you'll only pay about 15% on your first 100k of earnings.

MarkHopkins said:

not_on_fire said:

Sean_F said:

chestnut said:

Charles said:

taffys said:

''A wealth tax is great in theory, encourages efficient use of assets - you'd of course want it to replace income tax revenue so it is not just "more tax".''

I'm just trying to work out how many seats a 1% property tax might lose the tories.

100? 150?

That's why it hasn't happened. Doesn't mean it's the wrong thing to do theoretically.

Provided, of course, that it replaces other taxes

Total value of residential property is £6 trillion (end 2015 -Savills)
Total value of commercial property (end 2014 - RICS) is £0.8 trillion

Overall that means a 1% tax take would be worth £68 billion per year

- Cut council tax in half (so that centrally mandated spending is covered centrally even if managed by councils) at a cost of £14 billion
- Eliminate property stamp duty at a cost of £9bn

That basically gives you £45 billion to play with.

Personally I'd look for a reduction in employer NICs to make employment more attractive, possibly an increase in capital investment allowances (to encourage investment), a reduction in petrol taxes and utility taxes to reduce the cost of doing business/living, plus a reduction in income taxes. And a chunk - say £25bn or so - to reduce the deficit.

Large numbers of people have very little wealth beyond the home they live in.

A 1% charge in London would instantly = £5k pa tax bill on the most average of properties for many people with very modest incomes.

It's a really bad idea.

Better surely to cut IHT to 15%, but scrap every exemption and relief, other than the nil rate threshold? That way, you could raise serious sums from the very rich (but sums they can afford) without hammering the merely well off.

Or just remove the primary residence exemption from Capital Gains Tax (maybe allowing people to keep the first £100k or so of profit tax-free). Would have the positive effect of reducing house prices for all.

And mean that no one could afford to move home.

That only holds if house prices are rising. If they go sideways for 30 years - as they did in Germany until a few years ago - then there are no gains to tax.

Charles said:

MTimT said:

ThreeQuidder said:

chestnut said:

Charles said:

taffys said:

''A wealth tax is great in theory, encourages efficient use of assets - you'd of course want it to replace income tax revenue so it is not just "more tax".''

I'm just trying to work out how many seats a 1% property tax might lose the tories.

100? 150?

That's why it hasn't happened. Doesn't mean it's the wrong thing to do theoretically.

Provided, of course, that it replaces other taxes

Total value of residential property is £6 trillion (end 2015 -Savills)
Total value of commercial property (end 2014 - RICS) is £0.8 trillion

Overall that means a 1% tax take would be worth £68 billion per year

- Cut council tax in half (so that centrally mandated spending is covered centrally even if managed by councils) at a cost of £14 billion
- Eliminate property stamp duty at a cost of £9bn

That basically gives you £45 billion to play with.

Personally I'd look for a reduction in employer NICs to make employment more attractive, possibly an increase in capital investment allowances (to encourage investment), a reduction in petrol taxes and utility taxes to reduce the cost of doing business/living, plus a reduction in income taxes. And a chunk - say £25bn or so - to reduce the deficit.

Large numbers of people have very little wealth beyond the home they live in.

A 1% charge in London would instantly = £5k pa tax bill on the most average of properties for many people with very modest incomes.

It's a really bad idea.

What happens to tenants?

Even worse for tenants. They don't have the wealth of the value of the property, but the tax on the value of the property now gets added to their rent.

I don't think the rental market would sustain that. Additionally if you are thoughtful about how the proceeds are deployed you can eliminate a lot of the costs.

I'd also remove the tax relief on principal properties although allow you to roll over any profits into a new principal residence

The tenants would pay one way or the other though. Either in increased rent, or in poorer maintenance of the property,

rcs1000 said:

ThreeQuidder said:

nunu said:

chestnut said:

Tissue_Price said:

chestnut said:

Large numbers of people have very little wealth beyond the home they live in.

This is still wealth, and it's massively advantageous tax treatment is partly why this situation exists in the first place.

It is a home.

The net consequence of doing this would be to further concentrate wealth and property in the hands of the most wealthy, whilst taking capital from those of moderate means and socially cleansing places like London.

