politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ex-strong favourite BoJo slips even further in the next CON le
Comments
-
How does May's election defeat make striking a good deal any more difficult? Do you really think the EU negotiators care less what happened in the UK elections.Richard_Nabavi said:
If voters didn't want the country to be held to ransom by vested interests, they should have voted Conservative. They didn't, in sufficient numbers, so the government has to do what it can to deal with the situation.DavidL said:Exactly so. Hence my "flowery" language early this morning. The Tory USP is or should be " we are careful with the taxpayers money because we know how hard you work to earn it." That is no longer a sustainable position.
It's all a side-show anyway - the DUP bung is completely negligible compared with the likely increased costs of the Brexit bill now that our negotiating position has been weakened so badly.
It's this sort of arrogance that is making us such a laughing stock. The Empire is no more. Get used to it.0 -
Is this a bid for non-sequitur of the year?Roger said:How does May's election defeat make striking a good deal any more difficult? Do you really think the EU negotiators care less what happened in the UK elections.
It's this sort of arrogance that is making us such a laughing stock. The Empire is no more. Get used to it.0 -
Say you live in a London flat that you paid £250k for 20 years ago. You have since married and have kids approaching school age. You need to move out of town nearer schools and grandparents.kjh said:Why could nobody afford to move with CGT on homes. Prices would adjust accordingly and make first time buying more affordable. The introduction would be tricky.
Your flat is now worth £1 million, and at the moment, you could sell it and spend the £1 million on a 3- or small 4-bedroom house somewhere like Kingston or Barnet...exactly as would have been the case 20 years ago.
This in itself tells you that there has been no capital gain. The £1 million price tag is just inflation. There's no way to sell for a million and re-buy for a quarter of that.
Selling a £1 million flat in London and buying a £250k flat in Northampton is not the answer. Before you had £1 million of assets and £0 cash. Now, you have £400k of assets and £600k cash. The total is the same either way. You have cash in the second scenario only because you have poorer accommodation.
If you tax the inflation on homes, first, any such tax is wholly disconnected from ability to pay. My mother paid £19k for her one house 47 years ago and today she still has one house that's worth £1.6 million or so for reasons nothing to do with her. She has a pensioner's income. Second, you create the problem of why is there no corresponding tax relief on the borrowing that gave rise to the supposed capital gain (they have both in the USA). Third, the result of this proposed CGT is that if I sell my £1 million flat, and some of the inflationary gain is confiscated, I now can't afford the house I want to buy. I can invite the seller to reduce his price to reflect my tax, but of course my own buyer is doing the same, so I'm no further forward and moving at all has become impossible.
Incidentally, if you think first time buying is more affordable in a property crash, think again. Lenders want bigger deposits and smaller salary multiples and nobody sells because of negative equity, to which you want to add CGT.
They paid tax on the earnings that bought it. If they had had tax relief on that and if improvements came off the CGT bill you'd have more of a point, but in any event the "gain" is illusory and cannot be spent.kjh said:I find it frustrating (from an envy point of view I must admit) to know people living in certain parts of London who are now moving out on retirement to have made more money from their home than on working and not paid a penny in tax on it.
0 -
During the election campaign we were assured by her opponents that the size of the Tory majority would have no impact on our negotiating position....Richard_Nabavi said:
our negotiating position has been weakened so badly.DavidL said:Exactly so. Hence my "flowery" language early this morning. The Tory USP is or should be " we are careful with the taxpayers money because we know how hard you work to earn it." That is no longer a sustainable position.
0 -
Bit of a non sequitor there MDMorris_Dancer said:Hash! Just a drug, better than Dutch courage.
0 -
meanwhile back in the real world, Brexit is officially declared boring
http://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/boring-brexit-a-turnoff-says-rt-editor-35869122.html0 -
Do people who live in London consider moving out to the provinces in the same light as moving to sub saharan Africa or something on retirementAlice_Aforethought said:
Selling a £1 million flat in London and buying a £250k flat in Northampton is not the answer. Before you had £1 million of assets and £0 cash. Now, you have £400k of assets and £600k cash. The total is the same either way. You have cash in the second scenario only because you have poorer accommodation.
? 0 -
Startlingly sensible post.Alice_Aforethought said:
Say you live in a London flat that you paid £250k for 20 years ago. You have since married and have kids approaching school age. You need to move out of town nearer schools and grandparents.kjh said:Why could nobody afford to move with CGT on homes. Prices would adjust accordingly and make first time buying more affordable. The introduction would be tricky.
Your flat is now worth £1 million, and at the moment, you could sell it and spend the £1 million on a 3- or small 4-bedroom house somewhere like Kingston or Barnet...exactly as would have been the case 20 years ago.
This in itself tells you that there has been no capital gain. The £1 million price tag is just inflation. There's no way to sell for a million and re-buy for a quarter of that.
Selling a £1 million flat in London and buying a £250k flat in Northampton is not the answer. Before you had £1 million of assets and £0 cash. Now, you have £400k of assets and £600k cash. The total is the same either way. You have cash in the second scenario only because you have poorer accommodation.
If you tax the inflation on homes, first, any such tax is wholly disconnected from ability to pay. My mother paid £19k for her one house 47 years ago and today she still has one house that's worth £1.6 million or so for reasons nothing to do with her. She has a pensioner's income. Second, you create the problem of why is there no corresponding tax relief on the borrowing that gave rise to the supposed capital gain (they have both in the USA). Third, the result of this proposed CGT is that if I sell my £1 million flat, and some of the inflationary gain is confiscated, I now can't afford the house I want to buy. I can invite the seller to reduce his price to reflect my tax, but of course my own buyer is doing the same, so I'm no further forward and moving at all has become impossible.
Incidentally, if you think first time buying is more affordable in a property crash, think again. Lenders want bigger deposits and smaller salary multiples and nobody sells because of negative equity, to which you want to add CGT.
They paid tax on the earnings that bought it. If they had had tax relief on that and if improvements came off the CGT bill you'd have more of a point, but in any event the "gain" is illusory and cannot be spent.kjh said:I find it frustrating (from an envy point of view I must admit) to know people living in certain parts of London who are now moving out on retirement to have made more money from their home than on working and not paid a penny in tax on it.
0 -
And how has it been? The Greeks thought an election would improve their negotiating position and they won a landslide. But the EU ignored them. Mrs May's claim was complete bullshit and the public could smellit a mile away. They might fall for some crap but that was ridiculous!CarlottaVance said:
During the election campaign we were assured by her opponents that the size of the Tory majority would have no impact on our negotiating position....Richard_Nabavi said:
our negotiating position has been weakened so badly.DavidL said:Exactly so. Hence my "flowery" language early this morning. The Tory USP is or should be " we are careful with the taxpayers money because we know how hard you work to earn it." That is no longer a sustainable position.
0 -
Good old Theresa has shown her steely core.
I expect her to serve out a full term.0 -
Because CGT on houses is just inflation, not gain.Peter_the_Punter said:
OK, but why index CGT and no other tax, tax exemption or allowance? If you want to index, index the whole system. It would be manifestly unfair to index just one particular part of it.kjh said:
Under the circumstances I think I should admit defeat!Slackbladder said:No what I'm saying is it could force people into renting, rather than moving (and then renting out the house which you do own). If you're faced with a huge tax bill upon moving house, then not selling, but renting another house (which you do want to live in), and renting out the house you currently own might defer or avoid that tax.
I think the reintroduction of indexing would make CGT fairer.
I bought my house for £950k in 2012. If I sold it I would probably find I could get £1.3 million for it. To buy another like it nearby would cost me £1.4 million including the transaction charges.
Please show me my "gain". I'd love to go and piss it away, but I've got a nagging suspicion that it doesn't exist.0 -
I'll never win 'non-sequitur of the year' award while Sunil is still posting!Richard_Nabavi said:
Is this a bid for non-sequitur of the year?Roger said:How does May's election defeat make striking a good deal any more difficult? Do you really think the EU negotiators care less what happened in the UK elections.
It's this sort of arrogance that is making us such a laughing stock. The Empire is no more. Get used to it.0 -
Reportedly, that's not what they were saying in private:CarlottaVance said:During the election campaign we were assured by her opponents that the size of the Tory majority would have no impact on our negotiating position....
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-jean-clause-juncker-brexit-general-election-a7784641.html
Of course having a weak government makes it harder. I really can't see how anyone could conceivably disagree with this most obvious of uncontroversial points.0 -
May's election was many things, and she deserved some of the opprobrium, but defeat it was not.Roger said:
How does May's election defeatRichard_Nabavi said:
.DavidL said:Exactly so. Hence my "flowery" language early this morning. The Tory USP is or should be " we are careful with the taxpayers money because we know how hard you work to earn it." That is no longer a sustainable position.
Her party still polled higher than any other on all measures, including sitting MP's.0 -
-
The EU does not control our currency, nor our money supply. Nor can they veto trade with the UK. And the UK is a large economy.Roger said:
And how has it been? The Greeks thought an election would improve their negotiating position and they won a landslide. But the EU ignored them. Mrs May's claim was complete bullshit and the public could smellit a mile away. They might fall for some crap but that was ridiculous!CarlottaVance said:
During the election campaign we were assured by her opponents that the size of the Tory majority would have no impact on our negotiating position....Richard_Nabavi said:
our negotiating position has been weakened so badly.DavidL said:Exactly so. Hence my "flowery" language early this morning. The Tory USP is or should be " we are careful with the taxpayers money because we know how hard you work to earn it." That is no longer a sustainable position.