This doesn't just affect the homeowner, but all those who inherit. Reduce the inheritance; increase the future dependence.

Thatcher's greatest achievement was putting capital in the hands of the working class. It fostered far greater levels of independence not only for their generation, but those who followed on.

This idea would reverse it.

Concentrate on high value properties, high value incomes and high value products if taxing wealth is the aim.

Thachers home owning democracy has been reversed in London.

To buy the house we rent with the mortgage payments being what we pay in rent, we'd need to have a deposit of over a third. How do you save that kind of money whilst paying rent?

You gamble like a madman when the result is spectacularly obvious (Brexit post about 1am).

I'm free and easy throwing five figure bids around at auction - in effect gambling on the future saleability of the asset (rare books and manuscrpts) that I am bidding on; but I didn't have the right mentality on the 23rd/24th - wanted Leave to win and so didn't want to risk more than a few hundred....

Of course, at that stage it was no longer really a risk. I hope you profited spectacularly!

Britain Elects‏ @britainelects
On Britain having nuclear weapons in principle:
Support: 52%
Oppose: 30%
(via YouGov / 26 - 27 Jul)

Britain Elects
Britain Elects‏ @britainelects
Theresa May was (X) to say she is prepared to authorise a nuclear strike that could kill innocent people:
Right: 66%
Wrong: 15%
(via YouGov)

MTimT said:

Charles said:

MTimT said:

ThreeQuidder said:

chestnut said:

Charles said:

taffys said:

''A wealth tax is great in theory, encourages efficient use of assets - you'd of course want it to replace income tax revenue so it is not just "more tax".''

I'm just trying to work out how many seats a 1% property tax might lose the tories.

100? 150?

That's why it hasn't happened. Doesn't mean it's the wrong thing to do theoretically.

Provided, of course, that it replaces other taxes

Total value of residential property is £6 trillion (end 2015 -Savills)
Total value of commercial property (end 2014 - RICS) is £0.8 trillion

Overall that means a 1% tax take would be worth £68 billion per year

- Cut council tax in half (so that centrally mandated spending is covered centrally even if managed by councils) at a cost of £14 billion
- Eliminate property stamp duty at a cost of £9bn

That basically gives you £45 billion to play with.

Personally I'd look for a reduction in employer NICs to make employment more attractive, possibly an increase in capital investment allowances (to encourage investment), a reduction in petrol taxes and utility taxes to reduce the cost of doing business/living, plus a reduction in income taxes. And a chunk - say £25bn or so - to reduce the deficit.

Large numbers of people have very little wealth beyond the home they live in.

A 1% charge in London would instantly = £5k pa tax bill on the most average of properties for many people with very modest incomes.

It's a really bad idea.

What happens to tenants?

Even worse for tenants. They don't have the wealth of the value of the property, but the tax on the value of the property now gets added to their rent.

I don't think the rental market would sustain that. Additionally if you are thoughtful about how the proceeds are deployed you can eliminate a lot of the costs.

I'd also remove the tax relief on principal properties although allow you to roll over any profits into a new principal residence

The tenants would pay one way or the other though. Either in increased rent, or in poorer maintenance of the property,

A land value tax, paid by the freeholder would be a better idea than a property tax.

Casino_Royale said:

Britain Elects‏ @britainelects
On Britain having nuclear weapons in principle:
Support: 52%
Oppose: 30%
(via YouGov / 26 - 27 Jul)

Britain Elects
Britain Elects‏ @britainelects
Theresa May was (X) to say she is prepared to authorise a nuclear strike that could kill innocent people:
Right: 66%
Wrong: 15%
(via YouGov)

Because we all love sub samples, are there figures for Scotland?

Casino_Royale said:

Right, who are we nuking first then?

Luxembourg.

Casino_Royale said:

Right, who are we nuking first then?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsokGIeQFFI

RobD said:

Casino_Royale said:

Britain Elects‏ @britainelects
On Britain having nuclear weapons in principle:
Support: 52%
Oppose: 30%
(via YouGov / 26 - 27 Jul)

Britain Elects
Britain Elects‏ @britainelects
Theresa May was (X) to say she is prepared to authorise a nuclear strike that could kill innocent people:
Right: 66%
Wrong: 15%
(via YouGov)

Because we all love sub samples, are there figures for Scotland?