They can do quite a bit of damage to the UK economy - as well as themselves - in the short-term, and that's about it.0 -
Ignoring changes in location, if you upsize, then increased house prices are bad for you. If you downsize, they're good. The problem is that you tend to do those things at certain times of your life (upsize as you start a family, potentially downsize when retiring), which means you have a generation of would-be upsizers losing out and a generation of potential downsizers gainingAlice_Aforethought said:
Say you live in a London flat that you paid £250k for 20 years ago. You have since married and have kids approaching school age. You need to move out of town nearer schools and grandparents.kjh said:Why could nobody afford to move with CGT on homes. Prices would adjust accordingly and make first time buying more affordable. The introduction would be tricky.
Your flat is now worth £1 million, and at the moment, you could sell it and spend the £1 million on a 3- or small 4-bedroom house somewhere like Kingston or Barnet...exactly as would have been the case 20 years ago.
This in itself tells you that there has been no capital gain. The £1 million price tag is just inflation. There's no way to sell for a million and re-buy for a quarter of that.
Selling a £1 million flat in London and buying a £250k flat in Northampton is not the answer. Before you had £1 million of assets and £0 cash. Now, you have £400k of assets and £600k cash. The total is the same either way. You have cash in the second scenario only because you have poorer accommodation.0 -
Roger said:
I'll never win 'non-sequitur of the year' award while Sunil is still posting!Richard_Nabavi said:
Is this a bid for non-sequitur of the year?Roger said:How does May's election defeat make striking a good deal any more difficult? Do you really think the EU negotiators care less what happened in the UK elections.
It's this sort of arrogance that is making us such a laughing stock. The Empire is no more. Get used to it.
0 -
How, exactly?Richard_Nabavi said:Of course having a weak government makes it harder.
What are we not going to ask for that we were previously?
What are they not going to offer that they otherwise would?
Another Brexiteer fantasy with no basis in objective fact...0 -
-
Strong & Stable, Strong & Stable, Strong & StableJennyFreeman said:Good old Theresa has shown her steely core.
I expect her to serve out a full term.0 -
Mr. Rog, it's the only line I can remember from the rewritten lyrics of Flash, done whilst I was in high school with a couple of classmates.0
-
Hey! What about me????Roger said:
I'll never win 'non-sequitur of the year' award while Sunil is still posting!Richard_Nabavi said:
Is this a bid for non-sequitur of the year?Roger said:How does May's election defeat make striking a good deal any more difficult? Do you really think the EU negotiators care less what happened in the UK elections.
It's this sort of arrogance that is making us such a laughing stock. The Empire is no more. Get used to it.
0 -
If you can buy two identical properties in different areas for a different price - which of course you can - then one of them is worth less than the other, because of where it is. So yes, the cheaper one is poorer. You can have a £1 million property and no cash but if you turn that into a £250k property and £750k cash, or £400 and £600, or whatever (GOK how I cocked that up before) you're in exactly the same overall position.Pulpstar said:
Do people who live in London consider moving out to the provinces in the same light as moving to sub saharan Africa or something on retirementAlice_Aforethought said:
Selling a £1 million flat in London and buying a £250k flat in Northampton is not the answer. Before you had £1 million of assets and £0 cash. Now, you have £400k of assets and £600k cash. The total is the same either way. You have cash in the second scenario only because you have poorer accommodation. ?0 -
-
Speak for yourself.Roger said:
How does May's election defeat make striking a good deal any more difficult? Do you really think the EU negotiators care less what happened in the UK elections.Richard_Nabavi said:
If voters didn't want the country to be held to ransom by vested interests, they should have voted Conservative. They didn't, in sufficient numbers, so the government has to do what it can to deal with the situation.DavidL said:Exactly so. Hence my "flowery" language early this morning. The Tory USP is or should be " we are careful with the taxpayers money because we know how hard you work to earn it." That is no longer a sustainable position.
It's all a side-show anyway - the DUP bung is completely negligible compared with the likely increased costs of the Brexit bill now that our negotiating position has been weakened so badly.
It's this sort of arrogance that is making us such a laughing stock. The Empire is no more. Get used to it.
I have my pith helmet, jodhpurs, bugle and redcoat stored safely in my cupboard and ready to get out in April 2019.
Can barely wait.0 -
If you are only concerned about your accommodation and your available cash, not the position of your heirs, you could of course buy a lifetime lease property. You could probably sell your property to someone willing to grant a lifetime lease back on the same property.Pulpstar said:
Do people who live in London consider moving out to the provinces in the same light as moving to sub saharan Africa or something on retirementAlice_Aforethought said:
Selling a £1 million flat in London and buying a £250k flat in Northampton is not the answer. Before you had £1 million of assets and £0 cash. Now, you have £400k of assets and £600k cash. The total is the same either way. You have cash in the second scenario only because you have poorer accommodation. ?0 -
"In the 2017 general election 18,566,218 votes were cast for parties other than the Conservatives. Bribing them all with £50 (assuming that's the going rate), costs you $928,310,900.
That's roughly £71.7 million short of the package pledged to Northern Ireland."
https://www.indy100.com/article/conservative-dup-deal-billion-pounds-northern-ireland-infrastructure-voters-cost-78098210 -
Cladding failure rate still 100% and up to 95 in 32 areas. Insanity. Only coming to light because of mass deaths in an Inferno. What else isn't up to scratch in UK 2017? What's next?0
-
If you accept the result you're a Brexiteer? Welcome @Richard_NabaviScott_P said:
How, exactly?Richard_Nabavi said:Of course having a weak government makes it harder.
What are we not going to ask for that we were previously?
What are they not going to offer that they otherwise would?
Another Brexiteer fantasy with no basis in objective fact...0 -
Fantasies with no basis in objective fact? Like calling me a Brexiteer?Scott_P said:How, exactly?
What are we not going to ask for that we were previously?
What are they not going to offer that they otherwise would?
Another Brexiteer fantasy with no basis in objective fact...
To answer your questions:
The 'how' part is partly because the EU27 now don't know whether the PM can make any compromise which she agrees stick. So that makes a far-reaching deal, where the two sides would trade concessions, more difficult. It's also because there is now a non-negligible risk of the loonier type of Brexiteer MP forming a devil's alliance with the opposition to torpedo a deal.0 -
Hmmm it seems that the Conservative Party has a "quality" issue with its MPs. Is this really the best reason for being PM?
"Philip Hammond thinks he can be Prime Minister because Theresa May is.
In yesterday's Sunday Times, political editor Tim Shipman revealed that some ministers want the current Chancellor, Philip Hammond to become a "caretaker Prime Minister".
The Sunday Times reports that a "former cabinet colleague" of the Chancellor said: "He told me that if Theresa May could be prime minister, so could he.""
https://www.indy100.com/article/philip-hammond-worst-justification-wanting-prime-minister-spreadsheet-phil-sunday-times-david-davis-78084260 -
So with the DUP deal in place it looks like there were won't be another election for a while. So the 2 key questions now are:
1) Will May survive? Parliament goes into recess on the 20th July so I feel that if May survives to then she'll probably hang on until the end of Brexit negotiations
2) Will the McDonnell amendment pass? If it passes then the left have secured the succession. As Corbyn is 70 in May 2019, he could well choose to stand down in a year or 2 and pass the baton on to someone with the same politics but without the baggage.
On the other hand if the amendment fails then Corbyn has to stay on (assuming the new intake isn't full of Corbynites). In this case it's not hard to see a renewed bout of infighting kicking off. I also wonder if in this scenario, the far left might start to look at the boundary review in a favourable light as a way of trying to replace some of the moderates.
Do any of our Labour commentators have a view on whether the amendment will pass?0 -
Mrs C, if the electorate didn't want a deal to be thrashed out they should've given a party a majority. They didn't.0
-
Who do you think has the trickier job securing agreement to compromises - May or Barnier?Richard_Nabavi said:
Fantasies with no basis in objective fact? Like calling me a Brexiteer?Scott_P said:How, exactly?
What are we not going to ask for that we were previously?
What are they not going to offer that they otherwise would?
Another Brexiteer fantasy with no basis in objective fact...
To answer your questions:
The 'how' part is partly because the EU27 now don't know whether the PM can make any compromise which she agrees stick.0 -
Surely the same applies to shares?Alice_Aforethought said:
If you can buy two identical properties in different areas for a different price - which of course you can - then one of them is worth less than the other, because of where it is. So yes, the cheaper one is poorer. You can have a £1 million property and no cash but if you turn that into a £250k property and £750k cash, or £400 and £600, or whatever (GOK how I cocked that up before) you're in exactly the same overall position.Pulpstar said:
Do people who live in London consider moving out to the provinces in the same light as moving to sub saharan Africa or something on retirementAlice_Aforethought said:
Selling a £1 million flat in London and buying a £250k flat in Northampton is not the answer. Before you had £1 million of assets and £0 cash. Now, you have £400k of assets and £600k cash. The total is the same either way. You have cash in the second scenario only because you have poorer accommodation. ?
If I buy shares in Barclays for 250k and they go up to £1m then I can't sell my shares at one price and then immediately buy them back at the original price.
Some of the rise will be inflation and some of it will be a capital gain.
If there is a difference - it's that you need a house to live in but you don't have to have Barclays shares. That said - indexing the gain to the increase of average house prices in the UK seems to solve the problem?0 -
The best reason for Hammond to be PM is that toxic Theresa would be replaced. During the 1997-2010 period I repeatedly argued here that Gordon Brown was toxic and heading for certain defeat. With TMay this is not just speculation but based on her record - the chronic misjudgements and appalling campaigning skills. I think she's possibly worse than Gordon Brown.Beverley_C said:Hmmm it seems that the Conservative Party has a "quality" issue with its MPs. Is this really the best reason for being PM?
"Philip Hammond thinks he can be Prime Minister because Theresa May is.
In yesterday's Sunday Times, political editor Tim Shipman revealed that some ministers want the current Chancellor, Philip Hammond to become a "caretaker Prime Minister".
The Sunday Times reports that a "former cabinet colleague" of the Chancellor said: "He told me that if Theresa May could be prime minister, so could he.""
https://www.indy100.com/article/philip-hammond-worst-justification-wanting-prime-minister-spreadsheet-phil-sunday-times-david-davis-78084260 -
Good question. I suppose it depends on the nature of the compromise.CarlottaVance said:Who do you think has the trickier job securing agreement to compromises - May or Barnier?
What I will say is that I think Barnier is a smart operator and he seems to have steered the EU27 quite skilfully away from some of their more extreme positions without anyone noticing - most notably, on the crucial issue of the timetable, where they've quietly abandoned their opening stance that we couldn't discuss the trade deal until everything else is largely agreed - or even, as they were originally saying, until after we'd left completely.0 -
Compare two realities, one where house prices has doubled over X years, one where they stay constant. In the first, you buy a house for £500k, sell for £1 mil, move to a house costing £600k (including moving costs) and are left with £400k. In the second, you buy and sell the same houses at the same time. This time you sell for £500k, buy the second house for £300k, and are left with £200kAlice_Aforethought said:
If you can buy two identical properties in different areas for a different price - which of course you can - then one of them is worth less than the other, because of where it is. So yes, the cheaper one is poorer. You can have a £1 million property and no cash but if you turn that into a £250k property and £750k cash, or £400 and £600, or whatever (GOK how I cocked that up before) you're in exactly the same overall position.Pulpstar said:
Do people who live in London consider moving out to the provinces in the same light as moving to sub saharan Africa or something on retirementAlice_Aforethought said:
Selling a £1 million flat in London and buying a £250k flat in Northampton is not the answer. Before you had £1 million of assets and £0 cash. Now, you have £400k of assets and £600k cash. The total is the same either way. You have cash in the second scenario only because you have poorer accommodation. ?
So how have raising prices not helped in that first scenario?0 -
That's an argument for replacing her in time for the next election, not necessarily for replacing her immediately.MikeSmithson said:The best reason for Hammond to be PM is that toxic Theresa would be replaced. During the 1997-2010 period I repeatedly argued here that Gordon Brown was toxic and heading for certain defeat. With TMay this is not just speculation but based on her record - the chronic misjudgements and appalling campaigning skills. I think she's possibly worse than Gordon Brown.
0 -
The threat of a deal being torpedoed unless it's good enough could be helpful. Wasn't that the whole point of "no deal is better than a bad deal"?Richard_Nabavi said:
Fantasies with no basis in objective fact? Like calling me a Brexiteer?Scott_P said:How, exactly?
What are we not going to ask for that we were previously?
What are they not going to offer that they otherwise would?
Another Brexiteer fantasy with no basis in objective fact...
To answer your questions:
The 'how' part is partly because the EU27 now don't know whether the PM can make any compromise which she agrees stick. So that makes a far-reaching deal, where the two sides would trade concessions, more difficult. It's also because there is now a non-negligible risk of the loonier type of Brexiteer MP forming a devil's alliance with the opposition to torpedo a deal.0 -
That's a pretty absurd formulation - voters vote for an MP who is a party member, not for a particular outcome, and just because they voted in an election doesn't mean they are individually responsible for its consequences. One might just as well argue that you ought to have voted for Corbyn.Richard_Nabavi said:
If voters didn't want the country to be held to ransom by vested interests, they should have voted Conservative. They didn't, in sufficient numbers, so the government has to do what it can to deal with the situation.DavidL said:Exactly so. Hence my "flowery" language early this morning. The Tory USP is or should be " we are careful with the taxpayers money because we know how hard you work to earn it." That is no longer a sustainable position.
It's all a side-show anyway - the DUP bung is completely negligible compared with the likely increased costs of the Brexit bill now that our negotiating position has been weakened so badly.
The consequences for the Brexit bill are pretty imponderable at this point. One might argue on present form that a May government with a large majority might be even more of a disaster.
the reality is that Brexit was always likely to be a mess; that we have a less than competent government; and that we have a hopelessly deluded utopianism opposition.0 -
House price inflation may be bad, but its existence is not the fault of home owners. My mother paid £19k for a house 47 years ago, and she is still long exactly one house. She has not been bidding the market up. The market has gone up around her.Stereotomy said:
Ignoring changes in location, if you upsize, then increased house prices are bad for you. If you downsize, they're good. The problem is that you tend to do those things at certain times of your life (upsize as you start a family, potentially downsize when retiring), which means you have a generation of would-be upsizers losing out and a generation of potential downsizers gainingAlice_Aforethought said:
Say you live in a London flat that you paid £250k for 20 years ago. You have since married and have kids approaching school age. You need to move out of town nearer schools and grandparents.kjh said:Why could nobody afford to move with CGT on homes. Prices would adjust accordingly and make first time buying more affordable. The introduction would be tricky.
Your flat is now worth £1 million, and at the moment, you could sell it and spend the £1 million on a 3- or small 4-bedroom house somewhere like Kingston or Barnet...exactly as would have been the case 20 years ago.
This in itself tells you that there has been no capital gain. The £1 million price tag is just inflation. There's no way to sell for a million and re-buy for a quarter of that.
Selling a £1 million flat in London and buying a £250k flat in Northampton is not the answer. Before you had £1 million of assets and £0 cash. Now, you have £400k of assets and £600k cash. The total is the same either way. You have cash in the second scenario only because you have poorer accommodation.
She is not minded to downsize because her doctor, friends, bridge club, trusted car dealership, and tradesmen are all nearby. If she sold up she'd get £1.6 million, but she'd have to pay £1 million for something smaller in the same area. She'd incur transaction costs of at least £60k doing so plus probably the same again on any work that needed doing to the place she was buying.
It adds up to paying at least £100k in cash needlessly, so she'd end up with £1.5 million of cash plus house, where before she had £1.6 million.0 -
Agree - now lets see if he can remove (or water down) the ECJ requirement that the Commission inserted into the EU27's original (ECJ free) position paper.Richard_Nabavi said:
Good question. I suppose it depends on the nature of the compromise.CarlottaVance said:Who do you think has the trickier job securing agreement to compromises - May or Barnier?
What I will say is that I think Barnier is a smart operator and he seems to have steered the EU27 quite skilfully away from some of their more extreme positions without anyone noticing - most notably, on the crucial issue of the timetable, where they've quietly abandoned their opening stance that we couldn't discuss the trade deal until everything else is largely agreed - or even, as they were originally saying, until after we'd left completely0 -
Well she hasn't smeared millions of her core voters yet, although the Tory manifesto had the same effect.MikeSmithson said:
The best reason for Hammond to be PM is that toxic Theresa would be replaced. During the 1997-2010 period I repeatedly argued here that Gordon Brown was toxic and heading for certain defeat. With TMay this is not just speculation but based on her record - the chronic misjudgements and appalling campaigning skills. I think she's possibly worse than Gordon Brown.Beverley_C said:Hmmm it seems that the Conservative Party has a "quality" issue with its MPs. Is this really the best reason for being PM?
"Philip Hammond thinks he can be Prime Minister because Theresa May is.
In yesterday's Sunday Times, political editor Tim Shipman revealed that some ministers want the current Chancellor, Philip Hammond to become a "caretaker Prime Minister".
The Sunday Times reports that a "former cabinet colleague" of the Chancellor said: "He told me that if Theresa May could be prime minister, so could he.""
https://www.indy100.com/article/philip-hammond-worst-justification-wanting-prime-minister-spreadsheet-phil-sunday-times-david-davis-78084260 -
But not if the opposition are saying 'we must have a deal at any price' - that just increases the price.Stereotomy said:The threat of a deal being torpedoed unless it's good enough could be helpful. Wasn't that the whole point of "no deal is better than a bad deal"?