Plurality support in Scotland too;

Britain Elects‏ @britainelects
Scottish voters // On what to do RE Trident:
Replace subs & missiles 36%
Scrap subs & missiles 33%
Replace subs, scrap missiles 10%
(YouGov)

MTimT said:

Casino_Royale said:

MTimT said:

Dromedary said:

Trump's new logo:



But I agree with Jake Novak that the Democrats would be crazy to focus on this: "The Democrats just fell for Trump's Russian email-hack bait".

I must admit a growing, grudging appreciation for Trump's strategy and tactics. His marketing skills and guerrilla tactics are leaving traditional politicians of all stripes in the dust.

I can't view that as anything but obscene: it looks like Putin is jerking Trump off.

That might be the message Trump intended with that logo, but I doubt it.

Thanks a bunch, Mr Royale. Now I can't unsee that image!

Sorry..

Casino_Royale said:

RobD said:

Casino_Royale said:

Britain Elects‏ @britainelects
On Britain having nuclear weapons in principle:
Support: 52%
Oppose: 30%
(via YouGov / 26 - 27 Jul)

Britain Elects
Britain Elects‏ @britainelects
Theresa May was (X) to say she is prepared to authorise a nuclear strike that could kill innocent people:
Right: 66%
Wrong: 15%
(via YouGov)

Because we all love sub samples, are there figures for Scotland?

Plurality support in Scotland too;

Britain Elects‏ @britainelects
Scottish voters // On what to do RE Trident:
Replace subs & missiles 36%
Scrap subs & missiles 33%
Replace subs, scrap missiles 10%
(YouGov)

Not possible, the scottish people are against it and that't that, we've been told.

One is beginning to think that Corbyn is a sleeper, been put in there 35 yrs ago to get under the radar and destroy Labour from within.

Charles said:

MTimT said:

ThreeQuidder said:

chestnut said:

Charles said:

taffys said:

''A wealth tax is great in theory, encourages efficient use of assets - you'd of course want it to replace income tax revenue so it is not just "more tax".''

I'm just trying to work out how many seats a 1% property tax might lose the tories.

100? 150?

That's why it hasn't happened. Doesn't mean it's the wrong thing to do theoretically.

Provided, of course, that it replaces other taxes

.

Large numbers of people have very little wealth beyond the home they live in.

A 1% charge in London would instantly = £5k pa tax bill on the most average of properties for many people with very modest incomes.

It's a really bad idea.

What happens to tenants?

Even worse for tenants. They don't have the wealth of the value of the property, but the tax on the value of the property now gets added to their rent.

I don't think the rental market would sustain that. Additionally if you are thoughtful about how the proceeds are deployed you can eliminate a lot of the costs.

I'd also remove the tax relief on principal properties although allow you to roll over any profits into a new principal residence

Owen Smith's proposal - which clearly needs a bit more thinking - is to tax total wealth of people above a certain income threshold (I believe he is suggesting £150k a year). Such an approach would be different from a property tax by taxing all wealth - hence it shouldn't increase rents since the landlord would pay the same wealth tax if they sold the property and invested the proceeds elsewhere.

What would be more sensible is to shift the balance of taxation away from income toward wealth. A land value tax has always been an interesting proposition, since it doesn't penalise putting land to more productive use or increasing the value of the property on the land. The problem has always been how to deal with asset rich but income poor people, such as some pensioners living in expensive property. The Labour proposal at the last election, of allowing the tax to be rolled up as a debt and paid after death, is a logical solution but not potentially a popular one.

As above the key is to demonstrably be replacing other taxes, for example by reducing the general level of income tax at the same time. At a time of austerity and such pressure on spending, this would clearly be difficult.

Casino_Royale said:

MaxPB said:

Casino_Royale said:

Right, who are we nuking first then?

Luxembourg.

Basically, we want to get Juncker.

We'll have to aim at Brussels then! (and Strasbourg for good measure)

Fysics_Teacher said:

Re the valuation problem of a wealth tax how about self-valuation, with the kicker that if someone offers you that amount you have to sell? (Not an original idea, read it in a book somewhere).