0 -
https://www.amazon.co.uk/product-reviews/1521531218/ref=cm_cr_dp_synop?ie=UTF8&reviewerType=all_reviews&showViewpoints=0&sortBy=recent#R53H5K1W3GCIB
5.0 out of 5 starsSocialism is the Utopia we all deserve.
ByMarkon 27 June 2017
Format: Paperback
This is a well researched, incisive and gripping read. The myth that captialism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system is brutally exposed in this tour de force, and explains - in great detail - that socialism is the greatest wealth creator in human history.
From high taxes, state control, nationalisation, mass immigration, the appeasement of Islam, and many other worthwhile ideologies, this searing book shows us all that socialism really is the Utopia we all deserve.
It's now only a matter of time before our saviour, Saint Corbyn, sweeps into power and enriches each and every one of us!!
LMFAO!!0 -
Well you are barmy.Casino_Royale said:
Speak for yourself.Roger said:
How does May's election defeat make striking a good deal any more difficult? Do you really think the EU negotiators care less what happened in the UK elections.Richard_Nabavi said:
If voters didn't want the country to be held to ransom by vested interests, they should have voted Conservative. They didn't, in sufficient numbers, so the government has to do what it can to deal with the situation.DavidL said:Exactly so. Hence my "flowery" language early this morning. The Tory USP is or should be " we are careful with the taxpayers money because we know how hard you work to earn it." That is no longer a sustainable position.
It's all a side-show anyway - the DUP bung is completely negligible compared with the likely increased costs of the Brexit bill now that our negotiating position has been weakened so badly.
It's this sort of arrogance that is making us such a laughing stock. The Empire is no more. Get used to it.
I have my pith helmet, jodhpurs, bugle and redcoat stored safely in my cupboard and ready to get out in April 2019.
Can barely wait.0 -
Yes, I think Barnier will be firm but fair.Richard_Nabavi said:
Good question. I suppose it depends on the nature of the compromise.CarlottaVance said:Who do you think has the trickier job securing agreement to compromises - May or Barnier?
What I will say is that I think Barnier is a smart operator and he seems to have steered the EU27 quite skilfully away from some of their more extreme positions without anyone noticing - most notably, on the crucial issue of the timetable, where they've quietly abandoned their opening stance that we couldn't discuss the trade deal until everything else is largely agreed - or even, as they were originally saying, until after we'd left completely.
Davis will be Brexity, but pragmatic.
A deal will be done.0 -
Scott_P said:
As PM, can she not just order one ?0 -
@faisalislam: Davis says will be "no impact" on businesses from Government's introduction of "settled status"... but immigration will be brought down..Casino_Royale said:Davis will be Brexity, but pragmatic.
No impact on business, unless they want to hire immigrants...
pragmatic...0 -
I've got confidence in Davis. I thought he was good on Marr on SundayCasino_Royale said:
Yes, I think Barnier will be firm but fair.Richard_Nabavi said:
Good question. I suppose it depends on the nature of the compromise.CarlottaVance said:Who do you think has the trickier job securing agreement to compromises - May or Barnier?
What I will say is that I think Barnier is a smart operator and he seems to have steered the EU27 quite skilfully away from some of their more extreme positions without anyone noticing - most notably, on the crucial issue of the timetable, where they've quietly abandoned their opening stance that we couldn't discuss the trade deal until everything else is largely agreed - or even, as they were originally saying, until after we'd left completely.
Davis will be Brexity, but pragmatic.
A deal will be done.0 -
Me too.MikeSmithson said:
I've got confidence in Davis. I thought he was good on Marr on SundayCasino_Royale said:
Yes, I think Barnier will be firm but fair.Richard_Nabavi said:
Good question. I suppose it depends on the nature of the compromise.CarlottaVance said:Who do you think has the trickier job securing agreement to compromises - May or Barnier?
What I will say is that I think Barnier is a smart operator and he seems to have steered the EU27 quite skilfully away from some of their more extreme positions without anyone noticing - most notably, on the crucial issue of the timetable, where they've quietly abandoned their opening stance that we couldn't discuss the trade deal until everything else is largely agreed - or even, as they were originally saying, until after we'd left completely.
Davis will be Brexity, but pragmatic.
A deal will be done.0 -
It is a difficult call, what is the right thing to do. Keeping TMay avoids an early leadership election (and we don't really do temporary PMs) which would instal Hammond or Davis as a forced choice. Strategically the Tories should time Corbyn out (he will be 70 in 2019), start playing the ball and not the man, and go into the next GE with a 40-something fresh face. Who that will be I don't know, but there is two years to find out.MikeSmithson said:
The best reason for Hammond to be PM is that toxic Theresa would be replaced. During the 1997-2010 period I repeatedly argued here that Gordon Brown was toxic and heading for certain defeat. With TMay this is not just speculation but based on her record - the chronic misjudgements and appalling campaigning skills. I think she's possibly worse than Gordon Brown.Beverley_C said:Hmmm it seems that the Conservative Party has a "quality" issue with its MPs. Is this really the best reason for being PM?
"Philip Hammond thinks he can be Prime Minister because Theresa May is.
In yesterday's Sunday Times, political editor Tim Shipman revealed that some ministers want the current Chancellor, Philip Hammond to become a "caretaker Prime Minister".
The Sunday Times reports that a "former cabinet colleague" of the Chancellor said: "He told me that if Theresa May could be prime minister, so could he.""
https://www.indy100.com/article/philip-hammond-worst-justification-wanting-prime-minister-spreadsheet-phil-sunday-times-david-davis-7808426
0 -
Yes, but you are a partisan plonker on all matters related to Brexit (as is Faisal, to be fair) so we ignore you.Scott_P said:
@faisalislam: Davis says will be "no impact" on businesses from Government's introduction of "settled status"... but immigration will be brought down..Casino_Royale said:Davis will be Brexity, but pragmatic.
No impact on business, unless they want to hire immigrants...
pragmatic...
In fact, you may be the same person.0 -
I'm in favour of the McDonnell amendment and wrote an ingenious piece (well, I thought so) about why moderates should be keen:GarethoftheVale2 said:So with the DUP deal in place it looks like there were won't be another election for a while. So the 2 key questions now are:
1) Will May survive? Parliament goes into recess on the 20th July so I feel that if May survives to then she'll probably hang on until the end of Brexit negotiations
2) Will the McDonnell amendment pass? If it passes then the left have secured the succession. As Corbyn is 70 in May 2019, he could well choose to stand down in a year or 2 and pass the baton on to someone with the same politics but without the baggage.
On the other hand if the amendment fails then Corbyn has to stay on (assuming the new intake isn't full of Corbynites). In this case it's not hard to see a renewed bout of infighting kicking off. I also wonder if in this scenario, the far left might start to look at the boundary review in a favourable light as a way of trying to replace some of the moderates.
Do any of our Labour commentators have a view on whether the amendment will pass?
http://labourlist.org/2017/05/nick-palmer-why-corbyns-critics-need-the-mcdonnell-amendment/
But the discussion has moved on. Nobody is trying to get rid of Jeremy. His baggage has been considered by the electorate and priced in - if the Tories try to fight another election on "ooh, he was nice to the IRA in 1973" most people will just laugh. And it misunderstands his outlook on life to imagine him saying "I'm 70 soon, this is stressful, time to take it a bit easier" - he is both fit and sees life as a matter of socialist duty: he will carry on until either overthrown (unlikely before the next election) or persuaded that someone else would do it better (who?).
So the issue has lost its urgency. I think the amendment will be lost and that nobody will greatly care. The new influx of MPs changes the arithmetic anyway.0 -
It makes the negotiation a great deal more difficult - but it does not necessarily mean a worse outcome.Richard_Nabavi said:
Reportedly, that's not what they were saying in private:CarlottaVance said:During the election campaign we were assured by her opponents that the size of the Tory majority would have no impact on our negotiating position....
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-jean-clause-juncker-brexit-general-election-a7784641.html
Of course having a weak government makes it harder. I really can't see how anyone could conceivably disagree with this most obvious of uncontroversial points.0 -
Because apparently "house" is now a unit of currency...Stereotomy said:
Compare two realities, one where house prices has doubled over X years, one where they stay constant. In the first, you buy a house for £500k, sell for £1 mil, move to a house costing £600k (including moving costs) and are left with £400k. In the second, you buy and sell the same houses at the same time. This time you sell for £500k, buy the second house for £300k, and are left with £200kAlice_Aforethought said:
If you can buy two identical properties in different areas for a different price - which of course you can - then one of them is worth less than the other, because of where it is. So yes, the cheaper one is poorer. You can have a £1 million property and no cash but if you turn that into a £250k property and £750k cash, or £400 and £600, or whatever (GOK how I cocked that up before) you're in exactly the same overall position.Pulpstar said:
Do people who live in London consider moving out to the provinces in the same light as moving to sub saharan Africa or something on retirementAlice_Aforethought said:
Selling a £1 million flat in London and buying a £250k flat in Northampton is not the answer. Before you had £1 million of assets and £0 cash. Now, you have £400k of assets and £600k cash. The total is the same either way. You have cash in the second scenario only because you have poorer accommodation. ?
So how have raising prices not helped in that first scenario?0 -
There is CGT on shares, but you can sell the Barclays shares every year and set the gains off against your annual CGT allowance. You can also transfer some into an ISA every year so that after 20 years you'd have all your gains in a tax free wrapper.rkrkrk said:
Surely the same applies to shares?Alice_Aforethought said:
If you can buy two identical properties in different areas for a different price - which of course you can - then one of them is worth less than the other, because of where it is. So yes, the cheaper one is poorer. You can have a £1 million property and no cash but if you turn that into a £250k property and £750k cash, or £400 and £600, or whatever (GOK how I cocked that up before) you're in exactly the same overall position.Pulpstar said:
Do people who live in London consider moving out to the provinces in the same light as moving to sub saharan Africa or something on retirementAlice_Aforethought said:
Selling a £1 million flat in London and buying a £250k flat in Northampton is not the answer. Before you had £1 million of assets and £0 cash. Now, you have £400k of assets and £600k cash. The total is the same either way. You have cash in the second scenario only because you have poorer accommodation. ?
If I buy shares in Barclays for 250k and they go up to £1m then I can't sell my shares at one price and then immediately buy them back at the original price.
Some of the rise will be inflation and some of it will be a capital gain.
If there is a difference - it's that you need a house to live in but you don't have to have Barclays shares. That said - indexing the gain to the increase of average house prices in the UK seems to solve the problem?
So while shares attract CGT, there are ways to manage its impact to nil.
I don't see the point of indexing. The best index would be no CGT at all. Consider the following farcical situation. Fred buys a wreck of a semi for £500k and spends £100k doing it up. It sells for £575k, so he is charged CGT on the £75k "gain" even though it owes him £600k.
Bob buys the other half of the semi, also a wreck, does nothing to it and a year later he also sells for £575k. His CGT bill is the same as Fred's.
Equitable, or stupid?0 -
If I were a Tory I'd replace her now. Three main reasons...Richard_Nabavi said:
That's an argument for replacing her in time for the next election, not necessarily for replacing her immediately.MikeSmithson said:The best reason for Hammond to be PM is that toxic Theresa would be replaced. During the 1997-2010 period I repeatedly argued here that Gordon Brown was toxic and heading for certain defeat. With TMay this is not just speculation but based on her record - the chronic misjudgements and appalling campaigning skills. I think she's possibly worse than Gordon Brown.
She has no authority, since everyone knows she is a goner (sooner or later) people don't have to take her seriously. They can wait it out. This is terrible for Brexit negotiations.
She is still as rubbish at politics as she was in the campaign. She will continue to cost you votes every day she stays. If a big event comes up, she will probably mishandle it and cost you votes.
In her heart of hearts she probably still believes she can fix this. She can't. She is likely to make decisions that are based on recovering her reputation.
0 -
There will be a big increase in patronage as a result of Brexit. The main diplomatic consequence of leaving the EU for the UK will be a big loss of influence, which the government will partially redeem by paying for it. I don't expect the UK contributions to the EU to fall much if at all, for that reason. The government will be in a mindset of paying for outcomes rather than having them through constitutional means. The Scottish government has some say over Brexit legislation thanks to the Sewell Convention, which was specifically discarded only for the Article 50 negotiation.rcs1000 said:Regarding the DUP deal, I do wonder if there is a longer term risk to British democracy.
(Hear me out.)
If I were an ambitious, sensible and smart leader of the Scottish nationalists, I would be thinking less about Scottish independence and more about Scottish pork. Bringing government spending to Scotland would seem to be a surer route to re-election than another referendum. "Only we will stand up for Scottish interests, and only we can bring jobs to Scotland" is a pretty effective rallying cry.
Now imagine you were sitting in Cornwall. It's another poorer part of the UK, with strong regional identity. It even has an existing nationalist party. Perhaps it could run candidates that would stand up and bring pork to Cornwall? The LibDems and Labour Party are weak there, and someone standing up for local interests who could bring a billion pounds to the region... well that would look pretty attractive.
I suspect I'm wrong. But if regionalism - and begger thy neighbour politics - is seen to pay, then we will get more of it. This is not a good thing.
0 -
The EU like to claim that they are amazing negotiators with years of experience and that the UK don't know what they are doing etc etc, but the evidence is that the EU have always been inept at negotiation which is why they have so few deals with countries big enough to say 'no'.
Barnier is not a great operator - if he was he would never have allowed the ECJ to sneak into their position paper? It wasn't in the EU Council mandate. Now he is going to have to be the first one to concede on a major point - why would you set yourself up for that? No wonder DD was happy to let him have his timetable.
If the EU won't concede on the ECJ there won't be a deal and the overwhelming reaction will be that the EU deliberately sabotaged the process.
Then, even if he gets through this, Barnier then has to press a Brexit bill for which he has zero legal basis.
Truth is that the EU team does not know what it is doing.Richard_Nabavi said:
Good question. I suppose it depends on the nature of the compromise.CarlottaVance said:Who do you think has the trickier job securing agreement to compromises - May or Barnier?
What I will say is that I think Barnier is a smart operator and he seems to have steered the EU27 quite skilfully away from some of their more extreme positions without anyone noticing - most notably, on the crucial issue of the timetable, where they've quietly abandoned their opening stance that we couldn't discuss the trade deal until everything else is largely agreed - or even, as they were originally saying, until after we'd left completely.0 -
@PolhomeEditor: In March, Nicola Sturgeon demanded #indyref2 by April, 2019. Now @PeteWishart says Scotland will be independent wit… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/8796727474917744640
-
It is still not a very good reason Mike. All we would be doing is upgrading from "cr*p and toxic" to "merely cr*p".MikeSmithson said:
The best reason for Hammond to be PM is that toxic Theresa would be replaced. During the 1997-2010 period I repeatedly argued here that Gordon Brown was toxic and heading for certain defeat. With TMay this is not just speculation but based on her record - the chronic misjudgements and appalling campaigning skills. I think she's possibly worse than Gordon Brown.Beverley_C said:Hmmm it seems that the Conservative Party has a "quality" issue with its MPs. Is this really the best reason for being PM?
"Philip Hammond thinks he can be Prime Minister because Theresa May is.
In yesterday's Sunday Times, political editor Tim Shipman revealed that some ministers want the current Chancellor, Philip Hammond to become a "caretaker Prime Minister".
The Sunday Times reports that a "former cabinet colleague" of the Chancellor said: "He told me that if Theresa May could be prime minister, so could he.""
https://www.indy100.com/article/philip-hammond-worst-justification-wanting-prime-minister-spreadsheet-phil-sunday-times-david-davis-7808426
Surely they should be looking to upgrade to at least "competent"?0 -
If you ditch her now she can't take the heat for an economic slump or bad Brexit.Jonathan said:
If I were a Tory I'd replace her now. Three main reasons...Richard_Nabavi said:
That's an argument for replacing her in time for the next election, not necessarily for replacing her immediately.MikeSmithson said:The best reason for Hammond to be PM is that toxic Theresa would be replaced. During the 1997-2010 period I repeatedly argued here that Gordon Brown was toxic and heading for certain defeat. With TMay this is not just speculation but based on her record - the chronic misjudgements and appalling campaigning skills. I think she's possibly worse than Gordon Brown.
She has no authority, since everyone knows she is a goner (sooner or later) people don't have to take her seriously. They can wait it out. This is terrible for Brexit negotiations.
She is still as rubbish at politics as she was in the campaign. She will continue to cost you votes every day she stays. If a big event comes up, she will probably mishandle it and cost you votes.
In her heart of hearts she probably still believes she can fix this. She can't. She is likely to make decisions that are based on recovering her reputation.0 -
Barnier has the trickier job to compromise. But with a stronger hand he doesn't need to compromise so much, nor does it matter so much to him if there's no deal.CarlottaVance said:
Who do you think has the trickier job securing agreement to compromises - May or Barnier?Richard_Nabavi said:
Fantasies with no basis in objective fact? Like calling me a Brexiteer?Scott_P said:How, exactly?
What are we not going to ask for that we were previously?
What are they not going to offer that they otherwise would?
Another Brexiteer fantasy with no basis in objective fact...
To answer your questions:
The 'how' part is partly because the EU27 now don't know whether the PM can make any compromise which she agrees stick.0 -
I think Hammond would be a very poor choice. Incredibly uncharismatic figure who has done little except make a mess of the last Budget over NI contributions. Davis would be preferable but probably best in some ways to stick with May and then hand over to someone younger closer to the election. A parallel might be Enda Kenny/Leo Varadkar in Ireland. Kenny also lost lots of seats but scraped back into government. Stayed on a year or so before handing over to the next generation.0
-
It's not sensible, it's a load of bollocks.TOPPING said:
Startlingly sensible post.Alice_Aforethought said:
Say you live in a London flat that you paid £250k for 20 years ago. You have since married and have kids approaching school age. You need to move out of town nearer schools and grandparents.
Your flat is now worth £1 million, and at the moment, you could sell it and spend the £1 million on a 3- or small 4-bedroom house somewhere like Kingston or Barnet...exactly as would have been the case 20 years ago.
This in itself tells you that there has been no capital gain. The £1 million price tag is just inflation. There's no way to sell for a million and re-buy for a quarter of that.