I'm sure that was how Rome paid for its armies...

Mr. Eek, you're thinking of Athens' wealthier citizens having to pay for a trireme each.

Edited extra bit: if one was nominated but thought someone else was wealthier, they'd offer to swap all their possessions to evade the very expensive duty.

eek said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Re the valuation problem of a wealth tax how about self-valuation, with the kicker that if someone offers you that amount you have to sell? (Not an original idea, read it in a book somewhere).

I'm sure that was how Rome paid for its armies...

If only there were some people on this site who knew a little about Ancient Rome and her armies...

Charles said:

MTimT said:

ThreeQuidder said:

chestnut said:

Charles said:

taffys said:

''A wealth tax is great in theory, encourages efficient use of assets - you'd of course want it to replace income tax revenue so it is not just "more tax".''

I'm just trying to work out how many seats a 1% property tax might lose the tories.

100? 150?

That's why it hasn't happened. Doesn't mean it's the wrong thing to do theoretically.

Provided, of course, that it replaces other taxes

Total value of residential property is £6 trillion (end 2015 -Savills)
Total value of commercial property (end 2014 - RICS) is £0.8 trillion

Overall that means a 1% tax take would be worth £68 billion per year

- Cut council tax in half (so that centrally mandated spending is covered centrally even if managed by councils) at a cost of £14 billion
- Eliminate property stamp duty at a cost of £9bn

That basically gives you £45 billion to play with.

Personally I'd look for a reduction in employer NICs to make employment more attractive, possibly an increase in capital investment allowances (to encourage investment), a reduction in petrol taxes and utility taxes to reduce the cost of doing business/living, plus a reduction in income taxes. And a chunk - say £25bn or so - to reduce the deficit.

Large numbers of people have very little wealth beyond the home they live in.

A 1% charge in London would instantly = £5k pa tax bill on the most average of properties for many people with very modest incomes.

It's a really bad idea.

What happens to tenants?

Even worse for tenants. They don't have the wealth of the value of the property, but the tax on the value of the property now gets added to their rent.

I don't think the rental market would sustain that. Additionally if you are thoughtful about how the proceeds are deployed you can eliminate a lot of the costs.

I'd also remove the tax relief on principal properties although allow you to roll over any profits into a new principal residence

Surely that would lead to people not downsizing when they should - children persuading parents to stay in large homes rather than go into care / sheltered accommodation etc.

That wouldn't be good - people being in the wrong accommodation to avoid a tax bill - and large properties being clogged up and under occupied.

Fysics_Teacher said:

eek said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Re the valuation problem of a wealth tax how about self-valuation, with the kicker that if someone offers you that amount you have to sell? (Not an original idea, read it in a book somewhere).

I'm sure that was how Rome paid for its armies...

If only there were some people on this site who knew a little about Ancient Rome and her armies...

Instead it is flooded with experts on AV... a shame....

Casino_Royale said:

RobD said:

Casino_Royale said:

Britain Elects‏ @britainelects
On Britain having nuclear weapons in principle:
Support: 52%
Oppose: 30%
(via YouGov / 26 - 27 Jul)

Britain Elects
Britain Elects‏ @britainelects
Theresa May was (X) to say she is prepared to authorise a nuclear strike that could kill innocent people:
Right: 66%
Wrong: 15%
(via YouGov)

Because we all love sub samples, are there figures for Scotland?

Plurality support in Scotland too;

Britain Elects‏ @britainelects
Scottish voters // On what to do RE Trident:
Replace subs & missiles 36%
Scrap subs & missiles 33%
Replace subs, scrap missiles 10%
(YouGov)

43-36 against Trident missiles. I'll take that.

And this.

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/758701132382400513

HYUFD said:

MaxPB said:

Casino_Royale said:

Right, who are we nuking first then?

Luxembourg.