Selling a £1 million flat in London and buying a £250k flat in Northampton is not the answer. Before you had £1 million of assets and £0 cash. Now, you have £400k of assets and £600k cash. The total is the same either way. You have cash in the second scenario only because you have poorer accommodation.
If you tax the inflation on homes, first, any such tax is wholly disconnected from ability to pay. My mother paid £19k for her one house 47 years ago and today she still has one house that's worth £1.6 million or so for reasons nothing to do with her. She has a pensioner's income. Second, you create the problem of why is there no corresponding tax relief on the borrowing that gave rise to the supposed capital gain (they have both in the USA). Third, the result of this proposed CGT is that if I sell my £1 million flat, and some of the inflationary gain is confiscated, I now can't afford the house I want to buy. I can invite the seller to reduce his price to reflect my tax, but of course my own buyer is doing the same, so I'm no further forward and moving at all has become impossible.
Incidentally, if you think first time buying is more affordable in a property crash, think again. Lenders want bigger deposits and smaller salary multiples and nobody sells because of negative equity, to which you want to add CGT.
They paid tax on the earnings that bought it. If they had had tax relief on that and if improvements came off the CGT bill you'd have more of a point, but in any event the "gain" is illusory and cannot be spent.
For good reasons, a capital gain isn't nullified by the ability to buy something else in the same asset class that's seen the same gain. You can't do that with stocks either - if you had an investment in CocaCola and it went up in value, you can't say there was no capital gain because it would cost you an equal amount to buy Pepsi stocks.
The answer to the specific quandary is that you can spend the gain buy not buying more property in London.0 -
The u-turn on that was completely ridiculous, the government should have rode out the tiny storm in the teacup.houndtang said:I think Hammond would be a very poor choice. Incredibly uncharismatic figure who has done little except make a mess of the last Budget over NI contributions.
0 -
Whinging when its 18 months and still whinging when its 20 years , how very Tory.Scott_P said:@PolhomeEditor: In March, Nicola Sturgeon demanded #indyref2 by April, 2019. Now @PeteWishart says Scotland will be independent wit… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/879672747491774464
0 -
Harry, I presume you got the confirmation that bet was paid promptly to your charity of choice.TGOHF said:
If you ditch her now she can't take the heat for an economic slump or bad Brexit.Jonathan said:
If I were a Tory I'd replace her now. Three main reasons...Richard_Nabavi said:
That's an argument for replacing her in time for the next election, not necessarily for replacing her immediately.MikeSmithson said:The best reason for Hammond to be PM is that toxic Theresa would be replaced. During the 1997-2010 period I repeatedly argued here that Gordon Brown was toxic and heading for certain defeat. With TMay this is not just speculation but based on her record - the chronic misjudgements and appalling campaigning skills. I think she's possibly worse than Gordon Brown.
She has no authority, since everyone knows she is a goner (sooner or later) people don't have to take her seriously. They can wait it out. This is terrible for Brexit negotiations.
She is still as rubbish at politics as she was in the campaign. She will continue to cost you votes every day she stays. If a big event comes up, she will probably mishandle it and cost you votes.
In her heart of hearts she probably still believes she can fix this. She can't. She is likely to make decisions that are based on recovering her reputation.0 -
I'm not sure I am following you. I think you are saying that in the one case where there have been x years of house price inflation you end up ahead of someone who trades down before those x years. Well, if so, the former has a house and no cash for x years, while the latter has a smaller house plus a sum of cash which can be stashed somewhere for the same x years. the correct comparison is with the situation of both after x years, not after x in one case and before x in the latter.Stereotomy said:
Compare two realities, one where house prices has doubled over X years, one where they stay constant. In the first, you buy a house for £500k, sell for £1 mil, move to a house costing £600k (including moving costs) and are left with £400k. In the second, you buy and sell the same houses at the same time. This time you sell for £500k, buy the second house for £300k, and are left with £200kAlice_Aforethought said:
If you can buy two identical properties in different areas for a different price - which of course you can - then one of them is worth less than the other, because of where it is. So yes, the cheaper one is poorer. You can have a £1 million property and no cash but if you turn that into a £250k property and £750k cash, or £400 and £600, or whatever (GOK how I cocked that up before) you're in exactly the same overall position.Pulpstar said:
Do people who live in London consider moving out to the provinces in the same light as moving to sub saharan Africa or something on retirementAlice_Aforethought said:
Selling a £1 million flat in London and buying a £250k flat in Northampton is not the answer. Before you had £1 million of assets and £0 cash. Now, you have £400k of assets and £600k cash. The total is the same either way. You have cash in the second scenario only because you have poorer accommodation. ?
So how have raising prices not helped in that first scenario?
In general, any supposedly spendable benefit from downsizing turns out to be spurious on inspection, I find. The owner who downsizes a £1 million house to a £600k one now has cash and assets worth less than before, after considering the transaction costs. To say that s/he is better off from doing so is exactly like saying that if I flog my £10k second-hand Mercedes and buy a second £6k Vauxhall, I've "made" £4k.0 -
Ah - just checked my private messages which I don't really do - thank you malc !malcolmg said:
Harry, I presume you got the confirmation that bet was paid promptly to your charity of choice.TGOHF said:
If you ditch her now she can't take the heat for an economic slump or bad Brexit.Jonathan said:
If I were a Tory I'd replace her now. Three main reasons...Richard_Nabavi said:
That's an argument for replacing her in time for the next election, not necessarily for replacing her immediately.MikeSmithson said:The best reason for Hammond to be PM is that toxic Theresa would be replaced. During the 1997-2010 period I repeatedly argued here that Gordon Brown was toxic and heading for certain defeat. With TMay this is not just speculation but based on her record - the chronic misjudgements and appalling campaigning skills. I think she's possibly worse than Gordon Brown.
She has no authority, since everyone knows she is a goner (sooner or later) people don't have to take her seriously. They can wait it out. This is terrible for Brexit negotiations.
She is still as rubbish at politics as she was in the campaign. She will continue to cost you votes every day she stays. If a big event comes up, she will probably mishandle it and cost you votes.
In her heart of hearts she probably still believes she can fix this. She can't. She is likely to make decisions that are based on recovering her reputation.0 -
-
The way the UK has approached Brexit so far has made the job of the EU27 and its negotiators much, much easier than it needed to be. We have allowed ourselves to come across as confrontational, obstructive, poorly prepared and incompetent - largely because we have been all those things - meaning that internal pressures on the EU27 to reach out and do a deal are almost non-existent. A sensible UK government would have been conciliatory, amicable, constructive and thorough - permanently engaged with media outlets across the EU27 to explain the UK's positions and why they make sense not just for the UK, but for the whole of Europe. When you have a weak hand willy-waving threats really don't work - unless your only interest is in getting positive headlines from right wing newspapers at home.FF43 said:
Barnier has the trickier job to compromise. But with a stronger hand he doesn't need to compromise so much, nor does it matter so much to him if there's no deal.CarlottaVance said:
Who do you think has the trickier job securing agreement to compromises - May or Barnier?Richard_Nabavi said:
Fantasies with no basis in objective fact? Like calling me a Brexiteer?Scott_P said:How, exactly?
What are we not going to ask for that we were previously?
What are they not going to offer that they otherwise would?
Another Brexiteer fantasy with no basis in objective fact...
To answer your questions:
The 'how' part is partly because the EU27 now don't know whether the PM can make any compromise which she agrees stick.0 -
When it comes to politics you are a very polite wolf in sheep's clothing.NickPalmer said:
I'm in favour of the McDonnell amendment and wrote an ingenious piece (well, I thought so) about why moderates should be keen:GarethoftheVale2 said:So with the DUP deal in place it looks like there were won't be another election for a while. So the 2 key questions now are:
1) Will May survive? Parliament goes into recess on the 20th July so I feel that if May survives to then she'll probably hang on until the end of Brexit negotiations
2) Will the McDonnell amendment pass? If it passes then the left have secured the succession. As Corbyn is 70 in May 2019, he could well choose to stand down in a year or 2 and pass the baton on to someone with the same politics but without the baggage.
On the other hand if the amendment fails then Corbyn has to stay on (assuming the new intake isn't full of Corbynites). In this case it's not hard to see a renewed bout of infighting kicking off. I also wonder if in this scenario, the far left might start to look at the boundary review in a favourable light as a way of trying to replace some of the moderates.
Do any of our Labour commentators have a view on whether the amendment will pass?
http://labourlist.org/2017/05/nick-palmer-why-corbyns-critics-need-the-mcdonnell-amendment/
But the discussion has moved on. Nobody is trying to get rid of Jeremy. His baggage has been considered by the electorate and priced in - if the Tories try to fight another election on "ooh, he was nice to the IRA in 1973" most people will just laugh. And it misunderstands his outlook on life to imagine him saying "I'm 70 soon, this is stressful, time to take it a bit easier" - he is both fit and sees life as a matter of socialist duty: he will carry on until either overthrown (unlikely before the next election) or persuaded that someone else would do it better (who?).
So the issue has lost its urgency. I think the amendment will be lost and that nobody will greatly care. The new influx of MPs changes the arithmetic anyway.0 -
That fake socialist economics book on amazon..The lefties buying it should have realised it was a setup, it was clearly too cheap, it should have been 10x and you have to go and print it yourself at the state run printers, but due to the inflexible way they are run you can't book online, they only do book printing every second Tuesday of the month and have to wait 4 months for a slot.0
-
We'll have to agree to differ. You get a capital gains tax allowance on shares that for most purposes means nobody need pay it.edmundintokyo said:
It's not sensible, it's a load of bollocks.TOPPING said:
Startlingly sensible post.Alice_Aforethought said:
Say you live in a London flat that you paid £250k for 20 years ago. You have since married and have kids approaching school age. You need to move out of town nearer schools and grandparents.
Your flat is now worth £1 million, and at the moment, you could sell it and spend the £1 million on a 3- or small 4-bedroom house somewhere like Kingston or Barnet...exactly as would have been the case 20 years ago.
This in itself tells you that there has been no capital gain. The £1 million price tag is just inflation. There's no way to sell for a million and re-buy for a quarter of that.
Selling a £1 million flat in London and buying a £250k flat in Northampton is not the answer. Before you had £1 million of assets and £0 cash. Now, you have £400k of assets and £600k cash. The total is the same either way. You have cash in the second scenario only because you have poorer accommodation.
Incidentally, if you think first time buying is more affordable in a property crash, think again. Lenders want bigger deposits and smaller salary multiples and nobody sells because of negative equity, to which you want to add CGT.
They paid tax on the earnings that bought it. If they had had tax relief on that and if improvements came off the CGT bill you'd have more of a point, but in any event the "gain" is illusory and cannot be spent.
For good reasons, a capital gain isn't nullified by the ability to buy something else in the same asset class that's seen the same gain. You can't do that with stocks either - if you had an investment in CocaCola and it went up in value, you can't say there was no capital gain because it would cost you an equal amount to buy Pepsi stocks.
The answer to the specific quandary is that you can spend the gain buy not buying more property in London.
If I sell my house and a replacement costs exactly the same as what I just sold mine for, I have no gain. If I spend (or an taxed on) whatever it has gone up in price by, I now can't afford to replace it.
A gain would be if I somehow sold my house for more than general house price inflation. I know someone who bought a flat then a year later sold it for just under double to the man who had bought all the other flats in the house and wanted to merge them back into a dwelling. That's a gain because absent that it would have been worth about what he paid.
0 -
Yeah, I'm not understanding how anyone can think Hammond would be more of an electoral asset than May. He has similar levels of charisma and communication skills as her, and less gravitas.houndtang said:I think Hammond would be a very poor choice. Incredibly uncharismatic figure who has done little except make a mess of the last Budget over NI contributions. Davis would be preferable but probably best in some ways to stick with May and then hand over to someone younger closer to the election. A parallel might be Enda Kenny/Leo Varadkar in Ireland. Kenny also lost lots of seats but scraped back into government. Stayed on a year or so before handing over to the next generation.
On top of that, I also feel him not supporting gay marriage (and the same goes for Davis) will be a major black mark against him -- I get the sense that with the younger generations (by which I mean anyone under 40), supporting gay marriage is a basic test of whether someone is a decent humanbeing, rightly or wrongly. Similar to fox-hunting.0 -
This thread strongly makes the case for wealth rather than income taxes to encourage efficient use of ones total resources..............0
-
@Simon_Nixon: David Davis: "EU partnership will require new dispute resolution mechanism. It won't be ECJ but it will be supranational." #TimesCEOSummit0
-
My mother has owned her house for 47 years and done nothing but live in it. Her income is that of a pensioner.Pulpstar said:This thread strongly makes the case for wealth rather than income taxes to encourage efficient use of ones total resources..............
What is this wealth of which you speak? If she deserves a wealth tax now because of this house, why not in 1970, or 1975, or whatever? What has happened that makes her deserving of a tax?0 -
LOL.Scott_P said:@Simon_Nixon: David Davis: "EU partnership will require new dispute resolution mechanism. It won't be ECJ but it will be supranational." #TimesCEOSummit
0 -
The younger generations appear unconcerned by whether Corbyn is a decent human being so I'm not sure how much this matters.Danny565 said:
Yeah, I'm not understanding how anyone can think Hammond would be more of an electoral asset than May. He has similar levels of charisma and communication skills as her, and less gravitas.houndtang said:I think Hammond would be a very poor choice. Incredibly uncharismatic figure who has done little except make a mess of the last Budget over NI contributions. Davis would be preferable but probably best in some ways to stick with May and then hand over to someone younger closer to the election. A parallel might be Enda Kenny/Leo Varadkar in Ireland. Kenny also lost lots of seats but scraped back into government. Stayed on a year or so before handing over to the next generation.
On top of that, I also feel him not supporting gay marriage (and the same goes for Davis) will be a major black mark against him -- I get the sense that with the younger generations (by which I mean anyone under 40), supporting gay marriage is a basic test of whether someone is a decent humanbeing, rightly or wrongly. Similar to fox-hunting.0 -
-
Yep - this is without doubt the case. And the UK will have to agree to be bound by it as both an arbiter of last resort and as a creator of case law. IN other words, we will continue to pool our sovereignty.Scott_P said:@Simon_Nixon: David Davis: "EU partnership will require new dispute resolution mechanism. It won't be ECJ but it will be supranational." #TimesCEOSummit
0 -
House price inflation doesn't feel like a gain to owners simply because they perceive a lack of alternatives, and because of the hassle, costs and timescale involved in moving. In reality, of course, people do have alternatives - people who own most or all of their home in London could move to very many other places, both in this country or across the world, easily find a new property to meet all of their needs, and be left with a significant lump sum and greatly reduced need for income. Similarly people can move to smaller properties, rent, etc.Alice_Aforethought said:
I'm not sure I am following you. I think you are saying that in the one case where there have been x years of house price inflation you end up ahead of someone who trades down before those x years. Well, if so, the former has a house and no cash for x years, while the latter has a smaller house plus a sum of cash which can be stashed somewhere for the same x years. the correct comparison is with the situation of both after x years, not after x in one case and before x in the latter.Stereotomy said:
Compare two realities, one where house prices has doubled over X years, one where they stay constant. In the first, you buy a house for £500k, sell for £1 mil, move to a house costing £600k (including moving costs) and are left with £400k. In the second, you buy and sell the same houses at the same time. This time you sell for £500k, buy the second house for £300k, and are left with £200kAlice_Aforethought said:Pulpstar said:
?Alice_Aforethought said:
Selling a £1 million flat in London and buying a £250k flat in Northampton is not the answer. Before you had £1 million of assets and £0 cash. Now, you have £400k of assets and £600k cash. The total is the same either way. You have cash in the second scenario only because you have poorer accommodation.
So how have raising prices not helped in that first scenario?
In general, any supposedly spendable benefit from downsizing turns out to be spurious on inspection, I find. The owner who downsizes a £1 million house to a £600k one now has cash and assets worth less than before, after considering the transaction costs. To say that s/he is better off from doing so is exactly like saying that if I flog my £10k second-hand Mercedes and buy a second £6k Vauxhall, I've "made" £4k.
It would be sensible to try and tackle the housing bubble by gradually and progressively moving taxation toward property wealth, balanced off by reductions in other taxation such as stamp duty. The fixed taxes for owning a flat in New York are about ten times those in London. Higher property taxes would also bring in significant income from foreign "investors" including those who leave property sitting empty.0 -
Yeah, you are just repeating EU propaganda. This is how they negotiate - leak to the press about how incompetent their opponents are etc - ask the Greeks how it works. The EU simply don't like anyone negotiating with them that might say no - they seem to be offended by the fact that the UK don't look like they will roll over on demand.
In fact, the EU have positioned themselves remarkably badly for these talks because they have overestimated their hand - something they do quite frequently. They should never have raised ECJ jurisdiction because they can't win on that. They should never have tried to force the Brexit bill up front, because they have zero legal basis for the bill. It would actually be in the EUs best interests to do this and trade at the same time, as they would at least have some basis to ask for concessions.
DD can call the EUs bluff on the Brexit bill in five seconds by offering to refer it to the ICJ IF there is a trade deal. Then, we get the trade deal and in all likelihood the EU never get any money as by law they are not entitled to anything.SouthamObserver said:
The way the UK has approached Brexit so far has made the job of the EU27 and its negotiators much, much easier than it needed to be. We have allowed ourselves to come across as confrontational, obstructive, poorly prepared and incompetent - largely because we have been all those things - meaning that internal pressures on the EU27 to reach out and do a deal are almost non-existent. A sensible UK government would have been conciliatory, amicable, constructive and thorough - permanently engaged with media outlets across the EU27 to explain the UK's positions and why they make sense not just for the UK, but for the whole of Europe. When you have a weak hand willy-waving threats really don't work - unless your only interest is in getting positive headlines from right wing newspapers at home.0 -
The lump sum can be put to work with a basket of dividend paying shares too, injecting money into the nations' companies and future pension potsIanB2 said:
It would be sensible to try and tackle the housing bubble by gradually and progressively moving taxation toward property wealth, balanced off by reductions in other taxation such as stamp duty. The fixed taxes for owning a flat in New York are about ten times those in London. Higher property taxes would also bring in significant income from foreign "investors" including those who leave property sitting empty. 0 -
We could call this new tax 'the rates'.IanB2 said:It would be sensible to try and tackle the housing bubble by gradually and progressively moving taxation toward property wealth, balanced off by reductions in other taxation such as stamp duty. The fixed taxes for owning a flat in New York are about ten times those in London. Higher property taxes would also bring in significant income from foreign "investors" including those who leave property sitting empty.