I have got a university friend who lives in Luxembourg and Brussels has some wonderful historic buildings, a targeted airstrike at the Commission would probably be more appropriate

It is a bit of a Herodian excess I must admit, but it would make it more difficult for him to scuttle off just in time, like Erdogan did, if he got wind of it

Theuniondivvie said:

Casino_Royale said:

RobD said:

Casino_Royale said:

Britain Elects‏ @britainelects
On Britain having nuclear weapons in principle:
Support: 52%
Oppose: 30%
(via YouGov / 26 - 27 Jul)

Britain Elects
Britain Elects‏ @britainelects
Theresa May was (X) to say she is prepared to authorise a nuclear strike that could kill innocent people:
Right: 66%
Wrong: 15%
(via YouGov)

Because we all love sub samples, are there figures for Scotland?

Plurality support in Scotland too;

Britain Elects‏ @britainelects
Scottish voters // On what to do RE Trident:
Replace subs & missiles 36%
Scrap subs & missiles 33%
Replace subs, scrap missiles 10%
(YouGov)

43-36 against Trident missiles. I'll take that.

And this.

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/758701132382400513

The SNP figure seems way too low? Sample size?

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Casino_Royale said:

Right, who are we nuking first then?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsokGIeQFFI

I was out of the country for that election and so missed Kenny Everett's show stopper.

It makes me sad that, even then, obvious satire was tutted at so seriously by the PC do-gooders. FFS, he was wearing his Brother Lee Love hands as he called for the bombing of Russia and kicking away of Michael Foot's stick. Satire comes no more oCan you think of the reaction nowadays ...

The burden under Labour didn't fall on the rich, it was the middle income earners who became known as 'the squeezed middle' that ended contributing the most and getting the least out of it (or at least it felt like it). It was them that got majorly shafted with all those stealth taxes.

kle4 said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Casino_Royale said:

RobD said:

Casino_Royale said:

Britain Elects‏ @britainelects
On Britain having nuclear weapons in principle:
Support: 52%
Oppose: 30%
(via YouGov / 26 - 27 Jul)

Britain Elects
Britain Elects‏ @britainelects
Theresa May was (X) to say she is prepared to authorise a nuclear strike that could kill innocent people:
Right: 66%
Wrong: 15%
(via YouGov)

Because we all love sub samples, are there figures for Scotland?

Plurality support in Scotland too;

Britain Elects‏ @britainelects
Scottish voters // On what to do RE Trident:
Replace subs & missiles 36%
Scrap subs & missiles 33%
Replace subs, scrap missiles 10%
(YouGov)

43-36 against Trident missiles. I'll take that.

And this.

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/758701132382400513

What is the point of replacing the subs and not putting missiles in them?

Jobs.

We wouldn't need SSBNs without the missiles to go in them. The idea the subs could continue without the missiles is ridiculous.

RobD said:

kle4 said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Casino_Royale said:

RobD said:

Casino_Royale said:

Britain Elects‏ @britainelects
On Britain having nuclear weapons in principle:
Support: 52%
Oppose: 30%
(via YouGov / 26 - 27 Jul)

Britain Elects
Britain Elects‏ @britainelects
Theresa May was (X) to say she is prepared to authorise a nuclear strike that could kill innocent people:
Right: 66%
Wrong: 15%
(via YouGov)

Because we all love sub samples, are there figures for Scotland?

Plurality support in Scotland too;

Britain Elects‏ @britainelects
Scottish voters // On what to do RE Trident:
Replace subs & missiles 36%
Scrap subs & missiles 33%
Replace subs, scrap missiles 10%
(YouGov)

43-36 against Trident missiles. I'll take that.

And this.

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/758701132382400513

What is the point of replacing the subs and not putting missiles in them?

Jobs.

We wouldn't need SSBNs without the missiles to go in them. The idea the subs could continue without the missiles is ridiculous.

You won't find me arguing, I didn't come up with the idea. I think it was a Corbyn proposal though.

malcolmg said:

nunu said:

GIN1138 said:

PlatoSaid said:

I remain totally amazed that anyone ever seriously thought this outcome wasn't bloody obvious from the start.

Months ago we talked about this, inspected the rules and most thought it was totally clear. IIRC our conversations first kicked off from almost the moment Jezza was elected Leader.

Still, some lawyers made a few quid from it.

RodCrosby was right again...

Didn't he predict a Trump win? God help us.......

McTernan has said Hilary will win so she has absolutely no chance, Trump is a certainty

Mr Crosby has been very quiet of late.

So has Sean T since he went to visit Cde Bob, now I come to think of it.

Subs with missiles? Might as well have a legion without gladii.

Edited extra bit: ahem, without* missiles.

MikeL said:

Charles said:

MTimT said:

ThreeQuidder said:

chestnut said:

Charles said:

taffys said:

''A wealth tax is great in theory, encourages efficient use of assets - you'd of course want it to replace income tax revenue so it is not just "more tax".''

I'm just trying to work out how many seats a 1% property tax might lose the tories.

100? 150?

That's why it hasn't happened. Doesn't mean it's the wrong thing to do theoretically.

Provided, of course, that it replaces other taxes

Total value of residential property is £6 trillion (end 2015 -Savills)
Total value of commercial property (end 2014 - RICS) is £0.8 trillion

Overall that means a 1% tax take would be worth £68 billion per year

- Cut council tax in half (so that centrally mandated spending is covered centrally even if managed by councils) at a cost of £14 billion
- Eliminate property stamp duty at a cost of £9bn

That basically gives you £45 billion to play with.

Personally I'd look for a reduction in employer NICs to make employment more attractive, possibly an increase in capital investment allowances (to encourage investment), a reduction in petrol taxes and utility taxes to reduce the cost of doing business/living, plus a reduction in income taxes. And a chunk - say £25bn or so - to reduce the deficit.

Large numbers of people have very little wealth beyond the home they live in.

A 1% charge in London would instantly = £5k pa tax bill on the most average of properties for many people with very modest incomes.

It's a really bad idea.

What happens to tenants?

Even worse for tenants. They don't have the wealth of the value of the property, but the tax on the value of the property now gets added to their rent.

I don't think the rental market would sustain that. Additionally if you are thoughtful about how the proceeds are deployed you can eliminate a lot of the costs.

I'd also remove the tax relief on principal properties although allow you to roll over any profits into a new principal residence

Surely that would lead to people not downsizing when they should - children persuading parents to stay in large homes rather than go into care / sheltered accommodation etc.

That wouldn't be good - people being in the wrong accommodation to avoid a tax bill - and large properties being clogged up and under occupied.

Then it's subject to inheritance tax in due course

Theuniondivvie said:

Casino_Royale said:

RobD said:

Casino_Royale said:

Britain Elects‏ @britainelects
On Britain having nuclear weapons in principle:
Support: 52%
Oppose: 30%
(via YouGov / 26 - 27 Jul)

Britain Elects
Britain Elects‏ @britainelects
Theresa May was (X) to say she is prepared to authorise a nuclear strike that could kill innocent people:
Right: 66%
Wrong: 15%
(via YouGov)

Because we all love sub samples, are there figures for Scotland?

Plurality support in Scotland too;

Britain Elects‏ @britainelects
Scottish voters // On what to do RE Trident:
Replace subs & missiles 36%
Scrap subs & missiles 33%
Replace subs, scrap missiles 10%
(YouGov)

43-36 against Trident missiles. I'll take that.

And this.

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/758701132382400513

If they want them stick them on the Thames.

kle4 said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Casino_Royale said:

RobD said:

Casino_Royale said:

Britain Elects‏ @britainelects
On Britain having nuclear weapons in principle:
Support: 52%
Oppose: 30%
(via YouGov / 26 - 27 Jul)

Britain Elects
Britain Elects‏ @britainelects
Theresa May was (X) to say she is prepared to authorise a nuclear strike that could kill innocent people:
Right: 66%
Wrong: 15%
(via YouGov)

Because we all love sub samples, are there figures for Scotland?

Plurality support in Scotland too;

Britain Elects‏ @britainelects
Scottish voters // On what to do RE Trident:
Replace subs & missiles 36%
Scrap subs & missiles 33%
Replace subs, scrap missiles 10%
(YouGov)

43-36 against Trident missiles. I'll take that.

And this.

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/758701132382400513

What is the point of replacing the subs and not putting missiles in them?

Jobs.

Bollox, you would get far more jobs fixing the crap infrastructure across the UK rather than building a few willie waving toys with mostly foreign parts.