I always thought it was quite a good tax. It provided a sensible nudge to people to downsize if they no longer needed to live in a large/expensive house, without being seen as confiscatory or unfair. Maggie got most things right, but abolishing the rates was a big mistake IMO.0 -
On the contray, many think that he is a decent human being and see Corbyn as a kind, gentle caring man. I know that quite a few on PB disagree with this analysis (I'm not on board with it either) but many people see Corbyn this way.Alice_Aforethought said:
The younger generations appear unconcerned by whether Corbyn is a decent human being so I'm not sure how much this matters.Danny565 said:
Yeah, I'm not understanding how anyone can think Hammond would be more of an electoral asset than May. He has similar levels of charisma and communication skills as her, and less gravitas.houndtang said:I think Hammond would be a very poor choice. Incredibly uncharismatic figure who has done little except make a mess of the last Budget over NI contributions. Davis would be preferable but probably best in some ways to stick with May and then hand over to someone younger closer to the election. A parallel might be Enda Kenny/Leo Varadkar in Ireland. Kenny also lost lots of seats but scraped back into government. Stayed on a year or so before handing over to the next generation.
On top of that, I also feel him not supporting gay marriage (and the same goes for Davis) will be a major black mark against him -- I get the sense that with the younger generations (by which I mean anyone under 40), supporting gay marriage is a basic test of whether someone is a decent humanbeing, rightly or wrongly. Similar to fox-hunting.
Also that analysis by Danny is spot on.0 -
The removal of IDS was in opposition. If the Tories forcibly removed a sitting prime minister who had recently secured the biggest Tory vote since 1987, they could be accused of springing an unelected prime minister on the electorate, and removing an elected prime minister -and the opposition and media will accuse them of this. "Who elected David Davis as prime minister?", they will ask. Where is his mandate?
I think Phillip Hammond would be a disaster for the Tories. David Davis has more charisma and personality, but what is really needed is someone younger and fresh. The hard faced Preti Patel who has been touted as a possibility would be akin to making the stepmother in Snow White prime minister. Boris Johnson would be a huge risk but risks are sometimes worth taking -unless you are Theresa May.0 -
There is nothing wrong with fox-hunting. Hunting is a basic human activity stretching back thousands of years, and perfectly natural within the animal kingdom as well.Danny565 said:
Yeah, I'm not understanding how anyone can think Hammond would be more of an electoral asset than May. He has similar levels of charisma and communication skills as her, and less gravitas.houndtang said:I think Hammond would be a very poor choice. Incredibly uncharismatic figure who has done little except make a mess of the last Budget over NI contributions. Davis would be preferable but probably best in some ways to stick with May and then hand over to someone younger closer to the election. A parallel might be Enda Kenny/Leo Varadkar in Ireland. Kenny also lost lots of seats but scraped back into government. Stayed on a year or so before handing over to the next generation.
On top of that, I also feel him not supporting gay marriage (and the same goes for Davis) will be a major black mark against him -- I get the sense that with the younger generations (by which I mean anyone under 40), supporting gay marriage is a basic test of whether someone is a decent humanbeing, rightly or wrongly. Similar to fox-hunting.
We live in a time, right now, where it is considered increasingly a black and white issue and it is politically incorrect to support it, despite not being one.
Generations gone by wouldn't understand that, and it's very possible that neither will future generations as well.0 -
The EU27 want a mechanism that ensures the rights of EU citizens in the UK are not under the jurisdiction of the UK courts and are not subject to unilateral change once a Brexit deal is done. They have suggested the ECJ. The UK has come back with a counter-suggestion to ensure that the EU27 get what they want - a supra-national body to settle disputes relating to the final EU/UK agreement. In other words, they are going to achieve their objective. I am struggling to see how that is anything other than a win for them - if you choose to see things in such confrontational terms.archer101au said:Yeah, you are just repeating EU propaganda. This is how they negotiate - leak to the press about how incompetent their opponents are etc - ask the Greeks how it works. The EU simply don't like anyone negotiating with them that might say no - they seem to be offended by the fact that the UK don't look like they will roll over on demand.
In fact, the EU have positioned themselves remarkably badly for these talks because they have overestimated their hand - something they do quite frequently. They should never have raised ECJ jurisdiction because they can't win on that. They should never have tried to force the Brexit bill up front, because they have zero legal basis for the bill. It would actually be in the EUs best interests to do this and trade at the same time, as they would at least have some basis to ask for concessions.
DD can call the EUs bluff on the Brexit bill in five seconds by offering to refer it to the ICJ IF there is a trade deal. Then, we get the trade deal and in all likelihood the EU never get any money as by law they are not entitled to anything.SouthamObserver said:
The way the UK has approached Brexit so far has made the job of the EU27 and its negotiators much, much easier than it needed to be. We have allowed ourselves to come across as confrontational, obstructive, poorly prepared and incompetent - largely because we have been all those things - meaning that internal pressures on the EU27 to reach out and do a deal are almost non-existent. A sensible UK government would have been conciliatory, amicable, constructive and thorough - permanently engaged with media outlets across the EU27 to explain the UK's positions and why they make sense not just for the UK, but for the whole of Europe. When you have a weak hand willy-waving threats really don't work - unless your only interest is in getting positive headlines from right wing newspapers at home.0 -
Nice try at trolling.SouthamObserver said:
Yep - this is without doubt the case. And the UK will have to agree to be bound by it as both an arbiter of last resort and as a creator of case law. IN other words, we will continue to pool our sovereignty.Scott_P said:@Simon_Nixon: David Davis: "EU partnership will require new dispute resolution mechanism. It won't be ECJ but it will be supranational." #TimesCEOSummit
Almost all nations agree to an ISDR system to adjudicate on matters relating to trade treaties. This will be limited to the scope of the agreement, and it will not presume to legislate for us, nor extend its competence.
If you can't see the difference (of course you can) then I can't help you.0 -
Why is Bob's semi worth £575k if he hasn't done it up? Surely Fred's is worth more if he has done something useful to it? I'm not sure these examples are all that helpful at this stage.Alice_Aforethought said:
There is CGT on shares, but you can sell the Barclays shares every year and set the gains off against your annual CGT allowance. You can also transfer some into an ISA every year so that after 20 years you'd have all your gains in a tax free wrapper.
So while shares attract CGT, there are ways to manage its impact to nil.
I don't see the point of indexing. The best index would be no CGT at all. Consider the following farcical situation. Fred buys a wreck of a semi for £500k and spends £100k doing it up. It sells for £575k, so he is charged CGT on the £75k "gain" even though it owes him £600k.
Bob buys the other half of the semi, also a wreck, does nothing to it and a year later he also sells for £575k. His CGT bill is the same as Fred's.
Equitable, or stupid?
Anyway - you can argue that all capital gains tax should be zero or tat they should be zero on housing. I think you're totally wrong but it's arguable where the burden of taxation should fall.
What you can't argue is that capital gains don't exist at all - and the enormous increase in value of London property clearly is a case of an asset increasing far more than inflation.
0 -
His ratings in Europe are dire. No wonder the populist right has struggled here since his election.The_Apocalypse said:
0 -
That's all true. But I think we also need to credit the EU side for tabling detailed, thought through and mostly sensible, if "uncompromising", proposals. They are good at this stuff. Which incidentally suggests we will struggle to replicate the set of existing agreements with third countries shroud we leave the Customs Union.SouthamObserver said:
The way the UK has approached Brexit so far has made the job of the EU27 and its negotiators much, much easier than it needed to be. We have allowed ourselves to come across as confrontational, obstructive, poorly prepared and incompetent - largely because we have been all those things - meaning that internal pressures on the EU27 to reach out and do a deal are almost non-existent. A sensible UK government would have been conciliatory, amicable, constructive and thorough - permanently engaged with media outlets across the EU27 to explain the UK's positions and why they make sense not just for the UK, but for the whole of Europe. When you have a weak hand willy-waving threats really don't work - unless your only interest is in getting positive headlines from right wing newspapers at home.FF43 said:
Barnier has the trickier job to compromise. But with a stronger hand he doesn't need to compromise so much, nor does it matter so much to him if there's no deal.CarlottaVance said:
Who do you think has the trickier job securing agreement to compromises - May or Barnier?Richard_Nabavi said:
Fantasies with no basis in objective fact? Like calling me a Brexiteer?Scott_P said:How, exactly?
What are we not going to ask for that we were previously?
What are they not going to offer that they otherwise would?
Another Brexiteer fantasy with no basis in objective fact...
To answer your questions:
The 'how' part is partly because the EU27 now don't know whether the PM can make any compromise which she agrees stick.0
